Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/1976 Meeting ,-e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL January 28,1976 Adjourned meeting - from January 26, 1976 - of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Gus Keller in the absence of Mayor Anderson at 4:00 p.m. on January 28, 1976 in the McNutt Room. Other Council members present were: Eric Haws, Wickes Beal, Neil Murray, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, and Edna Shirey. Councilman Tom Williams was absent. I - Selection of finalists to be interviewed for membership on Human Rights Commission In discussion, it was agreed that each Council member present would submit six names from the citizen interest forms presented. Those receiving two or more votes would be interviewed. Other names needed would be selected from those receiving only one vote; the persons receiving two or more votes in that group would be added to the initial selections to round out the roster to 16 for interview. Using this general method, the following'were selected for interview: Women's Commission Kathryn Andrieu Rosemary Batori Janice M. Brandstrom Beverley Cadbury Therese Engelmann Jane Farrand Baruch Fischhoff Melinda Grier Mary Jensen Kathy Johnson Sarah Lichtenstein Mary Milhaupt Donna Mortlock Ellen Rosenblum George Russell Glenda Utsey -e Commission on Aging The first round in the selection process resulted in 12 names having two or more votes. Mr. Keller suggested interviewing those plus Harriet Waddy, recommended by the Mayor's Committee on Aging. Councilwoman Beal questioned composition of the commission if chosen from only those listed. She mentioned the elderly groups themselves recommended inclusion of at least one young person and their choice had been Ron Webb who previously had worked with them through Manpower. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mrs. Beal to expand the selection to 16 finalists. Motion carried - Council members Haws, Beal, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller, Murray, and Hamel voting no. Those chosen were: Theo Allen Jewell Baker Donald Ford Jeane Freeman LaVella Garber G. G. Goldthwaite Anabella Link Thomas McKenzie Marlene Moore Boyd Morgan Charles Strong Mazie Venable Ronald Webb Mary Winston Ronald Wyden Harriet Waddy Commission on Handicapped The first round choice resulted in 17 perspons receiving two or more votes. It was decided that those 17 should be finalists for interview by the Council: -e Byron G. Baker Betty Bergman Robert Blizzard Chris Casady Evelyn Casady Paul Clement Carol Hammons Jeffrey Hicks Carol Johansen Byron Krog Lewis Merrick Alice Plymell Martin Ravelette Tom Spaulding Donna Tyvoll Elisabeth Waechter Martin Weideman '5<0 1/28/76 - 1 Commission on Minorities Councilman Murray noted there were 17 who had indicated on their applications that service on the minorities commission was their first choice. He suggested that those 17 be selected as finalists for interview. In discussion, however, it was decided that to be consistent in the selection method, names should be submitted by each Council member in the same process used for selecting finalists for the other commissions. That method was followed, resulting in 17 persons re- ceiving the appropriate votes. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Murray that all 17 be considered finalists for interview. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilwoman Beal voting no. Mrs. Beal thought it ridiculous to interview one person for more than one commis- sion, noting that Kathryn Andrieu and Lewis Merrick had been chosen for interview for membership on other commissions. However, consensus was to leave the list as selected for interview: Donald Adair J(athryn Andrieu Marjorie Colcord William Isabell Barbara Koser Man Wai Lau Lance Leonard Phyllis Loobey Lewis Merrick Shirley Minor Glenette Olvera Michael Phillips Theodora Salmon Jan Sanduskey Joe Scovell Tokshin Yi Ray Willard Council President Keller suggested that interviews be set up on 10-minute inter- vals, allowing six to seven minutes for each applicant, and giving time enough to rotate those being interviewed without undue loss of time. There were no objections and interviews were scheduled for the following dates, each beginning at 5:00 p.m. in the McNutt Room, with a break to be taken for dinner about halfway through each list: Commission on Women - Monday, February 2, 1976 Commission on Aging - Thursday, February 5, 1976 Commission on Handicapped - Tuesday, February 10, 1976 Commission on Minorities - Thursday, February 12, 1976 It was understood a schedule for interviewing would be set up by staff and that those chosen for interview would be contacted with regard to the time they were to appear. It was also understood that Betsy Merck, human rights specialist, would prepare two questions for distribution to those to be interviewed to give them an opportunity to prepare a response. II - Procedure for reappointment to boards and commissions Councilman Hamel said he thought a person who had served one term on a board or commission should be eligible for reappointment for a second term but for no more than a second term. Also, that it should be so spelled out in the Council bylaws. Councilman Haws' concern was more with the question of whether reappointment should be automatic without going through the selection process as in an initial appoint- ment. He didn't think so, and he suggested choosing one of the three procedures set out in the Council bylaws for selecting members when terms expired. He favored the interview process for selecting Planning Commissioners with perhaps a review of applications for other bodies, saying there probably should be a distinction be- tween commissions as to the procedure used. Councilman Murray noted that a procedure was already provided in the Council bylaws if it was decided that reappointment should not be automatic. 1/28/76 - 2 57 -,e _e - -- ' ~ Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt as policy that a position on a board or commission shall be considered vacant when a term expires, and that procedure for reappointment shall be the sarne as for appointment as set out in the Council bylaws, applications to be taken from anyone, including encumbents wish- ing to reapply. In response to Manager's inquiry whether the policy would apply to those appointed for the balance of an unexpired term, Mr. Murray said it would apply any time a term expired regardless of how a person had been appointed or how long the position had been held. Manager, in response to Councilwoman Shirey, said that in University City, where he had previously served, the criteria was attendance - members were re- appointed for one term only if their attendance records were reasonably satisfactory. Councilman Keller read that portion of the Council bylaws covering appointment pro- cedure, and Mr. Murray clarified intent of his motion - that there would be no auto- matic reappointment, and selection of members would follow one of the three procedures set out in the bylaws. Councilwoman Beal wondered about those members who had served one term or a portion of one tem - they would have to remember to reapply or they would automatically be disqualified? Mr. Murray thought publicity about a vacancy would cover that problem. He thought once a policy of not having automatic reappointments was decided upon, members of the major commissions would be aware of that when their terms expired. However, he thought some provision for advertising vacancies could be included in the policy statement. ,-,e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Haws to incorporate into the main motion as part of standard policy that three months before the ex- piration date of any position, encumbents would be notified of terms expiring and that they should file application if they are interested in serving another term. Mrs. Beal said she would rather automatically reappoint a member for another term than appear ungrateful or unappreciative of someone's dedicated interest and very able work on a commission. Mr. Murray thought it was just as ungrateful or unap- preciative telling the people who did express interest and were qualified that they were not wanted. But Mrs. Beal disagreed, saying that the first consideration should be service to the city - are those chosen going to be the best people in a particular position? Also, anyone would be hesitant about accepting if they were aware of the possibility they would serve only a couple of years. She thought it would take that long to gain knowledge and background in commission work. Mr. Murray, however, didn't think it would take two years, nor did he think two years' service would necessarily make a good commissioner. Councilman Bradley suggested two-thirds vote of the Council for reappointment rather than having automatic reappointment. If the two-thirds majority isn't forthcoming, he said, then the member would have to reapply in open process with new applicants. He added that criteria could be developed - attendance and maybe three or four other things - for determining whether a person should be reappointed. But Mrs. Shirey thought requiring a two-thirds vote would put the selection on a "personal" level. Mr. Haws added that the problem then gets back to the "whole elite system - one gets elected because someone knows you." ,-e Manager commented that it was more than just training, particularly in the case of the Planning Commission. It sometimes takes six months to a year, he said, just to become familiar with what is going on. Some of the types of things before the Planning Commission hark back to actions taken four or five years earlier. He noted S8 1/28/76 - 3 that in interviews for the most recent Planning Commission appointment each indi- vidual was asked the reason for seeking appointment to the Planning Commission' and it was noteworthy that no one cited past actions by the Commission. Another effect if the turnover is too fast, he said, would be that of giving more power to the staff, as there would be less and less experience on the Commission itself. Mr. Murray didn't think that opening the reappointment procedure to new applica- tions would preclude having experience on the Commission. He said that almost every commission had four-year staggered terms so there were bound to be some members with experience. And he thought it a healthy situation to give new people a chance to take part. He said that evidently eight-year terms were considered too long when the commissions were initiated, yet that same thing occurs when auto- matic reappointment occurs after good attendance for one term. Councilman Hamel thought there would be some who would not want to serve more than one term, in which case the selection process for a successor should be opened to new applicants. But if a person had served one term and, wanted to serve another term, reappointment should occur without the person's having to go throught the entire interview process again. He added that a new applicant could feel like a second choice if interviewed along with another person who had already served and who was then reappointed. Mrs. Beal agreed. Councilman Keller thought the primary consideration should be to obtain the best people possible to fill the positions vacant, and if they were available for two terms, the ,city should be grateful. He was somewhat concerned about opening the process to new applicants after one term, knowing full well the encumbent, if service had been satisfactory, was going to be reappointed. He said a lot of things could change -illness, death, etc. - but as long as the first choice was a "quality" person doing a "quality" job, then that person should really be allowed to serve again. He was somewhat concerned too about the inference of an "elite" group; neither did he like the word "automatic." He said if an important position was being filled, he thought the Council would have to be swayed by some type of knowledge of one person over another. He thought that was assuming responsibility rather than practicing elitism. Mr. Keller continued that a great many of the people who had been his choice this evening in selecting the commissions' member- ships had been unknown to him, but he had had recommendations on all of the names and he didn't feel that was an elitist approach. Councilman Murray did not accept the thinking that when one was appointed to a com- mission, that person wuld serve for two terms; nor did. he accept the. assumption that fulfillment of service for one term would be a mwasure of quality and enough to warrant,reappointment. Mr. Murray said that even with the process of receiving other applications, the fact that a person had already served should not be the basis for reappointment - the consideration should be getting the best person for the job. When the process is not opened up, he said, there is no reflection of the large, diverse community. Dicussion continued. touching on recent appointments to the Planning Commission, duties of the Commission. and general political philosophy in terms of the rela- tionship between the Commission and the Council. Vote was taken on the motion that reappointment to boards and commissions would be through the same process as original appointments, and that en- cumbents would be notified three months prior to expiration of their terms that applications would be needed should they desire to serve another term. . Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Keller voting no. . 1/28/76 - 4 59 _e e - e .- --e --e -e III - IV - Selection of Council president and vice-president Councilman Haws suggested looking at the method of electing president and vice- president of the Council when bylaws were amended with respect to reappointments. He was not sure selection on the basis of seniority was the best way. Mr. Keller thought that change for the sake of change was not necessarily the best policy, that the primary intent of choosing by the present method was to eliminate politics and competition among Council members for the position. Also, he noted there were several requirements that probably most Council members would not seek - acting as Mayor in his absence, etc. He suggested talking with people who had served as Council president before contemplating any change. Mrs. Beal explained that the reason for the present bylaws provlslon was because the position was not "passed around" in times past. Mr. Murray expressed his preference for the present process, saying one of the function's of the position was to assume leadership in the sense of expediting Council action and that could not be handled as efficiently by a person new to the Council. There was some further discussion on the subject but no action was taken. Appointments, MAPAC Councilman Murray noted existing vacancy on LCOG's Metropolitan Area Plan Advisory Committee and suggested appointment of a Council subcommittee to make recommenda- tions in line with procedure set out in Council bylaws. It was pointed out that a reorganization of LCOG committees was in process and that recommendations in that regard would be forthcoming shortly. Consensus was to await the outcome of re- organization before considering any action. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned. ~)~ Charles T. Henry City Manager ~o 1/28/76 - 5