Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/24/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 24, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A.WORK SESSION: Youth Activities and School Support Measure The council was joined for the item by City Manager pro tem Jim Carlson and Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Director Angel Jones. Ms. Jones recognized students Angel Montgomery and Eli Cole, who were job-shadowing her that day. Ms. Jones said that the agenda item before the council represented a continuation of the strong working relationships that existed between the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department, the school districts, and nonprofit agencies. She acknowledged State responsibility for school funding but suggested that, in the absence of State action, Oregon cities had an obligation to help provide local students with the tools they needed to be productive. She noted that other Oregon cities had already taken action to help their schools with funding and related community services. Ms. Jones commended the partnership effort that led to the proposal before the council for a youth activities and school support measure. Ms. Jones referred the council to three funding options in the packet, saying the only difference between the options was the amount allocated to City services. Staff recommended Option 1, with an annual funding level of $9 million, which allocated 21 percent of the total $7.8 million to the City of Eugene. The option would realize $1.9 annually for the City. Only that option would provide the department with the ability to continue current service levels. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Ms. Jones said that the council must make clear to the public that the levy would benefit residents who were not Eugene citizens. To address the issue, staff had discussed a proposal to provide a discount for residents for activities now supported by fees. Ms. Jones requested council direction on the item, and urged a unanimous vote on Option 1. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Torrey solicited a bullet round of council comments. Ms. Nathanson was prepared to support an option to send to the voters. The council should provide the voters with a good plan and let them decide. She emphasized the importance of the equity issue to her, saying up to one-quarter of the children and families who would benefit from an improved school and service environment would not be paying to support it. She thought that a very significant issue, and said something must be done to address it. Ms. Nathanson appreciated the staff commitment to a long-term solution and suggested an education service district might be one option. Ms. Nathanson wanted the districts to explore ways that they could help the City improve the environments around schools to address their impacts on neighborhoods. Residents frequently complained about litter, noise, and mischief, and often those problems were the result of open campus policies or truancy. She asked the district representatives to consider creative approaches to those problems that involved students. Mr. Rayor was not prepared to support any option. He did not perceive the proposal as funding service gaps for the City. Mr. Rayor reviewed and then circulated his tax statement, noting that School District 4J received about $800 of his $2,200 tax bill, and the amount would increase with the bond next year. He said that the real issue in terms of school funding was the schools' unfunded pension liability cost. He objected to the fact the school districts had not been proactive in attempting to address the issue and had not joined with the City in its attempt to fight the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Board. Mr. Rayor said that public employees have become a "privileged" class and it was time for the taxpayers to act. He termed the proposal a terrible idea and said the City would join Ashland as the only other community in the state to take such an action. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, 4J School District Superintendent George Russell said that Governor John Kitzhaber's actions regarding the budget were unknown at this time. If the governor vetoed certain elements of the budget, it would have a serious impact on the local school districts. He had the sense that the governor wanted to veto several of the budget-related bills passed by the State legislature. Mr. Pap8 was very concerned about the issue of equity. He wanted a better way of making sure Eugene tax dollars benefit Eugene citizens. He was sorry for children who lived outside the city, but he was adamant on the topic. Mr. Kelly said that all three options before the council renew some aspects of the current youth levy, and while he thought the services funded by the levy wonderful, the council told the voters that the levy would be a one-time levy in effect for two years, during which time staff was to find a long-term sustainable funding source. That source had not been found, but he thought it important the City keep the faith with the voters. He acknowledged that legally, a portion of the levy must be for City services, and for that reason he would support Option 3, the option with the lowest amount going to City services. Speaking to Mr. Rayor's remarks, Mr. Kelly noted that Portland was also providing its schools with financial assistance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly concluded by saying that the community was reaping the consequences of tax limitation measures that the community did not support, the inaction of the Lane Board of County Commissioners, and the inability of the State legislature to act. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the council's ability to separate that element of the levy proposal intended to supplant the current youth levy from the other elements of the proposal, City Attorney Glenn Klein referred the council to a letter from the legal counsel of the school district discussing the tax limitation limits and the impact on the levy on those limits. If the City offered the voters a City levy for educational purposes, the revenue from the levy would be counted under the $5 school district cap rather than the $10 general government cap, which would defeat the purpose of the proposal. Ms. Taylor believed that the funding intended for the schools was not for education but for extracurricular activities, and asked about the effect of that. Mr. Klein said no court decisions related to the issue exist, and the legal counsel of other cities that had examined taking similar approach agreed that the question was how much risk a municipality wished to take. The legal counsels had agreed that with no component for local government, that risk significantly increased. Ms. Taylor was also concerned that the City had not developed a long-range funding source for youth activities. She tentatively expressed support for Option 3. She acknowledged the equity issue, but said that the council was merely giving the citizens a chance to decide, and they could reject the measure if they choose to. She wanted to give the community a chance to do something for the schools. Ms. Taylor thought it would be useful if the schools and City could do more space-sharing for community meetings and recreational activities. Ms. Bettman thanked Ms. Jones for her work and for ensuring the allocation of funding included funding for counselors, librarians, and school nurses, an issue of importance to her. She was prepared to support the measure and agreed with Ms. Taylor that the council was just letting the voters decide whether a good school system outweighed the inequities of the measure. She believed that helping the school system and fostering a high-quality education system was a good economic development strategy. Ms. Bettman said a good educational system outweighed other incentives the City could provide. Ms. Bettman also supported Option 3. Her highest value was to help the districts restore the services they provided directly to students. She expressed concern that if the City asked for too much money for itself, the voters would not find the proposal sufficiently fiscally conservative. Mr. Meisner was not prepared to stand in the way of referring a measure to the voters, but he was not happy with what he considered a band-aid approach to funding education. He said he was also concerned about the equity issue. He was not sure a discount to Eugene parents for programs they would be paying for above and beyond the property taxes they paid was a solution. Mr. Meisner said that the State legislature was happy to defer a solution to the cities because then legislators did not need to address the issue of sustainable school funding. That was not acceptable. He feared what was intended to be a temporary band-aid could become permanent. Mr. Meisner acknowledged the value of the programs involved but questioned whether the solution proposed was the correct solution. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Mayor Torrey supported sending a measure to the voters. He had been concerned about having any City services attached to the measure for fear of perception, but was persuaded that the City did not have a choice under the law. He supported Option 1. With regard to the question of equity, Mayor Torrey concurred it was a problem, but did not want to make it a "whipping boy" for the issue. Acknowledging the concerns about how it was paid for, Mayor Torrey said he believed the general agreement was that the after-school program created positive value. He thought the council was going to have to step up to the issue and determine how to pay for the service. However, an urgent need faced the community today, and he hoped the council did not reject the proposal for that reason. Mayor Torrey solicited another round of comments. Mr. Farr arrived at the meeting. Ms. Nathanson said the primary difference between options 1 and 3 was about 14 cents per $1,000, and that amount paid for after-school youth activities. She thought that such activities contributed to child and family development, to neighborhood cohesiveness, and to public safety. She asked Ms. Jones how the district felt about the subject. Ms. Jones said that the districts found such activities very important, and noted that both districts provided access to their facilities for after-school activities. Many parents expect the schools to provide after-school programming. She deferred to Mr. Russell and Bethel School District Superintendent Kent Hunsaker, who concurred. Mr. Hunsaker said such programs were very popular with Bethel residents and the district would like to see them continue and supported the City-related element. Mr. Carlson said that the programs were important for the same reasons the council had placed the youth levy on the measure before. Ms. Nathanson preferred Option 1 because of the value of those programs. Mr. Rayor asked Mr. Russell about the amount of district's unfunded PERS liability. District staff indicated that as of the end of 2000, that amount was approximately $61 million. Mr. Rayor asked what the City paid annually to cover its PERS payments. Mr. Carlson estimated about 14 percent of personnel costs. Mr. Rayor asked why the 4J School District had not joined the City in its suit against the PERS Board. Mr. Russell said that he discussed that issue with Mr. Rayor previously and did not think this meeting was an appropriate venue for further discussion. Mr. Rayor said that he urged the governor to veto the budget because it was an inadequate solution and would create a bigger problem. He did not think the council should rob from the future to enhance a bleeding program. Mr. Rayor asserted that things must get worse before they get better. Mr. Rayor said that the City's assertions that the youth levy would be for two years was a lie. Mr. Rayor said that the City had five officers in the schools and the 4J district paid for one of them. He said that the City was already doing something for the schools. He asked how charter schools inside the city limits would be addressed, and how the equity issue would be solved. Mr. Rayor said that without the City element, "this whole thing is illegal." Mr. Pap8 said that he would support Option 3 because of the City's promise to voters regarding the youth levy. He said that Springfield and Lane County did not want to step forward and he did MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 4 Work Session not think that the City should continue to try to push their participation. He reiterated that taxes paid by Eugene residents should benefit those residents. He asked Mr. Klein if the levy could be structured so that no dollars went to out-of-city residents. Mr. Klein said the City could stipulate limitations on the funds through the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the districts. His questions regarded the practicality of such an approach. He wanted to determine if those stipulations could be complied with, and what remedies would exist if they were not. Mr. Pap~ requested more dialogue with the districts about the topic before the council took final action on July 31. Mr. Kelly said his position regarding Option 3 was motivated by policy and the commitment the City made to the voters. He was very supportive of the current programs. Mr. Kelly also thought the more simple the measure, the more likely it was to pass. He liked the uses for the dollars listed by the districts, terming them key parts of the growing up and educational experiences. He also agreed with Ms. Bettman regarding education as an economic development strategy. Mr. Kelly asked what the levy would provide to the districts' charter schools. Mr. Russell said that the money would be allocated to the charter schools on the same basis as State money. About $26,000 was involved. The board had not discussed that topic at this point. Mr. Kelly wanted to ensure the charter schools were included and suggested the issue be addressed in a stand-alone motion related to the contents of the IGA. Ms. Taylor expressed a desire the two local school districts would merge, that education funding could be addressed at the County level, and that the council had adopted an alternative form of taxation to create a sustainable funding source for local government. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that a simple measure was best. She indicated support for Option 3 for the reasons previously cited. Ms. Bettman reiterated her support for Option 3. She thought support for the measure would be strictly support for higher quality education and restoring some of the budget cuts that the districts have absorbed. Ms. Bettman was concerned that voters would perceive Option 1 as a City attempt to increase its General Fund budget, and it would be more likely to fail. She did not think the larger amount realized by Option 1 was justified. Ms. Bettman said that people testifying at the July 22 Public Forum seemed to perceive the levy, if passed, would produce smaller class sizes, more access to classes on art, music, and physical education, and she asked if that would be the result. Mr. Russell responded the levy was intended to restore some budget cuts and would allow the districts to rehire classroom teachers. He offered as a caveat the uncertainty of the governor's action or the September 2002 election. The dollars could end up maintaining, to the extent possible, existing services. Mr. Hunsaker added differences existed between the two districts in terms of staffing levels. For example, the Bethel School District had a full-time music teacher in every elementary school, so the district was unlikely to add music teachers. He anticipated the two districts would make different funding decisions. Mr. Meisner said that of the options, he could support only Option 3 at this time. He continued to be frustrated that Eugene was the first place people looked to for money. He expressed surprise that no group of parents had organized to seek repeal of the tax limitation measures that had created the shortfall in education funding. Instead of demanding a State solution to the issue of MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 5 Work Session education, everyone "threw up their hands." He reiterated he did not think a band-aid approach a wise solution. Mr. Farr said that he did not generally support stop-gap measures, which he acknowledged such a levy was, but he was supportive of sending the voters a measure. He indicated he would support Option 3 but would have supported Option 1 if it had sufficient council support. He noted the budget cuts he had been involved in as a member of the Bethel School Board, which were very difficult decisions. He wished something could be done about the tax limitation measures. Mr. Fart called for a State solution. He did not agree with Mr. Meisner that local action took pressure off the State legislature. However, he supported sending the voters a measure as "a small chance to do a little bit of good" for the districts. Mr. Fart was convinced the districts would be able to use the dollars equitably and not pass costs on to Eugene. Mayor Torrey noted that he had been raising money for children's programs over the last four years, and no one had ever asked him if the money was for children inside or outside the city. Mayor Torrey hoped that someone made a motion that addressed the issue of the charter schools, and said "let's give them their share." He emphasized that passage of a motion directing a measure to the ballot merely gave voters the opportunity to vote on the issue. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager pro tern to prepare a measure for the November 2002 ballot establishing an 86 cents per $1,000 (Option 3) youth activities and school support local option levy, and bring the ballot measure to the council for action on August 12; further direct the City Manager to include IGA provisions that provide an equitable amount from the levy to public charter schools and public school alternative programs. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to stipulate that if State funding level now (prior to governor's veto), increased during the life of this measure, the funding provided to the schools by the measure will be reduced by a like amount. Ms. Nathanson asked if legal counsel could see anything that made the amendment more complicated than it appeared to be. Mr. Klein said that timing was one issue that came to mind; he indicated he would need to consult with the County Assessor and Finance staff on the topic. Mr. Kelly endorsed the concept underlying the amendment and suggested that it include the phrase "beyond inflation" given that the subject was a four-year levy. He suggested that the motion be reworded to direct the manager to provide text on August 12 for a provision such as Mr. Rayor desired. Mr. Rayor accepted Mr. Kelly's friendly amendment. Mr. Fart indicated opposition to the amendment. He said that the proposal was a chance for the City to do something for the local schools. He wanted the City to maintain its support for the schools no matter what happened at the State legislature. Ms. Bettman also opposed the amendment as she did not think whatever action taken by the State legislature would make the school system whole. She did not want to see a situation where the voters pass the measure and then the council scaled back the school element and was left with the City element. The motion to amend passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Fart voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Nathanson moved to include language in the IGA regarding outcome based targets and the need for the City schools to work neighborhoods to mitigate problems related to the student outside of school. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Fart was pleased to see Eugene taking action and was confident of a positive vote on the measure. Mr. Meisner said that he now intended to oppose the motion because of the inclusion of the charter schools; he had been contacted by the charter schools regarding their interest in the funding not for librarians, counselors, or music but rather for general funding purposes. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend that the IGA include a provision that ensured the levy funds go to Eugene citizens only. Mr. Fart had confidence in the decision-making ability of the school boards and staff and opposed the amendment. Ms. Bettman thought that Mr. Pap~ was requesting an impossibility and suggested it would throw a shadow over the entire measure. She opposed the amendment. Ms. Jones reiterated that a discount for Eugene residents had been discussed with the districts and would be incorporated into the IGA. She said that the issue needed to be resolved over the long term because there was not time to resolve it now. She assured the council that staff was working with the districts as well as internally with the department's own programs to address the issue of equity. Mr. Pap~ said his intent was that the IGA contained the best language possible to make sure what Ms. Jones was discussing happened, and he envisioned something more extensive than discounts. Mr. Rayor suggested means testing of participating youth. Ms. Taylor did not support the motion. She acknowledged the equity issue and said it would be good if the districts' boundaries were coterminous with the City's boundary, but she could not see turning Iow-income children away from programs and activities. Mayor Torrey indicated opposition to the amendment because mechanisms were in place to address the issues raised. He suggested that the council not get lost in the accounting issue. The motion on the amendment was 5:3; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Rayor voting yes. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to bring back language to the council prior to the final vote to ensure the funds from the measure benefit residents of the City of Eugene to the maximum possible extent. Mr. Fart opposed the amendment because it took away control from the school districts. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman also opposed the amendment. She questioned how the City could discount services to City residents for the sake of equity unless it countered that with an increase in the fees to nonresidents, because otherwise it would be creating another deficit. Ms. Nathanson supported the amendment, saying she did not believe the motion was as onerous or specific as the previous motion, but rather expressed a principle related to equity that was not reflected in the written materials before the council. Mr. Kelly opposed the amendment because he thought the equity issue needed to be addressed at a broader level. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Rayor, and Mr. Meisner voting yes; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Fart voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in favor of the motion, and it passed a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend time for the item by five minutes. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion to eliminate the youth levy element of the funding measure. Mr. Klein indicated that if the amendment to the motion passed, the levy would probably count under $5 education cap, and nothing would be accomplished. Mr. Rayor questioned the legality of the measure and said that his motion was intended to spur research to confirm that the City Attorney agreed with the districts' legal counsel as well as to ensure that promises made to the voters about the levy were kept. Ms. Nathanson noted that the voters were currently paying between 21 cents and 22 cents per $1,000 to pay for the youth levy; under this measure, that amount was supplanted by another measure requiring voters to pay 86 cents per $1,000. She believed it would be appropriate to ask the voters if they were interested in supporting an increase over what they were currently paying. It was a different set of activities, still in support of youth. Ms. Taylor preferred to be able to offer the voters separate measures if possible and would support such a motion if legal counsel found it possible. Mr. Klein indicated that nothing was going to change between now and August 12 in terms of case law as it regarded the funding allocation. He concurred with the opinion of the school