Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Process Session ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: City Council Process Session Meeting Date: October 15, 2008 Agenda Item Number: A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This work session is part of an ongoing opportunity for the City Council to discuss how it conducts its business. The council meets periodically for a facilitated discussion of its processes and operating agreements. BACKGROUND The last council process session convened on Wednesday, January 10, 2007. No formal action was taken at that meeting. Specific items scheduled for discussion at the October 15, 2008, meeting include the following: rd Public Hearings (review effectiveness of 3-Monday meetings dedicated to public hearings) ? Use of laptops during City Council meetings ? Raising issues/motions at meetings without public notice ? Respectful communication with City staff ? Process for requesting work sessions; e.g. define scope of meeting; ensure councilor’s intent is met ? Process for considering contingency requests ? Use of council office space (guidelines, courtesies) ? Council direction to staff (e.g. individual requests to change ordinance language) ? Appropriate use of staff within two-hour rule (e.g. one councilor with multiple two-hour requests) ? Adding provisions to ordinances without council direction ? Function and power of council officers ? Ways to achieve better communication with constituents; i.e., City Council newsletters, forums, e- ? mail newsletters, etc. Tentative: meeting safety ? The discussion will be facilitated by Dr. Teri Strong. RELATED CITY POLICIES Elements of this item relate to the council goal of “effective, accountable municipal government.” COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may provide input and direction for staff follow-up on the issues discussed. No formal action is anticipated. Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081015\S081015A.doc CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No recommendations are offered by the City Manager. SUGGESTED MOTION No motions are offered by the City Manager. ATTACHMENTS A. January 10, 2007, Process Session Minutes B. Council Operating Agreements FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081015\S081015A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom-Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library th 100 West 10 Avenue January 10, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Betty Taylor. ABSENT: Chris Pryor EXECUTIVE STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Taylor, Angel Jones, Jim Carlson, Susan Muir, Randy Groves, Lauren Chouinard, Kurt Corey, Bob Lehner, Renée Grube. City Council Process Session Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Process Session of the Eugene City Council. She introduced Betsy Shepard, who was the facilitator for the meeting. Mary Walston and Beth Forrest of the City Manager's Office were present as support staff. Ms. Shepard reviewed the suggested “norms” for the meeting: ? Listen with respect—no interrupting, no talking over, disagree agreeably ? No personal attacks ? Try things on for size ? Stay on task ? Value differences ? Be open and honest ? Look for opportunities to agree ? Strive for consensus 1. Council Operating Agreements ? A Review and History Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston provided a brief history of the council operating agreements with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. She had reviewed the archives and found the council operating agreements from 1985 and after. She noted that many of the issues that the council addressed in the late 1980s, including placing items on a council agenda, staff assistance for councilors, state and federal lobbying, and reimbursement procedures, were similar to the topics the council addressed MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 1 Process Session at current process sessions. She underscored that over the years the focus of the agreements had not changed very much. Ms. Walston related that the public hearing process had evolved over the years to include time limits. She noted that the Public Forum was created in 1997. Ms. Walston stated that she had an archive of old council process agendas that were available for council review. Ms. Taylor asked why the three-minute time limit had been imposed. Ms. Walston replied that the Wednesday sessions used to have a two-hour limit and the very first item had been the Items from the Mayor and Council. She said this item would sometimes take as long as 45 minutes; so, in order to control that portion of the meeting, the council voted in a time limit. 2. Future Council Meeting Schedules: Work Sessions, Council Meetings, Workshops, Etc. Ms. Shepard said the first issue had to do with timing and any issues councilors wished to bring up related to timing and schedule. Ms. Ortiz had an item that did not relate to schedules. She recalled the discussion the council had regarding the councilor notification of issues. She wanted to be told in advance of press reports on large issues in the community. She said it was hard to advocate for the City and to assure citizens that staff members were doing their jobs when one did not know what was going on. City Manager Taylor said any time there was contact between staff and the media, staff tried to provide the information through the council newsletter and regular memoranda. He asked what sorts of events she wished further notification for. Ms. Ortiz replied that she would want advanced notification when staff members were arrested, when someone was shot by the police, or when high ranking personnel were fired for reasons the press considered newsworthy. In response to a question from City Manager Taylor, Ms. Ortiz clarified that she was referring specifically to fire personnel who were fired. She wanted to be able to say to people that the City did not certain types of behavior. She felt the councilors should know the behaviors for which personnel were being fired. City Manager Taylor stressed that this was a delicate issue because many of the things that would be part of a disciplinary action were part of a personnel record that was between the individual and his or her supervisor, and was therefore not releasable. He stated that it would take a determination by the District Attorney or an Oregon Court of Law to make the records available. Ms. Taylor agreed that councilors should be apprized of anything that would hit the newspapers. She thought that not only should the councilors receive a message, but there should be staff follow-up to ensure they received the message. She related that she had first heard about a large real estate deal in the downtown area by reading the paper. She believed if something was going to attract interest, all nine elected officials should know about it. City Manager Taylor responded that in the example she cited he had sent all councilors and the Mayor a memorandum either by fax or by courier before there was a press contact and then staff had also sent a memorandum to the council and Mayor that there had been a press contact. Ms. Taylor said she wanted a follow-up phone call to ensure that she had received the memoranda. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 2 Process Session Mayor Piercy said the media piece sent by staff was good but it did not call out something that staff thought the councilors might be asked about. She thought it would be beneficial to identify issues that were likely to be of interest in the community. Ms. Solomon thought City Manager Taylor and staff had done a great job of letting the council know of what potential questions might come up as a result of media contacts. She was not willing to ask staff to call the councilors individually to make sure the councilors had read their emails. She said at some point the councilors had to take some responsibility for doing this. Ms. Bettman called this an ongoing problem. She thought the media list was “so generalized that it was difficult to discern” the difference between a larger issue and a smaller issue. She had been frustrated when running into people on boards and commissions, people in neighborhood groups, and people in the business community who have “all kinds of information.” She asserted that though they were told there were things that were not okay to share with councilors, she ran into people “who have vast knowledge of details” and who expressed surprise that she did not know what they knew. She said it “was a paradigm here” that the information was not completely flowing. She recalled that Jim Johnson called councilors about major issues during his tenure as city manager. Ms. Ortiz said she was just asking for something more than the current practice. She felt staff did a good job with the emails and newsletters, but she wanted to know when something critical happened that might garner a lot of community interest in a negative way. City Manager Taylor responded that it was difficult to know what issues would rise to a critical level. Mr. Zelenka said he did not read the newspaper until the end of the day. He thought that if something was newsworthy the council should be notified of it in advance. City Manager Taylor responded that this was the current procedure as the councilors were issued an email every night that said what media contacts had occurred. He cited an example from earlier in the day and the email that had been generated as a result of the press contact. Mayor Piercy thought the email should include more information. Ms. Taylor reiterated that she had found out the City Manager secured the option to buy downtown property from the newspaper. City Manager Taylor reiterated that staff had sent a memorandum by courier and fax to everyone and had included the information in the Thursday packet. Ms. Taylor underscored that she wanted to have a follow-up call to make sure she received the information. She noted that when the recent staff changes occurred, the councilors received phone calls about it. Ms. Ortiz said she was trying to encourage the process. She cited the example of a recent police shooting and commented that it would have been good to know something about the situation. Ms. Shepard asked if the councilors meant they wanted to expand the details and then have a phone call. Ms. Ortiz responded that this would have been beneficial in the case of the shooting. Ms. Bettman said the way to look at it was that the elected officials were the public face of the City. She averred that when approached with an issue, if a councilor did not know how to respond it did not look good. She thought it was a “no-brainer” that the council should have been notified immediately regarding the shooting. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 3 Process Session City Manager Taylor stated that if the councilors had questions they should call him. He was available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He underscored that the councilors had his cell phone number, his email address, his office number, and his home phone number. Ms. Shepard asked if the council had issues on council meeting schedules. Ms. Bettman stated that she had two small issues. She wished to emphasize that she did not want to add any more evening meetings. The other item Ms. Bettman wished to bring up was the desire to have an inventory of motions after meetings, what the motions were and how the votes fell, so that councilors could check to ensure things were recorded correctly and also to use as a quick reference. Ms. Walston requested clarification on whether Ms. Bettman meant major motions or all motions, including procedural motions, friendly amendments, and so on. Ms. Bettman responded that friendly amendments could be significant. Ms. Walston noted that with the advent of the Webcast, staff could review the meeting itself to check anything that was not readily understood. Ms. Taylor agreed that knowing who voted would be helpful. She also did not want an increase in evening meetings. She said as councilors, they should attend as many cultural and civic events in the evenings as possible. Additionally, she noted that the Wednesday work sessions had been reduced to 90 minutes at former Councilor Gary Papé’s request. She wondered if the council should shift back to two-hour meetings for those work sessions. Mayor Piercy stated that now that half of the councilors had jobs during the day, it was important to strike a balance. Ms. Ortiz supported the idea of having a summary of votes. She added that she had changed her schedule to work around the council schedule. She said the balance of work, children, and being a councilor was a challenge. Mr. Poling stated that Council Coordinator Lynda Rose had done a good job of writing the council summaries. He agreed that a summary of votes would be beneficial, but he thought it should include any specific directions made to the City Manager over the course of the meeting. Ms. Bettman also wanted to reduce the number of process sessions in which the council engaged. She thought three sessions were too much. She suggested they change the number to two or one per year. Ms. Taylor recommended that the council get rid of the extra Monday meeting dedicated to public hearing meetings. Ms. Solomon pointed out that the council had just instituted the public hearing meetings. City Manager Taylor recalled that the thinking behind the decision to try a night dedicated to public hearings had been that the council would hold those meetings for a year and then assess how well it was working. He noted that the Budget Committee session was beginning and the meeting devoted to public hearings had heretofore not been run concurrent with the budget meetings. Ms. Bettman recalled that the reason they changed the public hearing process to a separate Monday night meeting was that so many of the public hearings had been postponed and the council had experienced some MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 4 Process Session “horrendous” meetings. She agreed that it was an extra night but it relieved some of the pressure the council previously experienced. Mr. Clark said in looking at what was best for the public, the change to more frequent shorter meetings seemed to be a prudent move. Mayor Piercy commented that people thanked her for holding a separate meeting for public hearings. She observed that several items had been brought up at the process session thus far but had not been resolved. Mr. Poling expressed a preference for having two process sessions. Mr. Clark commented that it would be better to hold the session in a month other than January because of the timing of the goal-setting retreat. Ms. Shepard asked for a show of thumbs up or thumbs down for having two process sessions instead of three. The council indicated its preference for two process sessions per year by a show of thumbs up. City Manager Taylor acknowledged Mr. Clark’s desire to hold the process session in a different month. He pointed out that he preferred to have the process session in January when there were new members on the council. Ms. Shepard asked the council to indicate its preference for when the next process session should convene. The council indicated its preference to bypass the process session planned for April and to hold the next process session in September. Ms. Bettman requested that the process sessions be held during work sessions if at all possible. Ms. Shepard ascertained from the council that there was majority support for this. Ms. Bettman noted that the council had not weighed in on her request to be provided with a summary of motions after a council meeting. City Manager Taylor asked how much of the friendly amendments Ms. Bettman wanted to capture. Ms. Bettman suggested that a motion be restated prior to a vote. Mr. Zelenka agreed that the genesis of a motion seemed important. City Manager Taylor observed that a friendly amendment was one elected official negotiating with another elected official. Ms. Bettman said as long as the friendly amendments were captured in the minutes, it was adequate given that the motion was what was voted upon. Mr. Clark felt it was important to document the nuances. He asked if there was ever difficulty with the Webcast. Ms. Walston responded that it was her understanding that the tapes and DVDs of meetings were available for two years. Mr. Poling reiterated his suggestion that the directions given by councilors to the City Manager be captured in the summary. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 5 Process Session Ms. Bettman averred that such directions were in the minutes. She asked Ms. Walston for clarification on the policy for keeping recordings of the meetings. Ms. Walston replied that minutes were a part of the permanent public record, the DVDs could be kept forever, in theory, but the previous technology had utilized videotapes and they had a shelf life of two years. Ms. Bettman felt the records should be kept in perpetuity. Ms. Shepard asked the council to finish up the issue of the post-meeting vote summary. Ms. Solomon asked if this would lead to an expectation of Ms. Rose to watch the Webcasts to recapture the motion and votes. Mr. Poling thought the summary would reduce Ms. Rose’s workload after council meetings. Ms. Solomon suggested that the Mayor say out loud who had voted in the affirmative and who had voted in opposition. Ms. Walston suggested having the Mayor restate the motion and to recite the votes. She said sometimes it was unclear what exactly was being voted on and, in the McNutt Room especially, it was not always readily apparent how the councilors had voted. Ms. Shepard observed that Ms. Rose was not present to provide input as to how this change could impact her work. City Manager Taylor felt that it would be a shorter version of the current summary that Ms. Rose generated. The Minutes Recorder interjected that hearing how the votes fell would be very beneficial to the minutes process. Mayor Piercy indicated she would state votes for the record. Ms. Bettman reiterated her preference to keep the record of votes into perpetuity. She stated that DVDs did not degrade. City Manager Taylor said he would look into storage for the DVDs. Mayor Piercy noted that Ms. Ortiz had brought up her desire to receive better notice about newsworthy items. She asked if the council should give a thumbs up regarding this. City Manager Taylor reiterated that the councilors could not be privy to information regarding the dismissal of an employee by law. Ms. Ortiz stressed that her intent was that councilors be provided some advance notice of an item that was newsworthy. Mr. Chouinard stated, regarding the one situation pertaining to a dismissal in the Fire Department, reporters had called City Hall and staff had refused to discuss it, as per the law. The complainant in that incident then went to the press and did not communicate her intent to do so to the City. Ms. Ortiz asked how she was supposed to deal with the community when such issues arose. She acknowl- edged that hiring and firing was not her purview. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 6 Process Session Mr. Clark averred that the differentiation of what should rise to the level of a phone call was whether it was a front page news story versus an event that might fall onto lesser pages of the newspaper. Mr. Chouinard said he did not know how to fix a situation in which the City could not speak on a personnel issue but the media found someone outside the City organization who was willing to speak on it. City Manager Taylor asked for further clarification. He said when someone was hurt or killed as a result of police action the council was notified. He noted that he received a report from Fire Chief Groves on structure fires and wondered if the council wished to have this information as well. Ms. Ortiz stressed that she was asking to be briefed in advance of items that would cause repercussions in the community. She said there was a threshold and she believed that staff knew what it was. She indicated that she would like to know whenever shots were fired. Ms. Bettman commented that she had “resigned [herself] to the fact [she] was not getting any information.” She felt any time a reporter called City Hall for comment the council should be made aware of it. She said one of the reasons the City Manager was the head of the organization was that he had discretionary judgment. She thought it would be better for the City Manager to err on the side of caution when it came to what to bring to the attention of the councilors. Ms. Taylor concurred. She echoed the statements of Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz. Mr. Clark called it an issue of political judgment. He said if something was politically sensitive it was more likely to be politically controversial. Mayor Piercy did not want people to start “stirring” on why the elected officials were not responding; she wanted to try to get out in front of issues in order to provide a “calming comment” or words to convey that they knew what was happening and were working on it. City Manager Taylor stated that it took him approximately three hours to give everyone a call. Mayor Piercy responded that he should call her and she would call the council officers, Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor, and they could initiate calls to the others. City Manager Taylor surmised that the council would prefer a call over an email in the face of a critical event. Ms. Taylor suggested that if the City Manager sent an email, that the email should require a response in order to confirm that councilors had read the email. Ms. Shepard ascertained that the councilors felt their concerns had been heard and that there would be work to improve that. Ms. Shepard called for a break at 7:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened after ten minutes. Mayor Piercy remarked that Ms. Taylor had suggested a return to two-hour work sessions on Wednesdays. Ms. Shepard called for thumbs up or thumbs down on the suggestion for a longer Wednesday work session. The council majority gave it thumbs down. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 7 Process Session 3. Parliamentary Issues Ms. Shepard asked what issues the councilors wished to address. Ms. Taylor commented that on a couple of occasions she had sent an intended motion out in advance and another councilor had sent a similar motion. She felt that she had then not been allowed to make her motion. She said the most recent instance of this had to do with the transportation maintenance funding. Mayor Piercy remarked that she was unaware that a motion sent in advance would be considered first. Ms. Bettman observed that it was a courtesy to the other councilors to send a motion in advance, but she did not know if there had been a discussion of what chronological order the motions would be presented in. Ms. Solomon agreed that councilors send motions in advance as a courtesy, but she did not believe that was a guarantee that a motion would be presented or would be presented in the order it had been submitted. She thought that after discussion if there were four motions that could be potentially placed on the table and after the discussion it became clear that the majority felt one was the right motion over the other three, then it was somewhat of a waste of time to consider three motions that lacked support just because of the order in which they were submitted. Ms. Bettman noted that a councilor had the right to have a motion be heard. Ms. Taylor asserted that according to Robert’s Rules, one could make an amendment to an amendment. Mr. Clark observed that it was sometimes challenging for the Mayor to track the queue, especially when a motion was made and then an amendment was made. Mayor Piercy agreed that when there was a queue to speak to a motion and an amendment was made, it was sometimes difficult to discern who was going to speak to what. Ms. Shepard asked if there was council agreement on making amendments to an amendment. Ms. Solomon clarified that this could only be done once. Mayor Piercy said that in most cases she would honor motions that were submitted in advance, but she reserved the right to opt not to do so. Ms. Bettman understood that the council president would put the motion as crafted by staff on the table first and, in the course of the discussion, substitute motions or amendments could be placed on the table. Regarding an amendment to an amendment, she acknowledged that it was within the parameters of Robert’s Rules but she advised the council to be careful what it asked for. She said there had been many times when she wanted to amend an amendment, but it often made a complicated process even more “arcane and complicated.” She averred that it was hard for the public to track what the council was doing as it was. Mr. Zelenka concurred. He stated that having one issue to consider at a time it made it easier to track. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 8 Process Session Mayor Piercy asked if it was the council’s wish to continue with the current practice or to change the practice. Ms. Shepard ascertained by a show of thumbs up that the majority of the council wished to continue with the current practice. 4. Other Issues Mr. Clark asked what guidelines there were regarding how one councilor spoke regarding other councilors’ opinions and beliefs. Ms. Ortiz said the guiding rule was that one should treat others as they wanted to be treated. She viewed speaking badly about a councilor as she viewed speaking badly about any other person for any reason. Ms. Bettman averred that the councilors were more accountable to the public than to one another. She said one could not control the personalities of other people. She noted that when she was asked about the opinions or views of other councilors by a member of the press, she advised them that she did not speak for others. Mayor Piercy noted that she wanted to make two changes. She intended to read the Consent Calendar aloud at meetings because people in the audience, and especially the television audience, did not always know what was on it. Another change she intended to make was that she planned to ask the council president and vice president to consider placing on the agenda for discussion any bills from the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) that had resulted in a 2:1 vote. She also wanted to discuss the council’s position and how to improve the meeting process. Ms. Bettman asserted that these were duties and responsibilities that the council officers had “heretofore not enjoyed.” She felt this should be formalized in the process agreement. She believed that the “enhancement” of the duties of the City Council officers was a “big discussion.” She said at present the council officers did not have the authority to block things or place items on the agenda. Mayor Piercy said she was looking at this as a way to place motions on the table and she wished to discuss any CCIGR bill on which there was a split vote. Ms. Bettman responded that the procedure, as it stood, had been for the councilors to take responsibility and review the bills and then, if they chose, they could call out a bill. She saw the change the Mayor was proposing as redundant and a layer of bureaucracy that was not needed. Mayor Piercy responded that it was fine to choose a different way of conducting the CCIGR work. From her perspective, she wanted to highlight the things that did not have the unanimous support of the CCIGR in order to see if it was the will of the council to discuss them further. She underscored that the direction for the City’s intergovernmental work should come from the whole council and not just from the CCIGR. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Bettman. She thought the Mayor’s proposal would be time-consuming. She reiterated that it was up to the councilors to read the information from the CCIGR and to call out anything that merited further discussion. Ms. Walston related that the new Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, planned to provide a weekly newsletter to the council. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 9 Process Session Ms. Bettman thought the authority of the council officers should be discussed in the process session. She wanted to maintain the current process until there was another process session to discuss it. Mayor Piercy responded that she intended to meet with the council officers prior to meetings. She intended to ask them to bring forward bills that received a split vote in the CCIGR. She said it was up to them to say yes or no. Ms. Bettman asked if that was the only item Mayor Piercy would discuss with the council officers. Mayor Piercy replied that she wanted to meet with them regularly before council meetings. She said Mr. Pryor and Ms. Ortiz had expressed a desire to be more engaged in the ongoing process of the council. Ms. Bettman called this “pretty big.” Mayor Piercy disagreed. She said it was just people talking with each other and council officers trying to figure out how to reach out to the other councilors on an ongoing basis and to have more communication. Ms. Ortiz commented that she wanted to be more supportive of the Mayor and the council in her role as council president. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 10 Process Session ECCOA UGENE ITY OUNCIL PERATING GREEMENTS RN4930 ESOLUTION UMBER AF25,2008 DOPTED EBRUARY INTRODUCTION The Municipal Charter of the City of Eugene (Charter) and Eugene City Code, 1971 (E.C.), as well as the Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) law govern many meeting requirements and actions of the Council. The Eugene Charter, Chapter 2 of the Eugene City Code, and various sections of ORS 192 and 244 are primary sources of these meeting and other operating requirements. 1.MEETING REQUIREMENTS 1.01 Time of Meetings Regular meetings of the Eugene City Council (the Council) shall be on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. These meetings shall begin at 7:30 p.m. and shall end at 10 p.m., or when the agenda item considered by the Council at 10 p.m. is concluded. If those days are on a legal or religious holiday, the Council may schedule the meeting for the day immediately following. 1.02 Work Sessions The Council may meet in work sessions beginning at 5:30 p.m. prior to its regular Monday meetings as needed. Other work sessions may be held on the second, third, fourth, and fifth Wednesdays of the month. These work sessions shall start at noon and last for a maximum of 90 minutes. Except for extraordinary circumstances, the total time for presentations by staff and/or others on a single agenda item shall be no more than 15 minutes. 1.03 Location of Meetings Eugene City Council meetings shall be held within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. Training sessions may be held outside the City limits, if no deliberations toward a decision are made. Inter-jurisdictional meetings may be held outside City limits, but should be as close to Eugene as practical. No Council meeting shall be held at any place where discrimination on the basis of an individual’s race, religion, color, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, source of income or disability, is practiced. For this purpose, meetings do not include visitations or attendance at any national, regional, or state association to which the councilor belongs. 1.04 Notice of Meetings, Special Meetings, Emergency Meetings Advance notice of at least 24 hours shall be provided for all meetings. Notice shall include written notice to all news media which requested notice. In the case of emergency or when a state of emergency has been declared, notice appropriate to the circumstances shall be provided and reasons justifying the lack of 24-hour notice shall be included in the minutes of such meeting. As per both the Eugene Charter, Section 9, and Eugene Code, Section 2.007 (2), the Mayor or three of the members of the Council, may call a special meeting of the Council in manner provided in E.C. 2.007 (3). Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 1 of 19 1.05 Public Forum A public comment period generally shall be the first item of every regular meeting of the Eugene City Council. The Public Forum shall not exceed a maximum of 60 minutes, unless a majority of Councilors present vote to extend the time. A motion to extend the time of the Public Forum is not debatable. Persons wishing to speak at the Public Forum must sign up to do so not later than 5 minutes after the meeting has been called to order by the Mayor or presiding officer. The Mayor or presiding officer shall inform the audience of the requirement to sign up to speak not later than 5 minutes after the meeting has been called to order or prior to the conclusion of the Public Forum. Members of the public may speak about any topic during the Public Forum, except as provided below. If a member of the public wishes to speak on an item that is scheduled for a public hearing at that same meeting, the speaker shall wait until that public hearing. The Public Forum cannot be used to testify about an item that is not a public matter or which has already been heard by a Hearings Official, or to provide or gather additional testimony or information on a quasi-judicial matter after the official record has been closed. Speakers at the Public Forum will be limited to three minutes. Generally, the speakers will be called upon in the order in which the “request to speak” forms are received by the staff at the meeting. No persons will be allowed to complete a “request to speak” form more than 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. Should there be more speakers than can be heard for three minutes each during the 60 minute Public Forum, the staff will sort the “request to speak” forms in order to afford a greater opportunity for a number of topics to be heard during the Public Forum. If there are a large number of speakers on a single topic, staff is directed to intermix request to speak forms from persons wishing to speak on a less stated topic. The “request to speak forms,” in this case only, will not remain in the original order in which they were received in order to improve the likelihood that those smaller numbers of speakers will have an opportunity to speak before the Public Forum is closed. When possible and feasible, preference will be given to individuals who reside within the legal limits of the City of Eugene. Persons who do not reside in the City of Eugene may be placed at the end of the list of those wishing to speak at the Public Forum. At the end of the Public Forum each member of the Council has the opportunity to respond to comments made during the Public Forum. The time allocated to each member of the Council for such responses shall be up to three minutes. 1.06 Public Hearings Public hearings shall be held at regular meetings and shall occur for all ordinances except under the terms delineated in E.C. 2.007 (4). Hearings may be scheduled on other items at the discretion of the Mayor and the City Manager. Persons wishing to speak shall submit a “request to speak” form prior to the commencement of the public hearing at which the person wishes to speak. The Mayor or presiding officer shall inform the audience of this requirement to sign up Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 2 of 19 prior to the commencement of a public hearing. Speakers will be limited to three minutes. Eugene Code 2.015(7) notwithstanding, councilors may ask clarifying or follow up questions of individuals providing testimony after that individual has completed his/her testimony. Questions posed by City Councilors should be to provide clarification or additional information on testimony provided. Questions should not be used as an attempt to lengthen or expand the testimony of the individual. Councilors shall be expected to use restraint and be considerate of the meeting time of the Council when exercising this option. The Mayor or presiding officer may intervene if a councilor is violating the spirit of this guideline. At the end of the Public Hearing, each member of the Council has the opportunity to comment on or discuss testimony given during the Public Hearing. The Mayor and Council will be limited to commenting only on the main motion prior to discussing any proposed amendments. If a an amendment to the motion is made during the initial round on the main motion, subsequent remarks on the amendments will be postponed until all wishing to speak on the main motion have done so. 1.07 Executive Session All meetings of the Council shall be held in open session, except those meetings that may be closed for those purposes specified in the Oregon Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual (ORS 192.610 to 192.690). These include the employment or dismissal of public employees, performance evaluation of the City Manager, labor negotiations, real property transactions negotiations, and consulting with legal counsel on pending or threatened litigation. Notice of executive sessions shall be given as required by state law and that notice must state the specific provisions of law authorizing the session. The Mayor and City Councilors are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the information discussed in legally noticed and conducted executive sessions as defined in Chapter 192 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. 1.08 Minutes Written minutes shall be taken for all Council meetings in accordance with the Oregon Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual. The minutes must give a true reflection of the matters discussed but need not be a full transcript, verbatim or recording. As a matter of courtesy and efficiency, councilors should notify the Mayor and other councilors that he/she intends to propose an amendment to the minutes and should propose replacement text in advance of the meeting at which those minutes are scheduled to be approved. If the proposed amendment is a simple factual, grammatical, or spelling correction, the amendment may be proposed without consulting the minutes recorder. If, however, the proposed amendment is substantive in nature or seeks to clarify the speaker's intent, or to expand his/her remarks for the record, the councilor should notify the minutes recorder and request verification of the proposed amendment. 1.09 Voting Section 12 of the Eugene Municipal Charter states that, the Mayor only votes on matters before the Council in the case of a tie. Council members may not abstain from voting unless a conflict of interest has been declared. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 3 of 19 1.10 Presiding Officer The Mayor shall preside over Council meetings when present. The president of the Council shall preside if the Mayor is absent or unable to preside. The Council vice president shall have the powers of the Council president when the Council president is performing the duties of the Mayor. If the Mayor, Council president, and vice president are unavailable, the Council members present shall elect a temporary presiding officer. 1.11 Council Officers Council officers shall be elected for one year terms in the manner prescribed in the E.C. 2.009, at the first regular meeting in each calendar year. PLACING ITEMS ON COUNCIL AGENDA 2. 2.01 Contact the City Manager Contact the City Manager and explain the nature, scope and desired outcome of the item for the agenda, or make the request during a City Council meeting under “Items from Mayor and City Council” at a Council work session. The City Manager and Mayor may then decide to place the item on a future agenda. 2.02 Council Poll Alternatively, an item may be placed on the Council agenda by councilor request. A councilor may ask Council support staff for a work session, and staff shall then poll all councilors, in writing, to ask if the item should be placed on the Council agenda. If, within five working days of distribution of the poll, a majority of the Council responds in the affirmative, the item shall be placed on the Council agenda within one week. A majority of the Council in this instance is four councilors. 2.03 Tentative Agenda on the Consent Calendar At each regular meeting of the Council, the City Manager shall present the tentative agenda. This shall be placed on the Consent Calendar. If there are concerns about items on the tentative agenda it may be removed at the request of any councilors from the Consent Calendar and discussed separately. 2.04 Tentative Agenda Provided Each Week The tentative agenda shall be included in the weekly information packet provided to the Council. 2.05 Scheduling of Items on the Agenda The City Manager and Mayor shall decide the date that items come before Council for work sessions and for regular meetings. 2.06 Routine Business Items on the City Council Agenda The City Manager shall continue to place routine and standard items of Council business on the City Council agenda. ORDER OF ITEMS ON A SPECIFIC DATE MEETING AGENDA 3. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 4 of 19 3.01 Ceremonial Matters At the first regular meeting of each month, the first agenda item shall be used to acknowledge special recognition or awards given to the City of Eugene or for the Mayor to read proclamations which serve to encourage and educate the community. Proclamations shall be made and placed on the agenda at the discretion of the Mayor. This item shall be called “Ceremonial Matters.” Requests for recognition under Ceremonial Matters should be submitted in writing to the Mayor. 3.02 Consent Calendar At regular Council meetings, in order to expedite the Council’s business, routine and standard items shall be placed on the Consent Calendar. Any item on the consent calendar may be removed for separate consideration by any member of the Council. Revisions or corrections to meetings minutes shall be considered first, prior to other items removed from the Consent Calendar. The remaining items on the Consent Calendar may then be considered for action by a single vote. The items pulled from the Consent Calendar shall be considered after the approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar and before the next scheduled item on the agenda. Ordinances, because of charter requirements, are not to be placed on the Consent Calendar. 3.03 Public Hearings Given Priority As a guideline, public hearings shall be placed on the specific meeting agenda before items only requiring action. Further, public hearings expected to draw a small number of speakers shall be placed before public hearings for which a larger number of speakers is expected. 3.04 Items from Mayor and City Council At work sessions held on the second and fourth Mondays of each month, the first item on the agenda shall be “Items from Mayor, Council and City Manager.” The time set for this item will be 20 minutes, subject to change at the time the meeting is called to order. COUNCIL ACTION ON AGENDA ITEMS 4. As a guideline, action on issues for which a public hearing has occurred shall not be taken at the same meeting at which the public hearing is held. In the case of an ordinance, the charter requires that an ordinance shall not be adopted by the Council unless it has been considered by the Council during at least two meetings. With the unanimous consent of the Council, the Council may consider and enact an ordinance at a single meeting if the Council does not amend the ordinance in a manner that modifies its substantive effect, (Charter, Section 28 (3)). POSTPONING AGENDA ITEMS 5. Any councilor may request that an item be postponed to another meeting if he/she is unable to attend the meeting at which the item has been scheduled. As a courtesy, councilors should submit in writing a request to postpone to the Mayor as early as possible. If the Mayor is unavailable the request should be made to the City Manager or the Manager’s designated staff member. A request to postpone may be requested for either a work session item or a vote on an agenda item. The request to postpone shall be honored unless a majority of councilors present, determines that the matter needs to be acted upon at that meeting. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 5 of 19 COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL 6. 6.01 Creation of Committees While the City Code governs appointments to certain committees, the code grants broad general powers to the Mayor and Council to create subcommittees or special ad hoc committees of the Council. The Mayor shall nominate and the Council shall appoint the members of any committee established by the Council unless a different procedure is specified at the time the committee is established. The charge to the committee shall be clearly stated at the time the committee is established, and the committee shall disband when its work is complete. Committees may be composed of councilors, interested citizens or both. 6.02 Standing Committees of the Council There is one standing committee of the Council, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee. 6.03 Standing Advisory Bodies to the Council There are five standing advisory bodies to the City Council. These are created in the Eugene Code and exist to provide advice on policy matters. These are: 1) the Budget Committee; 2) the Planning Commission; 3) the Police Commission; and 4) the Human Rights Commission. 7. CONDUCT AT MEETINGS 7.01 Roberts Rules of Order Conduct at Council meetings and committee meetings is governed by Roberts Rules of Order, Revised. The Council has the obligation to be clear and simple in its procedures and in its consideration of the questions coming before it. Council members shall avoid invoking the finer points of parliamentary rules which may serve only to obscure the issues. 7.02 Other Meeting Guidelines The presiding officer shall be responsible for ensuring order and decorum are maintained. Behavior or actions that are unreasonably loud or disruptive shall be cause for removal from Council meetings. This includes engaging in violent or distracting action, making loud or disruptive noise or using similar language, and refusing to obey an order of the presiding officer. Council members speak only for themselves and shall be open, direct and candid. They work to keep discussion moving, and call for a “process check” if the discussion becomes bogged down. Time limits may be set on topics. When councilors speak to each other during public meetings, last names shall be used during regular meetings and first names may be used during work sessions. The Mayor is, however, always referred to as “The Mayor.” During public meetings, councilors generally should not attempt to edit or rewrite prepared ordinances. Amendments to an ordinance may, however, be appropriate. Generally, councilors should give direction to staff to bring back amended ordinances for Council consideration. If a member of the Council intends to make a motion at a meeting which is not reflected in the agenda item summary, every effort should be make to contact other members of the Council to inform them of the intent and the text of the motion. City Council support staff should be notified Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 6 of 19 provided with the same information and may be asked to assist in the notification process. Comment times for the Mayor and councilors at Council meetings or work sessions shall be as follows: the first round of comments by the Mayor and Council following a work session, public hearing, or when action is scheduled will be limited to no more than three minutes. If a second round of comments is requested, they will be limited to no more than two minutes, and third round comments will be no longer than one minute. This, however, will be at the discretion of the Mayor or presiding officer. When an amendment to the main motion is introduced, comments will be limited to two minutes for the Mayor and Council until the presiding officer deems that one-minute limitations are necessary due to time constraints. 7.03 Public Conduct The rules of conduct for members of the public shall generally be the same as for the Council. The Code prohibits any person from bringing in to a Council meeting flags, signs, posters, and placards unless authorized by the presiding officer. The Eugene Code specifically permits arm bands, emblems, badges, and other articles worn on personal clothing, so long as such items do not extend from the body in such a way as to cause injury to another. COUNCILOR REQUEST FOR STAFF ASSISTANCE 8. 8.01 Two-Hour Rule Initiatives requiring more than two hours of staff time must be approved by the Council. Requests that involve less than two hours staff time or resources should be directed to the City Manager. 8.02 Major Request A Councilor who desires major policy, ordinance research, or other staff assistance should first raise the issue at a Council work session. The Council should decide whether to proceed with the issue or ordinance before staff time is spent. 8.03 Tracking Council Requests Except for routine inquiries, the City Manager shall respond to councilors’ requests for information or assistance. The Manager shall assign these requests to appropriate City staff and track progress on the assignments. This process eliminates the possibilities of staff members duplicating each other's efforts or a request being overlooked. In each weekly information packet a list of current requests for assistance will be provided. 9. REPRESENTING CITY POSITIONS AND PERSONAL POSITIONS 9.01 Written Communications from City Councilors and Mayor In written communication with other officials or groups and in letters for publication, such as “to the editor,” the Mayor and councilors should be careful to decide whether to speak only for themselves or for the Council. In speaking for the Council, when there is a position which the writer wishes to reinforce or explain, it is useful to circulate a copy to the Council for comment before the letter is mailed. Letters to other elected officials or agencies on City issues shall be Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 7 of 19 discussed with the appropriate staff so that the City lobby effort can be coordinated. When writing as an individual, a councilor or the Mayor is free to take any position which he or she feels is appropriate. When it is a point of view different from a Council position, this fact should be included in the letter. Use of City stationery and choice of pronouns shall be left to the discretion of the councilor or the Mayor. The governing principle is to advise the Council or staff when expressing a City position, and to make differences clear when speaking as an individual. 9.02 State/Federal Lobbying The effectiveness of City lobbying in Salem or in Washington, D.C., depends on the clarity of the City’s voice. When councilors or the Mayor represent the City in a lobbying situation, it is appropriate that the councilors or the Mayoravoid expressions of personal dissent from an adopted Council policy. This policy is stated in Resolution No. 4139, Council Policy on Testimony and Funding Applications. A councilor or the Mayor in disagreement with an adopted policy should not be deprived of the right to express such views to the appropriate officials at another time and another place. However, the councilor or the Mayor should feel bound to advise those to whom such disagreement is expressed that it is an individual view and that the Council has taken a different position. 9.03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings Councilors and the Mayor are encouraged to attend conferences and training sessions which would enhance their skills and knowledge. Any councilor or the Mayor may attend any meeting at which the Council is represented, but only the formally appointed official City Council representative or designated alternate, has the right to vote on matters being considered by the organization or group holding the meeting or conference. Individual councilors or the Mayor may state he or she is representing the City Council if he or she has been formally directed by the City Council to do so. For local intergovernmental bodies or advisory groups, to which an official Eugene City Council representative has been appointed, the representative is to serve as an “instructed delegate,” that is, to represent pertinent adopted city and Council policy. If possible, the Mayor or councilors should inform the other members of the City Council of the matters being considered by intergovernmental bodies, and to the greatest extent possible, seek direction from the City Council on issues directly pertaining to the City of Eugene and adopted city policy. The representative may express his or her own opinion, provided it is identified as such, but when voting or considering matters with policy implications or budgetary considerations, the representative must follow adopted City or Council policy and direction. Participating in state and national groups such as the League of Oregon Cities and the National League of Cities presents the opportunity to enhance skills and knowledge, and are important avenues for the Mayor and councilors to advocate for the members of the community and the city itself. If the Mayor or councilors attend meetings of these organizations, an official voting Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 8 of 19 delegate should be selected by the City Council. This voting delegate, to the greatest extent possible, informs the Mayor and City Council of issues or matters on which the voting delegate may be asked to vote. If there is existing City or Council policy, the voting delegate will vote in accordance with that policy. When providing a report to the council (see Section 10.06), votes of the delegate should be included in that report. If the Mayor or individual councilor serves on a committee of a state or national advisory committee and has been selected in an “at large” role, that is, not a specific seat or position for a City of Eugene elected official, that person should state the adopted City or Council policies. However, that person is not bound by the adopted policy and can represent his or her own position, provide that the person makes such a disclaimer. 10. COUNCILOR EXPENSES 10.01 General Guidelines for Reimbursed Expenses Under the provisions of the City Charter, the City may pay a councilor or the Mayor expenses that are directly related to City business. It is each councilor’s and the Mayor’s responsibility to determine if expenses are actually City related. If there are questions about the propriety of such expenditures, the Manager shall first review the issue with the councilor. If the City Manager and the councilor cannot resolve the issue, the Manager shall discuss the matter with the Mayor. Receipts should be secured for any expenses and should accompany Council expense report forms to record mileage and other expenses. The forms shall be available from the City Manager's Office. Activities that support or oppose a political campaign shall not be reimbursable. 10.02 Out-of-Town Expenses Out-of-town expenses include those incurred while attending City-related conventions, conferences, training seminars, or meetings. Expenses that are paid by the City include fees for seminars or conferences; transportation to, from, and at the destination; and lodging, meals, and incidental expenses that are necessary to conduct City business. 10.03 Local Expenses Local expenses include those incurred while representing the Council on a committee, attending meetings, attending local seminars or conferences, attending local special events, or meeting with groups or individuals to discuss City matters. Expenses that are paid by the City are detailed in Resolution No. 4375 and include meals, conference registration, transportation and necessary incidental expenses, and up to two community group memberships, not to exceed $100 total. The reimbursement for bicycle mileage, as permitted in Resolution No. 4375, shall be $.15.1 per mile as of September 1, 2002, and shall be adjusted each year at the same rate of increase as that of automobile reimbursement. Special materials such as books or directories may also be eligible for reimbursement. If receipts are not available, a written description of expenses signed by the Councilor must be Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 9 of 19 submitted along with the Council Expense Report Form. Forms shall be available from the City Manager’s Office. 10.04 Spouse/Guest Expenses The City shall reimburse councilors or the Mayor for spouse expenses at local events when the councilors or the Mayor and spouse are jointly invited and the councilors are serving in their official capacity, such as a recognition dinner. The City does not otherwise reimburse councilors or the Mayor for expenses incurred by their spouses. If councilors or the Mayor wish to have spouses accompany them while attending out-of-town events, the City may make reservations and have travel and lodging expenses billed directly to the City. Councilors or the Mayor must then reimburse the City for their spouse’s travel and lodging expenses. Reimbursement should be made as soon as possible so that the trip reconciliation process can be completed. When a guest is invited in place of a spouse, this reimbursement policy shall also apply. 10.05 Petty Cash Expenses under $50 can usually be reimbursed out of the petty cash fund in the City Manager’s Office. 10.06 Travel Guidelines Prior notification of out-of-town travel shall be given to staff responsible for travel arrangements in the City Manager’s Office whenever possible. Registration and travel arrangements should be made well in advance so that the City can take advantage of reduced fares and early registration fees. Staff shall assist councilors in making transportation and lodging arrangements and arrange to have expenses billed directly to the City; contractors shall be chosen by staff, and not by councilors. While at a conference, councilors or the Mayor shall be expected to attend conference sessions and, within 30 days, issue a written report to share the information and perspectives with the entire Council. If more than one councilor attends, a consolidated report may be written. As a general guideline, each councilor is allowed two out-of-state conference trips per fiscal year. If a councilor wishes to make additional trips, the request should be brought to attention of the full Council and should be endorsed by a majority of the Council. This guideline is intended to cover trips made at the discretion of the individual councilor; it is not intended to be applied to trips related to service on national or regional committee, such as a committee of the National League of Cities. 10.07 Overseas Travel If the Mayor or members of the Council wish to attend a conference or make a Council business- related trip to a destination overseas, this request shall be made in writing well in advance and shall be placed on the consent calendar for approval by the Council. 11. ETHICS 11.01 Reporting Requirements in ORS Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 10 of 19 In accordance with ORS 244.050, the Mayor and all councilors holding office on April 15 shall be required to file an Annual Verified Statement of Economic Interest with the Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission on or before that date. The report must be filed on the form prescribed by ORS 244.060. Each year the form shall be mailed directly to the elected official by the Commission and should be returned directly to the Commission in Salem. Failure to submit the form by the April 15 deadline may result in the imposition of a civil penalty and/or removal from office. 11.02 Local Code of Ethics The Charter requires that a code of ethics be enacted. This local code, found in the Eugene Code, places additional conflicts of interest requirements upon elected officials and creates a local process for filing complaints. 12. COUNCIL CHAMBER AND MCNUTT ROOM SEATING ASSIGNMENTS The Council shall be assigned seats in January, following the election of the Council president and vice president. The Mayor is always seated at the center position with the Council president seated at the Mayor's right and the Council vice president seated at the Mayor’s left. The remaining councilors in alphabetical order by last name shall be assigned seats. Each person moves one seat toward the outside and to the opposite side of the table or dais; those on the outside move to the innermost seats on the opposite side. This system allows councilors the opportunity to regularly change seats throughout a four-year term. Below is a detailed listing of the seating sequence. JANUARY Mayor President Vice President Councilor A1 Councilor B2 Councilor C3 Councilor D4 Councilor E5 Councilor F6 APRIL Mayor President Vice President Councilor F6 Councilor E5 Councilor B2 Councilor A1 Councilor D4 Councilor C3 SEPTEMBER Mayor President Vice President Councilor C3 Councilor D4 Councilor E5 Councilor F6 Councilor A1 Councilor B2 Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 11 of 19 CCCIR ITY OUNCIL OMMITTEE ON NTERGOVERNMENTAL ELATIONS OA PERATING GREEMENTS ACCJ28,2008 DOPTED BY THE ITY OUNCIL ON ANUARY 1. Purpose of Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations The Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (IGR Committee) exists to make recommendations to the City Council on State and Federal legislative issues and on City applications for funding from outside agencies. At this time it is the only standing committee of the City Council. 2. Membership The IGR Committee consists of three City Council members. The three IGR Committee Council members are appointed annually by the Mayor in the normal course of appointments to various boards and commissions on which City of Eugene elected officials serve. The Mayor will appoint members that represent the City Council’s political and ideological diversity. The Mayor serves as an ex-officio member of the IGR committee. 3. Committee Chair The IGR Committee shall elect a chair of the committee at the first regularly scheduled meeting after the Mayor has appointed the members to the IGR Committee. 4. Conducting the Business of Meeting IGR Committee meetings are governed by Roberts Rules of Order, Revised. Like the City Council, the IGR Committee has the obligation to be clear and simple in its procedures and in its consideration of the questions coming before it. 5. Meetings The IGR Committee meets as needed and generally meets more frequently when the Oregon Legislature is in session. Meetings of the IGR Committee are subject to the requirements of Oregon Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.620. The meetings shall be held within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. No IGR Committee meeting shall be held at any place where discrimination on the basis of an individual’s race, religion, color, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, source of income or disability, is practiced. Advance notice of at least 24 hours shall be provided for all meetings. Notice shall include written notice to all news media that requested notice. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 12 of 19 6. Quorum Two members of the IGR Committee constitute a quorum for the transaction of Committee business. Other members of the City Council may attend meetings of the IGR Committee, but shall have no authority or status to vote on matters considered by the IGR Committee during that meeting. Unanimous votes of the IGR Committee require 3 votes, not 2 votes, should an IGR Committee member be absent. An IGR Committee member may designate the Mayor to serve as an alternate in the member’s absence. 7. Minutes Written minutes shall be taken for all IGR Committee meetings in accordance with the Oregon Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual. The minutes must give a true reflection of the matters discussed but need not be a full transcript, verbatim or recording. 8. Process for Sessions of the Oregon Legislature The Regular Session of the Oregon State Legislature convenes in January of odd numbered years, with a Special Session convening in January of even numbered years. The Regular Session generally lasts for six months with the Special Session lasting for two months. In February 2008, the Oregon legislature convened a Supplemental Session in lieu of the Special Session, lasting for only one month. Supplemental Sessions may be held in subsequent even numbered years. Preparation for the Regular Session is begun by IGR staff who meet with the members of the IGR Committee and other City departmental staff to outline legislative policies and concepts for the upcoming session based upon City Council goals, priorities, community needs and organizational issues. These concepts, after being vetted by staff and the IGR Committee, are then submitted to the full City Council for review and approval. Once the concepts are approved, they become the basis for the Legislative Policies document that serves as the cornerstone for position and lobbying efforts on particular pieces of legislation during the session. The Legislative Policies document includes principles and precepts that will help determine the city position on bills. The City of Eugene first adopted a formal set of legislative policies prior to the 1985 session recognizing from past sessions that many staff recommendations were repeated from session to session and that a great percentage of a session’s legislative proposals could be anticipated. 9. Process for Introducing Legislation The City may wish to introduce legislative concepts on its behalf to the legislature. The IGR Committee meets and reviews all proposals for legislation prior to submittal to the Legislature. ? Any City staff or elected official interested in introducing legislation prepares a written overview of the purpose of the legislative concept and draft language for review by the IGR Committee. Once the IGR Committee has voted on proposed legislative concepts, the action of the IGR approval. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 13 of 19 After the proposed legislative concepts have been reviewed and approved by the full City Council, legislative concepts that have been approved are presented to the Legislature for drafting. The bill, as introduced, is then presented to the IGR Committee under the regular bill review process. 10. Process for Review and Prioritization of Legislation The Legislative session is relatively short and as a result, bills can move quickly through the legislative process. Regardless, the City will maintain a neutral position on any bills not yet reviewed by City staff and acted upon by the IGR Committee. Review by City staff: ? Once the bills are introduced, they are assigned by an IGR staff person to the appropriate LC for review. ? Legislative Coordinators (LCs) in the appropriate City department analyze all introduced bills that are of interest to or may affect the City. LC staff is determined by each Department. ? LC staff turnaround for review and analysis of a bill is expected to be within 10 working days of the assignment of a bill unless the movement of a bill warrants a faster turn- around. In those cases, IGR staff will contact the LC and arrange for a faster review. ? If a bill addresses one or more of the policies presented in the Legislative Policies for that session, the particular policy is noted in the LC staff’s analysis of the bill. ? LC staff will relay both the pros and cons of a bill in their comments as well as any amendments that would make the bill more favorable. ? LC will assign each bill a priority and a recommendation. Legislative advocacy is done on the basis of a priority and recommendation system. LC staff recommends a “support,” “oppose,” “neutral,” “monitor,” or “drop” recommendation for all reviewed bills. LC staff also recommends a priority of 1, 2, or 3 on all reviewed bills. The three priority assignments for legislative bills are as follows: PRIORITY ONE BILLS – The issues addressed by the bill areidentified in the City’s Legislative Policies document. The bill would have a significant impact on City operations, services, or finances in such ways as to fundamentally impact department administration, organization, personnel, allocation of City resources, or local decision-making, either negatively or positively. The issues addressed by the bill are of significant interest to the City even if they do not directly impact the operations, services, or finances of the City. Lobby Resource Allocation: Both IGR staff in Salem work on the bill, with a high support level from the legislative coordinator(s) assigned to the bill. The Mayor and/or Council members may testify before committees, possibly with both IGR staff and/or a legislative coordinator. IGR staff contacts all or close to all members of all committees the bill is assigned to. Depending on topic and recommendation, IGR staff will also contact as many legislators as possible prior to public hearings or work sessions. In the event of a floor vote, IGR staff contacts as many legislators as is possible in the 2-5 day period between committee passage and the floor vote. Handouts would be placed in the Capitol mailboxes of all legislators prior to a floor vote. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 14 of 19 PRIORITY TWO BILLS – The issues addressed by the bill are identified in the City’s Legislative Policies document. The bill would have some impact, although manageable, on City operations, services, or finances and would impact administration, organization, personnel, allocation of City resources, or local decision-making, either negatively or positively. The issues addressed by the bill are of high interest to the City even if they do not directly impact the operations, services, or finances of the City. Lobby Resource Allocation: IGR Staff in Salem work closely with legislative coordinators. If the bill is a City specific issue, IGR will testify, with a legislative coordinator if necessary. This, may necessitate the involvement of an executive or expert department staff or the Mayor and/or Council members. If it is an issue less specific to the City, written testimony will be offered. IGR staff will contact members of the bill’s committee prior to a bill being passed out of committee. In the event of a floor vote, IGR staff will submit letters to all legislators and try to contact as many of them as possible, starting with our delegation first, and then to legislators we suspect might be “swing votes.” PRIORITY THREE BILLS - The issues addressed by the bill are alluded to in the City’s Legislative Policies document or included in other policy document or direction. The bill would have a slight impact on City administration, operations, or services, with potential implications for City finances, either negatively or positively. The bill requires tracking because amendments could elevate bill to Priority One or Priority Two. The issues addressed by the bill are of slight interest to the City even if they do not directly impact the operations, services, or finances of the City. Lobby Resource Allocation: Depending on recommendation, IGR staff contacts committee members from local delegation, as well as the committee chair or submits written testimony or letter to proper committee, with no further involvement. In the event of a floor vote, IGR staff will submit letters to all legislators. Review by the IGR Committee: ? The bill is placed on the IGR Committee agenda for review as soon as possible after all applicable staff has commented on the bill. ? The IGR Committee meets and reviews all bills on the IGR Committee agenda and may pull any or all bills off the agenda for discussion. ? Any LC staff that has reviewed and commented on a bill that is pulled for discussion will be prepared to discuss the bill at the IGR Committee meeting. ? If a bill is not pulled for discussion, the staff recommendation stands. If a bill is pulled for discussion, the IGR Committee may keep or change the staff recommendation. The IGR may also direct that IGR staff work to amend a bill. ? The IGR Committee votes on all bill priorities and recommendations; the votes need not be unanimous – with unanimous being 3 votes. The actions of the IGR Committee are presented on the full City Council’s agenda for review and approval. The minutes of the IGR Committee are ratified by the City Council. Any bill that has been reviewed by the IGR Committee may be pulled for discussion at the request of any councilor or by the Mayor. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 15 of 19 11. Status of Positions on Bills until Final Ratification by the City Council Time demands in the Legislature may not allow for each bill on which the IGR Committee takes a position to be fully vetted by the full City Council before some type of action on the bill needs to occur. If a position the IGR Committee has taken on a bill is not unanimous, the position on that bill will be neutral until the full City Council weighs in and directs a position. The bill will then be placed on the next available City Council agenda. Although any bill that has been reviewed by the IGR Committee may be pulled for discussion at the request of any councilor or the Mayor at the City Council meeting, as a matter of practice and courtesy to the members of the Council who do not sit on the IGR Committee, any bill on which the IGR Committee is not in unanimous agreement will be specifically noted. The City Council can modify the position taken by the IGR Committee on a bill; the final direction to staff on any bill comes from the City Council. 12. Process for Federal Lobbying Efforts The IGR Committee and IGR staff address Federal lobbying priorities in concert with a number of the City’s local governmental partners. The Federal priorities begin with a review of opportunities for funding in the next Federal budget and goals that are specific to Eugene or the area. The IGR Committee meets and reviews the list of potential priority projects. Potential projects should be those projects which have already gone through the proper authorization channels and are “shovel ready” projects. Once the IGR Committee reviews the list of potential projects, the Committee develops a list of project goals that are considered to be achievable. After the proposed goals have been vetted by staff, United Front partners, and other community partners, and the IGR Committee, the priorities list is then presented to the full City Council for review and approval. The final list becomes part of the “United Front” agenda which is presented to the area’s congressional representatives, executive department staff, and other potential funding sources in Washington, D.C. The attendees on the lobbying trips typically include the Mayor, chair of the IGR Committee, and appropriate City staff. 13. Grants and Funding Applications The IGR Committee acts on staff recommendations for grant and other funding applications from outside agencies such as governmental or private entities. This process is intended to help avoid situations in which City departments may inadvertently be competing with each other for funding, and to allow the IGR Committee and City Council to review staff plans for expenditures of grant funds. City staff interested in seeking funding prepares a written overview of the funding application for Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 16 of 19 review by the IGR Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting. If timing is critical and there is no IGR Committee meeting scheduled, the Committee may give its approval via e-mail. IGR staff will keep full and complete records of the documents related to the request for funding, the electronic notification of the request to review and the disposition of the request. In all cases the IGR Committee and City Council have authority to direct that an application not go forward or if it has already been submitted, that it be withdrawn. 14. Resolution 4908 On April 18, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4908, “A Resolution Establishing Policy Governing City Testimony and Funding Requests, and Repealing Resolution No. 4139”. This speaks to the issue of testimony before legislative bodies, funding requests and the role of the Council in setting legislative policy. This Resolution is incorporated into this document as Attachment A. 15. City Council Operating Agreements The operating agreements of the IGR Committee are to be incorporated into the Operating Agreements of the Eugene City Council. As the IGR Committee is a subset of the City Council, any and all process and operating agreements supersede this document. All process and operating agreements of the City Council, by extension and when relevant apply to the IGR Committee. Attachment A: City of Eugene Resolution 4908. Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 17 of 19 Attachment A Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 18 of 19 Eugene City Council Operating Agreements – February 25, 2008 Page 19 of 19