My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCMinutes - 04/07/04 Process
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2004
>
CCMinutes - 04/07/04 Process
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:28:57 AM
Creation date
8/10/2004 10:16:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Process Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Mr. Tallon conveyed that his group also wanted the council to focus on %nds" and practice policy <br />governance. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner indicated that Mr. Kelly wanted to emphasize that council direction should be remembered by <br />staff and should not ~fall through the cracks" for months and years. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said his group agreed with Mr. Poling's group, but had bundled the need for clarity and <br />concise answers with the need for timely responses and the ability to respond during work sessions and <br />meetings. <br /> <br />Mr. Lehner indicated that his group shared Mr. Chouinard and Mr. Carlson's expectation from the council <br />that strategic issues and goals be identified. <br /> <br />Ms. Hays thanked participants for the opportunity to conduct the exercise. Mr. Glaser commended the <br />group for the communication and listening skills members exhibited. <br /> <br />Mr. Taylor said the executive team would have a two- to six-hour session with the Glasers. He stated that <br />staff would come back to a work session or subsequent process session with anything that arose from it. <br /> <br />Ms. Rose asked the council to look over the Eugene City Council Operating Agreements: Draft with <br />Proposed Amendments 4/1/04. She explained that the suggestion had been made that the operating <br />agreements be revisited at the February retreat. She highlighted the proposed changes. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Rose indicated that the legal opinion on section 9.03 was <br />included as Attachment B: Inter-Departmental Memorandum; City Attorney - Civil Department. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was uncertain of the language regarding meeting length. He opined it was too absolute and <br />could be construed to allow an item to be debated until 3 a.m. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman commented that extending the meeting by five to ten minutes was fine, but that the meetings <br />should not be extended longer than that. <br /> <br />Regarding Section 9.03, Ms. Bettman acknowledged it was a difficult issue. She advocated for any <br />budgetary issue that would be moved through the MPC to also come before the City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling felt it was not clear in the definition at what point the proceedings became deliberations. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon expressed satisfaction with the current system of determining whether or not to extend the <br />meeting time by a vote. <br /> <br />Ms. Rose noted that the draft language was purely in response to councilor's requests at the February <br />retreat. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon indicated she would not support a change. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor conveyed her preference for no stopping time. She felt there were other ways to keep a meeting <br />from lasting too long, such as councilors making a motion to adjourn or the mayor taking control of the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 7, 2004 Page 5 <br /> Process Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.