Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pryor remarked that he was not opposed to obtaining a second opinion, but he did not want to violate <br />the contract or Charter and was concerned with making the opinion from Beery Elsner the only legal opinion <br />the committee could follow, as stated in the last sentence of the motion. He wanted to retain flexibility and if <br />a second opinion was obtained it should inform and not regulate the committee’s process. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz said if the council passed the motion he wanted to investigate its implications from a legal <br />perspective and understand the intended role of the second opinion. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark did not object to having more opinions available to better inform the council’s decisions, but <br />shared Mr. Pryor’s concern that the role of any additional opinions be appropriately defined so they were not <br />substituted for the City Attorney’s opinion. He questioned why the council would want to obtain another <br />opinion, given the current fiscal environment. He asked Mr. Ruiz to address Ms. Bettman’s assertion that <br />the City’s current legal counsel had a conflict of interest. Mr. Ruiz felt it was important to at least obtain an <br />opinion from the City Attorney before obtaining another opinion. He said the contract with Harrang Long <br />did address conflicts of interest as defined by the Oregon Code of Professional Responsibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark noted that Ms. Bettman had emailed her discussion and rational for her proposed motion to other <br />councilors and suggested that conducting council business via email should be discussed at a future process <br />session. He asked if the conflict of interest Ms. Bettman referred to was perceived or actual. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that her motion was distributed on Friday morning and felt that provided ample time for <br />attorneys to respond to the council’s questions. She said that councilors were raising questions that could <br />not be answered in order to deflect support for her proposal. She said the independence of the opinion was <br />important and Beery Elsner had a statewide reputation and was not connected to the City. She cited several <br />instances that she felt demonstrated the current law firm’s conflict of interest, including a refusal to respond <br />th <br />to her questions at a November 17 council meeting. She said a contract provision that prohibited obtaining <br />another legal opinion was dictating public policy. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor reiterated that he did not object to a second opinion, but would want to know the cost and whether <br />obtaining one would present problems with either the Charter or current contract. He would not support the <br />motion because those questions had not been answered and the motion would make the opinion from Beery <br />Elsner the only opinion available to the committee. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Pryor’s remarks. He did not perceive there to be problems with the current <br />firm and had not heard specific conflicts of interest identified that would preclude them from rendering an <br />opinion, only the appearance of a conflict and implications of how people spoke at meetings. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman reiterated that the Charter amendment was specific about the fact the Police Auditor oversight <br />should be independent of the City Manager chain of command. She said the City Manager executed and <br />implemented the contract with the City Attorney and she believed that an interpretation of the Charter <br />amendment should be obtained from an independent firm, instead of the existing firm. She recalled that <br />there was a penalty that the firm charged the City under its contract, but thought that fee might be waived in <br />the best interests of the public. She said Harrang Long was able to represent clients who were in adversarial <br />roles to the City through waivers from the City Manager and the City likewise should be able to rely on the <br />firm’s cooperation to obtain another opinion. She opined that the City Manager’s reliance on Harrang <br />Long’s interpretation of the Charter to prevent the council from contracting for another legal opinion was a <br />blatant conflict of interest. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />