12/07/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

she recommended that the council consider the proposals as they stood and that both proposals be submitted to voters. She said she understood City Attorneys e to have stated that issues of constitutional vagueness and lack of clarity had primarily been eliminated from Proposal A, the MRV, and that proposal did reflect the original intent of voters. She said she thought it would be insulting to and second-guessing the voters' intent not to refer a "cleaned up" version to them. She said she also supported submitting Proposal B to voters, adding that she had worked a long time in an attempt to reach a consensus and she thought some of the progress toward consensus was included in Proposal B. She said she thought consensus items in Proposal B had some merit, but she now supported Proposal A, having seen the task force process disintegrate. Ms. Wooten said she would support one change in referring the MRV to voters, and that would be a change from an elected to an appointed board, with the criteria established and recommended by the task force. Ms. Bascom suggested submitting the issue of scope to voters (as treated in both proposals), since that seemed to be the largest subject of dispute, and adopting the remaining part of Proposal B. Ms. Schue said that if a choice was offered to voters, explanations would need to be made clear. She asked about the potential support for additional amendments to the MRV. She suggested offering a council position and another option, and allowing community debate. Mr. Mill er said he favored leaving Proposa 1 s A and B intact for voter referral. He also said he would favor allowing voters to vote for only one proposal. He said he had no preference about taking a council position before an election. e Mr. Holmer said he wished to clarify that of the two versions, he preferred Proposal B, although only in comparison to Proposal A. Ms. Wooten suggested postponing a council decision until the first meeting in January. She urged that a procedure be adopted as soon as possible, noting the March 17 election deadline. She said she heard general agreement about submitting both proposals to voters, and remaining questions were 1) whether to endorse one version; 2) whether to make minor amendments to either version; and 3) when to place the question on the ballot, which she assumed would be at the May primary. Ms. Bascom said she agreed with the suggestion to postpone a decision. Councilors held a straw poll on whether to refer both proposals to voters. Councilors Ehrman, Holmer, Schue and Wooten supported the idea; Councilors Bennett and Rutan opposed it; Councilor Miller was undecided; and Councilor Bascom said she favored referring the issue of scope. Mr. Bennett said he did not favor referring both proposals to voters unless the counci 1 took a position in favor of one. He also said he was not interested in submitting the issue of scope to voters, because it would not refl ect the task force IS progress toward consensus and because of the difficulty in explaining the issues. He said he thought the community would 1 i ke the counci 1 to take some leadership with respect to the scope of the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 9