My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/10/1991 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1991
>
07/10/1991 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2007 1:46:54 AM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:59:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/10/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />e to attend the Independence Bowl. Travel expenses were paid by the State of <br /> Oregon through the University of Oregon. <br /> Mr. Gary said that there are several legal questions which the council must <br /> consider in making its decision: 1) Does reimbursement of travel expenses <br /> constitute a gift?; 2) was the Mayor traveling in his official capacity?; and <br /> 3) Should the Mayor's spouse be included within the exception? <br /> Mr. Gary said that crucial to this case, the council needs to determine who <br /> should decide whether the Mayor was traveling in his official capacity. <br /> He said the council must also determine whether it has a legal interest in <br /> this issue. If the council concludes that the fact of the investigation into <br /> these issues and their ultimate decisions are of concern to the City because <br /> of their impact that an adverse resolution of these issues would have on the <br /> Office of the Mayor, City Council, or the City itself, then it would be ap- <br /> propriate for the council to direct the City Attorney to defend the interest <br /> of the Mayor of the City of Eugene. <br /> Mr. Gary said that the argument being made by the Springfield City Attorney <br /> on behalf of Mayor Morrisette concerns whether the University of Oregon can <br /> ever have an interest distinct from the general public. <br /> Mr. Gary noted that representation of the individual Jeff Miller is different <br /> from representation of the Office of the Mayor. While the City Attorney's <br /> Office would be representing the Office of the Mayor, it may be prudent for <br /> Mayor Miller to seek individual counsel. <br />e Mr. Robinette said that it is clear the that City has a vital interest in <br /> this issue. <br /> Mr. Robinette moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to direct the <br /> City Attorney to represent the Office of the Mayor issue. <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Gleason said that it is his <br /> understanding that an inquiry was made through the University of Oregon to <br /> the Attorney General's Office about whether this was an appropriate expendi- <br /> ture of funds. At the time, the decision was made that this would be an <br /> appropriate expenditure. Mr. Gleason said that he also believes that an <br /> inquiry was made to the City Attorney's Office at that time about this issue; <br /> similarly, the decision was yes. <br /> Mr. Boles said that if it could be determined that the Mayor spoke with the <br /> City Attorney's Office on this issue, then it could be proven that the Mayor <br /> saw this as an official duty. <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Gary said that he does not <br /> know if the Mayor consulted with the City Attorney about the status of his <br /> wife's expenses. <br />e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 1991 Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.