Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

that occurred. She found the system frustrating and had to take care about what she said, which “went against the grain” because she tended to speak her mind. Mr. Pryor said the situation was very difficult in that the council was discussing both the issue of conduct and how one acted in the real world as well as one’s intent, culture, motivation, and relationship. The latter topics were very subjective and could lead to a slippery slope. In regard to the issue of conduct, human society could only function if people were specific, careful, and deliberate in their conduct. He said the conduct in question was wrong and should be dealt with through City’s progressive disciplinary system by the City Manager. The conduct should not be tolerated. The issue of intent and motivation and culture remained, and Mr. Pryor did not know why people did what they did. Given that he did not know the intent, he suggested the council’s focus be on conduct, that in the future all work to ensure it was professional and acceptable. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that some people did not like or respect him, but he asked only that they conduct themselves in a manner that allows the council to get things done. Ms. Taylor said the reason the issue was so serious was that it involved top management and a lack of respect for the council. She maintained that disrespect among top management opened the way for other employees to feel that a lack of respect toward the council was acceptable. Ms. Taylor said she understood the attitude that the council was “sort of a nuisance,” but the councilors represented the voters, so if staff disrespected the council it, in turn, disrespected citizens. She pointed out that if the citizens did not like what their councilors were doing, they could vote them out. Ms. Taylor did not expect such conduct from top managers who were supervising other City employees. Mr. Poling said he spent many years dealing with people who did not like him because of the uniform he wore. He went about his business and treated people the way he wanted to be treated. He shared an anecdote about someone who came to his assistance at a call because he had treated that individual with respect when they were housed in jail. Mr. Poling said he had never been treated with disrespect by a City staff person in the four years he had served on the council. He did not care if staff liked him as long as he was treated respectfully. He thought it unfortunate a mistake was made, and believed it would be addressed by the manager. He recommended that the council move on. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council was moving on and doing its business but the press chose not to report that. He appreciated Mr. Pryor’s distinction between conduct and intent as one could not construe intent. He believed the only way the council and staff could move on was in a partnership. He said he did not doubt Mr. Poling’s experience but Mr. Kelly did have the experience of being disrespected or marginalized by a small number of staff. Mr. Kelly agreed that Assistant City Manager Carlson’s case was symptomatic of a larger issue. He regretted that Ms. Bettman and Assistant City Manager Carlson had not taken the opportunity to sit down and talk in the month since the incident occurred, and advocated for a specific, definitive, positive policy initiative that reinforced what was acceptable on the part of staff and provided a way for communication to occur between staff and the elected officials within the limits of the City Charter. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Papé said he had never felt he had been unable to talk to staff one-on-one. He thought the issue of how the council communicated with staff had been resolved. Mr. Poling said when he talked to a staff person he generally prefaced the conversation by clarifying that he might need to go through management, and when he was referred to management he could deal with that. He had never encountered a problem talking with staff on a one-on-one basis. Ms. Bettman said she had been told by staff that they were prohibited from speaking to her. That practice did not appear to be consistent among the councilors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 10 Process Session