Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />considered the Boles/Green version to be unnecessarily broad in scope and <br />favored the scope of the Bennett ordinance. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Potter explained that in both <br />the Boles/Green and Bennett versions, the members of the appointed board <br />would be required to be nuclear free zone proponents sympathetic to the <br />spirit of the ordinance. In the Boles/Green ordinance, a member of the City <br />Council and a member of the Sister City or a human rights commission would be <br />added to the seven-member board as ex officio members. Ms. Bascom indicated <br />that a seven-member board would be preferable to a larger one. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue encouraged the council to strive to achieve resolution on the issue <br />today. She summarized the council's options as being: the Boles/Green <br />position which supports the MRV; the existing ordinance; or a compromise as <br />offered by the Miller and Bennett proposals. Ms. Schue favored the Bennett <br />ordinance as a compromise and agreed with Ms. Bascom1s proposal regarding the <br />board. She suggested proceeding with the implementation of the important <br />aspects of the original ordinance which would include appointing a board and <br />holding a memorial event in August. Ms. Schue recommended that the council <br />review the issue in a year. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles maintained that the broader scope of the Boles-Green proposal is <br />consistent with legal constraints and most closely corresponds with what the <br />voters have indicated as their preference. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Ms. Ehrman requested additional information about the board1s proposed <br />reporting relationships and about the impact a budget cap would have on the <br />board1s functions. Mr. Potter replied that the different proposals vary, <br />with some having the board advise the City Manager, others the City Council. <br />He said it was unclear to whom an elected board would report or be <br />accountable. Mr. Potter anticipated the board's biggest expenditure would <br />be staffing. Estimates for funding a signing and notification program and an <br />annual commemoration program are between $5,000 and $10,000 annually. Staff <br />support for the board would be an additional expense. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom reported that members of the peace community have indicated their <br />desire to volunteer to reduce expenses. She suggested limiting the scope of <br />the board so members can carry out its functions with less staff support. <br />Answering a question from Mayor Miller, Mr. Potter estimated that expenses <br />for minutes taking and distribution would be approximately $5,000 to $6,000 <br />annua lly. <br /> <br />Ms. Ehrman expressed concern about a budget cap that would preclude staff <br />involvement. She considered the administrative expertise of staff important <br />for a City board. <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett said he hoped for council agreement to a compromise proposal <br />similar in scope to that included in the Bennett ordinance, which he <br />preferred to refer to as "Plan B." Mr. Bennett pointed out that this <br />particular proposal was discussed by the task force as a compromise and <br />resulted from efforts of City Attorney Tim Sercombe and Mr. Potter as well as <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br />Work Session and Meeting <br /> <br />April 19, 1989 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />