Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Clark asked if Eugene Weekly articles and letters to the editor would be included in the record. Ms. <br />Jerome said if any of the councilors had read Eugene Weekly articles, the substance would need to be in the <br />record. <br /> <br />In response to questions from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Jerome said any councilors having ex parte contacts between <br />October 15 and the public hearing would disclose those contacts at the hearing, in addition to the written <br />disclosures that would be included in the AIS. She said the purpose of disclosure was to provide the public <br />with the substance of those contacts so there was an opportunity to rebut that information. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if councilors would need to disclose reading Register-Guard or Eugene Weekly articles if <br />they were in the record. He also asked for guidance on which conversations should be disclosed. Ms. <br />Jerome said it was only necessary to indicate that articles had been read; specific articles and dates did not <br />need to be specified as they would all be in the record. She said that conversations with staff were excluded, <br />but all others had to be disclosed along with any site visits. She said if the conversation related to <br />information or opinion, it had to be disclosed, although it was only necessary to relate the substance of the <br />conversation; specific names and dates were not required. She said to err on the side of over-inclusion was <br />preferred as the purpose was to ensure that the public was fully aware of the substance of all relevant <br />communications. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked about disclosure of television programs or emails to the mayor and council. Ms. Jerome <br />said the substance of any programs a councilor viewed should be disclosed and any emails should be <br />forwarded to her or Ms. Hansen if they were read. <br /> <br />Regarding site visits, Mr. Poling said that he drove in the vicinity of Beltline and Delta Highway frequently <br />and it was unavoidable to think of traffic issues, whether related to the hospital or not. He asked if playing <br />golf on the property would be considered a site visit. Ms. Jerome replied that she did not believe driving or <br />playing golf in the area would be a basis for remand if it was not disclosed, but it was preferable to disclose <br />it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman remarked that not all conversations regarding McKenzie-Willamette were relevant and asked <br />Ms. Jerome to define the discrete topic that constituted ex parte contact and would need to be disclosed. <br />Ms. Jerome said the contact would need to concern the land use applications. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome said just reading the subject line of an email or a <br />newspaper headline would not need to be disclosed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor asked if every conversation he had with a McKenzie-Willamette employee had to be disclosed or <br />only those that related to the applications. Ms. Jerome replied that only those specific to the land use <br />applications needed to be disclosed. She said that when the council reviewed the Planning Commission’s <br />recommendations and saw the criteria and policies that would apply, that could jog someone’s memory <br />about a conversation they initially thought was not subject to disclosure. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said that occasionally she had been in situations where she could not avoid hearing a <br />discussion of McKenzie-Willamette. Ms. Jerome said dates and locations were not important; it was the <br />substance of those communications that had to be disclosed so that everyone was on an equal footing with <br />respect the information. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />