09/14/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e give petitioners the opportunity to correct obvious mistakes that are often made in drafting legislation. Mr. Boles opened the public hearing. Dave Sweet, 1237 Ferry Street, testified in opposition to the proposed ordinance. He expressed concern about the CAO's increased power under the proposed ordinance and suggested that the City hire its own legal counsel. William J. Mason, 1803 West 34th Avenue, testified in opposition to the proposed ordinance's emergency clause. He felt that the ordinance should be referred back to the CIC for a second review. He said that based on his experience with the initiative process, he felt the proposed changes would not make the initiative process more effective for the public. He also expressed concern about the proposed changes increasing the CAO's power. Robert Wolfe, 3380 High Street, said that it was currently more difficult than ever to place an initiative on the ballot. He said that changes in the initiative process should be made to make the process easier. He echoed concerns expressed about increasing the power of the CAO, saying that petiti- oners need access to legal advice, but not from the CAO. He also expressed concern about the statistical sampling procedures under the proposed ordi- nance. He recommended adding a provision to allow a margin of error in the sampling procedures, noting that the Secretary of State's Office was consider- ing a similar idea for State initiatives. He expressed concern about the proposed changes to the ordinance being referred to as housekeeping in nature e and about attaching an emergency clause to the ordinance. In conclusion, he asked that the council table action to allow more time to review the proposed changes and that staff verify whether the public notice for this public hearing met the legal requirements. Morton SalinQ, 1510 Charnel ton Street, noted that he found out about this public hearing on Friday, September 11, and that he was not able to obtain a copy of the proposed ordinance until this afternoon. He said that signature requirements for city-initiated initiatives in Eugene were four to five times more stringent than State requirements for State initiatives. He said that the City Charter violated State law with respect to the amount of time for collecting signatures. He asked for more time to review the proposed changes and echoed the concerns expressed about attaching the emergency clause to the ordinance. Robert RounsleQ, 476 East Broadway, thanked the council for the opportunity to speak. He testified in support of extending the time period for collecting signatures and reducing signature requirements to less than 10 percent of the number of voters who voted in the last election. Eben Dobson, 525 Fair Oaks Drive, was unable to testify due to a sore throat and said that he would submit his testimony in writing. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 4 7:30 p.m.