HomeMy WebLinkAboutEugeneFINALREPCCRCfinalx6
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
I.Executive Summary.........................................................................................................1
II.Charge to the Committee, Committee Membership and Meeting Schedule........................3
III.Guiding Principles and Form of Government....................................................................6
IV.Recommendations on Instant Runoff Voting and Increased Council Membership.............8
V.Recommendations on Remaining Charter Issues and Related Topics..............................11
A.Conflict of Interest.............................................................................................11
B.Contracts and Purchasing ..................................................................................13
C.In-House Legal Counsel.....................................................................................15
D.City Performance Auditor...................................................................................19
E.Appointment and Dismissal of Department Directors..........................................24
F.Organization and Reorganization of Departments...............................................25
G.Role of the Mayor..............................................................................................26
H.Residency of the Mayor, Council, City Manager and City Employees..................29
I.. Campaign Finance..............................................................................................30
J.Filling Vacancies on the City Council..................................................................31
K.Ordinances.........................................................................................................33
L.Eugene Water & Electric Board.........................................................................38
M.Citizen Participation...........................................................................................40
N.Housekeeping Items...........................................................................................41
a.Section 42 (Skinner Butte)......................................................................42
b.Section 51 (Taxation Issue).....................................................................44
c.Section 52 (Historic Trees).....................................................................45
d.Section 53 (Downtown Mall)..................................................................56
e.Section 54 (Toxics Reporting)................................................................51
f.General Housekeeping Items...................................................................51
1.Section 1.....................................................................................51
2.Section 7.....................................................................................51
3.Section 8.....................................................................................51
4.Section 9.....................................................................................52
5.Section 11...................................................................................52
6.Section 13...................................................................................52
7.Section 15...................................................................................53
8.Section 16...................................................................................53
9.Section 17...................................................................................54
10.Section 18...................................................................................54
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page i
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
11.Section 20...................................................................................55
12. Section 25...................................................................................55
13. Section 26...................................................................................56
14. Section 29...................................................................................57
15. Section 31...................................................................................57
16. Section 33...................................................................................57
17. Section 34...................................................................................57
18 Section 35...................................................................................58
19.Section 37...................................................................................58
20. Section 40...................................................................................58
20.Section 43...................................................................................59
22. Section 48...................................................................................59
23. Section 49...................................................................................60
24. Section 50...................................................................................60
g.Readability of the Charter.......................................................................61
VI.Concluding Remarks......................................................................................................62
APPENDICES
A.Charter in Legislative Format
B.Summary Reports from Community Organizations Reviewing Charter
C.Model City Charter
D.Guiding Principles
E.Report of Charter Review Subcommittee: Advantages/Disadvantages of Electing
Councilors by Wards and At Large
F.Letter from State Elections Division, March 21, 2001 Regarding Preference
Voting and Memorandum in Response from City Attorney
G.Ethics for Public Officials from Salem, Oregon
H.Excerpts from Citizen Charter Review Committee Meeting Minutes Discussing
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) and Memorandum of Understanding
(MOUs)
I.Roles and Relationships in Council-Manager Cities by James Svara, submitted by
Ken Tollenaar
J.So....You Think You Might Be Interested in Hiring a Performance Auditor
A@
from the National Association of Local Government Auditors
K.Guidelines and Model Legislation for Local Government Auditors from the
National Association of Local Government Auditors
L.Report from National Association or Local Government Auditors on Bench
Marking and Best Practices Survey for Fiscal Year 2000
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page ii
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
M.E-Mail Message Dated August 16, 2001, from Marcia B. Buchanan of the General
Accounting Office
N.E-Mail Message Dated September 6, 2001, from Bill Dwyer, Lane County
Commissioner
O.Memorandum Dated August 10, 2001, from Dee Ann Hardt, Financial Services
Director
P.Summary of Types of Auditing Functions Being Done by the City of Eugene
Q.Audit Committee Information from Jackson County, Oregon
R.Resolution Number 4467 Concerning Residency of City Employees
S.Letter From EWEB Board Dated October 31, 2001
T.Excerpts from Citizen Charter Review Committee Meeting Minutes Discussing
EWEB
U.Memorandum Dated October 25, 2001 from City Attorney Regarding
Housekeeping Items
V.Memorandum Dated November 15, 2001 from City Attorney Regarding
Housekeeping Items
W.Memorandum Dated December 13, 2001 from City Attorney Regarding
Housekeeping Items
X.Proposed Reordering of the Eugene Charter 2002
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page iii
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
I. Executive Summary
The Eugene community and the City of Eugene have experienced many changes in the
past decade. Two of the more notable of these are the rate of growth of the Willamette
Valley and the diversification of the state and local economies. These societal changes
have contributed to a more diverse community and a greater awareness of and
participation in public policy issues in the community. Just as communities are not
static, but rather dynamic ever-changing entities, governments by necessity need to be
similarly responsive to community changes.
During the 1999 - 2000 City Council goals setting process, one work activity desired by
the City Council was a review of the current City Charter as it related to compensation
for the mayor and council. A committee was formed in 2000 to develop a
recommendation on the issue. This recommendation was forwarded to the City Council
in February 2000, which then place a measure on the May 2000 ballot. The measure
was subsequently approved by the voters of Eugene.
Concurrently, three community-based organizations, the Eugene City Club, the League
of Women Voters, and the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce were undertaking
reviews of the Eugene City Charter. Reports from those groups suggested further need
for a comprehensive review of the charter. Refer to Appendix B for more information on
these reports.
Shortly thereafter, the City Council directed that a new citizen committee be formed to
review various aspects of the charter. The nine-member committee was appointed in
December 2000 and held its first meeting in January 2001. At the direction the City
Council, the committee reviewed sections concerned with elections, the role of the City
Manager, vacancies on the council, the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), and a
number of housekeeping items.
A@
The committee met during 2001 and completed a review of the charter with a number of
recommendations for revisions, several recommendations for additions to the charter,
and list of suggested actions to be taken by the City Council in the form of ordinances
and/or revisions to the current Eugene Code.
In an effort to afford public participation in the process, each meeting offered the
opportunity for public comment and a web site contains all agendas, minutes, and
reports of the committee. The committee also held two public forums: one in March
2001 to specifically hear testimony about instant runoff voting, and the other in
November 2001 to hear comments on the proposed revisions to the charter.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 1
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 2
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
Major recommendations of the committee include:
Retain existing system of electing councilors by and from individual wards
$
Provide for appointment of an independent performance auditor
$
Provide for appointment of in-house legal counsel
$
Require the City Manager to consult the council on process for recruiting
$
department heads and report to the council the reasons for terminating
department heads
Authorize the council to review and approve certain contracts
$
Revise conflict of interest provision to parallel State law
$
Provide fast-track method for elections to fill council or mayor vacancies
$
Clarify and streamline provisions for adopting City ordinances
$
Enact numerous housekeeping changes to clarify and update existing charter
$A@
provisions, repeal obsolete provisions
Establish a new type of voter-approved ordinance that the council can amend or
$
repeal only by a unanimous vote
Require the council to adopt an ordinance or ordinances enacting policies to
$
support citizen participation in City government
The committee also reviewed a number of other issues but suggest no change in the
current charter:
?
Status and functions of EWEB
?
Campaign finance reform
?
Residency requirements for City employees
?
Role of the mayor
?
City Managers authority to reorganize departments
=
The following report provides the recommended language and a discussion on the
topics and issues addressed by the committee. The sections in question were
reviewed individually and a member of the committee took the lead to research the
issue and propose revisions if deemed necessary. The committee vote, when not
unanimous, is listed. In some instances a minority report is provided to explain the
reason for the dissension.
It should be noted that the work of the committee, even with the addition of several
topics for study, was completed within the time frame specified by the City Council.
This report is being presented to the City Council as early as possible in 2002 in hopes
that some of the recommended amendments will appear on the ballot in either/or the
May and November 2002 elections.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 3
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
II. Charge to the Committee, Committee Membership, and Meeting Schedule
On August 7, 2000, the Eugene City Council created a nine-member committee to
review the City of Eugene Charter. The specific charge to the committee was a:
. . . review of the Eugene City Charter, specifically:
A
a)Chapter III, Sections 5, 6, and 8 (wards and elections by wards)
b)Chapter III, Section 14 (conflicts of interest)
c)Chapter IV, Section 16 (the role of the City Manager) including, but not limited to,
consideration of the following that could also require changes to Chapter III:
1)possible City auditor position
2)possible council-appointed or elected City Attorney
3)possible role of council in hiring/firing of executive managers
4)possible role of council in major reorganizations of departments
d)Chapter VI, Section 24 (filling vacancies)
e)Chapter X, Section 44 (Eugene Water and Electric Board functions, membership)
f)Chapters and sections in need of housekeeping, specifically Section 42 (Skinner
A@
Butte war memorial), Section 51 (tax by specific years), Section 54 (Toxics Right-
to-Know), and other sections should the need arise.
Should the committee find it necessary or desirable to engage in a larger review of the
charter, a request must be made of the council to revise the charge and task of the
committee.
@
Further the committee was to complete its work by December 31, 2001, and provide periodic
updates to the City Council via written quarterly reports.
Recruitment for the committee took place during the fall of 2000, and a total of 29 applications
were received. From the 29 applicants, each member of the council (including the mayor) was
asked to nominate two persons to be interviewed and considered as finalists for the committee.
Seventeen persons were interviewed and the nine members of the committee were appointed by
the City Council on December 11, 2000. The members of the committee were:
Jon Belcher Bern Johnson
Robert Cassidy Virginia Thompson
Marlene Mitzi Colbath Ken Tollenaar
A@
Matthew Donohue Kevin Wells
Freeman Holmer
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 4
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
In July 2001, member Freeman Holmer moved from the area and submitted his resignation from
the committee; the City Council decided not to replace Mr. Holmer and subsequently revised the
committees number from nine to eight.
=
For the first three months of 2001, the committee meet weekly, then bi-weekly for the next six
months. In order to complete its work on time, the committee met weekly for the final three
months of the year. In all, the committee held approximately 40 meetings plus two public forums.
The first public forum was in March 2001, specifically to hear public comments about the
recommendation related to instant runoff voting. The second forum was held in late November
2001 to gather public comment on the entire set of tentative recommendations made by the
committee.
The committee created and elected a leadership structure, created and adopted a set of guiding
principles, and developed a work plan for its tasks. The leadership structure was somewhat
unique in that the chair of the committee was on a rotating quarterly basis. Mr. Belcher served as
the chair from January to March, followed by Mr. Donohue, followed by Mr. Wells, and
concluding with Ms. Colbath. Mr. Tollenaar served as chair for the last committee meeting held
in the first week of 2002.
Generally speaking, the committee addressed the charges in an order similar to that of the charter
itself, starting first with a discussion of elections, the number of councilors and wards, followed by
the role of the City Manager, the role of the mayor, EWEB issues and housekeeping items. As
the committee deliberated, it encountered several related issues, such as the role of the mayor,
campaign finance, and ordinance procedures that seemed to be ripe for review also. In
accordance with the charge and direction from the City Council, approval was sought, and in
most instances received, to study these additional topics. This included the residency of City
employees, ordinance processes, and the veto authority of the mayor.
While the final report is being made to the City Council in accordance with its charge, the
committee made a recommendation in April 2001 regarding the number of wards and City
Councilors and the method used to elect the mayor and councilors. Because this item was time-
sensitive, that is, the council would address redistricting in 2001 and half of the councilor
positions would be up for election in 2002, the committee wanted to present this to the council in
hopes that it would be put on a special election ballot in 2001. The council supported placing
instant runoff voting on the September 2001 ballot. Specific information about this topic is found
in a later section of this report.
As the committee completed its work and developed a final set of recommendations, the members
also made a concerted outreach effort to reconnect with the community organizations who had
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 5
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
helped in the initial review of the charter. This reconnecting was an important part of the
community outreach.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 6
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
III. Guiding Principles Form of Government
Guiding Principles
One of the first tasks of the committee was to adopt a set of "guiding principles" for its
work. The group agreed that any charter amendments or revisions should seek to
improve City government accountability to the voters and taxpayers and their elected
representatives, enhance transparency and accessibility so that Eugene citizens can
better observe and influence City decision-making, increase City government efficiency
and responsiveness, and promote such values as political stability, professionalism,
and citizen confidence. The actual set of guiding principles adopted by the committee
is included in the appendix to this report.Most of the committee's recommendations
(detailed on the following pages of this report) reflect the guiding principles and aim to
achieve goals based on those principles. Several examples are listed below.
Committee recommendations aimed at improving accessibility,
$
responsiveness, and transparency in City government
include proposals to
retain the existing ward system for election of City Councilors, require a policy to
promote citizen participation, streamline ordinance procedures, offer a new
"protected ordinance" format for citizen initiatives, provide a fast track for
elections to fill vacancies in elective office, and require the council to adopt a
code of ethics that will at a minimum incorporate State law provisions for
conflicts of interest.
Recommendations aimed at improving accountability within City
$
government
include proposals to create the office of independent City
performance auditor, mandate that the City Attorney be a full time City
employee, require the City Manager to consult with the council regarding
recruitment of department heads and to report to the council the reasons for
dismissing department heads, and authorize the council to review and approve
certain contracts.
Some of the recommendations fulfill several of the adopted guiding principles. For
example, the committee recommendation for an independent City performance auditor
contributes not only toward improved accountability, but also to increased efficiency,
transparency, professionalism, and citizen confidence in City government.
Refer to Appendix D for more information on the committees Guiding Principles.
=
Form of Government
The City Council charge to the committee did not include consideration of alternative
forms of City government, such as the strong mayor form or the commission form.
When the council adopted its charge, a motion that would have included consideration
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 7
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
of alternative forms was defeated by a 6:2 council vote.The committee stayed within its
charge and did not consider alternative forms. None of the committee's
recommendations change the fundamental features of the council-manager form of city
government, which Eugene has enjoyed since 1944. Some of the committees
=
recommendations strengthened the ability of the council to provide policy direction and
administrative oversight in ways that the committee believes will retain the fundamental
balance among the respective roles of the Mayor, the City Council, and the City
Manager and the council/manager form or government.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 8
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
IV. Recommendations on
Instant Runoff Voting
and Increased Council Membership
One of charges to the Citizen Charter Review Committee from the City Council was to
study and make recommendations on the general topic of wards and elections by
A
wards (Sections 5, 6 and 8). In the context of previous council discussions it was
@
apparent that a few councilors wanted the committee to address whether councilors
should continue to be elected by and from individual wards, or whether they should run
and be elected city-wide (at-large).
This was the first major issue taken up when the committee began meeting in January,
and committee discussions on this issue continued through February and March. The
committee gave this matter priority because the City was scheduled to consider
redistricting later in the year, and a decision on wards versus at-large would obviously
.
affect that activity
The committee expanded the scope of discussion on this matter to include not only the
issue of wards versus at-large, but also proposals to increase the number of wards and
to adopt new methods of conducting elections either by wards or at-large.
Consideration of election methods focused on various forms of preference voting
(including proportional representation), cumulative voting, and instant runoff voting.
After considerable discussion and review of written materials and public testimony, the
committee identified several scenarios and scheduled a town meeting to obtain
A@
public input on each. The scenarios were as follows below.
Eight or ten wards with instant runoff voting;
$
Three or four large wards with nine or twelve councilors elected by proportional
$
representation; if three wards, mayor selected by and from the council, and if
four wards, mayor elected at large;
Eight or ten councilors from four or five wards; one councilor elected from each
$
ward and four elected at large; and
At-large election of eight councilors with cumulative voting with two councilors
$
required to live in each of four wards.
The town meeting was held March 8, 2001, with more than 50 people in attendance
and with 20 people providing testimony. Soon after the town meeting, the committee
reached agreement on the following recommendations.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 9
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
The existing ward system should be retained.
$
The number of wards should be increased from eight to ten.
$
City Council elections should be conducted using preference voting with instant
$
runoff.
These recommendations were presented to the City Council on April 18, 2001. The
council unanimously rejected the committees recommendation to increase the number
=
of wards, but it agreed to refer to voters the recommendation for preference voting with
instant runoff. During this discussion, there was comment from the City Attorney
regarding the legality of preference voting based upon information from the State
Election Division. Refer to Appendix F for more information. In approving the motion to
place the measure on the ballot, the City Council also directed staff to pursue
legislative remedy in Salem during the 2001 State legislative session and subsequent
sessions. In sum, while the Oregon Constitution allows for preference voting, the
statutes do not specifically and affirmatively enable this form of voting. The committee
also received comments from the Lane County Elections Division outlining operational
concerns with a instant runoff voting system.
The council asked the committee to come back with further discussion and analysis of
the issue of wards versus at-large elections. The committee responded to the council
request with a brief summary of advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
This report was provided in the second quarterly report of the committee to the council.
Refer to Appendix E for this report.
At a special election September 18, 2001, the charter amendment to create and
implement the instant runoff recommendation was held. By a margin of about 2:1, the
voters turned down the measure.
The committee recommends that despite the result of the September 18 special
election, the City Council should not abandon consideration of instant runoff voting. It
should continue to seek legislative clarification or a judicial decision in support of State
law as it relates to preference voting and instant runoff, and should consider
resubmitting an instant runoff measure to the voters sometime in the future. Mr.
Tollenaar has written a paper summarizing the arguments for and against instant runoff
and making some specific recommendations to consider in framing future proposals.
As the committee completed its work in the last part of 2001, an initiative measure
providing for at-large elections for City Councilors was being circulated. In view of that
development, the committee unanimously reaffirmed its opposition to at-large elections
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 10
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
and its affirmed its support for the existing system of electing councilors by and from
wards. The committee believes that the following considerations support its position:
Wards foster contact and communication between City Councilors and their
$
constituents. With the 2001 redistricting plan, the population of each ward will be
about 17,500. With wards of that size, it is possible for City Council candidates
to campaign door-to-door and meet face-to-face with many, if not most, of their
constituents. Many Eugene citizens identify strongly with their neighborhoods,
and by extension the ward system facilitates citizen identification and interaction
with their elected representatives.
Conversely, at-large elections weaken the ties between rank-and-file voters and
$
City Councilors. At least as important, at-large election campaigns cannot be
conducted door- to-door in a city the size of Eugene. Resort to electronic and
print media is essential to reach large numbers of voters, and that in turn
requires large amounts of campaign funding.
Proponents of at-large elections assert that councils elected by and from wards
$
represent small constituencies and do not adequately represent the general
public interest of the community as a whole. It is rare that the council-decision
making process pits neighborhood interests against general community
interests. Ward-based councilors may be especially attentive to
communications from their ward constituents, but that may not necessarily affect
positions and actions on matters that impact the community as a whole, which
constitute by far the great bulk of council work.
In the opinion of the committee, as documented in its report, the sole advantage
$
of at-large systems is the avoidance of redistricting from time to time. Even if
ward residency is required with city-wide elections, it is not clear whether the
equal protection clause of the United States Constitution requires substantially
equal population in each ward, since "one person, one vote" is achieved when
voters cast their ballots for at-large candidates.
The committee, while not formally asked to discuss redistricting, did in fact address the
topic at one meeting. The committee recommended that the City Council address the
redistricting process either through charter language or some other mechanism.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 11
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
V. Recommendations on Remaining Charter Issues and Related Topics
A.Conflict of Interest
Recommend Amendment to the Charter
Vote on Recommendation: Unanimous
Revise Section 14 As Shown Below
Section 14. Council - Conflicts of Interest. No councilor may be pecuniarily
interested in any contract the expenses of which are to be paid by the city or vote
upon any subject in which pecuniarily interested.
Section 14. Council - Conflicts of Interest The council shall, by ordinance,
enact a code of ethics applicable to the mayor, councilors, the city manager, and
any others designated by council. The code shall provide that officials subject to
the code must disclose the reason for any potential or actual conflict of interest
and may not discuss, debate, or vote on any matter in which pecuniarily
interested.
Section 14 refers to conflicts of interest. This specific section was listed for review by
the League of Women Voters (with no comment). The City Club recommended repeal
of the section stating that this language is more restrictive than State law; such a
A
provision is not contained in the Model Charter. A later section of the charter, Section
16(e), addresses any concern over influencing purchases of the City of Eugene. The
@
Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce Charter Review Task Force indicated it had the
section reviewed because people who own or operate businesses within the City of
A
Eugene or sometimes do business with the City often cite the potential for conflict of
interest as a condition that precludes or disqualifies them from seeking a position on
the City Council. The task force believes Eugenes charter should be consistent with
=
State law and not more restrictive. The task force recommends this section be made
consistent with State law whereby a councilor declares a conflict (if one exists) and
steps down from the proceedings.
@
The subject of conflict of interest was discussed by the committee at four meetings.
Public testimony from one citizen included an example of a conflict-of-interest clause
from the charter of Westminster, Colorado, which sets up a provision wherein
councilors are not allowed to vote on issues that affect anyone who has given them
over a certain amount of money. The committee was provided with copies of the
relevant Oregon Revised Statutes, the manual provided to government officials by the
Government Standards and Practices Commission, and provisions from other Oregon
cities and counties relating to conflict of interest.
Discussion began around the following questions.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 12
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
A.Should the existing charter prohibition against pecuniary interest in a contract be retained?
B.Should Section 14 be expanded to include the recommendation of Citizens for Public
Accountability (CPA) and others that elected officials should be prohibited from debating
A
or voting on any issue that directly impacts a significant contributor?
@
C.Should the topic of conflict of interest be omitted from the charter?
D.If retained, should treatment of conflict of interest be in Section 14?
E.Should the topic of conflict of interest be more broadly considered under a new chapter
called Ethics for Public Officials?
A@
F.Should conflict of interest be confined to financial interests?
The committee concluded that the existing charter Section 14 is both too narrowly focused on
contracts and too broad in the consequences it would produce in case of a prohibited conflict.
The existing language seems to require one of two types of actions in the event of a prohibited
conflict: (1) the councilor would have to resign or forfeit the office, or (2) the City would have to
cancel an existing contract or forego entering into a proposed contract, even though the contract
would be beneficial to the City.
The committee reached consensus that the policy regarding conflict of interest should be included
in the charter and should be modeled on State law. There was also consensus that the public
needed more specific information about declared conflicts than it now receives. Members of the
committee suggested that the council adopt a code of ethics similar to that adopted by the Salem,
Oregon council in an ordinance. All of this is found in Appendix G, Ethics for Public Officials,
of this report.
During the discussion, members expressed concerns about issues they felt the council may wish to
address in the ordinance that adoption of the charter amendment would require. The committee
did not try to reach consensus on these concerns. Some felt the definition of potential and actual
conflicts of interest should be expanded beyond those involving pecuniary interests; some favored
having a mechanism in the ordinance whereby the council would make a decision regarding the
existence of potential or actual conflicts when declared, similar to that employed by the Planning
Commission.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 13
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
B.Contracts and Purchasing
Recommend Amendment to the Charter
Vote on Recommendation: 6:1 (Wells)
Revise Section 16 (2) As Shown Below
(2) The city manager shall:. . . (b) make all purchases, except that the City
Council must authorize by resolution any purchase that exceeds an amount to be
set by ordinance.
The committee was specifically charged by the City Council with examining Section 16 of the City
Charter. This section pertains to the role of the City Manager. The specific issue here relates to
Section 16 (2) (b), regarding the City Manager's authority regarding contracts and purchasing.
At the outset of the discussion on this issue, the committee examined the following ideas
regarding the authority of the City Manager regarding contracting and purchasing:
A.Is the current contracting and purchasing structure working properly?
B. If the current contracting and purchasing system is not working properly, should we give
the City Council and mayor a more active role in major contract decisions and purchasing?
C.If the current contract and purchasing system is not working properly, should charter
language be added regulating contracting and purchasing?
D.Should language be placed in the charter giving council contract ratification authority
based on dollar amount of contract versus giving them authority based on category of
contract?
In discussing these issues, the committee examined the charter, City ordinances, and State statute
regarding municipal contracts and purchasing. In addition, committee members considered
federal law governing contracting and purchasing by municipal governments.
In making its recommendations, the committee, in addition to considering the above sources of
law, also considered the working relationship between the City Council and the City Manager.
The committee sought to strike a balance between providing the City Manager with the necessary
authority and allowing the City Council adequate input in the contracting process to allow them to
effectively control and implement City policy. The committee was also mindful that the current
municipal government structure has a strong role for the City Manager. The committee sought to
preserve the necessary authority to perform this role while allowing the City Council the authority
to control overall public policy regarding City operations.
The issue of contracts and purchasing was divided into two main issues, first, the ability of the
City Manager to award contracts and secondly, the use of memoranda of understanding (MOUs)
and inter-governmental agreements (IGAs) that allow the City Manager to make binding
commitments on the City without council approval.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 14
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
On the issue of awarding City contracts, the committee recommended that Section 16(2)(b) of the
charter be amended to allow the City Council to approve all City contracts over a certain dollar
amount to be set by ordinance. The committee, after reviewing all of the available information
and engaging in considerable discussion, decided that this change would allow the City Manager
the ability to unilaterally approve most contracts for the City. In addition, the provision would
allow the City Council the ability to determine the size of City contracts that it believes implicate
serious public policy issues for the City and provide them the ability to have input on the awarding
of these contracts to ensure that public policy is protected.
The recommendation was passed by a vote of 6:1. The dissenting vote involved concerns about
setting the contract amount by ordinance. This committee member did not believe that
establishing City Council authorization based solely on dollar amount was appropriate as a greater
contract dollar amount did not necessarily mean greater public policy impact.
On the issue of MOUs and IGAs, the committee made no recommendation to changes in the
charter at this time. After extensive research and discussion on the issue, including input from
legal counsel and purchasing staff, the committee determined, by a 4:3 vote, that it would not be
possible, given time constraints, to draft charter language that would be specific enough to require
the City Manager to get approval from the council for MOUs and IGAs that created binding
commitments on the Citywithout unnecessarily restricting the ability of the City Manager to
perform the necessary administrative functions.
The discussion the issue of MOUs and IGAs was extensive and involved an analysis of both the
legal and practical issues surrounding the issue. The committee decided that, while no
recommendations would be made in the context of the report, the information and discussion
materials would be forwarded to the council for further consideration. Refer to Appendix H,
Excerpts from Citizen Charter Review Committee Meeting Minutes Discussing
Intergovernmental Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding for the committee discussion
on this topic.
More information on roles and relationships in council-manager cities can be found in Appendix I
of this report in a paper by James Svara.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 15
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
C.In-House Legal Counsel
Recommend Amendment to the Charter
Vote on Recommendation for Section 16 (7)(a): 8:1 (Thompson)
Vote on Recommendation for Section 16 (7)(b): Unanimous
Revise Section 16 As Shown Below (Create New Section 7 and 8)
(7) (a) The city manager shall appoint the city attorney, subject to
confirmation by the city council. The city attorney shall be a department director,
shall devote full time to the duties of the office, and may not engage in the private
practice of law.
(b) The city attorney shall serve as chief legal adviser to the council,
the city manager and all city departments, offices and agencies, shall be
responsible for the citys representation in all legal proceedings and shall
=
perform any other duties prescribed by this charter. The city attorney may
recommend to the city manager and the city council that the city contract for
certain legal services. The city attorney shall supervise the performance of all
contracts for legal services and shall advise the city manager and the city
council as to the effectiveness and cost of services to the city under such
contracts. Subject to approval during the city budget process, the city
Attorney may hire staff necessary to perform the duties of his/her office.
The committee recommended that Section 16 of the City Charter be amended by adding a new
subsection requiring appointment of an in-house City Attorney.
The existing charter vests exclusive authority in the office of City Manager to make all
A
purchases, and that authority has been interpreted to authorize the manager to decide whether to
@
provide City services with City employees or to contract for legal services with private sector
providers.
Since 1971, the City has elected to contract for all civil legal services with the firm now known as
Harrang Long Gary Rudnick (hereafter Harrang Long). Harrang Long is a large firm serving
A@
many public agency clients as well as private companies of various kinds.
The firm provides services in each of the following categories.
The basket of services, which includes attendance at meetings of the City Council, the
$A@
executive managers, and some City boards or commissions; provision of informal advice
to the City Manager, councilors, and staff when a legal inquiry can be answered with
research not exceeding 30 minutes; paralegal services involved in drafting ordinances,
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 16
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
rules, and assisting with reports and communications with the City; staff training on legal
matters; and liaison with other governments legal officers.
=
Labor/employee relations, including labor negotiations, employment laws, employee
$
grievances, and benefits issues.
Claims against the City for damages (tort claims) other than those handled entirely by the
$
Citys Risk Management staff.
=
Legal advice and representation in areas such as property transactions, land use regulation,
$
civil rights, public safety, and public works.
Defense of suits and actions arising under local, State, or federal laws.
$
Advice and development of legal instruments and strategies relating to City policy and
$
program issues.
All City litigation and appeals.
$
The City also contracts with Harrang Long for prosecution of offenders in Municipal Court, but it
plans to convert that service to an in-house City prosecutor in the near future. This was not
considered by the committee in its review of the in-house counsel issue.
The contract arrangement with Harrang Long has been reviewed several times in the past,
including a study of costs by department in 1989, staff studies of contract administration in 1991
and 1994, a Budget Committee comparison study of legal services costs in other cities in 1995,
and an outside consultant review of City legal services in 1998. The council has discussed the
contract versus in-house issue on at least two occasions in recent years.
The committee was asked to consider a possible City-appointed or elected City Attorney. The
A@
committee accordingly reviewed a great deal of written material, heard public testimony, received
written communications from the public, and deliberated the issues at considerable length.
In approaching this matter, the committee determined that the chief questions are whether legal
services could be provided better and/or cheaper by in-house counsel than under the present
contract arrangement and whether the contract arrangement involves conflicts of interest that
might be reduced or eliminated with in-house counsel.
The committee reached the following consensus on these issues.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 17
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
Quality:
The existing contract services appear to be of high quality, primarily because of
$
the contract firms variety of legal specializations and lengthy experience, as well as the
=
synergism produced by the firms involvement with numerous other public agency clients.
=
It would take considerable time for an in-house legal department to achieve a comparable
level of expertise. However, in-house counsel might be more responsive to City policy
goals than the contract firm, and more aggressive in advocating for City interests.
Cost:
Although many in the community, including some who testified to the committee,
$
believe that legal services could be provided at less cost by in-house counsel, the evidence
available to the committee does not necessarily support that conclusion. The 1995 Budget
Committee study showed that the City of Eugene costs are in fact lower per capita and per
FTE (full time equivalent ) than those of comparable cities, both contract and in-house.
The hourly rates Harrang Long charges the City are lower than those charged by law firms
serving EWEB and School District 4J. The committee concluded that cost should not be
a decisive consideration in deciding whether to convert to in-house counsel.
Conflict of Interest:
The committee reviewed considerable information regarding the way
$
in which Harrang Long handles potential and actual conflicts of interest that arise from the
fact that it represents multiple private sector clients as well as numerous governmental
units and agencies. The committee reviewed reports from two independent sources that
concluded that the laws are being followed and that the firm has complied fully with all
statutory and bar association regulations regarding conflict of interest. The committee
members noted that they were not implying that the firm had violated any law or
regulation regarding conflict of interest. Many people, including some who testified
before the committee, felt that because the firm serves private sector clients whose
interests may at certain times be adverse to the Citys interests, the firm may be less
=
aggressive in advocating City positions for fear of alienating its other clients. The
committee refers to this as situational conflict.
A@
The committee then reviewed what committee members considered to be problems with the
present contract arrangement.
Neither the City Council nor the City Manager have the professional and technical
$
capacity to provide effective oversight with respect to legal services provided under the
contract. The City liaison can monitor contract performance and can verify billings for
services rendered, but he or she is not an attorney, and therefore is not qualified to
evaluate the quality of legal work done by the contract firm. The decisions of the firm as
to legal strategies, priorities, and methods in providing City legal services go largely
unreviewed by the City.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 18
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
The diversity of the firms clientele causes some public concern about at least the
$=
appearance of conflict. This situational conflict may compromise the strength of its
A@
commitment to represent and advocate for City interests.
The Citys legal advisor inevitably has an impact upon how the City Council deals with
$=
public policy issues. There is a fine and sometimes fragile line between providing legal
advice and influencing the councils policy decisions. Without a hands-on relationship
=
between the council and the City Attorney, the councils role as policy maker is to some
=
extent compromised.
After extensive review, the members of the committee recommended that the charter be amended
to require the City Manager to appoint an in-house City Attorney. The appointment would be
subject to confirmation by the City Council, but the City Manager alone would have the power to
terminate the City Attorney.
The committee further recommended that initially, the City Attorney should have two functions.
First, the City Attorney and his or her staff should perform all duties the contract firm now
performs under the basket of services. Second, the City Attorney should be responsible for
A@
managing all contracts for legal services on behalf of the City. Other legal services could continue
to be provided by contract, and that would include the bulk of all legal services.
The committee believed that conversion to this mixed in-house and contract arrangement can be
financed without increased cost to the City. The expenses of the new City Attorneys Office
=
could be funded by transferring the basket of services portion of the contract to the regular
A@
City budget.
The charter amendment proposed would not prevent the City from taking on increased
responsibility for legal services in-house. However, the transition should be gradual and adapted
to the changing needs and capabilities of both the City and the contract firm.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 19
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
D.City Performance Auditor
Recommend Amendment to the Charter
Vote on Recommendation: Unanimous
Add New Section to the Charter As Shown Below
New SectionCity Performance Auditor. The city performance auditor shall be
appointed by the city council. The performance auditor shall conduct or cause to
be conducted performance audits and may conduct studies intended to measure or
improve the performance of city functions following generally accepted
government auditing standards. The performance auditor may be removed from
office with or without cause by the city council. The performance auditor shall
possess adequate professional proficiency as demonstrated by a relevant
certification such as a Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, or
Certified Management Accountant, which shall be retained throughout tenure in
the position. All audit reports are public records. The city council shall provide
for the creation of an audit committee to oversee the performance auditor. The
audit committee shall include the city manager and other members as defined by
ordinance. Among its duties, the committee shall forward candidate
recommendations for the auditor position to the city council.
In the initial discussions by the City Council, the consideration of a possible City auditor
A
position was one of the specific tasks assigned to the committee. In undertaking this task, the
@
committee reviewed the performance assessment being done by City staff, the types of audit work
being done by City staff or contracted out, auditor positions in other jurisdictions, and how a
performance auditor might be beneficial to the City of Eugene.
Financial Services Division staff provided information to the committee on the types of audits
done under the categories of economy and efficiency audits, program audits, and financial-related
audits, both internally completed and contracted out. The City uses service profiles and
A@
performance measures as tools in the organizations budget work in an ongoing effort to
A@=
effectively and efficiently deliver services. There are 45 service areas in the City organization.
According to Dee Ann Hardt, Financial Services Director, "City staff do not perform formal
performance audits." The service profiles the City has completed over the past several years and
A
the performance measures contained in those profiles are not audited". Of the five elements listed
in the Yellow Book for a performance audit according to GAGAS, the profiles/measures
represent only the first of five elements, Criteria, in a formal performance audit.
A@
Refer to the information in Appendix O regarding the performance audit work being done by the
City of Eugene and Appendix P, which summarizes all of the audit type work currently being
undertaken in the City.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 20
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
Two lay members of the Budget Committee were invited to a committee meeting to share their
thoughts on the usefulness of the service profiles. In addition, at the request of a member of the
committee, elected Portland City Auditor Gary Blackmer attended a committee meeting and
offered examples of audit work done in Portland. Mr. Blackmer discussed and clarified the
nature of the audit function in the City of Portland. He also noted that performance auditing
standards are clearly defined in the Yellow Book, which is developed and improved by the US
Government Accounting Office (GAO). The committee also received correspondence from Dean
Stephens, the Lane County appointed auditor on these same topics.
Further research on municipal auditors was provided by committee members. The research
indicates that the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), the American Society for
Public Administration (ASPA), Association of Government Accountants (AGA), International
City Managers Association (ICMA), the National Association of Local Government Auditors
(NALGA), and numerous other state municipal associations as well support the concept of a
municipal auditor.
The National Association of Local Government Auditors believes that audits of local government
programs, functions, activities, and organizations are essential. They believe as an integral part of
the governance process, the audit function plays a key role in providing accountability for
managements performance. The primary mission of the auditor is to require an accounting of
=
the activities and accomplishments of the organization. As an integral part of the governance
process, the audit function plays a key responsibility role in providing accountability for
management's performance.
Refer to Appendix J, So. . .You Think You Might be Interested in Hiring a Performance Auditor,
for more information on performance auditors and Appendix K for guidelines for model
legislation related to performance auditors.
