Laserfiche WebLink
Standards and Practices Commission. Mr. Klein indicated he would followup on the question. Mr. <br />Meisner indicated he was not interested in expanding the ordinance to all standing committees, <br />just those under the purview of the Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling shared Ms. Bettman's interest in covering the Planning Commission and Budget <br />Committee in the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if there was a way for the complaint form to include a declaration that the <br />complaint being filed was true and accurate to reduce the potential of frivolous complaints. Mr. <br />Klein said that he would follow up on the question. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor also wanted to see members of the Budget Committee and Planning Commission <br />included in the ordinance. She believed that the ordinance before the council was weaker than <br />the text approved by the voters. Ms. Taylor asked if the City had received any complaints against <br />city councilors or appointed officials. Mr. Klein recalled a complaint made against a former mayor <br />more than ten years ago for participating in a trip to a college football bowl game, but outside that <br />he could recall no ethics complaints against either elected or appointed officials. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly was wary of instituting a penalty for false reporting from a First Amendment standpoint <br />and because of the chilling effect he thought it would have on those seeking to make reports. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested another reason for the council to receive copies of complaints was because <br />the Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission had lost much of its investigative <br />capacity, and it might be that a complaint could be sent to the agency, but there was no one there <br />to read it. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Klein noted the provision in Salem's code that <br />prevented the disclosure of confidential information learned in executive sessions. He concurred <br />there was no State prohibition against such disclosure. There may be statutes specifically <br />addressing certain circumstances, such as personnel issues. For the majority of executive <br />sessions, a councilor's disclosure of confidential information violated no statute or ordinance, <br />although it could create a legal liability for the City. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson indicated she raised the issue of confidentiality in executive sessions specifically <br />because of the issue of legal liability. She thought it inappropriate for councilors to reveal what <br />was said in an executive session after agreeing to participate in such a session. She said she <br />would wait for more council discussion before suggesting any changes to the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner shared Ms. Nathanson's concerns regarding the disclosure of confidential information <br />learned at executive sessions. He thought the inclusion of a provision related to the topic would <br />be a way of enforcing the council's internal rules. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ also was interested in a provision regarding confidentiality at executive sessions, given <br />the lack of a State penalty. He said that it would be good to have a way to enforce the council's <br />rules. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for a third round of council comments. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2003 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />