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

Home Browse Search

because this issue has been under consideration since February, there is no - need to declare this as an emergency. In response, Mr. Sercombe said that this ordinance is considered as an emergency if passed with an emergency clause; the council has the authority to make this determination. Responding to Ms. Bascom's request for staff response, Mr. Sercombe said the issue raised by Mr. Stotter determining the classification of a proposed initiative measure as legislative or administrative is made when a prospective initiative petition is submitted to the City Recorder's Office. At that point, the City Recorder refers this prospective petition to the City Attorney's Office for issuance of a ballot title. If the City Attorney's Office determines that this measure does not create policy, then the measure does not qualify for the initiative process under Article 4 of the Oregon Constitution. Mr. Sercombe noted that this decision has been challenged in the judicial system and was upheld. On the other hand, the proposed legislation allows any person who is dissatisfied with the content of the ballot title or the City Attorney Office's decision regarding ballot title issuance the opportunity to seek relief in court. Mr. Sercombe indicated that the judicial process concerning review of ballot titles requires this review to be given priority over other court business and be given a speedy court determination, i.e., several days. Mr. Sercombe indicated that the process of determining local initiative and referendum procedures is set by the council. However, Chapter 250 of the State Statue preempts the council's decision regarding the structure and content of ballot titles. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles regarding monetary compensation for securing petition signatures, Mr. Sercombe said - that the position of the Federal District Court in Oregon is that it is unconstitutional for local government to disallow citizens the right to secure signatures for money. Ms. Sercombe said the present process for ballot title wording appeals is that such appeals be submitted first to the council for review and, if further litigation is requested, the appeals will go to the courts. The proposed ordinance will require such appeals to be submitted directly to the court for judicial review, bypassing council decision. Ms. Schue said that selection of ballot title wording is a complicated process, and because the council does not have the needed experience, she would support such a change in the process of determining ballot title wording. Ms. Schue said that she does not see a valid reason why the Charter Amendment should require more signatures than a referendum petition and wanted both a Charter Amendment and a referendum petition to require signatures of 12.5 percent of the registered voters. Mr. Holmer responded that the fact that the Charter Amendment is in effect for a longer period of time justifies the need for requiring a larger percentage of signatures. Although he would not be opposed to changing the number of signatures for a Charter Amendment to reflect 12.5 percent of the registered voters, he is in favor of leaving it at the current 15 percent. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1989 Page 4