01/27/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Ms. Wooten said she has received several calls from citizens confused about why the council must phrase the nuclear free zone questions as advisory votes. Mr. Sercombe explained that State law regulates how questions are phrased on ballot titles. That law allows only questions that can be answered with lIyesll or "no.1I He said this means the council cannot ask voters an "either/or" question. He said it is his opinion the State requirements do not apply to advisory votes. Mr. Miller asked if it is still possible for the council to ask in a binding vote if voters favor any nuclear free zone and then use that outcome to determine which versions will be adopted. Mr. Sercombe said the council always has the option after an election to pass or rescind an ordinance. He said the question of whether voters want any nuclear free zone seems more like an advisory vote question. In response to a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Sercombe said the council can adopt a statement of intention to abide by the outcome of the advisory vote. Ms. Wooten said she would like the council to adopt such a statement. Ms. Bascom said it is unwise for the council to reconsider whether there should be any nuclear free zone. She said such a question makes a mockery of the original vote. She said people wishing to repeal the ordinance have the option of an initiative process. Mr. Rutan said the issue before the council is to determine what information it wants from the vote, and how to make that understandable to the average voter. He said the council is too concerned with the possible statistical outcomes of a yes/no vote. He said if there are enough people who support the ordinance, they will make a choice of one version over the other. He said he supports the move to ask voters if there should be any nuclear free zone ordinance at all. Mr. Miller said the whole question should be asked again because the council and the task force were unable to reach a compromise on which version to support. Ms. Wooten said it is unfair to ask voters to restate their original position because some people do not want the law. Ms. Schue said she agrees with Ms. Bascom and Ms. Wooten that the decision whether Eugene should be a nuclear free zone has already been made. She said she supports the advisory ballot that asks voters to choose between two versions of the ordinance. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to call for an advisory ballot for May 17, 1988, on the Eugene nuclear free zone issue. Mr. Bennett reminded the council it still has the opportunity to enact a nuclear free zone ordinance that would alleviate the need for any ballot measures. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1988 Page 6