Laserfiche WebLink
2. WORK SESSION: AMENDMENT TO EUGENE CODE RELATING TO INTERESTS <br /> IN CONTRACTS <br /> <br />Mr. Klein reviewed information related to Eugene Charter and Eugene Code provisions about <br />interest in City contracts by City Councilors. He noted that provisions of the charter were <br />intended to prohibit councilors from using the office for personal gain and that provisions of the <br />code were an attempt to provide definition for statements in the charter. He pointed out that the <br />proposed ordinance gave further clarity to the code by stating that the prohibition for councilors to <br />have pecuniary interest in contracts would refer only to those contracts made or amended during <br />a councilor's term of office. He stated that concern regarding the issue had been raised by staff, <br />not councilors-elect, to prepare for any potential questions which might be raised about existing <br />contracts. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner stated that he did not fully understand all of the consequences of the proposed <br />ordinance and was unsure of how he would vote on it. He suggested, for example, that it could <br />be difficult to determine whether long-term growth in the value of a business was due to <br />contracts it held with the City that were in effect before a councilor-owner took office. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said that he did not believe Oregon conflict of interest statutes applied to municipal <br />matters, but that they were a potential problem which all councilors needed to understand. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein stated that the proposed ordinance did not alter the provisions of the City Charter. He <br />said that the ordinance would not affect conflict of interest questions which councilors could <br />continue to face. He said that when actual conflicts became known, it was the responsibility of a <br />councilor to recuse her/himself and not participate in relevant deliberations. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov stated that the concern was complicated because it would be important <br />to not penalize persons for volunteering to serve the City as a councilor. She said she did not <br />believe the issue would be significant because the City Council did not normally make contract <br />decisions. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that consideration of the ordinance be postponed until an actual contract <br />interest issue was evident. Mr. Johnson replied that it might be better to deal with the issue <br />before councilors who might be affected by it began to serve. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar asked if the proposed ordinance dealt with the concern raised in the agenda item <br />summary that the City should be allowed flexibility to contract with a company partially owned by <br />a councilor if that company provided the lowest cost service or product. Mr. Klein pointed out <br />that the City Charter precluded such a contract only if a councilor was receiving a monetary <br />return from the contract. Mr. Tollenaar noted, in reply, that provisions of the Eugene Charter <br />were more comprehensive than related State statutes. He said that the State provisions <br />recognized that rural and small town situations would not allow an absolute prohibition of contract <br />interest by elected officials. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked why the seemingly repetitive phrase "...pecuniarily interested in any contract the <br />expenses of which are to be paid..." was included in the existing section of the Eugene Code. <br />Mr. Klein explained that the legislative history of the phrase had not been able to be determined. <br />Mr. Johnson stated that a general "rule of thumb" in developing legislation was to not make more <br />changes in an existing ordinance than was required. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 23, 1998 Page 3 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />