Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor explained that the suggested amendment would ensure that neither the City Manager nor the auditor would be able solely to hire, fire, or transfer staff. He voiced confidence that such a process would provide clarity and be successful. Ms. Bettman said that she could not support the amendment as it would not provide the auditor with leverage and it gives the auditor the input the City Manager wants to provide. She argued that “decisive” ensures that both parties agree prior to staffing decisions. Ms. Bettman said that the amendment leaves the decision-making up to the City Manager. In response to a question from Mr. Papé?, City Attorney Klein replied that the City Manager must agree to a joint? partnership. He reiterated that the City Manager has the authority to hire and fire and unless the manager was willing to delegate all or a portion of that authority, a joint decision would not be in compli- ance with Section 16 of the City Charter. Mr. Papé? reiterated that the City Council? should have included appropriate language in the ballot measure if it wanted to have a truly independent staff in the Auditor’s Office. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the amendment under discussion; however, he said he prefers the language in the original motion as it provides a greater expression of what the relationship between the City Manager and the auditor would be. Ms. Bettman opined that the motion provides for accountability. The amendment failed: 2:6, with Mr. Pryor and Mr. Poling in favor. Mr. Pape? seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to propose a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to meet with the auditor following hire to draft an Memorandum of Under- standing (MOU) as to how the auditor’s staff would be hired, supervised, evaluated, trans- ferred, or terminated; further, to present the MOU to the City Council in draft form for its approval within 30days of that hire. Ms. Solomon expressed support for the substitute motion which she pointed out allows the City Man- ager and the auditor to craft a draft MOU as opposed to the council, who would not be working in those positions and therefore should not put forth parameters of that relationship. Ms. Bettman responded that the auditor would have no authority with the City Manager and cannot determine the text of the MOU. She said that the specifics of the MOU do not need to be reviewed by the council as such an exercise would be considered “micro-managing.” Ms. Bettman opined that her motion was clear in its intent. The vote on the substitute motion was a 4:4 tie, with Mr. Papé?, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting in favor, and Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Taylor vot- ing in opposition; Mayor Piercy cast the a vote in opposition to the motion and the substi- tute motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy commented that if the language in the main motion was forwarded to the Ad Hoc Com- mittee, it could review all sides of the issue and forward revised compromise language that could be accepted by the full council. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Papé?, moved to amend the main motion and refer the lan- guage to the Ad Hoc Committee for further review. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 7 Work Session