Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/02/98 Meeting MINUTES Eugene City Council City Council Chamber--City Hall February 2, 1998 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Fart, Tim Laue, Bobby Lee, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Betty Taylor, Ken Tollenaar. The February 2, 1998, Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.; Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. I. CEREMONIAL MATTERS Mayor Torrey read his proclamation declaring February 9, 1998, to be Food Check-Out Day in Eugene in honor of Oregon farmers' and ranchers' contribution to America's abundant, safe and affordable food supply. Mayor Torrey read his proclamation declaring February 24, 1998, to be Spay Day Eugene in which he called upon citizens to observe the day by having their dogs and cats spayed and neutered or by sponsoring the spaying or neutering of another's dog or cat. Kimball Lewis stated that he represented Greenhill Humane Society. He expressed appreciation for the mayor's proclamation of Spay Day Eugene. He said there had been a dramatic increase in the number of animals dealt with by his organization in 1997. He reported that ground breaking had taken place on a new spay/neuter clinic at Greenhill and that it would be operating in the summer of 1998. II. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the guidelines for participation in the Public Forum. Cindy Noblitt, 3909 East 17th Avenue, said she believed the report of the District Attorney on the Oregon State Police investigation of Eugene police actions at an incident which took place June 1, 1997. She reported that when there was a contradiction between testimony of a witness and a police report, the police report was accepted as fact. She said there was injustice in the inability of the City to admit its involvement in injustice. She said there was evidence in the report of officer conduct which contradicted General Orders of the Police Department. Carol Berg, no address provided, stated that Public Forum testimony at the June 2, 1997, meeting of the City Council included only one person who defended police actions. She said that media characterization of persons concerned about police actions as "cop haters" was appalling because there were valid concerns which could be held about police actions. She said she did not believe investigation of police actions by the Oregon State Police was acceptable. Minutes--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 1 7:30 p.m. Paul Prensky, 933 East 29th Avenue, stated that he supported the views of the previous speakers. He said he and others concerned about police actions did not mean harm to the City. He said there was a need to focus on changes in policies governing police actions. He also said he believed communities of like-minded person needed to be included in the making of police policy. He challenged the council to have the will to include representatives from communities of people of color, ethnicity, and Iow-income economic class in its deliberations about police policies. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of October 7, 1997, Joint Elected Officials Meeting; January 7, 1998, State of the City; January 12, 1998, Meeting; and January 15, 1998, Meeting. B. Appointments to East Alton Baker Park Citizen Planning Committee C. Resolution Concerning Issuance Authority for $35 Million Electric System Advance Refunding Bonds Res. No. 4555--A resolution providing for the issuance and sale by the City of Eugene, acting by and through the Eugene Water & Electric Board, of not exceeding thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) aggregate principal amount of revenue refunding bonds, for the purpose of refunding in advance of their maturities certain outstanding electric utility system revenue bonds of the City' and providing for certain other maters in connection therewith. D. Reprogramming of Community Development Block Grant Funds. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to approve the City Council Consent Calendar for February 2, 1998. The motion was adopted unanimously, 8:0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING WITHDRAWAL OF RECENTLY ANNEXED PROPERTIES FROM SPECIAL DISTRICTS Planning and Development Department Metro Planning Section Manager James Croteau explained that recent changes in Oregon statutes required a separate process for withdrawals from most special districts upon annexation to the City. Mayor Torrey determined that councilors had no questions of staff. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Mayor Torrey determined there was no one wishing to testify on the withdrawal of recently annexed properties from special districts. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Minutes--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 2 7:30 p.m. Ms. Elmer announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4635, an ordinance providing for withdrawal of territory (McCain, E.C. EU 97-50; Lockhart, E.C. EU 97-49; Benchmark Northwest, E.C. EU 97-52; Smith, E.C. EU 96-54; Scott, E.C. EU 97-55; Fleck, E.C. EU 97-63; Hawkins, E.C. EU 97-68; Gaudette, E.C. EU 96-78; Morthan Homes, E.C. EU 96-71; Phillips, E.C. EU 96-83; and Stuckey, E.C. EU 96-82) from the River Road Water District and River Road Park and Recreation District; withdrawal of territory (©tt, C EU 96-35; Breeden Land Co., C EU 96-36; Foster, C EU 96-42; Cook, C EU 96-46; Presley, E.C. EU 97-51; Andersen, C EU 97-56; Andersen Development, C EU 97-58; Meier, C EU 97-74; Shephard, C EU 97-72; and Ruhoff, C EU 97-73) from the Santa Clara Water District; and withdrawal of territory (Cooney, E.C. EU 97- 80) from the Willamalane Park and Recreation District. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4635, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. The motion was adopted unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Elmer announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4635 by number only. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4635 be approved and given final passage. The motion was adopted unanimously, 8:0, and became Ordinance 20106. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting to the McNutt Room at 7:45 p.m. Mayor Torrey reconvened the meeting in the McNutt Room at 7:50 p.m. V. REPORT FROM COUNCIL OFFICERS REGARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR FACILITATOR TO ASSIST WITH EVALUATION OF CITY MANAGER Mr. Tollenaar referred to his memorandum to the council dated February 2, 1998, regarding a draft Request for Proposal for a facilitator to assist with the planned evaluation of the City Manager. He reviewed the draft attached to the memorandum. Ms. Taylor said that she believed rescheduling a previously canceled meeting of the council, as proposed in the Option B time frame in the memorandum, could create attendance problems for members. She also said that she believed questions to be asked of members of the council in evaluating the work of the City Manager should be based on the adopted job description. She requested that a report on the responsibilities of the manager as stated in the City Charter be provided to councilors. Ms. Taylor said she was concerned with proposed questions to be asked of department heads in the evaluation of the City Manager attached to the memorandum. She said she did not believe department heads should be asked about the ability of the City Manager to involve the community and gauge community reaction because they had no way to know about such reactions. She said that she also believed asking department heads to evaluate whether the City Manager had the ability to retain key personnel was judgmental, and that prioritizing resources was the responsibility of the City Council and that the City Manager should not be evaluated on her ability to do so. Minutes--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 3 7:30 p.m. Mr. Meisner said that either time frame option for evaluating the City Manager was acceptable to him. He said he was not pleased with the draft Request for Proposal because he believed information developed during the interim evaluation of the City Manager should be included in the proposed process. He said he believed incorporating department heads in the evaluation process was a reduction from that considered earlier. He said he believed division managers, representatives of employee unions, and intergovernmental partners should also be included in the evaluation. He said he had been contacted by City employees expressing interest in participating in the evaluation of the manager, but who had concerns about having the confidentiality of their evaluations protected. Ms. Swanson Gribskov observed that increasing the number of persons to be interviewed in the evaluation process would likely require more time than was provided in the Option A time frame proposal. She said she preferred Option B because it provided additional time for securing inputs and the work of the facilitator. Mr. Lee said he was willing to accept the Option B time frame proposal, but preferred the quicker completion of the evaluation process. Ms. Taylor said she believed evaluation of the City Manager was the responsibility of the City Council and that it seemed inappropriate to involve employees in an evaluation of the chief executive officer of an organization. Mr. Fart said that he could accept involving division managers in evaluation of the City Manager, but that front line employee input might be inappropriately affected by negative reactions to cutbacks created by Ballot Measure 47/50. He said he believed front line employees were the most significant in an organization, but that he did not believe they had opportunity to observe daily decisions of the manager. Mr. Tollenaar said he believed that adding division managers to the evaluation process could stretch resources and add inordinately to the time required for the process. He said he believed an employee "climate survey" might be helpful to the council, but not in regard to evaluation of the City Manager. He said he agreed that representatives of employee unions might provide helpful input in the evaluation process. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that the draft request for proposals for facilitator services to the council during its evaluation of the performance of the City Manager be approved. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to amend the motion to include representatives of collective bargaining units in the evaluation process. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that she agreed with the amendment, but would not support incorporation of a "climate survey" of employees in the evaluation process. She suggested that written responses to questions supplied to employees could speed the process. Human Resource and Risk Services Director Lauren Chouinard said he believed written input in the evaluation process beyond that provided by members of the City Council could invoke issues related to public information laws. Ms. Nathanson said she would support the amendment, but that she did not believe the ability of employees to evaluate top management should be underestimated. Minutes--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 4 7:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor said that she believed union leaders would likely reflect opinions of most employees. The motion to amend was adopted, 7:1, Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, to amend the motion to include division managers in the evaluation process. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the value of the proposed change would increase the amount of data available to the council in the evaluation process. Mr. Lee said that he would support the amendment because he did not believe job titles were as important as they were in the past. He said he also believed communication within an organization should be two-way. Mr. Meisner said the council needed to be as widely informed as possible when it performed the evaluation of the City Manager. He said the proposed amendment reflected a team building emphasis in the evaluation. Ms. Nathanson said she was concerned that the amendment would double the number of persons to be interviewed in the evaluation of the City Manager. She suggested that a random sample of division managers might be more appropriate. Mr. Tollenaar pointed out that adding time to the evaluation also added expense. Mr. Farr suggested that a "cross-section approach" to employee representation could be helpful. He said that employees concerned about confidentiality in participating in the evaluation of the City Manager likely held negative opinions they wished to express. Mr. Lee said he believed interviews and surveys in the evaluation process should look for patterns and themes. He suggested that the facilitator chosen to provide services as a result of the request for proposals might have additional process suggestions to make. Mr. Laue said he believed division managers were highly qualified to make an evaluation of the manager and that they were knowledgeable enough to blame the City Council, not the City Manager, for resource cuts created by Ballot Measure 47/50. He said he was concerned about the large number of persons proposed to be in the evaluation process. Ms. Swanson Gribskov suggested that the skills and experience of the chosen facilitator might be used for devising ways to expand the input into the evaluation process. Mayor Torrey determined that the maker and seconder of the motion agreed to make incorporation of division managers in the evaluation process an alternate possibility to be determined by discussion between the City Council and the chosen facilitator. The motion to amend the request for proposals, as changed, was adopted, 6:2, with Ms. Swanson Gribskov and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Laue moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to amend the motion to state that only time frame Option B be included in the request for proposal. Minutes--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 5 7:30 p.m. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she believed the dates provided in Option B should be considered to have flexibility. Mayor Torrey said that he agreed with the need for flexibility in applying Option B. Ms. Nathanson said she believed Option B was a reasonable approach to the time frame for the evaluation of the City Manager, but that she was concerned that it could be misinterpreted by members of the public as procrastination by the council. To avoid such an interpretation, she said she intended to support Option A. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she appreciated the opinion of Ms. Nathanson, but believed the council was called on to be thoughtful and deliberative in its work. Ms. Taylor said she did not believe it was fair to postpone evaluation of the manager because her termination was being considered by some councilors. Mr. Farr said that he did not believe an evaluation process was an appropriate basis for determining an employee should be terminated. He said such a decision should be made before an evaluation was performed. Mr. Tollenaar said he believed an evaluation process was essential for conclusions about "bottom line" employee issues. He said he had attempted to remain open minded in his approach to the evaluation of the City Manager and that he believed his position would be informed by it. He said he did not believe an evaluation process could inform someone whose mind had already been made up. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that she agreed with Mr. Tollenaar. She said she believed the evaluation of the manager should consider her work for an entire year, not only what had occurred within the recent weeks. She said she also believed an evaluation should identify strengths and areas on which an employee should focus for improvement. Mr. Laue said that the City Manager had a unique position since she served at the will of the City Council. He also said that the Council-Manager form of city government protected employees from influence from elected officials. Mayor Torrey reminded councilors that a job description for the City Manager had not been adopted by the previous council, but that it had been agreed to use the description of the work presented in the posting of the job. Ms. Elmer observed that criteria used in the interim evaluation process had been developed from interviews of individual councilors, commented on at a public hearing, and deliberated on by the council at a work session. The motion to amend the motion to state that only a flexibly interpreted time frame Option B would be included in the request for proposal was adopted unanimously, 8:0. Minutes--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 6 7:30 p.m. The motion that the draft request for proposals for facilitator services to the council during its evaluation of the performance of the City Manager be approved as amended was adopted unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Vicki Elmer City Manager (Recorded by Dan Lindstrom) Minutes--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 7 7:30 p.m.