Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/14/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall January 14, 2002 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Pat Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Ms. Taylor recalled that in the past, a committee of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County representatives was formed to discuss animal control, but while she was appointed to the committee, it never met. She suggested the City ask the County and Springfield to meet to discuss the topic, and indicated willingness to participate. Mr. Rayor reported that he would be sending a letter as an individual to the Springfield City Council regarding its decision to rezone 22 acres of a site for a proposed sports complex to Campus Industrial; he indicated he would provide a copy to the council in the next council packet. Mr. Rayor said he was contacted by the chair of the East Alton Baker Park Citizen Planning Committee regarding the City's parks projects in West and East Alton Baker Park, and he wanted to ensure that City staff was not bypassing the committee in its planning processes. He would ensure the committee was getting the information it needed. He said that if consideration was to be given to allowing Lane Transit District to take access through the park across the bridge, he considered it critical to have the committee as the first filter in the process. Mr. Rayor said he had been asked by a constituent to drive Gilham and Ayres roads and Delta Highway at night, roads he had found difficult to negotiate because of a combination of vertical and horizontal alignments and lack of illumination. Staff subsequently indicated that illumination improvements were planned. Ms. Bettman reported that the most recent council packet included her summary notes from the seminars she participated in while attending the Railvolution Conference in San Francisco. She said that the notes included some information on boulevards, an approach she wanted to raise for MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 1 Work Session discussion at the work session on the courthouse site, and asked the council to review those materials before Wednesday if possible. Mr. Farr asked for follow-up on his request for information on the use of air brakes in the city and the practices of other communities in regulating that use. Mr. Farr indicated he would have to leave the regular meeting at 8 p.m. following consideration of the Consent Calendar. Mr. Pap~ asked staff to provide an update on the Ayres Road project, specifically identifying what had and had not worked and potential fixes for what had not worked. Mr. Pap~ asked staff to respond at some point to the communication the council recently received from John Brown regarding initiatives the City could take in response to the salmon listing. Mr. Pap~ asked about the status of council committee assignments. Mr. Pap~ called the council's attention to a march commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr., Day on January 21 and the reception and speech that would occur later in the day at the Hult Center. Mr. Meisner had no items. Mr. Kelly said he was recently appointed to the League of Oregon Cities Committee on Community Development, serving with Planning Director Jan Childs. Ms. Nathanson noted her recent tour of the new library and said it was very exciting to see what the community would soon have. She recommended to the council a recent column in a City library publication entitled Use Your Library in Uncertain Times. She complimented the column and suggested that it might be sent to other libraries for publication. Ms. Nathanson shared an idea to use the balance of the fiscal year 2002 Social Service Contingency Fund to assist social service providers with increased energy costs for the fiscal year. It would be a one-time use of funds. She envisioned that staff would develop criteria for application, a mechanism to notify agencies of the funds' availability, and a formula for their distribution. She requested staff help in formulating a motion for future consideration. Mr. Johnson had no items. In response to Mr. Pap6's question regarding council committee assignments, Mayor Torrey indicated that few councilors had indicated an interest in changing their committee assignments. He noted the addition of Mr. Meisner to the "Planning Commission Plus Three." He had not been able to find a replacement for Mr. Pap6 on the Police Commission at this time and would continue to seek one. He noted that Mr. Meisner had indicated willingness to serve on the Human Services Commission. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 2 Work Session B. Work Session: Historic Presentation on Eugene's Bikeway Program Former Mayor Ruth Bascom provided a short video presentation on the history of Eugene's Bikeway Program. Following the presentation, Mr. Farr suggested that the council needed to make sure the same effort was put into providing bicycle connections to west Eugene as had been put into providing connections to south Eugene. Councilors thanked Ms. Bascom for the presentation. C. Work Session: Final Report from the Citizen Charter Review Committee City Manager Jim Johnson introduced the members of the Citizen Charter Review Committee (CCRC): Ken Tollenaar, Mitzi Colbath, Kevin Wells, Matt Donohue, Jon Belcher, Virginia Thompson, Bern Johnson, and Bob Cassidy. City Attorney Glenn Klein was also present for the item. Mr. Johnson said that former member Freeman Holmer had moved out of town and was not able to be present. He noted that the council would consider options regarding the committee's recommendations on January 28, and he anticipated the council would request more work session time. He said that legal counsel was involved in some of the committee discussions but still had some review to do of its work, which he characterized as fine tuning. City Attorney Jerome Lidz would be at the January 28 work session. Mr. Johnson thanked the committee for its hard work. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Tollenaar, and Ms. Colbath provided a PowerPoint presentation on the CCRC's recommendations for charter revisions. The presentation provided background on the formation of the CCRC, outlined the council's original charge to the CCRC and that charge as expanded by the committee with council concurrence, and highlighted the CCRC's many recommendations on the topics it had discussed. Recommendations Regarding Goals and Elections Retain existing system of electing City Councilors by and from wards Amend charter to provide for preference voting with instant runoff voting (a measure was subsequently referred to the voters, who rejected it by a wide margin) Increase number of wards from eight to ten (the council declined to refer a measure increasing wards to the voters) Mr. Tollenaar noted that the committee recently reaffirmed its support for a ward-based system. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Recommendations Regarding Charter Provisions · Repeal existing conflict of interest provision and require the council to adopt a code of ethics incorporating State law regarding conflict of interest · Enact an amendment authorizing the council to approve contracts over a certain amount to be fixed by the council · Enact new provision for a council-appointed independent performance auditor · Enact new provision for a new in-house City Attorney · Amend charter to require the City Manager to consult with the council when hiring or firing department directors · Make no change in the City Manager's existing authority to organize and reorganize City departments · Enact new provisions relating to vacancies in elective City offices · Replace existing provisions for adopting ordinances with new provisions · Authorize citizens to propose "protected" ordinances by exercise of constitutional ~mt~at~ve powers · Enact requirement for the council to adopt an ordinance assuring citizen participation opportunities for City government · Enact numerous "housekeeping" amendments to the charter to clarify existing provision, repeal, or update obsolete sections · Improve readability of charter and usefulness of City Charter; housekeeping amendments are recommended for numerous sections of charter · Repeal sections on tax limits for fiscal years 1981-83 and pedestrian mall · Repeal part of the section related to Skinner Butte cross Mayor Torrey called for a first round of council questions. Ms. Taylor commended the presentation. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the text on page 14 of the final report should read "...to determine the size of City contracts that it believes might implicate serious public policy issues..." She questioned the potential that council would vote to reset a contract to a lower amount. Ms. Colbath said the committee discussed the minimum amount, and agreed it should be established by the council through ordinance. With regard to the committee's recommendations on an in-house attorney, Ms. Nathanson asked about pressure from within: undue pressure, for example, from contacts the City Attorney received from the department heads or councilors. Mr. Tollenaar noted the authority of the city manager over the position proposed, which he believed would mitigate the pressure. He did not think it was much different than the current situation. Any questions about direct council communication with the City Attorney would be addressed by the fact the city manager was still in charge. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Rayor questioned what elements of the committee's recommendation would have to be referred to the voters and which could be implemented through ordinance. Mr. Tollenaar said that all the recommendations required charter amendments, which must be referred to the voters. The CCRC had, in some instances, recommended the adoption of particular ordinances. Mr. Rayor requested that Mr. Johnson prepare an analysis of the committee's recommendation. Mr. Rayor suggested that it was difficult to know when a department director was asked to leave as opposed to being fired; for that reason, he believed there was a gap in the recommendation. Regarding the recommendation for protected ordinance process, he suggested that could become a hard to manage process, and likened the protected ordinances to potential land mines. In response to the first comment, Mr. Tollenaar acknowledged that in the case of a forced resignation, the council would not be briefed, but pointed out that city managers were different, and perhaps a future city manager would honor the spirit of the proposed charter amendment and volunteer to report even if such a report was not required. Ms. Colbath added that while the committee was trying to avoid impinging on the city manager's authority to appoint and remove department directors, it also wanted to overcome somewhat the idea that the council could not ask questions about such situations by allowing the city manager to go to the council and give it information. Responding to Mr. Rayor's comments about the protected ordinance approach, Ms. Colbath said the committee discussed the concept that it might not be used in the way members hoped. She believed it would take time to see how the proposed ordinance would work out. Ms. Bettman thanked the committee and congratulated it for completing its ambitious work program in one year. Referring to the proposed changes to Section 32, she asked if the committee had discussed under what circumstances it would be appropriate for public notification and a public hearing to be waived, and if it discussed the potential of codifying that change. Ms. Bettman also asked if certain committee discussion topics generated more public comment than others. Responding to the first question, Mr. Tollenaar said that the committee discussed what constituted an emergency, and concluded that the emergency clause was often attached to ordinances for reasons that have nothing to do with the threats to public welfare, but the exigencies of the situation. The committee agreed that it was best that the council determine whether a situation was an emergency, and require the council to define those circumstances in the ordinance that would result. Responding to the second question, Ms. Colbath said early in the process, people came to meetings and suggested charter amendments regarding campaign finance reform. Later the committee received comments regarding the topic of an in-house legal counsel. She had also discussed the performance auditor position with several people, and received positive feedback. Mr. Tollenaar added that during the first three months of its deliberations, the committee received considerable input on instant runoff voting (IRV), a topic that he hoped was not completely dead. The committee received quite a bit of input on the subject of an in-house counsel, particularly in terms of cost; some was well-informed input, and some was not. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Farr thanked the committee for its work. He said many of the CCRC's recommendations involve getting the council more involved in managing the City organization, and he asked how a group of what he characterized as political part timers had the time, staff, and financial resources to do what the committee was proposing that it do. Mr. Tollenaar said the committee was charged to look into the possible role of the council in terms of its involvement in department head hiring and department organization and reorganization, and he did not think the committee did much in "redressing" the balance of power between the council and city manager. The committee's recommendations acknowledged the council's interest in the hiring and firing of department directors. The proposals for the City attorney and auditor, if accepted, would give the council more tools to oversee the City administration, but did not change the basic council/manager form of government. Mr. Farr questioned how council-initiated ordinances would work without council support staff. Mr. Tollenaar said it would work in the same way as it did currently; a majority of councilors would direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance. Mr. Pap~ also thanked the committee for its work. He had hoped the committee would do more about EWEB, and asked what land mines the committee envisioned in addressing the issue. Ms. Colbath said that a subcommittee met to discuss what the issues involved were, and realized there were many differences of opinion about the topics that needed to be pursued. Accordingly, given the time the issue would take, the CCRC recommended another committee that included EWEB representation be charged to address the topic. Mr. Pap~ asked to whom the performance auditor would report, who would do performance reviews, and who would fire or hire that individual. Ms. Colbath responded that the council would have authority over the position, but its work would be guided by an audit committee. The CCRC had made a recommendation for the membership of the proposed audit committee. Mr. Meisner said the committee did not state in its report if the city manager would explain the reason for dismissal of a department head in public or executive session, noting it was unlikely an executive would choose to be fired publicly and would probably prefer to resign. Regarding hiring, the committee provided for the council to designate a hiring process, not to get a statement of the reasons for a hiring; he questioned why it took that approach. Mr. Tollenaar said that the committee had initially agreed that the city manager's report after a firing would be in executive session, but the City Attorney questioned whether that was consistent with the State's Open Meeting Laws. The effect of the final text would be that the mayor would be in the position of deciding if an executive session would be called, and that would occur in accordance with the relevant State statutes. Responding to the second question, Ms. Colbath confirmed that the proposals related to the hiring of department directors simply provided an information process for the council. Mr. Kelly asked for an explanation of the statement on page 32 that indicated the concept of decreasing the amount of time a person can be appointed to office could encounter legal ramifications at the State level. He found the protected ordinance recommendation an appealing way to avoid charter clutter, and asked if the committee found precedent for it elsewhere. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Regarding the recommendation regarding a new section for citizen participation, Mr. Kelly asked what practical effect the text would have. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's first question, Ms. Colbath said that Mr. Lidz had indicated that all elections for City officers must be held at the same time and place as elections for State and County officers, and the provision could violate Oregon Revised Statute 254.035. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's second question, Mr. Tollenaar said that the committee found on no precedence elsewhere for such an approach. The committee hoped the ordinance provided another option for those seeking to amend the charter. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's third question, Ms. Colbath said the proposal on citizen involvement was to elicit a City commitment that citizens are actively participating in local government. That was a very important feature of City government to the committee, and members wanted the council to be mindful of the issue. Mayor Torrey asked if the committee had reviewed other council/manager governments employing a performance auditor, whether it had worked, and where it had worked. He asked why the CCRC did not ask the council to instruct the city manager to hire the auditor using normal budget processes. Ms. Colbath did not have a percentage breakdown of those cities with a council/manager form of government employing a performance auditor. Several of the cities had been the size of Eugene. She indicated she would provide Mayor Torrey with a list of the cities using a performance auditor. Anecdotally, three auditors she spoke to worked in a council/manager government. Mayor Torrey asked why the performance auditor needed to be in the charter. Mr. Tollenaar responded that to have a truly independent auditor, the council would have to make the appointment, and the charter now precludes the council from making such appointments. Mayor Torrey called for the second round of council questions. Mr. Farr asked Mr. Tollenaar if the committee had discussed the budget for an in-house City Attorney. Mr. Tollenaar said that a portion of the current contract, about $230,000, would be directed toward that budget. He thought that would cover the costs of the position, with the exception of start-up costs. Mr. Farr said that some of the criticism he heard of the concept was that high-quality attorneys were not attracted to municipal work. Mr. Tollenaar noted that Portland and Salem both had in-house city attorneys and suggested they would be offended by the criticism. In his own opinion, over time, municipal law had grown into a highly professional career path for attorneys. The first contract attorney for Eugene (30 years ago) testified in support of an- house attorney. Another former in-house attorney had indicated to him that at that time, municipal law was generally handled by younger, more inexperienced attorneys who soon moved on. However, he believed that had changed, and Eugene would be able to attract a qualified person who would serve in the position for a long period. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Farr said that another question that arose was the resources an established firm would have in comparison to an in-house attorney. Mr. Tollenaar agreed that was an issue and Eugene was lucky to have the current contract firm that it did. On balance, however, the committee came to the conclusion that the City would be better off hiring an in-house attorney to supervise and evaluate the City's legal activities, anticipating that the great bulk of legal services would be provided as they were now. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Tollenaar said the development of the in-house attorney function would be subject to the same budgetary forces as other City services. The committee did not propose arbitrary limits to the number of attorneys that could be hired. Mr. Pap~ likened the position to a medical gatekeeper and said it might work well for Eugene. Mr. Meisner asked if the committee discussed options for the council to meet department head candidates. Currently, the council could not meet candidates, even on panels. He noted that the text describing the repeal of protected ordinances referred to a majority of councilors while the draft charter referred to a unanimous vote; he asked why. He added he had great concerns about that, as the section purported to bind future councilors. Ms. Colbath said that the committee did not discuss other ways to involve the council in the hiring process. Mr. Meisner questioned the distinction between hiring and firing, asking why the standard was different. Ms. Colbath thought that the process recommended by the CCRC provided for the discussion of why a department head hiring was taking place. Mr. Meisner said that the recruitment process was determined before candidates' names were known, and he thought the CCRC's recommendations had precluded any council involvement in the selection process at all. Mr. Tollenaar believed that the recruitment process provided for opportunities for the council to be involved, at least in terms of meeting the top two or three candidates. Mr. Meisner disagreed. Mr. Kelly concurred, saying it had not happened. Mr. Johnson recollected that a council in the near past was invited to meet police chief candidates. Mr. Tollenaar said he believed that there was a substantive difference between hiring and firing. A hiring was an event unlikely to create as many "waves" as a firing, and he thought the council should be more interested in the validity of the city manager's decision to terminate than to hire. Mr. Meisner disagreed. Ms. Colbath said the CCRC discussed the issue, and thought there would be continuing involvement on the part of the council. Committee members did not mean to prohibit the council's involvement totally. Mr. Cassidy spoke to the issue, saying that attracting good recruits to the position in question was critical to the committee's discussion. Regarding the council's ability to repeal a protected ordinance, Ms. Colbath said the committee discussed requiring a two-thirds majority but agreed that the provision would only be used by the public if it had a high confidence level the council would not overturn an ordinance unless there was something significantly wrong with it. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Kelly referred to the committee's recommendations for possible referrals to the voters, and determined from the committee representatives that they believed the housekeeping items could be forwarded to the voters as a single package. The committee had not forwarded a recommendation on the packaging of the other items, believing that was the council's purview. Ms. Taylor asked if the use of the phrase that Eugene had "enjoyed" the council/manager form of government was a typographic error. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding how the reorganization of departments could be controlled through the budget process, Mr. Johnson said that the largest "stick" the council had was its ability to deny funding. He said that a past reorganization had been objected to by some councilors, but a majority had not joined together to say "and we are not going to allocate the money to make it happen." He believed the council had considerable authority through the budget process, although it was a "stick or hammer." Ms. Taylor disagreed as to how the process would work. Ms. Taylor wanted council involvement in the selection of department directors. Mr. Johnson said that he chose at one point to involve the council and the involvement was ineffective, so he did not do that again. He said that the council could easily develop a process that provided for more involvement in hiring, but that raised the issue of the council's role in a manager form of government when that was generally the role of the city manager. He said that staff could develop more ideas with direction. Ms. Taylor wondered why the committee did not come up with more on the topic, and if it discussed the fact community members were involved on hiring panels while councilors were not. Mr. Tollenaar said that the committee was cognizant it was considering the issues in light of the fact the council voted, 6:2, that the committee was not to consider changes in the council/manager form of government. He said the authority to hire department directors was so close to the essence of the city manager's role in a council/manager government that the committee agreed that the council could not become directly involved in that decision-making process without destroying a very essential part of the whole system. Ms. Nathanson asked if the committee discussed other approaches to the composition of the audit committee, given the addition to the council's work load that would result. Ms. Colbath said no; the committee did not discuss many examples. The committee had discussed how best to create a committee balance through which the auditor would not feel unduly influenced by any party. She offered to share a audit committee resolution from Jackson County. Ms. Nathanson asked if the committee had considered a title for new Section 32(2) to distinguish the new type of ordinance from an emergency ordinance. Mr. Wells indicated that during discussion it was referred to as an "expedited" ordinance. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the word "necessary" in the last sentence of the CCRC could as well be "preferable" given that the council often expedites something because it was a good idea, but not, strictly speaking, necessary. Mr. Tollenaar suggested the council could change the word. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Rayor thought that Section 16(2)(c) regarding appointment and dismissal of department directors addressed the concerns that had been expressed. He determined from Mr. Johnson that Section 51 was moot after 1982-1983 and a preface tying the document to the State Constitution was not necessary. Ms. Bettman suggested a memorandum on Section 51 might be useful. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 11, Council - Journal, and asked if the committee considered striking the section or modifying it. Mr. Tollenaar said that the text was suggested by the City Attorney. Ms. Bettman indicated interest in revisiting that section. Ms. Bettman said the revised section on conflict of interest did not appear to address what a councilor would do in a case of a conflict of interest. Mr. Tollenaar said the language suggested was a minimum. If adopted by the voters, the council would implement it by ordinance and could go beyond what was stated and create more stringent requirements. He noted that the appendix contained a copy of the Salem code of ethics, which included many provisions that the committee had liked. Mayor Torrey asked if the committee had considered taking a contract approach to the performance audit issue, for example, four contracts at $25,000 to audit specific council questions, as opposed to hiring a new position. Ms. Colbath said that the committee did discuss contracting, but those opposing the contract approach believed it did not allow for independence because the city manager would hire the contractor. Mayor Torrey asked if the provision for ten day's notice of an ordinance was triggered by an amendment to an ordinance. Mr. Tollenaar clarified that the council would not have to renotice the item but the council would have to postpone action to another meeting if substantial changes were proposed. Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments. Ms. Bettman regretted the defeat of instant runoff voting but suggested it was a good idea that had yet to "catch on" with the voters. She thought the City should continue to work to pass another measure. Ms. Bettman said the council was dependent on the City Manager as to how policies were implemented, and even with the new evaluation process, many questions the council looked at during its evaluation of the city manager were unanswerable. For example, the council had no way to evaluate the city manager's relationship with personnel. She thought the committee's recommendations for a performance auditor and for council involvement in the hiring and dismissal of department directors would help improve the situation. While staying within the parameters of the council/manager form of government, the council would be better able to do its job. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Rayor commended the work of the committee. He asked if there had been a positive legal opinion of the draft ordinance. Mr. Johnson said the attorney reviewed some of the recommendations but not all of them. Mr. Rayor wanted to see the results of the attorney's review and reiterated his request for the city manager's opinion of each section in the ordinance. He generally liked the recommendations for an in-house attorney and performance auditor position. He thought the recommendations were a very reasonable set of amendments the citizens could feel confident about, particularly after the council completed its review. Ms. Nathanson thanked the committee for following State law and standards in developing its recommendations. She wanted more council discussion about other thresholds for the proposed protected ordinance. In terms of the committee's recommendations related to citizen involvement, she hoped the committee was not looking for new procedures; perhaps, she suggested, the council could commemorate current processes through an ordinance. Ms. Nathanson noted the time the former Council Committee on Citizen Involvement spent on the topic. Ms. Nathanson said she would like more information from dissenting members on whether they believed there was a reasonable substitute approach to the CCRC's recommendation regarding Section 52, Historic Trees. Ms. Taylor was pleased with the recommendations for a performance auditor and in-house attorney. She wanted the council to ask the citizens about instant runoff voting again when it asked them to consider the charter changes. She liked the idea posing the changes to the voters separately. Ms. Taylor reiterated her interest in more defined council involvement in the selection of department directors, saying that did not mean the council was making the decision, but it should know whether it approves of the decision. Mr. Kelly thanked the committee for its work. He liked that the recommendations addressed both what the changes were and why the changes were proposed, and the reasons that no changes were proposed in some instances. He appreciated the committee had met its deadline. Mr. Kelly said he wished some of the changes the committee recommended went further and that others were more limited, but on balance he thought they required only minor wording changes and suggested the council not attempt to rehash the committee's work. He thought the changes could be packaged for presentation to the voters at separate elections. Mr. Meisner said that separate issues needed to be presented discretely to the voters; he was not interested in bundling the items, with the exception of the minor housekeeping items. He had concerns about the recommendations regarding the council's role in contracts and purchasing, and the proposed performance auditor; while there might be value to that function, Mr. Meisner pointed out all the evidence in support of the performance auditor position was provided by an organization that represented local government auditors. In his conversations with other members of the National League of Cities, he had learned of cities that had rejected or ceased such functions. He wanted more balanced information. Regarding the issue of department director appointments, he did not want to change the form of government, but agreed that the council MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 11 Work Session should have some role. He expressed concern about the requirement for a unanimous council vote to repeal a protected ordinance and suggested that the council discuss a different threshold. Mr. Meisner concluded by expressing concern about the citizen participation clause, saying from a legal point of view the language used was both vague and ambiguous and could open the council to legal challenges. Mr. Pap6 said if the council was going to give the city manager responsibility, it needed to give him authority, and for that reason he questioned the committee's recommendation regarding the council's involvement in the hiring and firing process. He thought it removed accountability from the city manager. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that the provision regarding citizen involvement was vague. He did not know what the City could force on the citizens of Eugene in terms of citizen involvement. Regarding conflict of interest, Mr. Pap6 noted the continuing inclusion of the word "pecuniary" and hoped that section could be defined in a way that was more clear to the public. Regarding the performance auditor, he said if such a position was created, the auditor should report to an audit committee. He said that such a position required independence for Success. Mr. Farr thanked the committee for its work and commended Mr. Tollenaar on his ability to see all sides of the issues. He supported the housekeeping and streamlining clarifications. However, he was concerned about the recommendation regarding council approval of contracts, the performance auditor, in-house legal counsel, the council's role in the hiring and dismissal of department directors, and council-initiated ordinances. Mr. Farr's major concern was because of the time many of the recommendations would require on the part of the council, which he thought already spent too much time in meetings. Each recommendation would add more time to the council's work load and further preclude the "moms and dads and workers" in the community from serving on the council. Mr. Farr said that increasing council involvement in administrative decision-making lead to part-time lay people taking over from professional staff people hired for their skill sets. Mayor Torrey supported Mr. Rayor's request for city manager input. Regarding the recommendation for a performance auditor, he indicated he would make available to the council some material he had requested from a former City Manager who had served in San Diego with an auditor with terrible results. He urged the council to consider trying the approach without putting it in the charter. He thought the same thing could be accomplished through the budgeting process. He added he would evaluate all the recommendations on the basis of whether they could be accomplished otherwise. Mayor Torrey thanked the committee for its work. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to accept the final report of the Citizen Charter Review Committee. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 12 Work Session James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 13 Work Session