Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/18/06 Process Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom-Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library th 100 West 10 Avenue September 18, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Kitty Piercy, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. EXECUTIVE STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Taylor, Jim Carlson, Susan Muir, Randy Groves, Lauren Chouinard, Kurt Corey, Angel Jones, Bob Lehner. City Council Process Session Council President Jennifer Solomon convened the Process Session of the Eugene City Council. She introduced Betsy Shepard, who was the facilitator for the meeting. Lynda Rose and Mary Walston were present as support staff. Ms. Shepard reviewed 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 noted that Mr. Kelly had submitted an agenda item by email. It became Item 4. 1. Council Operating Agreements ? Process for Taking Action on Ordinances Council Coordinator Lynda Rose stated that City Attorney Glenn Klein brought to her attention that the Charter Agreements used to require a first and second reading for ordinances and the language had been changed to that effect. However, she said, it did not match the operating agreement. She said the City Council could have a public hearing on the ordinance and, with no significant input, approve it through the Consent Calendar. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 1 Process Session Mr. Kelly agreed with this, in essence, but questioned putting it into the Consent Calendar. He thought because an ordinance was the law it should require an official vote. Ms. Taylor remarked that there were too many things on the Consent Calendar that did not belong there. Mr. Carlson clarified that 3.02 of the Operating Agreements precluded the inclusion of ordinances in the Consent Calendar. Mr. Poling agreed that an enacting ordinance should be clearly voted on by the council body. He noted that Consent Calendar items were not mentioned in meetings so that the viewing public knew it was on the agenda. Ms. Rose said the only thing one might want to consider would be to wordsmith Section 3.02, so that the language matched the changes in the charter. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Rose affirmed that by wordsmithing she meant the deletion of the words ‘because of charter requirements’ from the language of section 3.02. She felt she had clear direction from the councilors to keep enacting ordinances from being included on the Consent Calendar. 2. CCIGR Committee ? Preparing for the 2007 Legislative Session Ms. Shepard explained that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) was in preparation for the 2007 Legislative Session. City Manager Taylor related that Mr. Pryor and Mayor Piercy brought this item forward with regard to how items, such as resolutions not directly related to the legislative session, become part of the regular agenda. This had brought up the preparation for the legislative session and how to address a division of opinion on the CCIGR in the course of a regular meeting. He said one suggestion was to make such a division into an action item. Mr. Pryor was uncertain of the exact process the CCIGR work underwent. He recalled that he had heard that an item on which the CCIGR was in agreement be placed on the Consent Calendar and items on which the CCIGR was not in agreement be put on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Kelly understood that items that were not unanimously approved were highlighted for “pre-review” by the councilors. He said anyone who wanted a discussion on an item could then request it be placed on the agenda. Ms. Bettman agreed that was the process, as did Mr. Papé. Ms. Taylor noted that the councilors could pull items that had been agreed upon from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mr. Carlson cited the last paragraph on Agenda Item Summary (AIS) page 5, Attachment A: Intergovern- mental Relations Committee Process. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 2 Process Session Mr. Pryor noted that there were hundreds of bills and wondered if it was possible for something to “slip through the cracks.” Mr. Kelly felt there was a check in process in that the nine councilors and Mayor, with the help of Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser, were tracking them. He added that bill details were available on the Legislative Web site. Ms. Bettman reiterated that a split vote on the CCIGR could lead to an item being pulled from the Consent Calendar at the City Council level. Mr. Papé stressed that any legislative item could be revisited. Mr. Pryor commented that it was good to know the process. He added that he had experienced some confusion when he was new to the council. City Manager Taylor stated that the work session on November 8 would include a review of historic priorities, what was tracked, and how it was prioritized. Mr. Kelly asked if the completed legislative policies document would be available to review. Ms. Walston indicated it would. 