02/21/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e review of a ballot measure, that it not be made mandatory for every measure. He also recommended that the five-day deadline be expanded to allow sufficient time for review. Ms. Bascom stated that the current process seems to work well and should not be changed. She acknowledged, however, that the City has experienced difficulty with the naming of ballot titles in the past and said that she would support whatever action can be taken to alleviate this. Responding to a question from Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gleason said that in the last 5 years, of the 15 initiative and referendums proposed, 6 have collected enough signatures to be put on the ballot; of these 15, 4 are still outstanding and no signature collection has begun. Ms. Schue said that the CIC has put much effort into trying to simplify and improve the initiative/referendum process and expressed support for the concept of having some sort of ballot measure review. Ms. Ehrman also added her support to this concept. She said that the City has a responsibility to the community to have at least a cursory review of ballot measures before they are circulated in the public. She noted that the idea of conformity with both the State and the County processes is appealing. e Mr. Holmer emphasized the importance of selecting a base of electors that is relatively constant; he felt that using the total number of city electors registered at the time of petition filing would give this consistency. Mr. Holmer also noted that while he is willing to consider decreasing the percentage requirements for both the initiative and referendum. the Charter Amendment represents significant legislative issues and should require a larger number. Mr. Bennett expressed concern that those citizens who are present at public hearings are not necessarily representative of the community as a whole and felt that the majority of the community would want to have more say in public petitioning processes. Mr. Gleason pointed out that there is good justification for having signature requirements which are different for cities than for states and counties. While counties spend a majority of time dealing with legislative delegations from the state. cities spend most of their time dealing with business practice issues. He added that its important to remember that as the threshold for number of votes decreases, petitioners who are energetic but might not represent a large portion of the community are able to use the proposed petitioning process to alter the debate of the discussion. Ms. Bascom said that having paid signature collectors is a travesty of the democratic process and asked whether there was a way to eliminate this. In response. Mr. Sercombe said that the Supreme Court has decided that prohibition on paid circulators for the initiative/referendum process is a violation of the First Amendment. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21. 1990 Page 5