Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS090923A-attAATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon October 15, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She introduced Teri Strong of Cascade Health Solutions, who would facilitate the meeting. A. WORK SESSION: City Council Process Session Ms. Strong gave an overview of the meeting and the agenda topics to be addressed. She reviewed the ground rules to be observed during the discussion: ? Listen with respect ? 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 Ms. Strong determined there was agreement to take agenda topics in the order in which they were listed. Topic: Respectful communication Ms. Ortiz said at times councilors’ comments became more personalized and directed at others instead of focusing on the discussion subject. She felt constituents expected a certain level of professionalism from councilors. She said comments were sometimes directed at different philosophies and beliefs. She recommended watching the webcasts of council meetings to see what message was being sent either verbally or through body language. Mr. Pryor agreed that the discussion should focus on the issue and not individual members. He said a reason or intent should not be assigned to another’s action and many communication problems had their origin in assumptions about someone else’s motives. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Piercy said respect should be present in all forms of communications, including email, and people should discuss the issue without being accusatory. Ms. Bettman expressed her disappointment that the meeting was not being telecast. She said the council was a body that did not need to work together like the board of a corporation. Members represented different constituencies and vastly different value system. She said issues were very political and a discussion of intent regarding how an issue was framed was a political consideration. She felt the council had conducted itself well and the discussions had been civilized. She said it was appropriate to point out the real issue below the issue as it was framed. Mr. Zelenka indicated he had served on 15 boards in his career and the council did not operate any differently than the others. He agreed that most communications had been civil. He said the council dealt with challenging issues and discussions could sometimes be emotional because members cared and tried to make their cases as forcefully and persuasively as possible. He thought if councilors made their motivations explicit it would avoid problems that arose when others had to guess. Ms. Taylor saw no reason to share motives when discussing issues. She felt the council was respectful enough. Motives could be revealed through questioning. She said councilors represented different values and goals and the council should not function like a corporate board or family. Mr. Clark remarked that one of his first questions as a councilor was about the appropriateness of characterizing the motivations or intent of his fellow councilors. He said the answer from colleagues was consistently that it was not acceptable to do that. He agreed that people were on the council because they cared, but he preferred a working environment that was less corrosive in terms of comments to and about others. He hoped councilors, including himself, would search for opportunities to treat one another well. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager Jon Ruiz said it was his understanding that past process session had not been televised and the McNutt Room was being used in order to make it more accessible to the public. Following a discussion of whether process sessions should be televised, Ms. Piercy suggested that such direction should be explicit and from the entire council to avoid individual councilor’s opinions being taken as council direction. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to have the cameras on when the council met as a body, except in executive session. The motion passed 6:1; Mr. Poling voting no. Mr. Poling said he did not feel that process sessions had to be broadcast because the council was not discussing public business, only its operating rules and procedures. Topic: Council direction to staff Mr. Poling said he noted that in public hearings on ordinances, the council’s discussion following public testimony a councilor might indicate a preference for different language and the next time the ordinance came before the council those changes were embedded in it instead of being presented as proposed amendments. He questioned why one councilor would have the authority to direct staff to change the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 2 Work Session wording of a proposed ordinance instead of having the changes brought forward as proposed motions to amend. Mr. Clark recalled a conversation with Interim City Manager Angel Jones regarding a process that would leave the ordinance language unchanged and bring back any suggested changes as options to be voted on separately. He would support that approach. Ms. Taylor said sometimes the change was just a correction or clarification and she was not aware of any other types of changes. Ms. Bettman if changes were embedded in the ordinance it had happened rarely; typically a councilor requested a motion to amend the ordinance and that was drafted by staff to assure that the change occurred as intended. She said that also avoided wordsmithing at meetings and provided notification of the amendment. She was not aware of any problems with changes being made on the basis of one councilor’s statement, although occasionally two versions of an ordinance might be presented if there were significantly different opinions on the council. Mr. Pryor agreed it was a good idea to clarify the process and determine that the ordinance as it is first proposed and sent to a public hearing should be considered the base document and any substantive changes should be proposed as an amendment to that base document. Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Pryor’s remarks. Mr. Poling said Ms. Solomon had originally raised the issue there could be examples related to the topic other than the one had offered. Mr. Clark agreed that the topic was broader than action on a specific ordinance. He said sometimes a subject was raised at a public forum and a member of the council wanted the city manager to undertake a task such as gathering information and reporting back or taking action on the issue. He said the substance of the concern was to assure that the council was acting as one voice instead of an individual council giving direction to staff or the city manager that might not reflect the majority opinion. Mr. Ruiz used the public safety zone ordinance as an example of changes being discussed by councilors during the public hearing being that were incorporated by staff into a revised document instead of proposed motions to amend the original document. He asked for clarity on the council’s preferred approach. Ms. Strong determined there was consensus to retain the original ordinance as the base document and present any changes in the form of proposed motions that could be disposed of as the council wished. This would clarify to the public and provide a record of any changes that were made to the document that was presented at the public hearing. Mr. Clark suggested a section in the agenda item summary (AIS) that set forth the city manager’s recommended changes to the base document. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that non-substantive changes such as grammar or syntax could be made to the base document without a motion to change. Ms. Taylor commented that if the changes to the base document were drastic it should be subject to another public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Poling said that changes were likely the result of input at a public forum and already sufficiently processed. Ms. Bettman suggested that changes non-substantive changes such as correcting grammar and typographical errors, which did not require a motion, should be presented in legislative format in the base document to assure that all changes were identified. Ms. Piercy did not feel that it was necessary to hold public hearings subsequent to amending the base document as those changes typically resulted from the initial hearing. She said constituents still had an opportunity to express their opinions about the changes to councilors via email or other forms of communi- cation before the council took action. Ms. Piercy asked for head nods from councilors to indicate agreement with the procedures for amending proposed ordinances. There were no objections. Mr. Zelenka asked that when there was an informal agreement instead of a formal vote, lack of a stated objection should be taken as agreement. Topic: Adding provisions to ordinances without council direction Ms. Bettman used the elections ordinance to illustrate why this topic was different from the preceding topic. She said a change to the ordinance had been discussed by the council and when the document was returned, it contained two new provisions: the change discussed by the council and a change generated by staff without discussing it with the council. She said the intent of the topic was to assure that provisions to ordinances were addressed by the council in a work session before they came before the council for action. Mr. Clark felt that it was sufficient for the provision to be identified in the document and AIS as recom- mended by staff. Mr. Zelenka also was satisfied with clearly identifying any staff proposed provisions as such in the document. He asked if the issue was that staff should not be proposing provisions. Ms. Bettman objected to bundling provisions proposed by staff with those requested by the council as she felt it was confusing and placed the onus on the council to separate the issues without an opportunity to discuss some of them in a work session. Ms. Piercy said that occasionally there was a timing issue that required action and staff could alert the council to that in advance. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman that staff proposals should be presented as separate items and the council notified if there were any time sensitive issues. Mr. Pryor commented that in order for the council to be as transparent a body as possible, it should ensure that everything it did had sufficient advance notice to the public, to staff and to councilors to avoid surprises. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor regarding advance notice and conducting the public’s business in an open forum. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Strong determined there was consensus that any staff-generated proposals would be offered as separate items and not incorporated in the document when it was presented to the council. The council would take independent action on those amendments separately. Mr. Poling said that the changes requested by the council should be identified in a way to clearly separate them from staff-recommended changes. Topic: Function and power of council officers Ms. Taylor thought that council officers should not have any more power than other councilors, other than routine actions such as presiding in the mayor’s absence and making motions. She said typically the council officers were the two newest members of the council and it seemed inappropriate they should have more power. She said that in any significant issue, particularly involving council employees such as the police auditor, all councilors should be involved in the decision-making process. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Taylor’s comments. He said it was incumbent on councilor officers to contact the rest of the council prior to offering advice to a councilor employee. Mr. Pryor said the issue arose because the council was in the position of supervising employees, particularly the unique situation presented by the police auditor. He said the auditor was a direct employee with a unique relationship with the council, but was not receiving supervision on a consistent basis; that created problems and vulnerabilities for that person. He agreed that council officers should not have any greater power or authority than other members, but hoped a structure could be developed so the council could provide effective and adequate supervision to the police auditor. Mr. Zelenka did not think the police auditor could be effectively managed if all eight councilors were involved in supervision. He said substantive supervisory issues could be brought back to the council, but the entire council did not need to be involved in day-to-day operational issues. Ms. Piercy pointed out that the issue of supervision could be addressed at the November 10, 2008, work session on police oversight. Ms. Bettman stated the council only had power as a body. She said the council was out of its purview if it managed employees in any way other than as a body through regular meetings where direction could be given by the full council. She was not in favor of designating one or two members to micromanage the police auditor. She said council officer should be the formal protocol, but have no additional power. Mr. Clark did not think the police auditor had a different relationship with the council than other employees. He said no direct council employee had the authority to act without the majority of the council agreeing. Ms. Taylor indicated she raised the topic because she objected to two people meeting with the mayor to make decisions. She said there seemed to be an assumption that officers would make decisions, but they should only have the responsibilities identified in the charter. Ms. Ortiz felt the function and power of the councilor officers was primarily ceremonial in nature and they helped set the tone for the council. She said officers did not have more power than other councilors. Ms. Piercy clarified that her meetings with council officers were intended to alert them to items that would be on the agenda and have informal conversations; no decisions were made at those meetings. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka saw the meetings between the mayor and council officers to discuss upcoming agendas as useful. He did not see the meetings as additional power for officers, but rather as facilitating the work of the council. Ms. Taylor thought that decisions about items on the agenda should involve the entire council and the meetings should be open to all councilors. She had heard people say “let the council officers decide” and she was not comfortable with that. Ms. Piercy clarified that no changes to the agenda occurred during her meetings with officers. Mr. Clark asked if issues such as votes or strategy on agenda items ever discussed at meetings between the mayor and officers. In an environment where votes were close or split, he said those conversations had the capacity to affect outcomes Ms. Bettman said the discussions concerned meeting management issues; the officers did not speak for other councilors. Mr. Pryor said his approach was to facilitate the functions of the council and manage the meeting, not change the agenda or manipulate outcomes. He reiterated that no decisions were made at the officers’ meetings. Mr. Ruiz asked if the public meetings requirements applied to council officer meetings. Mr. Klein indicated that as long as no decisions or recommendations were being made and only two councilors were present no public meeting notice was required, but if other councilors attended and there was a quorum it would be considered a public meeting and notice would be required. He said if five or more councilors intended to participate, staff should be notified at least 24 hours in advance so the meeting could be properly noticed. Mr. Ruiz asked whether invitations to represent the City or participate in news conferences should be directed to the council officers or all councilors and whether it was appropriate to use council officers as an information conduit to the full council. Councilors agreed that invitations should be extended to all councilors as no one councilor could speak for the entire council. Councilors could speak for themselves or speak to action taken by the council, but there should be no presumption that an individual councilor was speaking for the council itself. Information should be provided to all councilors directly instead of relying on officers as a conduit. The responsibility of council officers with respect to information and decisions regarding a council employee would be discussed at a November council meeting. Topic: Appropriate use of staff within two-hour rule (e.g. one councilor with multiple two-hour requests) Mr. Pryor said this issue related to what it was appropriate for a councilor to ask staff to do without the authority of the full body if there could be an official implication. He said the two-hour rule was meant to address use of staff resources, but wanted some clarification about whether that could include a request to work on a policy issue in which no one else on the council had an interest. Ms. Ortiz asked there had been concerns in the past that prompted adding the topic to the agenda. She requested feedback from staff. Mr. Ruiz replied that staff was responsive to the council as a whole and within established guidelines to individual councilors. He had not received feedback from staff regarding MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 6 Work Session numerous requests that were taking longer than two hours to fulfill. He would notify a councilor if a request was likely to exceed two hours of work and the council could then bring that issue before the body to determine if it was appropriate to proceed. Mr. Zelenka pointed out there were numerous ways in which a councilor could request information from staff and there should be a master list of requests to assure that nothing was overlooked. Mr. Ruiz said the assistant city manager tracked requests that came into the city manager’s office and assured that responses were provided. He asked that any requests that were made via email also be copied to the assistant city manager. He said that the status of decisions and requests from past council meetings would be periodically reported to the council. He encouraged councilors to let staff know if there was no response to a request. Mr. Clark said he occasionally made requests of department executives and expected that if any of those exceeded the established guidelines that information would be conveyed to him by the city manager. Mr. Ruiz said he was supportive of councilors working directly with executives and trusted that executives could accurately determine whether a request conformed to the guidelines and discuss any concerns with councilors. Ms. Taylor was pleased that Mr. Ruiz encouraged communication between councilors and executives. She appreciated having the city manager’s office track decisions and requests and provide status reports. She did not like the two-hour rule and felt if a request took longer it should not be eliminated just for that reason. Ms. Bettman said that tracking decisions and requests was an improvement in service to the council. She said she had many requests for information because she perceived that agenda packets had less information and she only asked staff to pursue something that was already on the agenda or an issue in which the council was already interested. She objected to the quality of responses to issues raised during meetings or public forums as being to general. Mr. Poling hoped that executives understood that if an individual council’s request or direction crossed a boundary they could indicate to the councilor that the matter had to be referred to the city manager before a response would be provided. Topic: Raising issues/motions at meetings without adequate prior notice Mr. Poling said he was not concerned with motions that were made during a meeting that were related to the agenda items or motions that were time sensitive or in emergency situations. He was concerned with motions that had major repercussions in the community, such as purchase of the Amazon headwaters property, being sent out a few hours before a work session or motions that were made at the last minutes unrelated to an agenda topic. He felt there should be more than a few minutes or hours of notice, even if the issue had been discussed previously by the council. Ms. Taylor disagreed and felt that councilors should be able to make motions at any time. She said there were different types of motions and different reasons for publishing them in advance or for not providing advance notice. Mr. Clark felt it was an issue of fidelity to the agenda. He said the council agreed on a tentative working agenda and the issue was last minute changes to a previous agreement of the council that were done by one person. He said that was acceptable if the council wanted to grant the chair the ability to change the agenda on the fly, but that was not part of the agreement to date. He said another example was discussion of one agenda item going beyond its allotted time and thereby shortening the discussion of the next item. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 7 Work Session suggested either the council give the chair the authority to change the agenda at will or agree that the approved tentative working agenda would be adhered to unless it was changed with the consent of the majority of the council. Mr. Pryor commented that he was not comfortable with surprises, particularly motions that had a significant impact on community resources when there was no emergency. He said the council had emphasized the importance of operating in a transparent manner and making decisions in public; bringing an issue before the council and the public without prior notification violated that concept and prevented the public from commenting on that business. He said while councilors had a right to make a motion whenever they wanted to, that contradicted what the council had said it wished to do with respect to public awareness and involvement. Ms. Piercy said she attempted to adhere to the agenda, but felt it was within her purview to change the agenda if necessary. Ms. Bettman asserted that a councilor should be able to make a motion at any time. She tried to alert councilors to her issues so there were no surprises, but it was often difficult to review the agenda or obtain constituent feedback until shortly before a meeting. She said the council generally did a good job of getting through the items on the agenda. Mr. Zelenka preferred to have no surprises, but recognized that sometimes there might not be sufficient time to provide advance notice of a motion. He said it was a good general practice to provide notice, but was not in favor of a rule that prohibited motions without that notice. Mr. Clark said his concern related more to use of the agenda to achieve a different result. He wanted clarity and now understood that the chair was able to change the agenda on the fly and recognize whomever he or she wished for whatever reason. Mr. Poling reiterated that his concern was not with motions related to the agenda item; it was with motions completely unrelated to the meeting agenda. He said a motion like the one to purchase the Amazon headwaters should have been noticed farther in advance to allow time for discussion or possibly a work session. Ms. Piercy clarified that she consistently tried to adhere to the meeting agenda and did not make changes lightly or often, although she retained that right when it was in the best interests of getting the council’s work done. Topic: Process for requesting work sessions (e.g. define scope of meeting, ensure councilor’s intent is met) Mr. Pryor said the process for requesting work sessions had been modified to provide councilors with more information on the subject and purpose of the request and he felt more comfortable with the new process. Mr. Zelenka agreed the new form resolved the problem by providing sufficient information about work session requests and urged that it be formalized. He asked for clarification between work sessions and regular meetings as there did not appear to be substantive differences. Ms. Taylor said in the past motions were not allowed at work sessions, but that was changed several years ago and the result was little difference between a work session and regular meeting. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Clark liked the new form and agreed it should be used by all councilors when requesting a work session. He asked what staff did to prepare for a work session once there was a successful poll. Mr. Ruiz replied it was the responsibility of staff to provide information to the council to facilitate a meaningful discussion of the topic and having an understanding of the intent of the work session and desired outcome made it easier to provide that support. He asked councilors to also inform staff in advance of any specific information or materials in advance. Mr. Zelenka affirmed the need to complete the form for all work session requests so councilors would have enough information to prepare for the discussion. Mr. Ruiz said he would ask for the form to be completed on any upcoming work sessions if staff needed clarification of the intent and desired outcomes. Topic: Process for considering contingency requests Mr. Zelenka observed that there was no clear process of making requests for contingency requests. Mr. Ruiz indicated he would distribute information on the use of contingency funds. He said the funds were appropriated by the council as part of the budget at the beginning of the fiscal year and any unspent funds at the end of the year were returned to the General Fund. Jim Carlson, Central Services, explained that until around 2003 the council’s contingency was $400,000 per year, of which $60,000 was dedicated to non-profits. He said there was a specific application process associated with those funds; a budget reduction decision eliminated the $60,000 set aside of non-profits and since then funds had been used for costs associated with special elections or other exceptional costs not anticipated when the budget was developed. Mr. Zelenka said that information was sufficient and he did not need a memorandum on the subject. Topic: Ways to achieve better communications with constituents (City Council newsletters, forums, e-mail newsletters, etc.) Discussion of this item was deferred. rd Topic: Review effectiveness of 3 Monday meetings dedicated to public hearings rd Ms. Bettman suggested that if there was only one item scheduled for the public hearing on the 3 Monday night it be shifted to a regular meeting if there was space on the agenda. rd Ms. Taylor stated she preferred to stay later on a regular meeting night than to have a 3 Monday night dedicated to a public hearing. Mr. Clark said he was in favor of rescheduling an item to a regular meeting agenda unless the item was controversial and a significant amount of testimony was anticipated. rd Ms. Ortiz was not opposed to a 3 Monday meeting for the purpose of a public hearing to avoid extremely long regular meetings, but was comfortable with granting the mayor the discretion to move an item to a regular meeting agenda as long as consistency in the council’s calendar was not jeopardized. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Pryor preferred to have more frequent and shorter meetings, but agreed that an item could be shifted to rd a regular meeting agenda if it did not cause that meeting to be too long. He said the 3 Monday public hearing could be considered optional. Ms. Bettman agreed with granting the city manager and mayor the authority to shift an item to a regular meeting agenda, depending on the topic and expected amount of public testimony. Topic: Use of laptops during City Council meetings Ms. Ortiz said she initially objected to the use of laptops and had heard from constituents that they thought councilors might be paying more attention to their computers than to the meeting discussion. She could now accept their use during meetings. Mr. Pryor agreed that Ms. Ortiz that there could be a perception that a laptop was distracting the user’s attention from the meeting and suggested that the council establish a protocol that laptops be used only as a resource for reviewing the agenda and related materials. He noted that laptop use promoted sustainability by eliminating a very large volume of paper. Ms. Bettman thought the council should formalize a policy and not rely on the honor system with respect to laptop use. She said the idea that a councilor could be receiving emails from constituents, lobbyists or others viewing the webcast was disturbing and that would constitute inappropriate contact during a council discussion. She if the council did not want to formalize a policy to allow laptop use then there should not be any Internet access during the meeting. Mr. Zelenka said he used his laptop to make meeting notes, organize materials by topic and eliminate paper. He said the electronic filing cabinet provided easy reference to information. He did not feel laptops should be used to communicate during a meeting, but Internet access was important to retrieving materials related to the meeting. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend the discussion by five mi- nutes. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka that a laptop was a very useful tool and there were times when Internet access was important. He would support a formal policy that laptops were to be used as a meeting resource and real time outside communication during a meeting was prohibited. Ms. Taylor commented that councilors could communicate with each other during meetings. She did not want laptops used and preferred to see people’s faces instead of their computers. Ms. Bettman noted that all councilor emails were part of the public record, but she heard from a constituent who was told that councilors could delete emails and then they were no longer in the public record. Mr. Klein cautioned councilors that emails should not be deleted unless it was addressed to the mayor and council, in which case staff retained a copy. Emails sent directly to an individual councilor in his or her official capacity were covered by State retention requirements and should not be deleted. He would provide a retention schedule. Topic: Use of council office space (guidelines, courtesies) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 10 Work Session This item was deferred. Topic: Meeting safety This item was deferred. Ms. Piercy said the items that were deferred would be addressed in the future. She asked the city manager to discuss the Civilian Review System and Police Auditor oversight process. Mr. Ruiz distributed and read his memorandum of October 15, 2008, addressed to the mayor and the council. The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 11 Work Session