New Search
Ms. Utecht listed the topics of concern that came out of the email communications between councilors and <br /> staff, as follows: <br /> • Section 9.03 of the operating agreements; <br /> • Microphone time; <br /> • Motions to reconsider; <br /> • Parking (specific to Ms. Beaman). <br /> Ms. Walston explained that she had included Section 9: Representing City Positions and Personal <br /> Positions on the back of the draft language for Section 9.03 for comparison purposes. She said she <br /> listened to the tape of the discussion on the issue and extrapolated the main points, from which she crafted <br /> the draft language. <br /> Mr. Kelly felt the draft captured the Council's intent, but wished Section 9.03 had been written more <br /> succinctly. He liked that it had been broken into three different paragraphs as there had been three <br /> separate concerns that needed to be addressed. His only concern lay in the paragraph regarding local <br /> intergovernmental bodies or advisory groups. He felt the sentence that directed councilors to inform the <br /> other members of the council of matters being considered by an intergovernmental body should contain <br /> the caveat `if possible,' given that agendas sometimes did not arrive with adequate time to provide notice <br /> and receive direction on such policies. He commented that the last sentence of the second paragraph, <br /> which directed councilors to vote on matters with policy implications or budgetary considerations as per <br /> adopted City or Council policy and direction, was a key point for him. <br /> Ms. Taylor said sometimes the council knew in advance what was being considered, as in the case of the <br /> Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). She advocated for holding a work session on MPC agenda items <br /> in order to solidify which direction the City Council representatives should take. <br /> Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Kelly to consider a situation in which he was in that voting position and, to the <br /> best of his ability, believed he was following City Council direction but had, in fact, misinterpreted the <br /> direction. Mr. Kelly responded that there were fuzzy areas sometimes and one did the best he or she <br /> could. <br /> Ms. Taylor commented that sometimes that just happened. <br /> Mr. Pryor related his experience as a representative of the School District 4J to the Lane Council of <br /> Governments (LCOG). He underscored that he spoke for himself in that capacity and not for the school <br /> board, unless specifically directed by the board to do so. <br /> Mr. Pryor remarked that it seemed unnecessary to list the different intergovernmental bodies and advisory <br /> groups given the definition. He also pointed out it was possible that a group could be left off the list. He <br /> recommended eliminating the list, noting that this alone would shorten the section by three sentences. <br /> Ms. Bethnan said one reason this issue had been brought.up was because the MPC brought it up to the <br /> council. She averred that councilors did not always have the time to check in with the council regarding <br /> the positions on issues, but where there was clear council policy she declared councilors should vote <br /> consistently based on the policy. She noted that legal counsel had indicated that there was no legal <br /> requirement for an elected representative to vote in any way other than how they wanted to. <br /> Mr. Pryor said the principle was one because the councilors were part of a larger representative body. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pape suggested the following change to the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 9.03: <br /> <br /> MINUTES-Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 3 <br /> Process Session <br /> <br />