11/20/1989 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Barbara Keller, 2570 Onyx, testified against this ordinance on the grounds that the initiative process provides an important indication about citizen views and affords citizens the knowledge that they are being represented within city government. Ms. Keller said that in light of the fact that the City Attorney's position is not elective, he should not be allowed to veto a ballot initiative. A representative, speaking on behalf of the Eugene Neighborhood Leaders (NL), voiced his opposition to this ordinance. The NL also expressed disappointment that they were not notified earlier of the City's plans to consider this measure. Kevin Hornbuckle, 1359 Patterson Street, concurred with the opinion of those who spoke before him. There being no additional requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. CB 4181--An ordinance concerning election procedures; amending Sections 2.964, 2.970, 2.971, 2.972, 2.973, 2.975, 2.976, 2.977, 2.979, 2.980, 2.981, 2.982, 2.983, 2.984, 2.987, 2.988, 2.990, and 2.992 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Sections 2.974 and 2.978 of that code; and declaring an emergency. - Ms. Schue said that public testimony demonstrates that this subject needs more public review and suggested that this proposed ordinance be referred to the Citizens Involvement Committee (CIC) for further review. Mr. Boles voiced support for Ms. Schue's suggestion but added that the Neighborhood Leaders should also be part of this review process. Ms. Ehrman said that although she is not opposed to having further review from the CIC and NL, Eugene citizens do not appear to be interested in making any compromises with respect to this ordinance. She felt, therefore, that such a review might be a waste of time. Ms. Schue expressed her support for the alternative ordinance which would retain the current requirement for percentage of signatures but would calculate this percentage based on the number of city electors registered at the time the petition is filed. Responding to earlier comment, Ms. Schue said Lane County updates the list of current voters more often than in the past as a consequence of the mailed ballot. Mr. Holmer offered his support to Ms. Schue's position. Mr. Miller noted that the number of signatures required and the City Attorney Office's involvement in the naming of a ballot title seem to be the two greatest areas of public concern. Mr. Holmer stated that the public is also concerned with the issue of who should have the authority to make a decision about the rights of the voters in matters of direct legislation; section 2.972 should be an issue requiring public vote. Mr. Holmer added that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 19&9 Page 3 y