Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly did not think the City needed a local commission, but pointed out that a local commission provided a <br />process to address the complaints that were received. He believed that the City needed a way to evaluate <br />complaints to determine if they were warranted before they were scheduled as a council item. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon did not think more laws and more reporting conveyed more concern about ethics. She reiterated <br />that Chapter 244 was a very good place to start with a new ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner and Mayor Torrey left the meeting to attend to another commitment. Council President Papé <br />assumed the chair. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed that a local ordinance was needed to address local concerns. Speaking to Mr. Kleins <br />= <br />remarks, Ms. Bettman said did not believe that the Citys boards and committees volunteers were aware of the <br />= <br />State statute and its limitations and suggested that reiterating those values in a local ordinance that also <br />reflected local values could be a very valuable exercise for the council and could help to create credibility and <br />trust in government. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Solomon. He suggested that Chapter 244 could <br />merely be incorporated into the Citys code by reference. <br />= <br /> <br />Speaking to a concern raised by Mr. Kelly, Ms. Walston indicated an additional work session would be <br />scheduled in April for review of a draft ordinance based on ORS Chapter 244, and the scheduled public <br />hearing would be moved back. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Papé regarding the councils direction to staff, Ms. Bettman agreed that if <br />= <br />there was an adequate process, there was no need for a commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson suggested that one option was to direct complaints initially to the Oregon State Government <br />Practices Commission. Mr. Kelly said he would prefer a complaint resolution process that began with the City <br />Attorney rather than a new ethics commission. He pointed out that the Oregon State Government Practices <br />Commission was laying off its investigators and did not think the City could rely on that avenue. He preferred <br />a simple local mechanism. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein suggested the danger of too simple a process that was easy to access and could be open to abuse. He <br />said that staff would consider how to establish a process that allowed frivolous complaints to be quickly <br />identified and dismissed by the council. Mr. Kelly shared the concern, saying he wanted to avoid frivolous <br />complaints and believed a buffer between the complainants and the council was needed. He also wanted to <br />avoid a situation where a single councilor continually lodged complaints against other councilors. Ms. <br />Bettman agreed, saying that such a situation could lead to additional partisanship. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that Salems ethics commission was handpicked by the mayor and approved by the council. <br />= <br /> She said that if the council chose to establish a local commission, she preferred that each councilor appoint a <br />commissioner. <br />In response to Ms. Solomons earlier question, Mr. Klein said that there had not been an ethics complaint <br />= <br />against a Eugene official for some time, but the Ethics Commission received many complaints, many of which <br />were frivolous but which the commission was required to pursue. Unless there was a process for winnowing <br />out such complaints, the City would risk the danger of complaints being filed merely because a citizen <br />disagreed with the positions taken by a councilor. Staff would attempt to draft an ordinance that protected the <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 7 <br />C <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />