Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zelenka clarified with Mr. Klein that the entities on the list were current or past clients of the firm. He <br />asked what would happen if the council disagreed with the manager’s grant of the waiver and believed a <br />conflict existed. Mr. Klein said that he would have to think more about the council’s role in such waivers <br />before offering any input. He said that the issue related to the charter and the powers of the manager and the <br />council. Mr. Zelenka thought he saw a potential problem in that the council might not agree with a waiver. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark concurred with Ms. Bettman about the high quality of the advice provided by the City Attorney’s <br />Office. He observed that in the cases where there was a conflict and a waiver issued the council had not <br />subsequently received unsound advice from the attorney. If a conflict waiver created unsound advice for the <br />client, the council would deal with that but he saw no evidence of a problem and was unclear as to what the <br />council was trying to fix. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Poling about the council work session that occurred in 1991, Mr. Klein <br />said that work session occurred because the council had questions about how conflicts should be handled <br />and how they were handled. Nothing in State law had triggered the work session. The rules had not <br />changed with regard to how conflicts and conflict waivers worked. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said the council was not informed of the waivers granted and she suggested that might be a <br />useful thing. With regard to second opinions, Mr. Klein indicated that the council could ask the manager to <br />secure a second opinion but Ms. Taylor did not think that would work as the manager had the opinion he <br />wanted. City Manager Taylor said that it was not a matter of what he wanted but a matter of what the City <br />Attorney indicated was the law. Ms. Taylor said that the City Manager should not be the one asking for a <br />second opinion. City Manager Taylor suggested that was where the charter created a dilemma for the <br />council. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein explained that the charter gave the manager the authority to employ the City Attorney. The <br />council could direct the manager to secure a second opinion and could direct him to secure that opinion from <br />outside Eugene to avoid the taint of legal advice from Eugene. Ms. Taylor asked about unpaid legal advice. <br />Mr. Klein said that if individual councilors contacted an attorney for advice and shared that with the council, <br />it was not forbidden. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the council could direct the manager to hire an in-house attorney. Mr. Klein said the <br />council could not legally tell the manager to hire an in-house attorney. It could tell him to do so and even <br />threaten to hold it against him during his evaluation but if he failed to do so he would not be violating the <br />law. The City Council could ask the manager to hire an in-house attorney. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor determined from City Manager Taylor that the only way the council could establish an in-house <br />attorney was through a change to the charter. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman observed that a past manager had signed waivers for Peace Health and Hyundai and asked if <br />they were still clients. Mr. Klein said that Peace Health and Hyundai were once clients of his firm but he <br />could not say they still were. He confirmed that Phillip Morris had been a client of the firm. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman determined from the City Manager Taylor that he granted a five-year contract extension for the <br />City Attorney’s firm in 2004. She asked if anything in the contact precluded the City from using the <br />services of another attorney. City Manager Taylor thought there was such a provision. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br />