HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1989 Meeting
e M I NUT E S
Eugene City Council
Board Room--Hilton Hotel
October 20, 1989
4 p.m.
. .
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett, Shawn Boles, Debra Ehrman,
Bobby Green (until 6:30 p.m.), Freeman Holmer, Roger
Rutan, Emily Schue.
FACILITATOR: Sharon Thorne
The special meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His
Honor Mayor Jeff Miller.
Sharon Thorne summarized the threefold purpose of the session as being to
1) understand each other's views; 2) clarify differences; and 3) affirm a
definition of the council's roles with which the majority agree.
e I. COUNCIL ROLES
Referring to the questionnaire councilors completed for the session, Sharon
suggested focusing attention on those topics on which councilors differ the
most in their levels of satisfaction. Councilors agreed to explore their
perceptions of the council's performance in six areas.
A. To support decisions made by the council though your individual
belief may differ from that of the council
Councilors discussed different definitions of "support." They focused on th~
difference between actively supporting and being quiet on an issue, not
sabotaging a council decision, working with constituents who oppose a council
decision, determining the will of the public, and how individual actions can
affect the council's ability to govern. They reached agreement that before a
vote has been taken, councilors are free to express their personal views.
Once a vote has been taken and a decision made, councilors are to support
that decision by not yenerating citizen opposition and by being judiCiOUS in
describing their own opposition.
Consensus: Council reaffirms that councilors may debate/differ/engage
in any form of opposition before the council has decided an issue.
After decision, councilors are expected to support the decision made.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1989 Page 1
Goals Session
---
e B. To establish goals and objectives, and to identify strategies to
address them, such as the Eugene Downtown Plan adopted in 1984
Councilors discussed the process by which issues are assigned agenda and
staff time, and specifically referred to the recent Hospital Authority issue,
the Sports Council, Arts Funding Committee, and a restaurant tax. They
considered the fact that different councilors, as members of subcommittees,
work on different issues before they come to the whole council.
..
Mr. Boles suggested developing a two-year cycle of goals and objectives to
coincide with the Capital Improvement Program cycle.
Consensus: No near-term items come to the council's agenda that are
not first addressed at a work session.
C. To establish the vision for the future and courses of action,
such as the Community Goals and Policies Report
Discussion centered on the need for more "futuring" sessions in which the
council can explore ideas and issues without judging them. Mass transit and
light industrial/commercial development were suggested as appropriate agenda
items for the focus of future process sessions.
Consensus: Need to talk more, as a group, about IIlarge-contentll
issues (brainstorming style at process, goals sessions)
e D. To maintain regular involvement with major contracts, such as
airport construction and the annual financial audit. To review
and act on major intergovernmental contracts and franchises,
such as urban transition and utility franchises
Councilors agreed to distinguish between performance and financial audits,
and concurred on the need to assure that both types of audits are independent
of management influence.
Consensus: Agreed to do performance audits, starting with a single
department. The council will decide in advance how the results will
be used. City Manager to come to council with a recommendation.
Council has no role in management of large contracts.
Mayor will approve the City Manager1s recommendation for selection of
financial auditor.
E. To advise the City Manager on key managerial appointments and
major department consolidations and reorganizations, such as the
merging of Police and Fire/EMS
Mr. Rutan asked the council to consider a job description for the City
Manager that included the following: 1) enforces all statutes; 2) executes
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1989 Page 2
Goals Session
e adopted policy/goals/strategies; 3) manages the organization--personnel,
finance, operation; and 4) reports to the City Council.
He defined the council's role as being to monitor the performance of the City
Manager and take corrective action when necessary in order to: 1) protect/
reflect the best interests of the general public; 2) monitor activities where
it has the expertise to do so; and 3) monitor in a way to minimize negative
impacts on the organization.
Councilors discussed the selection of key management personnel. Mr. Holmer
raised the issue of the charter's prohibition of councilors' influencing
personnel appointments and said an amendment may be needed that will give the
council authority to advise the manager in those appointments. Other
councilors questioned the need for that involvement, citing the effectiveness
and efficiencies of the city manager form of government.
Mr. Boles identified five areas that he said should be resolved in a formal,
rational evaluation plan: 1) ensure that department heads are acceptable to
the City Council; 2) reorganizations are discussed by the council for input
and advice; 3) the council should know first about contracts that could be
perceived as unfair by the populace; 4) the council must exercise its
fiduciary responsibility with respect to appointment of the auditor; and
5) clarify the role of the City Attorney's Office and determine whether the
attorney works for the councilor the Manager.
Mr. Gleason supported change in the performance evaluation process and said
e he has three different tasks: to respond to individual councilors as
representatives of their constituents; to reflect the majority will of the
council; and to make the machinery of the organization work.
Consensus: More group involvement in process of evaluating
performance of City Manager.
Reached agreement (5:2:1 vote, with Bennett, Bascom, Miller, Rutan,
and Schue favoring, Boles and Holmer opposing, Ehrman abstaining) not
to change process of personnel selections or department reorganiza-
tions.
F. To set policies which guide staff, without overwhelming detail
and endless meetings
Councilors agreed to discuss this topic at a future process session.
II. COUNCILOR RUTAN'S POSITION
Mr. Rutan requested a six-month leave of absence in order to focus on his
business interests.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1989 Page 3
Goals Session ~
e Councilors supported the idea of a leave but voiced some concern about how it
would influence the election process. They agreed to a 90-day review,
effective November 1, at which time Mr. Rutan will return with an evalutation
of the arrangement.
III. SATURDAY AGENDA
Councilors ranked a list of 20 issues by voting for what they considered the
five most important topics for Saturday's discussion. The results were as
fo 11 ows:
(6) Federated arts/recreation
(4) Transportation
(4) Public Safety
(4) Library
(4) Citizen relations
(4) Tax increment financing/renewal agency
(3) Social Goal-Housing
(3) Financial stability
(1) Design review-develop projects
(1) Annexation
(1) Relations with social services
(1) Urban services
e Councilors did not rank the following listed issues: environment, last
year's list, economic development, budget (real estate transfer fee), don't
need 1990 goals, council priorities as guide decision, and cross-jurisdic-
tional cooperation.
The meeting adjourned to October 21, 1989, at 8:20 p.m.
(Recorded by Mary Feldman)
mncc 102089
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1989 Page 4
Goals Session