Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Clark recalled a conversation with Interim City Manager Angel Jones regarding a process that would <br />leave the ordinance language unchanged and bring back any suggested changes as options to be voted on <br />separately. He would support that approach. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said sometimes the change was just a correction or clarification and she was not aware of any <br />other types of changes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said if changes were embedded in the ordinance it had happened rarely; typically a councilor <br />requested a motion to amend the ordinance and that was drafted by staff to ensure that the change occurred <br />as intended. She said that also avoided wordsmithing at meetings and provided notification of the <br />amendment. She was not aware of any problems with changes being made on the basis of one councilor’s <br />statement, although occasionally two versions of an ordinance might be presented if there were significantly <br />different opinions on the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor agreed it was a good idea to clarify the process and determine that the ordinance, as first <br />proposed and sent to a public hearing should be considered the base document and any substantive changes <br />should be proposed as an amendment to that base document. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Pryor’s remarks. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said Ms. Solomon had originally raised the issue and there could be examples related to the topic <br />other than the one he had offered. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed that the topic was broader than action on a specific ordinance. He said sometimes a <br />subject was raised at a public forum and a member of the council wanted the City Manager to undertake a <br />task such as gathering information and reporting back or taking action on the issue. He said the substance <br />of the concern was to ensure that the council was acting as one voice instead of an individual council giving <br />direction to staff or the City Manager that might not reflect the majority opinion. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz used the public safety zone ordinance as an example of changes being discussed by councilors <br />during the public hearing, which were incorporated by staff into a revised document instead of proposed <br />motions to amend the original document. He asked for clarity on the council’s preferred approach. <br /> <br />Ms. Strong determined there was consensus to retain the original ordinance as the base document and <br />present any changes in the form of proposed motions that could be disposed of as the council wished. This <br />would clarify for the public and provide a record of any changes that were made to the document that was <br />presented at the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark suggested a section in the agenda item summary (AIS) that set forth the City Manager’s <br />recommended changes to the base document. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that non-substantive changes such as grammar or syntax could be made <br />to the base document without a motion to change. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commented that if the changes to the base document were drastic it should be subject to another <br />public hearing. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />