CC Minutes - 06/10/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Terry Smith, Public Works, provided the staff report and reminded the council that it was now time to review the committee structure that was formally discussed at the council's September 1997 goals session. He expressed his view that the structure had worked well, enabling the council to accomplish much. He cited councilors' concern with their workload and accessibility of the committees for public review and input but added that the latter had been addressed by the council and its committees. Mr. Smith asked the council to consider the range of proposals contained in the meeting packet. Ms. Taylor said she did not believe the council committee system was a good one, adding that nine people is not too many to hold a discussion. She expressed the view that staff in the small committee setting tended to "force their point of view on the others" and "gives the staff more power, which is a big problem." Ms. Taylor said the council should return to the practice of holding discussion during regular council meetings so all have the same information at the same time, adding that special committees work well as research groups. Mr. Meisner also expressed concern with the committee system but for different reasons. He said it made sense to have standing committees and there was also a role for ad hoc committees, e.g., when there is a need for significant change or for an in-depth, detailed small group discussion of a new or emerging issue. He questioned the need, however, for a standing committee on finance or on public safety separate from the Budget Committee or a police policy advisory committee. Mr. Meisner said he is mostly concerned about "experimental committees that seem to be evolving into standing committees with very broad charges." Mr. Farr said he believed that because of the committee structure there has been more opportunities for public input. He added that the structure had also enabled councilors and committees to hold meetings in different areas, e.g., Station Seven. Mr. Farr admitted that the structure could be made more efficient, however. Mr. Tollenaar expressed support for the committee system, saying he did not see any of the types of abuses he associated with committees at the State and federal levels. He disagreed with Ms. Taylor that small committees unduly influence the outcome of council deliberations. He noted easier interactions with citizens and among members within the committee structure, facilitating in-depth dialogues. Mr. Tollenaar's concerns with the systems have to do with whether it actually saved council time, adding that there was no question that it is definitely a time burden for staff. He said the council needed to clarify whether committees were "creatures of the council or creatures of the City Manager." Ms. Nathanson said she has also appreciated the work of committees, although she was frustrated by some of the situations regarding clarity of committee charges that have arisen, but not because of the committee structure itself. She supported the detailed work done in committees and said if that were done by the council it would easily triple or quadruple the number of hours it met and slow down the entire government process. Ms. Nathanson said the structure depended on councilors having trust in each other and on having the committees produce good council presentations. She said the council should "fix" the problems with the structure and not eliminate it. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said committees are advisory to the council and some of the problems resulted from starting five council committees at the same time. She said she appreciated the way committees were able to conduct detailed research and focus the issues for council discussions. She noted cooperation between committees that ultimately save council time. Ms. Swanson Gribskov suggested placing committees on a two-year cycle. She added that open MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1998 Page 2 11:30 a.m.