3. Communications ? Council Assignments ? Constituent Tracking City Manager Taylor explained that he wanted to have a check-in about the discussion that transpired during his performance evaluation regarding council communication and the timeliness and adequacy of the response to council assignments. He thought in the past staff had erred in not putting things on the council assignment list, particularly work related to how constituent requests were handled. He said the council should receive feedback from Public Service Officer (PSO) Michelle Mortenson when an item had been deemed to be a council constituent request follow-up. He asked how this was working for the council. Ms. Ortiz said she had asked for several items of information and had experienced good turnaround. She related one instance in which she had asked Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey for information regarding street standards and it had seemed that she had not clarified what she wanted as Mr. Corey had not given her the response she had hoped for. She was ultimately able to ascertain what she needed to know. As for Ms. Mortensen, she felt her work for the council was good. Mr. Poling asked for an explanation of how the members of the public who call frequently were tracked. City Manager Taylor responded that an individual who called a lot was tracked to determine if there was a pattern to it. Ms. Walston elaborated, stating that the name, address, phone number and ward, as well as the nature of the complaint were entered into a system called the Citizen Tracking Resolution and Coordination system (C-TRAC system). She noted that they had “regular customers” and sometimes those people went to different departments. The C-TRAC system provides one central system to track the constituent requests. She noted that sometimes people need help that staff can not provide and an attempt to provide the appropriate referral for those people is made. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 3 Process Session City Manager Taylor said in a situation where councilors found themselves getting numerous requests on a certain topic, it was suggested that these requests be passed along to Ms. Mortensen or him. He related that staff’s goal was to resolve the inquiry, track it, and then provide the C-TRAC system data to the councilors in order to better inform them. Mr. Pryor asked what the system was for anonymous complaints. Ms. Walston responded that staff did track those complaints. She recommended the councilors forward them to staff. Ms. Taylor commented that some people may have a reason for anonymity. She expressed concern about the comments that people “were getting a record” for their complaints. City Manager Taylor replied that multiple callers were not labeled “unwelcome.” Ms. Taylor said she would find it disturbing if such labeling occurred. She commented that the police keep a record of all calls, adding that a person could have a record without doing anything wrong. Chief Lehner stated that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) did log all calls but this did not constitute a police record. Rather, a police record had to do with being arrested. He stressed that the call record helped track neighborhood issues and was never used for “intelligence” purposes. Mr. Kelly commented that he rarely received a serious letter from an anonymous source. He understood that frequent callers did not get “demerit points” for calling, but they sometimes had issues that the council could not handle. He commended Ms. Mortensen for doing a “stunningly good job” and said she was very good about providing feedback. Regarding the C-TRAC system, Mr. Kelly recalled that the councilors had at one time received a one-page summary but he had not liked it. More recently councilors had received a four- to five-page report with a paragraph summary of each call and he had found this to be very informative. Now, he said, they had returned to the one-page summary. He conveyed his preference for the more elaborate report. Additionally, Mr. Kelly felt that some of the emails that went to the City Manager and other department heads seemed to remain unaddressed for too long. City Manager Taylor responded that staff was trying to get those to council assignments. He said most people who send an email expect a quick turnaround, but a council assignment had a two-week turnaround and the two-hour rule. Mr. Kelly indicated that he did not expect a one-day turnaround, but he hoped it would be tracked better. Chief Lehner stated that anonymous messages were taken seriously if they were threatening. He encouraged councilors to pass along any messages that seem semi-threatening or have implications even though they would not warrant an investigation. He said what the councilors may not know would be whether their peers were receiving those messages also and whether those messages were escalating over time. He asked that councilors specify when forwarding things whether an item was being sent for information purposes alone, whether a response from the EPD was desired, or whether the councilor wished for a response from the EPD. Mr. Carlson said it was very helpful to be clear about what was desired, that a councilor wanted a staff response in a packet because he or she wanted the public piece of information. He stated that staff always tried to go to Ms. Mortensen regarding constituent issues because she was the “best tracking mechanism” in the organization. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 4 Process Session Mr. Carlson commented that the tracking system for frequent callers aided staff in determining whether the caller was receiving the right answer and the same answer from the different departments called. He stated that the more staff knew about the inquiries to various departments, the better staff was able to provide service. He noted that Ms. Mortensen received very few phone calls because so many people utilized computers. He related that City staff was looking at different technologies to try to find better ways to track things and to create a better interface with the public on the Web site. City Manager Taylor related that very infrequently anonymous communications were received that were crude, pornographic, and inappropriate. He said those were filed in the anonymous file and were not shared with the councilors and Mayor because they were not relevant and they were egregious. Mr. Pryor