S090923A-attA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Strong determined there was consensus that any staff-generated proposals would be offered as separate items and not incorporated in the document when it was presented to the council. The council would take independent action on those amendments separately. Mr. Poling said that the changes requested by the council should be identified in a way to clearly separate them from staff-recommended changes. Topic: Function and power of council officers Ms. Taylor thought that council officers should not have any more power than other councilors, other than routine actions such as presiding in the mayor’s absence and making motions. She said typically the council officers were the two newest members of the council and it seemed inappropriate they should have more power. She said that in any significant issue, particularly involving council employees such as the police auditor, all councilors should be involved in the decision-making process. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Taylor’s comments. He said it was incumbent on councilor officers to contact the rest of the council prior to offering advice to a councilor employee. Mr. Pryor said the issue arose because the council was in the position of supervising employees, particularly the unique situation presented by the police auditor. He said the auditor was a direct employee with a unique relationship with the council, but was not receiving supervision on a consistent basis; that created problems and vulnerabilities for that person. He agreed that council officers should not have any greater power or authority than other members, but hoped a structure could be developed so the council could provide effective and adequate supervision to the police auditor. Mr. Zelenka did not think the police auditor could be effectively managed if all eight councilors were involved in supervision. He said substantive supervisory issues could be brought back to the council, but the entire council did not need to be involved in day-to-day operational issues. Ms. Piercy pointed out that the issue of supervision could be addressed at the November 10, 2008, work session on police oversight. Ms. Bettman stated the council only had power as a body. She said the council was out of its purview if it managed employees in any way other than as a body through regular meetings where direction could be given by the full council. She was not in favor of designating one or two members to micromanage the police auditor. She said council officer should be the formal protocol, but have no additional power. Mr. Clark did not think the police auditor had a different relationship with the council than other employees. He said no direct council employee had the authority to act without the majority of the council agreeing. Ms. Taylor indicated she raised the topic because she objected to two people meeting with the mayor to make decisions. She said there seemed to be an assumption that officers would make decisions, but they should only have the responsibilities identified in the charter. Ms. Ortiz felt the function and power of the councilor officers was primarily ceremonial in nature and they helped set the tone for the council. She said officers did not have more power than other councilors. Ms. Piercy clarified that her meetings with council officers were intended to alert them to items that would be on the agenda and have informal conversations; no decisions were made at those meetings. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 5 Work Session