Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pryor commented that in order for the council to be as transparent a body as possible, it should ensure <br />that everything it did had sufficient advance notice to the public, to staff and to councilors to avoid <br />surprises. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor regarding advance notice and conducting the public’s business in an open <br />forum. <br /> <br />Ms. Strong determined there was consensus that any staff-generated proposals would be offered as separate <br />items and not incorporated in the document when it was presented to the council. The council would take <br />independent action on those amendments separately. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said that the changes requested by the council should be identified in a way to clearly separate <br />them from staff-recommended changes. <br /> <br /> <br />Topic: Function and power of council officers <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought that council officers should not have any more power than other councilors, other than <br />routine actions such as presiding in the mayor’s absence and making motions. She said typically the council <br />officers were the two newest members of the council and it seemed inappropriate they should have more <br />power. She said that in any significant issue, particularly involving council employees such as the police <br />auditor, all councilors should be involved in the decision-making process. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Taylor’s comments. He said it was incumbent on councilor officers to contact <br />the rest of the council prior to offering advice to a councilor employee. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said the issue arose because the council was in the position of supervising employees, particularly <br />the unique situation presented by the police auditor. He said the auditor was a direct employee with a <br />unique relationship with the council, but was not receiving supervision on a consistent basis; that created <br />problems and vulnerabilities for that person. He agreed that council officers should not have any greater <br />power or authority than other members, but hoped a structure could be developed so the council could <br />provide effective and adequate supervision to the police auditor. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka did not think the police auditor could be effectively managed if all eight councilors were <br />involved in supervision. He said substantive supervisory issues could be brought back to the council, but <br />the entire council did not need to be involved in day-to-day operational issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy pointed out that the issue of supervision could be addressed at the November 10, 2008, work <br />session on police oversight. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated the council only had power as a body. She said the council was out of its purview if it <br />managed employees in any way other than as a body through regular meetings where direction could be <br />given by the full council. She was not in favor of designating one or two members to micromanage the <br />police auditor. She said council officer should be the formal protocol, but have no additional power. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark did not think the police auditor had a different relationship with the council than other employees. <br />He said no direct council employee had the authority to act without the majority of the council agreeing. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />