Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: City Council Process Session ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: City Council Process Session Meeting Date: January 10, 2007 Agenda Item Number: A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Mary Walston www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5406 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This work session is part of an ongoing opportunity for the City Council to discuss how it conducts its business. At its July 23, 2003, work session, the council agreed to convene process sessions three times annually, on the first Wednesday following each council break. BACKGROUND The last council process session convened on Monday, September 18, 2006. No formal action was taken at this meeting. Items scheduled for discussion at the January 10, 2007, meeting include the following: Council Operating Agreements: Review and History ? Future Council Meeting Schedules: Work Sessions, Council Meetings, Workshops, etc. ? Public Hearings ? Parliamentary Issues ? Restating motions/actions ? Friendly amendments ? Betsy Shepard, who facilitated the September meeting, will facilitate these discussions, in order to allow the Mayor to fully participate. RELATED CITY POLICIES No related City policies are relevant to this discussion. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may provide input and direction for staff follow up on the issues discussed. No formal action is anticipated. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No recommendations are offered by the City Manager. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070110\S070110A.doc SUGGESTED MOTION No motions are offered by the City Manager. ATTACHMENTS A. September 18, 2006, Process Session Minutes B. Council Operating Agreements C. 2007 City Council At-a-Glance Calendar FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Mary Walston Telephone: 682-5406 Staff E-Mail: mary.f.walston@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070110\S070110A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom-Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library th 100 West 10 Avenue September 18, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Kitty Piercy, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. EXECUTIVE STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Taylor, Jim Carlson, Susan Muir, Randy Groves, Lauren Chouinard, Kurt Corey, Angel Jones, Bob Lehner. City Council Process Session Council President Jennifer Solomon convened the Process Session of the Eugene City Council. She introduced Betsy Shepard, who was the facilitator for the meeting. Lynda Rose and Mary Walston were present as support staff. Ms. Shepard reviewed the suggested “norms” for the meeting: ? Listen with respect—no interrupting, no talking over, disagree agreeably ? No personal attacks ? Try things on for size ? Stay on task ? Value differences ? Be open and honest ? Look for opportunities to agree ? Strive for consensus Ms. Shepard noted that Mr. Kelly had submitted an agenda item by email. It became Item 4. 1. Council Operating Agreements ? Process for Taking Action on Ordinances Council Coordinator Lynda Rose stated that City Attorney Glenn Klein brought to her attention that the Charter Agreements used to require a first and second reading for ordinances and the language had been changed to that effect. However, she said, it did not match the operating agreement. She said the City Council could have a public hearing on the ordinance and, with no significant input, approve it through the Consent Calendar. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 1 Process Session Mr. Kelly agreed with this, in essence, but questioned putting it into the Consent Calendar. He thought because an ordinance was the law it should require an official vote. Ms. Taylor remarked that there were too many things on the Consent Calendar that did not belong there. Mr. Carlson clarified that 3.02 of the Operating Agreements precluded the inclusion of ordinances in the Consent Calendar. Mr. Poling agreed that an enacting ordinance should be clearly voted on by the council body. He noted that Consent Calendar items were not mentioned in meetings so that the viewing public knew it was on the agenda. Ms. Rose said the only thing one might want to consider would be to wordsmith Section 3.02, so that the language matched the changes in the charter. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Rose affirmed that by wordsmithing she meant the deletion of the words ‘because of charter requirements’ from the language of section 3.02. She felt she had clear direction from the councilors to keep enacting ordinances from being included on the Consent Calendar. 2. CCIGR Committee ? Preparing for the 2007 Legislative Session Ms. Shepard explained that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) was in preparation for the 2007 Legislative Session. City Manager Taylor related that Mr. Pryor and Mayor Piercy brought this item forward with regard to how items, such as resolutions not directly related to the legislative session, become part of the regular agenda. This had brought up the preparation for the legislative session and how to address a division of opinion on the CCIGR in the course of a regular meeting. He said one suggestion was to make such a division into an action item. Mr. Pryor was uncertain of the exact process the CCIGR work underwent. He recalled that he had heard that an item on which the CCIGR was in agreement be placed on the Consent Calendar and items on which the CCIGR was not in agreement be put on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Kelly understood that items that were not unanimously approved were highlighted for “pre-review” by the councilors. He said anyone who wanted a discussion on an item could then request it be placed on the agenda. Ms. Bettman agreed that was the process, as did Mr. Papé. Ms. Taylor noted that the councilors could pull items that had been agreed upon from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mr. Carlson cited the last paragraph on Agenda Item Summary (AIS) page 5, Attachment A: Intergovern- mental Relations Committee Process. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 2 Process Session Mr. Pryor noted that there were hundreds of bills and wondered if it was possible for something to “slip through the cracks.” Mr. Kelly felt there was a check in process in that the nine councilors and Mayor, with the help of Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser, were tracking them. He added that bill details were available on the Legislative Web site. Ms. Bettman reiterated that a split vote on the CCIGR could lead to an item being pulled from the Consent Calendar at the City Council level. Mr. Papé stressed that any legislative item could be revisited. Mr. Pryor commented that it was good to know the process. He added that he had experienced some confusion when he was new to the council. City Manager Taylor stated that the work session on November 8 would include a review of historic priorities, what was tracked, and how it was prioritized. Mr. Kelly asked if the completed legislative policies document would be available to review. Ms. Walston indicated it would. 3. Communications ? Council Assignments ? Constituent Tracking City Manager Taylor explained that he wanted to have a check-in about the discussion that transpired during his performance evaluation regarding council communication and the timeliness and adequacy of the response to council assignments. He thought in the past staff had erred in not putting things on the council assignment list, particularly work related to how constituent requests were handled. He said the council should receive feedback from Public Service Officer (PSO) Michelle Mortenson when an item had been deemed to be a council constituent request follow-up. He asked how this was working for the council. Ms. Ortiz said she had asked for several items of information and had experienced good turnaround. She related one instance in which she had asked Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey for information regarding street standards and it had seemed that she had not clarified what she wanted as Mr. Corey had not given her the response she had hoped for. She was ultimately able to ascertain what she needed to know. As for Ms. Mortensen, she felt her work for the council was good. Mr. Poling asked for an explanation of how the members of the public who call frequently were tracked. City Manager Taylor responded that an individual who called a lot was tracked to determine if there was a pattern to it. Ms. Walston elaborated, stating that the name, address, phone number and ward, as well as the nature of the complaint were entered into a system called the Citizen Tracking Resolution and Coordination system (C-TRAC system). She noted that they had “regular customers” and sometimes those people went to different departments. The C-TRAC system provides one central system to track the constituent requests. She noted that sometimes people need help that staff can not provide and an attempt to provide the appropriate referral for those people is made. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 3 Process Session City Manager Taylor said in a situation where councilors found themselves getting numerous requests on a certain topic, it was suggested that these requests be passed along to Ms. Mortensen or him. He related that staff’s goal was to resolve the inquiry, track it, and then provide the C-TRAC system data to the councilors in order to better inform them. Mr. Pryor asked what the system was for anonymous complaints. Ms. Walston responded that staff did track those complaints. She recommended the councilors forward them to staff. Ms. Taylor commented that some people may have a reason for anonymity. She expressed concern about the comments that people “were getting a record” for their complaints. City Manager Taylor replied that multiple callers were not labeled “unwelcome.” Ms. Taylor said she would find it disturbing if such labeling occurred. She commented that the police keep a record of all calls, adding that a person could have a record without doing anything wrong. Chief Lehner stated that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) did log all calls but this did not constitute a police record. Rather, a police record had to do with being arrested. He stressed that the call record helped track neighborhood issues and was never used for “intelligence” purposes. Mr. Kelly commented that he rarely received a serious letter from an anonymous source. He understood that frequent callers did not get “demerit points” for calling, but they sometimes had issues that the council could not handle. He commended Ms. Mortensen for doing a “stunningly good job” and said she was very good about providing feedback. Regarding the C-TRAC system, Mr. Kelly recalled that the councilors had at one time received a one-page summary but he had not liked it. More recently councilors had received a four- to five-page report with a paragraph summary of each call and he had found this to be very informative. Now, he said, they had returned to the one-page summary. He conveyed his preference for the more elaborate report. Additionally, Mr. Kelly felt that some of the emails that went to the City Manager and other department heads seemed to remain unaddressed for too long. City Manager Taylor responded that staff was trying to get those to council assignments. He said most people who send an email expect a quick turnaround, but a council assignment had a two-week turnaround and the two-hour rule. Mr. Kelly indicated that he did not expect a one-day turnaround, but he hoped it would be tracked better. Chief Lehner stated that anonymous messages were taken seriously if they were threatening. He encouraged councilors to pass along any messages that seem semi-threatening or have implications even though they would not warrant an investigation. He said what the councilors may not know would be whether their peers were receiving those messages also and whether those messages were escalating over time. He asked that councilors specify when forwarding things whether an item was being sent for information purposes alone, whether a response from the EPD was desired, or whether the councilor wished for a response from the EPD. Mr. Carlson said it was very helpful to be clear about what was desired, that a councilor wanted a staff response in a packet because he or she wanted the public piece of information. He stated that staff always tried to go to Ms. Mortensen regarding constituent issues because she was the “best tracking mechanism” in the organization. Mr. Carlson commented that the tracking system for frequent callers aided staff in determining whether the caller was receiving the right answer and the same answer from the different departments called. He stated MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 4 Process Session that the more staff knew about the inquiries to various departments, the better staff was able to provide service. He noted that Ms. Mortensen received very few phone calls because so many people utilized computers. He related that City staff was looking at different technologies to try to find better ways to track things and to create a better interface with the public on the Web site. City Manager Taylor related that very infrequently anonymous communications were received that were crude, pornographic, and inappropriate. He said those were filed in the anonymous file and were not shared with the councilors and Mayor because they were not relevant and they were egregious. Mr. Pryor averred that the difference between an anonymous and a confidential submittal should be maintained. He declared that a confidential communication should remain confidential. He remarked that anonymous submissions frequently fell under the category of “eccentric and weird,” and others were actually threatening. He said the other type of anonymous submission made allegations. He felt concern regarding those. He related that when he served on the Ethics Commission he had been surprised by the number of anonymous allegations that were received, particularly around election time. He underscored that an anonymous allegation was difficult to work with. He was happy that City Manager Taylor logged them but did not necessarily launch investigations on them. Chief Lehner said anonymous complaints and allegations to the EPD were approached by determining if there was something that could be easily verified. He explained that an allegation that someone was a child molester would not cause any action, but an allegation that a person was a child molester that included information regarding a victim would be investigated. Ms. Ortiz reported that a constituent of hers had been told to quit calling in to report drug activity in the neighborhood. She asked for verification of this. Chief Lehner replied that a person told not to call anymore was likely triaged by an operator who asked if it was happening now and what the person was seeing exactly. He said there were occasions when the department received a call from someone complaining about young people hanging around and alleging the young people were doing drugs. He related that there had been some complaints made about a lack of police response at times that he felt were because of situations where a person’s perception of a situation may not have been what was actually occurring. He recom- mended that councilors let him know of such constituent concerns so that he could look into it. Mr. Papé related that he had received a lot of email regarding the hospital siting. He asked if those emails should all be forwarded to staff. Planning Division Director Susan Muir responded that she had sent out an email on how to respond to the situation and indicated she would resend it. 4. Police Auditor Supervision Mr. Kelly was concerned that the new police auditor would have “eight bosses” and suggested that when a problem arose, she should go to the council president and vice president. Mr. Papé disagreed. He noted that the City Manager had “eight bosses” as did the judges. He did not think two councilors should speak for all. Mr. Kelly pointed out that City Manager Taylor was only responsible to the council as a body. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 5 Process Session Ms. Bettman suggested that an issue for the council be brought to the officers to be placed in the schedule for the full body of the council. She thought some issues regarding facilitation of the process could be brought to council officers. Mr. Pryor did not want the major issues to be resolved by only two people. However, he also wished to avoid having a situation wherein eight people gave eight different sets of directions to the auditor. Mr. Kelly thought how to draw the line between major and minor issues would merit discussion. He suggested having a work session with the auditor on October 23 to work out this process. Ms. Rose recommended scheduling this for the work session of November 13, as it was completely open and it also would give the auditor almost a month to acclimate herself to her office and staff. Ms. Bettman proposed an introductory reception for the new auditor. Mr. Papé suggested that the auditor start by reviewing the job description. Ms. Taylor thought any “trivial” questions could be brought to staff. She also suggested that the Human Resource and Risk Services Department (HRRS) should provide the reception. HRRS Director Lauren Chouinard indicated he would be happy to work with the City Manager’s Office (CMO) to develop a reception. Ms. Ortiz approved of having a work session on November 13. She also liked the idea of having a reception for the new auditor and suggested the Campbell Senior Center as a location. After discussion, the council agreed that a reception would be held for the new auditor. Several suggestions for a location were offered. Ms. Rose agreed to facilitate its scheduling of event, and suggested holding the reception on October 18. 5. Role of Official Spokespeople from Governmental Agencies at Council Work Sessions Mr. Poling averred that if the council was discussing the possible involvement of other agencies in an issue, representatives or officials of the other agencies should be invited to participate. Ms. Bettman thought this sounded good but questioned how the council would determine who to invite. Ms. Taylor had a “big problem” with deciding who would be at the table. She averred that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), for example, had a “definite point of view on a lot of things.” She thought the opposing point of view should be represented, too. She felt it just “would not work.” Ms. Ortiz was not opposed to this idea as long as it was an inconclusive process. She was uncertain how to draw the line. She wondered how a meeting would be handled: would ODOT and the Friends of Eugene both be represented? Would it allow Kevin Matthews, given that he “is an expert in some people’s eyes” and that the Friends of Eugene consider themselves an official body, to be at the table? She was open to discussion of a threshold. Mr. Kelly recalled a discussion about being able to recognize people from the audience; the council decided not to do so. While he wished the council could hold “town hall” type meetings, he did not think it would work very well. He likened it to having a tenth councilor at the table. However, he wanted to encourage having representatives be present in case councilors had questions. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 6 Process Session Ms. Solomon averred that it was important to recognize other government agencies. She felt a lot of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) discussion had been hearsay, for instance, as no one from ODOT was present. She recalled a work session at which Rob Handy had been allowed to speak on behalf of the River Road Neighbors, though it was not an official government organization. She advised the council to be consistent. Mr. Papé remembered that members of the City of Coburg’s staff and elected officials had come to make a presentation about tying in to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Wastewa- ter Treatment Plant. He favored limiting the amount of time such outside representatives were given. He suggested five minutes. Mr. Pryor found the discussion to be interesting. He thought duly constituted government agencies did represent partners and that they should have some official role, as was being discussed. He suggested such an entity be given a specific five minutes to talk about what they wanted to do. He did not want them to be part of the deliberations because they were not part of the City Council. Ms. Bettman preferred that agencies involved in a multi-jurisdictional issue submit information to the council packets. She did not want them to participate to the discussion “much.” She asserted that when there were stakeholders in an issue they were represented at the table through their elected representatives. Mr. Kelly liked the idea of having the information included in council packets. He declared that a truly inter-governmental issue was a cause for a joint meeting with the appropriate body. Ms. Taylor opined that it was fine to provide information but another governmental body should not try to persuade the councilors. She commented that she had requests from people for “20 minutes on the calendar.” Mr. Poling clarified that he did not want to give the impression that he wanted to suggest that representatives from another governmental body should be able to vote. He underscored that his intention was merely to have such representatives present to provide information or to clarify points. He noted that he received the Lane Board of County Commissioners agendas and sometimes had thought that he would like to weigh in on an issue. City Manager Taylor said they had created a new device called the “Workshop” which provided for people other than councilors to be part of problem-solving for an issue or a project, e.g. the City Hall Complex. He commented that sometimes it seemed they were less prepared for the Consent Calendar items, in regard to having people present to respond to questions. He noted that an item involving the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) had come up through the Consent Calendar and notification of EWEB staff had been overlooked. He said staff usually made an effort to provide other elected officials with “first shot” at the Public Forum, but there was not a place for officials from other jurisdictions to participate in the delibera- tions. Mr. Papé said he wanted to make sure the information that was allegedly correct was actually correct. He thought it was good to be able to verify things with their sources. Ms. Taylor asserted that there were times that she had sat in a Lane Board of County Commissioners meeting and had heard something said about the City Council that was not true and she was not able to dispute it. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 7 Process Session Ms. Bettman surmised that some councilors wanted a governmental entity such as ODOT at the table in order to rebut. She felt there were “lots of things [she considered] inaccurate that were said in the council that come out of councilor mouths.” She wondered why only some were “rebuttable” and some were not. City Manager Taylor related that some councilors and the Mayor wanted more joint meetings with other elected officials. This posed scheduling issues more often than not. He said the hardest meeting to schedule was a joint elected officials meeting. Ms. Shepard summarized the discussion: the councilors’ prevailing sentiment was that representatives of other intergovernmental agencies should not be at the table and should not vote, but that being available to provide information was of some benefit. Ms. Rose reported that she had received a call from EWEB earlier in the day seeking to schedule a joint meeting. She indicated she would be contacting the councilors regarding this proposal. Ms. Shepard called for a 10-minute break. 6. Winter 2007 Special Meeting Schedule ? Strategic Planning/Goal Setting Retreat ? Process Session Ms. Rose passed out a polling sheet to determine when the next strategic planning session should be held and preferences for when the next process session should be held. She asked councilors to check the dates they were available. Mr. Papé noted that the prior process session had to be moved and then it never happened. He wanted to know how those things happen when the eight councilors had indicated their preference for the dates. City Manager Taylor stated that it had been the Mayor’s and his decision to move the process session. He recalled that the date had conflicted with his trip to the International City Managers Association conference and that the Mayor had felt it important that he be available for the process session. Mayor Kitty Piercy arrived. City Manager Taylor surmised, from the discussion, that it was the council’s preference to have the first Wednesday after the council break set aside for a process session. Ms. Bettman wondered if three process sessions were really needed. Mr. Pryor said he had another board meeting on Wednesday evenings that prevented him from participating in process sessions on that night. Ms. Ortiz indicated her willingness to be somewhat flexible. She felt it was important to try and accommo- date each other’s schedules. She suggested that the council pass on the process session scheduled for after the goal-setting retreat. Ms. Taylor opined that one process session was enough. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 8 Process Session Mayor Piercy said she was back from an Alaskan tour that focused on climate changes. 7. Action at Council Work Sessions Mayor Piercy stated that her reason for bringing this item up was that she wanted work sessions to be focused on work as much as possible. She was concerned that being driven toward taking action interfered with this. She proposed that action at work sessions be taken only if imperative. Ms. Taylor supported the idea of using work sessions for information and discussion only. She said councilors could then go away and think about things. Mr. Kelly felt that the council wanted deliberation but it did not want to take time for it. When he had been a new councilor, work sessions had not included suggested motions. He thought the only way to resolve this issue would be if the council decided as a body that certain larger issues deserved a different format. Ms. Solomon commented that not taking action at the work sessions felt like a waste of time to her. She said she was not elected to just sit and talk. She averred that if the council needed a second work session on an issue, councilors could ask for one and have it put onto the schedule. Mr. Pryor observed that regular meetings included public comment but work sessions did not. He advocated for including public input at work sessions in which action would occur. Mayor Piercy did not believe the discussion at the work session table was a waste of time. She underscored that what she envisioned was real deliberation, perhaps a couple of suggestions for action, and then the action brought back to a regular meeting. This would provide the opportunity to review everything that came out of a work session discussion for consideration. Ms. Bettman thought traditionally work sessions were used for deliberations. She averred that oftentimes action was necessary to refine the work and provide staff with the appropriate direction. She felt this should come back in the form of motions. She said previously councilor suggestions came back to the council in the form of options, but now it seemed that unless there was a motion “nothing sticks” and these suggestions “went into the ozone.” Ms. Taylor asserted that the purpose of the work session was to hear what others had to say, even though the councilors had read the material. She thought the members of the public were able to listen and watch and then could think about whether they wished to address an item in the Public Forum, a hearing, or by communicating directly with the councilors. Mr. Kelly thought the challenge was trying to think globally in order to determine when to elevate certain topics to a level of greater study and discussion. He suggested staff look at other elected bodies for a model of how action was addressed or not addressed in work sessions. City Manager Taylor reported that he had worked in jurisdictions where no action was taken during work sessions. He thought moving all public hearings to a single night per month could set the council up for deferring action in a work session. He said ultimately if the council was uncomfortable taking action on a particular item, the council could vote to postpone to a time/date certain. MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 9 Process Session Mr. Kelly asked how a jurisdiction that took no action at a work session could clearly inform and direct staff as to how to proceed. City Manager Taylor replied that there was greater deference to staff about what the next step was. Mayor Piercy commented that sometimes the council had a “real work session” and other times she felt the council did not have a robust discussion. At times when she was asked to be the tie-breaking vote she felt like suggesting that the item be discussed further instead. She thought it would be good for the community if there was more support for a direction in which the council wished to move. Ms. Bettman asserted that staff should know the sentiments of the councilors so the work could be done up front. She preferred to have deeper deliberations on issues and less on process. She also believed that a councilor had the right to propose a motion at any time and should not be required to provide intended motions in advance. She declared that councilors needed to give direction to staff and motions were the vehicle by which they could do so. Mayor Piercy asked the councilors if they felt they were having enough deliberation of the issues. Ms. Taylor liked it better when no action was taken at the work session. She felt the council rushed to make decisions with the current system. She did not believe most items were so urgent that they could not wait for a regular meeting for action. Mr. Kelly remarked that some work sessions worked well and some did not work. He did not want to have a “one-size” procedure. He added that often a requested second work session might not fit into the schedule for three months. He wondered if there was a way for the council to review the tentative agenda and suggest putting the important issues out front so that if a second session was needed it could be queued up early. Mr. Papé averred that providing comment to the council officers would be a way to give input in setting the agenda. City Manager Taylor related that one of his city manager colleagues had a color-coding system with his recommendations in order to indicate how strongly he felt about any one of them to the councilors he worked with. He suggested that there might be a way for the councilors and Mayor to indicate how important they thought an item was on a scale of one to ten. Ms. Bettman thought the problem with prioritizing was that there was really no way to know if something was a big deal or not. She felt that one councilor could see problems that another councilor might not and this was not predictable. She said the council may just need more work sessions. Mayor Piercy felt that if the council had a good, robust discussion of an issue but had not honed in on one thing that everyone agreed upon, the council could carry the discussion over to its regular meeting in order to gain public input. She noted that there were other councils that used their regular meetings to deliberate. Ms. Taylor agreed, adding that the public might bring up something the councilors had not thought of. Mr. Poling commented that the current process worked fine for him. Ms. Ortiz asked the Mayor if she had brought this issue to the table because she was weary of being a tie- breaker. Mayor Piercy replied that she did not think it had to do with breaking the ties. She related that MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 10 Process Session “many, many people” had said to her that the council did not deliberate enough and that the council seemed to come to the table with a preconceived answer. She also thought the public should have time to be heard. Mr. Kelly said there were certain issues where one could predict how the votes would go and who would vote which way. He thought it would be good to be able to take two strong ideas of outcomes and wait for a week prior to voting. He suggested that someone draft a “straw man” formalization of what this would look like. 8. Legal Opinions Mr. Papé related that Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly had obtained a legal opinion that was a de facto second opinion without consulting the rest of the council. Ms. Bettman did not believe this was a process issue. She called it inappropriate to bring this up at the last minute of the process session. Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Papé was trying to raise the general issue of how the council could get a second legal opinion or if he trying to raise the specific issue of the Police Auditor and the second legal opinion that had been provided regarding hiring practices. Mr. Papé replied that he wanted to address the process. Mr. Kelly stated that the council could not engage in a contract and had no way to elect to appropriate another legal opinion as a body. He thought it would be nice to have a mechanism to do so. He remarked that a separate issue in this was that he sometimes consulted his constituents. He cited, as an example, a time when he called an engineer he knew regarding a construction issue. He said in the case of the Police Auditor, the attorney with the second legal opinion had contacted Ms. Bettman and him. Ms. Bettman asserted that the City Attorney represented the City Manager and not the council or the public. She felt with a question of public policy, she would want to get an outside opinion. She recommended that the council put this item on the agenda for the next process session and, in the mean time, that staff should find out what other cities did in regard to this issue. Mr. Papé said he also utilized the knowledge of constituents. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mayor Piercy acknowledged that she had invited this outside attorney to meet with the City Manager. She said she had asked staff, including the City Manager, to meet with various people and discuss certain things many times. She did not think it was in her purview to ask him to take action on a legal issue in which the City of Eugene was involved. She added that City Attorney Glenn Klein, when representing the City, took the stance that best represented the City; and when the council asked for legal opinions, Mr. Klein gave his best opinion to the council based on his legal knowledge. Ms. Bettman thought it would be beneficial to have another attorney at the next process session. City Manager Taylor underscored that the City Attorney represented the City and the council as the governing body of the City. He stated that the City Attorney was not an agent of the administration. He MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 11 Process Session pointed out that in the prior firing of a city manager, the City Attorney represented the City and the city manager had to engage her own attorney. Mr. Papé thought the City could hire another attorney to provide an opinion. Mr. Kelly said he would not want any rule that would prevent taking another attorney’s phone call. Ms. Bettman felt the larger issue was whether councilors could go to individual attorneys. She alleged that regardless of what one said, when she had talked with other municipalities’ representatives, people there believed that the City Attorney represented the City Manager, because the City Manager signed the checks. She recommended adding this issue to the next process session. City Manager Taylor wanted to make a distinction between an attorney’s opinion and a City Attorney’s opinion. He said in terms of Oregon common law, there was a large distinction between the two. City Manager Taylor ascertained from the council that there was majority support for addressing this item in a work session. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—City Council September 18, 2006 Page 12 Process Session ECCOA UGENE ITY OUNCIL PERATING GREEMENTS RN4872 ESOLUTION UMBER AM22,2006 DOPTED AY INTRODUCTION The Municipal Charter of the City of Eugene (Charter) and Eugene City Code, 1971 (E.C.), as well as the Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) law govern many meeting requirements and actions of the Council. The Eugene Charter, Chapter 2 of the Eugene City Code, and various sections of ORS 192 and 244 are primary sources of these meeting and other operating requirements. 1.MEETING REQUIREMENTS 1.01 Time of Meetings Regular meetings of the Eugene City Council (the Council) shall be on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. These meetings shall begin at 7:30 p.m. and shall end at 10 p.m., or when the agenda item considered by the Council at 10 p.m. is concluded. If those days are on a legal or religious holiday, the Council may schedule the meeting for the day immediately following. 1.02 Work Sessions The Council may meet in work sessions beginning at 5:30 p.m. prior to its regular Monday meetings as needed. Other work sessions may be held on the second, third, fourth, and fifth Wednesdays of the month. These work sessions shall start at noon and last for a maximum of 90 minutes. Except for extraordinary circumstances, the total time for presentations by staff and/or others on a single agenda item shall be no more than 15 minutes. 1.03 Location of Meetings Eugene City Council meetings shall be held within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. Training sessions may be held outside the City limits, if no deliberations toward a decision are made. Inter-jurisdictional meetings may be held outside City limits, but should be as close to Eugene as practical. No Council meeting shall be held at any place where discrimination on the basis of an individual’s race, religion, color, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, source of income or disability, is practiced. For this purpose, meetings do not include visitations or attendance at any national, regional, or state association to which the councilor belongs. 1.04 Notice of Meetings, Special Meetings, Emergency Meetings Advance notice of at least 24 hours shall be provided for all meetings. Notice shall include written notice to all news media which requested notice. In the case of emergency or when a state of emergency has been declared, notice appropriate to the circumstances shall be provided and reasons justifying the lack of 24-hour notice shall be included in the minutes of such meeting. As per both the Eugene Charter, Section 9, and Eugene Code, Section 2.007 (2), the Mayor or three of the members of the Council, may call a special meeting of the Council in manner provided in E.C. 2.007 (3). Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 1 of 12 1.05 Public Forum A public comment period generally shall be the first item of every regular meeting of the Eugene City Council. The Public Forum shall not exceed a maximum of 60 minutes, unless a majority of Councilors present vote to extend the time. A motion to extend the time of the Public Forum is not debatable. Persons wishing to speak at the Public Forum must sign up to do so not later than 5 minutes after the meeting has been called to order by the Mayor or presiding officer. The Mayor or presiding officer shall inform the audience of the requirement to sign up to speak not later than 5 minutes after the meeting has been called to order or prior to the conclusion of the Public Forum. Members of the public may speak about any topic during the Public Forum, except as provided below. If a member of the public wishes to speak on an item that is scheduled for a public hearing at that same meeting, the speaker shall wait until that public hearing. The Public Forum cannot be used to testify about an item that is not a public matter or which has already been heard by a Hearings Official, or to provide or gather additional testimony or information on a quasi-judicial matter after the official record has been closed. Speakers at the Public Forum will be limited to three minutes. Generally, the speakers will be called upon in the order in which the “request to speak” forms are received by the staff at the meeting. No persons will be allowed to complete a “request to speak” form more than 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. Should there be more speakers than can be heard for three minutes each during the 60 minute Public Forum, the staff will sort the “request to speak” forms in order to afford a greater opportunity for a number of topics to be heard during the Public Forum. If there are a large number of speakers on a single topic, staff is directed to intermix request to speak forms from persons wishing to speak on a less stated topic. The “request to speak forms,” in this case only, will not remain in the original order in which they were received in order to improve the likelihood that those smaller numbers of speakers will have an opportunity to speak before the Public Forum is closed. When possible and feasible preference will be given to individuals who reside within the legal limits of the City of Eugene. Persons who do not reside in the City of Eugene may be placed at the end of the list of those wishing to speak at the Public Forum. At the end of the Public Forum each member of the Council has the opportunity to respond to comments made during the Public Forum. The time allocated to each member of the Council for such responses shall be up to three minutes. 1.06 Public Hearings Public hearings shall be held at regular meetings and shall occur for all ordinances except under the terms delineated in E.C. 2.007 (4). Hearings may be scheduled on other items at the discretion of the Mayor and the City Manager. Persons wishing to speak shall submit a “request to speak” form prior to the commencement of the public hearing at which the person wishes to speak. The Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 2 of 12 Mayor or presiding officer shall inform the audience of this requirement to sign up prior to the commencement of a public hearing. Speakers will be limited to three minutes. Eugene Code 2.015(7) notwithstanding, councilors may ask clarifying or follow up questions of individuals providing testimony after that individual has completed his/her testimony. Questions posed by City Councilors should be to provide clarification or additional information on testimony provided. Questions should not be used as an attempt to lengthen or expand the testimony of the individual. Councilors shall be expected to use restraint and be considerate of the meeting time of the Council when exercising this option. The Mayor or presiding officer may intervene if a councilor is violating the spirit of this guideline. At the end of the Public Hearing, each member of the Council has the opportunity to comment on or discuss testimony given during the Public Hearing. The Mayor and Council will be limited to commenting only on the main motion prior to discussing any proposed amendments. If a an amendment to the motion is made during the initial round on the main motion, subsequent remarks on the amendments will be postponed until all wishing to speak on the main motion have done so. 1.07 Executive Session All meetings of the Eugene City Council shall be held in open session, except those meetings that may be closed for those purposes specified in the Oregon Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual (ORS 192.610 to 192.690). These include the employment and dismissal of public employees, the performance evaluation of the City Manager, labor negotiations, real property transactions negotiations, and consulting with legal counsel on pending or threatened litigation. Notice of executive sessions shall be given as required by state law and that notice must state the specific provisions of law authorizing the session. The Mayor and City Councilors are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the information discussed in legally noticed and conducted executive sessions as defined in Chapter 192 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. 1.08 Minutes Written minutes shall be taken for all Council meetings in accordance with the Oregon Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual. The minutes must give a true reflection of the matters discussed but need not be a full transcript, verbatim or recording. As a matter of courtesy and efficiency, councilors should notify the Mayor and other councilors that he/she intends to propose an amendment to the minutes and should propose replacement text in advance of the meeting at which those minutes are scheduled to be approved. If the proposed amendment is a simple factual, grammatical, or spelling correction, the amendment may be proposed without consulting the minutes recorder. If, however, the proposed amendment is substantive in nature or seeks to clarify the speaker's intent, or to expand his/her remarks for the record, the councilor should notify the minutes recorder and request verification of the proposed amendment. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 3 of 12 1.09 Voting Section 12 of the Eugene Municipal Charter states that, the Mayor only votes on matters before the Council in the case of a tie. Council members may not abstain from voting unless a conflict of interest has been declared. 1.10 Presiding Officer The Mayor shall preside over Council meetings when present. The president of the Council shall preside if the Mayor is absent or unable to preside. The Council vice president shall have the powers of the Council president when the Council president is performing the duties of the Mayor. If the Mayor, Council president, and vice president are unavailable, the Council members present shall elect a temporary presiding officer. 1.11 Council Officers Council officers shall be elected for one year terms in the manner prescribed in the E.C. 2.009, at the first regular meeting in each calendar year. PLACING ITEMS ON COUNCIL AGENDA 2. 2.01 Contact the City Manager Contact the City Manager and explain the nature, scope and desired outcome of the item for the agenda, or make the request during a City Council meeting under “Items from Mayor and City Council” at a Council work session. The City Manager and Mayor may then decide to place the item on a future agenda. 2.02 Council Poll Alternatively, an item may be placed on the Council agenda by councilor request. A councilor may ask Council support staff for a work session, and staff shall then poll all councilors, in writing, to ask if the item should be placed on the Council agenda. If, within five working days of distribution of the poll, a majority of the Council responds in the affirmative, the item shall be placed on the Council agenda within one week. A majority of the Council in this instance is four councilors. 2.03 Tentative Agenda on the Consent Calendar At each regular meeting of the Council, the City Manager shall present the tentative agenda. This shall be placed on the Consent Calendar. If there are concerns about items on the tentative agenda it may be removed at the request of any councilors from the Consent Calendar and discussed separately. 2.04 Tentative Agenda Provided Each Week The tentative agenda shall be included in the weekly information packet provided to the Council. 2.05 Scheduling of Items on the Agenda The City Manager and Mayor shall decide the date that items come before Council for work sessions and for regular meetings. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 4 of 12 2.06 Routine Business Items on the City Council Agenda The City Manager shall continue to place routine and standard items of Council business on the City Council agenda. ORDER OF ITEMS ON A SPECIFIC DATE MEETING AGENDA 3. 3.01 Ceremonial Matters At the first regular meeting of each month, the first item on the agenda shall be used to acknowledge special recognition and awards given to the City of Eugene or for the Mayor to announce proclamations which serve to encourage and educate the community. Proclamations shall be made and placed on the agenda at the discretion of the Mayor. This item shall be called “Ceremonial Matters.” Requests for recognition under Ceremonial Matters should be submitted in writing to the Mayor. 3.02 Consent Calendar At regular Council meetings, in order to expedite the Council’s business, routine and standard items shall be placed on the Consent Calendar. Any item on the consent calendar may be removed for separate consideration by any member of the Council. Revisions or corrections to meetings minutes shall be considered first, prior to other items removed from the Consent Calendar. The remaining items on the Consent Calendar may then be considered for action by a single vote. The items pulled from the Consent Calendar shall be considered after the approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar and before the next scheduled item on the agenda. Ordinances because of charter requirements, are not be placed on the Consent Calendar. 3.03 Public Hearings Given Priority As a guideline, public hearings shall be placed on the specific meeting agenda before items only requiring action. Further, public hearings expected to draw a small number of speakers shall be placed before public hearings for which a larger number of speakers is expected. 3.04 Items from Mayor and City Council At work sessions held on the second and fourth Mondays of each month, the first item on the agenda shall be “Items from Mayor, Council and City Manager.” The time set for this item will be 20 minutes, subject to change at the time the meeting is called to order. COUNCIL ACTION ON AGENDA ITEMS 4. As a guideline, action on issues for which a public hearing has occurred shall not be taken at the same meeting at which the public hearing is held. In the case of an ordinance, the charter requires that an ordinance shall not be adopted by the Council unless it has been considered by the Council during at least two meetings. With the unanimous consent of the Council, the Council may consider and enact an ordinance at a single meeting if the Council does not amend the ordinance in a manner that modifies its substantive effect, (Charter, Section 28 (3)). Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 5 of 12 POSTPONING AGENDA ITEMS 5. Any councilor may request that an item be postponed to another meeting if he/she is unable to attend the meeting at which the item has been scheduled. As a courtesy, councilors should submit in writing a request to postpone to the Mayor as early as possible. If the Mayor is unavailable the request should be made to the City Manager or the Manager’s designated staff member. A request to postpone may be requested for either a work session item or a vote on an agenda item. The request to postpone shall be honored unless a majority of councilors present, determines that the matter needs to be acted upon at that meeting. COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL 6. 6.01 Creation of Committees While the City Code governs appointments to certain committees, the code grants broad general powers to the Mayor and Council to create subcommittees or special ad hoc committees of the Council. The Mayor shall nominate and the Council shall appoint the members of any committee established by the Council unless a different procedure is specified at the time the committee is established. The charge to the committee shall be clearly stated at the time the committee is established, and the committee shall disband when its work is complete. Committees may be composed of councilors, interested citizens or both. 6.02 Standing Committees of the Council There is one standing committee of the Council, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee. 6.03 Standing Advisory Bodies to the Council There are five standing advisory bodies to the City Council. These are created in the Eugene Code and exist to provide advice on policy matters. These are: 1) the Budget Committee; 2) the Planning Commission; 3) the Police Commission; and 4) the Human Rights Commission. 7. CONDUCT AT MEETINGS 7.01 Roberts Rules of Order Conduct at Council meetings and committee meetings is governed by Roberts Rules of Order, Revised. The Council has the obligation to be clear and simple in its procedures and in its consideration of the questions coming before it. Council members shall avoid invoking the finer points of parliamentary rules which may serve only to obscure the issues. 7.02 Other Meeting Guidelines The presiding officer shall be responsible for ensuring order and decorum are maintained. Behavior or actions that are unreasonably loud or disruptive shall be cause for removal from Council meetings. This includes engaging in violent or distracting action, making loud or disruptive noise or using similar language, and refusing to obey an order of the presiding officer. Council members speak only for themselves and shall be open, direct and candid. They work to keep discussion moving, and call for a “process check” if the discussion becomes bogged down. Time limits may be set on topics. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 6 of 12 When councilors speak to each other during public meetings, last names shall be used during regular meetings and first names may be used during work sessions. The Mayor is, however, always referred to as “The Mayor.” During public meetings, councilors generally should not attempt to edit or rewrite prepared ordinances. Amendments to an ordinance may, however, be appropriate. Generally, councilors should give direction to staff to bring back amended ordinances for Council consideration. If a member of the Council intends to make a motion at a meeting which is not reflected in the agenda item summary, every effort should be make to contact other members of the Council to inform them of the intent and the text of the motion. City Council support staff should be notified provided with the same information and may be asked to assist in the notification process. Comment times for the Mayor and councilors at Council meetings or work sessions shall be as follows: the first round of comments by the Mayor and Council following a work session, public hearing, or when action is scheduled will be limited to no more than three minutes. If a second round of comments is requested, they will be limited to no more than two minutes, and third round comments will be no longer than one minute. This, however, will be at the discretion of the Mayor or presiding officer. When an amendment to the main motion is introduced, comments will be limited to two minutes for the Mayor and Council until the presiding officer deems that one-minute limitations are necessary due to time constraints. 7.03 Public Conduct The rules of conduct for members of the public shall generally be the same as for the Council. The Code prohibits any person from bringing in to a Council meeting flags, signs, posters, and placards unless authorized by the presiding officer. The Eugene Code specifically permits arm bands, emblems, badges, and other articles worn on personal clothing, so long as such items do not extend from the body in such a way as to cause injury to another. COUNCILOR REQUEST FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE 8. 8.01 Two-Hour Rule Initiatives which require more than two hours of staff time must be approved by the Council. Requests that involve less than two hours staff time or resources should be directed to the City Manager. 8.02 Major Request A Councilor who desires major policy, ordinance research, or other staff assistance should first raise the issue at a Council work session. The Council should decide whether to proceed with the issue or ordinance before staff time is spent. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 7 of 12 8.03 Tracking Council Requests Except for routine inquiries, the City Manager shall respond to councilors’ requests for information or assistance. The Manager shall assign these requests to appropriate City staff and track progress on the assignments. This process eliminates the possibilities of staff members duplicating each other's efforts or a request being overlooked. In each weekly information packet a list of current requests for assistance will be provided. 9. REPRESENTING CITY POSITIONS AND PERSONAL POSITIONS 9.01 Written Communications from City Councilors and Mayor In written communication with other officials or groups and in letters for publication, such as “to the editor,” the Mayor and councilors should be careful to decide whether to speak only for themselves or for the Council. In speaking for the Council, when there is a position which the writer wishes to reinforce or explain, it is useful to circulate a copy to the Council for comment before the letter is mailed. Letters to other elected officials or agencies on City issues shall be discussed with the appropriate staff so that the City lobby effort can be coordinated. When writing as an individual, a councilor or the Mayor is free to take any position which he or she feels is appropriate. When it is a point of view different from a Council position, this fact should be included in the letter. Use of City stationery and choice of pronouns shall be left to the discretion of the councilor or the Mayor . The governing principle is to advise the Council or staff when expressing a City position, and to make differences clear when speaking as an individual. 9.02 State/Federal Lobbying The effectiveness of City lobbying in Salem or in Washington, D.C., depends on the clarity of the City’s voice. When councilors or the Mayor represent the City in a lobbying situation, it is appropriate that the councilors or the Mayoravoid expressions of personal dissent from an adopted Council policy. This policy is stated in Resolution No. 4139, Council Policy on Testimony and Funding Applications. A councilor or the Mayor in disagreement with an adopted policy should not be deprived of the right to express such views to the appropriate officials at another time and another place. However, the councilor or the Mayor should feel bound to advise those to whom such disagreement is expressed that it is an individual view and that the Council has taken a different position. 9.03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings Councilors and the Mayor are encouraged to attend conferences and training sessions which would enhance their skills and knowledge. Any councilor or the Mayor may attend any meeting at which the Council is represented, but only the formally appointed official City Council representative or designated alternate, has the right to vote on matters being considered by the organization or group holding the meeting or conference. Individual councilors or the Mayor may state he or she is representing the City Council if he or she has been formally directed by the City Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 8 of 12 Council to do so. For local intergovernmental bodies or advisory groups, to which an official Eugene City Council representative has been appointed, the representative is to serve as an “instructed delegate,” that is, to represent pertinent adopted city and Council policy. If possible, the Mayor or councilors should inform the other members of the City Council of the matters being considered by intergovernmental bodies, and to the greatest extent possible, seek direction from the City Council on issues directly pertaining to the City of Eugene and adopted city policy. The representative may express his or her own opinion, provided it is identified as such, but when voting or considering matters with policy implications or budgetary considerations, the representative must follow adopted City or Council policy and direction. Participating in state and national groups such as the League of Oregon Cities and the National League of Cities present the opportunity to enhance skills and knowledge, and are important avenues for the Mayor and councilors to advocate for the members of the community and the city itself. If the Mayor or councilors attend meetings of these organizations, an official voting delegate should be selected by the City Council. This voting delegate, to the greatest extent possible, informs the Mayor and City Council of issues or matters on which the voting delegate may be asked to vote. If there is existing City or Council policy, the voting delegate will vote in accordance with that policy. When providing a report to the council (see Section 10.06), votes of the delegate should be included in that report. If the Mayor or individual councilor serves on a committee of a state or national advisory committee and has been selected in an “at large” role, that is, not a specific seat or position for a City of Eugene elected official, that person should state the adopted City or Council policies. However, that person is not bound by the adopted policy and can represent his or her own position, provide that the person makes such a disclaimer. 10. COUNCILOR EXPENSES 10.01 General Guidelines for Reimbursed Expenses Under the provisions of the City Charter, the City may pay a councilor or the Mayor expenses that are directly related to City business. It is each councilor’s and the Mayor’s responsibility to determine if expenses are actually City related. If there are questions about the propriety of such expenditures, the Manager shall first review the issue with the councilor. If the City Manager and the councilor cannot resolve the issue, the Manager shall discuss the matter with the Mayor. Receipts should be secured for any expenses and should accompany Council expense report forms to record mileage and other expenses. The forms shall be available from the City Manager's Office. Activities that support or oppose a political campaign shall not be reimbursable. 10.02 Out-of-Town Expenses Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 9 of 12 Out-of-town expenses include those incurred while attending City-related conventions, conferences, training seminars, or meetings. Expenses that are paid by the City include fees for seminars or conferences; transportation to, from, and at the destination; and lodging, meals, and incidental expenses that are necessary to conduct City business. 10.03 Local Expenses Local expenses include those incurred while representing the Council on a committee, attending meetings, attending local seminars or conferences, attending local special events, or meeting with groups or individuals to discuss City matters. Expenses that are paid by the City are detailed in Resolution No. 4375 and include meals, conference registration, transportation and necessary incidental expenses, and up to two community group memberships, not to exceed $100 total. The reimbursement for bicycle mileage, as permitted in Resolution No. 4375, shall be $.15.1 per mile as of September 1, 2002, and shall be adjusted each year at the same rate of increase as that of automobile reimbursement. Special materials such as books or directories may also be eligible for reimbursement. If receipts are not available, a written description of expenses signed by the Councilor must be submitted along with the Council Expense Report Form. Forms shall be available from the City Manager’s Office. 10.04 Spouse/Guest Expenses The City shall reimburse councilors or the Mayor for spouse expenses at local events when the councilors or the Mayor and spouse are jointly invited and the councilors are serving in their official capacity, such as a recognition dinner. The City does not otherwise reimburse councilors or the Mayor for expenses incurred by their spouses. If councilors or the Mayor wish to have spouses accompany them while attending out-of-town events, the City may make reservations and have travel and lodging expenses billed directly to the City. Councilors or the Mayor must then reimburse the City for their spouse’s travel and lodging expenses. Reimbursement should be made as soon as possible so that the trip reconciliation process can be completed. When a guest is invited in place of a spouse, this reimbursement policy shall also apply. 10.05 Petty Cash Expenses under $50 can usually be reimbursed out of the petty cash fund in the City Manager’s Office. 10.06 Travel Guidelines Prior notification of out-of-town travel shall be given to staff responsible for travel arrangements in the City Manager’s Office whenever possible. Registration and travel arrangements should be made well in advance so that the City can take advantage of reduced fares and early registration fees. Staff shall assist councilors in making transportation and lodging arrangements and arrange to have expenses billed directly to the City; contractors shall be chosen by staff, and not by councilors. While at a conference, councilors or the Mayor shall be expected to attend conference sessions and, within 30 days, issue a written report to share the information and perspectives with the entire Council. If more than one councilor attends, a consolidated report may be written. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 10 of 12 As a general guideline, each councilor is allowed two out-of-state conference trips per fiscal year. If a councilor wishes to make additional trips, the request should be brought to attention of the full Council and should be endorsed by a majority of the Council. This guideline is intended to cover trips made at the discretion of the individual councilor; it is not intended to be applied to trips related to service on national or regional committee, such as a committee of the National League of Cities. 10.07 Overseas Travel If the Mayor or members of the Council wish to attend a conference or make a Council business- related trip to a destination overseas, this request shall be made in writing well in advance and shall be placed on the consent calendar for approval by the Council. 11. ETHICS 11.01 Reporting Requirements in ORS In accordance with ORS 244.050, the Mayor and all councilors holding office on April 15 shall be required to file an Annual Verified Statement of Economic Interest with the Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission on or before that date. The report must be filed on the form prescribed by ORS 244.060. Each year the form shall be mailed directly to the elected official by the Commission and should be returned directly to the Commission in Salem. Failure to submit the form by the April 15 deadline may result in the imposition of a civil penalty and/or removal from office. 11.02 Local Code of Ethics The Charter requires that a code of ethics be enacted. This local code, found in the Eugene Code, places additional conflicts of interest requirements upon elected officials and creates a local process for filing complaints. 12. COUNCIL CHAMBER AND MCNUTT ROOM SEATING ASSIGNMENTS The Council shall be assigned seats in January, following the election of the Council president and vice president. The Mayor is always seated at the center position with the Council president seated at the Mayor's right and the Council vice president seated at the Mayor’s left. The remaining councilors in alphabetical order by last name shall be assigned seats. Each person moves one seat toward the outside and to the opposite side of the table or dais; those on the outside move to the innermost seats on the opposite side. This system allows councilors the opportunity to regularly change seats throughout a four-year term. Below is a detailed listing of the seating sequence. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 11 of 12 JANUARY Mayor President Vice President Councilor A1 Councilor B2 Councilor C3 Councilor D4 Councilor E5 Councilor F6 APRIL Mayor President Vice President Councilor F6 Councilor E5 Councilor B2 Councilor A1 Councilor D4 Councilor C3 SEPTEMBER Mayor President Vice President Councilor C3 Councilor D4 Councilor E5 Councilor F6 Councilor A1 Councilor B2 Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – May 22, 2006 Page 12 of 12 2007 EUGENE CITY COUNCIL SCHEDULE AT-A-GLANCE MARCH FEBRUARY JANUARY SMTWThFS SMTWThFS SMTWThFS 123 123 123456 45678910 45678910 78910111213 11121314151617 11121314151617 141516171920 18 18192021222324 18192021222324 21222324252627 252627 28293031 252627 28 28293031 JUNE MAY APRIL SMTWThFS SMTWThFS SMTWThFS 12 123456712345 3456789 6789101112 891011121314 10111213141516 13141517181916 15171819202116 17181920212223 20212223242526 22232425262728 24252627282930 2728293031 2930 JULY AUGUSTSEPTEMBER SMTWThFS SMTWThFSSMTWThFS 12341 1234567 5678910112345678 891011121314 121314151617189101113141512 15161718192021 1920212223242516171819202122 222324252627 28 26272829303123242526272829 30 293031 OCTOBERDECEMBER NOVEMBER SMTWThFSSMTWThFS SMTWThFS 1234561 123 789101112132345678 45678910 141516171819209101112131415 11121314151617 2122232425262716171819202122 18192021222324 2829303123242526272829 252627282930 3031 City Council Work Session and MeetingBudget Committee Meeting City Council Goals Session City Council Work SessionCity Council Process SessionHoliday - City Of? ces Closed State of the City Address Public Hearing City Council Break