My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/10/1989 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1989
>
05/10/1989 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 4:56:38 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:32:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/10/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br /> <br />Eugene City Council <br />McNutt Room--City Hall <br /> <br />May 10, 1989 <br />11:30 a.m. <br /> <br />COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Rob Bennett, Shawn Boles, Debra Ehrman, <br />Bobby Green, Freeman Holmer, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue. <br /> <br />The adjourned meeting of May 8, 1989, of the Eugene City Council was called <br />to order by Mayor Jeff Miller. <br /> <br />I. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER <br /> <br />A. Policy for Disclosing City Attorney Opinions <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer asked for clarification on the City's policy about disclosing <br />opinions from the City Attorney's Office to private citizens. He said Monte <br />Marshall had requested a copy of the City Attorney's opinion regarding the <br />Laurelwood Golf Course, but did not receive the opinion as requested. City <br />Attorney Tim Sercombe said that, in general, the City treats all attorney <br />opinions to staff persons or City Councilors as confidential unless those <br />persons wish to let others see the opinion. In Mr. Marshall's case, the <br />division manager decided against disclosing the opinion. Mr. Whitlow added <br />that Mr. Marshall did receive the Findings of the City Attorney, but the <br />opinion with complete legal reasoning and citations was withheld. He said it <br />is the City's policy not to disclose opinions to members of the public if <br />there is reason to believe the opinion might be used against the City in <br />future litigation. <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason explained that the City Attorney is the attorney to the City, not <br />the attorney to the citizens. The distinction is drawn when a citizen wants <br />to sue the City. He said the City does not want to do the legal research for <br />a citizen who wishes to sue the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer said opinions of the City Attorney are paid for by public funds <br />and thought the council should discuss the City's policy for disclosing this <br />information to the public at a future meeting. Mr. Boles agreed. Ms. Bascom <br />and Ms. Ehrman indicated that they were not interested in pursuing this issue <br />at a future meeting. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />May 10, 1989 <br /> <br />Page 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.