Laserfiche WebLink
was on changes in State law, and concerns that someone would be assessed personal liability <br />without having done anything wrong. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if there was a trial process associated with Section 26. Mr. Lidz was not aware of <br />one. Mr. Pap~ asked what procedures were involved. Mr. Lidz did not know. He suggested <br />Circuit Court would probably be the appropriate venue to resolve the issues involved, but <br />acknowledged there was no set-out process in either charter or code. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the definition of "City official," Mr. Lidz said <br />that rather than defining the term, the CCRC referred to "elected and appointed officials" and <br />"officers and employees." He said there was no doubt that the councilors are City officials. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. PapS, Mr. Kelly pointed out that there were many things in the charter that had no <br />associated procedures. For example, there was no process for how a finding of conflict of interest <br />was made. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner wanted to ensure that the council had the opportunity to review the text that would be <br />referred to the voters. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said there had been no legal challenge, but there was a situation that might have <br />triggered the provision when the staff learned the Olive Street parking lot was purchased with <br />County library levy dollars rather than General Fund dollars. Until he raised the issue of the <br />funding source, those proceeds were not intended for use on the library, which could have a <br />violation. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that Mr. Meisner's remarks illustrated the need to be careful with the wording <br />of the provisions. She observed that the CCRC never had the opportunity to discuss the City <br />Attorney's concerns, and determined from Mr. Lidz that the recommendation before the council <br />was the work of several municipal attorneys. Ms. Nathanson said that unless it could be <br />determined the LOC's recommendation was undermining the CCRC's intent, she preferred to <br />adopt the City Attorney's text. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart agreed with Ms. Nathanson. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson cited as a possible example of where the current provision might be relevant that of <br />the County's approval of Road Fund money to assist the City in the construction of parking at the <br />Airport. The board believed that the action it took at that time was legal. Subsequently, the board <br />was taken to court by former Commissioner Bill Rogers and its action pronounced illegal. He <br />believed the charter language, if applicable to the board, could have allowed a citizen to take a <br />commissioner to court for personal liability. The OLC had attempted to address situations where a <br />body believed it was acting legally by the changes in State law. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said that provision addressed employees as well, and he expressed concern where an <br />employee could be financially damaged for innocent behavior. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman reiterated her previous argument that the provision had been in place for three <br />decades and there had been no problem. She suggested that if the voters perceived the new text <br />as a weakening of the existing charter, it could be defeated. That would mean the existing <br />provision would remain in place without the important mechanism that allowed citizens to hold City <br />officials accountable. The existing charter language means that public officials would have to <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />