Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Proposal A would present constitutional problems, although they felt the <br /> definitions were sufficiently unclear to prevent a determination about what <br /> e was and was not included. Ms. Pierce said the prohibition against planning <br /> and prosecuting nuclear war might involve free speech guarantees in the First <br /> Amendment and in the Oregon Constitution and might present vagueness problems. <br /> She said the provision was similar to one in the original ordinance, which <br /> Ci ty Attorneys in their original opinion had identified as a potential <br /> problem. She added that the provision had been amended slightly, but <br /> attorneys still were not sure what was meant to be regulated by the <br /> prohibition, nor were they sure what was included in the definitions of <br /> command, control, and communications systems or defensive systems. Ms. Pi erce <br /> said the two proposals also differed in their definitions of delivery craft <br /> and of components, with Proposal A requiring a subjective determination of <br /> their primary intended purpose. She said the additional steps in that process <br /> might create problems of enforcement or interpretation. <br /> Respondi ng to Mayor Obi e I s question, Ms. Pi erce said City Attorneys had <br /> assisted with development of the language for the board's qualifications. <br /> Mayor Obi e asked whether the qual ifi cat ions presented any concerns about <br /> excluding certain persons. Ms. Pierce said the qualifications were within the <br /> City's authority for limitations on membership of an appointed advisory group. <br /> Mayor Obie said Proposal B went beyond the current norm in terms of authority <br /> de 1 egated to the Ci ty Manager. Ms. Pierce said the declaratory ruling <br /> authority was different than other City ordinances, but the rule-making powers <br /> were included in other ordinances. She said a repeated concern during task <br /> force process had been the need for clarity, and the authority had been <br /> included in order to allow the City to issue a binding ruling about whether <br /> e certain business activities were prohibited. <br /> Mr. Holmer asked about a process of review or appeal for declaratory rulings. <br /> City Attorney Tim Sercombe said that process would occur through a writ of <br /> review in Circuit Court, and the current ordinance provided for no internal <br /> review process. Mr. Sercombe added that other con st itut i ona 1 concerns <br /> originally expressed by City Attorneys concerning pre-emption had been <br /> addressed by parts of both proposals. He noted that the declaratory ruling <br /> authority by the City Manager was unique, and he added that a number of <br /> compromises about the board and pre-emption issues earlier had been adopted by <br /> task force consensus and now were included in Proposal B. <br /> Mr. Holmer said he would like to see City business handled by City officers, <br /> and he asked whether it would be possible to draft language establishing a <br /> review of the declaratory ruling by Municipal Court, rather than Circuit <br /> Court. Mr. Sercombe said if that review were included, it would not preclude <br /> further appeals to Circuit Court. He added that the City jurisdiction might <br /> be limited by charter. <br /> D. Council Discussion <br /> Mayor Obie asked what direction the council favored. Ms. Ehrman asked whether <br /> the council was willing to work on developing a single proposal. She added <br /> that she favored including the request for investigation provision from <br /> Proposal B in Proposal A, unless it already was included. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 6 <br />