CC Minutes - 06/26/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap~ questioned whether the council wanted the provision to apply to felonies that occurred outside Oregon. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the discussion highlighted the hard work done by the committee, and how the issues, when examined closely, could lead to many directions. She thought the work accomplished by the committee in one year was extraordinary, and thanked the committee. She reiterated her long-held belief that the committee was well-balanced. Ms. Bettman noted the range of felony crimes in Oregon, which included some lesser crimes. She did not want to see a partisan council remove a councilor for recording a concert surreptitiously, for example. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend Section 23(2)(e) to read "after election, conviction of an offense pertaining to the office." Ms. Nathanson supported the amendment as it would limit the council's authority to those things most immediately germane to the council. Mr. Rayor indicated opposition to the amendment, saying that a felony was fairly egregious, and he thought the recall process difficulty to rely on as it was a difficult process to mount. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Mr. Kelly voting no. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer Section 26, the section on liability for unauthorized expenditures, as proposed by the CCRC, to the November 2002 ballot. Mr. Kelly reported that the City Attorney proposed a complete rewrite of Section 26 to clean-up the language and reflect a change by the 2001 State legislature, which made the liability issue relevant only when done knowingly or with gross negligence. That text was included in the meeting materials. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Lidz if the City had examples of City officials being subject to the existing provision. Mr. Lidz said no. Ms. Bettman said that given the existing provision was not a problem and the changes recommended by the City Attorney were not required by State statute, recommended by the CCRC, or demanded by the community, she would not support them. She supported the CCRC recommendation. Mr. Lidz said that the provision was before the council because of changes in State law, which had the support of the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). He had wanted to call to the council's attention an opportunity to make a parallel change in the charter. There was nothing that compelled the change. He had the same concern the LOC did, in that the provision was potentially a substantial personal liability for a councilor or mayor. As far as he knew, he reiterated, it never had been invoked. Ms. Bettman questioned whether the LOC had offered similar input on other provisions of the charter. Mr. Lidz said no, those were not matters the LOC offered input on. The focus of the LOC MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2002 Page 7 Work Session