Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/18/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session Bascom Room-Eugene Public Library June 18, 2003 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, dennifer Solomon Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. Mayor Torrey recognized Mr. PapS. Mr. Pap8 indicated that he had e-mailed the councilors and Mayor Torrey the previous day to inform them of his possible intent to make a motion to reconsider the council's action of June 11 renaming Centennial Boulevard in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He said that he would prefer not to make the motion, and asked the council to consider instead a motion granting him and Mr. Poling five minutes each to place information regarding the renaming process before the body. Mr. PapS, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the agenda to grant Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Poling five minutes each for a presentation regarding the renaming process. Councilors discussed the motion. Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Pap8 that, if the motion allowing him an opportunity to make his presentation passed, he would not offer a motion to reconsider the decision to rename Centennial Boulevard. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion as there was a process in place for getting an item on an agenda and she believed it to be a request for extraordinary privilege. Ms. Taylor supported the request as she wanted all information out before the public. Mr. Meisner supported the motion although he questioned the actual impact on the agenda. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about the amount of time the motion would require on the agenda given that there was certain to be discussion. Ms. Bettman questioned why, if Mr. Pap8 had information pertinent to the topic and had it for some time, he could not have informed the council of those facts prior to this. Mr. Kelly determined that Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Poling would accept a friendly amendment allowing councilors one round to respond after the presentation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to table the motion. The motion to table failed, 6:2; Ms. Nathanson and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Nathanson indicated her intent to oppose the motion. She questioned the productivity of further discussion as the community had already gone through a great deal and she did not believe the outcome would change. Ms. Taylor believed the discussion was needed because of a lack of openness regarding the process. As an example, she cited the fact she was not aware of Ms. Nathanson's intent to offer a motion to reconsider the council's decision the previous week, but it was her perception that MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 18, 2003 Page 1 Work Session everyone else, including the media, knew. She still did not know all that had gone on, and she wanted to know. Mr. Kelly concurred with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson. He agreed that revisiting the decision made previously would not be good for the community. He believed that a discussion of how the council handled similar issues in the future would be appropriate. Mr. Kelly suggested the council keep in mind the first rule of holes: "When you're in a hole, stop digging." The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Bettman voting no; Ms. Taylor Mr. Pap~, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Poling voting yes. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in favor of the motion, which passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Pap~ provided a chronology of events that followed the council's decision on June 9 to form a committee to consider ways to honor Dr. King. He said that following that meeting, he had contacted the mayor and offered his assistance in soliciting members for such a committee and they had discussed possible approaches. Mr. Pap~ said that he had taken Ms. Nathanson's June 11 motion to reconsider the council's June 9 action at face-value as a change of mind. He learned that during the morning of June 11, Ms. Nathanson had been lobbied to change her mind by Mayor Torrey, something he "considered rotten in Denmark." Later Mr. Meisner came to City Hall and spoke with the mayor about the issue, and was encouraged by Mayor Torrey to contact Ms. Nathanson. Mayor Torrey also contacted Bob Mylenek about the issue that day and encouraged him to stop opposing the name change and contact the councilors regarding his changed sentiments. Mr. Pap~ said that Mayor Torrey told Mr. Mylenek that his position would be bad for business and that Ms. Nathanson had "a lot to lose" by her vote in regard to her potential candidacy for mayor. Mr. Mylenek took those remarks under consideration and subsequently e- mailed the council. Mr. Pap~ objected that he had received no calls regarding the concept of reconsideration. He had been informed of Ms. Nathanson's intent only before entering the meeting room. He termed the process a "foul stew" and asked the council to find a way to rectify the issue. Mr. Poling reviewed the process that had occurred since he joined the council in January 2003. He had been given the impression that a formal committee process had been established prior to that but had since learned that no such process occurred, and those who lived and had businesses along Centennial Boulevard were not involved in discussions about the issue until the council decided to initiate the street renaming process in January. Mr. Poling believed that the process that had been followed was flawed and those most affected was not appropriately involved. He expressed concern about the action the council had taken to reject items from the public record, and asked what was to be considered by the council in its deliberations. Mr. Poling contended that the council had not received all the information it should have, and that the process was not done properly. Mayor Torrey called on other councilors to speak. Speaking to Mr. Papa's remarks about her conversation with the mayor, Ms. Nathanson said that Mayor Torrey had called her on the morning of June 11 and asked how she was feeling about the council's action. He reminded her at that time of her statement that if the issue came down to a vote to rename Centennial Boulevard, she would vote in support of it, and asked her if she still felt that way. He discussed his concern about the divisiveness created in the community by the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 18, 2003 Page 2 Work Session council's action, which was a concern she shared. She was also concerned by rumors she was hearing about people's refusal to participate in another community process. Her decision to offer the motion to reconsider was based on the reasons she had stated at the time, that of what was in the best interest of the community. Ms. Nathanson said that while she would have preferred to select an appropriate tribute for Dr. King through a community process that brought more people to consensus, it became clear to her that the community was not going to be able to come together through such a process, and she decided to return to her stated position and support the street renaming. Speaking to Mr. PapS's remarks about Mayor Torrey's conversation with Mr. Mylenek, Ms. Nathanson said that she did not know what the mayor discussed with Mr. Mylenek, and had no idea about such a discussion until Mr. Pap8 had shared his suspicions with her the previous day. She had no political or business relationship with Mr. Mylenek, either directly or indirectly through third parties. With regard to a mayoral campaign, she said it was no secret that she and the mayor had discussed such a possibility a few years ago when the mayor was considering his own future. She recalled that the mayor was fairly certain he would not run again and she expressed interest, but the mayor subsequently changed his mind. They had occasion conversations about their futures, as elected officials often do. She had conversations with other councilors about other potential offices as well. Ms. Nathanson expressed unhappiness about what she termed potential "guilt by innuendo." She said that the issue for her continued to be what was in the best interest of the community. She expressed sorrow that councilors would be "dragged into a swamp" over something not worthy of discussion. Ms. Bettman remarked that she had been on the "edge of her seat to hear what the big secret was." Now she concluded that there were "no smoking guns" here, merely individual councilors who needed to be accountable for their own decisions instead of looking for places to lay blame. Speaking to Mr. Poling's remarks about the process and lack of property owner involvement prior to the council's action to initiate the street renaming, Ms. Bettman pointed out that notice was given once the process was initiated, and then they had the opportunity to let their opinions be placed on the record, which the council used to make its decision. Speaking to Mr. PapS's remarks about the conversation between Ms. Nathanson and Mayor Torrey, Ms. Bettman said "So what?" She pointed out that such conversations happened all the time and there was nothing improper in what had occurred. Ms. Nathanson's action had been consistent with her previously stated position. Ms. Bettman termed the situation "politics as usual." She saw no difference in the politics of this process compared to the politics of other issues that came before the council, outside the fact that Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Poling did not prevail in this instance. Ms. Bettman believed that a good decision had been made and the council should move forward. She thought ultimately, the renaming of Centennial Boulevard would reunify the community. Mr. Kelly believed that Mr. PapS's remarks were very unfair to both Ms. Nathanson and Mayor Torrey. He thought it unfortunate given that Mr. Pap8 had, as Council President, met with each councilor individually to discuss how the council could work better together. He thought that Mr. PapS's unfairness made the task much more difficult for the future. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 18, 2003 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly said that like Ms. Bettman, he had been waiting for the "secret." He said that elected officials often lobby one another; that is what they do. He did not understand Mr. Papa's concerns. All councilors called one another and discussed the issues facing them and possible solutions. Speaking to the issue of notifying other councilors in advance of a motion, Mr. Kelly said that the council had previously agreed that, when possible, members would notify their colleagues in advance of offering such a motion. He said the agreement worked the majority of the time, noting that all councilors were surprised by motions at some point. He said that he was told five minutes before he entered the meeting room that there could be a motion to reconsider, and that only occurred because he happened to stop by the mayor's office before going on to the McNutt Room. He said that it was not as though some were notified and some were not. He said that media learned of the topic mid-discussion as they watched the meeting on Community Television and subsequently rushed to City Hall. Mr. Kelly did not think that the mayor's conversation with Mr. Mylenek was out of line, or that Mr. Mylenek's letter had changed any councilor's mind. Mr. Kelly suggested that the issue was less about the merits of the situation than about some people feeling excluded from the process. Mr. Meisner indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Kelly, adding that he hoped councilors did, in fact, interact outside of council meetings and check in with each other. Mr. Meisner suggested the only good thing about the discussion was that it avoided a motion to reconsider the council's June 11 action. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Poling's dissatisfaction with the process that occurred before the January decision to initiate the renaming process. He thought the process should have been much more public. He reminded the council and audience that the process was not initiated by the council or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, but rather by the Board of County Commissioners. While he agreed that the process could have been more public, he did not think that was a matter of anyone's fault. Mr. Meisner said that like Ms. Nathanson, he had concluded by June 11 that the council's action of June 9 was not the correct one, and that the committee process proposed had no chance of working. However, he did not go to City Hall on June 11 with the expectation of considering the issue again. When he saw the mayor and shared his concerns, the mayor encouraged him to call Ms. Nathanson. At that time, Ms. Nathanson indicated her intent to offer a motion to reconsider the June 9 action. He was not contacted or instructed by the mayor; to the contrary, he went to the mayor's office with his concerns. Mr. Meisner emphasized that the City of Eugene was not paying for the signage changes required for the name change. In fact, a County commissioner testified before the council that the name change was such a priority for County residents that the Board of County Commissioners offered to pay those costs. Speaking to comments he received from members of the public claiming they had no opportunity to comment on the street renaming, Mr. Meisner said that there were two well-attended public hearings and ample notice of the issue was given. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 18, 2003 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor disagreed with those who said that there was a public process. She did not think there had even been a council process as the council had never discussed the merits of renaming in a work session. Just when the general public was becoming aware of the issue, she said, the council closed off the public process. People were interested in offering other suggestions and in talking about how much they wanted to retain the name Centennial Boulevard. Ms. Taylor said that during the public hearing the council was informed the street renaming must occur because the process had come so far. She had never heard that argument before, and hoped it was repeated for the natural resource inventory. Ms. Taylor said that some citizens who sent letters to the City Council following the close of the public record were told the council could not receive them, although she acknowledged the council was receiving e-mails on the topic. In the meantime, the council received Mr. Mylenek's e- mail message following the close of the record, which she questioned. Ms. Taylor suggested that the outcome of the process could have been the same with a committee process, only the street renaming would have more community support. Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Poling that the process was flawed. He thought that the council's action directing the manager to return with a community process following its decision to rename the street was a step toward avoiding such mistakes in the future. Mayor Torrey recognized Mr. PapS's insinuation that he was trying to hide his position on the issue. Following the meeting of June 11, he was contacted by a reporter of The Register-Guard who asked him if he contacted Ms. Nathanson. He responded to the reporter in the affirmative. Mayor Torrey said he did not know why that was not reported. Mayor Torrey said that the media was not notified in advance of the meeting that a motion to reconsider would be offered. Mayor Torrey said that he contacted Mr. Mylenek on June 11 after he had spoken to many members of the community that day and the previous day about the committee process. He said that he spoke with Mr. Mylenek, as the lead business person in opposition to the street renaming, about his intent to ask the council to reconsider his action. He had subsequently asked Ms. Nathanson about her degree of confidence in her vote and whether she would reconsider her action. Ms. Nathanson had not given him an answer. Mr. Mylenek did not know when he sent the e-mail to Mayor Torrey whether there would be such a motion and the mayor indicated he was unsure as well. He believed, however, that the fact the motion had been made by Ms. Nathanson and seconded by Mr. Meisner was in the best interest of the community. He noted the extremely racist e-mail messages the council received regarding the issue from those who wanted nothing to do with recognizing Dr. King, and he reminded the council that it agreed through the process it wanted to recognize Dr. King in some way. Mayor Torrey reminded the council it heard 58 people speak in support of the street renaming and two people speak against it. Mayor Torrey said he had not offered Ms. Nathanson any instructions and further noted that he did not believe Ms. Nathanson would accept any instructions from him. He questioned why Mr. Pap8 voted for the street renaming, and said that if it was for the purpose of moving to reconsider he MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 18, 2003 Page 5 Work Session could have stated so at the time of the vote, as State legislators did. He encouraged the council to move forward. A.WORK SESSION: Council Process Session Councilor Coordinator Lynda Rose joined the council for the item, noting it was the first process session for Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling. Ms. Rose called the council's attention to the operating agreements and said that changes could be placed into three categories: 1) housekeeping changes related to the passage of charter amendments; 2) items identified by staff as requiring more examination and direction from the council; and 3) items identified by the council for further discussion. Mayor Torrey solicited other items for discussion. · Motions to reconsider, and notification of such motions and a possible approach through which such motions were automatically tabled (PapS) · Number of councilors it takes to get an item on an agenda (Taylor) · Amount of time scheduled for Public Forum (Taylor) · Reconsideration of Monday regular session ending time (Taylor) · Whether a councilor should state he or she was voting for a motion in order to be able to move to reconsider it (Bettman) · Codification of the council's agreement to notify each other of motions in advance of meetings (Kelly) · Offering non-staff motions prior to council discussion (Kelly) · Dialogue-what can the council do to build better dialogue given its meeting limitations and its lack of office space at City Hall? (Kelly) · Providing councilors with a brief opportunity to introduce concepts for new agenda items in a way that avoids extensive staff research but still provides the councilor with the ability to air the topic (Nathanson) Mayor Torrey called on councilors for comments and questions on the housekeeping changes proposed to the operating agreements. Ms. Bettman requested the staff rationale for the addition of the phrase "during a work session" in Section 1.02. She requested the reason for deleting the word "actual" before "emergency" in Section 1.04. She asked if "emergency" in this context was defined anywhere. Mr. Kelly suggested that Section 2.10 be modified to indicate that the city manager had the opportunity to add items to a council agenda. He added that if Section 2.14 were better defined he would not be concerned. Referring to Section 4, Mayor Torrey called for further discussion of whether the council should accept motions offered by members following the Public Forum. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 2.10 and suggested that staff examine the sentence that read, "Alternatively, an item may be placed on the council agenda by councilor request," to ensure it reflected actual council policy. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 18, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that the sentence in Section 1.04 stating that the mayor and three members of the council could call a special meeting was directly from the City Charter. Mr. Kelly suggested that proponents of the suggestions for changes write a short paragraph or sentence summarizing the changes and arguments for adopting them, and the council hold an evening process session to discuss them. City Manager Taylor encouraged the council to adopt the changes that it could at this time. Mr. Kelly did not want to overlook any of the items. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Klein if the council was precluded from taking the approach suggested by Mr. Pap8 if it continued to follow Roberts Rule of Orders. Mr. Klein said that the council would need to make an exception to the rules. The council's ground rules were adopted by motion, and they could be changed by motion at any time. Responding to a follow-up question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Klein said that the council could consider an item not on the agenda. That was not the same as stating any councilor could make any motion at any time. The chair had the authority to rule motions out of order, although the chair could be overruled by a majority vote of the council. Mayor Torrey asked if that included motions made during the Public Forum. Mr. Klein recommended that the council have a discussion about at what point in a meeting it wanted to consider items not on the agenda and amend its operating agreements accordingly. Speaking to Mayor Torrey's concerns regarding motions following the Public Forum, Ms. Bettman called for the establishment of a fair process that all understood could be negotiated at the whim of the majority. Ms. Bettman asked why the mayor was not included in the provisions of Section 9, Representing City Positions and Personal Positions. She said she would like to see the mayor added. Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston indicated that the mayor was not included because of ambiguity about whether the mayor was a part of the council. Speaking to Mr. Klein's remarks, Mr. Kelly emphasized the need for the council to avoid operating in an ad hoc manner. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mayor Torrey's concerns about the impact on agendas of motions that come out of the Public Forum or Items from the Mayor, Council, and City Manager, but he did not want to establish a process that required the council to amend its operating rules before it could get to substantive discussion. He suggested that the council consider establishing a 15-minute agenda item to occur twice monthly at work sessions to address such motions. He thought the council needed to put a process in place. Ms. Taylor reiterated her interest in having flexible end times for the Monday night regular session. Mr. Pap8 said that he did not like what he termed "legislation by ambush," and he believed that councilors should be able to move to table such motions without a vote. He expressed the concern that one councilor could unilaterally change the direction of a meeting for the entire council. Mr. Taylor pointed out that motions on issues not on an agenda squeezed time for other important items before the council. He wanted to be able to confer with the appropriate staff on such motions, who might or might not be present at the meeting the motion was offered, as well as legal counsel. City Manager Taylor further pointed out that citizens attended meetings on the basis of the published agenda. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 18, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein said he would have to do further research to determine whether Ms. Nathanson's motion to reconsider could have been tabled to a future meeting. The council agreed it was not prepared to adopt the housekeeping changes to the operating agreements at this time. Mr. Meisner advocated that councilors receive basic training in Roberts Rules of Order. Mr. Kelly encouraged staff to schedule a follow-up process session soon. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 18, 2003 Page 8 Work Session