12/07/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

----- ------ view. Ms. Wooten said a diversity of views would be included on the board, but it probably would not include support for the construction of nuclear weapons, e etc., in Eugene. She said the qualifications were comparable to those for the City's human rights commissions. Mr. Holmer asked about the range of views among those who met the qualifications. Ms. Wooten said she thought a broad range and diversity of opinion existed within that scope, and she thought it was unfair to characterize the qualifications as limiting. Mayor Obie asked about task force discussion of the two proposals and other proposals that had preceded the current recommendation. Mr. Gaydos said the task force had held only very brief discussion of the Minimally Revised Version, which had been proposed after other task force discussions. He sa i d the same was true of Proposal a, submitted at the request of Mr. Bennett. Mr. Gaydos said a variety of other proposals had been discussed at the subcommittee and task force levels. He said the issue involved definitions of broad categories and of components. Some discussion had been held about tryi ng to narrow the broad categories so that the components of those categories could be more easily defined, he sa i d. Other discussion had favored retaining both the broad categories and the components of the original ordinance, which included nuclear weapons components that would be destroyed and transportation devices, such as airplanes, trains, trucks, etc. Mr. Gaydos said discussions on many occasions had broken down while trying to address the scope of components covered by the ordinance. He said the two proposals contained similar definitions of "nuclear weapon," but opinions had varied about whether the scope of the ordinance should extend beyond the actual weapons. He said no consensus had emerged from task force discussions, and that was the reason for the two proposals. He added that background in the minutes of the meetings might offer some assistance. e Mayor Obie asked about the major differences between the proposals. Mr. Gaydos said some differences included scope, selection of the board, and enforcement provisions such as a maximum fine. He said he thought the proposals conta i ned genera 1 similarities, such as pre-emption issues and provisions that already had gone into effect. Mayor Obie asked whether any discussions had suggested eliminating the scope provisions and trying another approach. Mr. Gaydos said that may have been discussed at the subcommittee level, but the task force had not addressed eliminating scope. Ms. Ehrman asked City Attorneys whether any problems had been identified with Proposal A, and specifically whether a maximum fine was needed. City Attorney Kathleen Pierce said the jurisdictional limits of Municipal Court probably would result in a maximum fine of $2,500. She added that all other City ordinances included maximum fines. Ms. Pierce said City Attorneys had done a preliminary review, and the major concerns were in the area of scope. She noted that the declaratory ruling and rule-making provision had been included in Proposal a in an effort to address any remaining clarity problems. Ms. Pierce said Proposal A included prohibitions against planning and prosecuting nuclear war; command, control, and communications systems; and defensive systems, which were not included in Proposal a. She said City Attorneys felt they had neither the technical expertise nor a clear enough understanding of the drafters' intent to determine whether the provisions presented constitutional problems. She said attorneys doubted that the definitions in e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 5