Laserfiche WebLink
on the fly, but that was not part of the agreement to-date. He said another example was discussion of one <br />agenda item going beyond its allotted time and thereby shortening the discussion of the next item. He <br />suggested either the council give the chair the authority to change the agenda at will, or agree that the <br />approved tentative working agenda would be adhered to unless it was changed with the consent of the <br />majority of the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor commented that he was not comfortable with surprises, particularly motions that had a significant <br />impact on community resources when there was no emergency. He said the council had emphasized the <br />importance of operating in a transparent manner and making decisions in public; bringing an issue before the <br />council and the public without prior notification violated that concept and prevented the public from <br />commenting on that business. He said while councilors had a right to make a motion whenever they wanted <br />to, that contradicted what the council had said it wished to do with respect to public awareness and <br />involvement. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy said she attempted to adhere to the agenda, but felt it was within her purview to change the <br />agenda if necessary. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that a councilor should be able to make a motion at any time. She tried to alert <br />councilors to her issues so there were no surprises, but it was often difficult to review the agenda or obtain <br />constituent feedback until shortly before a meeting. She said the council generally did a good job of getting <br />through the items on the agenda. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka preferred to have no surprises, but recognized that sometimes there might not be sufficient time <br />to provide advance notice of a motion. He said it was a good general practice to provide notice, but was not <br />in favor of a rule that prohibited motions without that notice. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said his concern related more to use of the agenda to achieve a different result. He wanted clarity <br />and now understood that the chair was able to change the agenda on the fly and recognize whomever he or <br />she wished for whatever reason. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling reiterated that his concern was not with motions related to the agenda item; it was with motions <br />completely unrelated to the meeting agenda. He said a motion like the one to purchase the Amazon <br />Headwaters should have been noticed farther in advance to allow time for discussion or, possibly, a work <br />session. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy clarified that she consistently tried to adhere to the meeting agenda and did not make changes <br />lightly or often, although she retained that right when it was in the best interests of getting the council’s <br />work done. <br /> <br />Topic: Process for requesting work sessions (e.g. define scope of meeting, ensure councilor’s intent is <br />met) <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said the process for requesting work sessions had been modified to provide councilors with more <br />information on the subject and purpose of the request and he felt more comfortable with the new process. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed the new form resolved the problem by providing sufficient information about work <br />session requests and urged that it be formalized. He asked for clarification between work sessions and <br />regular meetings as there did not appear to be substantive differences. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />