05/11/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ III. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER ~ e A. Citizen Letter Concerning Monroe Park Mr. Rutan discussed a letter he had received from a citizen regarding the Monroe Park forum. He said it was his recollection that the council had referred the issue to the Joint Parks Committee. Ms. Schue said there will be a public forum May 21 at Monroe Park sponsored primarily by the human rights commissions. A neighborhood discussion of the problem will take place. Mr. Rutan expressed concern over the two different directions taking place. Ms. Schue said that communication between the two groups has oc- curred. B. Nuclear Free Zone Mr. Rutan referred to the nuclear free zone issue and the legal challenge the City is making regarding the Secretary of Statels decision about the advisory ballot questions. He said it was his understanding of council policy that once it is decided legal action will be taken on an item, the manager pursues it to its conclusion. Mr. Rutan recommended that the council instruct the manager to bring the nuclear free zone issue back to the council for further discussion. , Mr. Sercombe said the previous week the Court of Appeals reversed Judge Hargreaves, allowing the second question to go on the ballot. On Monday, the City appealed the Court of Appeals' decision by filing a petition for review. This petition asks the court to reconsider its decision and seeks the review of the Supreme Court in case the Court of Appeals will not change that deci- sion. He said the City also, earlier, filed a petition for writs of mandamus .in the Supreme Court. That case is still alive. Mr. Sercombe said that in his judgment, the only way the City will get a different decision on this issue between now and Friday, the practical deadline for affecting the bal- lot, is for the Supreme Court to grant the writ. If the Supreme Court refus- es to do so, only the first question will appear on the ballot. Mr. Sercombe said two weeks previously, the council had a discussion of what to do if the second question were taken off. At that time, the council instructed staff to return to see if the first question could be removed as well in case of an adverse ruling. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals ruling was not received until the previous Friday, and Mr. Sercombe did not think that the City could remove the first question without a lawsuit. Mr. Sercombe said the Court of Appealsl decision has significance outside the practical consequences as to whether the second question appears on the ballot. Political home rule issues fundamental to the City's interests are involved. He suggested the council seek further information from staff on these issues. Ms. Ehrman said she wished to pursue this case due to its long-range implica- tions for the City and other cities in Oregon. Mr. Rutan predicted that the ballot will have only the single question, and the council will have the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1988 Page 2