Laserfiche WebLink
council two resolutions at the July 28 meeting; the first resolution would be for a term of <br />five years and represent half of the listed projects that would have been accomplished in the <br />first five years ($36 million) with no removal clause in the five-year period, and a second <br />draft measure for the ten-year term with all projects in the Agenda Item Summary with a <br />removal clause in place that required action by a super-majority. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to allow changes to the project list, including the addition and <br />removal of projects, in the ten-year period only in the last year, with the super-majority constraint. Mr. <br />Pryor and Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to include language in the ordinance that al- <br />lowed the funding for projects that came in under-budget to be allocated to another project. <br />The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting no. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy indicated that she would not support any resolution that did not enjoy a council majority. <br /> <br />B.WORK SESSION: <br /> <br />An Ordinance Concerning a Council Employee Complaint Process; Adding Sections 2.400, <br />2.402, 2.404, 2.406, 2.408, 2.410, and 2.412 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending Sec- <br />tion 2.486 of that Code <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to schedule a public hearing on the proposed <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if the City’s complaint process allowed complainants against City employees to remain <br />anonymous. Assistant City Manager Angel Jones said yes. Mr. Clark noted that as drafted, the ordinance <br />did not include the same standard. He said the ordinance also did not call for the name of the complainant to <br />be kept confidential by the City department that received the complaint. Mr. Klein said that the expectation <br />was that if the complaint went to the City Recorder’s Office (CRO), he or she would not look at it but would <br />immediately forward it to the City Attorney’s Office (CAO). The complaint would be in a sealed envelope <br />when forwarded to the CAO. The CRO was selected because of its public accessibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka thanked the council officers and staff for their work on the ordinance. He thought the <br />ordinance was clear and the proposed process was fair. He said it appeared to cover all contingencies. He <br />shared Mr. Clark’s concern about the use of the CRO as it related to confidentiality. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor did not think it hard to amend the ordinance to indicate the CRO would maintain confidentiality. <br />He added he had not been interested in an extensive process around anonymous complaints, making <br />confidentiality more important. He thought one needed to take responsibility for making complaints and <br />anonymous complaints could lead to frivolity. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein said the draft included a clause that allowed the complainant to retain confidentiality and it would <br />cover both the CRO and CAO. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Pryor about confidentiality and anonymous complaints. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />