Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Farr said that another question that arose was the resources an established firm would have in <br />comparison to an in-house attorney. Mr. Tollenaar agreed that was an issue and Eugene was lucky <br />to have the current contract firm that it did. On balance, however, the committee came to the <br />conclusion that the City would be better off hiring an in-house attorney to supervise and evaluate <br />the City's legal activities, anticipating that the great bulk of legal services would be provided as <br />they were now. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Tollenaar said the development of the in-house <br />attorney function would be subject to the same budgetary forces as other City services. The <br />committee did not propose arbitrary limits to the number of attorneys that could be hired. Mr. <br />Pap~ likened the position to a medical gatekeeper and said it might work well for Eugene. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if the committee discussed options for the council to meet department head <br />candidates. Currently, the council could not meet candidates, even on panels. He noted that the <br />text describing the repeal of protected ordinances referred to a majority of councilors while the <br />draft charter referred to a unanimous vote; he asked why. He added he had great concerns about <br />that, as the section purported to bind future councilors. Ms. Colbath said that the committee did <br />not discuss other ways to involve the council in the hiring process. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner questioned the distinction between hiring and firing, asking why the standard was <br />different. Ms. Colbath thought that the process recommended by the CCRC provided for the <br />discussion of why a department head hiring was taking place. Mr. Meisner said that the <br />recruitment process was determined before candidates' names were known, and he thought the <br />CCRC's recommendations had precluded any council involvement in the selection process at all. <br />Mr. Tollenaar believed that the recruitment process provided for opportunities for the council to be <br />involved, at least in terms of meeting the top two or three candidates. Mr. Meisner disagreed. Mr. <br />Kelly concurred, saying it had not happened. Mr. Johnson recollected that a council in the near <br />past was invited to meet police chief candidates. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said he believed that there was a substantive difference between hiring and firing. A <br />hiring was an event unlikely to create as many "waves" as a firing, and he thought the council <br />should be more interested in the validity of the city manager's decision to terminate than to hire. <br />Mr. Meisner disagreed. Ms. Colbath said the CCRC discussed the issue, and thought there would <br />be continuing involvement on the part of the council. Committee members did not mean to <br />prohibit the council's involvement totally. Mr. Cassidy spoke to the issue, saying that attracting <br />good recruits to the position in question was critical to the committee's discussion. <br /> <br />Regarding the council's ability to repeal a protected ordinance, Ms. Colbath said the committee <br />discussed requiring a two-thirds majority but agreed that the provision would only be used by the <br />public if it had a high confidence level the council would not overturn an ordinance unless there <br />was something significantly wrong with it. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />