My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/20/1989 Meeting (2)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1989
>
11/20/1989 Meeting (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2007 10:00:48 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:35:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/20/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> Ms. Ehrman expressed concern with the practice of tying the percentage of <br />e signatures required for a Charter Amendment or a referendum to the number of <br /> registered voters. She added that this being the initial public hearing <br /> concerning this issue and, given the fact that the only testimony offered was <br /> in opposition, the council should reconsider whether this subject is worth <br /> spending further City resources. <br /> Mr. Rutan said that part of the initial purpose for reviewing the initiative <br /> process was to reconsider some areas of the process that appeared to need <br /> modification. Public testimony reveals that the council has not done an <br /> adequate job of processing this issue. He felt that the council should not <br /> abandon this issue and offered support for forwarding the alternative <br /> petition to the vote of Eugene Citizens. <br /> Ms. Bascom said her perception of widespread public opinion regarding the <br /> proposed ordinance is that such a change will be damaging to the initiative <br /> process. If the council is going to pursue the idea of public review, review <br /> should not be limited to the NL. Ms. Bascom noted that the entire initiative <br /> process allows for healthy public participation in local government and, <br /> speaking on behalf of the entire council, feels that the initiative process <br /> should not be lost. For these reasons, she wanted to table this decision. <br /> Mr. Green said the council has the information required to make a decision at <br /> present. In light of public testimony against this ordinance, there is no <br /> need to forward this information to community groups. Mr. Boles agreed that <br /> the council should make a decision quickly. He added that the two issues of <br />e signature percentage requirements and ballot title wording need to be dealt <br /> with separately. <br /> Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to proceed with <br /> consideration of the ordinance as it is drafted. <br /> Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to amend this motion, <br /> to reflect the adoption of an alternative measure whereby the <br /> required number of signatures is tied to the electorate at <br /> 8.5 for the referendum petition and 12.5 percent for the <br /> charter amendment and initiative petition. <br /> Mr. Boles commented that public testimony clearly reflects that Eugene <br /> citizens do not want to change the number of signatures required for either <br /> the Charter Amendment or the referendum. The amendment to the motion changes <br /> the number of signatures by moving it to a base of registered electors. He <br /> encourage council members to vote against both the main motion and the motion <br /> amending it. <br /> Roll call vote; the amended motion failed, 2:6, with <br /> councilors Rutan and Schue voting in favor; and councilors <br /> Boles, Holmer, Bennet, Bascom, Green, and Ehrman voting <br /> against. <br />. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 19~9 Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.