Item A: City Council Process Session

Home Browse Search

uncomfortable taking action without discussion. He wanted to limit the number of such situations and focus on the agenda. He agreed that staff needed to indicate what direction or action it needed the council to take in the AIS. Ms. Taylor said that sometimes work sessions were more like study sessions, and she did not think that significant decisions should be made at work sessions. Further, she did not think that councilors should be required to notify people in advance of meetings if they intended to make a motion. She agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon regarding the Police Commission memorandum and said she had not felt comfortable taking action either. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that such motions could be tabled. Mr. Papé thought the council and public needed advance notice of such motions and thought posting motions on the Web site would be a good solution. Speaking to the statements that such motions could be tabled, he pointed out that he attempted to do so several times without success, frequently for items that were not time- sensitive and could have waited. Ms. Ortiz agreed that the council should not be voting on issues it had not discussed before. However, she assumed all councilors were getting the same information and had the same access to staff. Mr. Pryor indicated that he did not want to slow down the public process and acknowledged that emergen- cies occur. However, he said, the motions being made were not related to emergencies. He said that proposed motions should be in the meeting packet whenever possible as the council’s e-mail communications did not reach the public. He also thought most motions should be reserved for regular meetings as opposed to work sessions. City Manager Taylor said that work sessions were generally opportunities for the council to give direction to staff and that usually took the form of motions. He said that when councilors provided notice of anticipated motions, it allowed the appropriate staff to be present at council meetings. He anticipated that workshops would not include suggested motions for action. Ms. Bettman said staff-recommended motions should be in the packet. However, she did not think Mr. Pryor’s suggestion was practical for most council-proposed motions given that the packet was mailed the Thursday prior to council meetings. She said that the council’s protocol during her tenure had been that councilors had the right to make a motion on any topic at any time. She saw no reason to change the current approach, which took into account the time limitations faced by the council. She said that the agenda could be modified with a disclaimer that indicated action might not be limited to the published agenda. Speaking to the issue of the Police Commission memorandum, Ms. Bettman said that the motion was a recommendation clarifying next steps in the process so when the council did take action, it would have the needed information. Mr. Kelly agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. He said the majority of work sessions do include a motion for direction to staff. He said his motions were a direct result of packet review. Speaking to the issue of councilors not being able to review their e-mail prior to a meeting, he reminded the council that staff solicited councilors as to their preferred mode of communication. Mr. Pryor said his goal was to avoid having the council in a situation where it was making major decisions with a significant impact on the public without any public input or worse, any notice of the decision at all. He wanted to avoid the perception, factual or not, that people thought the council was acting out of the public eye. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 4 Process Session