CC Minutes - 05/29/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the motion. She thought that the issue in question was terribly important and wanted to see even stronger language related to conflict of interest in the charter. She said that the legal counsel's recommendation took all conflict of interest provisions out of the charter and codified it in ordinance. She thought that was a substantial difference. Ms. Bettman believed the issue would be controversial and preferred to see something modeled on what Salem had. Mr. Lidz said that staff recommended the deletion of the second sentence not because he thought it would be better to have the conflict of interest provisions in ordinance rather than charter, but because the second sentence retains the problematic phrase "pecuniarily interested," which had no commonly understood meaning. Mr. Lidz said the sentence also refers to potential or actual conflicts of interest, which was in State statute. It was not clear from the language whether the intent was to incorporate the State law interpretation of those terms or to use something different. If it was to incorporate the State law interpretations, there was potentially an argument that it locked in a current interpretation rather than a future interpretation. Mr. Lidz said that staff had assumed there would always be a State Ethics Code in place to address what was not covered by the ordinance or charter, and the question was the interplay between the charter provisions and the State provisions. Mayor Torrey expressed concern that the councilors most affected by the City's current conflict of interest provisions were not present for the discussion. He questioned if the council was setting itself up for the same discussion when those councilors returned, and asked if the discussion should proceed. The council agreed to proceed. Mr. Meisner said he had some discomfort with the council adopting a code of ethics through an ordinance. He said the proposed charter text gave the council authority to enact a code of ethics without being clear as to what was to be addressed in the code of ethics. He did not think voters would be comfortable with that. He said that second sentence indicated the code of ethics went beyond the concept of pecuniary interest. He asked what else would be included in such a code. Mr. Meisner suggested that staff investigate what other communities that done regarding the topic. Ms. Taylor did not understand objections to the phrase "pecuniary interest." Mr. Lidz reminded her of the council's recent vote on a resolution to transfer control of the AT&T cable franchise to Comcast. Councilors with two shares of AT&T stock would have a pecuniary interest in that decision. Ms. Taylor suggested that in such a case, the councilors should not participate in the vote. She did not want to take language related to conflict of interest out of the charter. She thought the language should be clear, and not just a statement the council should adopt a code. She said that there should be something in the charter, and it should be as strong as possible. Mr. Farr observed that he was not aware of all the stocks he owned through his 401(3)(k). He agreed with Ms. Taylor that the language should be strong and not be subject to interpretation. He also did not favor the language in front of the council, and asked what should be done next. Mr. Lidz said that staff could draft some language to address the concerns expressed by the councilors. Mayor Torrey said that he had purchased land on West 11th Avenue and was taken to the State Ethics Board because he voted to support Hyundai coming to town. He wanted to ensure that such issues were addressed adequately. He wanted language in the charter but wanted it to be MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2002 Page 7 Work Session