09/14/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Responding to a question from Mr. Green, Mr. Biedermann said the reasons for the proposed changes were to bring the ordinance in compliance with State law and to make the initiative/referendum process more accessible and effective for the public. Responding to questions from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Gary said the effect of an emergency clause under State law is to defeat the referendum process and explained that this is the reason why the Oregon Constitution allows the Governor to veto a bill as well as an emergency clause attached to specific legislation. Answering a different question, Mr. Biedermann said considerable staff discussion was held regarding the attachment of the emergency clause to the proposed ordinance. He said the decision to attach the emergency clause was based on the current ordinance being outdated. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Gary said the City has the ability to amend the City Charter to make provision for a different mechanism for implementing emergency legislation. He said the implementation of emergency legislation is provided for in the City Charter in the same way as the State Constitution provides for the emergency implementation of State legislation. Mr. Nicholson said he shares concerns that a number of citizens have expressed to him about CAO review. Mr. Gary said that the CAD acts on behalf of the City when providing petitioners with legal advice that would be viewed as improvements to an initiative/referendum to avoid potential legal challenges. He said there would be no attorney-client privilege, as any legal advice from the CAD in such cases would be governed by the Oregon Public Records Law. He said he was not aware of any exemption under the law that e would allow for legal advice in such instances to remain confidential. Ms. Bascom expressed concern about the timing in which the proposed ordinance was being presented to the council. She suggested approving the proposed changes that are housekeeping in nature and referring the ordinance back to the CIC for review, with some analysis of the City Club study on the initia- tive/referendum process released earlier this year. Mr. Biedermann noted that a number of members who served on the City Club subcommittee that worked on the study also served on the CIC when it reviewed the ordinance in 1991, and that he provided a presentation on the City's initiative/referendum process to the City Club when the study was being developed. Responding to questions from Ms. Ehrman regarding Section 2.977(2) of the proposed ordinance, Mr. Biedermann said the purpose of that section is to provide for suggestions by the CAD to petitioners about clarity, style, and approach that may clarify a petition for individuals who wish to sign it. Mr. Gary added that it would be unconstitutional to compel petitioners to accept recommendations of the CAO. Responding to questions from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Gary said the cost of CAO review of initiatives/referendums would be paid by the City. He added that legal counsel who represent petitioners often contact the CAO first to find out what position the City might take with respect to the effectiveness of their client's proposed legislation. He said the purpose of CAO review is to e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 3 7:30 p.m.