10/21/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- -- Ms. Schue thanked the commissioners for their work on passage of the project. She said she thought the funds were fair payment for services such as street e repair and the agreement was advantageous to both sides. Ms. Ehrman thanked Lane County officials for the payment and the visit. II. APPEAL OF INITIATIVE BALLOT TITLE #51 City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. He sa i d the City Code provided for an initiative petition procedure, in which the City Attorney was responsible for drafting a ballot title in response to the filing of an initiative. He said the ballot title was required to be concise and impartial and to fairly represent the subject matter and purpose. Mr. Gleason said that if those filing the petition felt the City Attorney's ballot title did not meet the fairness requirements, they could appeal the title to the City Council, which then had three days to hold a hearing and to make a decision about whether the ballot title was a concise and impartial statement of the subject matter. Mr. Gleason said a decision on this appeal could be made today or tomorrow and would be final. He suggested that the hearing follow a quasi-judicial procedure, which he described as follows: 1) staff presentation; 2) appellants. presentations; 3) staff response; 4) response by a single appellant; 5) questions from councilors; 6) close of proceedings; and 7) council deliberation and action. e Ms. Ehrman noted that councilors yesterday had received information packets and that additional information from Springfield attorneys Harms, Harold, Leahy, and Pace had been distributed today. A. Staff Presentation Ci ty Attorney John Arnold presented the staff report. He noted that information distributed to councilors included memos in which City attorneys described the procedures and issues involved in the appeal. He said the additional i nformat ion di stri buted today had been requested by the City Attorneys. Mr. Arnold said the packet referred to a ballot title that Mr. Harms had drafted and that ultimately had been adopted by Springfield voters in 1974. He said the appeal was based in part on the claim that Mr. Harms's title was the only fair and accurate description of the proposed charter amendment. Mr. Arnold said the letter from Mr. Harms stated his opinion that the ballot title prepared by the Eugene City Attorney was a clear and impartial statement of the proposed charter amendment that was the subject of the initiative. Mr. Arnold noted that today's appeal was an unusual process for the council. He said that although the initiative process in the State of Oregon was a vital and important part of the governmental processes, the issue before the council today was narrow and technical: i.e., whether the ballot title that had been challenged was a concise and impartial statement of the initiative e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 3