Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/21/05 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom Room—Eugene Public Library November 21, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the November 21, 2005, process session of the Eugene City Council to order. The council was joined by executive management staff, including City Manager Dennis Taylor, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Angel Jones, Lauren Chouinard, Kurt Corey, Susan Muir, and Matt Shuler, and City Manager’s Office staff members Mary Walston, Mary Feldman, and Lynda Rose. 1. PROCESS SESSION Public Meetings Law: Permitted Discussions among Elected Officials The council was joined for the discussion by City Attorney Glenn Klein. Mr. Klein explained that Public Meetings Law stipulated that any time a quorum of the council got together it constituted a meeting, including electronic meetings. The law did not address e-mail or chat rooms. He advised councilors that a quorum of the council in a chat room discussing public business constituted a violation of the law. Conversely, back-and-forth e-mail communications, including deliberation, do not violate the law. Mr. Klein noted the City’s system for sharing council e-mail with the public. He asked that the council avoid the use of private e-mail accounts when dealing with City business to ensure that proper records are kept, and reminded the council to alert Councilor Coordinator Lynda Rose when a confidential communication was sent so she can delete it from the public record. January 2006 Retreat City Manager Dennis Taylor anticipated the retreat would occur in January and asked councilors’ preference about scheduling the retreat on a weekend and their preferences for a location. He indicated that with council concurrence, he would check with,Julia Novak, the previous retreat facilitator, to see if she was available. The councilors generally favored holding the retreat on a Friday, although several indicated a willingness to attend on a Saturday or Sunday. Councilors did not object to Ms. Novak as a facilitator, although Ms. Taylor questioned the need for having a facilitator. Councilors had no particular location to suggest, although Mr. Kelly encouraged a location with the greatest public access, such as the Bascom- Tykeson Room at the Library. The council agreed that it would focus on progress review at the January retreat. City Manager Taylor indicated that a quarterly progress report on the council’s priority issues was available on the Web site. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 1 Process Session Protocol for Contingency Requests from Nonprofit Entities The council acknowledged that not all requests were from nonprofits, and it was noted that in the past, the council allocated $60,000 for such requests, which had been useful at times in leveraging other money. The council briefly discussed how the process worked in the past several years and the potential for establishing a grant fund with council-established criteria for allocation. There was general agreement that a process was needed. The council agreed to refer the issue and the suggestion for establishment of a grant fund to the Budget Committee for further discussion, which would also allow for public input. Scheduling Ongoing Issues Where no Action is Necessary Mayor Piercy sought direction regarding non-action items, asking when the council wanted to hear progress reports. Councilors discussed the current approach toward updates, which was to schedule a council work session or for staff to provide a memorandum. Councilors indicated interest in avoiding unnecessary work sessions, although Ms. Solomon suggested that informational work sessions, such as the one held on the Rivers to Ridges project, could be very useful. After a discussion of various approaches, including additional memorandum updates, City Manager monthly reports, written summaries, adding committee reports to each agenda, and open work session updates to provide an opportunity for council reaction and feedback, the council agreed to defer resolution of the issue to the City Manager and Mayor Piercy because it would likely affect the agenda-setting process. Mayor Piercy called for a brief meeting break. Policy Concerning Inviting People to Speak at Council Meetings Mr. Kelly spoke to the issue, noting that on occasion it was suggested that a person in the audience speak to the council to clarify a point. He suggested that the council needed to establish a policy addressing the issue because it did not behaved consistently in the past when such situations arose. He added that he was unsure the council could do anything but prohibit the practice. Councilors were split on the subject, with Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor preferring an outright prohibition on such speakers because of other opportunities that existed outside of work sessions to speak, while other councilors, including Mr. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Poling, were not prepared to eliminate the potential if councilors were seeking clarification on a point and the response could help them make a decision. Ms. Solomon did not think the issue arose frequently enough to be a problem. Ms. Ortiz indicated she also wanted to be able to ask people questions at work sessions. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about equity of opportunity and the potential loss of control of meetings. She pointed out that those invited to speak would only represent their own point of view. She thought staff generally had responses to councilors’ questions. She also agreed people had other opportunities outside work sessions for input. Mr. Papé suggested leaving the matter to the discretion of the Mayor, although he did not want such speaking opportunities to become venues for lobbying. Mr. Kelly pointed out that people could provide information to the council in advance of a meeting. He advocated for a policy to guide the Mayor. Mr. Poling supported deferring the issue to the Mayor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 2 Process Session Mayor Piercy observed that there appeared to be no consensus on the issue; some councilors supported an outright prohibition, while others preferred that people could be called on, depending on the circumstances. She determined there was support for giving her some discretion to make a decision. Discussion Regarding Council Meeting Times The council discussed a suggestion from Ms. Bettman to have extended Monday evening meetings and to no longer convene in work sessions on Wednesdays. After discussion about the impact of longer meetings, which some councilors believed could potentially affect councilor work schedules and council productivity, councilors agreed to retain the current meeting schedule for the time being. Ms. Taylor suggested the council consider changing Budget Committee meetings to daytime hours. Bringing Up, Deliberating, Noticing, and Voting on New Regulations, Measures, Resolutions, etc., at Council Meetings Mr. Pryor expressed a need for clarification in this area and asked if the council had an established policy. If not, he thought one was needed. He said the council often talked about the need for public input but items that he thought the public might want to weigh in on were raised and voted at a meeting with virtually no input. He pointed out that bringing up a new issue during committee reports at a council meeting meant that the public did not receive notice. He acknowledged that councilors had the right to make motions without notice to the public, but he questioned whether that was what it should do as a general practice. Ms. Bettman observed that sometimes when there is no staff-recommended motion in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) it becomes apparent that staff wants action or definitive direction from the council. In those cases where staff seeks a definitive direction, it should include a motion for consideration in the packet. She believed that if staff expected the council to take a vote, a motion should be included in the AIS. In those cases, she added, at least the public would be aware that the council intended to discuss the topic. She pointed out the council’s notification process for an intent to make a motion, and said she was not sure how to involve the public in that process, or if the council could include the public in every decision. Mr. Kelly noted that the council’s process regarding its intent to offer a motion at a meeting should be codified in the operating agreements. There was general agreement. City Manager Taylor noted the council’s rule related to motions on page 7 of the operating agreements. Mr. Kelly believed that frequently, issues require quick action and may not be scheduled in a timely way. He invited ideas on how to get information out to the public and suggested that councilor motions be posted on the City’s Web site. He also pointed out that motions could be tabled. He acknowledged the distinction between motions during a work session and motions during committee reports, and agreed that the AIS for agenda items scheduled for work sessions should include a motion if staff wanted direction. He said a suggested motion was a red flag to the public that action could occur. Ms. Solomon referred to the recent memorandum from the Police Commission requesting council action, which was raised during committee reports and made her feel “put on the spot.” She believed the issue deserved a more robust discussion than it received. She thought the same was true of the council’s recent discussion on “upzoning” and establishing a Ballot Measure 37 Fund. Ms. Solomon believed that topic was so significant it also warranted a public hearing. She asked how the council could avoid such situations in the future. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 3 Process Session Mr. Poling said that he was sometimes unable to get to his computer to check mail before meetings, and was uncomfortable taking action without discussion. He wanted to limit the number of such situations and focus on the agenda. He agreed that staff needed to indicate what direction or action it needed the council to take in the AIS. Ms. Taylor said that sometimes work sessions were more like study sessions, and she did not think that significant decisions should be made at work sessions. Further, she did not think that councilors should be required to notify people in advance of meetings if they intended to make a motion. She agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon regarding the Police Commission memorandum and said she had not felt comfortable taking action either. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that such motions could be tabled. Mr. Papé thought the council and public needed advance notice of such motions and thought posting motions on the Web site would be a good solution. Speaking to the statements that such motions could be tabled, he pointed out that he attempted to do so several times without success, frequently for items that were not time- sensitive and could have waited. Ms. Ortiz agreed that the council should not be voting on issues it had not discussed before. However, she assumed all councilors were getting the same information and had the same access to staff. Mr. Pryor indicated that he did not want to slow down the public process and acknowledged that emergen- cies occur. However, he said, the motions being made were not related to emergencies. He said that proposed motions should be in the meeting packet whenever possible as the council’s e-mail communications did not reach the public. He also thought most motions should be reserved for regular meetings as opposed to work sessions. City Manager Taylor said that work sessions were generally opportunities for the council to give direction to staff and that usually took the form of motions. He said that when councilors provided notice of anticipated motions, it allowed the appropriate staff to be present at council meetings. He anticipated that workshops would not include suggested motions for action. Ms. Bettman said staff-recommended motions should be in the packet. However, she did not think Mr. Pryor’s suggestion was practical for most council-proposed motions given that the packet was mailed the Thursday prior to council meetings. She said that the council’s protocol during her tenure had been that councilors had the right to make a motion on any topic at any time. She saw no reason to change the current approach, which took into account the time limitations faced by the council. She said that the agenda could be modified with a disclaimer that indicated action might not be limited to the published agenda. Speaking to the issue of the Police Commission memorandum, Ms. Bettman said that the motion was a recommendation clarifying next steps in the process so when the council did take action, it would have the needed information. Mr. Kelly agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. He said the majority of work sessions do include a motion for direction to staff. He said his motions were a direct result of packet review. Speaking to the issue of councilors not being able to review their e-mail prior to a meeting, he reminded the council that staff solicited councilors as to their preferred mode of communication. Mr. Pryor said his goal was to avoid having the council in a situation where it was making major decisions MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 4 Process Session with a significant impact on the public without any public input or worse, any notice of the decision at all. He wanted to avoid the perception, factual or not, that people thought the council was acting out of the public eye. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Ballot Measure 37 Fund was previously discussed by the council and a public hearing would occur before the council took any action. She did not think that councilors generally took action without public input as most times issues come back to the council at the regular meetings. Mayor Piercy moved the discussion on to the next topic. Voting in the Absence of Councilors Mayor Piercy sought clarification of Section 5 of the council’s operating agreements regarding the circumstances under which a councilor could request that action on an item be postponed. She wished to avoid the appearance of acting in an arbitrary manner. Mr. Kelly said that he was satisfied with the current council policy. He asserted that by council custom, such requests were made because of conflicting council business or because of family emergencies. He said key to him was that such requests were made as early as possible. Ms. Solomon did not think the policy should be limited in the manner suggested by Mr. Kelly. She said that the policy had not been abused, and she thought the council should be flexible. Mr. Poling pointed out to Mr. Kelly there was no language in the policy limiting such requests in the manner he suggested. He recalled his request to the manager that in his absence, action be postponed on the Goal 5 inventory. The lateness of his request was due to the fact that he had been waiting for some information he had not yet received. He said that the Goal 5 project was a 20-year process and a small delay would not have been a problem. He requested council flexibility in honoring such requests. Ms. Taylor said the Goal 5 process had been postponed already, and it had been underway “forever.” She thought such requests should be made sparingly. Mr. Papé disagreed with Mr. Kelly’s remarks about the council’s “customs.” He did not think the reason for one’s absence was relevant. He said that such requests should be honored because the process had not been abused. He was also frustrated when Mr. Poling’s request for delay was not honored, particularly with regard to the council’s boards and committees appointments, as the issue had not been time-sensitive. Ms. Ortiz said she was “here to work” and liked to get things done, but also wanted to be respectful of other councilors’ requests. She said that had she known of Mr. Poling’s discussion with the City Manager, she might have voted in a different way. However, there was no way for her to know that. Ms. Ortiz asked the council to avoid making the process into a political tool. Mr. Pryor suggested that any rule or custom was good as long as it was consistently applied. He agreed with Mr. Poling that the policy did not provide a requirement that one could only request a postponement because of family emergencies or council business. He suggested that if the council had the precedent of providing the courtesy of postponing action at the request of councilors who would be absent and subse- quently declined to do so, that stood out for people. He suggested the council keep in mind the Golden Rule. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 5 Process Session Ms. Bettman believed that past majority decisions about requests for postponement had been partisan in nature, recalling an instance when she requested a postponement and it was denied. She believed the policy had been enforced in a political way and the council should establish criteria related to illness or unavoidable obligations. She said she scheduled her vacations to coincide with council breaks. She called for a fair, consistent, and justifiable process. Mayor Piercy thought the current policy created an appearance of arbitrariness and asked the council to reach a decision that everyone understood and agreed with. Mr. Kelly said that while the policy as written was not ideal, he thought it was satisfactory and believed it would be very difficult to draft criteria. He suggested that the issue was really one of mutual respect and being attentive to the public. He noted that he did not base his requests on any scheduled vote, but rather on his interest in the topic. He wished Mr. Poling had raised the issue of his potential absence earlier. Mr. Poling pointed out that he brought it up in public at a council meeting and it was reflected in the minutes. Ms. Taylor advocated for leaving the policy as it was, but to use it sparingly and to show respect. Mr. Pryor summarized the discussion, saying he believed he heard that the reason for an absence was not germane to the request to postpone action, that the council should honor such requests, and that they should provide the council with notice of the request as early as possible. Mayor Piercy suggested that there could be differences of opinion as to the timeliness of an action, and said the councilors should not take a council decision to act in their absence personally. Mr. Papé suggested that Mayor Piercy should announce a councilor’s request for postponement publicly at the beginning of the relevant item. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 6 Process Session