Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multnomah County Lawsuit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator says Multnomah County lawsuit forced agency to hire outside counsel; questions raised on use of taxpayer funds
Summary
On the Senate floor a senator described receiving notice that lawyers had been retained to defend an organization from a Multnomah County lawsuit and criticized the county's use of taxpayer funds; the senator identified himself as vice president of the organization and said the group is trying to limit legal costs.
A senator used the floor to express concern about a Multnomah County lawsuit that required expensive outside counsel for an organization he represents and criticized the use of county taxpayer funds in the matter.
"I got a message from the very expensive lawyers OSM has had to hire to defend them from Multnomah County," the senator said, describing legal documents and declarations that were due shortly. The speaker identified himself as a vice president of "OSM" during the remarks and said the organization was "trying to keep expenses down, but some are unavoidable." He added, "I apologize in advance to the taxpayers and my colleagues here from Multnomah County."
The senator criticized Multnomah County officials' decision to use taxpayer money in the lawsuit and said he did not understand the county's basis for the action. He also referenced climate change and a petition signed by scientists in his remarks, saying, "No. 31,000 scientists who signed a petition are not responsible for bad weather. A research institute that had nothing to do with the petition certainly isn't." Those comments were delivered as remonstrance rather than a motion; the floor did not take legislative action during the remarks.
The transcript does not include the formal case caption, the precise legal claims, or a response from Multnomah County. The senator framed the issue as a local legal dispute with fiscal implications for county taxpayers and indicated the need for further clarification of the county's decision to fund litigation.
