Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1983 Meeting . e e M I NUT E S City Council Work Session Studios B & C, Hilton Hotel June 9, 1983 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Gus Keller, Mayor; Freeman Holmer, Cynthia Wooten, Betty Smith, Brian Obie, Dick Hansen, Mark Lindberg, Emily Schue, John Ball, Councilors; Mike Gleason, City Manager; Don Murray, Facilitator; Dave Whitlow, Assistant City Manager; Marge Beck, Director of Council and Community Services; Pat Lynch, Council Administrator; Mark Matassa, Register Guard; Fred Webb, KUGN Radio. Mr. Murray began by explaining that the purpose of the meeting was to consider the agreements under which the City Council works, and to fine tune them. He distributed the results of the previously completed council process questionnaire (copy appended to these minutes). After councilors had had an opportunity to study the questionnaire results, Mr. Murray prepared an agenda of issues to be discussed, which included items from the questionnaire together with the follow- ing additional suggestions from councilors: (1) the question of legitimate norms for the council in an election year; (2) goals session process, and (3) the role of subcommittees vis-a-vis the whole council. Mr. Keller opened discussion of the first item ("We are open, direct and candid in the council forum. We believe that conflict should be open.") by expressing concern that the results of the questionnaire showed that councilors thought they achieved this only "to some extent." Ms. Schue noted that as elections approached councilors were more likely to make comments for the benefit of the press and public. Mr. Lindberg commented that it was valuable to present a united front on a heated issue, but stressed the educational value for the public of discussions representing different points of view. Mr. Obie said that he was comfortable with the effort to avoid conflict. Mr. Ball agreed with Mr. Lindberg that though it was valuable to achieve consensus by prior discussion it was a problem when issues were not debated in public. Mr. Lindberg said it was legitimate to go out on a limb sometimes despite pressure to conform when one felt strongly about an issue. Mr. Keller then moved to discussion of item F ("We avoid disguising a statement as a question."), noting that it was important to distinguish between the section of the agenda for addressing questions to staff and the time for councilors to make comments and state their positions on an issue. Mr. Hansen asked for clarification of the process. Mr. Keller replied that, after the closing of the public hearing and staff response to testimony, there was a period of time for councilors to ask questions of staff and -- with the mayor's permission -- testifiers. After this, it was time for council discussion. Mr. Obie asked the mayor to be more clear about distinguishing between these two portions of the agenda. MINUTES--City Council Work Session June 9, 1983 Page 1 e e e Ms. Schue asked whether it was more appropriate to make the motion before or after discussion. Mr. Keller expressed the opinion that it was better to wait and get a sense of council support before making a motion. It was noted that though it was protocol for the president to make the motion councilors should feel free to do so too, though Mr. Gleason reminded councilors that motions are often complex and technical and suggested that it might be better to send an issue back to staff than attempt to craft a motion on the fl oor. Mr. Lindberg said that it was sometimes acceptable to ask questions to which everyone knew the answer in order to put the infonmation before the public. Ms. Schue concurred. Mr. Murray pOinted out another aspect of the item being discussed was that questions should be used for clarification and not to express an opinion. Discussion then moved to item H ("We avoid repetition as a way to convince others."). Ms. Wooten pointed out that there were two issues: repeating oneself and repeating the views of another councilor. It was agreed that the mayor or other councilors should give feedback to one another after a meeting if they observe this behavior. In discussion of item I ("We keep discussion moving and call for a 'process check' if the council becomes bogged down in discussions."), Mr. Keller noted that this was in fact rarely done except at retreats. There was discussion of how to deal with continued discussion after the majority of councilors had made up their minds, which Mr. Obie termed frustrating. Mr. Holmer said that it was important that minority views had an opportunity to be expressed; Mr. Lindberg agreed, noting that making up one's mind became easier with increasing experience on the council. It was agreed that Mr. Lynch should look into using the absten- tion lights as a signal that councilors were ready to move on to a vote, a system which had been used in the past. In the meantime, Mr. Hansen called upon the mayor to be aggressive in moving to a vote when he sensed that the council was ready to do so. A short break was taken from 8:55 to 9:00 p.m. Ms. Wooten spoke to item K ("We set time limits on topics, and adhere to them.") by noting that though the mayor did well on this issue most of the time he had begun asking, at the end of a public hearing, whether there was any further testimony, from interested persons who had not sumbitted a recognition slip. She feared that this practice would encourage members of the public to speak without having previously signed up to do so. Mr. Keller opened discussion of item M ("We do not ignore the seriously intended contributions of others. ") by noting that snide remarks were sometimes made at the end of meetings, when councilors were tired. He reminded those present that this was never appropriate behavior. Mr. Lindberg asked for respect for the public as well as other councilors, asking the councilors to at least feign alertness during a public hearing. MINUTES--City Council Work Session June 9, 1983 Page 2 e e - During discussion of item P (IIWe attempt to gather details, additional information, and answers to specific questions prior to the council meeting.II), Mr. Ball asked whether he had a responsibility to gather further information if he felt that the materials provided by staff were incomplete or whether he could simply ask staff at the meeting. Mr. Keller responded that it would be appropriate to call staff prior to the meeting for a major lack of information and ask at the meeting on a minor point. Mr. Gleason asked that councilors inform staff if this was a frequent problem. Mr. Murray reminded those present of a discussion at an earlier process meeting at which it had been decided that council members' first responsibility was to make decisions, with education of the public a secondary function. Ms. Wooten opened discussion of item Q (IIIf we wish to discuss a major policy or philosophical issue, we ask that the matter be scheduled on a future agenda, and don't raise that larger issue 'out of the clear blue' or as an addendum to a current item on the agenda.II). Ms. Schue agreed that it was legitimate to raise larger issues, but expressed her opinion that one should only ask to schedule discussion if a majority of the council was receptive to doing so. Ms. Wooten pointed out that an appropriate mechanism was needed for flagging such items and discussing them. Mr. Hansen suggested that 'Items from the Mayor and Council' would be an appropriate point on the agenda to raise such issues. Mr. Keller concurred. Moving to the question of the annual goal-setting session process, Mr. Obie suggested that a two-hour public hearing be held prior to next year's session in order to receive public input on City goals. Ms. Smith proposed that goals be more closely coordinated with budget issues. Mr. Keller spoke in opposition to Mr. Obie's suggestion, stating that he felt the council had a leadership role, and should only accept public testimony in response to its own announced goals. Mr. Obie commented that both short- and long-term goals should be set, and that short-term goals should be more specific. Ms. Wooten felt that there was consensus on separating dreams and visions from practical short-term needs. Mr. Keller expressed his opinion that the council had been brave in setting a specific goal for 1,000 jobs; he said that since general goals might not neces- sarily be implemented, it was wise to get some more specific goals. Mr. Murray said that in his opinion it was the role of staff to provide specific implemen- tation recommendations. Ms. Wooten suggested that the goals session should be held later in the year. There was some general agreement with this. Mr. Ball spoke to the issue of the role of subcommittees, expressing concern in particular over decisions being made by the Economic Diversification Subcommittee. He said that he felt uncomfortable with the way in which this subcommittee appeared to be setting policy in the important area of the relationship between government and the private sector, noting that this was currently a hot political issue in the city. Ms. Wooten replied that the subcommittee was attempting to find ways to implement pOlicy which had already been set by the full council. MINUTES--City Council Work Session June 9, 1983 Page 3 She suggested that they take advantage of dinner sessions to bring each other up to date on subcommittee activity. ~ Mr. Holmer said that he shared Mr. Ball's concern, noting that--throught member- ship on various advisory committees--councilors dominated the early stages of decision-making, and suggesting that this should be delegated to lay committees and staff. Mr. Hansen asked whether his role on a subcommittee was to represent the council policy or his personal philosophy. Ms. Schue responded that this was a complex issue which needed to be dealt with sensibly and on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Keller responded to Mr. Holmer's suggestion by noting that it would be very difficult for the council to vote against the recommendations of a citizen committee, and that the council was represented on these subcommittees in order to ensure that their recommendations would be acceptable to the council as a whole. Ms. Wooten responded to Mr. Hansen's concern by suggesting that his role on a subcommittee was to carry out council policy and bring any hot issues back to the full council in a timely fashion. It was agreed that a dinner session should be scheduled to consider the issue more fully. Mr. Webb of the KUGN Radio asked that 'Items from the Mayor and council' be more clearly expressed so that the audience and the media knew what was being referred to. e Mr. Lindberg spoke to the issue of legitimate norms for council behavior during an election season, suggesting that it be legitimate for councilors to give each other feedback to prevent inappropriate behavior. Mr. Obie then suggested that Wednesday meetings should be canceled for the summer and, if this proved successful, reinstated in the fall as policy/philosophy discussions. It was agreed to be flexible in scheduling Wednesday meetings throughout the summer, canceling a meeting if the agenda was short. Ms. Schue agreed that it would be a good idea to revert to Wednesday work sessions. Mr. Murray initiated a critique of the meeting. Mr. Holmer said that it had been useful and that he had appreciated the councilors' frankness and good humor. Ms. Wooten commented that she thought it was healthy for councilors to stay in touch with each other in this way. Ms. Schue concurred, saying that they needed such meetings in order to keep on track. Mr. Hansen expressed the desire for more frequent informal meetings. Mr. Keller closed the meeting by expressing his appreciation for the hard work of the council. - MINUTES--City Council Work Session June 9, 1983 Page 4 e RESULTS OF COUNCIL PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE A. We are open, direct, and candid in the council forum. We believe that conflict should be open. B. The council focuses on city issues and avoids becoming involved in "extra-territorial" issues. C. We give all councilors an opportunity to express their views on issues before the counciL. D. We are aLL brief and succinct in stating our views. E. We avoid personalizing, attacking, or LabeLing others e F. We avoid disguising a statement as a question. G. We focus on a single issue or topic at a time. H. We avoid repetition as a way to convince others. I. We keep discussion moving, and caLL for a "process check" if the counciL becomes bogged down in discussions. rvl~ , J. We beLieve it's okay to ask content questions. K. We set time limits on topics, and adhere to them. L. We agree that clarification of issues should precede evaluation of issues (i.e., we understand each other's positions before engaging in debate). e To a very great extent \ I , \ \ \ To a great extent 1t!LU I lliL \ II \\\ J:HL \\ ~ t1-ll t\-tJt \\1 \\\ tH-l \ \ \ To some extent \ I N-W N--ll \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ II \III ti-tJ \ To a little extent To a very little extent \ ----1L \ I -1" e ResuLts of CounciL Process Questionnaire Page 2 M. We do not ignore the seriously intended contributions of others. N. We speak for ourselves. O. We get closure on items before moving on to the next topic (e.g., who wilL do what, when, etc.). P. We attempt to gather details, additionaL information, and answers to specific questions prior to the council meetings. Q. If we wish to discuss a major policy or philosophical issue, we ask that the matter be scheduled on a future agenda, and don't raise that larger issue "out of the clear blue" or as an addendum to a current item on the agenda. e - To a very great extent II To a great extent \'\-\..l N1.l II 1HLlli IIII \ \ \ To some extent \ \ \ \ H--ll li:blL To a lit tle extent To a very little extent -- e" e. Results of Council Process Questionnaire Page 3 '- Please list any other process misunderstandings or concerns that you feel presently exist among members of the council. (The following comments will be shared and discussed during the process session.) Some councilors becoming very involved in detail of running city -- managing not our job -- pol icy direction is. City manager getting further away from council -- possibly moving to leadership vs facilitation or implementation. Councilors "role play" to the public on controversial items which tends to excite citizens and make the majority of councilors look bad. We give consideration to all reports prepared by our citizen committees and are courteous to those who did the work. We will not grind a personal ax without some support from other members or a citizen group a private interest just wastes time. We will not ask to have an ordinance drawn or other extensive stuff work done without first getting a sense of the counoil that the idea deserves work. Sometimes we are caught in a squeeze between "speak briefly, do your hornework, no major policy/ideology surprises" on the one hand -- and a lack of forums to fully discuss issues on the other hand. The balance we strike is not unsatisfactory, but it is not ideal. The transmittal refers to "groundrules adopted and notified by the Council... in previous years". Perhaps there should be a more formal process of acquainting new councilors with these norms. As a new member of the Council, I have more than once been advised \ publicly that a point of view is "not consistent with established Council policy". Senior members of the Council should recognize that when a new councilor begins a term, it is not his or her responsibility to subscribe to all previously agreed positions. (The new member may wish simply to declare his or her nonconcurrence with "established policy" -- for the record). The Council needs to consider the burden placed on Councilors and Planning Commission memebers by the many additional committee assignment obLigations assumed by each person. The time commitment required to meet those obligations is presently burdensome and probabLy discourages many quaLified citizens from serving on the CounciL or Commission.