Laserfiche WebLink
clear so people knew what they were getting into. He asked if councilors would be precluded <br />from voting in the case of a potential conflict of interest, or if the councilor would merely identify <br />that conflict. He agreed new language was probably needed. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey pointed out that there were councilors who were covered by the Public Employees <br />Retirement System, and he doubted whether they knew what stocks was in their accounts. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the discussion indicated the item was not a housekeeping item, and he urged the <br />council to vote the motion down. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that there must be other cities with <br />a strong desire for such language who had reached a reasonable legal resolution. He suggested <br />that the council direct staff to do some more work on the issue. He believed the Salem provision <br />was quite broad, and it was implemented through an adopted code of ethics. Ms. Walston <br />referred the council to that provision, which was included in the committee's final report. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly. She said the City must find an approach that was <br />comfortable to the community and that did not discourage people from running for office. She <br />suggested the council postpone action on the committee's recommendation until it had further <br />discussion. She questioned why the legal counsel, rather than developing a clarification of the <br />term "pecuniarily interested" and how it would be applied to clarify the existing charter language, <br />instead proposed to winnow the text and take the concept out of the charter. She preferred to <br />maintain the intent of the language in the charter now to the best of the council's ability. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr left the meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson determined from Ms. Walston that the council would see new text related to <br />conflict of interest before the end of the review process. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 5:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct staff to take the <br /> necessary action and prepare the required documents to place the <br /> noncontroversial items on the November 2002 ballot. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the motion was specific to housekeeping items only and did not preclude the <br />council from adding items at a later time. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion without assuming November 2002 was the best time to place <br />items on the ballot. He wanted more information about other measures from other jurisdictions <br />that might appear on that ballot. Mr. Meisner called for consistency in the use of language, <br />noting some recommendations were referred to as noncontroversial and some as housekeeping; <br />the council needed to have more specificity about what was involved in each recommendation. <br />He also wanted to ensure the material to be placed on the ballot was readable and <br />understandable. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wanted all the items from the committee on the November 2002 ballot. She did not <br />think the issues should be postponed beyond that. She did not support a September 2002 <br />election because she did not believe that people were paying attention at that time. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson also was interested in having staff recommendations on how the material could <br />be presented to the public in a form that was clear and obvious. She asked if the Public <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />