Laserfiche WebLink
interpersonal communications; and committee appointments. Ms. Helphand asked councilors if <br />they had other concerns or issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson identified the length of time it took for an item to reach an agenda as an issue <br />associated with work sessions, and the need to keep the agenda in line with the council's goals. <br />Regarding the latter issue, she questioned if there was a way to review suggested agenda items <br />in the context of the goals, and if the council had the self-discipline to limit itself to those items <br />related to the goals. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he did not like surprises on the agenda and neither did the public. He had on at <br />least two occasions learned about major City-related problems from the newspaper. However, he <br />thought Mr. Johnson did a good job of informing the council about breaking issues and <br />acknowledged the council had no power to affect the outcome of many such issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor believed the council needed to build in some flexibility in its agendas to address larger <br />social issues, such as an environmental disaster, that might be somewhat outside the council's <br />purview but about which councilors might wish to take stands. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart discussed the work session of October 13, 1999, during which the council was asked to <br />consider a motion condemning Hyundai Semiconductor of American for discrimination in <br />employment, an item added to the agenda after it was published. He recommended that <br />councilors extend each other the courtesy of informing each other prior to a meeting when a <br />councilor wished the body to consider a resolution or motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart identified as another work session-related issue the amount of time individual councilors <br />spoke, noting that he had been unable to speak about a topic during a recent meeting in spite of <br />time limits. He recommended that the time for an agenda item be divided equally among <br />councilors, and that councilors be courteous about their use of time. If time remained after all <br />councilors spoke, the time could be divided again. Mr. Kelly endorsed Mr. Farr's suggestion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was also concerned about limits on speaking time. He suggested that process issues <br />arose most often around difficult topics. While he agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the council <br />needed to have discipline to avoid "agenda creep," he believed most of the new items that had <br />been raised related to the council's goals. Mr. Meisner asked for a definition of what constituted a <br />"new" item. He pointed out that in the case of the October 13 discussion, the council had <br />unanimously referred the issue of the Hyundai discrimination case to the Human Rights <br />Commission but it had required three councilors to place the item on the agenda for council <br />follow-up. He did not understand the distinction, and wanted the rules applied even-handedly for <br />all referrals to advisory groups. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not see why one councilor could not put an item on the agenda. She also though <br />that agenda items of high interest, such as legal services, should be the first item and not the last <br />on an agenda. She suggested that the report from the youth leadership forum be taken off the <br />work session agendas and included with the Public Forum. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ identified contingency fund requests as an issue, saying he did not understand what the <br />fund was meant for and wanted clarity. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 1999 Page 2 <br /> 4:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />