Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ordinance. Mr. Bennett said the scope in Proposal B was as restrictive as <br /> that of any ordinance in the United States. He asked whether good reasons <br /> e exi sted to go beyond that and whether good reasons exi sted that other <br /> communities had not tried to adopt similar ordinances. He said he hoped the <br /> council would address that issue and would take a strong position in favor of <br /> one proposal or the other. <br /> Mr. Miller said he favored adopting Proposal B and then deciding whether to <br /> submit both versions to voters. He said he would support referring both <br /> versions, if only one vote was allowed and with the knowledge that one would <br /> replace the other, and if a document were available to explain the issues. He <br /> said he favored allowing the community to be heard, and he thought they might <br /> agree to the statement made by Proposal B. <br /> Ms. Wooten said she respected and appreciated Mr. Bennett's statements about <br /> the importance of elected representation and counci 1 1 eadershi p and she <br /> thought it was possible for the council to take a position on either Proposal <br /> A or B. She said she thought taking a position would be responsible and <br /> important to the community as it pertained to an election on this issue. She <br /> noted that the original ordinance had been passed by an overwhelming majority, <br /> and if the council wanted to assume the people had not known what they were <br /> voting on, then they could choose between the legally revised MRV and Proposal <br /> B, which she said substantively changed the spirit and the letter of the law. <br /> She said the council was obligated to allow that choice, particularly because <br /> an existing ordinance was in effect. She said the council should move forward <br /> as quickly as possible without undermining or insulting the voters who had <br /> passed the law. She said voters should be offered a chance to tell the council <br /> whether they had understood the original measure, but that choice must be <br /> e available to them. <br /> Ms. Schue said she agreed with Mr. Bennett about the content of the proposal, <br /> but she also was concerned about the political issue of how to keep faith with <br /> the citizens of Eugene, who already had spoken once on the issue, while <br /> arriving at a comfortable solution for everyone. She said she was not sure <br /> about taking a council position, and she favored submitting both proposals for <br /> a choice by voters. <br /> Ms. Bascom said she thought it would be acceptable for the council to adopt <br /> portions of Proposal B, while referring the issue of scope to the voters. She <br /> said she thought that would keep faith with the voters, and she did not find it <br /> too complicated for voter referral. <br /> Mr. Miller said City Attorneys reported that the council could not submit a <br /> ballot measure compelling a choice between two proposals, but must allow votes <br /> for both, votes for either, and votes for neither. He noted that if both <br /> proposals were submitted, they both could pass. Mr. Sercombe said the ballot <br /> would be written so that if both proposals passed, the proposal with the most <br /> votes would prevail. <br /> Mr. Miller said he would find it more logical to present one proposal for <br /> voter approval or rejection, rather than two. He said he did not believe it <br /> would be an affront to voters to adopt Proposal B, because he agreed with <br /> others that it represented the language in the original ballot title. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 10 <br />