The trend for auditors has emerged because government officials, both elected and appointed,
have realized that an independent oversight function is particularly important because of the
unique relationship that government auditors have with their primary stakeholders, the taxpayers.
The taxpayers and, for the most part, elected representatives want assurance that their scarce tax
dollars are being protected by audit functions that operate with reasonable independence from the
supervisory chain. Anything less severely limits the credibility of the auditor in terms of the public
trust.
The committee believed that was a need for an audit function and also discussed a contracted
auditor versus and in-house City performance auditor. There are pros and cons to outsourcing
versus in-house. The committee determined that the auditor should be a part of the organizational
structure versus contracted out. In-house auditors can be more costly in terms of overhead costs
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 21
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
such as fringe benefits, but contractors charge a lot and may not always get to the root of
problems if funds are limited. It is difficult to select a good contractor and once selected, it is
difficult to ensure that the same people will work on all of the projects.
A comprehensive picture and depth of knowledge of the organization is important to the success
of the audit position. There can be a mix of in-house and outsourcing based on efficiency, of
course. However, opponents of outsourcing maintain that because management is paying for
services rendered, independence from political pressure on the out source auditor is severely
compromised. If the auditor is involved in the day-to-day operations of the government, they can
plan the best places to audit. Being a part of the government organization also says to the public
that the City government is on alert for savings and improvements. The auditor, managers and
staff will be working in a cooperative effort, sharing a common goal, to solve problems that
improve service and save tax dollars that can further service the community. Refer to Appendix L
for a report on bench marking and best practices.
In further looking at the issue of in-house versus contracted out, the committee sought additional
information from the GAO. The concern raised by the GAO was the audience of the audit
reports. In sum, if the audits are to be distributed to the legislative body, the press, and the public
and those directed to management, steps need to be taken to ensure that the government audit
organization is established in such a way to be considered free from organizational impairments to
independence to report externally. The GAO representatives e-mail on this topic is in Appendix
=
M. Refer to Appendix N for e-mail messages regarding auditors.
This led the committee to determine that the audit position should be appointed by the City
Council, not the City Manager, in order to retain external auditor characteristics.
A@
In discussions on a City performance auditor, an auditor hired by the City Council and how this
would be implemented in the City of Eugene, there concern regarding the form of government
and if this would represent duplication of management effort. The performance auditor position,
as recommended, does not change the government structure. The position is more focused on the
operation of a particular government service. The auditor advises the organization, but does not
set policy or manage. The auditor provides information to assist the council in budgeting and
effective oversight. Audits usually resolve operational issues with management before the audit
report reaches the council via the audit committee. Audits are bad new/good news: the bad
A@
news is that there was a problem, the good news is that it is being fixed. If a City Manager could
get fired for a problem he or she might wish to hide from the City Council, the auditor can help a
City Manager identify and resolve problems before they result in a firing, saving the City
organization from the expense of hiring a new manager in the process.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 22
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
The performance audit position would not be a duplication of effort or another layer of
bureaucracy, but a gauge of government operations geared toward better quality government.
Auditors can identify savings and improvements as a result of detailed analysis that could not be
provided solely by staff in an organization. The performance auditor would present findings and
recommendations to the City Council and to the City Manager.
Having decided to recommend an auditor, the committee also considered the cost of such a
position. The Portland City Auditor, Mr. Blackmer, felt that for the size of the City of Eugene,
one auditor would be sufficient. He further felt that while often performance auditors pay for
themselves with identified savings each year, the committee should not focus solely on the
financial aspects, because unmeasurable accountability and improvements in the quality of service
is also purchased with performance audits. The committee concurred with the opinion that one
auditor would suffice for the City of Eugene at present. The Key Elements to a successful and
effective independent performance auditor position is provided in Appendix K.
According to the NALGA's education committee report, "So. . . You Think You Might Be
Interested in Hiring a Performance Auditor," found in Appendix J, it is not uncommon for an
audit function to realize an annual return on investment between 200 percent and 400 percent.
Some members of the committee expressed their belief that the City Manager needed to have a an
active role with regard to the City performance auditor to ensure that the manager retained
control over the management of the organization. In response to this concern, the committee
recommended that an audit committee should be included as an additional check and balance.
As proposed, the audit committee would act as the hiring advisory committee. The audit
committee would also review risk criteria used to select performance audits and endorse the
performance auditor annual audit plan. The audit committee would also review the progress of
audit work and draft audit reports, mediate differences between the performance auditor and
those being audited, and provide input on general audit matters. An example of audit committee
functions can be found in Appendix Q, Audit Committee in Jackson County, Oregon.
In order to keep the process collaborative with management, it was decided to have the City
Manager participate in the audit committee to the extent that the independence of the auditor not
be impaired. The committee referred the specific makeup of the audit committee to the council,
but generally agreed upon a seven-member committee composed of three councilors, two lay
members of the Budget Committee, the mayor, and City Manager.
While the motion for the recommended charter language did pass unanimously, two members of
the committee wished to note their concerns with the language for the record. First, one member
expressed concern that the proposal does not include input from the City Manager in the
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 23
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
appointment process. Secondly, two members wished to note for the record their concern that
the proposed audit committee was not codified in the proposed language.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 24
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
E. Appointment and Dismissal of Department Directors
Recommend Amendment to the Charter
Vote on Recommendation: 6:3 (Cassidy, Thompson, Wells)
Revise Section 16 (2) (c) As Shown Below
(2) the city manager shall . . . (c) appoint and remove all employees except as
otherwise specified in this charter. When a department director vacancy occurs,
the city manager shall request comment from the city council on the recruiting
process for filling the vacancy. After taking action on the dismissal of a
department director, the city manager shall explain the reasons for the dismissal
to the council.
Section 16 of the charter, specifically, Section 16 (1) (e) and Section 16 (2) (c), address
the authority of the City Manager to hire and fire employees. The City Council directed
the committee to specifically look at the possible role of the council in the hiring and
A
firing of executive managers.
@
In reviewing this section, a number of concerns were addressed by the committee
regarding the relationship of the City Council to departments directors and if the City
Manager should have the exclusive power to hire and fire department directors. The
debate centered around the desire of the council to be more involved versus the
potential usurpation of the authority of the City Manager to manage, direct, and control
the day-to-day operations of the City.
When the committee considered the merits of the proposed language, much of the
discussion related to the use of the words shallor will and before or after as
A@A@A@A@
those related to the power of the City Manager and indirectly to affect of department
managers to affect City policy. The committee finally decided that all policy, as vague
as that term may be, is the prerogative of the City Council.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 25
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
F.Organization and Reorganization of Departments
Recommend No Revision to Charter
Vote on Recommendation: Unanimous
The current City Charter gives the City Manager sole authority to organize, reorganize or disband
City departments. While some members of the committee argued that prior City managers have
come into conflict with the City Council when that authority has been exercised, others felt that
this needed to be a power exclusive the City Manager.
Arguments that department organization affects the mission and policy of the City support the
notion that the council should have more involvement in these decisions. There also is the
possibility that greater council involvement in prior department changes might have reduced
tensions between the City Councilors and the City Manager.
One opposing argument contended that department organization is more related to management
and administration and therefore should be the responsibility of the City Manager. Another is that
the City Council exercises sufficient control through the budget process.
Upon deliberation, the committee voted unanimously to retain the current practice and charter
language.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 26
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
G.Role of the Mayor
Recommend No Revision to Charter
While the role of the mayor was not specifically included in the committee charge, the discussion
of the City Council and City Manager necessarily includes the mayor. As such, the committee
asked and received permission to broadly discuss the role of the mayor. Many times the role of
the mayor was the explicit topic of discussion; however, the role of the mayor arose during
numerous other discussions. The conclusion of the committee was that no substantive changes be
made, though there are several instances in the charter where language such as and the mayor,
A@
was added to provisions concerning the City Council or councilors for the sake of internal
consistency.
It is important to note that the office of the mayor was strongly affirmed by the committee. As
Eugene grows in population and diverse perspectives, it will become more important to have an
identifiable leader who is more than a figurehead. An expressed objective of discussions
concerning the role of the mayor was to find ways to strengthen the office.
The distinctions between the councilors and the mayor were questioned and affirmed; for
example, giving the mayor a vote in a council decision other than in the case of a tie. The
committee reaffirmed its belief in the current checks and balances between the mayor and council
in that an appropriate role for the mayor was that of a unifying leader providing a larger
framework for council decision-making. The committee members felt it was important that the
mayor not be involved in day-to-day council politics.
A@
The committee invited Mayor Torrey to meet with the committee on many of these issues.
Below is not an exhaustive list of topics relative to the role of the mayor discussed:
Role of the mayor
$
Should there be a mayor
$
Electing the mayor at-large or through an alternative plan
$
What should be the term of the mayor and should there be term limits
$
Barring current councilors from running for the office of mayor
$
Should the mayor have the right to vote as a councilor
$
Should the mayor be allowed to propose ordinances
$
Setting the agenda for council meetings
$
Increasing veto power of mayor to included resolutions and line items in the budget
$
Should the mayor be included as a ninth member of the council
$
Relationship of the mayor and the City Manager
$
Appointment of a City Manager pro tem
$
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 27
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
Relationship of the mayor and department heads
$
Inclusion on the Budget Committee and the proposed audit committee
$
Role and authority to make appointments to City boards, committees, and commissions
$
The committee spent some time discussing the role of the mayor in the appointment process for
City committees, boards, and commissions. At the present time the mayor, with a few exceptions,
has appointment authority over intergovernmental committees. With the exception of the Police
Commission, the mayor has no appointment authority over committees that advise the City
Council. Committee members discussed this over several meetings, and initially voted to give
appointment authority to the mayor for City committees, boards and commissions. However, in
reconsideration of this decision, the committee reversed itself and decided to recommend no
change in the appointment process.
In the review of the section on the City Manager, it was noted that the charter gives the authority
of appoint a City Manager pro tem to the mayor. Some members of the committee felt this
should not be a power given to the mayor, but should reside with the council given its power to
hire the permanent City Manager. In an initial vote, the committee decided to recommend the
authority to appoint a City Manager pro tem to the City Council. In a subsequent meeting and
after a discussion with Mayor James Torrey, the committee decided against revising this section
of the charter.
The mayors veto authority was also considered by the committee. The charter now allows a
=
mayoral veto only for ordinances. The committee considered enlarging this authority to include
council resolutions and line items in the annual budget. After considerable discussion, the
committee decided not to recommend enhancing the mayors veto authority and agreed to retain
=
the current language regarding the mayors veto authority.
=
In sum, after a good deal of debate on these various issues, the committee decided that no
recommendations would be made to amend the charter that would directly affect the role of the
mayor.
Two members of the committee, Ken Tollenaar and Kevin Wells, differed with the committee
majority view that there should be no substantive change in the role of the mayor under the
charter. Specifically, these members voted in favor of giving the mayor a veto on line items in the
annual budget (a proposal rejected by the committee majority). Mr. Tollenaar also voted to
authorize the mayor to appoint citizen members of boards, commissions, and committees with the
consent of the council, although that vote was later reconsidered and reversed. Both members
participated in a unanimous committee vote to retain the existing provision for the mayor to
appoint a pro tem City Manager, instead of transferring that authority to the council.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 28
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
These members believe that the committee should have done more to consider ways to strengthen
the role of the mayor in Eugene City government. As Eugene grows in population and diverse
perspectives, it will become more important to have an identifiable leader who is more than a
figurehead. A stronger mayor could more effectively lead the development of the council and
community consensus around policy issues without adversely affecting the City Managers role as
=
the administrative head of City government.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 29
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
H.Residency of the Mayor, Council, City Manager, and City Employees
Recommend No Revision to Charter
Vote on Recommendation: Unanimous
In the course of reviewing aspects of Section 16, committee members raised questions regarding
the residence requirements of City employees. This issue was not among the original charges
from the City Council, nor had it been referred to the committee by any of the civic groups that
had reviewed the charter. In a subsequent report to the City Council, the committee sought and
received approval from the council to further review this section of the charter and to ensure that
there was agreement with other policy related to the residency of City employees. The current
charter, Section 16(3) states:
The offices of the manager and department heads may be filled by candidates
A
from outside the City, but during their tenure in those offices, all persons hereafter
appointed to them shall reside in the City. All employees appointed by the
manager shall reside in the City during their tenure of position, except as the
council authorizes the manager to prescribe to the contrary and the manager does
so.
@
The committee was provided documents of prior discussions regarding this issue, specifically
Eugene City Council Resolution No. 4467, which was adopted in 1995. In that resolution the
A
City Council confirms the managers authority to permit employees, other than the City Manager
=
and department heads, to reside outside the City of Eugene.
@
In addition to Resolution No. 4467, the committee reviewed data on the residency of various
employee groups. Following brief discussion, the committee concluded that the current language
of the charter should not be revised. A copy of this resolution is found in Appendix R.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 30
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
I.Campaign Finance
Recommend No Revision to Charter
Vote on Recommendation: 7:1 (Holmer)
During the public comment opportunity at several meetings, several persons expressed concern
with the current state of campaign financing and requested that the committee review changes to
the charter to tackle this issue. The committee discussed this topic at length and how it might be
addressed within the charter. As this issue was not one of the charges to the committee, the
committee sought and received approval from the City Council to study it.
The committee felt that the charter provision recommendation for instant runoff voting forwarded
to the City Council in April went a long way toward alleviating the magnitude of the issues
regarding campaign financing. However, not having that option currently available, the
committee voted to recommend to the City Council that two ordinance provisions be considered
to address the issue. One provision would address the timing and distribution of the campaign
finance reports and the second would make the Voters Pamphlet available at no charge to both
=
measures and candidates.
Because there were legal opinions related to free speech rights, the committee decided not to
pursue changes to the City Charter in this regard. The committee did note, however, that the
ward system most probably lessens the impact of campaign cost concerns.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 31
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
J.Filling Vacancies on the City Council
Recommend Amendment to the Charter
Vote on Recommendation on Section 23: Unanimous
Vote on Recommendation on Section 24: 7:1 (Colbath)
Rewrite All of Section 23, Revise and Add to Section 24 As Shown Below
Section 23. Offices - Vacancies. An office becomes vacant upon its
incumbent's death, removal from the city, resignation, or ceasing to be a qualified
elector of the city. An elective office becomes vacant whenever its incumbent is
absent form the city for a period of 30 days, except that the council may grant the
incumbent a leave of absence of not more than 90 days. An office of councilor
may be declared vacant whenever its incumbent fails to attend two consecutive
regular meetings of the council, unless absent upon leave of the council first
obtained, or whenever the incumbent removes his or her residence from the ward
from which he or she is elected.
Section 23: Vacancies: Occupancy. The office of mayor or office of city
councilor becomes vacant:
11.Upon the incumbents:
=
a.death;
b.adjudicated incompetence;
c.recall from office;
d.resignation from office.
2.Upon declaration by the council of the vacancy in case of the
incumbents:
=
a.failure, following election or appointment to the office, to
qualify for the office within ten days after the time for his or
her term of office to begin;
b.Absence from the city for 30 days without the councils
=
consent or from all meetings of the council within a 30 day
period, without the councils consent;
=
c.if a councilor, ceasing to reside in the ward from which
elected; if the mayor, ceasing to reside in the city;
d.ceasing to be qualified elector under state law; or
e.after election, conviction of a felony or other offense
pertaining to the office.
Section 24. Vacancies - Filling.
(1) The Eugene Water & Electric Board shall fill a vacancy on the
board by appointment within 90 days after the vacancy occurs.
(2)The council shall fill a vacancy in any other elective city office by
appointment within 90 days after the vacancy occurs. A person so
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 32
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
appointed shall hold office until the successor to the office is duly
elected and qualifies therefor. A person so appointed shall hold
office until the beginning of the first year after the next regular
biennial November election and until the successor to the office is
duly elected and qualifies therefor. The term of office of any
person elected to fill such a vacancy shall expire when the term of
the person whose death, removal, or resignation causes the vacancy
would have expired had that person continued in the office.
(3)
If the position of a city councilor or mayor becomes vacant at least
30 calendar days prior to the filing deadline for the May election of
any year, an election to fill that vacancy shall be conducted in that
same year. If the position of city councilor or mayor becomes
vacant less than 30 days prior to the filing deadline for the May
election of any year, the election to fill that vacancy shall be
conducted in the next year. If a candidate for election to a vacated
position achieves a majority of all votes cast for that position in the
May election, that candidate shall assume office the following July
1, notwithstanding section 21 of this charter. The term of office of
any person elected to fill a vacancy shall expire when the term of
the vacated position expires.
Section 24, that section of the charter concerned with filling vacancies on the council,
was one of the specific charges to the committee. The consensus of the committee
was that the current language was less than clear, and with the requirement for a
primary and general election, created a situation in which an individual could be
appointed to fill a vacancy for approximately two-and-three-quarter years without being
elected by the voters of the ward or the City in the case of the office of mayor. With the
advice of legal counsel and guidance from the Model City Charter, the committee
crafted new language for Section 23 to provide more specific language on when a
vacancy would exist. Further, the committee recommended amendments to Section 24,
which would reduce the amount of time between appointment to a vacancy and the
election of a replacement for a vacant seat.
One member of the committee voted against the proposed language in Section 24.
While supporting the concept of decreasing the amount of time a person can be
appointed to the City Council and mayoral position, the member felt this provision could
be costly, as much as $100,000 each instance, and could run into legal ramifications at
the State level, according to the City Attorney.
K.Ordinances
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 33
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
Recommend Amendment to the Charter
Vote on Recommendation for Sections 28 and 32: Unanimous
Vote on Recommendation for Protected Ordinance: 7:1 (Tollenaar)
Rewrite All of Section 28, Rewrite All of Section 32, Create New Section
Section 28. Adoption. (1) Except as subsection (3) of this section provides for
reading by title or bill number only, and except as subsection (2) of this section
provides for immediate adoption of emergency measures, an ordinance, before
being finally adopted, shall be fully and distinctly read in open council meeting on
two days.
(2) Except as subsection (3) of this section provides for reading by title or bill
number only, an ordinance necessary to meet an emergency may, upon being read
in full and then by title, be adopted at a single meeting of the council by unanimous
vote of all councilors present.
(3) Any reading of an ordinance for purposes of adoption may be by title or bill
number only:
(a) If no councilor present at the meeting requests that the ordinance be
read in full or
(b) If for one week prior to the reading a copy of the ordinance is provided
each councilor and copies are available for public inspection at the office of
the mayor or city manager during regular office hours and notice of their
availability is posted at the city hall or published once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city.
(4) An ordinance adopted after being read by title or bill number only has no legal
effect if it differs substantially from its terms as they stand when so read, unless
each section incorporating such a difference, as finally amended prior to being
adopted by the council, is fully and distinctly read in open council meeting.
Section 28: Adoption of Ordinances
(1) At any meeting, the city council may direct the city manager to prepare an
ordinance, or the city manager may suggest an ordinance, for consideration at a subsequent
meeting. At least ten working days prior to the council meeting at which the proposed ordinance
is to be considered, notice of the proposed ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and the text of the ordinance shall be posted on the citys web
=
site. The notice shall include the title of the proposed ordinance and the date, time, and place of
the council meeting and shall state that copies of the ordinance are posted on the web site and
available at the City Managers Office.
=
(2) There shall be a public hearing on an ordinance prior to its adoption.
(3) Except as provided in this subsection, an ordinance shall not be adopted
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.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 34
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
Nothing in this section requires the council to consider an ordinance at more than two meetings
prior to its adoption.
(4) In the case of an emergency the ordinance shall state in a separate section
the description of the emergency and a finding as to why the emergency cannot be adequately
addressed by the established process in Section 28 (1). With the unanimous consent of the
councilors present, the council may adopt an ordinance to address the emergency with such
abbreviated notice of the ordinance and council meeting as the council finds to be practicable
under the circumstances.
Section 32. Times of Effect. An ordinance takes effect 30 days after its
adoption by the council and approval by the mayor or passage over the
mayor's veto, unless it is necessary to have immediate effect for the
preservation of the peace, health, and safety of the city, states in a
separate section the reasons why it is so necessary, and is approved by
the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the council. In that
event it takes effect immediately upon its adoption by the council and
approval by the mayor or passage over his veto or at whatever
subsequent time the ordinance specifies.
Section 32: Effective Date of Ordinances.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, an
ordinance takes effect 30 days after its adoption by the council and
approval by the mayor or passage over the mayors veto, or at a
=
later date specified in the ordinance.
(2) With the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the
council, the council may provide for an ordinance to take effect
immediately upon adoption by the council and approval by the
mayor or passage over the mayors veto, or at some other date
=
less than 30 days after adoption, if the council determines that the
earlier effective date is necessary to serve an important public
purpose. An ordinance with an effective date of less than 30 days
after adoption must include a separate section stating specifically
why the earlier effective date is necessary.
New Section Creating and Defining Protected Ordinance
Ordinances Adopted by Initiative
In addition to the rights of electors to initiate ordinances pursuant to Article
IV, section 1(5) of the Oregon Constitution, city electors may initiate a
"protected" ordinance. A protected ordinance may be amended or
repealed only by another initiative, council referral, or by unanimous vote
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 35
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
of councilors present and voting at a council meeting. The chief petitioners
for a protected ordinance shall include with the prospective petition a
statement declaring whether the ordinance is proposed as a regular
ordinance or a protected ordinance. A petition for a protected ordinance
and any qualified ballot measure for a protected ordinance shall state that
it is proposed as a protected ordinance and shall explain the limitations on
its repeal or amendment.
The sections of the charter addressing ordinances were not among the original charges
to the committee. However, in reviewing the document, members of the committee felt
that there were apparent contradictions and conflicting language in the charter with
regard to ordinances.
Sections 28 and 32 of the existing charter set forth procedures and requirements for
adopting City ordinances. Section 28 requires that ordinances be "fully and distinctly
read" on two days unless (1) there is unanimous consent to "read" by title or bill
number only or unless copies are distributed to councilors and available to the public a
week prior to first reading, or (2) there is an need for immediate enactment, which is so
stated in the ordinance. Section 32 provides that ordinances take effect 30 days after
enactment except that with a vote of two-thirds (or six) members of the council, and
ordinance may take effect immediately.
The purpose of the "readings" requirement is obscure. Apparently at one time it was
considered necessary to read proposed ordinances aloud during council meetings so
that councilors and the public could know what was being proposed. Today, better
methods exist to inform councilors and the public of the content of proposed
ordinances.
In actual practice, readings in full rarely occur. In the great majority of times, councilors
vote (it must be unanimously) for the reading by title or council bill number only. There
is no charter requirement for public notice. Section 28 provides that notice of
ordinance availability "posted at the city hall or published in a newspaper" can
substitute for reading in full if a councilor objects to reading by title or bill number only,
but as noted above that rarely happens.
The voting requirement for emergency ordinance appeared to be unclear. Section
28(2) says that emergency ordinance may be adopted at a single meeting with
unanimous consent, while Section 32 says that adoption of an ordinance with an
immediate effective date requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of
the council.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 36
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
The charter does not require a public hearing prior to adoption of an ordinance. The
City code does require public hearings with only one limited exception, but the council
could change that requirement at any time.
Thus, the committee recommended that the existing language of Sections 28 and 32 be
repealed, and that new ordinance procedures be enacted. These follow:
?
Ordinances may be initiated either by the council or the City Manager.
?
Notice of proposed ordinances must be published in a newspaper of general
circulation, and both the notice and a copy of the proposed ordinance must be
posted on the City's web site at least ten days before the council meeting at
which it will be considered.
?
A public hearing is required prior to the adoption of any ordinance.
?
In an emergency, with unanimous consent, an ordinance may be adopted with
less than the required ten days notice and posting. Such an ordinance must
state findings explaining why the required notice cannot be provided.
?
The existing provision that ordinances take effect 30 days after enactment is
retained, but can be waived if necessary to serve an important public purpose. In
such cases, the ordinance must state specifically why an earlier effective date is
necessary.
Throughout its deliberations, the committee frequently considered whether a certain
policy or requirement should be in the charter or whether it should take the form of a
City ordinance. Generally, the committee agreed that the charter should establish the
basic organization, powers, functions, and procedures of the City, while specific
policies and programs should be established by ordinances that can be adapted to
changing needs and circumstances. Several such specific policies and programs have
been added to the charter by citizen initiatives whose sponsors prefer charter
amendments to ordinances because they believe that ordinances are too easy to
change. These concerns led to a discussion of possible alternatives to the current
initiative and referendum procedures for both ordinances and charter amendments.
The committee considered several ways to increase the difficulty of passing charter
amendments via initiative. These included:
?
Increasing the number of signatures required to place charter initiative on ballot;
?
Increasing the percentage of yes votes required to pass charter initiatives;
?
Limiting charter amendment elections to general elections; and
?
Requiring a longer time between certifying petitions and holding elections to
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 37
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
provide the opportunity for more voter deliberation.
None of these options seemed likely as each would require a vote to be approved.
However, other alternatives were considered which included:
?
Requiring a mandatory wait period before council could alter/repeal initiative
ordinances;
?
Requiring a referral to the voters of council amendment to voter-initiated
ordinances; and
?
Requiring more that a majority of councilors to repeal/amend voter-initiated
ordinances.
Ultimately, the committee voted to recommend the last option and labeled it a
protected
A
ordinance.
@
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 38
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
L.Eugene Water & Electric Board
Recommend No Amendment to the Charter
Vote Recommendation: Unanimous
Among the charges to the committee was the review Section 44, the section concerned with
EWEB. Subsequent discussions with the City Council did not yield a specific concern or problem
with the current charter language.
The EWEB commissioners were also asked to provide comments on the work of the committee.
In a letter to the committee dated October 31, 2001, the commissioners outlined three areas of
clarification. The areas of concern noted by the EWEB commissioners were:
?
EWEBs authority to place measures before the voters;
=
?
EWEBs authority in short-term borrowing; and
=
?
In-lieu-of-tax payments.
Given the size and complexity of the topic, committee members did substantial information-
gathering before discussing the issue. Members met with EWEB staff and City staff in separate
meetings to get an understanding of the issues involved. One meeting was entirely devoted to a
discussion of EWEB issues. It was agreed by both parties that the relationship between the City
and EWEB is complex and aspects of this relationship can be clarified. There was broad
committee support that EWEB and the City should explore these issues further. However, given
the time constraints facing the committee and the complexity of the issues, the committee decided
not to make any recommendations regarding EWEB and the charter. A copy of the letter from
the EWEB commissioners to the Citizen Charter Review Committee is found in Appendix S of
this report.
The committee did recommend that several areas be reviewed in more detail at a later date. These
issues are:
?
The financial relationship between the City and EWEB;
?
The requirement that EWEB bill and collect City service charges;
?
The language outlining EWEBs short-term debt authorization;
=
?
payment in-lieu-of taxes
?
Clarification regarding EWEBs authority to place measures on the ballot; and
=
?
Improving the interaction between EWEB and the City.
The committee recommended that at some point in the future a new committee be created to
review these issues. The committee should include EWEB and City representatives and would
have a specific charge with regard the recommendations. Refer to Appendix T for the details of
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 39
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
this committee discussion.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 40
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
M.Citizen Participation
Recommended Amendment to Charter
Vote On Recommendation: Unanimous
Create New Section As Shown Below
The council shall by ordinance enact procedures to afford citizens opportunities
for informed, timely participation in decisions which may have a significant
impact on public policy, city revenues, city expenditures, social services, human
rights, economic activity, or the natural environment.
Early in the January, members of the committee reviewed the charge to the committee and
identified possible additional areas that may merit consideration, time permitting. One such item
was the consideration of language providing for citizen participation in the governance of Eugene.
Although not given formal approval by the council for this additional charge, the committee
decided to forward its recommendation.
If this recommendation is eventually adopted by the voters of Eugene, the City Attorney will need
to issue an opinion as to what would specifically be included under this proposed amendment.
This addition is consistent with the committees guiding principles and with the other
=
recommendations from the committee, that is, that the charter be a guiding document that
addresses all facets of local governance. This new section in particular is reflective of the
communitys commitment to citizen participation.
=
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 41
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
N.Housekeeping Items
a. Section 42 (Skinner Butte)
Recommend Amendment to Charter
Vote on Recommendation: Unanimous
Repeal Section 42 (2) As Shown Below
Section 42. Skinner's Butte Park.
(1) The property commonly know as the "Butte Property," with
boundaries as described in a charter amendment adopted by the voters of
the city April 5, 1915, is hereby dedicated to the public forever as a public
park.
(2) The concrete cross on the south slope of the butte shall remain at that
location and in that form as property of the city and is hereby dedicated as
a memorial to the veterans of all wars in which the United States has
participated.
The committee examined the possibility of removing the entire section from the charter. This
section established what historically was known as the "Butte Property" as a permanent public
park. The section also established that a concrete cross be erected at the top of the Skinner Butte
Park as a memorial to veterans of all wars. With the relocation of that cross from the Skinner
Butte park to a private location in June 1997, the need for the entire section was considered.
This section was addressed as a housekeeping item and was one of the original charges to the
committee. In discussions with legal counsel, it was noted that subsection 1 of the section gave
the land area in question permanent City park status. Removal of the entire subsection could
remove the permanent status and assign the Skinner Butte Park the same legal status as other City
parks. Because historical records indicate that voters in 1915 adopted a charter amendment
giving the park permanent status, there was reluctance to recommend the removal of the entire
section.
As a result of this discussion and information, the committee recommended that subsection 2 of
Section 42, which established the cross as a memorial to veterans, be removed as it is obsolete.
The committee also recommended that clause 1 be retained as it is not an obsolete provision and
expresses the historical intent to retain Skinner Butte Park in permanent City park.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 42
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
N. Housekeeping Items
b. Section 51 (Tax by Specific Years)
Recommend Amendment to Charter
Vote on Recommendation: Unanimous
Repeal Entire Section 51 As Shown Below
Section 51. Amendment I.
(1) The city council may not levy a property tax for general city operations for a
fiscal year unless the voters of the city approve the tax specifically for that year, except that, to
the extent the tax is levied to finance an appropriation for that year recommended in the city
budget by two-thirds of the budget committee, the council may levy the tax without that voter
approval.
(2) The city council may not levy a property tax for general city operations of
more than
(a) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1980-81,
(b) $16,500,000 for fiscal year 1981-82,
(c) $19,000,000 for fiscal year 1982-83, nor
(d) the city's tax base under Article XI, section 11, of the Oregon
Constitution for a fiscal year after June 30, 1983.
(3) The preceding limitations do not apply to a property tax
(a) to retire bond principal or interest,
(b) to finance an improvement or service in a special district created by the
city council,
(c) levied serially for capital acquisition, construction, or
reconstruction specifically authorized by the voters, or
(d) authorized by noncharter measure approved by the voters after they
approve this amendment.
(4) This amendment has effect only if the voters approve Ballot Measure No. 52
on May 20, 1980.
(Special City election, May 20, 1980).
This amendment to the charter was created after the council referred this matter to the
voters in 1980. The amendment limits the amount of taxes to be levied in specific
years, all in the 1980s. Both the League of Women Voters and the City Club observed
that this section appears to be obsolete and recommended it be deleted from the
charter.
In response to a request on this matter, the City Attorney informed the committee that
Subsection 2 is moot due to the passage of time and constitutional revisions. However,
nothing in Subsection 1 limits the time of its application. Subsection 1 does, except as
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 43
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
provided in Subsection 3, require a two-thirds majority of the Budget Committee or a
vote of the people to levy a property tax for general city operations.
Given this response and the fact that the Budget Committee approvals on such matters
are most frequently unanimous, the committee decided to recommend that the entire
amendment be deleted, unless the City Attorney could determine it was necessary to
retain it in the charter. While this recommendation may border more on policy than
housekeeping, the committee felt it was an opportunity to delete parts of the charter
A@
that were not necessary.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 44
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
N.Housekeeping Items
c. Section 52 (Historic Trees)
Recommend No Revision to Charter
Vote on Recommendation: 5:3 (Thompson, Tollenaar, Wells)
Section 52 of the charter was adopted in 1984 by citizen initiative. It prohibits the removal of an
historic tree without prior approval by voters. The amendment defines streets and historic trees
and only applies to the area within the 1915 city limits and excludes intersections.
Discussions with the City Transportation Engineer, the City Urban Forester, and a member of the
Eugene Tree Foundation yielded no suggestions for revisions to the amendments. City staff
indicated that the section is a consideration in certain potential street projects. It was also one of
the reasons the Ferry Street Bridge project was submitted to the voters. It has caused certain
projects to be reconsidered.
The committee reviewed this information and decided to retain the section as currently written.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 45
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
N.Housekeeping Items
d. Section 53 (Downtown Mall)
Recommend Amendment to Charter
Vote on Recommendation: Unanimous
Repeal Entire Section 53 As Shown Below
Section 53. Amendment III.
Measure: The City of Eugene does ordain as follows:
Be it enacted by the electors of the City of Eugene, that the Charter of the City of Eugene is
hereby amended to add the following provisions thereto:
Section 1: It is hereby determined that the Willamette and Broadway Street pedestrian mall is an
asset to the City of Eugene's downtown; that it is in the public interest and convenience that the
pedestrian mall be enhanced and maintained as a vehicular traffic-free mall; and that the existing
network of streets and alleys, setback driveways and directional signs can provide the necessary
limited traffic access to the mall.
Section 2: The pedestrian mall established on the following city streets, or portions thereof, shall
remain a pedestrian mall closed to vehicular traffic, except for public emergency and utility
vehicles, unless the electors of the City of Eugene vote to open the streets to vehicular traffic in a
primary election, general election or special election held on a date between Labor Day of one
year and Memorial Day of the following year:
Willamette Street from the South margin of 8th to the North margin of Tenth Avenue; Broadway
Avenue from the East margin of Charnelton Street to the West margin of Oak Street;
Section 3: No additional limited vehicular traffic access onto Willamette Street between 8th and
10th, and onto Broadway between Charnelton and Oak will be allowed unless approved by the
electors as provided in Section 2.
Section 4: Any ordinance adopted by the governing body of the City of Eugene after August 1,
1990 and prior to the effective date of this amendment and which authorizes the opening to
vehicular traffic of the streets described in Section 2 is hereby repealed. The street or streets may
not be used by vehicular traffic until approved by the electors as provided in Section 2.
(Special City election, March 26, 1991).
With the approval by the voters of Eugene on the opening of Broadway, on September
18, 2001, the voters of Eugene ended the downtown mall. Previous votes and actions
had reopened the mall sections on both Willamette and Olive Streets. Upon the advice
of legal counsel, the committee recommended that this section was obsolete and
needed to be repealed.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 46
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
N.Housekeeping
e. Section 54 (Toxics Reporting)
Recommend Amendment to Charter
Vote on Recommendation: Unanimous
Revisions to Specific Sections As Shown Below
ARTICLE III - DEFINITIONS
Section 3 As used in this Act Section, the following definitions shall apply:
A. Extremely hazardous substance" means all substances listed in Section 30
A
302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (42
USC 11002) as of the effective date of this Act Section and any substance
added to the list subsequent to the effective date of this Act. If a substance
is added to or removed from the federal list of reportable substances
under section 302 of 42 USC 11002, the Toxics Board may recommend to
the City Council that the substance be added to or removed from the
definition of extremely hazardous substance in this Section. The
A@
council may removed a substance from the definition only if the Toxics
Board has recommended its removal. . .
. . .E. "Hazardous substance" means:
1. any substance listed or described, as of the effective date of
this Act Section, on any of the following lists of chemicals
regulated or identified as of concern:
(a) Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as
amended in 1990 (Hazardous Air Pollutants); 42 USC
7412(b);
(b) Section 602(b) of the CAA (Class II ozone depleting
substances); 42 USC 7671a.(b);
(c) Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
(Priority Pollutant List); 33 USC 1317(a);
(d) US Environmental Protection Agency Active
Ingredients, including Special Review,
Canceled/Denied or Suspended, and Restricted Use
Pesticides, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 USC 136 et
seq.);
(e) US Environmental Protection Agency List 1 Inert
Ingredients of Pesticides ("Inerts of Toxicological
Concern"), pursuant to the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 USC 136 et
seq.);
(f) Section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 47
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA); 42 USC 9602;
(g) Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA; 42 USC 6921) and chemicals
listed at 40 CFR 261.33 (e) and Appendix VIII.
2. any substance which, if it were in a container, would
possess the characteristics of a hazardous waste, as
defined in 40 CFR 261.20 through 261.24, authorized by
'
RCRA;
3. radioactive waste and material as defined in ORS 469.300
and radioactive substance as defined in ORS 453.005;
4. any substance, regardless of quantity, required to be
reported pursuant to Section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); 42
USC 11002; or
5. any substances added, subsequent to the effective date of this Act,
to the lists described in Article III(E)(1) and III(E)(4) of this Act.
5. If a substance is added to or removed from the lists described in
Article III(E)(1) or III(E)(4) of this Section, the Toxics Board may
recommend to the city council that the substance be added to or
removed from the definition of hazardous substance in this
A@
Section. The council may remove a substance from the definition
only if the Toxics Board has recommended its removal. . .
. . .I. "Output" means the sum of the following categories of each hazardous
substance:
1. quantity consumed chemically altered in the facility's processes;
2. quantity shipped from the facility in product;
3. quantity transferred away from the facility as waste;
4. waste stored at the facility at the end of the accounting period;
5. quantity emitted to the air;
6. quantity discharged into publicly treated sewage;
7. quantity released into surface waters ;
8. quantity eliminated through treatment at the facility;
9. quantity eliminated through energy recovery at the facility;
10. quantity disposed on-site; and
11. inventory at the facility at the end of the accounting period.
J. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association,
the City of Eugene, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof.
K. "Smallest accounting unit" means 2.2 pounds of a hazardous substance;
0.022 pounds of an extremely hazardous substance.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 48
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
L. "Trade secret information" means information that is exempted from
disclosure as a trade secret pursuant to any federal or State law including
but not limited to 42 USC 11042(b) of the federal Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act.
ARTICLE VI - ADMINISTRATION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
REPORTING
Section 6.1 Appointment of the Toxics Board
A. The City Council shall appoint a Toxics Board of seven people to enforce
and implement this Act Section.
1. Three members shall be appointed who are employed by or are
agents of "persons" required to report under this Act Section.
2. Three members shall be appointed who are not employed by or are
not agents of "persons" required to report under this Act Section,
and who have a demonstrable record of advocating for the public's
right-to-know.
3. One member shall be nominated by a two-thirds majority of the six
appointed members.
B. The Toxics Board shall be appointed within two months of passage of this
Act, and any Any vacancies in the membership of the Toxics Board shall be
filled, so as to maintain the balance set forth in Section 6.1(A), within two
months of the creation of a vacancy.
C. 1. The term of office shall be three years, except that two members,
one from Section 6.1(A)(1) and one from Section 6.1(A)(2), of the
first Toxics Board shall be appointed to serve a first term of one
year; three members, one each from Section 6.1(A)(1), 6.1(A)(2)
and 6.1(A)(3) shall be appointed to serve a first term of two years;
and two members, one from Section 6.1(A)(1) and 6.1(A)(2), shall
be appointed to serve a first term of three years. No member shall
serve more than two consecutive terms.
2.
Beginning in 2003, the terms of members of the Toxics Board shall
conform to those of the standing committees to the City Council as
defined by and set in the City Code.
Section 8.2 Penalties
A. Any hazardous substance user or person who violates this Act
Section shall be subject to a penalty not less than $250 and not
greater than $25,000 per day, the maximum penalty allowed by
state law.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 49
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
Section 54 of the Eugene Charter, passed by citizen initiative in November 1996,
defines hazardous substances and requires annual reporting of their use by
businesses operating in Eugene. It establishes a Toxics Board to oversee this process
and requires that reporting businesses fund the program. The program administrator
and the Toxics Board were both consulted as the committee reviewed this section of
the charter.
On November 8, the Toxics Board unanimously recommended changes to this section.
The individual suggestions and possible implementation language are numbered for
clarity.
The Toxics Board's first suggestion was to correct a scriveners error in Article III(A),
which incorrectly references Section 30 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (42 USC 11002). The reference should be changed to Section 302.
The Toxics Boards second suggestion was to redefine one of the outputs in Article III,
=
Definitions (I) outputs(1) currently reads: quantity consumed in the facilitys
A@A=
processes. It was suggested to change quantity consumed to quantity chemically
@A@A
altered. The intent is to reduce confusion by reporting businesses.
@
The Toxics Board also recommended that the term start and end dates, but not the
term length confirm with other boards, committees, and commissions. They supported
shortening the terms of those currently serving if necessary rather than extending them.
Additionally, the Toxics Board responded to the fact that the State sets a maximum
daily fine for violations at $1,000 by suggesting that the $25,000 per day maximum fine
in section 8(2)(a) be replaced with the maximum penalty allowed by State law
.
A
@
In another suggestion, the Toxics Board proposed deleting references to pesticides in
Sections 3(e)(1) (d&e) because subsequent State laws have precluded their reporting.
The committee was concerned that if pesticides were removed from reporting, that
intent would be lost if future legislation reinstated the option to report them. It was felt
that there may be future value in retaining the current language. The committee
unanimously opposed the change proposed by the Toxics Board.
The final suggestion by the Toxics Board dealt with the court decision that prohibits
automatic addition or removal of substances from reporting because the federal listing
had been revised. The Toxics Board suggested that when changes were made to the
federal list, the Toxics Board could vote to propose making the same changes to the
City of Eugene list. Upon receipt of the Toxics Boards recommendation, the City
=
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 50
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
Council could vote to approve or deny their suggestion. The committee unanimously
supported that change
The committee also discussed the inconsistent numbering of sections and subsections
of the amendment. The committee unanimously agreed to suggest that staff propose
an amendment to make the numbering consistent.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 51
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
N.Housekeeping
f. General Housekeeping Items
As the committee deliberated on the many issues assigned by the City Council, the City Attorney
was asked to prepare a list of housekeeping revisions to the charter. Some of these proposed
revisions are corrections of spelling errors, removal of antiquated language, or suggestions that
clarify the charter language or improved the readability of the document. Each of these sections is
shown below. The appendix contains several memoranda from the City Attorney detailing each of
these housekeeping revisions. Although some are obvious, a short description is provided for
each item. These housekeeping revisions were all passed with unanimous votes of the committee
members. Refer to the three memoranda from the City Attorney on these housekeeping revisions
found in Appendices U, V, and W.
1. Section 1
Section 1. Title. This revision may be referred to as the Eugene
Charter of 1976 2002.
The committee recommended that this section be updated to reflect a the year in which the
revised charter might be adopted by the voters of Eugene.
2.Section 7
Section 7. Mayor - Election. A mayor shall be elected in 1980 2004
and every fourth year thereafter for a term of four years, and shall serve until his or her successor
is elected and qualified.
The committee recommended that this section be updated as it first updated the information in the
charter and second, clarified the term of the mayor.
3.Section 8
Section 8 Council - Qualifications. A councilor shall reside in the
ward for which elected or appointed. During a councilors term, the councilor shall reside in
=
the ward from which the councilor was elected or to which he or she was appointed. In addition,
to be elected or appointed as a councilor, a person must meet the qualifications described in
Section 19.
The committee recommended that this section be revised as it clarifies that this section and
Section 19 of the charter are independent requirements, both of which apply to councilors.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 52
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
4.Section 9
Section 9. Council - Meetings. The council shall prescribe the time
and place of its regular meetings, at least one of which shall be held each month. At any such
meeting, the council may adjourn to the next succeeding regular meeting or to some specified
time prior thereto. The mayor or three councilors may call special meetings of the council in a
manner prescribed by ordinance.
The current charter language requires that the council meet at least once a month, which now
seems unnecessary. The adjournment provisions create parliamentary confusion. Under current
legal interpretation of the charter, the council holds one meeting per month, and all meetings after
the first are a continuation of the first meeting of the month. Under Roberts Rules of Order, a
=
motion to reconsider is timely only if made during the same meeting at which the motion was
adopted; thus, the timeliness of such a motion may depend upon when during the month the
original motion was adopted.
The committee recommended that this section be revised as proposed by the City Attorney.
5.Section 11
Section 11. Council - Journal. The council shall keep a journal
minutes of its proceedings and on call at the request of any two of its members cause shall record
in the minutes the yeas and nays upon any question before the council. to be taken and entered in
the journal.
The committee recommended this revision to update antiquated language in the current charter.
6.Section 13
Section 13. Council - President. At the first regular meeting of the
council each year or as soon thereafter as practicable, the council shall choose by ballot one of its
members to preside over the council and perform the duties of mayor in the absence of the mayor
from the city or in case of the mayor's inability to act as such. In functioning as mayor while the
mayor is absent from the city on leave granted by the council or after the mayor is absent from the
city for 30 days or physically unable to function as mayor for 30 days, the president of the council
has the legal powers, and is subject to the legal limitations, incident to the office of the mayor.
(1) Each year, at the first regular meeting of the council, or as
soon as practicable, the council shall choose by ballot one of its members to serve as council
president.
(2) The council president shall preside at council meetings
when the mayor is absent.
(3) The council president shall function as mayor, with the
powers and subject to the limitations of the office of mayor when the mayor:
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 53
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
(a) is absent from the city on leave granted by the
council;
(b) has been absent from the city for 30 days or more;
or
(c) has been physically unable to function as mayor for
30 days or more.
The committee recommended that this section be revised first to clean up what is confusing
language and to clarify the role of the council president, especially in the absence of the mayor.
7.Section 15
Section 15. Council - Immunity. No member of the council or the
mayor may be held liable, or questioned in any other place, for words uttered in debate in the
council.
The committee recommended that this section be revised to affirmatively include the mayor.
8.Section 16
Section 16. City Manager.
(1) (a) The city council shall appoint a city manager and fix his or
her compensation and conditions of employment.
(b) If the office of manager becomes vacant, the mayor shall
appoint a manager pro tem. The manager pro tem shall have all functions of the manager, but
may appoint or dismiss a department head only with the approval of the council. The term of
office of a manager pro tem ends when a city manager takes office.
(c) The manager shall be the administrative head of the city and
be chosen without political consideration and solely on the basis of executive and administrative
qualifications.
(d) The manager and such other appointed officers as the
council designates may sit with the council but have no vote therein. The manager may take part
in the discussion of all matters coming before the council.
(e) No councilor nor the mayor may in any manner, directly or
indirectly, by suggestion or otherwise, attempt to influence the manager in the making of any
appointment or any removal of city personnel or in the purchase of supplies, nor may any
councilor or the mayor exact any promise relative to any appointment by a city manager or
discuss, directly or indirectly, with the manager or any candidate for the office of manager any
appointment by the manager. Violation of this section forfeits the office of the violating elected
officer, who may be removed by the council or any court of competent jurisdiction. The mayor
and council may, however, in open council session, discuss with or suggest to the manager
anything pertaining to city affairs and in executive session discuss matters pertaining to collective
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 54
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
bargaining.
(2) The city manager shall:
(a) prepare propose the annual budget
These changes were recommended for several reasons. First the deletion of the phrase without
A
political consideration and to delete unnecessary language. The additions of the words
@
appointed and elected were suggested to clarify persons noted in the charter. Finally, the
A@A@
change from prepare to propose is to bring the charter in line with actual practice.
A@A@
9.Section 17
Section 17. Judges, Powers, Procedures.
(1) The city council may appoint one or more municipal judges,
for terms and at salaries it specifies. A municipal judge shall hold court in the city at
such a place as the council directs. The court shall be known as the Municipal Court.
(2) The court may impose sanctions on any person who violates
a city ordinance within the court's jurisdiction, issue process for the arrest of any person
accused of any such violation, commit such a person to imprisonment or admit the
person to bail pending trial, issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to appear and testify
on the trial of any cause before the court, enforce obedience to the subpoenas, and
issue process necessary to carry into effect the judgment of the court.
(3) All proceedings in the municipal court shall be governed by
the general laws of the state governing justices of the peace and justice's courts,
except as city ordinance prescribes to the contrary. A municipal judge has the
jurisdiction and authority of a justice of the peace in and for Lane County, in both civil
and criminal matters, and when exercising that jurisdiction and authority is subject to
the general laws of the state prescribing the duties of a justice of the peace and the
mode of performing them. In civil and criminal matters, a municipal judge has the
jurisdiction and authority prescribed by city ordinance, subject to the general laws of the
state.
The committee recommended this revision as it provides the City Council more
flexibility to define the courts role.
=
9. Section 18
Section 18. Compensation.
(1) Beginning on July 1, 2001, the mayor shall receive a stipend of
$1,500 per month and the city councilors shall receive a stipend of $1,000 per month.
(2) At the beginning of each fiscal year thereafter, the stipends
authorized above shall be adjusted by a percentage increase or decrease equal to that during the
previous calendar year of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Portland, Oregon area, or its
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 55
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
successor. If that index ceases to exist, another consumer price index representing substantially
the Eugene area shall be used. In any case, if a consumer price index covering the Eugene area is
developed, that index shall be used in place of the Portland CPI.
(3) The stipends above are in addition to, and not in lieu of,
reimbursement for actual official expenses incurred.
(4) The mayor and councilors shall receive no fringe benefits except
those required by state law, but the mayor and councilors may purchase health insurance from the
city health insurance plan.
(5) The compensation of other appointed officers shall be prescribed by
council.
The committee recommended this revision, again to clarify officers who are appointed or elected.
10.Section 20
Section 20. Election. Immediately after the votes at any municipal
election have been canvassed, the city officer in charge of administering elections City Recorder
shall issue a certificate of election to each person declared by the canvassers to have been elected.
at the election a certificate of election. The certificate shall be prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated, but the city council shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of the
mayor and councilors, and in case of a contest between two or more persons claiming to be mayor
or councilor, shall determine the contest.
The committee recommended this revision as it revised the awkward phrasing in the current
charter.
11. Section 25
Section 25. Collective Bargaining.
(1) City employees shall have the right to self-organization; to form,
join, and assist labor organizations; and to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
(2) The city manager shall bargain collectively on behalf of the city
council with the representatives of city employees in an appropriate bargaining unit upon request
of their certified bargaining agent.
(3) The council shall prescribe by ordinance collective bargaining
procedures to protect the city, the employees, and the public in general. In so doing, the council
shall provide for:
(a) impartial ordinance administration and enforcement of the
ordinance;
(b) resolution of interest-impasse disputes;
(c) as to employees who are employed in police or fire service,
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 56
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
a binding award by a neutral third party resolving an interest-impasse dispute;
(d) equal sharing of neutral third-party costs by parties to an
interest-impasse dispute;
(e) employee rights;
(f) employer rights; and
(g) procedural finality that does not obstruct funding of
collective bargaining agreements.
The committee recommended this revision as it clarifies that the refers only to the ordinance
described in this section.
12.Section 26
Section 26. Liability for Unauthorized Expenditures.
(l) A city officer or employee who participates in, advises, consents to,
or allows any tax, assessment, or other money of the city to be diverted to any purpose other than
the one for that it is assessed, collected, raised, or levied is guilty of malfeasance in office and
removable from the office or position therefor as provided by law.
(2) Anyone holding, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, any
void evidence of debt against the city shall have the right of a personal action against any and all
members of the council or the members of any department of the city who voted for, approved of,
or directed its issuance.
(3) If any tax, assessment, or other money is diverted from the purpose
for which it is assessed, collected, raised, or levied; or if any money is unlawfully used; or if any
void evidence of debt is paid, any qualified elector or taxpayer of the city shall have the right of a
civil action, in the name of the city, against any officer or employee voting for, approving of, or in
any way directing the diversion, unlawful use, or void payment, for the recovery of the amount,
with interest, for the benefit of the city.
This recommended amendment would change the standard for a city official to be subject to
removal from office and to be held personally liable for mis-expenditure. The change is from
strict liability only for knowing and grossly negligent errors. The committee recommended that
this section be revised at the suggestion of the City Attorney, who felt that this revision would
bring the charter in closer alignment with current State law.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 57
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
13.Section 29
Section 29. Attestation and Approval. Upon the adoption of an
ordinance, a true duplicate original thereof it shall be submitted to the
mayor. If the mayor approves the ordinance, the mayor shall endorse the
approval thereon with the date of the approval and sign the ordinance
officially.
The committee recommended that this section be updated as the phrase a true duplicate original
A
now seems unnecessary.
14.Section 31
Section 31. Overriding of Veto. At the first meeting of the council after
the mayor returns an ordinance not so approved, the city manager shall present the ordinance to
the council with the objections of the mayor. , tThe ordinance shall then be put upon adoption
again, and if two-thirds of all members of the council vote in favor of the ordinance, it takes effect
in accordance with Section 32 of this charter.
The committee recommended that this section be revised to make it more readable by splitting the
section into two sentences.
15.Section 33
Section 33. Wards. The council shall divided divide the city into wards
and redefine the boundaries thereof as necessary to accord persons in the city the equal protection
of the laws. No person may vote at a city election in a ward other than that in which he or she
resides.
The committee recommends making this revision to correct grammatical error.
16.Section 34
Section 34. Voters' Qualifications. No person may vote in at a city
election who is not a qualified voter of the state or who has not resided in the city for 30 days
next preceding the election. No person may vote for an officer to be elected under this charter by
ward without having resided in the ward for 30 days next preceding the election. unless the
person is a qualified voter of the state, and has resided in the city for the length of time that state
law requires a person to reside in the state to vote in a state election. No person may vote for an
officer to be elected under this charter by ward unless the person has resided in the ward for the
same length time required in the preceding sentence for a person to vote in a city election.
The committee recommended making this revision as it updates the charter to reflect the voter
requirements to be the same as that of the State of Oregon. Oregon law requires a 21-day
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 58
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
residency requirement. With Oregons vote by mail, the 30-day requirement is virtually
=
unenforceable.
17.Section 35
Section 35. Notice. The officer in charge of city elections City
Recorder shall give ten days' public notice of each city election. distribute information regarding
officers to be elected and measures to be submitted ten days prior to the distribution of ballots.
The notice shall state the officers to be elected and the measures to be submitted at the election.
The notice shall also state the places for the election and ballot drop sites.
The committee recommended this revision as it clarifies who is to provide the notice, what type of
information is to be provided, and updates the language to reflect Oregons vote by mail system.
=
18.Section 37
Section 37. Procedure. The procedure for making, altering, vacating, or
abandoning a public improvement shall be governed by general ordinance or, to the extent not so
governed, by the applicable general laws of the state, except that if a remonstrance is filed against
improvement or repair of a street or alley and is signed by the owners of a majority of the parcels
that would be assessed for the repair or improvement, a majority of the owners of the property
abutting on the street or alley, no contract for the improvement or repairs may be let until the city
council reconsiders the necessity of the improvement or repair. If, after the reconsideration,
two-thirds of all councilors vote for the improvement or repair, and the mayor again approves the
improvement or repair, contracts for the improvement or repair may be let as if no remonstrance
had been filed.
The committee recommended this revision as it would be closer to existing practice for
remonstrances under ordinance. It would also allow the council to provide by ordinance for
assessing property owners for beneficial improvements even if their property does not abut the
improvement, without denying those owners the right to remonstrance.
19.Section 40
Section 40. Liens. The docket of city liens is a public writing, and the
original or a certified copy of any matter authorized to be entered in the docket shall have the
force and effect of a judgment. When the council has authorized an improvement, and an
assessment for it is entered in the citys lien docket, the assessment becomes a lien against the
=
property so assessed. From the time of the council's authorization of the improvement on account
of which an assessment is entered in the docket, the sum so entered is a lien against the property.
The lien has priority over all other liens and encumbrances upon the property and may be enforced
in the manner authorized by the city council.
The committee recommends revising the language to clarify intent and readability.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 59
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
20.Section 43
Section 43. Franchises.
(1) The city council may grant a franchise or amendment
thereto or any other prerogative of sovereignty only by ordinance. Before adopting any
such ordinance the council shall publish notice of its intention to do so not less than
once a week for three consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers of general
circulation printed in the city. The notice shall state the substance of the proposed
ordinance, including the name of the grantee. The ordinance shall be read, in a
manner authorized by Section 28 of this charter. at two consecutive regular meetings
of the council before it is passed. Any applicant for such a franchise or other
prerogative of sovereignty shall pay in advance the expenses of publishing the notice.
Any franchise granted by the council shall assure adequate service to city residents and
shall require the franchisee to pay the city adequate compensation in the form of a
percentage of the gross income from the franchise, or in an alternative form acceptable
to the council, in amounts sufficient to cover present value and future development of
the franchise. No franchise may be granted, except upon such terms as secure to the
city adequate service and adequate compensation by exacting such a percentage of
the gross income from the franchise or prerogative as is adequate to cover present
value and future development.
(2) In the acquisition by the city of any public utility the price to
be paid by the city shall exclude the value of any franchise or other prerogative of
sovereignty granted by the city and connected with the utility. All ordinances granting
franchises or other prerogatives of sovereignty shall do so subject to the provisions of
this section.
(3) The council may not grant an exclusive citywide franchise to
haul solid waste.
The committee recommended the changes in Section 43 for several reasons. First, the
term prerogative of sovereignty is obsolete and should be removed. The revision in
A@
the language related to compensation for franchises is recommended to provide more
flexibility to the council to obtain compensation for a franchise in some form other than
a percentage of gross revenues. The language regarding the notice being published
was removed as the new proposed language in Section 28 would revise public notice
processes as they relate to ordinances.
21.Section 48
Section 48. Presumption of Validity of City Action. In every
proceeding in any court concerning the exercise or enforcement by the city or any of its officers or
employees or agencies of any power by this act given to the city or any of its officers or
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 60
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
employees or agencies, all acts by the city or any of its officers, employees or agencies shall be
presumed to be valid, and no error or omission in any such act invalidates it, unless the person
attacking it alleges and proves that he or she has been misled by the error or omission to his or her
damage; and the court shall disregard every error or omission which does not affect a substantial
right of the person. Any action by this charter committed to the discretion of the council, when
taken, shall be final and shall not be reviewed or called into question elsewhere.
The committee recommended the language be revised as it helps to clarify the intent of the
sections.
22.Section 49
Section 49. Repeal.
(1) The charter of the city granted by the Oregon Legislative Assembly
as Chapter 252, Oregon Laws 1905, and all additions and amendments thereto, except
amendments conferring bond-issuing power that has not been exhausted, are hereby repealed, but
the following sections of this revised charter represent continuations of the following sections of
. . . .
the 1905 charter and amendments and additions thereto, as indicated by the following table:
(2) No repeal of a feature of the 1905 charter or any amendment or
addition thereto that has repealed an earlier such feature revives the earlier.
(3) No repeal of a feature of the 1905 charter or an amendment or
addition thereto affects the validity of an outstanding bond issued by the city or impairs the
obligations of the city under the bond or the rights of the holders of the bond.
The committee agreed that this section would need to be updated depending upon how
the charter revisions or amendments are presented to the voters. The specific
language would be dependent upon when and if items are placed on the ballot.
23.Section 50
Section 50. Effective Date of Revision. This revised charter has legal
takes effect on and after _______. April 1, 1977, except that Section 25 has effect on and after
September 22, 1976.
The committee agreed that this section would be revised depending upon if and when these
various recommendations go to the voters of Eugene.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 61
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
N.Housekeeping
g.Readability of Charter
Vote on Recommendation: 5:1 (Colbath)
Recommend Revisions in the Order and Placement of Sections in the Charter
As the committee reviewed the charter over the course of the year, there were many discussions
about the readability and the general organization of the charter. As a meeting late in December,
the committee felt that it had an opportunity to suggest an overall revision of the order and
numbering system in the current charter. The committee recommended that the Model City
Charter be used as a model for the reorganization of the current charter. The committee also
suggested that a new numbering system, such as that used in the Oregon Revised Statutes, be
considered. The suggested outline and organization of the charter is provided in Appendix X of
this report, Proposed Reordering of the Eugene Charter 2002.
Further, the committee noted many inconsistencies in capitalization and grammar in the current
charter and strongly recommended that all of these be corrected and consistent in a new charter.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 62
FRCRC
C
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTEREVIEW OMMITTEE
VI. Concluding Thoughts
While the committee understands that the City Council has the final decision regarding
if, when, and how these recommendations are referred to the voters, the committee
discussed a possible scenario for referring recommendations to the ballot.
Single-question ballot measures could be used for the performance auditor position
and the in-house legal counsel position. A separate ballot question could be used for
all the housekeeping measures, including the reorganization of the of charter
document. The other items, such as filling vacancies, ordinance provisions, and
conflict of interest could be placed on a ballot as a set of questions to the voters. The
committee recommended that the council consider a separate and standalone question
for the performance auditor, the in-house legal counsel and the housekeeping
measures. The City Council will need to decide how refer the other measure to the
voters.
FRCCC-J14,2002
INAL EPORT OF THE ITIZEN HARTER REVIEW OMMITTEE ANUARY Page 63