Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy ascertained that Councilor Bettman objected to taking action on the ordinance at the present <br />meeting. <br /> <br /> <br />5. PUBLIC HEARING: <br /> <br />An Ordinance Concerning Initiative and Referendum Procedures; and Amending Sections 2.972 <br />and 2.981 of the Eugene Code, 1971 <br /> <br />City Manager pro tem Jones stated that the ordinance would provide a process to ensure that practices were <br />in line with the code. She asked City Attorney Jerome to speak to the ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome stated that the ordinance would establish the number of signatures it would take to place a <br />referendum on the ballot. She said currently the code required that the number of signatures be equal to 10 <br />percent of all of the votes cast for all of the candidates for mayor in the preceding election. She related that <br />historically it included all write-in votes. She explained that recently the Circuit Court ruled that under the <br />code language the City could only count those write-ins for people who intended to be candidates and who <br />were eligible to be candidates. She said it was the City Attorney’s understanding that it was not the City’s <br />intent and that it was nearly impossible to administer for that definition. She said the proposed ordinance <br />sought to respond the Circuit Court’s interpretation of Eugene Code 2.972 and would clarify that the City <br />should count all votes for the office of Mayor. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome explained that the second issue addressed by the ordinance had to do with the current code <br />requirement that if a valid petition was filed, the City must generally hold an election at the next statutory <br />election date. She said the current code did allow for an exception so that the council could hold an earlier <br />election but it would not allow an exception to defer it to a later election. The ordinance would change it so <br />that a later election would be allowed. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked why the council needed that level of discretion. Ms. Jerome replied that it could be <br />costly to refer a petition to the next election in a case where no other local government in Lane County had <br />anything for the ballot. She said it could also be something the council would want to balance with the <br />importance of timeliness to act on a petition. She thought it could be the preference of a petitioner to have <br />an item matched with other items in an election. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman commented that she was “astounded” to see this in the packet. She recalled the <br />discussion about the issues with the referendum and the decision to put the gas tax on the ballot. She did not <br />remember the latter issue coming up. <br /> <br />City Manager Jones stated that there were a number of items to be brought before the council and this was <br />one of them. She sought to ensure the council had options in how to respond to this type of issue. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked to see the code issues that conflict with the State. She thought that if the council <br />could have ultimate discretion over when an election occurred it could be another way to interfere with what <br />people see as an important process of checks and balances. She noted that there was nothing in the packet <br />that explained or justified this change or how it compared to the state statute. She said she needed more <br />research before she could support the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, she closed the public hearing. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />