Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson said she was only partially satisfied with the proposed ordinance. She suggested <br />that the solution provided to dilemmas relating to extending of contracts was misleading and <br />could be unintentionally misapplied. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that he believed the proposed ordinance did not fully take into consideration <br />issues related to the net operating income of a business because existing contracts were part of <br />what was used to determine the value of a company. He said that if a councilor-owned business <br />was sold, its net operating income would affect its selling price. He suggested that a better way <br />to deal with problems related to interest in contracts was for a councilor to publicly identify all <br />potential increases of value in companies with which she/he had an involvement and to recuse <br />her/himself from consideration of anything related to it. He said he believed the City Manager <br />should be required to avoid discussion of such issues with individual councilors. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he did not believe the phrase "direct, present, and personal interest <br />contracts" in the proposed ordinance dealt adequately with issues related to deferred payment to <br />councilors having partial ownership in a company contracting with the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said he did not believe the proposed ordinance solved all issues related to Section 14 <br />of the City Charter. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue commented that the Council/Manager type of city government had been devised to help <br />deal with issues related to contracts benefitting elected officials. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked what legal responsibility the proposed ordinance placed on the City <br />Manager. Mr. Klein replied that it would be the responsibility of the manager to determine if a <br />contract could produce a benefit to a councilor. That responsibility could be met by the councilor <br />and the company certifying that the councilor was not receiving any tangible monetary return <br />from the contract; and, if necessary, by auditiung the financial records of businesses which might <br />be affected by interest in contract provisions. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said it was his personal experience that there was potential for significant public <br />interest in the area under consideration. He said he did not believe the full answer to potential <br />problems had been solved and that he wanted to ensure that all issues were resolved before the <br />term of councilors-elect began. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein stated that there was no provision for the forfeiture of a person's elected position on the <br />City Council if there were to be violation of the provision of the City Charter under discussion. He <br />said an opinion from the Office of the City Manager 15 years previously had clearly so stated. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked who was at risk and what were the liabilities for a successfully challenged City <br />Council decision related to interest in contract ordinances. Mr. Klein replied that violation of the <br />provision under consideration resulted in fines of $100 a day for the duration of the violation. He <br />said that it was assumed that the City Manager would not establish a contract which could be <br />interpreted to give benefit to a councilor without an opinion from the City Attorney stating that it <br />was lawful and that such an opinion would relieve the manager of personal liability. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson said that the council was moving toward a public hearing and action regarding the <br />proposed ordinance. He said he agreed with an earlier comment of Ms. Swanson Gribskov that <br />separate issues were involved in the proposal: (1) contracts entered into before a councilor takes <br />office for which the proposed ordinance seemed to be acceptable to councilors; and (2) allowing <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 23, 1998 Page 4 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />