Laserfiche WebLink
later than Tuesday night. He stated that this provided only eight hours to work through any of the issues <br />that could be raised after the public hearing. He did not mean ‘significant’ in the legal sense; he meant <br />‘significant’ as in things that would cause them to do a major rewrite of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark’s amended motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting in <br />favor. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to add the schedule that they discussed: a work <br />session on November 17 in lieu of the public hearing which currently had no items on the <br />docket, a public hearing on December 8, and action to be taken on December 10. Ms. <br />Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon called this schedule impossible. She said it assumed there would be no changes made after the <br />public hearing on December 8. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said it was his expectation that most of the substantive changes would be made on November <br />17. He thought what they would get out of the public hearing would only be “tweaking.” <br /> <br />Mr. Clark ascertained that Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz would not be available on November 17. He pointed <br />out that the council was also trying to hire a new Police Auditor and was undertaking several other things. <br />He reiterated his feeling that they were pushing the motion through too quickly. <br /> <br />The vote on Ms. Bettman’s motion was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka, <br />and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark vot- <br />ing in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the motion and it passed. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that no action be taken at the council meetings <br />scheduled for November 17 and 19 in reference to the Police Auditor ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling stressed that all of the councilors should be available to consider “something of this magnitude.” <br />He said they should not take action on November 17, given that two councilors would be absent. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opined that the protocol had always been that the councilors at the meeting vote on whether or <br />not to move something forward. She said she had attended by phone at times when she could not attend in <br />person. She indicated her opposition to the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling stated that he would attend by telephone if that was possible for him to do, but in this case it was <br />not. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark urged the Mayor to give consideration to this. He called it “one of those opportunities to build <br />greater consensus” on something they all essentially supported. He said there were many things in the <br />motion that he could agree to, but he objected to the manner in which it was being undertaken. <br /> <br />The vote was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in fa- <br />vor and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor <br />Piercy voted in opposition and Mr. Poling’s motion to defer action until all councilors could <br />be present failed. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />