Laserfiche WebLink
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 /> <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 />Ms. Taylor said in the past motions were not allowed at work sessions, but that was changed several years <br />ago and the result was little difference between a work session and regular meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark liked the new form and agreed it should be used by all councilors when requesting a work session. <br />He asked what staff did to prepare for a work session once there was a successful poll. Mr. Ruiz replied it <br />was the responsibility of staff to provide information to the council to facilitate a meaningful discussion of <br />the topic and having an understanding of the intent of the work session and desired outcome made it easier to <br />provide that support. He asked councilors to also inform staff in advance of any specific information or <br />materials in advance. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka affirmed the need to complete the form for all work session requests so councilors would have <br />enough information to prepare for the discussion. Mr. Ruiz said he would ask for the form to be completed <br />on any upcoming work sessions if staff needed clarification of the intent and desired outcomes. <br /> <br /> <br />Topic: Process for considering contingency requests <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka observed that there was no clear process of making requests for contingency requests. Mr. <br />Ruiz indicated he would distribute information on the use of contingency funds. He said the funds were <br />appropriated by the council as part of the budget at the beginning of the fiscal year and any unspent funds at <br />the end of the year were returned to the General Fund. <br /> <br />Jim Carlson, Central Services, explained that until around 2003 the council’s contingency was $400,000 per <br />year, of which $60,000 was dedicated to non-profits. He said there was a specific application process <br />associated with those funds; a budget reduction decision eliminated the $60,000 set aside of non-profits and <br />since then funds had been used for costs associated with special elections or other exceptional costs not <br />anticipated when the budget was developed. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said that information was sufficient and he did not need a memorandum on the subject. <br /> <br /> <br />Topic: Ways to achieve better communications with constituents (City Council newsletters, forums, e-mail <br />newsletters, etc.) <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />