Item A: City Council Process Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Ballot Measure 37 Fund was previously discussed by the council and a public hearing would occur before the council took any action. She did not think that councilors generally took action without public input as most times issues come back to the council at the regular meetings. Mayor Piercy moved the discussion on to the next topic. Voting in the Absence of Councilors Mayor Piercy sought clarification of Section 5 of the council’s operating agreements regarding the circumstances under which a councilor could request that action on an item be postponed. She wished to avoid the appearance of acting in an arbitrary manner. Mr. Kelly said that he was satisfied with the current council policy. He asserted that by council custom, such requests were made because of conflicting council business or because of family emergencies. He said key to him was that such requests were made as early as possible. Ms. Solomon did not think the policy should be limited in the manner suggested by Mr. Kelly. She said that the policy had not been abused, and she thought the council should be flexible. Mr. Poling pointed out to Mr. Kelly there was no language in the policy limiting such requests in the manner he suggested. He recalled his request to the manager that in his absence, action be postponed on the Goal 5 inventory. The lateness of his request was due to the fact that he had been waiting for some information he had not yet received. He said that the Goal 5 project was a 20-year process and a small delay would not have been a problem. He requested council flexibility in honoring such requests. Ms. Taylor said the Goal 5 process had been postponed already, and it had been underway “forever.” She thought such requests should be made sparingly. Mr. Papé disagreed with Mr. Kelly’s remarks about the council’s “customs.” He did not think the reason for one’s absence was relevant. He said that such requests should be honored because the process had not been abused. He was also frustrated when Mr. Poling’s request for delay was not honored, particularly with regard to the council’s boards and committees appointments, as the issue had not been time-sensitive. Ms. Ortiz said she was “here to work” and liked to get things done, but also wanted to be respectful of other councilors’ requests. She said that had she known of Mr. Poling’s discussion with the City Manager, she might have voted in a different way. However, there was no way for her to know that. Ms. Ortiz asked the council to avoid making the process into a political tool. Mr. Pryor suggested that any rule or custom was good as long as it was consistently applied. He agreed with Mr. Poling that the policy did not provide a requirement that one could only request a postponement because of family emergencies or council business. He suggested that if the council had the precedent of providing the courtesy of postponing action at the request of councilors who would be absent and subse- quently declined to do so, that stood out for people. He suggested the council keep in mind the Golden Rule. Ms. Bettman believed that past majority decisions about requests for postponement had been partisan in nature, recalling an instance when she requested a postponement and it was denied. She believed the policy had been enforced in a political way and the council should establish criteria related to illness or unavoidable obligations. She said she scheduled her vacations to coincide with council breaks. She called for a fair, consistent, and justifiable process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 5 Process Session