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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson distinguished between conflict of interest and loyalty. She asked how the City could ensure that it received quality work and the best advice. She did not think the answer related to whether counsel was in-house, but rather the issue of motivation: what motivated someone working for a large public bureaucracy versus what motivated a member of a private firm. She suggested that the answer was personal rather than prescribed by the situation. Ms. Nathanson noted the city manager's jurisdiction over the issue and said she was glad it was his problem because she thought it was complex to ascertain whether he was getting the best service possible. Ms. Nathanson asked the city manager to consider whether he would benefit from having a small in-house legal staff to assist him in managing the City's legal services as suggested by former Councilor Ken Tollenaar. Ms. Nathanson noted her support for the competitive solicitation process outlined by Mr. Johnson. Ms. Taylor noted her concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner. She said that her chief concerns were the issues of conflict of interest and the loyalty of legal counsel. She said that an employee would be loyal to the City while the City's legal firm represented people with different interests from the City on occasion. She would not object so much to a firm that represented only municipalities. Ms. Taylor was unconvinced it would not cost less for an in-house attorney. She believed that the perception of conflict of interest was as important as a real conflict of interest. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Johnson if he would change to in-house counsel if the City Council asked him to do so. Mr. Torrey advised Mr. Johnson not to answer the question because he believed there was no time for Mr. Johnson to address it at this time, and he would want a council debate on the issue before the question was asked. Mr. Kelly requested that the meeting time be extended to allow Mr. Tellum to more fully respond to the issues of conflict of interest and loyalty. Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Rayor indicated they were unable to stay. Mr. Torrey indicated he would adjourn the meeting at the scheduled time as the two councilors were unable to stay and hear the discussion. Mr. Pap~ said that the council's discussion was impinging on the line between establishing policy and administrative authority, particularly as it related to the authority of the manager in the matter. He believed that the council should leave the matter to Mr. Johnson, and suggested that the council needed to keep that line in mind. Mr. Pap8 indicated his support for privatization of many the services the City now delivered, and he encouraged the City to move in that direction. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Johnson indicated his intent to embark on a competitive solicitation process for auditing services as well. Mr. Pap8 said that was his preference. He supported such a process on a three- or five-year cycle. Mr. Pap8 believed that the City Council could establish such a policy. Mr. Torrey supported the competitive solicitation process and suggested it occur on a five-year cycle. He asked that the City Attorney report to the City Council, through the City Manager, any MINUTES-Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 12 5:30 p.m.