Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/10/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall June 10, 1998 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Farr, Tim Laue, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Betty Taylor Betty Taylor, Ken Tollenaar. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bobby Lee. I. CALL TO ORDER The adjourned June 8, 1998, Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 11:30 a.m.; His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. Mayor Torrey indicated that City Manager Jim Johnson was out of town and Administrative Services Director Warren Wong was City Manager pro tern during his absence. II. ACTION ITEMS A. Contingency Request: Centro LatinoAmericano Mr. Wong said that the request was brought before the council at Mr. Laue's request and Centro LatinoAmericano Director Carmen Bower was in the audience. Mr. Laue explained that the request was to address problems that arose from actions taken by Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officers recently that left some families homeless. Ms. Swanson Gribskov ascertained that the request would come out of FY98 and any balance would fall into the beginning working capital for FY98-99. Mr. Meisner commended Centro LatinoAmericano for its application, pointing out that it was "very direct help" to the families in need. He added that he had been assured by Ms. Bower that the council's approval of the request would ensure matching funds from the State. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to authorize the expenditure of $6,662 from the contingency fund for family emergency services. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. III. NON ACTION ITEMS A. Work Session: Review of Council Committee System MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1998 Page 1 11:30 a.m. Terry Smith, Public Works, provided the staff report and reminded the council that it was now time to review the committee structure that was formally discussed at the council's September 1997 goals session. He expressed his view that the structure had worked well, enabling the council to accomplish much. He cited councilors' concern with their workload and accessibility of the committees for public review and input but added that the latter had been addressed by the council and its committees. Mr. Smith asked the council to consider the range of proposals contained in the meeting packet. Ms. Taylor said she did not believe the council committee system was a good one, adding that nine people is not too many to hold a discussion. She expressed the view that staff in the small committee setting tended to "force their point of view on the others" and "gives the staff more power, which is a big problem." Ms. Taylor said the council should return to the practice of holding discussion during regular council meetings so all have the same information at the same time, adding that special committees work well as research groups. Mr. Meisner also expressed concern with the committee system but for different reasons. He said it made sense to have standing committees and there was also a role for ad hoc committees, e.g., when there is a need for significant change or for an in-depth, detailed small group discussion of a new or emerging issue. He questioned the need, however, for a standing committee on finance or on public safety separate from the Budget Committee or a police policy advisory committee. Mr. Meisner said he is mostly concerned about "experimental committees that seem to be evolving into standing committees with very broad charges." Mr. Farr said he believed that because of the committee structure there has been more opportunities for public input. He added that the structure had also enabled councilors and committees to hold meetings in different areas, e.g., Station Seven. Mr. Farr admitted that the structure could be made more efficient, however. Mr. Tollenaar expressed support for the committee system, saying he did not see any of the types of abuses he associated with committees at the State and federal levels. He disagreed with Ms. Taylor that small committees unduly influence the outcome of council deliberations. He noted easier interactions with citizens and among members within the committee structure, facilitating in-depth dialogues. Mr. Tollenaar's concerns with the systems have to do with whether it actually saved council time, adding that there was no question that it is definitely a time burden for staff. He said the council needed to clarify whether committees were "creatures of the council or creatures of the City Manager." Ms. Nathanson said she has also appreciated the work of committees, although she was frustrated by some of the situations regarding clarity of committee charges that have arisen, but not because of the committee structure itself. She supported the detailed work done in committees and said if that were done by the council it would easily triple or quadruple the number of hours it met and slow down the entire government process. Ms. Nathanson said the structure depended on councilors having trust in each other and on having the committees produce good council presentations. She said the council should "fix" the problems with the structure and not eliminate it. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said committees are advisory to the council and some of the problems resulted from starting five council committees at the same time. She said she appreciated the way committees were able to conduct detailed research and focus the issues for council discussions. She noted cooperation between committees that ultimately save council time. Ms. Swanson Gribskov suggested placing committees on a two-year cycle. She added that open MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1998 Page 2 11:30 a.m. meetings and public notice provided sufficient opportunities for public input and noted that all council decisions were debated and made in public. Ms. Taylor suggested that Mr. Tollenaar defended the structure because he heads the most powerful committee (Finance) and said it was a waste of resources to have so many staff at committee meetings. Mr. Fart noted that the committees have no power at all by City Charter. He said he did not understand Ms. Taylor's distrust of staff and said he had no problem with "staff running the City because that is what they are paid to do." Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Fart that staff should be trusted and respected, although he shared Mr. Tollenaar's concern with the number of staff who attend meetings. He said he favored a full accounting from committees, not just recommendations, adding that if an issue was not worthy of council discussion it may not be worthy enough for a committee to discuss. Mr. Meisner said it was unclear to him who runs some committees, council or staff. He said he was not sure if the five committees convened at the same time should be standing rather that ad hoc committees. Mr. Meisner said he shared a little of Ms. Taylor's concern with the Council Committee on Finance because everything with a "price tag" on it ("just about everything") was referred to that committee and it was becoming a "mini council." Mr. Tollenaar noted that the committee structure allowed the Mayor to be a member and give input. Mr. Laue said he has no problem with the committee structure, although he was concerned with the clarity of charges. He suggested reevaluating the charges of the committees and asking them to develop a work plan for the council's review, and then sunset those committees as their work is completed. Ms. Nathanson recalled that the former City Manager created the committees to advise her or staff on preparing materials on issues that were scheduled for council discussion. She said that was quite different than a council committee created to work on a new or changed policy. It the committees were used the way they were designed, she said, they might actually work. She advised distinguishing those committees created as advisory by the City Manager from the other committees and if that were not possible then committees should be done another way. Addressing the issue of how many staff are present at meetings, Ms. Nathanson noted that each time the council makes a decision, it sets into motion an expenditure of much resources so it was not surprising to her to see several staff from several different departments present tied to a particular issue. If that is too many staff, she said, then the manager or assistant manager must attend every meeting. Ms. Nathanson said there either has to be enough staff people at these meetings or there has to be a different level of involvement at a higher level. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said this was not an ideal time to change the structure or the charges to committees given that a new council will be seated in six months. She called this the first of a series of conversations on the topic. Mr. Smith summarized the discussion and addressed the committee staffing issue, noting that the dialogue in committees among members, staff, and the public has been much more detailed and have resulted in the staff having less control over the information that reaches the council. Mr. Smith said the council ws moving into what has traditionally been staff work, which has been MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1998 Page 3 11:30 a.m. a positive thing. He acknowledged that part of the reason for the manager's standing committees was to preprocess issues and advise staff on preparing materials for the council discussion, adding that they were also intended to work on specific council goals and provide the council with specific advice or recommendations. Mr. Smith suggested the following: 1) setting a ground rule about public participation, as some committees has extraordinary participation and others do not; 2) schedule trimester sessions as previous councils have done to review committee work plans and charges, along with the council's work plan and progress on goals; 3) make the issue of staff time and staff commitment a criteria for discussion of convening a committee; and 4) set a ground rule on committee agendas, with negotiation periodically between support staff and the committee chair. He asked the council to consider Ms. Swanson Gribskov's notion that at the June 15 work session the council discuss hot issues for the next six months and decide then how to process them, i.e., assign to a committee or to the full council, etc. Mayor Torrey said on June 15 the council would also discuss expectations of the city manager pro rem. B. Work Session: Legal Services Review Mr. Wong recalled that the report was commissioned by former City Manager Vicki Elmer as directed by the council. He called attention to a memorandum from City Manager Jim Johnson making recommendations and other pertinent material in the meeting packet, including a report from the consultant. Mayor Torrey asked City Attorney Bill Gary to sit at the table as a representative of the firm and answer questions posed by the council. Addressing questions from Mr. Fart, Mr. Wong said that Natalie West's firm was chosen from two responses to the City's request for qualifications (RFQ) and Ms. West was a former Berkeley City attorney. Mr. Tollenaar said he was aware that it is the responsibility of the city manager to contract for services but under Section 16 of the charter, the council may discuss anything having to do with the affairs of the City and make suggestions to the City Manager. He said he hoped to ascertain what council's views are but to make no decision or offer suggestions at this session, given the City Manager's absence. He noted that the consultant's report was not well-received by staff and "for good reason." He explained that the report did not respond very adequately to the staff's comments despite the report addendums. Mr. Tollenaar also faulted the report for failing to cite its sources. Of particular importance, he continued, was the issue of the conflict of interest raised by the report and responded to by Mr. Gary (Attachment 2). Mr. Tollenaar said the evidence was that the City will not completely escape any conflict of interest situation even with in-house legal staff but, he said, so long as the City contracts for legal services there is no way of avoiding situational conflict--"what may be good for the law practice is not necessarily what is good for each of its clients, including the City of Eugene." Mr. Tollenaar said the council should give serious consideration to having a small full-time in-house counsel that would take responsibility for the basket of services for oversight of contracted-for legal work, and perhaps for dealing with some other issues such as questions of land use. He emphasized that the current arrangement presented a structural problem, not one with individuals, adding that the firm's expertise accumulated over the last 26 years was invaluable to the City. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1998 Page 4 11:30 a.m. Mr. Meisner described his interview with the consultant as disappointing so he was not surprised to be disappointed with the report. He expressed the same disappointment with the staff report, saying many of the statements were conclusory without justifying analysis. He agreed with Mr. Tollenaar that an in-house attorney to manage the legal services contract and provide advocacy was a good idea. Mr. Meisner said the council had to be sensitive to the perception of impropriety or conflict, adding that at this time he would not push for imminent change to full-time in-house counsel but supported creating a position to manage the basket of services. Mr. Meisner said he believed the City was not well-served in the City prosecution area. Ms. Nathanson said the issue of vigorous advocacy is interesting because it goes both ways. She asked for an description of the services Mr. Tollenaar proposed for the in-house attorney. Mr. Tollenaar described the basket of services, including attending council meetings and Planning Commission meetings and managing the legal services contract. Ms. Taylor strongly supported an in-house legal staff whose "loyalty and interests are only those of the City." Ms. Swanson Gribskov said the issue for her was cost, saying no "stone should be left unturned" in looking for ways to cut costs. She said the conflict-of-interest issue was not a problem for her. Ms. Swanson Gribskov suggested discussing with executive staff an appropriate level to spend on legal services and having regular reports on the item as a way of monitoring legal expenditures. She said the issue would undoubtedly be discussed by future councils. Mayor Torrey cited the high level of control the City currently exercises over its legal services contract and said the council ought to set-up regular executive sessions with its attorneys. He pointed out that a small in-house legal staff would in fact have responsibility for all of the City's legal business through management of the legal services contract. Mayor Torrey said he had not heard an overwhelming demand in the community to change the way it handles it legal issues. He expressed concern that in-house attorneys might avoid the tough issues such as those posed by the City's involvement in telecommunications. Mr. Fart said he was not interested in changing the current practice and gave the following reasons: 1) there are many external influences on costs so that is not an issue; 2) there is quality oversight of the contract and no change is needed; 3) there is a balance of loyalty and competence; 4) the City would have a difficult time recruiting and retaining quality attorneys; and 5) the City would not duplicate in-house the current firm's resources. Mr. Farr agreed that the consultant's report of little value and "riddled with conflict of interest." Ms. Nathanson said the Mayor's assumption that the City does not pay very much and cannot attract quality expertise is in conflict with the public criticism that the City pays too much for the services. Addressing Mayor Torrey's suggestion for holding executive sessions with the City's attorneys, Ms. Nathanson said it is her understanding that those session may be attended by media to represent the public as a watchdog, but they may not report on it. Ms. Nathanson noted that loyalty could mean being trustworthy and avoiding conflict of interest, or showing motivation and enthusiasm for doing the best job. Mr. Meisner disagreed that the City would have a hard time recruiting and retaining in-house staff, noting that municipal law is a "sub-specialty" that attracts many despite the financial reward. He asked staff to provide specific options, including costs to facilitate the council's decision. He expressed concern with the implication on page 154 of the packet that staff is not currently MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1998 Page 5 11:30 a.m. examining the extent to which the State will allow the City to recoup legal fees incurred related to an activity initiated by an entity other than the City. Mr. Gary responded by saying there was a suggestion in the report that the City could, for example, charge developers for attorney fees that were incurred in connection with reviewing a development application, but there is some question to the extent that can be done. Mr. Tollenaar addressed the tradeoff between loyalty and competence, saying he is not sure that competence is more important tha loyalty and commitment to the City's interests. He suggested that anyone recruited for the in-house position would not be motivated primarily by money and the incentive would be a heartfelt commitment to local government--a local, home-rule government advocate." Mr. Tollenaar said every time someone says "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." he thinks that some preventive maintenance might still be in order. Mr. Gary said his firm welcomed the scrutiny it was receiving because he impresses on his colleagues regularly that unlike some who have tenure or guaranteed position, his firm has to earn its clients' loyalty and trust on the job everyday. He said the City's scrutiny has a critical impact on the way the job is performed. The firm is very well-motivated as this was the largest client the firm has, so he was not surprised that the competition is suggesting changes. Mr. Gary addressed the conflicts issue, saying it was a difficult one because licenses can be lost by becoming engaged in some of the conflicts that some have suggested. He said the firm would continue to be vigilant to avoid being placed in a position where its clients are prejudiced. On the issue of prosecution, Mr. Gary said the only way of making that cost-effective for the firm is to use newer, younger attorneys. Finally, he said, there ws a serious policy question the body must address whether it is buying services in-house or by contract, and that is: "What is the philosophy that the attorneys should pursue and what is the philosophy of the council in terms of the degree of risk that should be taken?" Mr. Gary said the easiest thing for a public lawyer to do is say "no" and the firm's approach is to "get you where you want to go," which may involve creating "in ordinance as bullet-proof as possible and defending it if challenged." MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1998 Page 6 11:30 a.m. The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Yolanda Paule) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1998 Page 7 11:30 a.m.