Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/10/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Council Chambers--City Hall November 10, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, David Kelly, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor. DINNER WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL Council President Scott Meisner, in the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, called the work session of the City Council to order. A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Mr. Meisner welcomed new Council Coordinator Kate Rowles, and noted she would begin work in her new position soon. The council welcomed Ms. Rowles. Ms. Rowles said she looked forward to working with the council. Mr. Meisner noted that Ms. Nathanson was not yet at the meeting; he asked the council to be prepared to interrupt the meeting when Ms. Nathanson arrived so the process session so could be scheduled while she was present. Ms. Taylor passed. Mr. Farr passed. Mr. Kelly asked that the background paper prepared on the Endangered Species Act by City Attorney Glenn Klein be posted on the City's Web page. City Manager Jim Johnson said he would follow-up. Mr. Rayor reported that the Friendly Area Neighbors had developed a list of potential traffic calming projects, and he indicated he would forward those proposals to the council and manager after he had the opportunity to compile them. Mr. Lee commended the Public Works Department Diversity Committee for its presentation the previous evening regarding the department's effort in implementing its diversity plan to members of the minority community. He said that the department was "on the ball" and had accomplished a great deal in the last several months. He described some of the department's diversity efforts. Mr. Pap8 requested that the City Manager schedule a work session on the topic of service provision and planning for the River Road/Santa Clara area. Other councilors concurred. Mr. Johnson agreed to schedule such a work session. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Responding to a question from Mr. Johnson, the council indicated it was not interested in sharing the costs of a survey regarding why people voted as they did on Ballot Measure 20-25. Mr. Farr indicated he would be interested in seeing the results. Mr. Johnson indicated he also did not recommend conducting such a survey. Mr. Meisner said that he had spoken earlier that day to Marcy Middleton, who had also attended the Public Works Diversity Committee presentation, and who had been very impressed by the event. Mr. Meisner said that he, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Johnson had attended a press conference held by the police chiefs of Eugene, Springfield, Cottage Grove, Coburg, the Oregon State Police, and the Sheriff's Office where the chiefs signed an agreement pledging not to use or tolerate the use of racial profiling in local law enforcement. He said that the press conference was well-attended; people of color as well as other groups take the issue very seriously. Mr. Meisner thanked Police Chief Jim Hill for taking a leadership role on the issue. B.Contingency Requests 1. Wayne Morse Historical Park Corporation Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to authorize the expenditure of $10,000 from the contingency fund to install a life-sized bronze statue of the late Senator Wayne Morse at the entrance to the Lane County Courthouse. Mr. Meisner noted that he had been asked to bring the contingency fund request to the council. He had made them aware the limit for such requests was $5,000, but they had applied for $10,000. Subsequently, the backers modified the proposal by submitting paperwork for the lower $5,000 amount. Mr. Meisner said that although he agreed to sponsor the proposal and had great admiration for Wayne Morse and would like to see such a statute, he was not persuaded that the proposal was the best use of the City's contingency funds. He said that he would like the proposal to include some sort of interactive or educational presentation beyond a static piece of art. Mr. Pap8 said that although he realized the proposal had come before the council in the normal manner, he wished the council had its process session prior to consideration of the several contingency fund requests before the council that evening. He said that a contingency fund request should be for something out-of-the-ordinary or for an emergency. He believed that the majority of the requests could have been addressed through the normal budget cycle. Mr. Pap8 said that while Wayne Morse was a wonderful member of the community, he was honored in other venues in the community, such as the University of Oregon law school and the Wayne Morse Park. He did not think the proposal represented an appropriate use of Contingency Funds. Mr. Farr said that while the council should use its contingency funds carefully, he believed it was well-used for items that arise during the year outside the budget cycle. In this situation, he believed that a relatively small amount of money would produce something physical that would be in the community for a long time. He said that Wayne Morse was a good Eugenean and MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. represented the views of many citizens, particularly at the time he served. He supported the request at the lower amount of $5,000. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend the motion by reducing the contingency fund request to $5,000. The motion to amend passed, 6:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Fart about the use of the contingency fund. He said that he was also an admirer of Wayne Morse, but he was unsure how well Senator Morse, his legacy, and his accomplishments were known. For that reason, he would like to see some sort of interpretative or educational element regarding the senator associated with the display of the statue. Because no such element was included, he would oppose the motion. Mr. Kelly noted that the request represented approximately ten percent of the contingency fund amount dedicated to nonprofit organizations. Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. Ms. Taylor said that such a statue would be a great contribution to downtown. She believed that Wayne Morse stood for good government and citizenship. She pointed out that the council had a goal of promoting a healthy downtown and the statute could be part of that. She thought it wonderful that the statue was to go on the free speech plaza. Ms. Taylor believed that the statue itself was educational, and noted she would have supported the higher amount if possible. Mr. Lee said he was concerned that young people had a hard time rationalizing involvement in public service. He believed that young people were disillusioned by politics because of a lack of mentors they could relate to. Mr. Lee said that while the statue was merely a statue, it could highlight the fact that individuals can make a difference if they had a certain vision in mind and were willing to work toward the vision. The statue could also remind the public that all people could take part in the democratic process. Mr. Lee pointed out that the City's contribution was a small part of a larger sum. He supported the motion. Mr. Pap~ did not disagree with what had been said, but he objected to the process used for contingency fund requests and the precedent he believed the approval of this request would set. Mr. Meisner pointed out that changes had been made to the contingency fund process; at one time the entire fund was available for any purpose and there was no limit on the amounts requested. Now the council had strictly limited the amount available to nonprofits, considered them on a quarterly basis, and the requests must be accompanied by information regarding other sponsors and other detailed information. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Lee about the importance of community awareness about Wayne Morse, but he did not think the community would learn if the display was merely a statue without any other information. He feared if the council contributed money without the commitment of an educational element, no such element would be considered by the backers. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Kelly voting no. 2. Willamette Repertory Theatre MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to authorize the expenditure of $4,000 from the contingency fund to offset the Patron User Fee at the Theatre Alive! student matinees. Mr. Kelly spoke in support of the motion, noting that the company was a new company that was just establishing itself in the community and had no opportunity to seek funding through the normal budget cycle. He said the theatre would do programs for school children and was seeking funding to offset the costs of the patron user fee, which was waived for resident user companies for educational programs. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Johnson said that the programming was intended for all students in Eugene in both the 4J and Bethel school districts. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Kelly explained that there was a process for becoming a resident company at the Hult Center that included criteria, but there was a moratorium on adding any further resident companies. He said that the theatre was seeking other sources of funding for production and other expenses. The treasurer for the theatre, Hans Christofferson, described the theater's fund raising efforts at the local and state level. He said that the issue of funding was in part related to timing. Mr. Torrey arrived at the meeting. Ms. Nathanson said she considered the theatre's offerings to be special programming whose funding appeared to be consistent with previous council fund approvals to help start up a nonprofit organization such as the theatre. She termed the funding "seed money" and indicated she anticipated this to be a one-time request. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Johnson said that he was responsible for granting companies resident status and he had not granted the theatre that status; he confirmed that there was a moratorium on granting that status until the Cultural Services Department Advisory Committee had completed its work. Ms. Taylor supported the request as contributing to both community arts and community youth. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Taylor. The motion passed, 8:0. 3. Multi-Cultural Storytelling Festival Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to authorize the expenditure of $1,000 from the contingency fund to bring cultural awareness to children through storytelling. Mr. Lee said that the programming was intended to reach out to young people for discussion of cultural issues. MINUTES-Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mr. Pap~ reiterated his previous concerns, asking if Eugene was the "court of last resort for funding" and if the program would happen if Eugene did not fund it. Mr. Lee said that the sponsors were seeking funds from a variety of sources. He identified the Lane Arts Council and Very Little Theater as partners in the effort. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. 4. Sustainable Business Symposium Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to authorize the expenditure of $5,000 from the contingency fund to bring business, environmental, social, academic, and civic communities together to work toward a sustainable future. Mr. Meisner noted the council's previous concerns about requests that could be perceived as retroactive; in this case, given the quarterly contingency fund cycle the application was turned in on time, but the symposium occurred three days past. He supported the request because of its relationship to the council's goal to sustainable community growth and change. He said that education was an essential component of sustainability, and the symposium was a means to reach many people without much cost. Mr. Fart indicated support for the request. He agreed that the benefit to the City was greater than the cost. Mr. Lee suggested that it was beneficial any time the council could help the community define "sustainable." The motion passed, 8:0. The council agreed to schedule a process session on November 24, 1999, from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. C.Work Session: Consideration of an Ordinance to Recover Costs Associated with Loud or Unruly Gatherings Requiring Frequent and Significant Police Response Eugene Police Chief Jim Hill provided an overview of the proposed ordinance. He emphasized the draft nature of the ordinance. He said that the impetus for the ordinance was a series of police responses to large gatherings, particularly in the University of Oregon area. Chief Hill said that there were other issues facing the police on Friday and Saturday nights that staff would like to discuss in the context of the ordinance, mostly dealing with bars. He said that the focus of the ordinance was on how the costs of the police response to large gatherings were born. Chief Hill said that currently, the public pays the cost of responding to large gatherings. He asked the council to discuss whether that was appropriate; should the costs be borne by tenants or, at some point, should landlords be required to bear those costs? Chief Hill reported on police staffing levels for Friday and Saturday nights, saying that typically the department had 15 patrols cars to cover the entire community. In addition, the department had an additional nine officers, six being paid overtime and three assigned to the campus, to work the west University area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. Chief Hill said that the ordinance was not designed to address only dollars and staffing, but rather to serve as another tool to reduce the number of such incidents. He said that such incidents placed officers at risk as they were becoming increasingly confrontational; officers were being injured and response times were an issue because the situations placed other citizens at risk by reducing the number of officers to respond to other calls for service. Chief Hill emphasized that it was not the department's intention to place an unfair burden on landlords. He said that the department was more than willing to work with property management firms and landlords to address the issue. He said, however, that the question for him was, at what point should the landlord take action when his or her property was occupied by tenants who require repeated police responses, while acknowledging the burden should be on the tenants to take responsibility. Lieutenant Carolyn McDermed reviewed data from a 60-day period about the number of addresses that would fall under the ordinance, and reported that 15 addresses had two more police responses during that time. Regarding the issue of delays in responses to priority calls because officers were responding to problem parties, Lt. McDermed said that during a recent police response where police were on site for 24 minutes on a Friday night, 25 priority 1, 2, 3, and 4 service calls for were received by dispatch. A priority 1 represented a life threatening emergency requiring an immediate response; a priority 4 call represented a situation where a suspect was present and the police were likely to apprehend him/her. At the request of Lt. McDermed, Sergeant Rick Gillam described some of the police responses to incidents in the west University neighborhood. Mr. Torrey asked councilors to comment on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Farr termed the magnitude of the problem of repeat responses alarming. He did not think taxpayers should carry the burden of the needed police response or should have to await for priority assistance elsewhere while police respond to an unruly party or fight at a nightclub. Mr. Farr said that the City must respond to such incidents with an ordinance acceptable to the community. He asked what authority landlords would have to act within six days of receiving a notice from the City. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that it would depend on the rental contract between landlord and tenant. He pointed out that many rental agreements require tenants to comply with all laws or be subject to eviction so there may be options for landlords. Mr. Farr feared that landlords would not have adequate choices or sufficient legal resources to respond to the City's notice. He preferred an ordinance focused on tenant liability rather than landlord liability that still gave the landlord some responsibility to mitigate the situation if it continued to exist. Ms. Taylor said that she had recently raised a related topic about making landlords responsible for whom they rent to, not for paying for the costs of police responses. Her focus had been on neighborhoods of single-family residences where landlords were renting houses to too many people, and the added traffic volume changed the character of the neighborhood. She questioned making landlords financially responsible for the police responses. She wanted to see an attitude where landlords were proactive in ensuring their tenants did not cause problems, but did not know how to encourage it. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor asked if it was numbers of people rather than alcohol consumption causing the problem, suggesting that limiting numbers in attendance might be part of the solution. She suggested that the Fire Department could respond first in the case of a large crowd. Ms. Taylor asked if the police presence exacerbated the situation on occasion. Mr. Torrey indicated staff would provide written responses if needed to the council's questions. Mr. Pap~ asked where the money collected as a result of the ordinance would be directed. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that it would go to the General Fund. Mr. Pap~ expressed a preference that the money collected go to support police activities in the neighborhood an incident occurred, although he acknowledged it was unlikely the City could get that specific. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Alex Lehman of the City Attorney's Office reported that Berkeley had an ordinance directed at loud and unruly parties and cited all parties: the owner, the tenant, the person in charge, the party host, etc. Corvallis' ordinance was specific to the violator. Mr. Pap~ indicated he shared Mr. Fart's concerns about the liability of the landlord. Mr. Meisner was interested in both enforcement and prevention. He wanted to recover the costs of police response. He was unsure, however, that it was appropriate to send the landlord a notice after the second event. He wanted accountability on the part of those offending. If the landlord did nothing after being notified of the situation, then it was appropriate to hold that individual liable. Noting his interest in neighborhood viability, Mr. Meisner suggested that the ordinance be broadened to include drug houses as he was interested in a cost recovery ordinance that covered situations other than loud parties. Mr. Torrey asked how the City could address a commercial operation that required multiple responses. Ms. Nathanson believed there was a need for abatement for the situations described by the police and noted her previous request for ordinance changes or changes to State legislation that would allow the City to take action. She believed that the ordinance could be broadened to cover even more than envisioned currently. Ms. Nathanson asked if the focus of the ordinance was on cost recovery, deterrence, or punishment. She said that the ordinance did not seem to address the issue of deterrence, and if the focus was on punishment, it appeared to punish the wrong person. She said the ordinance did appear to address cost recovery. Ms. Nathanson said that she would like to see her concerns about the ordinance's inadequacies regarding deterrence and punishment addressed. She believed that the ordinance made it difficult for a landlord to comply with both State and local law given the State laws regarding the timing of eviction. Ms. Nathanson said that the ordinance could result in the eviction of people not responsible for the violations, such as roommates who were not responsible, because of what the landlord believed was required of him/her to address local ordinances. She wanted the City to do something, but she did not think the ordinance was the right approach. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m. Mr. Lee concurred with Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the effect of the ordinance on those not responsible for causing the police response. He asked how much a person would actually be penalized by the City for the police response: was it the $1,500 indicated as the cost of the police response to a large party? Mr. Lehman said that as currently drafted, the liability as to the responsible parties was joint and several, meaning each was responsible for the whole. He said that the ordinance did not address individual liability. Mr. Lee said that the size of the fine, depending on the cost of the response, could force some students out of school, and that was something he had to consider. Mr. Rayor said that there should be a distinction made between apartments, houses, and commercial establishments. He would like a process with more steps, acknowledging that it was a more complicated approach. Mr. Rayor said the second notice should go to the tenant and the landlord, and the third time the notice could go to the landlord, giving the landlord the needed time under State law to evict the tenant. Mr. Kelly indicated his concurrence with other councilors' comments. He said that the first question the council needed to respond to was, is it right for the taxpayers to pay for repeated responses to loud parties and bars. He said it was not right, and he was interested in cost recovery. However, he wanted to recover those costs from the responsible individuals. Mr. Kelly agreed that a distinction needed to be made between responses to commercial establishments and responses to private parties, because it was clear in the first instance the responsibility lay with the owner of the commercial establishment, while responsibility for a private party in a rental was harder to assess. He would first focus on the individuals at the private party actually cited by police on the scene. Mr. Kelly noted the council received e-mail communications from the Rental Owners Association of Lane County, and he encouraged staff to take advantage of its willingness to be involved in discussion of the ordinance. He agreed there was a point at which a landlord had responsibility, but it was important to determine that point in a dialogue with the association. Mr. Kelly said that he would narrow the ordinance to violations of the criminal code, Section 4, not the Eugene Code. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 8 5:30 p.m. D.Work Session: Provision of Legal Services Mr. Johnson said the item had been scheduled to address the council's concerns and make staff and legal counsel available to answer questions about legal services for the City of Eugene. He said that there were four areas identified by the council as areas of concern: 1) the overall cost of legal services; 2) the concept of an in-house legal counsel; 3) conflict of interest issues related to the legal counsel; and 4) the issue of competitive solicitation for legal services. Mr. Johnson said that page 156 of the briefing statement related to the item provided information on the cost of legal services, and noted the current budget of $1.1 million for legal services. He reminded the council that the Budget Committee reduced the initially budgeted amount by $100,000. Mr. Johnson said that the briefing statements including excerpts from the studies of legal services done over the years; the full reports were attached as appendices. The reports concluded that Eugene's costs were competitive with similarly sized jurisdictions. Regarding the issue of an in-house legal counsel, Mr. Johnson said that he asked staff to take a fresh look at the issue and establish a budget for an in-house counsel. He said that staff had used salary information from other Oregon cities such as Gresham and Salem and benefit levels that were consistent with City financial policies. Staff examined the costs of law libraries, materials and supplies, and continuing education from the cities of Salem and Gresham. Staff had also calculated indirect support costs. He offered to make the information, which was summarized in the briefing statement, available to the council. Mr. Johnson addressed the subject of competitive solicitation. He said that the City's current law firm, Harrang Long Gary Rudnick, had served in that capacity for 28 years. However, information from other Oregon jurisdictions indicated that was not an unusual situation; for example, Springfield had the same legal counsel for 35 years, School District 4J had the same legal counsel for 21 years, and Eugene Water & Electric Board had the same legal counsel for 75 years. He said that information notwithstanding, staff also looked at the recommendations of the Government Finance Officers Association, which recommended that local governments consider issuing a request for proposals for auditing services every five years. He said that such an approach could result in a new way of providing the service or a reduction in costs. Regarding conflict of interest issues, Mr. Johnson said that he had asked the City's legal counsel to hire a third-party attorney, Robed H. Fraser, to review all the conflict of interest requests made to the City of Eugene and to review them from a legal and ethical point of view. He had also hired an attorney to review the work of the attorney hired by the legal counsel. Mr. Johnson introduced Brad Tellum from the law firm of Barton and Leibman. Mr. Tellum said he had looked at the materials prepared by the City's legal counsel related to the rules related to conflict of interest, how the law firm addresses those conflicts, and what conflicts of interest had arisen during the past five years involving the City and how they were addressed. He had also reviewed the materials prepared by the outside counsel hired by the firm. Mr. Tellum said he had considered the materials in terms of two questions: 1) how do lawyers determine where conflicts arise, and 2) once that determination was made, what kind of systems were implemented. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m. With respect to the first question, Mr. Tellum said that law firms can now track, via the computer, whether the firm had a conflict of interest. He said that any such system was limited in its ability to pick up conflicts because the data bases involved included names, not issues. Further research was required. He had reviewed the disclosure letters sent by the City's legal counsel to both the City and the party it proposed to represent, and it was his judgment that the firm had followed the ethics rules that govern lawyers' conduct in Oregon in making the appropriate disclosures. Mr. Johnson concluded the staff presentation by saying he believed the City's best legal representation was to be acquired from outside counsel. He said he would continue to use outside counsel for the City of Eugene. Regarding costs, Mr. Johnson believed the costs paid to the outside firm were competitive with the costs paid by other comparable jurisdictions. Regarding the issue of conflict of interests, he said that the work done by Messrs. Tellum and Fraser indicated to him that the City's law firm was following the applicable ethics rules. Returning to the issue of competitive solicitation, Mr. Johnson reiterated that there were many examples of local jurisdictions with long-standing relationships with one legal firm, so the City's situation was not unique. However, he believed that there were advantages to some form of competitive solicitation, so when the current contract with the City's legal counsel expired, he would go through a competitive solicitation process. Mr. Johnson noted that such a process was already underway for criminal prosecution services. Mr. Lee asked what Mr. Tellum defined as the "appropriate procedures in place to recognize a conflict of interest." He asked if there was a universal definition of "appropriate procedures." Mr. Tellum said that there is no universal definition. Lawyers are held to a standard of care to their clients as fiduciaries, and the rules build in a reasonable knowledge of potential conflicts when they may arise. He said that the state of the art was the type of computer program system the law firm described in its communication to the City Manager, and such a system is about the best that could be done now. Mr. Kelly stated his comments were not intended to be a criticism of individuals, noting that the assistance he had received from City Attorney Glenn Klein had been very valuable and was appreciated. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Johnson regarding his conclusion about competitive solicitation and asked Mr. Johnson to inform the council of the results of the process. Mr. Kelly said that the issue of conflict of interest for him was not about professional standards but about public perception and basic human nature. He said that it was troubling to him when a firm represented a business that may be in an adversarial role with the City on some issue and then, the next day, attempted to represent the City on the same or related issue against that business. Mr. Kelly said that the issue was different from contracting for other services, such as computer services. An attorney had a guiding role in the development of policy, and if the council did not hear about a legal possibility from its attorney, it was unlikely to learn about it on its own. What he termed "the central effect on policy making" was an issue to him. He distinguished between a situation where two private clients of a law firm were in conflict and a situation where one of the clients in conflict was a government entity. Mr. Kelly said that the law was the foundation of the City's work, and the City Attorney had a critical role in shaping that law. He suggested that former MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 10 5:30 p.m. 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. 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. potential conflicts of interest. He said that the issue was one of community concern; in recent discussions with four former mayors, two of the four had expressed concern about the perception of conflict of interest resulting from the firm's representation of Hyundai because of the enterprise zone. Mr. Torrey asked if the City's legal firm would ethically be able to drop representation of Hyundai once it had agreed to do so. He requested a response in writing. Mr. Torrey said that the council should never let the City Manager lose authority over hiring. Mr. Torrey suggested that the City would have a difficult time finding a local legal firm without an actual or potential conflict of interest. Mr. Johnson observed that 17 conflicts of interest had been reported by the firm in the last five years, of which one was an actual conflict. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 13 5:30 p.m.