|
<br /> ""Il
<br />e !a 7 '-I
<br /> 8/23/71
<br />I to respond to the request ,for payment of.attorney fees.
<br /> Mr. Williams asked if, payment would not be violati'ng the ruling of the judge, and
<br /> would not appeal to a higher court be proper.
<br /> City Attorney replied that this was discretionary on the part ,of the judge, and
<br /> payment would not violate the judges rule.
<br /> Councilman Mohr felt the suit went bey.ond what the Council originally had intended,
<br /> and felt perhaps it was this that caused the two locals to have excessive costs.
<br /> He felt perhaps the Council was responsible beyond the legal case.
<br /> Mr. Red Smith, Local l724A AFSCME, outlined reasons for their request, and their
<br /> feeling that payment of their attorney fees was an obligation of city officials.
<br />e Frank Jackson, Firefighters Local 851, said they were asking specifically for
<br /> their fees for defense of the charter, not for the writ. He explained their feeling
<br /> that the charter was a mandate of the people, and they were pepresenting the people,
<br /> and he, therefore felt they should not have to bear the burden of the fees for that
<br /> defense. He agreed that the legal question might be subject to debate, but he felt
<br /> there was a moral obligation on the part of the City Council to reimburse the amount
<br /> spent in defense of the charter.
<br />I Mr. Williams commented that Mr. Jackson's presentation had been most eloquent, and
<br /> in any other situation he would recommend acceptance of the request. However,
<br /> acceptance of this request would open up a pr~cedent that could haunt the Council for
<br /> a long time to come. It must be viewed not as an internal ~atter between a group of
<br /> employes ',and. the city, ,but a law sui t between a group of ci tizens and the city. If
<br /> the city takes on payment of costs of lawsuits in which it is a party when the judge
<br /> has not said this was an obligation, we would be opening up a whole area of decision.
<br /> Mrs. Campbell reasoned that these were the city's employes, and in most other cases
<br /> brought against the city, the suit would not be brought by city employes.
<br /> Mrs. Beal suggested that the attorney's get together and try to work out a satis-
<br /> factory solution. Mr. Jackson reminded the Council that this would entail further attorney's
<br /> , I
<br /> fees for the Firefighters Union.
<br /> Councilman Mohr reiterated his feeling that the administration went far beyond what
<br /> the Council authorized in terms of vigorously pursuing this matter. He asked for a
<br /> clarification whether the unions were required to do, something out of the ordinary
<br /> to defend themselves.
<br /> Mrs. Beal did not think the City Council was asked for its opinion how this law suit
<br /> was to ',be -brought and defended in the first place, or that they clearly understood
<br /> the legal poistion that would be taken by the City Attorney.
<br />I Mrs. Campbell suggested that the Council ,authorize expenditure of this payment and
<br /> see what happened.
<br /> Mr. Mohr felt there were questions to be answered and felt no, motion should be
<br /> passed at this time.
<br /> Mr. Teague felt the Council might set a precedent which might be far greater reaching
<br />e ,than what. they were proposing now. He agreed that ,the Council should consider the
<br /> matter fur.ther.,
<br /> Continuation of discussion at regular meeting of August 23 - Mr. John McMahon,
<br /> Eugene Firefighters, reiterated their position regarding expenses defending the
<br /> charter amendment.. He did not believe it was the intent of the Council to become
<br /> so legally involved or that the employe groups expend union assets defending something
<br /> voted on by the people of Eugene. He thought the City had a moral obligation to reimburse
<br /> the unions for expending these fees.
<br /> Red Smith, Local l724A AFSCME, commented on the memo he had distributed to Councilmen
<br /> at the Committee meeting, and said he would be happy to answer any questions councilmen
<br /> mi'ght, have.
<br /> In answer to Mr. Mohr, Assistant City Attorney said there would be a problem if the
<br /> City were to attack a charter provision. Who would respond and who would be the
<br />I responsible party? He did not think there was a general rule on which to make a
<br /> decision. He explained to Mrs. Beal the, request of the city for,adeclaratory judg-
<br /> ment of the court so that matters may be clarified before the situation becomes more
<br /> complicated.
<br /> Mr. Teague moved seconded by ,Mr.-I Williams that the demand for reimbursement for attorney's
<br /> be denied. Messrs. Teague, Hershner, Gribskov and Williams voted yes. Mr. Mohr, Mrs.
<br /> Campbell, 'Mrs. Beal and Mr. McDonald voted no. Motion carried, with Mayor Anderson
<br /> voting aye to break the tie.
<br />e
<br /> 8/23/71 - 2
<br /> :
<br /> ...
<br />
|