districts' legal counsel. The amendment to the motion failed, 7:1; Mr. Rayor voting yes The main motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Mr. Meisner voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Discussion of Recommended Amendments to the Eugene City Charter Mary Walston, City Manager's Office, introduced the topic. She said that the council had completed work on all the items forwarded to it by the Citizen Charter Review Committee (CCRC). MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 8 Work Session There were three remaining items raised by councilors: 1) redistricting, 2) living wage, and 3) whistle blower protections. Ms. Walston noted that information about redistricting was included in the meeting packet, and the council was holding a work session on the subject of the living wage on August 14. Regarding the issue of whistle blower protection, Ms. Walston noted the distribution of information regarding State law on June 24. A quick Internet survey had provided no further information about cities with charter provisions related to whistle blower protection. Ms. Walston called attention to the resolutions the council would be asked to consider on July 31, which were distributed to councilors at their places. Mr. Carlson distributed confidential information from an outside legal counsel he asked the council to review prior to the next meeting. He noted the information was labeled confidential as it was exempt from disclosure under attorney-client privilege. Mayor Torrey asked Council President Kelly how he wished to proceed with the order of items, suggesting that the council could determine, using a simple up or down vote, whether it wished to consider the items. Ms. Bettman objected to any attempt to control the content of the meeting through process. She asserted that there was a council majority that voted as a block that could choose to eliminate items that had been under consideration for months with no further review. She wanted to take the items in order they were put on the table. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take the items in the order listed. The motion passed, 6:1:1; Ms. Nathanson voting no, and Mr. Fart being out of the room at the time the vote was taken. Ms. Nathanson spoke to the issue of redistricting and her support of greater frequency of redistricting to the extent that money and technology allowed. Mayor Torrey determined from Mr. Klein that what Ms. Nathanson wished to accomplish could be done through ordinance rather than through the charter. Ms. Nathanson requested a work session on a process for more routine redistricting. Mr. Fart and Mr. Meisnerjoined in her request. Ms. Bettman withdrew the proposal related to a living wage because of the scheduled work session. Ms. Bettman reviewed a proposed motion related to the issue of whistle blower protection and spoke in support of the motion. She said that the text, which was intended to guide the development of Eugene charter provisions, was drawn from charter provisions, state statutes, and codes from around the country. She noted she had a list of jurisdictions with such whistle blower protections. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare for the ballot a "whistle blower" charter amendment which encompasses the intent of the following language: City employees, appointed and elected officials, are encouraged to report on improper governmental action. The Eugene City Council shaft codify by ordinance a process for reporting improper governmental action and protection from retaliation for anyone reporting such activity in good faith. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 9 Work Session City employees who report improper governmental activity shall be protected from retaliation in the form of any adverse personnel action by any City employee, appointed or elected official, against another who reports corruption, criminal activity, conflict of interest, mismanagement or gross waste of public funds or resources. Any City of Eugene employee, appointed and elected officials, may report a suspected improper governmental activity through the Whistle Blower Program." The Whistle Blower Program shaft provide an avenue for City employees, appointed and elected officials, to report or testify on suspected improper governmental activity. The Whistle Blower Program shaft not include personnel actions for which other remedies exist, such as employee grievances. Improper governmental activity is defined as any action by an employee, appointed or elected official, undertaken in the performance of duties which 1) results in mismanagement or gross waste of public funds or resources; 2) is in violation of federal, state, county, or city law or rule, if the violation is not merely technical or of a minimum nature; 3) is of substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety; and 4) results in expenditures of public funds or significant policy decisions occurring under false pretense. Ms. Bettman thought it important to articulate in the charter that the City encouraged honesty, transparency, and openness, and to reassure employees that they can be honest and open without jeopardizing their livelihood. She noted that the proposed amendment did not address personnel issues governed by a grievance process, and was specific to the definition of improper activity. An implementing ordinance would address mechanics such as provisions for anonymity, penalties for retaliation, reporting processes, etc. Mr. Farr was not able to support the motion as a charter amendment. He asked if such issues were addressed by the City's bargaining agreements with its unions. Mr. Carlson did not know. There were provisions related to grievances. Mr. Farr was unsure the charter was the place for the program in question. Mr. Kelly supported the motion because the council was not attempting to craft final language at this time. He thought that such a charter provision would be another way of demonstrating openness and integrity at the local government level. He pointed out to Mr. Fart that the provision would apply to all employees and officials, not just those in bargaining units. Mr. Meisner asked if there was a need for such a provision. He asked if there had been a problem, noting that the CCRC had not raised the issue. Mr. Carlson said that he had not seen a problem in his tenure as City Manager pro tern. Mr. Meisner questioned the need for the provision in light of the lack of citizen demand or demonstrated need. Mr. Pap8 perceived no need for the proposed provision, and pointed out that there were protections for whistle blowers provided by State and federal law. Mr. Carlson concurred. Mr. Pap8 asked Ms. Bettman how her proposal differentiated from State law. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) had enabling provisions allowing cities to implement their own whistle blower provisions if consistent with State law. Many of the ORS provisions were MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 10 Work Session specific to State employees, and there must be a provable action. One could go to a State agency or State auditor to handle a local issue, but "it has to rise pretty high" on the scale of magnitude to be heard. Mr. Pap~ asked Ms. Bettman why she thought the State protections were insufficient. Ms. Bettman wanted a local process and thought one was needed. She thought the need was demonstrated by City staff's actions in the Hynix tax appeal; some staff knew for months about the appeal and did not share that information with the council when it deliberated the company's tax exemption request. She believed that some staff would have liked to have shared the information with the council, but did not feel secure enough to come forward. Subsequently, the council granted the tax exemption, which had significant budget implications, without complete information. Ms. Taylor thought adoption of such a charter provision would be a good statement of principle. She said that perhaps the issue had not come up because there was no protections. If such protection existed, maybe someone would come forward. Ms. Nathanson said she would be enthusiastic about the proposal in the absence of State protections. She questioned whether a local process would be more comforting than an employee knowing that there was some other agency to go to. She was also concerned about the last definition (4), suggesting that it was sufficiently vague enough to cover genuine differences in political judgment. Mayor Torrey agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He said that he could see employees using the provision for political purposes. He did not want it to be a political wedge. Ms. Bettman reiterated that many jurisdictions had similar laws and she believed that staff and legal counsel could craft language that reduced any ambivalence. She said that specific details could be taken care of in the ordinance and implementing rules for the ordinance as they were in Portland. Ms. Taylor believed a local process was preferable to a State process, as people would be more likely to employ a local process. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding his opinion of the proposed approach, Mr. Carlson said that he had not given it much thought. He was reminded by the City Attorney that a whistle blower protection program could be implemented through a City ordinance. He said that there was also the protections afforded by State law. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting no, and Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition and the motion failed on final vote of 5:4. Mayor Torrey reviewed a motion he wished the council to consider related to the authority of the mayor. Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the following text to the November 2002 ballot: The mayor~ in addition to the veto authority in Section 30, shaft have the veto authority over any revisions made by the City Council to the budget approved by and referred for final adoption by the Eugene City Budget Committee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 11 Work Session Mayor Torrey said the intent of the motion was to provide the mayor with participation in the budget process. It was very frustrating for him to watch the committee deliberate over the course of several months toward a recommendation, only to find people early in the process talk about changing the recommendation at the City Council level. He urged the councilors to get their differences out at the committee level. If councilors thought the committee made a mistake, it could override the mayor's veto. Mr. Kelly thought the mayor already had lots of power, both on a charter and on a day-to-day basis. He was nervous about adding more power to the position. He agreed the committee worked hard but pointed out that it was advisory to the City Council. He said that the motion had the effect of taking the council, the City's legislative body, "out of the budget picture." Mr. Farr did not think the mayor had undue power and noted that he was the only member of the council elected on a citywide basis. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks. She said that the motion would have a definite impact on the council-manager form of government by removing the council's oversight over the budget. She believed that under the current form of government, the council had very little power now. Ms. Bettman questioned why the City Council should go through such a lengthy and expensive budget process if the result was the mayor's veto. She thought the proposal the most partisan of all the council had examined through the charter review process. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to table the motion. The motion to table failed, 4:4; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Pap8 voting yes, and Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Bettman voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition and the motion failed on final vote of 5:4. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, and Mr. Rayor voting yes. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro tern (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 12 Work Session