My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-02-11 Regular City Council Session
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2013
>
2013-02-11 Regular City Council Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2013 8:25:16 AM
Creation date
2/26/2013 8:25:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
2/12/2013
TYPE
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Ms. Carr stated that since the opinion has waived their rights, she asked Mr. Martin since it <br />was in the public domain did Council expend public funds on the support of the school <br />bond resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Martin said yes. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr said that Mr. Price put the resolution together and she would like to ask Mr. <br />Walker how much time was spent on the resolution and at what cost. <br /> <br />Mr. Walker stated that it was approximately an hour of the City Clerk’s time to modify and <br />prepare the resolution, which was around $27. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr stated that she was sure the Council would join her in saying that if the City would <br />like to be made whole, she would be happy to pay the $27, although it could be debated. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow stated that he was perplexed as to where there would be a better forum to <br />answer a question about why one member of Council unilaterally violated Council’s <br />attorney-client privilege on two separate legal documents. He said if Council did not <br />address the issue then they would be saying that at any point and time someone can <br />release Mr. Martin’s opinion, because they have received the same confidential heading for <br />eighteen months. Mr. Crow said the Council has an obligation to be transparent and follow <br />the law. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft returned to the dais and apologized for not feeling well. He asked Mr. Martin, <br />hypothetically speaking, if there were a sexual harassment case or someone doing <br />something illegal that would not be public because there would be real liability problems to <br />the City or a possible lawsuit, and would be something that Council would advise Council to <br />keep confidential. <br /> <br />Mr. Martin said that would be the Council’s determination. He said that he did not see <br />anything wrong with sharing the information that they were debating. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft spoke regarding attending the meeting where the Intergovernmental Agreement <br />with Olivette was discussed, because most of the questions asked were to clarify what Mr. <br />Martin’s legal opinions were in regard to that Agreement. Mr. Kraft stated that really Mr. <br />Martin had already made that document public information at that public meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Martin said it was a gray area and that legal questions come up all the time in <br />University City and other places where he has been asked to give a legal opinion in a <br />public setting and often times it has been based on previous work that he has done and <br />provided to Councilmembers. He said in those circumstances he would assume the client <br />has waived the privilege and wanted an answer to their question. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft asked Council if they would vote to allow him to ask Mr. Martin for his opinion <br />publically as he did not feel there were any great secrets. Mr. Kraft moved to make the <br />opinion of Mr. Martin public so he could ask Mr. Martin certain questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow said the motion was out of order because the City Attorney Mr. Martin clearly said <br />that attorney-client privilege had already been waived. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch asked if there was a second and there was no response. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft stated that Council must feel that the subject was so sensitive that it could not be <br />publically discussed. <br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.