averred that the difference between an anonymous and a confidential submittal should be maintained. He declared that a confidential communication should remain confidential. He remarked that anonymous submissions frequently fell under the category of “eccentric and weird,” and others were actually threatening. He said the other type of anonymous submission made allegations. He felt concern regarding those. He related that when he served on the Ethics Commission he had been surprised by the number of anonymous allegations that were received, particularly around election time. He underscored that an anonymous allegation was difficult to work with. He was happy that City Manager Taylor logged them but did not necessarily launch investigations on them. Chief Lehner said anonymous complaints and allegations to the EPD were approached by determining if there was something that could be easily verified. He explained that an allegation that someone was a child molester would not cause any action, but an allegation that a person was a child molester that included information regarding a victim would be investigated. Ms. Ortiz reported that a constituent of hers had been told to quit calling in to report drug activity in the neighborhood. She asked for verification of this. Chief Lehner replied that a person told not to call anymore was likely triaged by an operator who asked if it was happening now and what the person was seeing exactly. He said there were occasions when the department received a call from someone complaining about young people hanging around and alleging the young people were doing drugs. He related that there had been some complaints made about a lack of police response at times that he felt were because of situations where a person’s perception of a situation may not have been what was actually occurring. He recom- mended that councilors let him know of such constituent concerns so that he could look into it. Mr. Papé related that he had received a lot of email regarding the hospital siting. He asked if those emails should all be forwarded to staff. Planning Division Director Susan Muir responded that she had sent out an email on how to respond to the situation and indicated she would resend it. 4. Police Auditor Supervision Mr. Kelly was concerned that the new police auditor would have “eight bosses” and suggested that when a problem arose, she should go to the council president and vice president. Mr. Papé disagreed. He noted that the City Manager had “eight bosses” as did the judges. He did not think two councilors should speak for all. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 5 Process Session Mr. Kelly pointed out that City Manager Taylor was only responsible to the council as a body. Ms. Bettman suggested that an issue for the council be brought to the officers to be placed in the schedule for the full body of the council. She thought some issues regarding facilitation of the process could be brought to council officers. Mr. Pryor did not want the major issues to be resolved by only two people. However, he also wished to avoid having a situation wherein eight people gave eight different sets of directions to the auditor. Mr. Kelly thought how to draw the line between major and minor issues would merit discussion. He suggested having a work session with the auditor on October 23 to work out this process. Ms. Rose recommended scheduling this for the work session of November 13, as it was completely open and it also would give the auditor almost a month to acclimate herself to her office and staff. Ms. Bettman proposed an introductory reception for the new auditor. Mr. Papé suggested that the auditor start by reviewing the job description. Ms. Taylor thought any “trivial” questions could be brought to staff. She also suggested that the Human Resource and Risk Services Department (HRRS) should provide the reception. HRRS Director Lauren Chouinard indicated he would be happy to work with the City Manager’s Office (CMO) to develop a reception. Ms. Ortiz approved of having a work session on November 13. She also liked the idea of having a reception for the new auditor and suggested the Campbell Senior Center as a location. After discussion, the council agreed that a reception would be held for the new auditor. Several suggestions for a location were offered. Ms. Rose agreed to facilitate its scheduling of event, and suggested holding the reception on October 18. 5. Role of Official Spokespeople from Governmental Agencies at Council Work Sessions Mr. Poling averred that if the council was discussing the possible involvement of other agencies in an issue, representatives or officials of the other agencies should be invited to participate. Ms. Bettman thought this sounded good but questioned how the council would determine who to invite. Ms. Taylor had a “big problem” with deciding who would be at the table. She averred that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), for example, had a “definite point of view on a lot of things.” She thought the opposing point of view should be represented, too. She felt it just “would not work.” Ms. Ortiz was not opposed to this idea as long as it was an inconclusive process. She was uncertain how to draw the line. She wondered how a meeting would be handled: would ODOT and the Friends of Eugene both be represented? Would it allow Kevin Matthews, given that he “is an expert in some people’s eyes” and that the Friends of Eugene consider themselves an official body, to be at the table? She was open to discussion of a threshold. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 6 Process Session Mr. Kelly recalled a discussion about being able to recognize people from the audience; the council decided not to do so. While he wished the council could hold “town hall” type meetings, he did not think it would work very well. He likened it to having a tenth councilor at the table. However, he wanted to encourage having representatives be present in case councilors had questions. Ms. Solomon averred that it was important to recognize other government agencies. She felt a lot of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) discussion had been hearsay, for instance, as no one from ODOT was present. She recalled a work session at which Rob Handy had been allowed to speak on behalf of the River Road Neighbors, though it was not an official government organization. She advised the council to be consistent. Mr. Papé remembered that members of the City of Coburg’s staff and elected officials had come to make a presentation about tying in to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Wastewa- ter Treatment Plant. He favored limiting the amount of time such outside representatives were given. He suggested five minutes. Mr. Pryor found the discussion to be interesting. He thought duly constituted government agencies did represent partners and that they should have some official role, as was being discussed. He suggested such an entity be given a specific five minutes to talk about what they wanted to do. He did not want them to be part of the deliberations because they were not part of the City Council. Ms. Bettman preferred that agencies involved in a multi-jurisdictional issue submit information to the council packets. She did not want them to participate to the discussion “much.” She asserted that when there were stakeholders in an issue they were represented at the table through their elected representatives. Mr. Kelly liked the idea of having the information included in council packets. He declared that a truly inter-governmental issue was a cause for a joint meeting with the appropriate body. Ms. Taylor opined that it was fine to provide information but another governmental body should not try to persuade the councilors. She commented that she had requests from people for “20 minutes on the calendar.” Mr. Poling clarified that he did not want to give the impression that he wanted to suggest that representatives from another governmental body should be able to vote. He underscored that his intention was merely to have such representatives present to provide information or to clarify points. He noted that he received the Lane Board of County Commissioners agendas and sometimes had thought that he would like to weigh in on an issue. City Manager Taylor said they had created a new device called the “Workshop” which provided for people other than councilors to be part of problem-solving for an issue or a project, e.g. the City Hall Complex. He commented that sometimes it seemed they were less prepared for the Consent Calendar items, in regard to having people present to respond to questions. He noted that an item involving the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) had come up through the Consent Calendar and notification of EWEB staff had been overlooked. He said staff usually made an effort to provide other elected officials with “first shot” at the Public Forum, but there was not a place for officials from other jurisdictions to participate in the delibera- tions. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 7 Process Session Mr. Papé said he wanted to make sure the information that was allegedly correct was actually correct. He thought it was good to be able to verify things with their sources. Ms. Taylor asserted that there were times that she had sat in a Lane Board of County Commissioners meeting and had heard something said about the City Council that was not true and she was not able to dispute it. Ms. Bettman surmised that some councilors wanted a governmental entity such as ODOT at the table in order to rebut. She felt there were “lots of things [she considered] inaccurate that were said in the council that come out of councilor mouths.” She wondered why only some were “rebuttable” and some were not. City Manager Taylor related that some councilors and the Mayor wanted more joint meetings with other elected officials. This posed scheduling issues more often than not. He said the hardest meeting to schedule was a joint elected officials meeting. Ms. Shepard summarized the discussion: the councilors’ prevailing sentiment was that representatives of other intergovernmental agencies should not be at the table and should not vote, but that being available to provide information was of some benefit. Ms. Rose reported that she had received a call from EWEB earlier in the day seeking to schedule a joint meeting. She indicated she would be contacting the councilors regarding this proposal. Ms. Shepard called for a 10-minute break. 6. Winter 2007 Special Meeting Schedule ? Strategic Planning/Goal Setting Retreat ? Process Session Ms. Rose passed out a polling sheet to determine when the next strategic planning session should be held and preferences for when the next process session should be held. She asked councilors to check the dates they were available. Mr. Papé noted that the prior process session had to be moved and then it never happened. He wanted to know how those things happen when the eight councilors had indicated their preference for the dates. City Manager Taylor stated that it had been the Mayor’s and his decision to move the process session. He recalled that the date had conflicted with his trip to the International City Managers Association conference and that the Mayor had felt it important that he be available for the process session. Mayor Kitty Piercy arrived. City Manager Taylor surmised, from the discussion, that it was the council’s preference to have the first Wednesday after the council break set aside for a process session. Ms. Bettman wondered if three process sessions were really needed. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 8 Process Session Mr. Pryor said he had another board meeting on Wednesday evenings that prevented him from participating in process sessions on that night. Ms. Ortiz indicated her willingness to be somewhat flexible. She felt it was important to try and accommo- date each other’s schedules. She suggested that the council pass on the process session scheduled for after the goal-setting retreat. Ms. Taylor opined that one process session was enough. Mayor Piercy said she was back from an Alaskan tour that focused on climate changes. 7. Action at Council Work Sessions Mayor Piercy stated that her reason for bringing this item up was that she wanted work sessions to be focused on work as much as possible. She was concerned that being driven toward taking action interfered with this. She proposed that action at work sessions be taken only if imperative. Ms. Taylor supported the idea of using work sessions for information and discussion only. She said councilors could then go away and think about things. Mr. Kelly felt that the council wanted deliberation but it did not want to take time for it. When he had been a new councilor, work sessions had not included suggested motions. He thought the only way to resolve this issue would be if the council decided as a body that certain larger issues deserved a different format. Ms. Solomon commented that not taking action at the work sessions felt like a waste of time to her. She said she was not elected to just sit and talk. She averred that if the council needed a second work session on an issue, councilors could ask for one and have it put onto the schedule. Mr. Pryor observed that regular meetings included public comment but work sessions did not. He advocated for including public input at work sessions in which action would occur. Mayor Piercy did not believe the discussion at the work session table was a waste of time. She underscored that what she envisioned was real deliberation, perhaps a couple of suggestions for action, and then the action brought back to a regular meeting. This would provide the opportunity to review everything that came out of a work session discussion for consideration. Ms. Bettman thought traditionally work sessions were used for deliberations. She averred that oftentimes action was necessary to refine the work and provide staff with the appropriate direction. She felt this should come back in the form of motions. She said previously councilor suggestions came back to the council in the form of options, but now it seemed that unless there was a motion “nothing sticks” and these suggestions “went into the ozone.” Ms. Taylor asserted that the purpose of the work session was to hear what others had to say, even though the councilors had read the material. She thought the members of the public were able to listen and watch and then could think about whether they wished to address an item in the Public Forum, a hearing, or by communicating directly with the councilors. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 9 Process Session Mr. Kelly thought the challenge was trying to think globally in order to determine when to elevate certain topics to a level of greater study and discussion. He suggested staff look at other elected bodies for a model of how action was addressed or not addressed in work sessions. City Manager Taylor reported that he had worked in jurisdictions where no action was taken during work sessions. He thought moving all public hearings to a single night per month could set the council up for deferring action in a work session. He said ultimately if the council was uncomfortable taking action on a particular item, the council could vote to postpone to a time/date certain. Mr. Kelly asked how a jurisdiction that took no action at a work session could clearly inform and direct staff as to how to proceed. City Manager Taylor replied that there was greater deference to staff about what the next step was. Mayor Piercy commented that sometimes the council had a “real work session” and other times she felt the council did not have a robust discussion. At times when she was asked to be the tie-breaking vote she felt like suggesting that the item be discussed further instead. She thought it would be good for the community if there was more support for a direction in which the council wished to move. Ms. Bettman asserted that staff should know the sentiments of the councilors so the work could be done up front. She preferred to have deeper deliberations on issues and less on process. She also believed that a councilor had the right to propose a motion at any time and should not be required to provide intended motions in advance. She declared that councilors needed to give direction to staff and motions were the vehicle by which they could do so. Mayor Piercy asked the councilors if they felt they were having enough deliberation of the issues. Ms. Taylor liked it better when no action was taken at the work session. She felt the council rushed to make decisions with the current system. She did not believe most items were so urgent that they could not wait for a regular meeting for action. Mr. Kelly remarked that some work sessions worked well and some did not work. He did not want to have a “one-size” procedure. He added that often a requested second work session might not fit into the schedule for three months. He wondered if there was a way for the council to review the tentative agenda and suggest putting the important issues out front so that if a second session was needed it could be queued up early. Mr. Papé averred that providing comment to the council officers would be a way to give input in setting the agenda. City Manager Taylor related that one of his city manager colleagues had a color-coding system with his recommendations in order to indicate how strongly he felt about any one of them to the councilors he worked with. He suggested that there might be a way for the councilors and Mayor to indicate how important they thought an item was on a scale of one to ten. Ms. Bettman thought the problem with prioritizing was that there was really no way to know if something was a big deal or not. She felt that one councilor could see problems that another councilor might not and this was not predictable. She said the council may just need more work sessions. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 10 Process Session Mayor Piercy felt that if the council had a good, robust discussion of an issue but had not honed in on one thing that everyone agreed upon, the council could carry the discussion over to its regular meeting in order to gain public input. She noted that there were other councils that used their regular meetings to deliberate. Ms. Taylor agreed, adding that the public might bring up something the councilors had not thought of. Mr. Poling commented that the current process worked fine for him. Ms. Ortiz asked the Mayor if she had brought this issue to the table because she was weary of being a tie- breaker. Mayor Piercy replied that she did not think it had to do with breaking the ties. She related that “many, many people” had said to her that the council did not deliberate enough and that the council seemed to come to the table with a preconceived answer. She also thought the public should have time to be heard. Mr. Kelly said there were certain issues where one could predict how the votes would go and who would vote which way. He thought it would be good to be able to take two strong ideas of outcomes and wait for a week prior to voting. He suggested that someone draft a “straw man” formalization of what this would look like. 8. Legal Opinions Mr. Papé related that Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly had obtained a legal opinion that was a de facto second opinion without consulting the rest of the council. Ms. Bettman did not believe this was a process issue. She called it inappropriate to bring this up at the last minute of the process session. Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Papé was trying to raise the general issue of how the council could get a second legal opinion or if he trying to raise the specific issue of the Police Auditor and the second legal opinion that had been provided regarding hiring practices. Mr. Papé replied that he wanted to address the process. Mr. Kelly stated that the council could not engage in a contract and had no way to elect to appropriate another legal opinion as a body. He thought it would be nice to have a mechanism to do so. He remarked that a separate issue in this was that he sometimes consulted his constituents. He cited, as an example, a time when he called an engineer he knew regarding a construction issue. He said in the case of the Police Auditor, the attorney with the second legal opinion had contacted Ms. Bettman and him. Ms. Bettman asserted that the City Attorney represented the City Manager and not the council or the public. She felt with a question of public policy, she would want to get an outside opinion. She recommended that the council put this item on the agenda for the next process session and, in the mean time, that staff should find out what other cities did in regard to this issue. Mr. Papé said he also utilized the knowledge of constituents. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mayor Piercy acknowledged that she had invited this outside attorney to meet with the City Manager. She said she had asked staff, including the City Manager, to meet MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 11 Process Session with various people and discuss certain things many times. She did not think it was in her purview to ask him to take action on a legal issue in which the City of Eugene was involved. She added that City Attorney Glenn Klein, when representing the City, took the stance that best represented the City; and when the council asked for legal opinions, Mr. Klein gave his best opinion to the council based on his legal knowledge. Ms. Bettman thought it would be beneficial to have another attorney at the next process session. City Manager Taylor underscored that the City Attorney represented the City and the council as the governing body of the City. He stated that the City Attorney was not an agent of the administration. He pointed out that in the prior firing of a city manager, the City Attorney represented the City and the city manager had to engage her own attorney. Mr. Papé thought the City could hire another attorney to provide an opinion. Mr. Kelly said he would not want any rule that would prevent taking another attorney’s phone call. Ms. Bettman felt the larger issue was whether councilors could go to individual attorneys. She alleged that regardless of what one said, when she had talked with other municipalities’ representatives, people there believed that the City Attorney represented the City Manager, because the City Manager signed the checks. She recommended adding this issue to the next process session. City Manager Taylor wanted to make a distinction between an attorney’s opinion and a City Attorney’s opinion. He said in terms of Oregon common law, there was a large distinction between the two. City Manager Taylor ascertained from the council that there was majority support for addressing this item in a work session. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 12 Process Session