CC Minutes - 11/10/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

councilor Ken Tollenaar's proposal for the provision of legal services was one way to address the policy issues he had raised. Mr. Meisner said that his concern was also perception. He was not talking about the skills of the firm because he was generally pleased with the performance of the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Meisner requested the analysis behind the summary of costs of in-house legal counsel. Mr. Meisner said that there may be no violations of the ethics rules for the City's legal counsel to represent both the City and Hyundai but it was a problem for the public. When the same individual in the firm was the representative for both parties, that really was a problem. He questioned the common sense of the attorney who would undertake those multiple representations. Mr. Meisner said he not only wanted no conflicts, he wanted exclusivity of loyalty, above profit. He pointed out that profit was not a concern of in-house counsel, but it raised a questions; when a firm recommended an action, was that a way to generate more hours for private benefit, or was it for the City's sake? Mr. Meisner said that the question was commonly asked by the public, and he wanted a way to resolve that. He was not entirely satisfied by the letter from Mr. Tellum. Mr. Fart said he supported Mr. Johnson's conclusions. He said that it appeared the costs for in- house and external counsel were comparable. Regarding the competitive solicitation process, Mr. Fart agreed that it was important to put the contract out for solicitation periodically, but suggested that there was a value in the institutional memory that existed because of the firm's long-time representation of the City. Mr. Fart said that price was not the only factor determining the provision of legal services. He questioned whether the City could attract the same level of talent as was present in the City's current firm, adding that it was likely the City would experience a high level of turnover as its attorneys sought a better, higher paying job. Regarding conflict of interest, Mr. Farr said that people have perceptions about all the City's actions, and there would always be negative perceptions. He said the council has the task of educating citizens regarding what actually happens, and the firm had the responsibility to ensure it was acting in a completely above-board manner, which he believed was the case. Regarding the issue of profit and perception, Mr. Farr pointed out that the City dealt with many, many vendors that were out to make a profit, and some of those vendors were also negatively perceived by the public for one reason or another. He said that the City was getting the most return for its dollar from a firm with 32 professionals and a support staff, and he doubted the City could get the same level of support from an in-house legal counsel. Mr. Rayor supported the competitive solicitation process. He asked Mr. Tellum where the City would advertise that process so it was seen by many qualified firms. Mr. Tellum was unsure, but suggested the City would want to first consider if the firm should be local. Mr. Rayor addressed the issue of conflict of interest. He asked if there were law firms that represented only municipalities. Regarding the firm's notice to the City of conflict of interest as it related to Hyundai, Mr. Rayor believed that the law firm should have issued a third notice as a courtesy notice to the City when it entered into the Oregon tax case and California discrimination case. He wanted to avoid the public perception created by the lack of such notice. MINUTES-Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 11 5:30 p.m.