CC Minutes - 07/24/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

specific to State employees, and there must be a provable action. One could go to a State agency or State auditor to handle a local issue, but "it has to rise pretty high" on the scale of magnitude to be heard. Mr. Pap~ asked Ms. Bettman why she thought the State protections were insufficient. Ms. Bettman wanted a local process and thought one was needed. She thought the need was demonstrated by City staff's actions in the Hynix tax appeal; some staff knew for months about the appeal and did not share that information with the council when it deliberated the company's tax exemption request. She believed that some staff would have liked to have shared the information with the council, but did not feel secure enough to come forward. Subsequently, the council granted the tax exemption, which had significant budget implications, without complete information. Ms. Taylor thought adoption of such a charter provision would be a good statement of principle. She said that perhaps the issue had not come up because there was no protections. If such protection existed, maybe someone would come forward. Ms. Nathanson said she would be enthusiastic about the proposal in the absence of State protections. She questioned whether a local process would be more comforting than an employee knowing that there was some other agency to go to. She was also concerned about the last definition (4), suggesting that it was sufficiently vague enough to cover genuine differences in political judgment. Mayor Torrey agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He said that he could see employees using the provision for political purposes. He did not want it to be a political wedge. Ms. Bettman reiterated that many jurisdictions had similar laws and she believed that staff and legal counsel could craft language that reduced any ambivalence. She said that specific details could be taken care of in the ordinance and implementing rules for the ordinance as they were in Portland. Ms. Taylor believed a local process was preferable to a State process, as people would be more likely to employ a local process. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding his opinion of the proposed approach, Mr. Carlson said that he had not given it much thought. He was reminded by the City Attorney that a whistle blower protection program could be implemented through a City ordinance. He said that there was also the protections afforded by State law. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting no, and Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition and the motion failed on final vote of 5:4. Mayor Torrey reviewed a motion he wished the council to consider related to the authority of the mayor. Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the following text to the November 2002 ballot: The mayor~ in addition to the veto authority in Section 30, shaft have the veto authority over any revisions made by the City Council to the budget approved by and referred for final adoption by the Eugene City Budget Committee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 11 Work Session