09/14/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e There being no other requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. In responding to testimony, Mr. Biedermann said he understood from the council's August 26 work session that requests to remove substantive changes from the ordinance would be made by individual councilors. He said he did not receive any such requests. He clarified that under the proposed ordinance, an appeal to a ballot title prepared by the CAO would be directly referred to Lane County Circuit Court. He said that the proposed ordinance's language with respect to signature sampling procedures was taken directly from State statutes. Referring to the comment about the apparent contradiction in the title under Section 2.976(1)(d), he explained that this section refers to certain conditions that are required when a petition is to be filed. He said the title could be rewritten for clarification. Also responding to testimony, Mr. Gary said current State statute requires that ballot titles for city legislation be prepared by a city attorney and that appeals be referred to circuit court, but explained that this statute is not binding on the City. He said the appeals process is an expedited proce- dure which does not require legal counsel and that the filing fee for an appeal could be waived. He said the proposed ordinance would authorize signature verification in a manner that is provided for by the Secretary of State's Office. He said the power for the CAO to remove administrative or non-legislative matters already exists, explaining that the Oregon Supreme Court has expressly held that administrative matters are not subject to either the initiative or referendum process. He said that State statute preempts the e City's power with respect to certain matters, such as the number of words in a ballot title. He said the time period for collecting signatures in not controlled by State statute. With respect to concerns about the emergency clause attachment, he said that the decision to attach an emergency clause is a non-reviewable political judgement by the City Council. In response to concerns about the proposed changes increasing the CAO's power, he said the CAO reviews proposed legislation to avoid potential problems that might arise after the legislation is approved. Finally, in response to a question about the public notice of this public hearing, he explained that the Public Meetings Law requires at least 24 hours notice and a statement of subjects to be discussed at a meeting, but that failure to note all of the subjects to be discussed does not invalidate the meeting. Notice for this public hearing was provided Friday, September 11. Mr. Nicholson felt that the council needs to be especially sensitive to public concern in addressing changes in the initiative/referendum process. He suggested referring the ordinance back to the CIC for review. Ms. Ehrman said that she would offer some amendments to the proposed ordinance if there is consensus to act on it tonight; otherwise, she suggested holding the public record open to allow further testimony and postponing action for a future meeting. Referring to concerns expressed about the council reviewing ballot title appeals, she said that from her experience in this process, the council has objectively reworded ballot titles that have been satisfactory to e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 6 7:30 p.m.