CC Minutes - 11/09/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor said he offered the motion of October 26 as an expression of his extreme frustration over the course of events. The council had chosen to respond to the problems in west Eugene by doing nothing to fix them. A council majority, using a variety of reasons and rationalizations, had chosen to go against the will of the majority of Eugene citizens who cast a ballot in support of building the parkway. He reminded the council that the public, at the same time it voted for the parkway in 2001, voted against looking at other alternatives to the parkway. He did not like being in the position of acting in opposition to the 2001 vote and acknowledged that his proposal of October 26 had done just that. He did not want to leave west Eugene with nothing, and that would be the result of the council’s action. There would be no parkway and no alternative, which was not acceptable. Mr. Pryor recalled that 61 percent of voters voted against examining alternatives to the parkway. Mr. Pryor reiterated that he proposed the October 26 motion out of intense frustration at having nothing done in west Eugene. He felt bad that the council voted against the will of the people. He was very frustrated over the position the council was in. He invited other options, suggesting one option could be to return to the voters. He was undecided on the motion due to conflicting values he had on the issue. Mayor Piercy believed Eugene needed a solution that solved its traffic problems in the west part of the community and protected the west Eugene wetlands. She averred “that was what the people really wanted” when they cast their votes. The parkway had not been built and she did not think it happen anytime soon. The City Council should look for other solutions. The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Papé, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Mr. Papé asked for permission to change his vote on the motion of October 26. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that was not possible under the council’s ground rules. Mr. Papé said he was deeply troubled by the lack of integrity in the council as demonstrated by its action. He recalled the old saying, “If you don’t want to know, don’t ask,” and reminded the council that it had asked the voters their opinion about the parkway and whether the City should consider alternatives. He questioned how the council could ignore the results of the ballot measures four years later without going back to the voters about their willingness to consider alternatives. A. WORK SESSION: Eugene Police Department Strategic Plan City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, noting the voters’ approval of an external police review body and external auditor the previous day. He suggested that the results of the election provided some clarity to the discussion the council had been having over the past year. He reminded the council that he had been working with Police Chief Robert Lehner on a framework for action to help the Police Department restore its trust with the community and move it to the level it needed to be to address current-day issues. He complimented Chief Lehner and his staff for the work they had done in bringing the Strategic Plan forward. Police Chief Robert Lehner provided a PowerPoint presentation on the details of the Strategic Plan. He noted a planning timeline that indicated the process was nearing its end and would flow into future budget and planning processes. He characterized the plan as a beginning rather than an end. He provided some brief history of the plan, noting the inception of the first plan in 1995, subsequent resource limitations, and changes in management that complicated the City’s ability to implement the plan. Chief Lehner noted the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 2 Work Session