CC Minutes - 06/09/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cases the council has an official role to perform that it did not have with regard to other councilors or the mayor. Mr. Kelly asked if a complaint referred to the State was a matter of the public record. Mr. Klein did not believe a complaint became a public record until the State had done preliminary investigation. In the hands of the City, it was a public record. Mr. Kelly noted the difference between the voter-approved charter text related to conflict of interest and the text used in ORS 244, and determined from Mr. Klein that he believed they were equivalent. Ms. Bettman asked if the person submitting a complaint to the City Attorney's Office received anonymity. Mr. Klein said not unless the person requested that information be kept confidential when the complaint was filed, and the City, to the extent allowed by the Public Records law, was allowed to do so. He said that most times when someone submitted something to the City, it was a public record. If the City agreed to anonymity, the complainant's name would be concealed but the complaint would still be a matter of public record. He said that the issue of confidentiality was not affected by whom in the City received the complaint. Ms. Bettman found the ordinance confusing in terms of what individuals the State law applied to, and asked if the City would be writing administrative rules for the ordinance that described the process of complaint submission, the laws related to confidentiality, and a list of the individuals to whom the ordinance's provisions applied. Mr. Klein did not know if there was a need for administrative rules, adding that did not preclude the City from preparing a packet of information describing what the ordinance did and the processes involved. Ms. Bettman encouraged such an approach and wanted the information prepared before the public hearing so people did not have to study and interpret the State statute. Ms. Bettman wanted the ordinance to apply to all appointed members of City boards and commissions, especially to standing committees to the council. She cited the Planning Commission and Budget Committee as particular concerns. Ms. Nathanson determined from Mr. Klein that the ordinance did not address the nondisclosure of confidential information such as that heard by the council at an executive session. She said that the council was routinely advised not to share such confidential information and asked what would happen if a councilor did disclose such information. She pointed out that such a disclosure could have financial implications for a City property transaction. She suggested that such a provision might be needed. Mr. Pap~ asked if there was a penalty for citizens filing frivolous complaints. He believed there needed to be consequences for such situations. Mr. Klein said that he would want to think about the issue. He said that attempting to determine bad faith was a difficult task and the issue had some First Amendment implications. He suggested that the council could amend the ordinance in the future if it determined such complaints were being filed. Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Kelly that his previous questions related to his interest in the council receiving a copy of the investigative report regardless of whether a complaint was determined to have merit. Mr. Meisner said that he had no objection one way or the other. Regarding Ms. Bettman's concern about the application of the ordinance to appointed officials, he asked what appointed officials were currently subject to report to the Oregon Government MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2003 Page 4 Work Session