BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS’  
REGULAR MEETING  

January 12, 2011  
9:00 a.m.  
Harris Hall Main Floor
APPROVED 2-2-2011

Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Jay Bozievich, Rob Handy, Sid Leiken and Pete Sorenson present.  County Administrator Liane Richardson, County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

The resignation of Sheriff Russ Burger will be an Emergency Business item.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Bob Cassidy, Eugene, shared information from EWEB regarding a group forming up the McKenzie River.  He wanted to use this group as a sounding board for the neighbors.  He recalled the ordinance that was being proposed in the past for clean water is something they are concerning about.  He thought the 200 foot setback is the kind of rule that not necessarily fits everyone, there could be exceptions.  He said this group could evaluate it and give a recommendation to the Board.

Carl Wilkerson, Eugene, stated he is the Vice President of the Peace Officers Association, the largest labor group with the Lane County Sheriff’s Office.  He added that he has been a long time employee at the County.  He said the Lane County Peace Officers Association fully supports Tom Turner as Russ Burger’s successor.  He believed at this time it would be a poor decision to bring someone in from the outside who is unfamiliar with the budget of Lane County and the local law enforcement system as a whole.  He commented that Tom Turner has strong leadership skills and bonds to the law enforcement community.  He said Turner has understanding of the local budget process and the partnership role of law enforcement by not only the Lane County Sheriff’s Office, but as a long time member of the Eugene Police Department.  He stated it is their recommendation that the Board follow Sheriff Burger’s recommendation to appoint Undersheriff Turner as his successor.  He added that they would be opposed to having someone come from outside who doesn’t have the knowledge of the budget.  He said as a representative of the Peace Officers Association and of the Sheriff’s Department, he personally supports Undersheriff Tom Turner as the successor to Sheriff Burger.

3. COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND/OR OTHER ISSUES AND REMONSTRANCE

Sorenson said that yesterday he got a briefing from the County Administrator on the process effective with Sheriff Burger’s resignation on Monday night.  He said that Burger nominated Undersheriff Tom Turner to be the Interim Sheriff and Sheriff Turner continues in that role for up to 30 days pending any decision the Board of Commissioners makes.  He said if the Board makes no decision, then Sheriff Turner continues in office until January 2013.  He said an election will be held in 2012 to fill the Sheriff position for four years beginning in January 2013.  He encouraged County Administration to put out a press release detailing this process.

Handy reflecting on the Arizona shooting.  He said that everyone should step back and separate their policy issues.  He said they may have disagreements but the personal attacks are something that is troubling to the country. He wished Congresswoman Giffords a speedy recovery.

Stewart was aware of three groups formed up the McKenzie River who are active.  He said he will be speaking at the group on February 10.  He commented that the people up the McKenzie desire to keep their water clean and they want to work with EWEB.  He said there is good energy and he was hopeful that it will be a positive.

4. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

Richardson reported that Sheriff Burger resigned as of 11:59 p.m. on Monday.  She said he will be sworn in as U.S. Marshal.  She said it creates a vacancy in that position.  She indicated that Undersheriff Turner took over at Midnight Tuesday morning as Interim Sheriff until the Board makes a decision.  She explained that the Board has 30 days from the time of resignation to make the decision or the decision by the Sheriff stands.  She indicated it would be Interim Sheriff Turner who would fill the vacancy.  She said when a person fills the vacancy for Sheriff; they must run in the general election to continue.  She said this would be about a two year position.  She indicated that there is a significant case coming up that will cause old wounds to arise in the Sheriff’s Department.  She had concerns about causing additional chaos by putting this off longer than necessary.  She stated that the Sheriff’s Department needs strong leadership right now.

Sorenson thought it was important that they make a public announcement that this has occurred.  He said the Sheriff’s Office put out a release.  He suggested that they get something out today that they had this discussion and have been informed of the resignation and the nomination of Tom Turner and they are taking the effort to have this emergency item on the agenda.  He thought they should take action.  He didn’t think they should let the time lapse by the Board of Commissioners.  He added that they should look at this as an extension of other decisions where they have to appoint officials to various positions.  He thought they should get the news release out a that the Board is interested in hearing from candidates.  He wasn’t sure they needed more of a public process but for people letting them know they want to be appointed to this position.  He wanted a public process in accepting people’s interests.

Handy agreed there should be a public process.  He said it is a position of great magnitude.  He was sensitive to the internal concerns they have with their employees and administrator.  He said Interim Sheriff Turner is an outstanding individual.  He wanted to see who else was interested in the position and he wanted to take a couple of weeks to do that.  He said it is important for them to be consistent having policies and procedures for how these seats are filled.  He said the Board would benefit from knowing they took the public’s pulse and gave people the opportunity to come out and publicly support Interim Sheriff Turner and to make a decision that will be more of a solid one.

Stewart wanted to make the decision today. He said it was different than filling a congressional seat.  He said they have an organization where an Undersheriff is the person who steps in when the Sheriff is not available and runs the organization.  Stewart stated that Turner has done that quite well.  He said that Burger knew when he applied for this position that if he was successful that he would need to make a recommendation to lead this organization and his recommendation to the Board is Tom Turner.  He also received support from the Sheriff’s Union, Parole and Probation Officers and AFSCME that they would like to have a decision right away to move forward.  He said this is nothing new, the public has known for many months the Sheriff was in the running for this position.  He indicated that he has not heard from anyone who was interested in the position.  He said there are issues coming up including the budget, and he didn’t think there would be anyone who would know the budget better than Sheriff Turner.  He thought it was in the best interest of the organization to make that decision today.

Liken was prepared to move forward today. He appreciated that Sheriff Burger put forth a succession plan.  He did his due diligence and spoke with police chiefs and he found that Sheriff Turner’s approach is similar to Sheriff Burger, collaborative and a regional leader.  He indicated that the police chiefs appreciated the fact that the Interim Sheriff was one who would reach out, gather different opinions but used a collaborative approach.  He commented that most municipalities are going through the same problems with their budgets and he thought the more they are able to leverage and the more they can partner, the more successful they will be in the future.  He thought it was their responsibility to allow the public to weigh in when the election takes place in 2012.

Bozievich stated he was also prepared to move forward today. He said Sheriff Burger’s resignation was not an unpredicted event.  He said they have known about this for a long time.  He indicated that he has spent a few months researching who should be the appointed Sheriff, knowing that appointment was coming up before the Board.  He added that everyone he has spoken with has recommended the Undersheriff as the next Sheriff.  He fully supported moving ahead today.  He commented that going ahead with public notice to get other candidates, wastes resources in lean times.  He thought for the sake of stability in the Sheriff’s Department (as they are facing tough times ahead) that they have the appointment made so the Sheriff’s Department knows who their leader will be for the next two years.

MOTION:  to appoint Acting Sheriff Tom Turner as Sheriff for the next two years.

Bozievich MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.

Sorenson asked if this motion was within the power of the Board of Commissioners to approve Sheriff Turner for a two year period.

Vorhes said it is for the remaining term of Sheriff Burger.  He said they could reflect that in the board order.

Sorenson said the appropriate motion at the time they make it is to appoint Sheriff Turner for the duration of the term of office of the previously elected Sheriff.  His vote against this motion is not because of Tom Turner.  His vote against this motion is a matter of process.  He said this is an important decision and to not have it on the agenda is a serious process issue.  He said they need a news release to the public that they are taking this action.  His objection is a matter of process.  He thought if they had people applying for the position they could ask questions.    He said it was an abuse of process to not have it on the agenda.  He said this undermines the decision of the Board to have a contested vote when they could put it on a written agenda.

Richardson responded that the reason this was on Emergency Business was because they didn’t get the date in time for the Sheriff’s resignation until Friday.  She indicated that it couldn’t be on the agenda for this week and the Board needs to discuss this because there is now a vacancy.

Sorenson said the Board didn’t have to discuss it but it was a good idea. He said an amended board agenda could have been put out or they could have met yesterday to give them more time before a motion to appoint the person.  He thought they should have had a special meeting.

Richardson indicated that the Board didn’t have to vote today.

Sorenson said the Board is rushing to make a motion when they haven’t put out a news release or received applications or have no real reason to rush this.

Handy didn’t support the motion.  He said they weren’t doing the Sheriff’s Department any favors by doing this.  He said they could take another two weeks to get the weigh in from the community.  He said they are jeopardizing Turner’s tenure by having a majority of the Board rubber stamp this.  He supported Turner but his problem was with the process.  He said he is seeing a proclivity with this new Board majority to ram things through and not have good process because they can do it.  He was disturbed at the trend he was seeing already with the new Board and it is not a service to the community and to the department.

Vorhes indicated that an order is needed.  He said they could direct staff to prepare a board order for the Board to consider at next week’s meeting.  He thought that could provide opportunity for anyone to give public comment.

Bozievich stated that this was no surprise to anybody.  He recalled a question he received while he was campaigning was who he would appoint as the Sheriff.  He said the public was aware of this. He didn’t think they short circuited the process.  He was prepared to make the decision.  He has spoken with constituents throughout his district about the pending decision.  He also spoke with staff in law enforcement at the County and other municipalities.  He indicated that everyone he spoke with fully supports Tom Turner for this position.  He was willing to revise his motion to state to fulfill the term and to have it come back as a board order next week so there is a week for input.

Leiken agreed.

MOTION: to direct staff to bring back to the Board next week a board order appointing Acting Sheriff Tom Turner to fulfill the remainder of the term of Sheriff.

Bozievich MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.

Stewart was disheartened as chair to listen to some of the comments that Handy and Sorenson have made.  He said the comments were well intended, but the other two commissioners are accommodating what Handy and Sorenson asked.  He didn’t think if they are going to continue to have this kind of rhetoric that it will help the Board.  He said they are each their doing the best job they can.  He asked out of courtesy that they treat each other like they would like to be treated.  He asked in the future that the Board ask what their needs are and they will see if they can be accommodated. He hoped that wasn’t the way they were going to do business in the next two years.

Handy rejected Stewart’s analysis of the discussion.  He said they are bringing up process concerns and they are doing no favors for Sheriff Turner by not having a notice to the public so they can have a widespread confirmation of what many of them know.  He understands that some commissioners feel like the public knows that this is taken place and that potential candidates know that they have been invited to apply.  He said this Board will decide at what degree they are going to have a public dialogue or communication.  He said it was unfair.

VOTE: 3-2 (Handy, Sorenson dissenting).  

5.         CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Approval of Minutes

April 29, 2009, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
April 29, 2009, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
May 5, 2009, Regular Meeting, 10:00 a.m.
May 5, 2009, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
May 20, 2009, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
June 2, 2009, Regular Meeting, 10:00 a.m.
April 27, 2010, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
December 1, 2010, Regular Meeting, following HACSA
December 1, 2010, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
January 3, 2011, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

B. Board of Commissioners

1) ORDER 11-1-12-1/In the Matter of Appointing Highway 126 East Representatives to the Lane Area Commission on Transportation (Lane ACT).

2) ORDER 11-1-12-2/In the Matter of Appointing Members to the Charter Review Committee.

C. Public Works        

1) ORDER 11-1-12-3/In the Matter of Approving a Professional Services Contract with OBEC Consulting Engineers for the Sweet Creek Road Retaining Wall Construction Project in the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $450,000.

MOTION:  to approve the Consent Calendar.

Handy MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

6. COMMISSIONERS’ BUSINESS 

a. ORDER 11-1-12-4/In the Matter of Appointing Representatives and Designees to Various Committees and Agencies.

The Board discussed the various committees.

Handy wanted policy considerations where they are mandated, where they don’t vote.  He didn’t want to put commissioners on all committees.  He thought the rubber meets the road at the Board meeting, not at committee meetings.  He thought this needed further discussion.

Sorenson wanted to move the standing committees to the other board order because they were not mandated.

Leiken thought they needed to get the correct names of the committees.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 11-1-12-4 amended to remove the following appointments:  The Eugene Chamber of Commerce,  the standing committees and the Glenwood Renewal Advisory Committee.

Bozievich MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.

VOTE: 3-2 (Handy, Sorenson dissenting).

b. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION/Appointing Liaisons to Various Committees and Agencies.

Stewart recalled they pulled the items from the previous item. He thought this needed more work and fine tuning.  He asked if this should go to the agenda team.

Vorhes reported that the Board took action last week to deal with some of the standing committees.  He thought they could come back with descriptions of various advisory and standing committees and then have a discussion with the Board about what kind of participation they would like to see this Board have with those committees.

Stewart stated that last week the motion was approved for the standing committees and the commissioners on those committees.  He asked if they were approved today.

Vorhes said this order was to reflect that there was a designation of those individuals who were named last week  He said the order was intended to reflect that but the rest of the conversation didn’t take action with last week. He asked by removing the standing committees, if the Board intended to undo what they did last week.

Stewart said it was important that they establish what they had done last week.  He noted on Friday there is a Legislative Meeting and Facilities Meeting next week based on last week’s action.  He said they have to affirm those appointments  or a recommendation on what to do.

Richardson responded that there are at least three committees that have scheduled meetings with invitees to those meetings.

Handy was comfortable informally having the commissioners go to the various meetings to listen and learn with the people on the committees. He thought they had a tremendous amount of work to do discussing each committee  and what the role of a commissioner is on a committee and how the commissioners on the committee will interface with the Board.  He thought this should go to the agenda team.  He thought they should ask the commissioners their aspirations for being on these committees.  He wanted to give direction on what the role is of a commissioner and what the process would be for bringing things back to the Board when the bigger policy issues need to be addressed.  He wasn’t comfortable approving anything.  He thought each commissioner could start meeting with the committees with the understanding that it will come back to them as soon as possible for more work.

Bozievich stated his intention was not to undo last week’s appointment to these committees.  His intention was to remove from the board order the committees or positions that were unclear as to roles or definitions; mandated versus non-mandated committees.  He didn’t believe there was controversy with these.  He agreed with Sorenson in areas where the positions weren’t clear.  He wanted them moving forward to participate in those committees as they did last week.  He recalled they did take a vote appointing the commissioners to the committees.

Stewart recommended that this go to Policy and Procedures with a report back to the Board.

MOTION: to refer the appointments of commissioners as representatives of voting members to various committees and agencies to the Policy and Procedure Committee with a recommendation back from the committee as constituted by the existing members Leiken and Handy.

Sorenson MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0. 

c. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION/Good Governance Board Order.

Richardson recalled that last year at this time they revisited the Good Governance Board Order which at that time had been in existence for about a year.  She said the Board at that time went through parts of the order that had been accomplished.  She said a question came up last week about revisiting the Good Governance Board Order.  She indicated that there are many options.  She stated that this is a living document.

Stewart noted items that were confusing. He had concerns about the 60 Minute Rule.  He asked if a majority of the Board wanted to do away with the Good Governance Board Order and go back to how the Board always operated.  He asked how much work it would take.

Richardson responded that if the Good Governance Board Order went away, they would go back to what they were doing two years ago.  She indicated there wouldn’t have to be many changes beyond communicating with staff.  She noted there were Lane Manual changes about commissioners sitting on committees.  She said they would need to make changes to the manual about committees and then bringing it in front of the Board to approve the changes.   She said two years ago they had rules for the 15 Minute Rule, not for the 60 Minute Rule.

Sorenson stated what would go away with the Good Governance Board Order is the opportunity for the public to submit three minute videos or audios to the Board. He said this is important because at times the Board is meeting when the public would not be able to make presentations to the Board.  He thought they could continue Board meetings on more of a swing shift basis, starting later and going later.  He added that would allow people to come to the Board meetings in the afternoon or evening. He wanted to make that available to the public.  He wanted to include that if they were to amend the Good Governance Board Order.  He wanted to invite public officials to come to the Board of Commissioners.  He noted in the past before the Good Governance Board Order, they didn’t have any requirements or a policy to invite elected officials.   He was opposed to abolishing or getting rid of the Good Governance Board Order.  He thought they should amend it because there are things that are irrelevant.   He noted the Good Governance Board Order makes clear that they are going to take 30 minutes of the Board Meeting for public comment.  He said if they get rid of that portion of the policy, they run the risk of having a big demand.  He thought to have some decorum that they establish where people sit so there is no misunderstanding as to where they are supposed to sit.  He said another feature in the board order protects the public  from inadvertent meetings of the Board of Commissioners.  He wanted the clarification of the charter letting the Board convene by three board members convening a board meeting.  He thought instead of going through the board order that they think about a procedural way of handling this.

Richardson said the 15 Minute Rule existed prior to the Good Governance Board Order and the language already existed in the APM.  She added that it was transferred into the Good Governance Board Order.  She said in 2008 they had a maximum time for public comment of 20 minutes.  She didn’t recommend that this get sent to Policy and Procedures because it was a Board creation and the Board needs to tell them what to do with the order.

Stewart said he didn’t think the one pager would be taken away.  He recalled that in the past two years that no one had submitted a video for public comment.  He said the first four years he was a commissioner, he didn’t see any problems.  He stated that the County was governed by Lane Manual and it worked well.  He always asked when he was chair if a large crowed showed up, if they should extend the comment period.  He wanted to see this go back to Lane Manual as the Good Governance Board Order was hard to follow.  He stated that he didn’t need the order to perform his duty as Chair.

Handy agreed there were things that needed to be updated.  He said part of why the Good Governance Board Order came to be is their commitment to transparency and accountability through a compact through the public.  He stated that since he has been an elected commissioner, he has never, under  any circumstance been with two other commissioners outside of a public noticed board meeting or an Executive Session.  He noted given the Public Meetings Notice at the state level was vague, the Board decided to have a higher standard than what the state standard was.  He said part of the compact was that they have committees and they recruit citizens to be involved.  He indicated that this document has been their compact with the public and a guiding document for issues that have come up.  He was concerned that there is a majority of commissioners who want to jettison this order.  He said this is a real step backward in their commitment to transparency and accountability.

Bozievich commented that Lane County has functioned well for a number of years prior to the adoption of the Good Governance Board Order.  He said since adoption of the ordinance it has had to be amended three or four times because of such specific language.  He said most of what is covered is in other areas or by statute.  He thought the Good Governance  Board Order has brought in a level of complexity and additional work for staff and the Board that he does not think is necessary.  He said it was well intended, but he thought it was a step in the wrong direction for the way to do business.  He agreed with Stewart to go back to how they used to do the County’s business.

Sorenson recalled before the Good Governance Board Order they didn’t have estimated times and it saved taxpayer money because staff didn’t have to wait for hours to give their presentation.  He commented that the Board’s constituents will be affected by these decisions.

Leiken thought it was the Board Chair’s responsibility to make sure the meeting moves in a timely manner.   He had no problem with anything being submitted electronically.  He indicated that the Lane Charter allowed them to do what the Good Governance Board Order did. He commented that government is to adapt and improvise and that is what they have to do. 

Handy said that the new board majority will repeal the Good Governance Board Order.  He said it is a step backward and it is an indication they are seeing regressive policies being put in place at the Board of Commissioners.  He commented that it is more about government by the few rather than by engaging the public.  He said there is rhetoric.  He thought that it is a shell game on a policy level.  He commented that there is a chilling trend taking place.

Leiken recalled with the drinking water protection order that was brought forth for the McKenzie River, at the time as the Mayor of the second largest city in Lane County, he was not aware of it until three weeks before it was to be brought before the Board.  He said it was a social networking plan that brought the citizens out.  He said it had nothing to do with the Good Governance Board Order.  He said when he spoke to the citizens of the Springfield Utility Board who should have had a hand in this, they were unaware of what was being drawn up.  He doesn’t think this is regressive.  He thinks it is important that as they move forward they allow the public to participate and it is part of what makes government work. 

Bozievich said he was aware of several elected boards that utilize estimated times for their items without a Good Governance document that steers them to do it.  He didn’t think it needed to be memorialized in a board order.  He said they are talking about eliminating bureaucratic paperwork that needs to constantly be revised.  He stated that as a commissioner he is committed to working with the public.  He doesn’t think this is a regressive policy and he doesn’t think it is a sinister way of voting.  He said they can do their business publicly and openly without having to have a board order that needs constant amendment.

MOTION: to move to rescind the current Good Governance Board Order and revert to the Lane Manual.

Bozievich MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.

Leiken asked to include the idea that people can bring forth testimony electronically.

Richardson suggested  rescinding the Good Governance Board Order.  She said a lot of things in the board order were administrative items that can be made by the County Administrator.  She said rescinding the order would be cleaner.

Bozievich amended his motion to rescind the Good Governance Board Order and to direct staff to bring back to the Board revisions to Lane Manual that are appropriate and to include the ability to submit electronic testimony for public comment.

Leiken SECONDED.

Leiken asked as staff brings information forward , to look at a Facebook Page for Lane County.  He said this is the communication that is ongoing for the younger generation.

Richardson said Lane County is looking into that.

VOTE:  3-2 (Handy, Sorenson dissenting).

Supplemental Budget

Bozievich recalled that last week he mentioned about doing a supplemental budget.  He wanted revisions for unused FTE’s.   He wanted a majority of the Board to direct staff to start to prepare the Supplemental Budget prior to getting into budget direction.   He wanted to direct staff to move forward to look at a supplemental budget for the 10/11 budget;  to make cuts to roll back additions made to the base budget when it was adopted last year and to look at additions that were made to the base budget prior to that in Supplemental Budget 2 of the previous fiscal year.

Stewart was interested in what the budget would look like and what the savings would be if they move forward giving that direction.  He was uncomfortable preparing a supplemental budget.

Handy said they had a previous conversation with the previous Board that there are different options.  He noted in the CAO budget there has been a trivial budget line item for the administrative functions with constituent service part-time aides.  He wanted to see brought forward information that they look at the administrative assistants for the various department heads that have both general fund and road fund money on any level.   He said if they are looking for savings and possible cuts that instead of going after a trivial item that they look at how they can be consistent throughout the organization with this type of decision.

Richardson said her recommendation would be not to eliminate most of the positions because they are performing so many other functions and someone would need to perform them.  She said there are a small number of assistants to a department head or elected official.

Handy commented that it is always good public policy that there is a range of options.

Leiken was fine reviewing this to see what makes sense.

Sorenson asked when the next scheduled amended budget would take place.

Richardson thought it would be in March or April.

Sorenson wanted to look at the amount of money for the remainder of the fiscal year.   He asked Richardson about direction for the FY 11/12 budget at the same time or savings in the short term.

Richardson said they will look at this current fiscal year to reduce the budget impacts and the decisions they will have to make in next fiscal year.  She added the decisions will impact next year’s budget.

Sorenson heard that 80 percent of the County’s money goes for compensation of the officials that work for the County.  He asked what flexibility they have for adjustments between now and the end of the year for non-represented employees.

Richardson said non-represented employees do not have a contract with the County.  She added that they can’t change the salary, but they can change the benefits for non-represented employees without undergoing a bargaining process.   She said to change the salaries for non-represented employees, they would have to undergo a class comp study.  She noted at that point they would redline the salaries and there wouldn’t be cost savings for salaries.  She indicated that represented employees have contracts and they are beginning bargaining contracts with AFSCME in February.

Sorenson asked what option the Board has for reducing compensation of the highest paid people who work for the County.  He believed most were in the non-represented category.  He wanted more information on the option.  He wanted to look at any unfilled positions (like the Undersheriff at the managerial level) they could use to make up any anticipated hole they are planning for.

Handy wanted the other commissioners to understand the exercise they had around increasing the lapse.  He said there were good things that came out for potential savings.

Bozievich was interested in the things that were added in the base budget, but not the exact position or FTE.  He said he would leave it up to the department heads to balance for cuts that are appropriate.  He was fine for the request for additional information and options.  He was familiar with the AFSCME proposals and this request for board direction to staff is about this current fiscal year. He added the AFSCME proposals were to be negotiated and they are starting the negotiations in February with a June 30 contract deadline.  He wanted savings they could do quickly in this fiscal year.  He said the non-represented employees have been good about sharing the pain and they need to be careful about not picking on the group just because they can.  He wanted to look at the Board to lead on taking cuts of possible benefits and contributing to their health care plan instead of the non-represented employees.

Richardson indicated she saw a majority of the Board approve to bring back information.  She said she has been telling the department directors that they might be going back to the adds this fiscal year.  She said they had an HR work group discussing things including benefits.  She said they can look at job descriptions for all of the assistants for the department directors.  She wanted to come back next week with an initial report.

Handy wanted to make sure that a conversation with AFSCME is part of this.

Richardson stated that she has asked AFSCME for a copy of their report and she hasn’t received it.  She said they were supposed to have provided one but they didn’t.

7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

a. Announcements

Richardson said they were approached by the city of Eugene yesterday.  She said they are having a parade for the football team on January 22 and they want to end the parade at the Park Blocks.  She said they have requested use of the Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza and access to a portion of  public service building in case they need it during the course of the event.  She spoke with David Suchart, Management Services, who participated in a meeting.  He thought it was reasonable.  She said that Suchart will come in to open the building and they will be helping out.

Stewart said he hasn’t been approached about the coordination. He indicated that the city of Eugene is taking the lead.  He said he will contact the city of Eugene to find out their plans.  He would like to have the Board make a recognition to the coach of the Athletic Department or the President and present it on that day.

b. REPORT BACK/Naming Policy for Public Facilities.

Richardson reported that the Board has been approached several times in the past couple of years to provide input on a name they don’t have control over.  She added there have been times when the Board has been asked to approve a name of County facilities.  She indicated that the Board had never had a policy.  She added the Board asked her to start reviewing naming policies that exist elsewhere to come up with options.  She came before the Board with a variety of options and the Board liked the city of Eugene’s policy.  She noted the item in front of the Board is similar to the city of Eugene’s with changes that came up.

Leiken recalled the city of Springfield had just adopted a naming policy for the same reason.  He stated the final result for Springfield was the city administrator would form an ad hoc committee of citizens to come up with recommendations.  He thought the County Administrator should take the lead on this, bringing back a final policy to the Board.

Handy said they need to have a policy.  He wanted the agenda team to take this  up and they could decide whether to have a work session or for it to go on the Consent Calendar.

8. COUNTY COUNSEL

a. Announcements

None.

9. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

Leiken announced the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Em Ex in front of Gateway Mall.  He reported that Congressman DeFazio will be riding the bus.

Stewart announced that next Monday is Martin Luther King Day.  He indicated that there will be a celebration at the Springfield Justice Center and at Springfield Middle School.

Sorenson indicated that he and Handy are working on hosting a public forum on banning plastic bags from grocery stores in Oregon.  He  said they may be asking the Board whether to endorse the legislation.  He thought since two commissioners were coming to this event that they could turn it into a board event if another commissioner wants to attend.

10. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

None.

11. OTHER BUSINESS

None.

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m. 

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary