Katy Bothum reads from prepared statements at the Joseph City Council meeting Tuesday night, while Steve Krieger looks on. Photo by Elane Dickenson

CORRECTION (Posted 2/10/05): In this article on the Joseph City Council meeting, the Chieftain repeated an erroneous statement made by Joseph resident Katy Bothum that councilor Shelley Curtiss had previously moved to retain city attorney Mark Tipperman’s services at every council meeting. Although the matter was discussed, such motions were never made. The Chieftain regrets the error.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Joseph City Attorney Mark Tipperman of La Grande came under fire at the Joseph City Council meeting Tuesday night when he was attacked during the public comment period for being a plaintiff in a recently filed lawsuit against the State of Oregon challenging Measure 37.

The council, however, did not take any action regarding Tipperman, who was consulted several times during the meeting on other legal issues.

Speaking during the public comment period, Katy Bothum said she recently became aware that Tipperman, along with 1000 Friends of Oregon, was a plaintiff in the suit, which was filed Jan. 14.

Five county farm bureaus in the Willamette and Tualatin valleys are also plaintiffs in the amended suit.

She first voiced her opinion that rural counties stand to “garner great benefits” from Measure 37, if city officials work with the landowners collaboratively instead of in opposition at every turn.

“To me this is a ludicrous conflict of interest,” Bothum said, noting that as city attorney, Tipperman would advise the council on matters to do with Measure 37. Noting that councilor Shelley Curtiss recently made a motion to retain the services of Tipperman at every meeting, Bothum said, “Thank God that motion was denied. … I ask you all how could the council even suggest that the City of Joseph pay Mark Tipperman $500 for every time he is present, or even retain his counsel, now knowing he is an active plaintiff with a land use activist group?”

Bothum referred more than once to the Marr Ranch property, which is located in Joseph’s Urban Growth boundary. The owner of the property, K&B Limited Family Partnership, has filed a Measure 37 claim against Wallowa County, citing land use issues which have so far left the 68-acres undeveloped.

Steve Krieger, a partner in K&B, questioned the city’s employment of Tipperman as city attorney. He pointed out that the lawyer had not publicly disclosed his involvement in the lawsuit and questioned strongly the appropriateness of him representing the city. “How can you be objective?” Krieger asked the council.

“I don’t deny I’m a plaintiff,” said Tipperman, when asked to respond. He added that his role in the suit is not a conflict of interest under the law, and that he can still give good legal advice.

He said it is up to the council to determine “if you aren’t happy with me as an attorney or don’t think it looks good” for Joseph.

Walter Smith of Joseph spoke to defend the attorney, stating that he didn’t think it was appropriate “to put him on the skewer” when the topic wasn’t even on the agenda. He added that he felt the lawyer was “exceptionally competent.”

The question of whether the city council should take an opinion on Measure 37 came up, with the consensus being that the council doesn’t need to take a position, it just needs to enforce the law and that it has already passed an ordinance to deal with Measure 37 claims.