Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman first commended the work of Mr. Klein’s firm and the attorneys who represented the City. She said they were knowledgeable and she would not hesitate to retain any of them privately. However, the context for the discussion was different. Ms. Bettman said she did not disagree with Mr. Klein’s remarks about the role of the attorney, but she found there were situations where she questioned if that was what was happening. She thought there were many variables that influenced the attorney’s advice in different contexts. Ms. Bettman said the City may not be getting a description of just what the law was. She had multiple examples of that which she doubted she would have time to offer. Regarding the issue of conflict of interest, Ms. Bettman said the council did not have sufficient votes of support to direct the City Manager to create an office of the attorney, but she continued to think it was an overarching issue and problem that the City contracted with a firm that was dependent on contracts with other clients that were adversarial to the City in cases of litigation. There had been situations where she thought that the City Attorney was not advocating aggressively enough for City interests because of fear it would alienate a client like Hynix, due to the work it did for the City. She said that statutes regarding conflict of interest existed just to avoid such a situation. Ms. Bettman asked if there was any State constitutional prohibition against the council obtaining a second legal opinion. Mr. Klein said there was nothing in the State constitution or State statute that governed the council; the question was what the charter allowed. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a charter prohibition. Mr. Klein said that the charter provided for powers to be granted the manager and the council; he saw nothing that prohibited the council from directing the manager to secure another opinion. Ms. Bettman asked if the council could direct the manager to follow a certain legal opinion. Mr. Klein did not think there was anything to preclude that, pointing out the council received opinions from a variety of lawyers all the time. There was nothing to preclude the council from liking something said by a lawyer and adopting it. What the council did not get if it took that approach was a legal defense on the reliance of counsel. He said that much of the firm’s advice was in the form of confidential legal memoranda because the City did not want those opinions to become ammunition for the City’s opponents. He said the council did not have to do what he said, but the council did not get the advice of counsel defense if relying on another attorney’s opinion. Mr. Pryor thought the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) regarding the topic was clear and he appreciated the points offered in it. He agreed with Mr. Klein’s remarks regarding who the client was. He said that professionals, regardless of whether they were accountants or lawyers, worked for the entity and take direction from the entity. He did not believe that he as an individual had the authority to give Mr. Klein direction. While he might not like the advice he received, he had never had reason to question the honesty, sincerity, or integrity of Mr. Klein’s opinions and advice. He thought the discussion important so that roles were clarified. He agreed about the value of second opinions and said that they should also be sought by the body rather than by an individual councilor. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Klein said that the council might disagree with his advice and request that he prepare the most legal defensible position on the council’s behalf. He would do his best to defend that position, adding that such a situation had come up while he served as the attorney. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 8 Work Session