HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: City Council Process Session
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: City Council Process Session
Meeting Date: September 18, 2006 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
This work session is part of an ongoing opportunity for the City Council to discuss how it conducts its
business. At its July 23, 2003, work session, the council agreed to convene process sessions three times
annually, immediately following each council break.
BACKGROUND
The last council process session convened on Monday, April 17, 2006. At that meeting, several
suggested amendments to the council’s Operating Agreements were made, and subsequently adopted on
May, 22, 2006.
Items scheduled for discussion at the September 18, 2006, meeting include the following:
Council Operating Agreements: Process for taking action on ordinances
?
Intergovernmental Relations Committee: Preparing for the 2007 Legislative Session
?
Communication with the City Council: Council assignments/Constituent tracking
?
Action at council work sessions
?
Role of official spokespeople from governmental agencies at City Council work sessions
?
Winter 2007 special meeting schedule: Process session/council goal-setting and strategic planning
?
retreat
Betsy Shepard, who facilitated the April meeting, will facilitate these discussions, in order to allow the
Mayor to fully participate.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
No related City policies are relevant to this discussion.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council may provide input and direction for staff follow up on the issues discussed. No formal
action is anticipated.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
No recommendations are offered by the City Manager.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060918\S060918A.doc
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motions are offered by the City Manager.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Intergovernmental Relations Committee Process
B. April 17, 2006, Process Session Minutes
C. Council Operating Agreements
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Lynda Rose
Telephone: 682-5017
Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060918\S060918A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE PROCESS
Eugene 'City Council
PURPOSE: The Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IGR Committee) exists to make
recommendations to the full City Council on State and Federal issues affecting Eugene, and on City'
applications for funding from outside agencies. A primary responsibility, is to ensure that th~~e is prior
City Council approval of legislative policy positions and grant applications. .:
MEMBERsmp: The Committee consists of three City Council members, appointed by the Mayor. Two
members constitute a quorum for th~ transaction of Committee business.
MEETINGS: The Committee meets as needed. The Committee meets more often when the Oregon
Legislature is in session, usually twice a month.
STAFFING: The Office of Intergovernmental Relations provides staff support to the Committee.
However, all City departments are involved in preparing and presenting analysis and recommendations
on specific issues.
PROCESS:
State: Regular sessions of the Oregon Legislature convene in JanuaIy of every odd-numbered year, and
continue for approximately six months. As each session approaches, the Intergovernmental Relations
Committee ~eviews' and updates, for recommendation to the full Council, the City's Legislative Policies
document,' based on Council goals for the community. I
The City frrst adopted a formal set of legislative policies prior to the 1985 session, recognizing from past
sessions that many staff recommendations were repeated from session to session, and that a great '
percentage of a session's legislative proposals could be anticipated. Given that the City staff routinely
analyzes about 1,000 bills during a session, the adoption of policies prior to each session has led to a
significant workload reduction for the Co~mittee and the Council, and also has enabled more timely
l efforts in Salem.
Legislative advocacy is done on- the basis of a priority system. Bills considered to have a potentially high
policy or fiscal impact on the City are given a priority I position. Bills with moderate but still significant
impact are priority 2 bills. Priority 1 bills are those staff actively work on and priority 2 bills are ones
staff monitor in Salem.
During the session, bills that affect the City are analyzed by staff in the appropriate City department, and
a priority recommendation (along 'with a recommended position -- support or oppose) is presented to the
Intergovernmental Relations Committee: When priority I and 2 issues are not covered in the Legislative
Policies, a staff memo is attached recommending a legislative position and included in the Committee's
agenda packet. Staff is present at the Committee's meetings to discuss the issues. Bills covered by
legislative policies are listed on the Committee's agenda.
Minutes of the Committee's meetings are submitted to the full City Council for ratification. These
routinely appear on the Council's consent calendar. However, items may be scheduled for ~ll Council
consideration separately from the minutes when the Committee is not.unanimous or at the request ofa
,Committee or Council member.
, (over)
\
'..-
The City is represented full-time inS~lem during each session by Intergovernmental Relations staff who
serve as the City's representative for Council approved poH~ies. Other staff, and Council members, also
travel to Salem frequently to present information to legislative committees or indi.vidual members. In
addition, Eugene has analysis and lobbying resources available through its membership in,the League of
Oregon Cities. The City lobbies Eugene's priority issues in accordance with their priority and as
circumstances in.Salem and state wide may dictate. The activities may include: doing nothing (this.
usually happens because a bill is dormant and will not move); working in a coalition with other entities;
submitting written testimony on the City's behalf; testifying before a committee of'the Legislature;
arranging for Eugene's elected or appointed officials to give testimony; or any combin~tion, as
appropriate.
All bills analyzed by the City are tracked on an automated legislative tracking system, which
the City modeled after Portland's tracking system. It allows for online sharing of information among City
departments and with the Salem office. The system also generates lOR Committee
agendas and reports, including a complete list of bills lobbied by the City; which is-presented
to the City Council following each session along with a narrative report on results.
Federal: At the beginning of each calendar year, the Committee recommends to the full Council a set of
Federal priorities for that year. This takes the form of a short five to ten item list of goals that are specific
to Eugene 'or to this region, rather than national, and that are considered achievable. The Federal goals
are shared with other local jurisdictions as part of the Unitied Front. The Federal priorities list becomes
the basis for presentations made during the Council's annual visit to Washington DC, which normally
occurs in February or March. The City is represented on this visit by the Mayor and/or one Qrmore
Council members, with staff support. During the visit, local elected official~ and staff meet with elected
and appointed Federal officials to discuss the City's Federal priorities. Occasional visits to Washington
DC by Councilors and staff may take place between the scheduled annual visits.
Eugene is represented in Washington .DC on a day-to-day basis by the frrm of Smith Dawson' & Andrews
(SDA), an independent contractor. SDA principals visit Eugene at least once each year and report to the
Mayor and Council on progress made towar<l achieving the City's Fe4eral goals.
Funding applications: This area of responsibility was added to the Committee's purview in 1989. The
Committee acts on staff recommendations to apply for funding (grants) from outside'agencies, either
governmental or :private foundations.
This process is intended to help avoid situations in which City departments may inadvertently be
competing with each other for 'funding, and to allow the Committee and City Council to decide whether
staff has planned adequately, from both a program and budgetary standpoint, for the eventuality that the
grant.may be.received. Staff prepares written information of proposed grant applications for the
Committee's consideration. When the Committee is not scheduled to meet prior to the application, or
when the amount being requested is less than $10,000, the Committee is informed of the p~oposed
application via electronic mail. In all cases, the Committee and Council have authoritr to direct that the
app lication not go forward, or, if it has already' been submitted for some reason, that it be withdrawn.
RESOLUTION NO. '1-13'
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY ,GOVERNING
CITY TESTIMONY AND FUNDING REQUESTS, AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 26'25 ADOPTED
, FEBRUARY 2.8, 1977.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
1., Under"the .Eugene Charter, it is the exclusivt!" role of
the City Council to set legislative pollcy for 'the city.
2. . Testimony by City representatives before the Federal
9overnm~nt,. the Legislative Assembly of,the state of oregon or
its committees, State'. agencies as defined in ORS 291.002 (7), or
before municipal corporations' asdef'iiled by ORS 294.311(19) is
regarded as the assertion of City policy . As used herein, in
additi.on to .the Congress of the United states, references ~o
IfFederalgovernment" includes all committees, commissions,
departments, 'agencies, bureaus, and other governmental divisions
or instrumentalities of the United states.
, ,
3. Requests for funding from these _ entities- and from
private foundations also constitutes the assertion of City
poli~y.' As used herein, '.private foundations" .means tax-exempt
,or9~nizations', which provid~ funds or services for. the
implementation "of CitY'af" Eugene pdlicy.
, , .( . Officers, ..employees and agents of the city I the.Mayor,
'and 'members .of the Councilor the City's. boards and. c~mmissions
often desire to testify before or~ubmit funding, applications to
these entities.
s. The Council has determined that city po1icy should be
spoken' with one voice apd adopted Resolution No. 2625....P!1: February
28,'1977~ governing such testimony. Resolution No. 2625 shQuld be
repealed and the provisions hereinafter set forth establ'ishedas
Ci ty '.policy governing testimony before' t.hese bodies and
submission of' funding requests.
NOW, THEREFORE,
, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNC:rtOF THE CITY, OF EUGENE, a
~unicipal Corporation o~. the state of oregon, as follows:
Section 1. Based upon the above findings, .which are adopted
herein, Resolution No. 2625, adopted by the council on February
28, 1977 I . an'd any other Resolution in conflict herewith are
hereb,Y repealed, and City policy governin,g testimony and funding
.requests is established as hereinafter set forth.
Section 2. Any employee or agent of the city, the Mayor, or
Resolution'- 1
any member of the ~ity ~ouncil or any City board or co~ission
desiring to testify 1n his or. he~ official capac.i.ty on
legislative or regulatory matters before the state Legislative
Assembly, state agencies, municipal borporations, or the Federal
government, or desiring to submit funding requ~sts f'or municipal
activities thereto or to any private foundation, shall present
the essence of the testimony or funding request to the Council
for prior approval, modifi~ation, or disapproval. .
section 3. No. employee, agent or officer of the City shall
testify on legislative or regulatory matters before a
,governmental' entit.y .or request funding' from a public or private
sourc~ in his or her official capacity' contrary to the adopted
policies of the C9uncil. The 'Mayor, members of the City Council,
and members of city boards or -commissions sha.ll not .make a
funding request contrary to the adopted policies of the Council.
No such person shall testify c~ntraiy to adopted policies of the
Council unless prior to thepresehtation t~e speaker submits to
the .governmental entity a written statement of the City's
position and orally. acknowledges before sp~aking that' the
testimony will ,be contrary to tbe City's position. summaries of
all testimony delivered under this' seQtion shall be provided to
the Council. Each summary shall includ'e a description 'of, the
time, place and group before which the statement was made.
Section 4. In the event time pressures do .not permit the
council to . consider the test~mony before the' intended time of
presentation by a representative of a city board or commission,
the.. person may speak for the board or commission, ,but must
explain that the Council has not. considered the issue. Summaries
,of all testimony under this section shall be provided to the
Council.
Section 5. Any officer, employee or agent of the city, the
'Mayor, or a member of the Councilor a city board or commissio~
may take a position before or request funding from admin~~trative
staff of' state agenci-es I municipal corporations, the - Federal
gove~nment, or private foundations without prior approval of the
Council, but must declare that consideration and approval of the
Counci 1 ha s not been obtained if that is the case. This
declaration need not be given if the position or funding request
presented represents application of previousl)' adopted Council
po~icies with respect to the issue being considered.
Section 6. If the.. City Manager I or his or her d~signee
determines it is importan't that the City of Eugene speak on a
legislative issue or apply for available funds and the hearing
schedule or funding application deadline does not permit prior
Council approval, the City Manager or his or her designee is
authorized to speak on behalf of the city of Eugene after
consultation "lith the Council Legislative commit,tee Chair.
Summaries of all . testimony delivered or funding applications
~ubmitted under this section shall be. provided to the Council.
Resolution - 2
section 7 ~ If a legislative issue concerns personnel or
collective bargaining matters, the City Manager, or his or her
'designee is authorized to speak on behalf of the City of Eugene.
section 8. This Resolution is not to be' construed to
abridge the ~ights of individuals. to testify in their own names.
Section 9~ The provisions of this Resolution do not apply
to testimony before an agency or. court in a quasi-judicial or
judicial proceeding. .'
Section 10. 'Copies of this Resolution shall be di~tributed
to the departments, boards and commissions of the City of Eugene
'and t. as deemed appropriate by the city Manager, to the Federal
government, state Legislative Assembly, state agencies, municipal
corporations, and private foundations before presentation of
testimony or funding requests. The City Manager.is directed to
take any other necessary administrative action to implement this
-Resolution.
. t;-.....
The foregoing Resolution adopted the 1.3 - day of "j?ptfr.J;;r
1989.
,
/JI!--- ~ ~ .
city ReZ
Resolution - 3
ATTACHMENTB
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Process Session
Bascomffykeson Room-Eugene Public Library
April 17,2006
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT:
Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty
Taylor, Gary Pape, 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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page I
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 staffbelieved
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 staffwas "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. Pape 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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 2
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 Entitie~
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. Pape 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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 3
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 no~ 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. Pape 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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 4
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. Pape 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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 5
months when people were waiting for meetings in the cold. She acknowledged the staffmg 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 staffwas 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. Pape, 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 3D-minute time limit be rescinded
given the discussion.
Ms. Taylor agreed the 3D-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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 6
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. Pape 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 MeetingsIWork Sessions
Mr. Pape believed that the council should have canceled the March 10 meeting since the majo~ty 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 t~e 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 ~eeting 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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 7
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. Pape, 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. Pape 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. Pape 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. Pape 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. Pape
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. Pape 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 CounciVStaff 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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 8
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 washer 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 disc1:lssion 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 ~t 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
Process Session
ApriI17,200?
Page 9
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. Pape said he found the incident disturbing. He said that he had been treated disrespectfully at times in
the past by staffbut 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 addressedrby the manager. He recommended that the council move on.
MINUTES-Eugene City Council
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 10
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 ofa
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. Pape 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 'stafftook 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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 11
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 staffwas 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 staffwas
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. Pape 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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 12
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. Pape 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 staffmember 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, accounta~ility, 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
Process Session
April 17,2006
Page 13
ECCOA
UGENE ITY OUNCIL PERATING GREEMENTS
RN4872
ESOLUTION UMBER
AM22,2006
DOPTED AY
INTRODUCTION
The Municipal Charter of the City of Eugene (Charter) and Eugene City Code, 1971 (E.C.), as
well as the Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) law govern many meeting requirements and actions of
the Council. The Eugene Charter, Chapter 2 of the Eugene City Code, and various sections of
ORS 192 and 244 are primary sources of these meeting and other operating requirements.
1.MEETING REQUIREMENTS
1.01 Time of Meetings
Regular meetings of the Eugene City Council (the Council) shall be on the second and fourth
Mondays of each month. These meetings shall begin at 7:30 p.m. and shall end at 10 p.m., or
when the agenda item considered by the Council at 10 p.m. is concluded. If those days are on a
legal or religious holiday, the Council may schedule the meeting for the day immediately
following.
1.02 Work Sessions
The Council may meet in work sessions beginning at 5:30 p.m. prior to its regular Monday
meetings as needed. Other work sessions may be held on the second, third, fourth, and fifth
Wednesdays of the month. These work sessions shall start at noon and last for a maximum of 90
minutes. Except for extraordinary circumstances, the total time for presentations by staff and/or
others on a single agenda item shall be no more than 15 minutes.
1.03 Location of Meetings
Eugene City Council meetings shall be held within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City.
Training sessions may be held outside the City limits, if no deliberations toward a decision are
made. Inter-jurisdictional meetings may be held outside City limits, but should be as close to
Eugene as practical. No Council meeting shall be held at any place where discrimination on the
basis of an individual’s race, religion, color, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, familial
status, age, sexual orientation, source of income or disability, is practiced. For this purpose,
meetings do not include visitations or attendance at any national, regional, or state association to
which the councilor belongs.
1.04 Notice of Meetings, Special Meetings, Emergency Meetings
Advance notice of at least 24 hours shall be provided for all meetings. Notice shall include written
notice to all news media which requested notice. In the case of emergency or when a state of
emergency has been declared, notice appropriate to the circumstances shall be provided and
reasons justifying the lack of 24-hour notice shall be included in the minutes of such meeting. As
per both the Eugene Charter, Section 9, and Eugene Code, Section 2.007 (2), the Mayor or three
of the members of the Council, may call a special meeting of the Council in manner provided in
E.C. 2.007 (3).
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 1 of 12
1.05 Public Forum
A public comment period generally shall be the first item of every regular meeting of the Eugene
City Council. The Public Forum shall not exceed a maximum of 60 minutes, unless a majority of
Councilors present vote to extend the time. A motion to extend the time of the Public Forum is
not debatable.
Persons wishing to speak at the Public Forum must sign up to do so not later than 5 minutes after
the meeting has been called to order by the Mayor or presiding officer. The Mayor or presiding
officer shall inform the audience of the requirement to sign up to speak not later than 5 minutes
after the meeting has been called to order or prior to the conclusion of the Public Forum.
Members of the public may speak about any topic during the Public Forum, except as provided
below. If a member of the public wishes to speak on an item that is scheduled for a public hearing
at that same meeting, the speaker shall wait until that public hearing. The Public Forum cannot be
used to testify about an item that is not a public matter or which has already been heard by a
Hearings Official, or to provide or gather additional testimony or information on a quasi-judicial
matter after the official record has been closed.
Speakers at the Public Forum will be limited to three minutes. Generally, the speakers will be
called upon in the order in which the “request to speak” forms are received by the staff at the
meeting. No persons will be allowed to complete a “request to speak” form more than 30 minutes
prior to the start of the meeting.
Should there be more speakers than can be heard for three minutes each during the 60 minute
Public Forum, the staff will sort the “request to speak” forms in order to afford a greater
opportunity for a number of topics to be heard during the Public Forum. If there are a large
number of speakers on a single topic, staff is directed to intermix request to speak forms from
persons wishing to speak on a less stated topic. The “request to speak forms,” in this case only,
will not remain in the original order in which they were received in order to improve the
likelihood that those smaller numbers of speakers will have an opportunity to speak before the
Public Forum is closed.
When possible and feasible preference will be given to individuals who reside within the legal
limits of the City of Eugene. Persons who do not reside in the City of Eugene may be placed at
the end of the list of those wishing to speak at the Public Forum.
At the end of the Public Forum each member of the Council has the opportunity to respond to
comments made during the Public Forum. The time allocated to each member of the Council for
such responses shall be up to three minutes.
1.06 Public Hearings
Public hearings shall be held at regular meetings and shall occur for all ordinances except under
the terms delineated in E.C. 2.007 (4). Hearings may be scheduled on other items at the discretion
of the Mayor and the City Manager. Persons wishing to speak shall submit a “request to speak”
form prior to the commencement of the public hearing at which the person wishes to speak. The
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 2 of 12
Mayor or presiding officer shall inform the audience of this requirement to sign up prior to the
commencement of a public hearing. Speakers will be limited to three minutes. Eugene Code
2.015(7) notwithstanding, councilors may ask clarifying or follow up questions of individuals
providing testimony after that individual has completed his/her testimony. Questions posed by
City Councilors should be to provide clarification or additional information on testimony
provided. Questions should not be used as an attempt to lengthen or expand the testimony of the
individual. Councilors shall be expected to use restraint and be considerate of the meeting time of
the Council when exercising this option. The Mayor or presiding officer may intervene if a
councilor is violating the spirit of this guideline. At the end of the Public Hearing, each member of
the Council has the opportunity to comment on or discuss testimony given during the Public
Hearing.
The Mayor and Council will be limited to commenting only on the main motion prior to
discussing any proposed amendments. If a an amendment to the motion is made during the initial
round on the main motion, subsequent remarks on the amendments will be postponed until all
wishing to speak on the main motion have done so.
1.07 Executive Session
All meetings of the Eugene City Council shall be held in open session, except those meetings that
may be closed for those purposes specified in the Oregon Attorney General’s Public Records and
Meetings Manual (ORS 192.610 to 192.690). These include the employment and dismissal of
public employees, the performance evaluation of the City Manager, labor negotiations, real
property transactions negotiations, and consulting with legal counsel on pending or threatened
litigation.
Notice of executive sessions shall be given as required by state law and that notice must state the
specific provisions of law authorizing the session.
The Mayor and City Councilors are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the information
discussed in legally noticed and conducted executive sessions as defined in Chapter 192 of the
Oregon Revised Statutes.
1.08 Minutes
Written minutes shall be taken for all Council meetings in accordance with the Oregon Attorney
General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual. The minutes must give a true reflection of the
matters discussed but need not be a full transcript, verbatim or recording. As a matter of courtesy
and efficiency, councilors should notify the Mayor and other councilors that he/she intends to
propose an amendment to the minutes and should propose replacement text in advance of the
meeting at which those minutes are scheduled to be approved. If the proposed amendment is a
simple factual, grammatical, or spelling correction, the amendment may be proposed without
consulting the minutes recorder. If, however, the proposed amendment is substantive in nature or
seeks to clarify the speaker's intent, or to expand his/her remarks for the record, the councilor
should notify the minutes recorder and request verification of the proposed amendment.
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 3 of 12
1.09 Voting
Section 12 of the Eugene Municipal Charter states that, the Mayor only votes on matters before
the Council in the case of a tie. Council members may not abstain from voting unless a conflict of
interest has been declared.
1.10 Presiding Officer
The Mayor shall preside over Council meetings when present. The president of the Council shall
preside if the Mayor is absent or unable to preside. The Council vice president shall have the
powers of the Council president when the Council president is performing the duties of the
Mayor. If the Mayor, Council president, and vice president are unavailable, the Council members
present shall elect a temporary presiding officer.
1.11 Council Officers
Council officers shall be elected for one year terms in the manner prescribed in the E.C. 2.009, at
the first regular meeting in each calendar year.
PLACING ITEMS ON COUNCIL AGENDA
2.
2.01 Contact the City Manager
Contact the City Manager and explain the nature, scope and desired outcome of the item for the
agenda, or make the request during a City Council meeting under “Items from Mayor and City
Council” at a Council work session. The City Manager and Mayor may then decide to place the
item on a future agenda.
2.02 Council Poll
Alternatively, an item may be placed on the Council agenda by councilor request. A councilor may
ask Council support staff for a work session, and staff shall then poll all councilors, in writing, to
ask if the item should be placed on the Council agenda. If, within five working days of distribution
of the poll, a majority of the Council responds in the affirmative, the item shall be placed on the
Council agenda within one week. A majority of the Council in this instance is four councilors.
2.03 Tentative Agenda on the Consent Calendar
At each regular meeting of the Council, the City Manager shall present the tentative agenda. This
shall be placed on the Consent Calendar. If there are concerns about items on the tentative agenda
it may be removed at the request of any councilors from the Consent Calendar and discussed
separately.
2.04 Tentative Agenda Provided Each Week
The tentative agenda shall be included in the weekly information packet provided to the Council.
2.05 Scheduling of Items on the Agenda
The City Manager and Mayor shall decide the date that items come before Council for work
sessions and for regular meetings.
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 4 of 12
2.06 Routine Business Items on the City Council Agenda
The City Manager shall continue to place routine and standard items of Council business on the
City Council agenda.
ORDER OF ITEMS ON A SPECIFIC DATE MEETING AGENDA
3.
3.01 Ceremonial Matters
At the first regular meeting of each month, the first item on the agenda shall be used to
acknowledge special recognition and awards given to the City of Eugene or for the Mayor to
announce proclamations which serve to encourage and educate the community. Proclamations
shall be made and placed on the agenda at the discretion of the Mayor. This item shall be called
“Ceremonial Matters.” Requests for recognition under Ceremonial Matters should be submitted in
writing to the Mayor.
3.02 Consent Calendar
At regular Council meetings, in order to expedite the Council’s business, routine and standard
items shall be placed on the Consent Calendar. Any item on the consent calendar may be removed
for separate consideration by any member of the Council. Revisions or corrections to meetings
minutes shall be considered first, prior to other items removed from the Consent Calendar. The
remaining items on the Consent Calendar may then be considered for action by a single vote. The
items pulled from the Consent Calendar shall be considered after the approval of the remainder of
the Consent Calendar and before the next scheduled item on the agenda. Ordinances because of
charter requirements, are not be placed on the Consent Calendar.
3.03 Public Hearings Given Priority
As a guideline, public hearings shall be placed on the specific meeting agenda before items only
requiring action. Further, public hearings expected to draw a small number of speakers shall be
placed before public hearings for which a larger number of speakers is expected.
3.04 Items from Mayor and City Council
At work sessions held on the second and fourth Mondays of each month, the first item on the
agenda shall be “Items from Mayor, Council and City Manager.” The time set for this item will be
20 minutes, subject to change at the time the meeting is called to order.
COUNCIL ACTION ON AGENDA ITEMS
4.
As a guideline, action on issues for which a public hearing has occurred shall not be taken at the
same meeting at which the public hearing is held. In the case of an ordinance, the charter requires
that an ordinance shall not be adopted by the Council unless it has been considered by the Council
during at least two meetings. With the unanimous consent of the Council, the Council may
consider and enact an ordinance at a single meeting if the Council does not amend the ordinance
in a manner that modifies its substantive effect, (Charter, Section 28 (3)).
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 5 of 12
POSTPONING AGENDA ITEMS
5.
Any councilor may request that an item be postponed to another meeting if he/she is unable to
attend the meeting at which the item has been scheduled. As a courtesy, councilors should submit
in writing a request to postpone to the Mayor as early as possible. If the Mayor is unavailable the
request should be made to the City Manager or the Manager’s designated staff member. A request
to postpone may be requested for either a work session item or a vote on an agenda item. The
request to postpone shall be honored unless a majority of councilors present, determines that the
matter needs to be acted upon at that meeting.
COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL
6.
6.01 Creation of Committees
While the City Code governs appointments to certain committees, the code grants broad general
powers to the Mayor and Council to create subcommittees or special ad hoc committees of the
Council. The Mayor shall nominate and the Council shall appoint the members of any committee
established by the Council unless a different procedure is specified at the time the committee is
established. The charge to the committee shall be clearly stated at the time the committee is
established, and the committee shall disband when its work is complete. Committees may be
composed of councilors, interested citizens or both.
6.02 Standing Committees of the Council
There is one standing committee of the Council, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee.
6.03 Standing Advisory Bodies to the Council
There are five standing advisory bodies to the City Council. These are created in the Eugene Code
and exist to provide advice on policy matters. These are: 1) the Budget Committee; 2) the
Planning Commission; 3) the Police Commission; and 4) the Human Rights Commission.
7. CONDUCT AT MEETINGS
7.01 Roberts Rules of Order
Conduct at Council meetings and committee meetings is governed by Roberts Rules of Order,
Revised. The Council has the obligation to be clear and simple in its procedures and in its
consideration of the questions coming before it. Council members shall avoid invoking the finer
points of parliamentary rules which may serve only to obscure the issues.
7.02 Other Meeting Guidelines
The presiding officer shall be responsible for ensuring order and decorum are maintained.
Behavior or actions that are unreasonably loud or disruptive shall be cause for removal from
Council meetings. This includes engaging in violent or distracting action, making loud or
disruptive noise or using similar language, and refusing to obey an order of the presiding officer.
Council members speak only for themselves and shall be open, direct and candid. They work to
keep discussion moving, and call for a “process check” if the discussion becomes bogged down.
Time limits may be set on topics.
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 6 of 12
When councilors speak to each other during public meetings, last names shall be used during
regular meetings and first names may be used during work sessions. The Mayor is, however,
always referred to as “The Mayor.”
During public meetings, councilors generally should not attempt to edit or rewrite prepared
ordinances. Amendments to an ordinance may, however, be appropriate. Generally, councilors
should give direction to staff to bring back amended ordinances for Council consideration.
If a member of the Council intends to make a motion at a meeting which is not reflected in the
agenda item summary, every effort should be make to contact other members of the Council to
inform them of the intent and the text of the motion. City Council support staff should be notified
provided with the same information and may be asked to assist in the notification process.
Comment times for the Mayor and councilors at Council meetings or work sessions shall be as
follows: the first round of comments by the Mayor and Council following a work session, public
hearing, or when action is scheduled will be limited to no more than three minutes. If a second
round of comments is requested, they will be limited to no more than two minutes, and third
round comments will be no longer than one minute. This, however, will be at the discretion of the
Mayor or presiding officer.
When an amendment to the main motion is introduced, comments will be limited to two minutes
for the Mayor and Council until the presiding officer deems that one-minute limitations are
necessary due to time constraints.
7.03 Public Conduct
The rules of conduct for members of the public shall generally be the same as for the Council. The
Code prohibits any person from bringing in to a Council meeting flags, signs, posters, and
placards unless authorized by the presiding officer. The Eugene Code specifically permits arm
bands, emblems, badges, and other articles worn on personal clothing, so long as such items do
not extend from the body in such a way as to cause injury to another.
COUNCILOR REQUEST FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE
8.
8.01 Two-Hour Rule
Initiatives which require more than two hours of staff time must be approved by the Council.
Requests that involve less than two hours staff time or resources should be directed to the City
Manager.
8.02 Major Request
A Councilor who desires major policy, ordinance research, or other staff assistance should first
raise the issue at a Council work session. The Council should decide whether to proceed with the
issue or ordinance before staff time is spent.
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 7 of 12
8.03 Tracking Council Requests
Except for routine inquiries, the City Manager shall respond to councilors’ requests for
information or assistance. The Manager shall assign these requests to appropriate City staff and
track progress on the assignments. This process eliminates the possibilities of staff members
duplicating each other's efforts or a request being overlooked. In each weekly information packet
a list of current requests for assistance will be provided.
9. REPRESENTING CITY POSITIONS AND PERSONAL POSITIONS
9.01 Written Communications from City Councilors and Mayor
In written communication with other officials or groups and in letters for publication, such as “to
the editor,” the Mayor and councilors should be careful to decide whether to speak only for
themselves or for the Council. In speaking for the Council, when there is a position which the
writer wishes to reinforce or explain, it is useful to circulate a copy to the Council for comment
before the letter is mailed. Letters to other elected officials or agencies on City issues shall be
discussed with the appropriate staff so that the City lobby effort can be coordinated.
When writing as an individual, a councilor or the Mayor is free to take any position which he or
she feels is appropriate. When it is a point of view different from a Council position, this fact
should be included in the letter. Use of City stationery and choice of pronouns shall be left to the
discretion of the councilor or the Mayor .
The governing principle is to advise the Council or staff when expressing a City position, and to
make differences clear when speaking as an individual.
9.02 State/Federal Lobbying
The effectiveness of City lobbying in Salem or in Washington, D.C., depends on the clarity of the
City’s voice. When councilors or the Mayor represent the City in a lobbying situation, it is
appropriate that the councilors or the Mayoravoid expressions of personal dissent from an
adopted Council policy. This policy is stated in Resolution No. 4139, Council Policy on
Testimony and Funding Applications.
A councilor or the Mayor in disagreement with an adopted policy should not be deprived of the
right to express such views to the appropriate officials at another time and another place.
However, the councilor or the Mayor should feel bound to advise those to whom such
disagreement is expressed that it is an individual view and that the Council has taken a different
position.
9.03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings
Councilors and the Mayor are encouraged to attend conferences and training sessions which
would enhance their skills and knowledge. Any councilor or the Mayor may attend any meeting
at which the Council is represented, but only the formally appointed official City Council
representative or designated alternate, has the right to vote on matters being considered by the
organization or group holding the meeting or conference. Individual councilors or the Mayor may
state he or she is representing the City Council if he or she has been formally directed by the City
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 8 of 12
Council to do so.
For local intergovernmental bodies or advisory groups, to which an official Eugene City Council
representative has been appointed, the representative is to serve as an “instructed delegate,” that
is, to represent pertinent adopted city and Council policy. If possible, the Mayor or councilors
should inform the other members of the City Council of the matters being considered by
intergovernmental bodies, and to the greatest extent possible, seek direction from the City Council
on issues directly pertaining to the City of Eugene and adopted city policy. The representative
may express his or her own opinion, provided it is identified as such, but when voting or
considering matters with policy implications or budgetary considerations, the representative must
follow adopted City or Council policy and direction.
Participating in state and national groups such as the League of Oregon Cities and the National
League of Cities present the opportunity to enhance skills and knowledge, and are important
avenues for the Mayor and councilors to advocate for the members of the community and the city
itself. If the Mayor or councilors attend meetings of these organizations, an official voting
delegate should be selected by the City Council. This voting delegate, to the greatest extent
possible, informs the Mayor and City Council of issues or matters on which the voting delegate
may be asked to vote. If there is existing City or Council policy, the voting delegate will vote in
accordance with that policy. When providing a report to the council (see Section 10.06), votes of
the delegate should be included in that report.
If the Mayor or individual councilor serves on a committee of a state or national advisory
committee and has been selected in an “at large” role, that is, not a specific seat or position for a
City of Eugene elected official, that person should state the adopted City or Council policies.
However, that person is not bound by the adopted policy and can represent his or her own
position, provide that the person makes such a disclaimer.
10. COUNCILOR EXPENSES
10.01 General Guidelines for Reimbursed Expenses
Under the provisions of the City Charter, the City may pay a councilor or the Mayor expenses
that are directly related to City business. It is each councilor’s and the Mayor’s responsibility to
determine if expenses are actually City related. If there are questions about the propriety of such
expenditures, the Manager shall first review the issue with the councilor. If the City Manager and
the councilor cannot resolve the issue, the Manager shall discuss the matter with the Mayor.
Receipts should be secured for any expenses and should accompany Council expense report forms
to record mileage and other expenses. The forms shall be available from the City Manager's
Office.
Activities that support or oppose a political campaign shall not be reimbursable.
10.02 Out-of-Town Expenses
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 9 of 12
Out-of-town expenses include those incurred while attending City-related conventions,
conferences, training seminars, or meetings. Expenses that are paid by the City include fees for
seminars or conferences; transportation to, from, and at the destination; and lodging, meals, and
incidental expenses that are necessary to conduct City business.
10.03 Local Expenses
Local expenses include those incurred while representing the Council on a committee, attending
meetings, attending local seminars or conferences, attending local special events, or meeting with
groups or individuals to discuss City matters. Expenses that are paid by the City are detailed in
Resolution No. 4375 and include meals, conference registration, transportation and necessary
incidental expenses, and up to two community group memberships, not to exceed $100 total. The
reimbursement for bicycle mileage, as permitted in Resolution No. 4375, shall be $.15.1 per mile
as of September 1, 2002, and shall be adjusted each year at the same rate of increase as that of
automobile reimbursement. Special materials such as books or directories may also be eligible for
reimbursement.
If receipts are not available, a written description of expenses signed by the Councilor must be
submitted along with the Council Expense Report Form. Forms shall be available from the City
Manager’s Office.
10.04 Spouse/Guest Expenses
The City shall reimburse councilors or the Mayor for spouse expenses at local events when the
councilors or the Mayor and spouse are jointly invited and the councilors are serving in their
official capacity, such as a recognition dinner. The City does not otherwise reimburse councilors
or the Mayor for expenses incurred by their spouses. If councilors or the Mayor wish to have
spouses accompany them while attending out-of-town events, the City may make reservations and
have travel and lodging expenses billed directly to the City. Councilors or the Mayor must then
reimburse the City for their spouse’s travel and lodging expenses. Reimbursement should be made
as soon as possible so that the trip reconciliation process can be completed. When a guest is
invited in place of a spouse, this reimbursement policy shall also apply.
10.05 Petty Cash
Expenses under $50 can usually be reimbursed out of the petty cash fund in the City Manager’s
Office.
10.06 Travel Guidelines
Prior notification of out-of-town travel shall be given to staff responsible for travel arrangements
in the City Manager’s Office whenever possible. Registration and travel arrangements should be
made well in advance so that the City can take advantage of reduced fares and early registration
fees. Staff shall assist councilors in making transportation and lodging arrangements and arrange
to have expenses billed directly to the City; contractors shall be chosen by staff, and not by
councilors.
While at a conference, councilors or the Mayor shall be expected to attend conference sessions
and, within 30 days, issue a written report to share the information and perspectives with the
entire Council. If more than one councilor attends, a consolidated report may be written.
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 10 of 12
As a general guideline, each councilor is allowed two out-of-state conference trips per fiscal year.
If a councilor wishes to make additional trips, the request should be brought to attention of the
full Council and should be endorsed by a majority of the Council. This guideline is intended to
cover trips made at the discretion of the individual councilor; it is not intended to be applied to
trips related to service on national or regional committee, such as a committee of the National
League of Cities.
10.07 Overseas Travel
If the Mayor or members of the Council wish to attend a conference or make a Council business-
related trip to a destination overseas, this request shall be made in writing well in advance and
shall be placed on the consent calendar for approval by the Council.
11. ETHICS
11.01 Reporting Requirements in ORS
In accordance with ORS 244.050, the Mayor and all councilors holding office on April 15 shall be
required to file an Annual Verified Statement of Economic Interest with the Oregon Government
Standards and Practices Commission on or before that date. The report must be filed on the form
prescribed by ORS 244.060. Each year the form shall be mailed directly to the elected official by
the Commission and should be returned directly to the Commission in Salem. Failure to submit
the form by the April 15 deadline may result in the imposition of a civil penalty and/or removal
from office.
11.02 Local Code of Ethics
The Charter requires that a code of ethics be enacted. This local code, found in the Eugene Code,
places additional conflicts of interest requirements upon elected officials and creates a local
process for filing complaints.
12. COUNCIL CHAMBER AND MCNUTT ROOM SEATING ASSIGNMENTS
The Council shall be assigned seats in January, following the election of the Council president and
vice president. The Mayor is always seated at the center position with the Council president
seated at the Mayor's right and the Council vice president seated at the Mayor’s left.
The remaining councilors in alphabetical order by last name shall be assigned seats. Each person
moves one seat toward the outside and to the opposite side of the table or dais; those on the
outside move to the innermost seats on the opposite side. This system allows councilors the
opportunity to regularly change seats throughout a four-year term. Below is a detailed listing of
the seating sequence.
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 11 of 12
JANUARY Mayor
President Vice President
Councilor A1 Councilor B2
Councilor C3 Councilor D4
Councilor E5 Councilor F6
APRIL
Mayor
President Vice President
Councilor F6 Councilor E5
Councilor B2 Councilor A1
Councilor D4 Councilor C3
SEPTEMBER
Mayor
President Vice President
Councilor C3 Councilor D4
Councilor E5 Councilor F6
Councilor A1 Councilor B2
Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006
Page 12 of 12