Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to refer Section 14, the section <br /> on conflict of interest, based on staff Option 3, taking into consideration <br /> comments about domestic partner, financial gain, outside discussion to the <br /> ballot in the November 2002 election. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion. He noted that the courts had recognized domestic <br />partnerships for years and added that financial interests could be created through such <br />commingling. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said conflict of interest became more problematic when talking about business partners. <br />He noted that a person could have numerous business partners and said that in limited <br />partnerships a person might not even know all of their partners nor could they expect partners to <br />willingly disclose financial information. He said it was almost an impossibility to enact anything <br />that included business partnerships. He said he would not vote for the motion and added that it <br />was in the best interest of the community to not prohibit any citizen who was qualified to serve <br />from serving whether or not they had a business interest with the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly stressed that Option 3 would not prevent anyone from serving if they were qualified. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by adding <br /> a sub section six to Option 3 with the following language added: No city <br /> official shaft grant, or make available, any special consideration, treatment, or <br /> advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to any other citizen. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the source of the motion was from the Ethics for Public Officials out of Salem <br />that was in Appendix G of the Citizen Charter Review Committee's report. She noted that there <br />was a similar provision in the charter of Snellville, California. She said the language stated what <br />people would naturally assume but was a positive statement to add to the charter. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner clarified that the meaning of the statement meant that all citizens are equal. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding whether such language had ever been <br />litigated, Mr. Lidz said he was unaware of any case where similar language had been litigated. He <br />said the language was general enough that it would stand mostly as a statement of principal but, <br />from a lawyers perspective, because the language was so vague, there was potential for <br />disagreement of its meaning. He recommended caution in adopting code language from other <br />cities into the charter of the City of Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she would be open to the idea, if the wording was not legally defensible, that it <br />could be deleted from the charter language. She offered a friendly amendment to her <br />amendment, which was accepted by the seconder, to add the phrase as long as it was legally <br />defensible. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ commented that he could support the statement but added that it was more broad than <br />just a conflict of interest statement and suggested putting it in its own section. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 2002 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />