Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e Mayor Miller asked how staff arrived at a time limit of six months. Mr. <br /> Biedermann said the figure is arbitrary. City Manager Mike Gleason said he <br /> feels six months is too long and stressed the importance of setting some time <br /> 1 i mit. He said that without a time limit, people can take out ballot titles <br /> and hold them as a threat, without acting on them. <br /> Mr. Holmer suggested that the time limit be reduced from six months to three <br /> months. Other councilors agreed. Ms. Ehrman noted that she preferred the <br /> six month time frame. <br /> Mr. Holmer questioned staff's proposal to clarify that lithe five-day limit <br /> for ballot title preparation by the City Attorney, the five-day limit for <br /> appeal by a dissatisfied elector to council requesting a different title, and <br /> the three-day limit for the council to afford a hearing are business days <br /> (not calendar days)." Mr. Holmer noted that petitioners only have 30 days to <br /> collect the requisite signatures for a referendum. He thought that using <br /> "business days" as a standard for processing a referendum would not give <br /> petitioners ample time to collect signatures. The council agreed to use <br /> calendar days as a standard of measurement for referendum petitions and <br /> business days as a standard of measurement for initiative petitions. <br /> Mr. Biedermann said the Council Committee on Committees is suggesting that a <br /> section be included in the code noting that the elector may petition the <br /> circuit court of the judicial district for review of the council's decision. <br /> This will clarify the review process, and will remove the council from the <br /> position of having to choose between a citizen title concern and the efforts <br /> e of the City Attorney. <br /> Mr. Biedermann said the Council Committee on Committees is also proposing to <br /> add a section to the code giving the City Attorney the authority to reject a <br /> prospective petition not of a legislative character. This will dissuade <br /> spurious initiative campaigns which have nothing to do with the legislative <br /> business of the City. Mr. Holmer thought the City Council, rather than the <br /> City Attorney, should judge whether a petition is legislative in character. <br /> Mr. Sercombe said there are a large number of legal tests that have evolved <br /> in the referendum and initiative process to distinguish between those things <br /> that are legislative and the proper things for people to petition and vote <br /> on, and those things that are administrative. Mr. Sercombe said that if the <br /> council sets itself up to make this determination, he would strongly <br /> recommend that the council provide for the role of the City Attorney in that <br /> process. He reiterated that at bottom, this is a legal classification <br /> decision and not a policy issue. <br /> Mr. Holmer said he believes that if a petitioner feels the City Attorney made <br /> the wrong classification and appeals the decision, that appeal should be <br /> heard by a legislative body--the City Council--rather than by a judicial <br /> body. Mr. Sercombe pointed out that under such a scenario, the City Council <br /> would be hearing an appeal of a decision by the City Attorney while at the <br /> same time receiving legal advice from the City Attorney. He added that the <br /> City Council has the authority to initiate a piece of legislation for a vote. <br /> Thus, if the council wanted a voted on an issue for which the City Attorney <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1989 Page 4 <br />