More talk, not less

Baker City Councilors are elected to do three main tasks:

1. Supervise the city manager

2. Oversee the city’s budget.

3. Approve city policies.

Last Tuesday Councilor Gail Duman asked a legitimate question about Dan Van Thiel, the city’s contract attorney, representing City Manager Steve Brocato in a personal legal matter that didn’t involve his work as city manager.

Unfortunately, Duman, along with the rest of the council and city residents, received only a partial answer to her question Tuesday because Mayor Jeff Petry was so quick to bang his gavel.

Brocato said he did not spend city money to hire Van Thiel — a statement which Van Thiel’s billing records confirm. That answers the budget question.

Except money isn’t the only issue here.

The other matter which Duman, along with Councilor Beverly Calder, raised last Tuesday also is within the Council’s purview: Was there any potential problem with Van Thiel representing Brocato, considering that not only does the city pay Van Thiel thousands of dollars per year, but in most cases he works for the city at Brocato’s behest?

At the very least, Petry should have acknowledged Duman and Calder’s query by agreeing to schedule a meeting during which councilors could discuss the matter.

Portland attorney Peter Jarvis, an expert on attorney-client conflicts of interest, told the Baker City Herald last week that Van Thiel’s representation of Brocato did not constitute a conflict of interest.

But the City Council’s duty isn’t to make sure Van Thiel avoids such conflicts — its duty is to oversee Brocato.

The voters who elected the seven city councilors ought to be able to rely on those councilors to scrutinize the city manager’s actions. The councilors, after all, have the sole discretion to hire or fire the manager, who is, in effect, the city’s CEO.

Petry wasn’t obligated to open the matter of Van Thiel’s representation of Brocato to general discussion last Tuesday. In fact, he shouldn’t have, because the Council had not advertised, on its agenda for the meeting, that it would talk about that subject, so people who are interested in that topic might not have attended the meeting or watched it on TV.

But the mayor could have — and should have — scheduled a time when the council could talk about Duman and Calder’s concern. Councilors could do so during an executive session, which is closed to the public, because Oregon’s public meetings law allows city councils to discuss the city manager’s performance during a closed session.

Petry and other councilors made it clear last Tuesday that they’re satisfied with Brocato’s explanation, and they don’t think the matter warrants any further consideration.

But Duman and Calder disagree, and their opinions, though they represent the minority, should count, too.

We’re not suggesting that Petry must call a special meeting every time a councilor demands one, regardless of the reason.

But when the topic is overseeing the city manager — one of the City Council’s chief duties — we’d prefer the mayor err on the side of too much discussion rather than too little.