My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Process Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2011
>
CC Agenda - 06/20/11 Work Session
>
Item B: Process Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2011 2:13:23 PM
Creation date
6/17/2011 11:53:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/20/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Section 3.04Committee Reports and Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <br /> – <br /> Suggested language has been added to this section, recognizing the recent changes made to the <br /> “Committee Reports” format. <br /> <br />Section 6.03Standing Advisory Bodies to the Council – <br /> This section has been updated to include <br /> the Sustainability Commission, Civilian Review Board, and Toxics Board. <br /> <br />Section 7.02 Other Meeting Guidelines <br /> – The paragraph dealing with comment times has been <br /> revised to reflect the current practice of maintaining a three minutes-per-speaker limit for each round <br /> of council comments. <br /> <br />Check-in on communication with constituent contacts and the Public Service Officer (PSO) <br />At the August 2010, process session, the council discussed processes for PSO response to constituent <br />contacts and reporting to the council. The PSO report format has been modified to include more <br />information including an identified “outcome” field, and the report is sent to the council every two <br />weeks. PSO response procedures also have also been adjusted and staff would like feedback on whether <br />these changes are meeting the council’s needs and if there are additional requests or suggestions. <br /> <br />Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee Motions and Recommendations <br />This item is to address the process by which the IGR Committee arrives at its recommendations on <br />proposed legislation. Currently, when an IGR Committee member makes a motion to change a staff <br />recommendation and does not receive a second, that motion dies for a lack of a second. The staff <br />recommendation then stands. This is an opportunity for the council to discuss whether it wants to <br />continue using this format, or consider a change to something different. <br /> <br />American Flag and Pledge of Allegiance <br />At the close of the council’s October 2010 process session, Councilor Mike Clark requested that staff <br />place the question of whether the council would like to begin administering the Pledge of Allegiance at <br />meetings. The United States and State of Oregon flags are displayed in the Council Chamber, but <br />currently not in the McNutt Room. A quick survey of a few other jurisdictions shows that the <br />Springfield City Council conducts the Pledge of Allegiance at every regular meeting, but not at work <br />sessions; the Portland City Commission does not conduct the Pledge; the Salem City Council conducts <br />the Pledge at every meeting; and the Lane County Board of Commissioners does not routinely conduct <br />the Pledge, though the board did so at the most recent State of the County event. <br /> <br />Emergency Procedures <br />Staff from Risk Services will provide information on what to do in the event of an emergency, both <br />specific to City Hall occupants and general safety/preparedness tips. <br /> <br />Boards, Commissions, and Committees – Processes and Policies <br /> <br /> BCC Interview Process <br /> For the BCC interviews conducted on May 24 and 25, candidates were given the opportunity to <br /> present their qualifications and reasons for interest in serving at the onset of their interviews. <br /> Predetermined follow-up questions were then asked by the councilors. Because this process <br /> represented a slight departure from that of previous years, council feedback on whether this was an <br /> effective format is requested. <br /> <br /> \\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110620\S110620B.doc <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.