Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/17/06 Process Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom/Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library April 17, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. CITY COUNCIL PROCESS SESSION Mayor Kitty Piercy called the process session of the Eugene City Council to order. The council was joined by the City’s executive management team: Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Human Resource and Risk Services Director Lauren Chouinard, Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Angel Jones, Public Works Director Kurt Corey, Planning and Development Director Susan Muir, Fire Chief Tom Tallon, and Police Chief Robert Lehner. Lynda Rose, Mary Feldman, and Jan Bohman of the City Manager's Office were also present. City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Facilitator Betsy Shepard. Those present introduced themselves to Ms. Shepard. Ms. Shepard went over the suggested “norms” for the meeting. ? Listen with respect—no interrupting, no talking over, disagree agreeably ? No personal attacks ? Try things on for size ? Stay on task ? Value differences ? Be open and honest ? Look for opportunities to agree ? Strive for consensus Ms. Shepard determined that councilors had no additions to the list. Ms. Shepard reviewed the agenda. I. Clarification of When Agenda Item Summaries Should Have City Manager-Recommended Motions Mr. Kelly, who proposed the agenda item, recalled past practice when such motions were not offered and acknowledged the council’s more recent direction to staff to prepare them. He said that when action was not needed, such motions put pressure on the council to act. He suggested that if the City Manager wanted MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 1 Process Session specific direction, he should include a suggested motion in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS); otherwise, in the case of update items, motions should not be included. Mayor Piercy advocated for more work sessions devoted to thoughtful discussion. Ms. Taylor did not think the council should take action at work sessions. She preferred not to have City Manager-recommended motions and suggested that options for the council’s consideration be prepared instead. Ms. Bettman concurred with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. Mr. Pryor expressed interest in seeing the City Manager’s recommendation on issues where staff believed there was a preferred course of action. Specific motion text that conformed to State law would be valuable. He said the recommendations could come forward in the form of two or three options, accompanied by the same number of motions. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the AIS almost always included a City Manager-recommended motion. He thought the situation in which a motion would be inappropriate would be infrequent. As an example, he suggested that, had the West Eugene Parkway issue not been accompanied by a motion, the council’s discussion would not have been so divisive. Mayor Piercy suggested that there was council tension about City Manager-recommended motions. She agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor, but did not want the council to feel that staff was “trying to make the council move in a particular direction.” The council was the decision-maker. Mr. Poling noted that frequently, the council had more than one option to consider, as well as the City Manager-recommended motion, and that the motion could always be amended. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that the situation did not occur often. Ms. Bettman thought the Mayor’s remark about council tension over City Manager-prepared motions was very valid. She maintained that frequently, the council heard only about the option the staff preferred rather than being provided with the full range of information needed to make a decision. If the Mayor was suggesting that the City Manager’s recommendation not be so prescriptive and that a motion only be made after all councilors had spoken, she felt that was a better approach to governing. She suggested that the City Manager put forth motions that would unite the council rather than potentially divide it. Mr. Pryor said that the council could direct the City Manager to prepare motions after council discussion to cover the small number of items involved. He agreed that motions were not needed for every item. City Manager Taylor indicated understanding of the discussion and recalled the council’s past discussion of the topic and its expressed desire for multiple options. Mr. Papé asked the manager to let the council know when it had not provided adequate direction. Ms. Bettman said if direction was required, it should be expressed in the form of a motion. In cases where motions were not prepared by the City Manager, she did not want that to preclude the council from making motions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 2 Process Session City Manager Taylor indicated he would continue to work to provide the council with multiple options. Mr. Pryor did not agree a motion was needed in every instance but suggested that, following an update, the manager restate the council’s direction if it was not clear. City Manager Taylor concluded there was no change to the operating agreements; rather, the discussion led to clarification of the process for staff. II. Protocol for Contingency Requests from Nonprofit Entities Mayor Piercy recalled that the council decided last November to ask the Budget Committee to discuss the potential of establishing a fund for the council to use to grant funding requests from nonprofits. She asked if the council wished to place some policy parameters around the creation of such a fund prior to the committee’s discussion. She suggested that criteria for the allocation of funds might be needed if such a fund was established. Mr. Kelly did not recall there being unanimous council support for the establishment of such a fund and believed the council was taking the right approach in first seeking input from the Budget Committee first. He agreed that criteria for such a fund would be needed, but he did not want to spend time on that discussion now. Ms. Taylor preferred not to have such a fund and suggested that the City’s money for such purposes be directed through the Human Services Fund unless it was something that would clearly further a council goal. She did not want the council to establish such a fund and then have to deal with emotional requests for money. Mr. Pryor recalled that the council discussed whether it wanted to have such a fund and while he could see arguments for both sides, his impression was that the City had a use for all the money it had. He thought if such a fund was established, a process was needed for the distribution of funds. He agreed with Mr. Kelly about the value of the Budget Committee discussion. Mr. Papé expressed concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Taylor and said in the past, the council had not been able to act with the funds it had in a fair and consistent manner. He said a process existed for the distribution of funds to nonprofits, and it was called the budget process. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff avoid using the word “contingency” when discussing the issue with the committee. He recalled that previously the council did have criteria for the disbursement of such funds. He thought Ms. Taylor’s remarks about distributing money through the Human Services Fund (HSF) were well- taken, but occasionally some nonprofit entities that would not fall under the Human Services Commission’s purview needed seed money or start-up funds and he hoped to establish something for them. Ms. Bettman liked the process the council previously used to distribute funds, calling it fair. She favored reviving that process or establishing a process that identified surpluses at the end of the fiscal year to be set aside for distribution under council-established criteria. That funding might be used to fund unexpected expenses or something that the budget was unable to support. She wanted the fund to be used for Eugene residents. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 3 Process Session Ms. Ortiz said the council’s past fund provided money for some interesting projects. The Human Rights Commission had a small budget for special requests and she hoped to see something similar established for the council. She agreed that the Budget Committee should discuss the subject, and hoped that anything established would be equitable and available for services for Eugene residents. Mayor Piercy suggested the discussion could serve to initiate a conversation with the Budget Committee. Ms. Bettman observed that the fund was dissolved in a “nano-second” but its reestablishment required years of discussion. Responding to a question from City Manager Taylor, Mr. Kelly said that in the past, $60,000 was allocated to the fund, which was restricted to outside applicants and could not be used for City programs. The maximum amount available to a single applicant was $5,000. III. Public Forum/Public Hearing Protocol Mayor Piercy noted a problem that occurred at the City Council meeting the previous week, when people signed up for the public forum 15 minutes into the meeting, affecting the distribution of time allotted to each speaker. She invited suggestions. Ms. Ortiz did not think it was unrealistic for the council to give each person who came to speak the full three minutes. She said that people worked hard on their testimony and then, when they arrived at the meeting, found they only had two minutes. She acknowledged the council’s desire to end meetings on time and give everyone a chance to speak, but reiterated that all should be given three minutes to speak. Ms. Solomon said she would have liked the decision by the council to shorten the amount of time for testimony to be made earlier on in the process. However, that meeting had been an unusual one and “constituted a little bit of bad planning.” She wanted the council to do a better job of anticipating such situations so it could tell the public as soon as possible if the meeting agenda changed. Mr. Papé suggested electronic or telephone call-in sign-ups. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Ortiz that the council should listen to everyone and everyone should get three minutes. If the council had to stay longer, it should. Sometimes people were testifying for the first time and had rehearsed their testimony. Then they were told they only had two minutes and had to decide quickly what part of their testimony to leave out. She pointed out that frequently, people left the meeting early before they were called to speak or simply agreed with the remarks of another. She suggested that if anything was to be cut, it should be the council’s response to public comment. Mr. Kelly said that the public process was “messy” and took time. He said that the council mandated an end time to its meetings about three years ago and decided to limit the time for the public forum. He suggested the forum be extended to 90 minutes and people given three minutes to speak. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Ortiz and said she was glad that the council was reconsidering the issue. She said it is difficult for those who are not accomplished public speakers to edit their testimony “on the fly.” She did not believe an electronic sign-up was the answer as it would disadvantage those from whom the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 4 Process Session council did not generally hear. She supported a first-come, first-served process, and suggested that the logistics for the process could be improved. Ms. Bettman suggested that the council should consider holding public hearings on the Monday nights that do not already have regular meetings scheduled. She said that it might be less inconvenient than reschedul- ing and postponing public hearings. Mr. Pryor said he voted for the two-minute limit because he wanted to get out of the meeting at a reasonable time. He supported the three-minute limit but wanted a time certain by which the council continued with its business. Leaving the time open-ended was inviting problems. If one established a system, people would adapt to it. It was only when the process changed that people had difficulty. He said the council needed to have systems in place so those in attendance understood the process. He suggested that might require a council “huddle” prior to the meeting. Mr. Papé suggested that the sign up for the forum be cut off at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Solomon suggested that the doors of the Council Chamber be opened earlier to give staff a better sense of how many people were signing up. She did not oppose giving people three minutes to speak, but did not want to meet past the hour of 10 p.m. She suggested that alternatively, an additional meeting be added during the month. Mayor Piercy said the “flow” of the council’s schedule might suggest the need for additional meetings. City Manager Taylor noted the tension between the advertised hearings and the public forum, particularly when the forum lasted for 90 minutes. Mr. Kelly determined that no one strongly objected to granting all speakers in the public forum three minutes to speak. He agreed with City Manager Taylor about the tension between the forum and the advertised hearings, and suggested that the more controversial hearings be deferred to the proposed additional hearing. If the hearing was not needed, it could be canceled. Ms. Bettman said that another option would be to hold public hearings at 5:30 p.m. rather than at the regular meeting. She was not opposed to having people sign up via e-mail but did not think that should mean they were first in line. The situation should be first-come, first-served, and those persons could be added to the list after others signed up. She agreed with the suggestion to open the doors earlier and cut off sign-ups at 7:30 or 7:35 p.m. Ms. Solomon reiterated that she wanted to be free to leave the meeting at 10 p.m. and wanted meetings to end at that time. Mr. Kelly agreed, with the reminder that if the council was in the middle of an item, the meeting went past 10 p.m. Ms. Taylor preferred to have meetings run later rather than add another meeting, given the number of meetings councilors already attended. She thought several meetings had been poorly planned because of the number of controversial items scheduled. She also suggested that perhaps the council break periods were too long. Ms. Ortiz liked the idea of a meeting dedicated to public hearings as she thought the current format puzzled people. She agreed that staff should open the doors earlier for people to sign up, particularly in the winter MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 5 Process Session months when people were waiting for meetings in the cold. She acknowledged the staffing issue, but wanted a more open door policy as a “nice gesture” to the community when it came to talk to the council. City Manager Taylor indicated that there was a staffing issue given that the same staff was involved in both the work session and regular meeting, but he would look into opening the door earlier. Regarding an added night meeting, he indicated he would follow-up and suggested it might take four months to get everyone used to the new system so the council had some experience with it prior to the next process session in September. Mayor Piercy believed the public forum was very important and noted that often, important issues such as the Golden Gardens Park situation were raised by the public. Ms. Shepard summarized the discussion, determining from the council that it would implement the new system as soon as staff had an opportunity to discuss the proposal and give the council feedback on its implementation. Mr. Pryor determined from the council that while those speaking in the public forum would get three minutes to speak, the item would still be time-limited. He was willing to let it be an issue of judgment on a case-by-case basis. Speaking to the suggestion for an added meeting, Ms. Solomon said the council needed to recognize that there were months that the council would be on break. The council agreed to cut off the deadline for signing up to speak in the public forum at 7:35 p.m. Responding to a question regarding follow-up from Mr. Papé, City Manager Taylor indicated he heard no sentiment for initiating an electronic sign-up. Ms. Rose noted that the suggested changes would require amendments to the operating agreements to implement and the council would be asked to approve those via resolution at a future meeting. Mr. Pryor reiterated his question about whether the public forum was established for a time certain or if it would continue until all who signed up spoke. Ms. Bettman suggested the 30-minute time limit be rescinded given the discussion. Ms. Taylor agreed the 30-minute limit should be dropped. She pointed out that not all speakers would take the full three minutes allotted to them. City Manager Taylor pointed out that a determined group of people could “game the system” and postpone council action on items by signing up for the public forum in such numbers that other items were pushed off. Ms. Ortiz suggested that the agenda be printed on large print format and placed on a reader board to inform the public. Mr. Kelly believed that many people were confused as to what was occurring at the council and suggested a reader board or magnetic board could be employed to explain the meeting agenda and format. He endorsed Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 6 Process Session Mr. Kelly thought City Manager Taylor’s remarks were well-taken. There were groups that would game the system or come to the erroneous conclusion that more voices saying the same thing was effective. He thought there was value to a stated norm, such as a maximum of 60 minutes to avoid such situations and give the council president some flexibility in offering the body a motion that it could accept or vote down. Mr. Papé agreed that if the council needed to consult briefly about the agenda before a meeting, it should. There was general concurrence. Mr. Pryor wanted the council to have sufficient time at meetings to do the job it was tasked to do as well as accommodate public forum speakers. He agreed that public education about how the system worked was vital. Ms. Rose suggested that staff could revise the sign-up sheet to make the process clearer to the public. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Kelly reiterated his suggestion for one hour for the forum as a canonical time and to give the president flexibility in making a motion. Ms. Taylor preferred that 90 minutes be allocated to the public forum as a maximum, pointing out that sometimes few people spoke. Mr. Pryor thought that for the sake of agenda construction, the council should establish a maximum. He said that staff would not know how to construct agendas with uncertainty about the time. Ms. Shepard polled councilors on their preference for a time limit, either 60 minutes or 90 minutes. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff return with a recommendation that the council could vote up or down. IV. Criteria for Canceling Council Meetings/Work Sessions Mr. Papé believed that the council should have canceled the March 10 meeting since the majority of the agenda had been deferred due to council absences and it contained only the Consent Calendar and Public Forum. He characterized the meeting as a waste of time. Mr. Kelly said that because council agendas were so full, he did not understand why the council did not always have a meeting at the usual time; for example, next Monday there was a Budget Committee meeting that ended at 7:20 p.m. that could have been followed by a regular council meeting. The meeting could be canceled if not needed. There was brief discussion of why the March 10 meeting had been canceled. Mr. Pryor suggested that the question at hand was more relevant for discussion. City Manager Taylor indicated he did not cancel meetings or schedule additional meetings unless asked to do so by the Mayor and City Council. Mr. Pryor suggested that there were only a few instances where a meeting should be canceled; for example, if there was nothing to discuss. He suggested that in some cases, only the regular meeting might be needed. The council did not need to meet in work session if there was no need, but regular meetings should occur if only for the Public Forum and Consent Calendar. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 7 Process Session Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor, and said she would err on the side of holding meetings as opposed to canceling them. City Manager Taylor had no objection to holding a council meeting after Budget Committee meetings, but pointed out there were some logistical issues involved and it was difficult to predict the length of committee meetings. Ms. Shepard determined the council operating agreements did not address the issue. She further determined that the council was not suggesting any changes. Councilors briefly discussed how items were postponed. Mr. Kelly noted the current language in the operating agreements, which stipulated that councilors could requests items be postponed or a vote not be taken. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, City Manager Taylor indicated that the tentative working agenda changed on a weekly basis, depending on the action that occurred that week. He worked with the Mayor on a weekly basis to set future agendas. Mr. Papé said it sounded like the Mayor and manager had a process, but he did not know how it worked. Mayor Piercy briefly explained the process of reviewing and revising the tentative working agenda. V. Councilor Polls for Work Sessions—Timing for Getting Them on the Tentative Agenda Mr. Papé wanted criteria for how quickly items added to the agenda were scheduled for discussion, saying that he had successfully polled for a work session item and then had to advocate for it to be added. Mr. Pryor said that it appeared that Mr. Papé needed to talk to the Mayor and manager. Mr. Kelly said he had experienced such a delay in getting an item on the agenda and suggested that once a poll occurred, the item be scheduled at someplace even if the schedule had to be adjusted later. City Manager Taylor said that was what generally happened. Mr. Kelly believed what happened to Mr. Papé was an oversight. Mr. Kelly asked if the council really needed ten working days to reply to a poll for an agenda item. He suggested five days was more appropriate. Mr. Pryor suggested that even if items could not be scheduled, they could be listed at the end of the tentative working agenda. City Manager Taylor indicated that a date could be assigned. Mr. Papé asked if the operating agreements could be amended to reflect the discussion. There was no objection. The council took a ten-minute meeting break. VI. City Council/Staff Relations and Its Implications for the Organization, Council, and the Electorate Ms. Shepard called the council’s attention to the City’s Respectful Work Environment policy. Ms. Bettman recalled her e-mail correspondence with the City Manager regarding what she considered to be an offensive e-mail from Assistant City Manager Carlson. The manager indicated to her that he considered MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 8 Process Session the e-mail to be offensive as well but he had been unable to talk to Assistant Manager Carlson about it because he was out of town, and would talk to him when he returned. She had asked at the April 10 meeting when the manager had knowledge of the e-mail, and it was her recollection that he indicated he knew about it for about a month. She found that disturbing, because to her knowledge, City Manager Taylor had not taken any action. Ms. Bettman perceived the e-mail as evidence of a larger, underlying problem. She suggested the manager was tacitly approving such conduct by taking no action and that the e-mail was “the tip of the iceberg.” Ms. Bettman said that the council had to act on record, and went on to assert that City staff had the ability to keep its e-mail hidden from the public and from the council. That was not a “level playing field.” She was not interested in policy rhetoric or a scripted apology; she wanted to see genuine reform. Assistant City Manager Carlson apologized for the disrespectful e-mail he sent Ms. Bettman and for any offense he caused. He took responsibility and said he attempted to treat all with respect. Sending the e-mail had not represented normal behavior for him. He regretted he had been unable to be present at the meeting last week to address the issue but had been out of town caring for an ailing relative. Assistant City Manager Carlson said that when he sent the e-mail he had been at home sick, and had intended to forward the e-mail to his wife Becky Carlson, the Administrative Division Manager of Public Works, to respond to Ms. Bettman’s question regarding the use of City funds for the Parks Foundation award ceremony. He clarified that City Manager Taylor had not been aware of the e-mail and had not received it. He said he attempted to recall the message but had been unable to do so. Assistant City Manager Carlson apologized again to Ms. Bettman for the content of the e-mail and accepted responsibility for his mistake. He reiterated that the manager knew nothing about it. City Manager Taylor questioned whether a process session was the appropriate forum for discussion of a specific personnel issue. Mr. Kelly said the subject was a delicate one but thought City Manager’s remarks were unfortunate in that he perceived them as setting an adversarial tone. He had no intention of discussing any individual, but the only place the council could discuss a personnel matter was in an open session. He did not think that the manager meant to suppress the discussion, but that was the message he gave. Mr. Kelly believed the issue was a broader one of the organizational culture. He said it was his perception as a sitting councilor that a distinct minority of city staff viewed elected officials as somewhere between irrelevant and a temporary annoyance. He did not think that was the way to foster a partnership. He hoped that City Manager Taylor could lead actively and do something that seriously addressed the issue of the council as a “side show” for some City staff. Mr. Kelly said he could understand that staff had professional experience he would never have, but the City Council and Mayor were in charge. City Manager Taylor indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Kelly and pointed out that every time he spoke to staff or groups he stressed the importance of elected officials being the heart of a legitimate democracy. In City settings, he frequently discussed the need for employees to respect reach other, and especially to show respect for those who choose to serve the community as elected officials. Ms. Bettman expressed skepticism that City Manager Taylor’s remarks were being reflected in the organization. She was still very unclear as to when City Manager Taylor had knowledge of the incident. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 9 Process Session City Manager Taylor said that he did not know about the e-mail at the time of the incident. He had been referring to another e-mail message when responding to Ms. Bettman the previous week. Ms. Bettman suggested that if City Manager Taylor did not know about the e-mail message, it meant that Assistant City Manager Carlson had not told him. She said that to attempt to keep the discussion at a high level when there were things going on behind the scenes might be comfortable, but it was not adding clarity to the issue. Mr. Papé said he found the incident disturbing. He said that he had been treated disrespectfully at times in the past by staff but acknowledged there were times he had treated staff disrespectfully, and those situations were resolved. He said that if one wanted to elicit respect, one had to treat others respectfully. He hoped he had made the appropriate apologies. He wished he had been more professional and that staff had been more appropriate and respectful with him. Ms. Ortiz said she had not been treated disrespectfully by staff. Speaking to the issue of two-way streets, she said that if she saw something she did not like, she had to go to the manager to address the issue. If she acted inappropriately, she would want to know, and she thought the existing system worsened the situation 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 10 Process Session 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. Ms. Bettman said the issue at hand was the attitude demonstrated by the e-mail, which implied to staff below management level that it was “okay” to portray and perpetrate a negative attitude toward elected officials. She did not believe that staff and the council had a partnership because the playing field was not level. She said she could take criticism; that was not the issue. The issue was the ability of a high-level staff person to undermine her credibility with other staff when she was trying to advance the values of her constituents. She reiterated that her communications were public and a matter of public record. If she said something that someone did not like and it got around, she was accountable for that. When staff communi- cated in secret away from the public, it did not add to a level playing field. Ms. Bettman said she knew there would be a backlash against her and people would make the issue about her, but she brought the issue up because she found it so important. She said it was important that the organization model respect for the councilors who worked hard to get elected, worked for practically free, and attempted to do the best for their constituents. She concluded there should be zero tolerance for “that kind of undermining.” Ms. Muir said she was aware that in the past, Planning staff indicated to councilors that there was a prohibition on direct communications but that had been a matter of misunderstanding. Chief Tallon added that there was no prohibition in his department on communicating with the council, but the City Manager indicated he wanted to know when conversations between the council and staff took place so that he was aware of what was going on and staff could provide consistent information to all members of the council. Chief Tallon thought the result was improved and consistent communication. Mr. Kelly expressed surprise at the remarks of Chief Tallon as he thought City Manager Taylor indicated the council could talk only to him, the staff responsible for preparing an agenda item summary, and the executive manager. He thought a clear, written clarification from City Manager Taylor to the council and the executive management team about the policy would be in order. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 11 Process Session Mr. Pryor said the organizational culture was nothing the council could impact directly and it could not direct everyone to get along. However, culture could be influenced by respect, trust, communication, and team work. If one worked on those four elements, one could begin to change a culture. He was concerned that, currently, the culture between elected officials and staff was suffering. He attributed that to a lack of respect, teamwork, communication, and trust. Mr. Pryor did not know where that came from, nor did he care, but believed something needed to be done immediately to improve those four elements, which would lead to improved relationships. He was concerned that the trust level between elected officials and staff was not as good as it could be, and that second-guessing was going on. City Manager Taylor recalled that in an earlier process session, the council reviewed the staff contact question, and it was his expectation that the council would generally communicate through the manager, the assistant manager, the executive managers, and the staff responsible for an agenda item summary. With regard to councilors communicating with other staff, that was perfectly acceptable and it was his expecta- tion that the staff involved in the contact would let him and the executive manager know of it. He said he would be happy to clarify that for the council in writing. Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Kelly’s recollection about council-staff communications. Ms. Bettman asked City Manager Taylor what happened when someone violated the City’s respectful work environment policy. City Manager Taylor said that he would coach and counsel the individual, who may be subject to discipline. He noted that there was an ongoing investigation into the incident. Ms. Bettman asked if there would be a point at which City Manager Taylor could talk about the incident. City Manager Taylor said yes, but he would not be able to discuss any disciplinary actions he took with regard to Assistant City Manager Carlson due to the expectation of employee confidentiality in regard to personnel issues. Ms. Bettman said that information reinforced her initial commitment to bring up the issue publicly. If the manager disciplined Assistant Manager Carlson privately, no one in the organization would know that he dealt with the issue, leaving the impression it was okay and had the tacit approval of those at the top. Ms. Shepard summarized some of the issues that had been raised during the discussion: elected offi- cials/staff divide; concerns about respect—both ways; issues of honesty/trust; inability to deal directly with people; unprofessional conducts and behaviors; intent/culture; top management and councilor modeling; people feeling marginalized; inconsistency with how different officials interact with staff; not a level playing field; undermining the work of officials; and asymmetry between elected officials and staff. Ms. Shepard offered a list of expectations and hopes: partnership; two-way street of respect; clear conduct/line of command; professional behavior; “golden rule”; hope for a significant initiative about the issue; hope for modeling respect from the top; clear communication; equitable treatment of all officials; and improve culture through trust, respect, teamwork, and communication. She suggested that the council needed to discuss the topic at greater length and asked about next steps. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the City Manager’s responsibility for personnel issues and said she wanted him to reinforce the appropriate use of e-mail and the need for respect for elected officials with staff. She hoped something positive came out of the situation. Mr. Papé thought many of the issues listed by Ms. Shepard applied to both the council and staff, particu- larly in regard to feeling marginalized. He wanted a council session where issues were put on the table. He thought that would be healthy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 12 Process Session Mr. Kelly hoped that a next step would be for the City Manager Taylor to send out a written communication on the issue to the organization. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Papé that respect was a two-way street and the council needed to model the same respectful behavior it expected from staff. However, he perceived an “inevitable asymmetry” between the role of the council and the role of staff, and was concerned that such statements diluted the seriousness of the issue. Ms. Bettman said that if the e-mail had come from a low-level staff member she would have “blown it off” and it would not have registered it at all. The fact that it was sent by Assistant City Manager Carlson, who had headed the organization for a year as acting city manager, concerned her because he should have known better. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that the council continued to move forward with its business. Ms. Bettman said it would be important to her if the actions the manager took were a significant step in reestablishing credibility, accountability, and trust. She reiterated the need for “zero tolerance” of such situations. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 13 Process Session