In setting Council's 2003-2004 goals, there was agreement only for the "update"
process. To my knowledge, there have been no formal decisions by Council
to move beyond a basic update of the Charter. Substantial changes are typically
initiated and campaigned for by a group of citizens.
A fundamental question inherent in this matter is what role the Council should
play in governance changes to the Charter. If we decide that City Council
should not be involved, then we should rely on the legal options that citizens
have to campaign for changes through the initiative process. If we decide
that City Council should play a role, then we should discuss what governance
changes we are asking the Committee to examine and clearly state the problems
we are attempting to address by doing so.
| 0 |
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0 |
The Council and Mayor create a list of individuals to comprise a Charter
Technical Review Committee. This Committee would be small and comprised of
people with knowledge of legal aspects of Charters and Oregon municipal
functions. Since we would not be addressing governance changes, it could
include a member of Council, past elected officials/mayors, and citizens
experienced with governance bodies and charters/constitutions that guide
them. |
|
2.
0
0
0 |
Council direct staff to create an RFP for a consultant to assist in the
updating of the Charter. Reconsider the $5,000 spread in estimate. Since
we'd be limiting work to updating, there is a cost-savings that needs to
be calculated into RFP. |
|
3.
0
0 |
Technical Review Committee meets with consultant to develop recommended
changes to the Charter to only update it. This may or may not involve the
use of a model charter. |
|
4.
0
0
0 |
Technical Review Committee would work with staff to convene at least
one public meeting before forwarding recommended changes to Council. At least
one non-public hearing public meeting will be held after Council receives
recommendations. |
|
5.
0
0 |
Meetings of the Technical Review Committee will be open to the public
and scheduled according to the needs of its members, with emphasis on evening
meetings where possible to allow for public attendance. |
|
6.
0 |
The process will not be rushed, but will be provided with the support
needed to accomplish the task in a timely way. |
|
7.
0 |
Council communicates to the public that we will not be pursuing additional
Charter changes at this time, but that it is their right to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
Advantages of completing an update separate from a substantive governance
changes: |
|
• |
As stated by the consultant, this would be a rather straightforward process
and result in a) a shorter process, b) that would be more likely to pass
a vote of the electorate, c) savings of staff time, and d) a lower level
of public debate. |
|
• |
It places the task of building political support for governance changes
upon the citizens, rather than Council. |
|
• |
If citizens advanced other political changes separately, the public would
be voting on them separately from Charter changes that are proposed for
"housekeeping" reasons. |
|
|
Disadvantage of completing an update separate from a substantive
governance changes: |
|
1.
0 |
If a group of citizens secured support for other Charter changes, there
would need to be a separate vote of the public. |
|
|
|
|
|
If majority of Council votes to include the option of changes to political
governance components in the update process, I have the following requests: |
|
|
|
|
1.
0
0
0
0 |
That the Council discuss governance changes that could be made in the
Charter prior to convening a Committee to determine whether Council wants
to include or exclude items from the work of a Committee. The Parks &
Recreation Commission was unaware of this process until this week; we might
want to include them in Council discussion. |
|
2.
0 |
That if a committee is created, the Council and Mayor work collaboratively
on its composition. |
|
3.
0
0
0 |
That the public process leads this process. Work by a consultant will
be used to inform the public and Committee on housekeeping items only. Any
work by a consultant to explore options for "non-updating" items will be
made after the Committee holds public meetings and deliberates. |
|
4.
0
0
0 |
That the schedule for proceeding not be bound by an election cycle, but
defined by benchmarks for progress checks with Council. Meetings at night
allow for the most public attendance and meetings every week are a burden
on Committee members and the public. |
|
5.
0
0
0 |
That the Council remove most of the meeting rules proposed and provide
a professional facilitator for the Committee work. If not, the selection
of a chair must be made based on evidence of strong, demonstrated facilitation
skills. Neither the Consultant nor staff should facilitate meetings. |
|
6.
0
0 |
Task the committee first with the updating process, exclusive of governance
changes. Charge them with presenting those changes separate from any governance
changes. |
|
7.
0
0
0 |
If Committee is to work on governance changes, charge them with documenting
the problem the change is meant to address, and an assessment of the advantages
and disadvantages of each, in addition to any recommendations they make. |
|
8.
0
0 |
Require a minimum of three public meetings separate from the Committee
work sessions to ensure that the work of the Committee reflects a large segment
of the citizens. |
|
9.
0 |
Require that members of the Committee reside in the City and set a minimum
number of years they have been residents. |
|
10.
0 |
Strengthen emphasis on public input during each meeting, perhaps at different
points in each meeting as different topics are discussed. |
|
11.
0
0
0
0 |
Re-examine decision making quorum requirements. It seems inappropriate
that 6) establishes that decisions can be made by 3 people. 7) establishes
that 4 people constitute majority for final recommendations, rather than
whole committee. We should mandate that the whole committee vote on the final
recommendation and that 2/3 vote constitute approval. |
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining questions that I think need discussion: |
|
• |
Is selection of consultant a low-bid? Who decides which consultant is
selected? Is a $5,000 spread in consultant budget appropriate? |
|
• |
Is there an advantage to asking public to vote on a charter in sections,
so that it's not an all-or-nothing campaign and people are given ability
to approve/disapprove components of proposed changes? If so, that influences
how it is brought to Council. |
