Laserfiche WebLink
very good legal representation, which was a 180 degree change from his original opinion on the issue. He was <br />impressed by the professionalism of the firm. Mr. Rayor endorsed the revision as a good oversight step. He <br />thought to go farther would not be a good idea. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor indicated support for the motion but said she would have preferred the CCRC's text. She said that <br />the manager could now hire an attorney, but there needed to be a charter requirement that he do so. She <br />thought it important the attorney be able to hire staff without supervision from the manager, like other <br />department heads. She determined from Mr. Carlson that he did not personally hire all staff. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey did not know what benefit the City realized from the change. He acknowledged trust might be <br />one outcome. He thought the manager already hired good legal staff. With regard to trust, he suggested that <br />the mayor be given veto authority over the confirmation process. If three councilors agreed with the mayor, <br />the process of hiring would begin again. He also called for a definition of "council" to be included in the <br />charter: did it include the mayor? Mayor Torrey thought an in-house attorney would be very expensive. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr asked Mr. Carlson if he thought the proposal would save money. Mr. Carlson thought it was likely to <br />cost money as there would be some duplication of support staff. There was interaction and information <br />sharing that occurred at the firm to keep all the contract attorneys in touch with what was happening that <br />would have to be duplicated with a city attorney. Mr. Farr asked what staff demands the in-house counsel <br />would have. Mr. Carlson said that was not yet determined. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he was not opposed to putting the issue before the voters but hoped they understood that the <br />proposal was not a cost-savings measure. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson noted that there was an existing five-year contract with the current firm that would have to be <br />considered if the charter amendment were passed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked if the new attorney would supervise the City Prosecutor. Mr. Carlson said that the legal <br />services for which the position contracted could fall under the purview of the city attorney. Mr. Lidz agreed <br />with Mr. Carlson. He said that the supervision of the city attorney would be the responsibility of the City <br />Manager. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about that, and suggested that the legislative history be noted. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 believed that the proposed position could potentially save the City money, particularly if the City's <br />services were bundled differently, which could realize more competition and hence more savings. <br /> <br />In response to the mayor's comment, Ms. Bettman believed the mayor's role was already clearly defined in the <br />charter. She did not want to over-complicate the issue before the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thought the position might save money, saying a city attorney could serve as a gatekeeper to control <br />legal inquiries from departments. He said that the proposal was not a "get the contract" proposal, but just gave <br />additional tools to the manager. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the council was defined in the charter as eight councilors. The charter gave the mayor specific <br />powers to veto ordinances. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed that the communication issues referred to by Mr. Carlson already existed. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />