Laserfiche WebLink
representing the City of Eugene. Mr. Fart hoped the proposal would not result in a divisive community <br />argument. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson was interested in the concept of an in-house counsel that managed a basket of services. <br />However, she had seen no evidence that the concept would save money or produce a better result. She had <br />previously considered that the position would assist the manager, but now questioned whether it would hinder <br />communication because it would create a new third party through which employees must act. She said that the <br />City had taken steps to reduce its legal costs, and asked how that process was working. Mr. Carlson said that <br />the City had decided to use an in-house City Prosecutor and was in the process of filling the position. The <br />position would act in a manner similar to what was envisioned by the committee. The recruitment process did <br />not result in a definitive candidate because the two finalists had very different, needed strengths; both were <br />subsequently hired. He suggested that the council not tie the City too closely through the charter as to how <br />legal services were managed. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he would vote to support the measure. He wanted an attorney whose only loyalty was to the <br />City. He did not want a firm that had clients with interests that were at odds with the City, and did not want an <br />attorney with a profit motive. He was also interested in consistency, and said that to suggest a lesser quality <br />attorney would be in public practice was to insult all the lawyers who worked for other levels of government. <br />He thought the proposal, if implemented, would be cost-effective. Mr. Meisner said he would work to support <br />the campaign in support of the proposal. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that there could be communications <br />issues but believed those were readily resolvable. <br /> <br />Mr. Papd said that the council should refer the measure to the voters. He liked the concept of a having a City <br />gatekeeper for legal services. He shared Mr. Carlson's concerns about the authority and accountability of the <br />attorney in terms of City contracts and suggested that provision be deleted from the motion. Mr. Papd asked <br />Mr. Kelly if the manager would have the right to fire the attorney without council consultation. Mr. Kelly said <br />yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Papd, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion by removing the <br /> last sentence in Mr. Kelly's proposal ("The city attorney shall supervise the <br /> performance of all contracts for legal services"). <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson determined from Mr. Carlson that removal of the sentence did not preclude an arrangement <br />whereby the City Attorney would manage the contracts for legal services. He pointed out that historically, the <br />Administrative Services Director managed that function, and following the departure of the recent incumbent, <br />he had assumed that responsibility as the acting department director and then as Assistant City Manager in <br />charge of Central Services. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was not thinking in terms of a contract manager but of legal oversight of outside attorneys. <br />He opposed the amendment but said he could support alternative language that made the intent clear. He <br />suggested alternatively, "The City Attorney shall provide oversight for all legal services done for the City." <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment. She said that the contracts in question were just for legal services, not <br />all contracts. She thought it important the City had someone with legal expertise monitoring such legal <br />contracts. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />