Laserfiche WebLink
candidates must consider all the voters and not just their core constituencies. He acknowledged <br />the system was not broken but thought it "could certainly use some fixing." <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher acknowledged the legal obstacles voiced to instant runoff voting by the Secretary of <br />State, but noted the City Attorney's suggestion that the issue could be a home rule test case. The <br />legislature could also be asked to change the way the law works so Eugene could use instant <br />runoff voting. Two bills providing for instant runoff voting were in the legislature awaiting a <br />hearing; they were likely to die within the next few days. He said the Council Committee on <br />Intergovernmental Relations could be directed by the council to support the bills. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher reported on the second committee recommendation for ten wards. He said the <br />committee considered it a de facto form of campaign finance reform. The approach would keep <br />the number of citizens in each ward small, making door-to-door campaigning easier, reduce the <br />ratio of constituents to councilors, and allow for the realignment of wards to neighborhood and <br />geographic boundaries. He said the recommendation was not unanimous, as was the first <br />recommendation. A minority of members objected because of the increased costs to support a <br />larger council, the diluted influence of individual councilors, and the fact deliberations would be <br />less efficient. Mr. Belcher indicated he supported forwarding the recommendation to put the issue <br />before the council. He noted the number of wards was actually established by resolution, <br />although the charter provided for eight councilors elected by wards. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher said the committee recommended a September election for voter consideration of its <br />recommended changes. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher reiterated the committee's request for direction on EWEB. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked how many times instant runoff voting had been considered by the <br />legislature. Mr. Belcher did not know. He thought the issue was more relevant now because of <br />the 2000 presidential election. He noted a 1913 case in which the Oregon Supreme Court had <br />agreed that Portland's home rule authority gave it the ability to use preference voting. However, <br />since the time of the State constitutional provision in 1906 allowing preference voting, the <br />legislature has yet to enact a statute to allow that to occur. <br /> <br />Ms. Walston noted that legislation providing for instant runoff voting had been introduced in other <br />states in conjunction with a broader national movement, but that she was unaware of any state <br />which had adopted such legislation. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Tollenaar his opinion of instant runoff voting. Mr. Tollenaar said he <br />supported instant runoff voting because it was a clone of the dual election system but saved time <br />and costs; it moved the election closer to the time the winning candidate took office; and, by <br />holding a November election, maximum turnout was ensured. He thought it a better way for the <br />voters to express their views about the various candidates, particularly if there were three or more <br />candidates. He thought it a more logical way for voters to register their opinions on the relative <br />merits of the candidates. Mr. Tollenaar said that Eugene was growing more diverse, and changing <br />socially and politically. He thought instant runoff voting was a way to accommodate those <br />changes. It also avoided the problem of "spoiler" candidates mentioned by Mr. Belcher. He <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />