For decades, Auburn City Council members met twice a month in three-member subcommittees with names like public works, finance, economic development and municipal services.

In those meetings, City leaders weighed proposed legislation relating to the different aspects of City services, raked over issues, heard in-depth reports about their areas of concern from City staff.

Two years ago, however, council members, switched to twice-a-month study sessions with all council members in the room.

Among the reasons given for the change: with all council members together, everybody’d learn what the buzz was at the same time.

At last week’s council meeting, Deputy Mayor Largo Wales suggested that after a two-year trial, the time was ripe to return to the subcommittee system.

Reading out a litany of shortcomings of the present format, Wales noted its failure to provide leadership opportunities to all council members save the deputy mayor, who chairs the sessions.

“Based on years of experience on the council,” Wales said, “there is a feeling that we have become generalists and lack specificity. Balance of presentation is lacking between our study sessions and our council meetings. The council meetings are perfunctory, short, and the study sessions are hampered by an inability to get council-requested information and have influence on agenda formation.”

And while City staff does an excellent job presenting updates related to strategic goals, Wales continued, the council is hampered in its ability to provide “policy filters” to address such concerns as economic development, human services, wellness and homelessness, among other issues.

What followed, with the Junior City Council looking on in an unusual joint session, was a sharp back and forth between council members.

Rich Wagner, Bill Peloza and Yolanda Trout-Manuel agreed with Wales.

Reading from a prepared statement, Peloza said the intent had been to give the new format a trial and within a year evaluate how things were going in a year.

“I, for one, was ready to give it a go,” Peloza said. “I am now disappointed in the limited study-session process. (It) has weakened the City Council depth and knowledge of issues, and has denied the council its legislative-body powers. … In the council committee structure, we were able to interact with staff on the agenda subjects at hand. This no longer occurs…”

Peloza noted that the City of SeaTac had, after a brief trial, returned to its old subcommittee format. And Kent, he said, is doing well with that system.

” The study session format has failed in keeping department’s aware of department issues and business practices,” Peloza said. “… In short, the weaknesses outweighed its strengths.”

Wagner, an engineer, added his concerns.

“I would add to Deputy Mayor Wales’ list of issues that aren’t getting an appropriate policy filter all of the public utilities and public works activity. If you look at the budget, those make up about the biggest piece we have,” said Wagner. … “I tend to think we aren’t getting the benefit out of study sessions that I had hoped we would get.

“The main reason I supported the study session system was so we could talk individually between council members without violating the Open Public Meetings Act. That has worked. But it is outweighed by the negatives we’ve talked about here,” Wagner said.

Holman was caught off guard.

“I feel somewhat ambushed here, first time I’ve heard of this,” Holman said, adding that the unexpected motion put him at a disadvantage because he’d had no time to prepare a rebuttal.

Wales’ motion, Holman said, was “too broadly written.” And, whereas the council had spent a year planning the change, the idea of “throwing it off” in five minutes did not sit well with him.

Holman noted that while he he’d heard nothing about Wales’ motion until she’d made it, he had listened that evening to pre-written statements read aloud by council members Wales, Peloza and Trout-Manuel.

“This motion tonight kind of smacks of backroom politics, and to be honest with you, I’m a bit disappointed in my colleagues,” Holman said. “Obviously, some people were informed of this before coming in tonight.”

Holman said that one of the shortcomings of the old format was the tendency to start up “little power fights” between committees.

“One committee would pass a resolution with these modifications, and another committee would pass a similar resolution but with different modifications, leaving the staff in the middle, trying to find common language,” he said. “And we wouldn’t know what each committee was doing … This way, all of us hear the information from staff at one time. And if we are not getting the information in the study session, it’s because we are too quiet; we are not asking questions and getting answers back from staff at the time it is presented,” Holman said.

Holman recalled that one of his prime objections to the old way of doing business was that it was “seniority based,” putting junior council members at a disadvantage when the time came for chair assignments.

Bob Baggett and Claude DaCorsi supported the present format, but said they were open to “tweaking it.”

“Even though this takes more time, I believe it’s time well spent by the council members … that we should perhaps review this,” Baggett said.

The council will take up the issue in the coming weeks.