04/19/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Ms. Ehrman and Ms. Schue concurred that two positions on the board should be reserved and Ms. Bascom stated her opposition. Mr. Holmer, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Boles, and Mr. Green preferred taking no position on this point. Mr. Bennett stated that in the absence of consensus, he preferred continuing with the present ordinance until the initiative election in May 1990. Mr. Boles and Ms. Schue agreed that the councills process of addressing the issues was not successful in bringing about consensus or a strong decision. Ms. Ehrman felt that the council could reach a compromise and she would be disappointed if the matter was dropped until the 1990 election. Mr. Green indicated his intent was to vote on the issues before the council and he stated he could not support a board whose purpose was promotional. He maintained that the scope of the board's authority must reflect the intent of the voters. Mayor Miller argued that the Bennett proposal clarifies and reflects that intent, but Mr. Boles responded that only the MRV and the Boles/Green version are broad enough in scope to satisfy that intent while being consistent with the City's legal obligations. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Sercombe to comment on the defensibility of the Boles/Green version and the possibility of litigation. Mr. Sercombe said one of the issues involved is whether the MRV or the Boles/Green revision is defensible from constitutional attack based on a claim of vagueness and violation of due process rights of persons affected by the ordinance. His judgment was that the ordinance passes that constitutional threshold because it is clear enough to defend, but he also considered it subject to a great deal of interpretation in terms of where the coverage begins and ends. He specifi ca lly ci ted the terms "primary intended purpose," "command, control, and communications systems," and "delivery system" as being particularly difficult to interpret. Mr. Sercombe said there could be situations in which the City, through a declaratory judgment proceeding (being sued) or in an enforcement proceeding (suing), incurs great litigation expense in defining the scope of the MRV. Mayor Miller commented on the difficulty of always meeting constitutional criteria while making decisions in a representative democracy. Mr. Bennett ~dded that the council had attempted to act in accordance with the City's charter provisions when it modified the voter-approved ordinance to make it legally enforceable. He reiterated his objection to spending $30,000 to $50,000 on this ordinance and again encouraged the council to put this issue aside in order to address other important issues in the community. Answering Mr. Boles's question regarding the difference in enforceability between the Bennett and the Boles/Green versions, Mr. Sercombe said it was difficult to predict, but because the MRV and the Boles/Green version are more broad and less technically clear as to scope, they would subject the MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting Apri 1 19, 1989 Page 4