Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

B. WORK SESSION: City Council Process Session City Manager’s Office Division Manager Keli Osborn reviewed proposed changes to the City Council’s operating agreements. She indicated that with the council’s approval, staff would return with a resolution to memorialize the changes proposed to sections 1.05 (Public Forum), 1.06 (Public Hearings), 1.07 (Executive Sessions), 3.04 (Committee Reports and Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager), 6.03 (Standing Advisory Bodies to the Council), and 7.02 (Other Meeting Guidelines). Mr. Pryor arrived. There was general council support for revising Section 1.05 to indicate that by council majority vote, time-sensitive issues could be moved up in the agenda order before hearing from all wishing to speak in the Public Forum. In addition, the council supported revising the agreements to reflect the current practice of allowing all speakers, rather than limiting the Public Forum to 60 minutes, and not shuffling the “Request to Speak” forms. Section 1.06 was revised to reflect the current practice of public hearings occurring on the third Monday evening of the month. Section 1.07 was changed to show that Council supervises three employees. Sections 3.04 and 6.03 were also updated, and Section 7.02 was revised to confirm the three-minutes-per-speaker limit for each councilor during rounds. Community Relations Manager Jan Bohman of the City Manager's Office solicited council comments on the reports provided to it by the Public Service Officer. Councilors expressed general satisfaction with the reports. The council then discussed the practical effect of a motion related to pending legislation that failed to receive a second during meetings of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Ms. Taylor advocated for delay in City lobbying activities on such legislation pending action on it by the full council. She suggested that alternatively, all committee motions could receive a courtesy second. Mr. Clark pointed out that if the committee delayed action on all such motions, it would require considerable time at the council level to discuss and vote on the many bills involved. The committee had changed the ground rules to stipulate that the staff recommendation on a bill would prevail in such instances until the bill went before the full council, at which time it could be pulled for further discussion. He supported that change because it avoided a situation that allowed one councilor to dictate the City’s actions by stalling its position on a bill. Mayor Piercy suggested that such bills be flagged as not having a unanimous position. Mr. Zelenka supported that approach. He acknowledged that the staff recommendation would continue to stand until that point. Mr. Clark also supported the mayor’s suggestion. Mayor Piercy determined there was general support. The council then discussed a proposal by Mr. Clark to say the Pledge of Allegiance at regular council meetings. Ms. Osborn called the council’s attention to a list of other jurisdictions and their practices. Mr. Clark advocated for recital of the Pledge as a means of uniting the council and of recognizing the values of more traditional members of the community. Councilors discussed issues, including: reciting the Pledge should be voluntary rather than mandatory; a lack of participation could be falsely interpreted as a lack of patriotism; some residents did not identify MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2011 Page 3 Work Session