02/11/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Gleason stated that this could become a Pandora's Box at the Federal level. The City will make recommendations, but will want to leave its options open. Gary Long stated that in 60 days, the City wants a solution to be close at hand. The State is also looking at different options and those will be shared with the council. Ms. Wooten stated that every 30 days the council could look at the situation and make a decision rather than have an alternative cut off date. It would be appropriate to send a telegram to the congressional delega- tion while they are in session. Gary Long noted that this contact would be completed promptly. Mr. Haws asked about terminating the program now and reinstating it when the problem is solved. Gary Long stated that this would be very disruptive. Contractor-to-agent status is the only solution at this time to get the City out of its current conflict with the State Constitution. It could mean 4 to 6 months of redoing the program. Mr. Gleason stated that to run a quality program, long-range relationships must be continued, but if these sorts of problems continue, then the City may have to recommend discontinuation. Mr. Haws asked if the City was at fault or if this problem was a result of Federal government actions. Mr. Gleason responded that it was not the City's fault, but the Federal government put the City into the situation of lending its credit, which is in violation of the State Constitu- tion. Mr. Haws said that he is not sure he wants to continue the CETA program. Mr. Gleason noted that he is willing to take that responsibility. Mr. Haws asked if he would assume the financial obligations. Mr. Gleason said that he would, as that is what he gets paid for. Mr. Haws asked him if he was in a financial position where he could cover all of the financial obligation. Mr. Gleason responded that he is not, but he is not sure there will be any finan~ial obligation. The agent relationship keeps one from being obligated if something goes wrong, and there would be no more risk with this than any other council role. His concern is to make sure the council is adequately informed. Mr. Haws asked if future responsibility would be terminated if the program were terminated. Mr. Gleason responded that it would. Ms. Wooten noted that this should not increase the likelihood of claims against the council any more than now exists. She felt the council has a moral responsibility to this program. Mr. Obie indicated agreement with Ms. Wooten, but stated that he is unwilling to extend the liability forever, although he would do this for 60 days. He agrees with the staff recommendation and feels there should be a resolution in 60 days or in the near future at that point. People involved in the program should be aware of the possibility of termination. Ms. Wooten suggested that the motion could be to review and renew the contract every 60 days and she would prefer not to build in a termination date. Mr. Lindberg supported Ms. Wooten's logic. Mr. Long stated that this situation should not be continued as it currently exists, and the question is whether the council is willing to continue the program with the suggested changes for a short time due to the increased risk for the council and the City. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 1981 Page 7