05/13/1991 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e City Attorney Tim Sercombe said Mr. Oberst has worked on the issue as staff. He said that in quasi-judicial matters, proponents give testimony; the oppo- nents give testimony; then staff is allowed to give any necessary explanation before rebuttal. He said this process was followed at the meeting two weeks ago of the joint elected officials at which Mr. Oberst spoke. Mr. MacDonald said the tone of Mr. Oberst's comments at this meeting seemed to rebut prior testimony. He said he did not wish in any way to denigrate Springfield staff but that in the future, when a jurisdiction is a co-appli- cant, staff should be a neutral third party. Mayor Miller said that if this was not a legal problem, the council should flag the issue and deal with it as a process issue in the future. Mr. Sercombe agreed. He said Mr. Oberst could speak at this meeting as staff and co-applicant without corrupting the process, as long as he did not offer new evidence at this time. Mr. Nicholson suggested that participants at this meeting might have violated the rule that no new evidence could be offered at this time. Mr. Sercombe said there was a difference between commenting and advocating. He said new facts could not be offered after a public hearing was closed but staff could offer explanation and answer questions. Mr. Nicholson asked if the council would be correct to interpret the state- ments of the State biologist as legitimate evidence to consider a "no" vote. Mr. Sercombe said it might not be valid to ask staff for clarification of information which came about as part of a public hearing because this might be considered new evidence. Ms. Childs said the Springfield City Council had taken formal action to ap- prove the Metro Plan amendments. She said the Lane County Commissioners had considered both amendments at a recent work session and had given them tenta- tive approval. She said the commissioners would take final action the fol- lowing week. In response to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Sercombe said ex parte contact did not apply to discussion among councilors. He said ex parte contact re- ferred to contacts with people outside the staff or council who had an inter- est in the proceeding and which occurred after the initiation of application. Mr. Gleason said it was not inappropriate or prejudicial for a public body to assert a position in the General Plan process. He said there were three jurisdictions involved in this process and members of the bodies of each had the right to discuss issues among themselves. Mr. Sercombe said Springfield and Eugene city councilors could deliberate jointly on the amendments to the Metro Plan. Ms. Bascom said the Housing Policy Board had declined to comment on the amendments because of the fact that a judicial process was involved. Ms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 2 .