Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
voters pamphlet to be about $600 per page. She said additionally each pamphlet contained approximately seven <br />pages of non-measure related information that would need to be added to the cost and which the City had always <br />absorbed. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka asked if a candidate could opt out of the voters pamphlet if running unopposed. Ms. Feldman said <br />that was not addressed in the amendment. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor used an example of an election in which a candidate was running unopposed and there were no other <br />issues on the ballot. He asked if the City would be required to produce a voters pamphlet in that situation. Ms. <br />Feldman said she understood the amendment would require a voters pamphlet. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor said he supported the intent to allow candidates to make a statement, the current wording of the <br />amendment would require the City to bear the expense of producing a voters pamphlet if one person asked for one; <br />there were no mitigating conditions in place to allow the cost to be considered. He could not support the amendment <br />because it was not fiscally prudent to be that restrictive. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked if a section could be added that would provide an exception in which the council could <br />waive the requirement. Mr. Lidz said inserting that language would return the section to its original state and allow <br />the council discretion. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark urged councilors to bear in mind that voters pamphlets were not for the benefit of the candidates or <br />the organization; they were for the benefit of the voters. He was in favor of publishing a pamphlet as it was one of <br />the least expensive ways to education voters about those who were running for office. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor wanted to see language that would allow the council some discretion to waive the requirement on a <br />case-by-case basis in order to be cognizant of finances. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz suggested changing the period to a comma at the end of subsection (4) of proposed section 2.993 and <br />adding the following language: “unless the city council waives the requirement.” Councilor Bettman accepted the <br />suggestion as a friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz reminded the council that it could not compel EWEB or the school districts to pay. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman noted there was not a provision to waive a voters pamphlet if there was no agreement to pay. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka asked why the language referred only to EWEB and did not include school districts. Ms. Feldman <br />replied that Section 2.993(5)(b) addressed school districts. Mr. Lidz referred the council to relevant language in the <br />agenda packet. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to insert a new subsection 2.993(5) to read: <br />“Prior to the inclusion of a statement from a candidate for the Eugene Water & Electric Board in a <br />voters pamphlet published pursuant to subsection 2.993(4), the Eugene Water & Electric Board <br />shall agree to pay to the City the cost of the Eugene Water & Electric Board’s portion, as determined <br />by the City Recorder, of the printing, advertising, mailing and personnel expenses associated with <br />publishing the voters pamphlet and distributing it within the city limits. Nothing in this subsection <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 8 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />