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

Home Browse Search

something about the underlying situation. Ms. Nathanson said that she would rather not spend the council's limited time on topics not related to the mission of the organization when the council was postponing agenda items and discussing limiting agendas to two items. She questioned how the council would accomplish its goals and have in-depth conversations about important topics like TransPlan if it continued to add items to its agendas. She asked what happened to the council's previous agreement that any individual councilor with the energy to write a letter about a topic such as the World Trade Organization could solicit other councilors to sign the letter too. Mr. Pap8 said that the goals represented the council's work plan, and the council was diverted too often by topics that individuals feel passionately about. He did not care what other cities passed resolutions, and did not think the council needed to weigh in on issues like the World Trade Organization unless it was willing to put off something else it identified as a priority. Ms. Helphand asked the council if the goals should be the guiding principles for the its agendas. Mr. Meisner said that the goals were not intended to restrict council agendas but were items upon which the council placed greater priority. Mr. Johnson suggested that the goals were in a general sense intended to focus the council's agendas, but to the extent time was available on the agenda other issues could be considered. Mr. Lee asked how the manager could be expected to lead the organization with nine different opinions directing him. He said that the council established the goals as guiding principles for the manager, and it was the council's job, as the board of directors of the organization, to track progress in meeting those goals. He said if the council choose to add items to its agendas, it should choose them strategically and make sure they aligned with the organization's goals. Ms. Helphand asked if there was concurrence that the goals were primary, and intended to focus the agendas, but were not exclusionary. With the exception of Ms. Taylor, councilors generally concurred. Ms. Taylor believed that the goals were so broad they could accommodate almost any topic. She said that the council should decide whether the manager should schedule items on the agenda because she did not think staff should dictate the agenda. She suggested that the manager should have to get three council sponsors for an agenda item. Ms. Helphand asked the council what it could have done to have avoided the situation of October 13. Mr. Farr said that the item should have gone through the council's liaison to the Human Rights Commission. He said that he had talked to most of the commission, who had told him they were not seeking the council's action on October 13. The commission had not asked him or any other councilor to seek council action on the motion. A single commissioner had gone to individual councilors seeking action. Mr. Farr said that as council liaison to the commission, he should have been contacted as a courtesy. Mr. Meisner said that he had been attempting to follow the appropriate process when he had offered the motion to condemn Hyundai to the council. He had consulted with the manager on the text of the motion. Mr. Meisner asked if motions as well as agenda items had to be presented to the mayor and manager for scheduling. Ms. Nathanson asked the council to distinguish between offering motions on an item already set for action and motions calling for action where no action was previously planned. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 1999 Page 5 4:30 p.m.