Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1981 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Dinner Meeting/Trawler Restaurant June 6, 1981 5 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, Betty Smith, and Brian Obie. Also in attendance were Mike Gleason, City Manager; David Whitlow, Assistant City Manager; Pat lynch, Council Administrator; and the Eugene Register-Guard. Donald Murray, Consultant, passed out "Council Process Issues," which lists eight issues for discussion: 1) Issues we do/do not want to tackle; 2) Expand- ing/muddying the issues; 3) Information gathering prior to meetings; 4) Number of meetings, council volume of business; 5) When the debate begins/questions of clarification occur; 6) Who pays thanks to public; 7) Length of discussions; 8) Dinner meetings. He had formulated the list of issues from earlier interviews with the councilors. He also distributed a flow chart on City Council processes. Ms. Miller opened the meeting by suggesting that they address questions such as why they are here and what they hope to accomplish. She explained that the meeting was a response to "two-Monday-nights-in-a-row agenda problems." She hoped that they could get the council agendas under control so that when they told people there would be a hearing, they could have that hearing. Ms. Wooten asked what they had hoped to get out of the session. Councilors concurred that was a good place to start. Ms. Miller hoped to end up with a feeling that the Monday night meetings would be under better control, better timed, and get the agenda accomplished so that the public sees the processes as organized and fair. Mr. Obie wished to reduce the anxiety level. He suggested making decisions on an objective basis. He did not like to get upset because of the process. Ms. Smith asked to talk about the level of participation. There was a great deal of repetition. Mr. Lindberg remembered observing the council earlier and feeling that the best thing the council did was to make every individual councilor's position clear. If differences existed, the council moved to a compromise. He felt councilors MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 6, 1981 Page 1 e e e should explain their position even though it was repetitious. At times there is value to repetition. A middle ground should be struck by using judgment. Ms. Wooten suggested, on perfunctory matters, that discussion could be limited. She agreed with Mr. lindberg. Mr. Hamel suggested that the council's officers lead in complimenting the City staff and others, with one general remark on behalf of the entire council, rather than seven compliments. Mr. Murray summarized the hopes for the session. Ms. Miller and Mr. Obie hoped to identify off-agenda items. Ms. Smith noted the councilors had discussed having a mid-year "mini-goal session." She wished to establish a time schedule for it. She stressed its importance since City staff is taking direction from the goals of the council. Ms. Miller wished to address the question of what items should be brought up and discussed at the council meeting versus items that need to be brought up and discussed with the staff before the meeting. Mr. Obie agreed that there were "off-agenda items" occurring in the meetings. Ms. Wooten pointed out that things can occur in the discussion that would cause questions to be raised. Mr. Lindberg said a case in point is the assessment policy, which has probably been reviewed four times in the last ten years. It appeared that the reviews occurred three months after new councilors were elected. He wanted to streamline the process but, at the same time, he was refusing to be intimidated by his own ignorance, knowing that in the long run they will collectively be a better council because he was willing to be stupid at the beginning and raise the issues and questions. Councilor Hamel suggested contacting staff for answers to questions. Ms. Wooten was also concerned about the face value inequities in the assessment policy, which because of lack of understanding in overall policy, seemed to draw the council into long discussions. Ms. Miller explained that it was entirely appropriate to call staff to find out what's going on about an issue coming before the council. If information is generated, questions can be asked of staff in the council meeting. Another point is that if a councilor feels unprepared to vote on the issue until further policy discussion, he or she can call staff and ask the consequences of postpone- ment, then make a motion for postponement on the general grounds of inadequate information. Members did not want to limit the asking of questions; they did want to eliminate the asking of the same question several times. Follow-up questions could be asked of staff after the meeting. Ms. Miller noted that at times councilors will ask a question of staff and receive an answer to a different question. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 6, 1981 Page 2 e Don Murray summarized the ways council could get information. They should notify staff of their concerns and the questions they would like raised, or will raise at a meeting. They could move to postpone an item or limit the number and kinds of questions. Ms. Miller noted the need for questions to be asked of staff for the education of the public. She suggested councilors be very aware of what they were doing in this instance. Mr. lindberg suggested stating one's reason in asking the question and not having "hidden agendas." Councilors discussed the difficulty of going over the agendas with staff over the weekend. Mr. Gleason suggested a better way to format the council material in order to make perusal more efficient. He suggested an agenda summary, with tabs for the entire document, with summaries. - Ms. Miller suggested further discussion of format at a later meeting. Mr. Murray explained they were discussing different ways to be more efficient: the preliminary agenda, the way they asked questions, limiting the number and kinds of council questions, and changing the format of the reading material. They were now on item number 2, expanding/muddying the issues. Mr. Obie stressed that it was not necessary for individuals to explain their positions several times. He did not agree with the perception that council meetings were an arena for worldly debate and decision-making. There are a lot of issues; one reads the material and makes up one's mind. He suggested discus- sion occur between individual councilors on an informal basis prior to entering the decision-making framework of the council meeting. Mr. Lindberg expressed surprise at that remark. He felt that people had applauded the way the council could reach consensus/compromise through the process of debate. He continued to live with the hope of compromise. He tried to keep an open mind during discussion. He would often re-assess the issue during that process. Ms. Smith saw time as a problem with their full-time, unpaid positions. They needed to determine how much time they were willing to spend. Are they going to be full-time council members or will they give X-amount of hours and within that time frame? They want to do the job as quickly and efficiently as possible. Ms. Miller suggested Mr. Obie might have overstated his position. (He agreed it was "overclear.") Council often seeks a compromise. To come up with a different fall-back position requires working with staff. This can be very productive as opposed to restating a position. Mr. Murray explained council had shifted discussion from preliminary information prior to the council meeting. Now they were in the middle of the matter: to what extent do they use their time for debate? He heard that it was important to avoid repetition as a way to change an opinion. Rather, use the time to offer information, new insights, or new fall-back positions. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 6, 1981 Page 3 e Ms. Miller stressed that it was more efficient to call people before the meeting. Mr. Lindberg explained the personal difficulty of contacting staff and councilors before the meeting. Ms. Wooten like the openness of discussion within the meeting. She suggested they make a point of talking to staff on code and policy issues and reserve discussion for important items. Ms. Miller felt if council stayed to the agenda and were sensitive to the time, she would be more relaxed and able to listen to discussion. She hoped increased sensitivity would help. Mr. Murray explained council was discussing a Phase III generation (item 2, last paragraph) . . . do they want to limit themselves. He explained the phenomenon in groups, that they give new people more air time and then there is a second phase, usually more efficient and a third phase, crisis of leadership/ centralization. A fifth phase is crisis of decentralization. Ms. Miller added that the dynamics of the council meetings have changed with Mayor Keller gone. They have all been learning at once. She further explained that she felt it was all right to call a fellow councilor before the meeting for information and discussion, but not to work out "deals." It is important for councilors to contact councilors serving on pertinent committees and commissions. She suggested possibly having less formal dinner meetings, with no agendas, but rather briefing sessions for each other on respective committee assignments. e Mr. Obie explained there were things that one wanted to commit X hours to; 80 percent of the time is spent dealing with issues that they have not bought into to that degree. The other 20 percent of the time is spent with issues that are really important to an individual councilor. There is a good chance that on a majority of the issues councilors will agree with each other. If every member can be committed to accomplish what they want and that does not conflict with others' philosophies, that is a big step--they can deal with the 20 percent in the spirit of compromise. In the past council they had spent three years of frustration because they could agree on nothing. Ms. Miller referred to page 1, "An overriding need to agree all the time." She suggested a general consensus is acceptable broadly in the community. Mr. Murray remembered council's ground rule on consensus was not to be unanimous, but "let's hash it out here and once we buy into it, let's not reintroduce the problem next week." They agreed to give an issue six to nine months' moratorium after a decision had been reached before raising the issue again. Mr. Lindberg looked forward to the next goal-setting session and a discussion of individual goals and what the City Council was hoping to achieve. Mr. Murray suggested a broader discussion of values. Philosophical and political points of view are not covered in the goal-setting sessions. It was suggested that time be allotted to go over larger issues. The councilors discussed a mechanism: Monday night agenda being for public hearings, Wednesday 11 to 2 for bigger issues and process issues. What council wants to do should be discussed in an informal setting several times a year--"mini-sessions" on a quarterly basis, "dreams, schemes and assessment policies." A poll of the councilors indicated Friday afternoons would be preferred over Saturdays for such discussion sessions. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 6, 1981 Page 4 e Councilors Obie, Smith, and Miller saw a benefit to councilors' brainstorming informally together. Ms. Wooten expressed her reservation that it not be the same councilors interacting on a regular basis. She wanted to avoid the develop- ment of firm coalitions on the council. e Mr. Obie referred to ward politics. He did not want to see ward politics in Eugene. He hoped councilors would take a broader city-wide perspective on issues. Ms. Wooten spoke of lincoln School and the Lincoln closure issue, which she saw as a city-wide issue--a land use issue, according to the advice of the City Attorney and the Planning Department. She saw this issue in the context of the Metro Plan. Mr. Lindberg explained that he had a similiar problem concerning the current funding problems of the University of Oregon in the Legislature. On the one hand, it appeared to be a conflict of interest--a ward issue. He concluded that it might be more appropriate to have another councilor present the case. His presentation of the issue might have been interpreted as a parochial interest. Ward politics should be legitimate since wards are the grass roots areas first affected by a problem. Ms. Wooten explained that she brings ward-related problems to staff. If problems appear to be of city-wide interest or concern, she brings them to the council, after seeking staff help. Ms. Smith suggested a further meeting topic: "What role should the City Council be playing in terms of their basic concerns?" What parameters do they want to put on themselves in the area of advising or dictating to other governments? Mr. Lindberg suggested raising process questions such as: 1) is this a parochial or city-wide issue? 2) is this an item that can be settled outside the meeting? 3) is it time to cut bait? Mr. Murray suggested just using the ground rules as they are, but using them more often and more effectively. The council turned to the flow chart. Ms. Miller explained that they did not have time to discuss whether people take positions before they start debate. The way the meetings are set up, the matter is read, there is staff presentation, they ask questions of staff, there is a public hearing, and there is debate of the council. A motion is made, and they vote. Ms. Smith saw the benefit in having the motion at the end so it could be altered after hearing testimony. Ms. Miller explained that councilors had a tendency to state a position at the time that they should be asking questions of the staff. This made it difficult for staff to answer questions since the councilor would be just building her/his case. She referred to the balloon on the flow chart. It is destructive to the process because they need to get information out before starting debate. It is destructive for councilors to tell the public how they are going to vote even before the public hearing takes place. Councilors agreed and suggested it was fair for the mayor/acting mayor to call them on this if they did this in the meeting. She said that she would pass this suggestion on to Mayor Keller. Mr. Murray summarized that the council agreed it was acceptable for the chair to exercise stronger direction when councilors are discussing a question or expressing an opinion at the "questions of staff" stage of the proceedings. He pointed out that the councilors had started to discuss dinner meetings. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 6, 1981 Page 5 . e e The councilors wished to have an open agenda item at the dinner meetings: "Update on Council Assignments." Mr. Obie stressed the importance of relying on each other and on staff in order to create more time for bringing up concerns. After some discussion, Ms. Miller suggested that a future topic be development of a system and procedure for raising questions and delegating responsibility. Ms. Smith wanted to be able to informally discuss with the council the work of the Room Tax Task Force before the final recommendation is made to the council. The council discussed the role of staff in the informal dinner meetings. They concluded that a flexible policy would be best. Mr. Gleason said that the key staff person for anyone subject area, plus the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Council Administrator, would attend regularly. Unless the council requests that this staff do something, they will just attend and be available. Mr. Murray summarized that the council had identified five areas of agreement on process issues: 1) council would schedule quarterly mini-sessions for in-depth discussion of major issues; 2) an agreement that it is all right to meet informally with other individual councilors to brainstorm ideas, but no deals; 3) dinner meetings with open agendas; more informality, with just talk; 4) council would attempt to move more toward delegating expertise; 5) the chair and the councilors would concentrate on avoiding debate during the time set aside for questions of the staff. The next Monday dinner meeting will be held at the Treehouse Restaurant on Ju ly 13, 1981. The meeting was adjourned to Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted, 7J~~ MiCh~7Gleas7"" City Manager (Recorded by Beth Conant) MDG:BC:ky/CM27a18 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 6, 1981 Page 6