Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/31/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Process Session Morse Ranch, 595 Crest Drive--Eugene, Oregon July 31, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr, Gary Rayor. CITY COUNCIL PROCESS SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. ^lso present were councilor-elect Bonny Bettman; City Manager Jim Johnson; ^ssistant City Manager Jim Carlson; Council, Government, and Public Affairs Manager Mary Walston; and Council Coordinator Kate Rowles. Prior to the commencement of the process session, Mr. Lee asked for council head nods to consider a contingency fund request in the amount of $8,000 for the Lane Educational Service District (ESD) to underwrite the costs of the planetarium at the August 7, 2000, council meeting. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Lee indicated that the money would provide transition funding for Lane ESD. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner indicated support for a contingency fund request in the lesser amount of $5,000. Mr. Lee also requested head nods indicating agreement to consider a contingency fund request in the amount of $5,000 to underwrite the costs of a video produced by Ribbon of Promise. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the financial status of the Ribbon of Promise organization, Mr. Lee said he would secure more information about the request and the organization's financial condition for the council before it took action on the request. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the council's ground rules regarding contingency fund requests specifically precluded the payment of past debt. The process session was facilitated by Margot Helphand. Ms. Helphand reviewed the proposed meeting agenda topics: 1) review council operating agreements; 2) other (including lobbying trips, three-minute speaking rule, overseas council and mayor travel, public comment, impact of staff assignments, etc.); and 3) governance (what is the council's working relationship with the city manager, City Manager's Office staff, etc.). Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Ms. Helphand solicited other agenda items. Mr. Kelly pointed out that discussion of the process of evaluating the city manager was omitted from the list; he suggested that, due to the lack of time, perhaps it was best discussed at a future process session. Other councilors agreed. Ms. Taylor recommended that the council begin to think about the process now. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2000 Page 1 Process Session Mr. Pap~ suggested that an item related to how the council reviewed progress on its goals be added to the agenda. Mr. Lee suggested the item be discussed as part of the discussion of governance. Ms. Helphand said that several items on the agenda were related to time management and the efficient use of the council's time. She asked councilors raising issues to discuss the background of the issue. REVIEW COUNCIL OPERATING AGREEMENTS Citizens Request for Agenda Item The council discussed the existing process for placing an item on a meeting agenda, which required the concurrence of three councilors. Ms. Nathanson described a request she received from a citizen that a particular item be discussed. Mayor Torrey said that under the current system, any citizen could contact a councilor with a request to place an item on an agenda. If three councilors concurred, the item was scheduled. The council agreed that the current process was acceptable. The council discussed the distinction between councilors requesting that an item be scheduled and the fact the manager could schedule an item without consent from the council. Mayor Torrey pointed out that the manager generally scheduled routine and standard administrative items. He thought it should be made clear in the ground rules that the manager must get the concurrence of three councilors to schedule nonroutine, nonadministrative items. Mr. Pap~ concurred. Mr. Meisner questioned how the manager could be expected to distinguish between items, as he did not think Mayor Torrey's statement clarified the issue and he did not want to limit the authority of the manager to schedule agenda items. Mr. Kelly said it should be at the manager's discretion to schedule items, as the council could always object. He suggested that the last sentence in item 2, "Placing items on council agenda," in the operating agreements be revised to indicated that the manager could schedule nonroutine, nonstandard items on the agenda. Ms. Taylor did not think the manager should schedule any agenda items without the council's consent. She said that the council should review and approve upcoming agenda items. Mr. Johnson pointed out that staff distributed a tentative working agenda on a weekly basis, and the council was free to question the scheduling of those items. Mayor Torrey briefly summarized the existing operating agreements and said it appeared that the council was not following the agreement previously reached regarding approval of the agenda on the Consent Calendar. Mr. Kelly suggested that if the process was followed, the concerns expressed by the council would probably be satisfied. The council concurred. Ms. Walston indicated that staff would modify the agendas of the second and fourth meetings to include a Consent Calendar item related to upcoming meeting agendas. Mr. Kelly asked that the council be asked to approve topics, not dates. Ms. Taylor also asked that the council be consulted if a topic was proposed to be dropped from an agenda. Three-Minute Speaking Rule MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2000 Page 2 Process Session The council discussed the three-minute rule for councilors during discussions at work sessions. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the timers. Mr. Meisner concurred. Ms. Taylor asked that the mayor inform councilors when they had exceeded the three-minute time, in a manner similar to that he used for the public forum. Standing Items from the Council, Mayor, and City Manager Ms. Taylor advocated for the agenda item "Items from the Council, Mayor, and City Manager" to be twice monthly, and to be scheduled first on the agenda. Mr. Meisner concurred, suggesting that the agenda item be scheduled on the second and fourth Wednesday meetings. Ms. Nathanson said she appreciated that standing items were not abused. She believed it was better to schedule the item more frequently than not as some issues raised by councilors were time- sensitive. Councilors agreed to schedule standing items as an agenda item twice monthly, on the second and fourth Wednesdays, and to revisit the issue at a future process session. Public Comment The council discussed the amount of time allotted to speakers at the Public Forum. Ms. Nathanson drew the council's attention to the existing operating agreement, which indicated that 30 minutes would be divided among those wishing to speak, unless the council explicitly voted to extend that time. She pointed out that the council was now accepting request to speak forms until 8 p.m., which could also extend the Public Forum. She called for discussion of the issue, and suggested one way to control the agenda was to refuse all request to speak forms after the meeting began. Ms. Taylor believed that all those wishing to speak should be accommodated for whatever time they wished to speak, and that the council should stay as long as necessary to hear them. She did not support reducing speakers' times to two minutes each because most people who spoke were inexperienced and it was difficult to summarize one's thoughts in such a short time. Mr. Meisner shared Ms. Nathanson's concerns and pointed out that other bodies did not accept request to speak forms after a meeting started. He said that citizens should also demonstrate some accountability and arrive at meetings on time to sign up to speak. That allowed the council to tally the number of people wishing to speak and, by motion, extend the length of the forum. Mr. Kelly shared Ms. Taylor's concerns about shortening the time period for speaking but did not think that the council should continue to accept request to speak forms after a certain point in time, such as 7:45 p.m. He also believed that the council should make an explicit decision to extend the time allotted for the forum if more people than could be accommodated within a half hour wished to speak. There was general council concurrence. Mayor Torrey recommended that whatever rule the council established be clearly stated on a large sign posted in the Council Chamber. The council agreed. Mr. Johnson indicated staff could modify the request to speak forms as well to reflect the 7:45 p.m. cut-off. Mr. Meisner asked that Mayor Torrey include mention of the cut-off time in his introductory remarks, and recommended that staff provide that information to those calling City Hall about the forum. Mr. Kelly recommended that the second sentence in the section regarding the public forum be deleted as superfluous. Other councilors agreed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2000 Page 3 Process Session Mr. Meisner said that the two-minute limit for councilor response should be either be adhered to by councilors or deleted. Mr. Kelly suggested that it be changed to three minutes. The council concurred. Public Hearings The council confirmed the existing operating agreement related to public hearings with the clarification that those wishing to speak must sign up to speak by the time the hearing commenced. The council discussed the amount of time granted to speakers, and whether the chair had discretion to change the time permitted for each speaker. The council agreed to institutionalize the three-minute speaking limit for public hearings, which had been the tradition of the council over the past few years. Mayor Torrey asked staff to investigate improvements to the microphone stands and possible changes to the lighting system alerting people that their time to speak had expired. His specific concern regarding the lighting system was that those speaking could not see the lights if they had covered the microphone stand with papers. He thought it would be useful if the lights could be seen by all in the chamber. Overseas Travel Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the public's perception of council and mayor travel to overseas destinations in a financially constrained time, and proposed that any council and mayor overseas travel be placed on the Consent Calendar for council approval in a televised meeting. He noted the potential that travel to sister cities for councilors could be underwritten by Eugene Sister Cities Foundation fund-raising efforts. The change would require a modification to the travel guidelines on page 8 of the operating agreements. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's concern regarding public perception. He thought it inappropriate for the council to participate in overseas travel absent a conscious decision of the council. However, he suggested that head nods regarding an overseas travel request could be more apparent to the public than a decision on the Consent Calendar. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mayor Torrey anticipated that he would use mayoral compensation to pay for any sister city trips he went on, adding that mayoral participation was expected in sister city relationships. Ms. Taylor observed that there had been no foreign travel since she was elected to the council, and she thought it appropriate that the council participated officially in delegations to Eugene's sister cities. She thought the cost of such travel was a legitimate council expense. Ms. Nathanson distinguished between sister city travel and other overseas travel, saying that sister city travel had different expectations. She thought the previous process of approving council travel was inadequate because it generally did not involve much discussion or public oversight. However, the rationale for the travel was generally explained. Noting that overseas travel could cost less than travel in the continent United States, Ms. Nathanson suggested that the council focus on the money involved rather than the destination. Mr. Kelly believed both a perception issue and money issue were involved. He wanted to address the perception issue through conscious decision-making, and he did not particularly care how that occurred. If the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2000 Page 4 Process Session council was to go on sister city trips, funding for that purpose should be included as a line item in the budget, where it could compete with other priorities. Mr. Johnson indicated staff would prepare revisions regarding the use of the Consent Calendar to the appropriate section of the operating agreements. The council took a brief meeting break at 6:45 p.m. and reconvened at 6:55 p.m. GOVERNANCE Mr. Lee summarized the issue of governance as how policy making was defined, and what it meant for the council to make policy, and at what level of detail. Mr. Meisner asked the council and staff to identify specific problem areas related to the topic. Mr. Johnson suggested that an example was the Planning Commission's role in the review of the Land Use Code Update. Following that review, the council added a substantial number of work sessions and extended time lines for public involvement. What was the role of the commission, and where was the balance between bodies. Mr. Meisner indicated he would like to schedule a work session specific to the topic so the council had more time for discussion. He suggested that the item be discussed when the process session for the new council was scheduled. There was general concurrence. Mr. Kelly, however, advocated for round robin comments on the issue tonight because of the importance of the topic. He wished to respond specifically to the manager's comments regarding the Planning Commission. He believed any attempt to draw a line between policy and management was impossible, and that it was staff's role to let the council know when it was stepping over that line. Regarding the Land Use Code Update, Mr. Kelly did not feel that the council's actions ignored the commission's review. He viewed the commission as advisory to the council, which could make a different decision than the commission recommended. He further maintained that the council was discussing issues the commission had never gotten around to discussing. Mr. Meisner said that doing less on the Land Use Code Update because of the commission's review meant the council would be giving a significant level of deference to that advisory body. He said that each councilor had their own pet issues related to the update. He believed that the content of the recommendation made a difference. Mr. Meisner said that the manager was quite capable of letting the council know if it was intruding on his authority, and he appreciated it when the manager did so. Responding to a question from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Meisner said that the same was true of other employees. Mr. Johnson observed that it was difficult for lower level staff to tell the council it had exceeded its authority. Mr. Lee suggested that trust was the main issue; if the council trusted the manager, delegation would occur; otherwise, he believed the council had a tendency to micromanage. He thought the relationship between the council and the manager was currently good, and that created an opportunity for the council to be visionary. He said that at the current time, the council seemed to have no vision as a body, and should take advantage of the situation to do some visioning. Mr. Pap~ agreed with the remarks of previous speakers. He believed that the council should give staff general direction rather than attempt to do a detailed review of, for example, the solar provisions of the update. He thought the council spent too much time on such issues. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2000 Page 5 Process Session Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the role of the Planning Commission as advisory to the council. Mr. Johnson said that the discussion was one the council needed to have as it was an issue that kept coming up at the staff level. Ms. Nathanson said that the discussion would not resolve anything unless the manager was prepared to tell the council when it had gone too far. Mr. Meisner said that situations should be identified when they occur. Mr. Kelly encouraged Mr. Johnson to invite the executive managers to the future discussion. OTHER Lobbying Trips Ms. Taylor advocated for council discussion of who should go on United Front lobbying trips, and said the council should establish its stand on lobbying issues prior to lobbying trips. Mr. Meisner agreed, noting his suggestion to the new Intergovernmental Relations Manager that she scheduled a work session so the council could discuss its legislative priorities and decide on a process to determine who would go. Mayor Torrey pointed out that there were other lobbying opportunities outside the United Front venue. He also thought it important to focus the United Front and reach consensus on issues of shared interest for the local area to make a difference. The council agreed to a suggestion from Ms. Nathanson to schedule a work session on the subject. Ms. Taylor wanted the work session to include discussion of who served on the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations and how the council reached its positions on State legislation. Delegates to State and National Conventions Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding who should speak for the council and take positions on resolutions discussed at national and state conventions, councilors acknowledged Ms. Nathanson's remark that often it was who was willing to stay on at the convention. Mr. Meisner suggested that if resolutions were mailed in advance, the entire council could discuss its position; otherwise, the delegation to the convention could take a position. There was general concurrence. Contingency Fund Requests Mr. Kelly said that the contingency fund guidelines were being ignored by the council, and they should either be reaffirmed or dropped. Mr. Johnson noted that past councils had wanted the ability to waive the rules when desired. Mr. Pap8 said he would like to see contingency fund requests reserved for emergencies only. He cited the Morse statue as an example of a request that could have been processed through the normal budget cycle because the expenditure was not time-sensitive. Ms. Taylor agreed that contingency fund requests should be for true emergencies, not for unanticipated emergencies or charity. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2000 Page 6 Process Session Mr. Meisner said that the application guidelines were clear, and if a request violated the guidelines it should be rejected. The council agreed to schedule a work session on the topic of contingency fund requests after January 1, 2001. Staff Assignments Mayor Torrey said that the council frequently made staff assignments without considering the resource impact on the organization, and he was concerned about that. He pointed out that the Land Use Code Update would require additional employees, and he questioned where the dollars for that would come from and how the council would make the decision about funding. Mayor Torrey emphasized his concern about the council's need for accountability, and wanted to ensure that the council realized all the costs associated with its direction to staff. Ms. Nathanson requested that staff provide the council with estimates of the hours required and the work postponed because of the council's requests rather than just an estimate of the cost alone. Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly agreed. Mr. Kelly said that it was the council's job to ask questions and the manager's job to identify the consequences of answering those questions. Mr. Johnson reported that he had asked staff to add a resource impact section to the council's agenda item summaries. Council Goals FY01 Mr. Johnson said that he would likely recommend to the council that it did not add many new goals in the coming year because staff was hoping the council could spend some focused time on the goal of financial stability. Mr. Carlson noted that the council's goal review with the executive managers was scheduled for September 27. City Manager Evaluation The council debriefed the recent evaluation process. Ms. Taylor did not like the evaluation form, and would revise it by asking the council to discuss its relationship with the manager, what it knew about the manager, and what it wanted him to do in its relationship with the council. Mr. Kelly requested that the council be given a different evaluation form than was distributed internally to reflect the different nature of the relationship between the council and manager. He said that a section could be added on progress on the council's goals and the manager's day-to- day relationships. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Johnson said that the City contacted other cities and the ICMA for information about how other cities evaluate their managers. Mr. Meisner said that when he evaluated the manager he was also evaluating the organization. He wanted an ability to reflect things related to the organization, such as organizational morale. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the evaluation of the manager occur in a special session along with a discussion of goals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2000 Page 7 Process Session Mr. Lee oberved that the space on the form intended for additional comments had not been completed by the council. He said that the council needed to identify how it could better help the manager to do his job. Mr. Johnson invited interested councilors to meet with Human Resources and Risk Services Department Director Lauren Chouinard for further discussion of the evaluation form and evaluation process. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor indicated interest in such a meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2000 Page 8 Process Session