Laserfiche WebLink
minor revisions. She noted that the council had left off at Section 14 at its previous charter work <br />session. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked staff for additional alternatives on conflict of interest revisions to the charter. He <br />said that all three of the options remove the "pecuniarily interested" concern that occupied <br />previous discussion. He expressed his preference for Option 3, saying it was similar to the <br />provisions adopted by Salem and Lake Oswego. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stressed the need for more clarification on what the problem was with the original <br />charter language. She said the charter was for the benefit of the citizens of Eugene and not for <br />the convenience of City officials. She stated that she would vote for the benefit of the citizens of <br />Eugene and expressed her preference for Option 3. She noted that she would have an <br />amendment to offer when the item came to a vote. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman raised concern over putting something on the ballot that would be perceived as <br />rolling back restrictions. She opined that such a ballot measure would not pass. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed his favor for Option 3. He commented that there would always be <br />perceived conflicts that did not rise to the level of true conflicts of interest and added that the <br />charter language could not cover every eventuality. He suggested that domestic partnerships as <br />well as spousal partnerships should be considered when defining conflicts of interest. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested just substituting the phrase "domestic partner" for "spouse" in the charter <br />language. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the language around expenses being paid for <br />with City funds and the reason the wording did not say "taxpayer funds," Mr. Lidz said the City only <br />had control over City funds. City Manager Carlson noted that City funds also included things other <br />than tax money, such as user fees. He said City funds was a broad definition. <br /> <br />Regarding the proposal on section 14, Mr. Pap8 said any of the options were better than what the <br />proposal currently was. He expressed a preference for Option 1 but would reluctantly vote for <br />Option 3. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding conflict of interest language in State statutes <br />that had evolved since Eugene's charter provision and the reason for duplicating what already <br />existed in State statutes in the charter, Mr. Lidz said that the language would stay in Eugene's <br />charter even if the State repealed its conflict of interest statutes. <br /> <br />Regarding Option 1, Ms. Bettman noted that there was a very strong charter provision in the <br />present charter for conflict of interest and added that Option 1 just reiterated that the City would <br />comply with the State statute which was substantially diminished from Eugene's charter. She said <br />the current charter language should be replaced with language that was at least as strong as the <br />existing language. She said that going with Option 1 would severely diminish the conflict of <br />interest provision in the charter. She said she would vote against Option 1. <br /> <br />Regarding Option 3(5), Ms. Bettman suggested adding "or avoiding detriment" to the end of the <br />statement. She stressed the importance of the council having a unanimous decision on what was <br />put on the ballot. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 2002 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />