League of Cities Executive Committee Meeting March 03, 2021 │ 3:30 pm – 4:30 pm Via Zoom https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87911716672?pwd=Q0FXSWtmWTJjU0xzQk9ma0toUXRXQT09

Meeting ID: 879 1171 6672 Passcode: 265650 One tap mobile +12532158782,,87911716672#,,,,,,0#,,265650# US (Tacoma) +13462487799,,87911716672#,,,,,,0#,,265650# US (Houston)

AGENDA

A. Welcome (President Keith Mays)...... B. Minutes 1.13.2021 & 2.3.021 Executive Committee Meeting* (Pres. Keith Mays)...... C. Financial Overview (Jamie Johnson-Davis) ...... D. Advocacy: Tiered (J McCauley/S Winkles)...... E. Member Services/Admin Update (Workload) (Christy Wurster)...... F. LOC Goals for 2021 (Non-Legislative) (Pres. Mays/M. Cully)...... G. LOC Board, Committee and Caucus Processes (Pres. Mays/M. Cully)...... H. Ongoing LOC Board and Executive Committee Forecasting (Pres. Mays/M. Cully)...... I. Other Business J. Adjournment

* Agenda items denoted with an asterisk indicate a motion is recommended. The sample motion will appear in the agenda item’s associated materials.

Final

LOC Executive Committee Meeting January 13, 2021 │ 3:35 pm – 4:02 pm │ Meeting by Zoom

MINUTES

Present:

Executive Committee Members: Keith Mays, Jake Boone, Taneea Browning, Steve Callaway, and Scott Derickson.

Staff: Mike Cully, Christy Wurster, Patty Mulvihill and Kelly Richardson.

Other: N/A

Absent:

Welcome and Roll Call 3:35 pm

Keith Mays called the meeting to order at 3:35 pm.

A. To Formulate Recommended Goals & Performance Metrics for the Executive Director for Calendar Year 2021 3:36 pm

General Counsel Mulvihill presented a memo surrounding the history of this item to the Committee, which can be found on page 2 of the packet. The Executive Director performance evaluation process will be brought to the full board in February.

B. Elected Officials Concerns Regarding COVID-19 Restrictions 3:38 pm

Executive Director Mike Cully presented an extensive overview of the vison for 2021 for LOC, serval items were given:

• Because of the virtual environment work will be different moving forward • Technology pivot • Friday call is still maintaining importance and relevant information • President Round table maintain importance and relevant information • Reinstitution of the Small Cities meetings internal discussion

• Striving to not become complaisant, continually adapting to change moving forward and to be responsive to our membership • Continually striving to be compliant with the State mandates

C. Update on the Operations and Member Engagement Director: Plan of Action 3:40 pm

Executive Director Cully introduced Christy Wurster the new Operations and Engagement Director in response to LOC Board request to have more City type experience, Christy comes to us from the City of Silverton and has hit the ground running. Cully explained that the list he has provided to Wurster is long.

• Audit processes • Audit job descriptions • Evaluate employee needs and or employment/staffing needs • Evaluate the training program

Many of these are immediate needs and some are more long-term goals, and this is only a portion of the list.

Cully then handed the discussion over to Operations and Engagement Director Christy Wurster. Wurster thanked the Board for this opportunity to serve the LOC. Wurster listed several items that she is working on:

• Getting to know her staff and their needs and abilities • Touching base with the affiliates, to get to know and assess needs if any • Assess needs of the MASD as a whole • Plan to reach out to each individual Board member • Reevaluate the Small Cities program • Assumed the responsibilities of the DEI Committee and their Subcommittees

D. Spring Conference Update 3:50 pm

General Counsel Patty Mulvihill presented the Committee with the overview of the Spring Conference Symposium:

• In conjunction with OMA as a co-host • Topics and trainings on emergency preparedness, fire, flood, pandemic • May 7, 2021 Date • Virtual event

E. Executive Committee Schedule 3:57 pm

The Committee decided to move the meetings time to 2:30 pm moving forward.

F. Adjournment 4:02 pm

The meeting was adjourned.

APPROVED by the League of Oregon Cities Executive Committee on March 3, 2021.

ATTEST:

Mike Cully, Executive Director Keith Mays, President

LOC Executive Committee Meeting February 03, 2021 │ 3:31 pm – 4:38 pm │ Meeting by Zoom

MINUTES

Present:

Executive Committee Members: Keith Mays, Jake Boone, Taneea Browning, Steve Callaway, and Scott Derickson.

Staff: Mike Cully, Christy Wurster, Patty Mulvihill and Kelly Richardson.

Other: Timm Slater and Roland Herrera

Absent:

Welcome and Roll Call 3:31 pm

Keith Mays called the meeting to order at 3:31 pm.

A. To Formulate Recommended Goals & Performance Metrics for the Executive Director for Calendar Year 2021 3:32 pm

General Counsel Mulvihill presented a memo surrounding the history of this item to the Committee, which can be found on page 2 of the packet. Mulvihill went on to provide a list of items to be considered by the Committee.

1. The Executive Director will communicate the major happenings of the LOC with the full Board of Directors at least one time per month and will further advise the full Board of Directors on any issue that arises in between these monthly updates that the Board would reasonably expect to be notified of immediately.

2. The Executive Director will successfully accomplish the objectives and goals outlined in his Three- Year Professional Development Plan, a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein.

While not part of the Executive Director’s Goals and Performance Metrics, the Executive Committee strongly encourages the Board of Directors to modify its current evaluation process for the Executive Director so that a 360 evaluation does not occur on an annual basis, but rather occurs every three years.

Motion by Jake Boone to move forward the Committee recommendation to the full Board of LOC and is seconded by Taneea Browning. Motion approved Unanimously. (5 yes {Boone, Mays, Browning, Callaway, Derickson}, 0 NO, 0 Abstain, 0 absent)

B. Elected Officials Concerns Regarding COVID-19 Restrictions 3:34 pm

Executive Director Mike Cully presented his memo dated January 26, 2021 regarding COVID-19 restrictions, the memo can be read in its entirety beginning on page 3 of the packet. Following the presentation of the memo and its content the Executive Committee discuss the position of the LOC Board and how it represents LOC. Following a brief discussion regarding LOC position and how information should be conveyed there is interest in sending a letter.

The consensus of the Committee is to continue to pressure the Governor to keep moving forward and to convey LOC support to our members.

C. Discussion Regarding Local Government Center and Potential Internal Moves-League Impacts 3:36 pm

Executive Director Cully handed the discussion over to Operations and Engagement Director Christy Wurster. Wurster informed the Committee of her meeting with Operations Director of Oregon School Board and Oregon Counties. Wurster informed the Committee of the local partnership/ownership of the Local Government Center where the LOC offices reside. Wurster informed the Committee that both CIS and Association of Oregon Counties are weighing their options regarding their current building’s status and what the workforce needs are moving forward. Wurster went on to inform the Committee the necessity of a strategic internal plan for LOC and its workforce moving forward.

Wurster informed the Committee that she is scheduled to tour the entire building next week and get a floor by floor perspective of space. Wurster pointed out that some of the decision moving forward is:

• What is LOC going to do with the building moving forward • Retention of the 1/3 ownership or not • Does LOC want to expand if AOC moves out and purchase more ownership • Does LOC want to reduce its size and move to a smaller space • Sell out LOC share

A report will be brought forth in the future to the full Board outlining the outcome.

In addition, staff is looking at Capital Improvement needs of the facility and needs of LOC.

• Currently LOC contracts with the Oregon School Board, they have a staff member that manages the facility on LOC’s behalf. • The roof is in good condition

• The parking lot has had some recent paving, however spots 73-89 need repaving. The estimate is approximately $9,000 • Enclose the alcove on the west side of the building along the train tracks. • Additionally, some improvements need to be made to both the furnace and air conditioning units.

Wurster informed the Committee that in the discussion it was agreed that the parking lot paving and the alcove enclosure could be done through the trust. However, the furnace and the air conditioning units (9) are 25 years old and nearing their life expectancy. There is a recommendation that those be replaced, and the estimate is near 100,000 dollars.

One item discussed at the staff level was to have a professional firm come in and asses our facility needs for LOC staff.

Executive Director Cully informed the Committee members for those that may not know LOC is also landlords, LOC owns the apartment complex adjacent to the LOC building. Cully also informed the Committee that both CIS and AOC engaged the firm Cushman and Wakefield to provide overall analysis appraisal and workplace needs going forward.

Cully stated the reason for bringing this forward was to ensure that LOC was not the last man standing and to make sure the Board was informed of what is happening with the facility.

Following the information presented by staff there is a brief discussion regarding the trust requirements and ownership requirements. Currently ownership percentages are:

• School Board 46.23% • LOC 33.21% • AOC 20.56%

Following the discussion of the Committee, members leaned towards keeping the building because of the significant conveniences to staff and members. Cully will keep everyone informed and up to date with updates as they become available.

D. Immediate Past President Appointment 3:50 pm

President Mays recommended Timm Slater as the Immediate Past President candidate to take Jake Boone’s position on the LOC Board. General Counsel Mulvihill stated this appointment will officially be done in front of the full Board. Mulvihill provided a memo to the Committee which can be read in its entirety beginning on page 7 of the packet.

E. Finance/Budget/Audit 3:57 pm

Executive Director Cully gave some history regarding the recently formed committees to benefit Tim Slater.

Finance Director Johnson-Davis presented to the committee the audit, budget, and financial updates all of which can be read in the memos provided beginning on page 12 of the packet.

At the end of the presented material and discussion President Mays gives the process as he sees it for any possibility of distribution of funds for expected and unexpected expenditures.

• Stay in the line item per department • If anyone goes out of their department line, it goes to the Executive Director • If it exceeds any of those department budget items bring it to the Executive Committee • Then forward to the Board for a supplemental budget to be created

F. Adjournment 4:38 pm

The meeting was adjourned.

APPROVED by the League of Oregon Cities Executive Committee on March 3, 2021.

ATTEST:

Mike Cully, Executive Director Jake Boone, President

1 We are a growing coalition of community-based organizations, and community members that are striving to create an Oregon that is RANKED representative of all and where we have the rights, resources, and recognition we need to thrive. CHOICE THE PROBLEM should represent all the people it serves. While Oregon is a VOTING leader in the mechanics of voting, we can continue our tradition of being the national leader on democracy by upgrading our themselves. Our current often favors candidates with greater access to resources - making it difficult for grassroots, Support HB 2678 community-driven candidates to get elected. These systems can also result in candidates getting elected to office with less than 50% of the vote meaning most voters end up represented by someone they didn’t vote for. In the 2020 primaries in races with more than two candidates, over ⅔ of the races saw the majority of people vote against the winner. THE SOLUTION Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is a simple upgrade to how we vote that provides voters with more choices and includes more voices. It reduces barriers for voters eliminating the spoiler effect and forces us to choose who “can win” and guarantees that winning candidates have always received more than half the vote. It also reduces barriers to entry and allows greater participation by both voters and candidates.

Used by more than 10 million people in six states and dozens of cities and counties across the United States (including Benton County), RCV lets people rank candidates in the order they prefer. To win, a candidate must receive more than 50% of the vote. If no candidate gets 50%, an “instant runoff” occurs where the for the last-place candidate are instantly recounted for the voters’ second choice. Simply put, RCV means candidates must compete for support from all voters and no community can be ignored.

OUR PROPOSAL: HB 2678

HB 2678 brings RCV to Oregon by 1) Using RCV in all partisan primaries and 2) Replacing nonpartisan primaries and with an RCV general in November (except for counties in which home rule applies).

Under our current system of voting twice a year, turnout in nonpartisan primaries are substantially lower and skew wealthier and whiter than nonpartisan general election races. Combining the primary and general into a ranked ensures the majority of voices are heard on important issues. 2

WHY RCV SHOULD BE THE STANDARD RCV CREATES A MORE REFLECTIVE DEMOCRACY BY INCREASING RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY IN ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND IT GREATLY HELPS BRIDGE THE GENDER GAP

Case studies show people of color are more likely to win elected positions when RCV is implemented. In the case study of, “four Bay Area cities that use RCV (San Francisco, San Leandro, Oakland, and Berkeley), candidates of color have won 62% of RCV races, compared to only 38% prior to RCV.” The number of women that run and win has gone from 25% to 49% in cities that have adopted RCV as well. This is because RCV reduces the barriers to entry for new candidates in races without an incumbent.

EXPANDS VOTER CHOICE RCV ensures that Oregonians have the freedom to vote for who they really want. In our current system, if your favorite candidate is unlikely to win, you have two bad choices: (1) cast a “safe” vote for one of the front-runners to avoid electing whom you like least, or (2) “waste” your vote on your favorite. Voters shouldn’t be forced into a lose-lose dilemma. RCV lets you vote for who you truly support.

REWARDS CONSENSUS CANDIDATES OVER SPLINTER CANDIDATES AND ELIMINATES THE SPOILER EFFECT Our current system often rewards candidates in multi-candidate races that appeal to a narrow group of voters, and who run polarizing and negative campaigns. RCV rewards candidates that run on issues, consensus and coalition-building. Under RCV, a candidate must appeal to 50%+1 of the electorate in order to succeed. This reform is most needed in races that attract a large number of candidates. Under our current “plurality” system, candidates can win despite most people voting for someone else. RCV guarantees the election of majority winners, whose support extends beyond a narrow base, by requiring the winner to have more than 50% of the vote.

FAQ'S

HOW DOES RCV IMPACT THE VOTING POWER OF COMMUNITIES OF COLOR? People of color have won far more seats since their cities started using RCV. RCV eliminates low-turnout runoffs and non-partisan primaries, making it so voters only have to focus on one election more reflective of the full electorate. RCV allows for coalition-building among community groups without fear of a split vote

WHAT ABOUT ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS OF VOTING (E.G. STAR VOTING)? While no electoral system is perfect, RCV is a simple, proven method to give voters more choices, is complementary to future democracy reforms (e.g. expansion of voter registration, proportional representation, etc.), and elects more diverse candidates than our current method. Alternative methods of voting such as STAR, have not been implemented in any election across the nation, thus it’s not known how it would perform in improving equitable outcomes of elections, or how voters, especially communities of color, will behave with it.

1.Fair Vote. Data on Ranked Choice Voting. QUESTIONS? 2.Rank the Vote. Ranked Choice Voting in Represenation. 3.Oregon Ranked Choice Voting. Why RCV? CONTACT MICHELLE HICKS 4.Fair Vote. Ranked Choice Voting 101. FIELD MANAGER, APANO & RCV LEAD 5.Benton County Oregon. Ranked Choice Voting. (2020). 6.Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center. (2020). [email protected] 7.Fair Vote. Explaining FairVote’s position on STAR Voting. (2018).