CC Minutes - 02/11/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman suggested the code lacked definitions as it referred to “election” without being specific as to whether the election in question was a “special,” “primary” or “general” election. That either meant any election or that the council could choose any date and hold an election. In addition, on page 8 of the draft ordinance, where it spoke to the need for the City Recorder to determine “immediately” whether the submitted petition was in proper form, “immediately” was not defined. Ms. Feldman said that usually occurred at the time of petition submission, when she met with the petitioners personally. She would make that clear. Speaking to the lack of a definition for “special” elections, etc., Ms. Feldman noted the four election dates provided by State law. Any election held on one of those dates in any year other than the regularly 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 9 Work Session