Laserfiche WebLink
After examination of the motion as potentially amended, Ms. Nathanson suggested that the motion addressed <br />three different topics: 1) the appointment, 2) the assigmnents, and 3) the affiliation. She suggested that the <br />first sentence be retained, and the following text be modified to incorporate Mr. Tollenaar's suggestion, so the <br />text read: <br /> <br /> "The City Manager shall appoint a city attorney, subject to confirmation by the City Council. The <br /> city attorney shall serve as chief legal advisor to the council and the City Manager. With <br /> supervision by the City Manager, the city attorney shall oversee performance o fall contracts for <br /> legal services. The city attorney shall devote full time to the duties of this office, and may not <br /> engage in the private practice of law." <br /> <br />Mr. Papd accepted the modified amendment text suggested by Ms. Nathanson. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked about other legal services the City purchased. Mr. Carlson cited legal contracts with bond <br />counsel, for example. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she regretted that the more specific text drafted by the CCRC was not adopted, and thanked <br />Mr. Kelly for attempting to craft a compromise. She believed that an in-house attorney was important because <br />an in-house city attorney would be loyal to the City. She was concerned about the situational conflicts created <br />by the current contract and the fact the current firm competed in the private market and could potentially be <br />litigating for a client who may be an adversarial position with the City. Ms. Bettman thought the situation <br />eroded public credibility in the City. She said having a city attorney means that the accountability of the <br />attorney was to the taxpayers of Eugene, not the law firm. Ms. Bettman wished the council was considering a <br />stronger and more expansive measure, but in the spirit of compromise would support the motion as amended. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson envisioned that, if approved by the voters, the change would result in the hiring of an attorney <br />who would sit at the council in the same manner as the current attorney and manage the basket of services. <br />That meant that the City would still have a contract with someone like the current firm, which would raise the <br />same issues Ms. Bettman mentioned. He pointed out that under ethics rules, the firm has to disclose its <br />conflicts, and the manager gets to determine whether the conflict could be waived. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she understood the text did not preclude hiring more attorneys in the future, and the issue of <br />the conflict was that someone with loyalty to the City would oversee the contracts. She said if Mr. Carlson <br />was suggesting the text could preclude hiring more attorneys, she would vote against the motion. Mr. Carlson <br />did not think hiring more attorneys was precluded. The current charter did not preclude the City from <br />establishing an attorney's office and hiring several attorneys. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed that a decision to hire additional attorneys was not precluded by the adoption of the language <br />under consideration. He said the difference resulting from the change would be that the situational conflicts <br />would be managed by an attorney who was a City employee. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thought the proposed change was raised by valid concerns. He said the charter proposal was a <br />credible way of addressing those concerns. It retained the council/manager form of government. He would <br />have opposed a motion that called for the attorney to manage contracts. Mr. Rayor believed the City received <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />