CCMinutes - 04/07/04 Process - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling felt it was a good idea for staff to provide recommendations accompanied by other options. Mr. Meisner concurred, adding that he wanted staff recommendations, but not memoranda in which staff makes conclusive statements. He reiterated that knowing both the options and staff recommendations on options accompanied their by reasons was his preference. Ms. Solomon liked recommendations from staff. She felt informed by them. She echoed Mr. Meisner and Mr. Poling's comments regarding options. In response to Mr. Chouinard, Mr. Meisner cited as an example that the work session on alley assessments had resulted in a clear majority vote on the first item and a need for ~tweaking" on the second item. Staff provided a memorandum to the council that stated empirically that it was not possible to ~tweak" the second item, but it did not give the reasons why it could not be done. Mr. Kelly asserted that another way staff influenced or %ent" council policy was by not responding to City Council recommendations. He cited the stormwater issue as an example and stated that the council's voted direction had not been implemented. Further, he cited the salmon Endangered Species Act strategy, and said the council had formulated a list of priorities that were approved and the list had not been followed through with. Mr. Taylor pointed out that staff was often guided by the TransPlan, the Metro Plan, or budget documents in its recommendations. He asked whether councilors could trump such documents with their directives. Ms. Bettman alleged that staff took certain actions because it wanted to do them. She felt the plans the City Manager referred to were flexible documents. Mr. Meisner noted that in previous years, when no motion was on the floor, the council would use a formalized head nod to indicate support or opposition to an item. He felt that staff had, in a couple of work sessions, paraphrased to a certain extent what had transpired. Mr. Taylor commented that staff sometimes triaged things because of the hierarchy of decision. Mr. Meisner responded that when staff saw such a hierarchy, it should be brought to the attention of the councilors. Ms. Bettman felt the local metropolitan planning organization (MPO) was largely staff-driven and had influence over how road funds were spent. She reiterated her concern that the City Council had prioritized road preservation but the Metropolitan Policy Committee, acting as the MPO, had circumvented the priority of the City and recommended funding other projects. Mr. Tallon spoke on behalf of the second group of staff people, which included Ms. Hamm and Mr. Corey. He related that his group had also placed working together as a body as its highest priority. He said all executive staff had the opportunity to work on three teams: with the executive managers, with the City Council, and within their departments. He conveyed that once group consensus was achieved, staff had to support the decisions made. He stated that being able to advocate for a position and to listen were both important skills. Mr. Meisner provided the top priority for the third group, which included Mayor Torrey and Mr. Kelly. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 7, 2004 Page 3 Process Session