CC Minutes - 06/10/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner described his interview with the consultant as disappointing so he was not surprised to be disappointed with the report. He expressed the same disappointment with the staff report, saying many of the statements were conclusory without justifying analysis. He agreed with Mr. Tollenaar that an in-house attorney to manage the legal services contract and provide advocacy was a good idea. Mr. Meisner said the council had to be sensitive to the perception of impropriety or conflict, adding that at this time he would not push for imminent change to full-time in-house counsel but supported creating a position to manage the basket of services. Mr. Meisner said he believed the City was not well-served in the City prosecution area. Ms. Nathanson said the issue of vigorous advocacy is interesting because it goes both ways. She asked for an description of the services Mr. Tollenaar proposed for the in-house attorney. Mr. Tollenaar described the basket of services, including attending council meetings and Planning Commission meetings and managing the legal services contract. Ms. Taylor strongly supported an in-house legal staff whose "loyalty and interests are only those of the City." Ms. Swanson Gribskov said the issue for her was cost, saying no "stone should be left unturned" in looking for ways to cut costs. She said the conflict-of-interest issue was not a problem for her. Ms. Swanson Gribskov suggested discussing with executive staff an appropriate level to spend on legal services and having regular reports on the item as a way of monitoring legal expenditures. She said the issue would undoubtedly be discussed by future councils. Mayor Torrey cited the high level of control the City currently exercises over its legal services contract and said the council ought to set-up regular executive sessions with its attorneys. He pointed out that a small in-house legal staff would in fact have responsibility for all of the City's legal business through management of the legal services contract. Mayor Torrey said he had not heard an overwhelming demand in the community to change the way it handles it legal issues. He expressed concern that in-house attorneys might avoid the tough issues such as those posed by the City's involvement in telecommunications. Mr. Fart said he was not interested in changing the current practice and gave the following reasons: 1) there are many external influences on costs so that is not an issue; 2) there is quality oversight of the contract and no change is needed; 3) there is a balance of loyalty and competence; 4) the City would have a difficult time recruiting and retaining quality attorneys; and 5) the City would not duplicate in-house the current firm's resources. Mr. Farr agreed that the consultant's report of little value and "riddled with conflict of interest." Ms. Nathanson said the Mayor's assumption that the City does not pay very much and cannot attract quality expertise is in conflict with the public criticism that the City pays too much for the services. Addressing Mayor Torrey's suggestion for holding executive sessions with the City's attorneys, Ms. Nathanson said it is her understanding that those session may be attended by media to represent the public as a watchdog, but they may not report on it. Ms. Nathanson noted that loyalty could mean being trustworthy and avoiding conflict of interest, or showing motivation and enthusiasm for doing the best job. Mr. Meisner disagreed that the City would have a hard time recruiting and retaining in-house staff, noting that municipal law is a "sub-specialty" that attracts many despite the financial reward. He asked staff to provide specific options, including costs to facilitate the council's decision. He expressed concern with the implication on page 154 of the packet that staff is not currently MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1998 Page 5 11:30 a.m.