Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

scheduled general or primary election year was considered a “special” election. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said the reference to “special” election was deleted because staff considered it confusing. Ms. Bettman said that people think in terms of primary elections, or special elections, and suggested that “election” could be defined as discussed by Ms. Feldman. Speaking to Section 2.977, Ms. Bettman said the downside of the provision was that there was more expense in going to Circuit Court for the public if a resident disagreed with a ballot title. The upside was that the court was a more objective forum for argument. City Attorney Lidz clarified that individuals could represent themselves on such a matter before a Circuit Court judge. Referring to Section 2.979(2), Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Feldman that State law did not provide for an appeal process for a statistical signature sampling method. City Attorney Lidz clarified that there was a State requirement that a second sampling would be done to confirm the results of the first sampling. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about Section 2.981, Ms. Feldman clarified that the council currently had the power to call an earlier election for a referendum. City Attorney Lidz said currently, a referendum election was held at the first election more than 90 days after the referendum was certified as having the appropriate number of signatures. The council had the ability to shorten the time period from 90 to 60 days, placing great pressure on the City Recorder’s Office. The proposed change would allow the council to make referendum elections more like initiative elections by giving the council the ability to wait until the next primary or general election to put the item on the ballot. Speaking to Section 2.981, Mr. Zelenka said without thwarting democracy and people’s right to petition, the council could increase voter turnout and avoid spending money for a standalone election in March. The council could have such an election in May, when it would be much cheaper. The public would still be able to vote, but it would be a more prudent business decision for the council. Ms. Bettman called for a provision that added text to the voters’ pamphlet that stated in the case of conflicting measures, whichever got the most votes, even if both passed, would prevail. Ms. Feldman acknowledged that such measures did not occur often. City Attorney Lidz suggested staff could amend the text in the ordinance related to the voters’ pamphlet to that effect. Ms. Bettman thought it should be made clear to the voters. Ms. Solomon referred to Section 2.994 and indicated she did not support the limit of 325 words for arguments submitted by the public. She pointed out there was extra room at the bottom of the page, and if people had something to say, they should be able to fill that space as well. She favored regulating font size, however, suggesting a font size of 9, 10, or 11. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the text read “325 words or the space available.” Ms. Feldman observed that she had been contacted by members of the public with a lot to say who asked if they could use 4 point type, which she felt would be unreadable but which was not currently precluded by code.. City Attorney Lidz was unsure that font sizes were specifically standardized to last the test of time; if that was the case, he believed the City could specify a font size. Mr. Pryor suggested that for the sake of consistency, there be some word limit. He noted the State limited the number of words that could be used. He did not want to limit the ability of people to express their opinions, but he believed a word limit was needed. Mayor Piercy asked about the State word limit. Mr. Pryor suggested the City’s limit be consistent with the State’s word limit. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 9 Work Session