Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Clark said he had been diligent in trying to avoid ex parte contacts, but asked what he should do if he <br />suddenly remembered a contact he had overlooked in his disclosure. Ms. Jerome said that needed to be <br />disclosed when the information was recollected. She urged councilors to make every effort to disclose all <br />contacts before the public hearing; disclosures after the public opportunity to rebut it had not met the spirit <br />of the law. She also emphasized the need to limit contacts following the hearing and during deliberations. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked about disclosure of information that was not about the discrete topic, but might affect <br />decision-making. Ms. Jerome replied that the court might look at that issue, but at this point in the process <br />councilors could not be certain what information might affect decision-making. She advised being as <br />inclusive as possible when making disclosures, but contacts that had no substance were not an issue. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Jerome said that contacts on or after April 19, 2006, were <br />subject to disclosure and that included any contacts that he or Mr. Clark might have had prior to being on <br />the council. She would assist them in addressing that issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome said there were actual and potential conflicts of interest and she was not aware of any <br />circumstances that would create an actual conflict for any member of the council. Regarding potential <br />conflicts, she noted that Mr. Pryor’s wife had been employed by McKenzie-Willamette, but because she no <br />longer was, there did not appear to be any potential or actual conflict of interest. She said there could be <br />allegations that Mr. Pryor might be biased in the matter and asked if he felt he could be fair and impartial. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor stated he believed he could be fair and impartial. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome noted that Ms. Ortiz could have a potential conflict of interest as a current employee of <br />PeaceHealth. She said that information needed to be on the record and asked if Ms. Ortiz felt she might be <br />biased. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz indicated she felt she could be fair and impartial. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome determined that no councilors felt unable to be fair and impartial. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon noted that she had served on a number of committees related to PeaceHealth and chaired the <br />Children’s Miracle Network Auction. She asked if those posed a conflict of interest. Ms. Jerome said there <br />was no actual conflict as Ms. Solomon was not paid for her efforts and as long as that information was in <br />the record and Ms. Solomon felt she could be fair and impartial, there was no concern. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said he was on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, which had properties <br />that might be purchased, and asked if that constituted a conflict or bias. Ms. Jerome said that did not need <br />to be declared but she encouraged him to put that information on the record. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark stated he had been contacted by people on both sides of the issue and wondered if that could be <br />considered to have created a bias. Ms. Jerome asked if Mr. Clark felt he could be fair and impartial. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark stated he could be fair and impartial. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if conversations among councilors or the fact that someone had been a patient at <br />McKenzie-Willamette had to be disclosed. Ms. Jerome said that conversations did not need to be disclosed <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />