02/09/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Councilor Wooten supported holding a public hearing to allow the public to express its view on the project, but she concurred in not wanting to commit funds to pursue the project at this time. She felt the City might want to pursue the project at some future time. Councilor Obie said that at the time that the council had agreed to Councilor Lindberg's serving on the task force, the extent of the City's involvement in the project had been carefully outlined. Mr. Obie said he was personally not interested in having the City pursue the matter further. Mayor Keller suggested that the council discuss the matter further during a council work session, perhaps at a dinner meeting. Councilors concurred with this suqgestion. Mr. Whitlow said that staff would schedule this discussion within the next 60 days. Mr. Lindberg withdrew his motion, with the consent of the second, Ms. Schue. VIII. LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 1983--Approval/Decision (memo, minutes distributed) Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the February 3, 1983, Legislative Subcommittee minutes. Councilors agreed to segregate discussion and voting on HB 2050, HB 2054, and HB 2116. Roll call vote on Ms. Schue's motion, with HB 2050, HB 2054, and HB 2116 segregated. Motion carried unanimously. Councilor Smith said that the three-member subcommittee was unable to agree on a recommendation on HB 2054--20-day registration--and that the procedure was for such items to be referred to the council-as-a-whole. She said that she and Mr. Holmer had voted to support the bill, which called for cutting off voter registration 20 days prior to elections, and that Mr. Lindberg, who had been sitting in for Ms. Schue, had felt the City should oppose the bill. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to support the staff recommendation for priority 2 support for HB 2054. Mr. Lindberg said he believed the bill was an overreaction to the situation that had occurred in the City of Antelope. He felt that obstacles should not be placed in the path of people interested in voting. He felt that the proposed 20-day restriction would discriminate against less educated, less organized citizens. Councilor Holmer said it was necessary to have some type of registration cut-off if the proposed vote-by-mail was to be effective. He felt that voters should be informed and noted that the Voters' Pamphlet, which is intended as an information tool for voters, could not be mailed to all voters unless there is a registration cut-off. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1983 Page 9