CC Minutes - 11/24/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly also opposed the use of the Consent Calendar because it would "raise the bar" for getting an item on a council agenda from three to five councilors. He said that if three councilors wanted to discuss an issue it was probably worth discussing. Mr. Rayor agreed. He said that the council needed to distinguish between operational issues and more global issues and develop a process for the latter. However, he thought the current approach was appropriate for the majority of agenda items. Mr. Rayor did not support the suggestion for limiting agendas to two items, saying that the mayor was doing a good job of keeping the council on track. He reiterated the need for flexibility in agendas. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding how well the current approach was working, Mr. Johnson said the approach was not "broken" but that it was sometimes difficult for the staff to assess the time needed for a given agenda item. He liked an approach that limited major agenda items to two and suggested the council try it and see how it works. Mr. Johnson noted that the operating agreements did not distinguish between "old" and "new" items but stated that any three councilors could place an item on the agenda. Mr. Meisner reiterated his question about why some referrals to standing committees came back to the council but the motion to condemn Hyundai was treated as an item that required three councilors to place it on an agenda. Mr. Fart responded that the Human Rights Commission was to report back to the council after the Lane County Tax Assessor's investigation was complete. He, as council liaison to the commission, had been making periodic reports about the process. The motion to condemn Hyundai was completely separate from that process. Mr. Fart said that the Human Rights Commission did not ask the council to place the motion to condemn Hyundai on its agenda and commissioners did not expect the council to take action on October 13. Ms. Helphand suggested that the issues were avoiding surprise, how referrals to advisory committees were addressed, and what items needed the sponsorship of three councilors. Mr. Torrey suggested that there be a week between the time an agenda item was requested to be placed on an agenda and the item was scheduled to avoid the issue of surprise. Mr. Rayor said that an emergency to one person was not necessarily an emergency to another; merely because members of the Human Rights Commission wanted action by a certain date did not obligate the council to take action. He said the council should not let the demands of someone else's schedule dictate its schedule. Mr. Rayor said that the council needed to agree on what drove its schedule. Unless a majority of councilors choose to deviate from the projected agenda, the current approach should be maintained. Mr. Farr agreed. He said that if three councilors wanted an item on the agenda the current process should be followed and the manager would schedule the item; if a situation was such an emergency that four councilors wanted to schedule an item, the manager would schedule the item with a date certain using his best judgment about the level of the emergency. The council concurred, and agreed that those wishing to request an agenda item copy their request to the mayor and all other councilors. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the issue before the council was how it was going to spend its time. She asked what good it would do if the council passed a resolution that made councilors feel good but did not relate to a City program or have an impact. Ms. Nathanson asked who cared if Eugene was added to a list of cities that supported Resolution XYZ unless Eugene could do MINUTES-Eugene City Council November 24, 1999 Page 4 4:30 p.m.