Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning a Code of Ethics for Public Officials; and Adding Sections <br /> 2.480, 2.482, 2.486, and 2. 488 to the Eugene Code, 1971 <br /> <br />City Manager Dennis Taylor clarified that he could not support the motion to amend the ordinance as it <br />unnecessarily burdened the City Charter. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein reminded the council that, procedurally, prior to tabling the motion, there had <br />been a motion to adopt the ordinance and that, following this, Councilor Bettman had sought to amend the <br />ordinance to add language. He stated that he had been instructed to provide counsel regarding the legality <br />of the amendment. Having done so, he said the motions before the council were a motion to adopt the <br />ordinance, Councilor Bettman's motion to amend, and the motion to amend the amendment. <br /> <br /> Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to amend the amendment <br /> to Section 2.486(1)(b) to read, as follows: ~A copy of the city attorney's report, to- <br /> gether with the city manager's response to the report, shall be forwarded to the City <br /> Council." <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman called the claim that her amendment would drastically impair the charter language <br />%xaggerated." She felt it would provide future councils with the ability to evaluate strictly on the issue of <br />conflict of interest the response of the City Manager and how it would be handled. She stressed it was an <br />infrequent occurrence. She thought the council had little information on matters of personnel and the <br />amendment would change policy and provide valuable information. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon asked Mr. Taylor if he felt comfortable with the amendment. Mr. Taylor responded <br />that he did not, and reiterated his recommendation that the ordinance be passed without further amendment. <br />He noted that city managers preceding him had, in word and deed, upheld ethical traditions. He asserted <br />that having ~just one bit" of information was limited and not of use and in no way enhanced the charter. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon agreed with Mr. Taylor, adding she opposed the amendment to the amendment. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly reiterated Councilor Bettman's assertion that this would only apply under a very narrow <br />circumstance. He reaffirmed that, should such a case arise, it would only come before the council as an <br />information item in a case where a conflict of interest regarding an executive manager had been found by <br />the city attorney to have merit. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Taylor said the amendment would unnecessarily erode <br />the City Charter and what was inherent in the City Manager form of government, with the City Manager as <br />the only employee under the supervision of the council. He questioned the usefulness of taking only one <br />piece of information, the substantiated complaint and resulting action by the City Manager in appraising <br />the City Manager's performance. Councilor Kelly asserted that it was the job of the employer to know <br />such information. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly asked what part of the City Charter this amendment would erode. Mr. Taylor responded <br />that it would erode the portion that instructed the City Manager to manage City employees. Councilor <br />Kelly reaffirmed his support for both the amendment and its amendment. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 10 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />