Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

communities of color and wondered how those groups’ demographics that compared against the county’s demographics. Mr. Pryor suggested the key issue was what was really constituted representation. He agreed one had to “show up for the game to play,” but on the other hand, if the rules were too difficult and the game hard to get to, one could not show up. He thought the City made it hard for residents to get on boards and commission. He had applied early in his career, had to go through many hoops, and had not been success- ful. Mr. Pryor said that people had different definitions of what constituted diversity and representation. He said he did not know the right definition but suggested it was important to find something representative of the community. He said many did not participate because they lost confidence that they would be listened to. He said representation was a key factor but it should be meaningful and accessible and should produce an outcome that people believed in. Mr. Clark said many of his neighbors and friends, when solicited to become involved in City issues, said “people like me are not listened to.” He suggested that divide could be addressed through geographic diversity. He agreed that the City’s boards and commissions should be as representative as possible and the council should work hard to accomplish that. However, Mr. Clark pointed to the recent Budget Committee appointment process, where two qualified candidates, one from Ward 8 and one from Ward 4, had been under consideration, and the council chose to appoint the representative from Ward 4. Mr. Clark was also concerned about non-residents who participated on City boards and commissions. He asked to what degree that was permissible. He asked if Oakridge and Springfield residents should participate in Eugene issues, and called for more discussion on that topic. Ms. Ortiz determined from Ms. Forrest that the recruitment materials would also be in Spanish. Speaking to Mr. Pryor’s remarks, Ms. Taylor said that an advisory group was just that; the council should consider the advice given, but it did not have to take it. She said the council should be able to articulate why it was not accepting the group’s recommendation. Ms. Taylor also believed the council needed to hear minority reports from its advisory groups and suggested that usually the opinions of the minority were often ignored. Ms. Osborn recalled the three outcomes related to the topic adopted by the council in June 2010. The first called for increased diversity on boards and commissions over time. Staff was responsible for providing that applicant pool. Ms. Osborn invited input on additional outreach approaches. The second outcome was that the recruitment process would be fair, accessible, transparent, and civil, and Ms. Osborn said staff was committed to supporting the council in reaching that outcome. The third outcome regarded commission, committees, and board member development. Ms. Osborn noted the staff efforts to support that outcome, which included the Neighborhood Summit, best practices training, and outreach to potential boards and commissions members. Ms. Taylor said she did not know the City had nonresidents on its boards and commissions. Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Taylor that the City’s committees were advisory in nature, but their input should be taken seriously. Speaking to the issue of representation, Mr. Pryor believed that applicants would always be self-selected and the council needed to keep that in mind when it considered how to maintain diversity on MINUTES—City Council October 20, 2010 Page 3 Work Session