Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor indicated she raised the topic because she objected to two people meeting with the mayor to <br />make decisions. She said there seemed to be an assumption that officers would make decisions, but they <br />should only have the responsibilities identified in the charter. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz felt the function and power of the councilor officers was primarily ceremonial in nature and they <br />helped set the tone for the council. She said officers did not have more power than other councilors. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy clarified that her meetings with council officers were intended to alert them to items that would <br />be on the agenda and have informal conversations; no decisions were made at those meetings. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka saw the meetings between the mayor and council officers to discuss upcoming agendas as <br />useful. He did not see the meetings as additional power for officers, but rather as facilitating the work of the <br />council. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought that decisions about items on the agenda should involve the entire council and the <br />meetings should be open to all councilors. She had heard people say “let the council officers decide” and she <br />was not comfortable with that. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy clarified that no changes to the agenda occurred during her meetings with officers. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if issues such as votes or strategy on agenda items ever discussed at meetings between the <br />mayor and officers. In an environment where votes were close or split, he said those conversations had the <br />capacity to affect outcomes <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the discussions concerned meeting management issues; the officers did not speak for other <br />councilors. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said his approach was to facilitate the functions of the council and manage the meeting, not <br />change the agenda or manipulate outcomes. He reiterated that no decisions were made at the officers’ <br />meetings. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz asked if the public meetings requirements applied to council officer meetings. Mr. Klein indicated <br />that as long as no decisions or recommendations were being made and only two councilors were present no <br />public meeting notice was required, but if other councilors attended and there was a quorum it would be <br />considered a public meeting and notice would be required. He said if five or more councilors intended to <br />participate, staff should be notified at least 24 hours in advance so the meeting could be properly noticed. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz asked whether invitations to represent the City or participate in news conferences should be <br />directed to the council officers or all councilors and whether it was appropriate to use council officers as an <br />information conduit to the full council. <br /> <br />Councilors agreed that invitations should be extended to all councilors as no one councilor could speak for <br />the entire council. Councilors could speak for themselves or speak to action taken by the council, but there <br />should be no presumption that an individual councilor was speaking for the council itself. Information <br />should be provided to all councilors directly instead of relying on officers as a conduit. The responsibility of <br />council officers with respect to information and decisions regarding a council employee would be discussed <br />at a November council meeting. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />