Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-05 Council Rules Committee - r Council Rules Committee March 21, 2005 6:32 p.m. Purpose—Council Attorney Contract Attendance: Charlotte Pfeifer, President Derek D. Dieter 1st District Roland Kelly 2nd District Ann Puzzello 4th District David Varner 5th District Karen L. White At Large Timothy Rouse At Large Absent: Al `Buddy" Kirsits At Large Ervin Kuspa 6th District Others Present: John Voorde, City Clerk Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Nancy Sulok, South Bend Tribune James Austin, 801 Turnock Rules Committee Members: Councilmember Pfeifer, Chairperson Karen L. White David Varner Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand was asked by Charlotte to leave the room. Charlotte Pfeifer, Chairperson, Rules Committee began the meeting with a brief retrospective of what has transpired over the last 3 months relative to the contract of Council Attorney Kathy Cekanski-Farrand. Pfeifer emphasized that she had worked diligently to get every Councilmember's opinion regarding the position of Council Attorney and the performance of current Council Attorney Kathy Cekanski-Farrand. Pfeifer provided a capsule of her approach and personal opinion regarding the attorney position for each member to begin discussion (See exhibit#1) Roundtable discussion followed, each member expressing their thoughts relative to the position, the process, and the person, namely, Council Attorney Kathy Cekanski-Farrand. Karen White—outlined her sense that the Council Attorney be full-time; that the attorney provide sound, unbiased advice free of personal opinion; that the attorney be readily available; and that all Councilmembers were to be treated equally with respect. Derek Dieter—pointed to Kathy Cekanski-Farrand's 30 plus years of experience working as Council Attorney, emphasizing the quality of her work and soundness of her legal opinions. 1 Roland Kelly—gave Kathy Cekanski-Farrand high marks. He said he regards her highly as a friend and attorney who Council should retain. Ann Puzzello—offered that Kathy Cekanski-Farrand was a friend and has been thorough, fair, and accessible; with a wonderful work ethic and work product. David Varner—offers perspective of one in the political minority who nonetheless is supportive of Kathy Cekanski-Farrand because of her professionalism, her 30 years experience, and her high ethics. Karen White—described Kathy Cekanski-Farrand as a brilliant attorney who nonetheless should be subject to a review process. Also asked for clarity on the question of when the Attorney works for an individual or the body. Tim Rouse—described Kathy Cekanski-Farrand as prompt, thorough, cordial and pleasant. Ery Kuspa—sent a letter of support for Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand and is included(See Exhibit#2.) Al Kirsits—sent a letter supporting Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand and is included(See Exhibit#3.) Much open discussion followed regarding the need for clarity on confidentiality issues and the need for review procedures in the future. Tim Rouse—stated the review process needs to be open and fair, not at the whim of the Council President. He stressed a need for specific performance review policies as well as conflict of interest and confidentiality policies. Karen White—suggested we review procedures used in other cities. Se made a motion seconded by David Varner that the City Clerk investigate performance review procedures from other Indiana Communities and report findings to the Rules Committee. The motion passed with three (3) ayes. Charlotte Pfeifer—described the discussion and review as healthy process. She said it was only last Wednesday after a series of meetings with the Council Attorney that they were able to reach terms of contractual agreement. Based on that understanding Councilmember Pfeifer motioned, seconded by Councilmember Varner that on March 28, 2005, she would ask the full Council to extend Kathy Cekanski-Farrand's contract through December 31, 2005. The motion passed with three (3) ayes. 2 Z R L " Councilmember Pfeifer asked City Clerk John Voorde to call Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand back into the room. City Clerk John Voorde announced the motions to Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand who thanked everyone then recounted her understanding of the "work rules" she agreed to with Charlotte, which would basically reaffirm those practiced by the Council Attorney for the last 10 years. Much spirited discussion ensued as to what Charlotte and Kathy Cekanski-Farrand understood had been agreed upon at their last meeting the previous Wednesday. Charlotte wants a weekly report from Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand of all work she is doing for all Councilmembers. Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand said she could not do that because of the accepted principle of attorney/client privilege. Varner offered that current practice protects confidentiality for Council Committee chairs, and for individual members as long as their work does not exceed 35 hours by the Council Attorney. Charlotte Pfeifer maintains the President should get a weekly report of all work by the attorney for all Councilmembers. Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand citing rules 1.6 and 1.13 of the Rules of Professional Conduct preclude her from doing that. (These rules are attached as Exhibit #4.) Tim Rouse stated the principle of confidentiality may well be a matter of law and legal ethics suggesting an opinion on the matter from the Attorney General was in order. Dave Varner agreed. Charlotte Pfeifer stated she did not trust the Council Attorney's interpretation of the confidentiality rule. She reiterated she thought she and Kathy had an agreement the prior Wednesday, while citing this as an example of the Council Attorney's actions dividing the Council. Karen White agreeing there was a need for an interpretation of the confidentiality rules moved the President should ask the Attorney General for an interpretation of rules 1.6 & 1.13 Charlotte seconded. The motion passed Charlotte stated she would try to get a legal opinion by March 28, 2005. Kathy Cekanski-Farrand asked that her annual Council Attorney report filed with the City Clerk's Office on March 21, 2005 be made a part of the record. This is attached as (Exhibit#5.) Articles referenced on page 8 of that report that Council Attorney offers to define "Attorney-Client" privilege are on file as exhibit#6 in the City Clerk's Office. The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Respectful submitted, John oo e City C 3