09/14/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e petitioners, but supported providing petitioners with the option of either having the City Councilor Lane County Circuit Court review ballot title appeals. Referring to Section 2.977(2), she suggested deleting the last sentence regarding the requirement for a written response from a petitioner either accepting or rejecting a ballot title prepared by the CAO. Regarding the signature sampling procedures, she suggested revisiting them when the Secretary of State's Office develops new procedures in the future. Finally, she said she did not see a need to attach an emergency clause to the ordi- nance. Ms. Bascom concurred with Councilor Nicholson's comment about being sensitive to public concern in addressing changes in the initiative/referendum process. Mr. MacDonald said he was not present at the August 26 work session when the council discussed the proposed ordinance, but said he understood that a request was made for staff to remove substantive changes from the proposed ordinance to be considered tonight. He said he did not have an opportunity to review the proposed changes before he received his council packet on Friday, September 11. He supported postponing action, emphasizing the importance of preserving the citizens' confidence that their government intends to maintain their right of access to the ballot. He concurred with Councilor Nicholson's comment about being sensitive to public concern, especially in light of the public's cynicism towards government. He said he also agreed with Ken Tollenaar's testimony that there is a problem with poorly drafted initiatives. Finally, he agreed with Councilor Ehrman that there is no need to attach an emergency clause to the ordinance. e Mr. Boles agreed with Councilor MacDonald's statement regarding public cynicism towards government and hoped that these feelings do not turn to bitterness. He agreed with Councilor Nicholson's comment about being sensi- tive to public concern about the initiative/referendum process. He agreed with other councilors to postpone action. Mr. Green said he was unconvinced by the testimony that the proposed changes would limit citizens' ability to place an initiative/referendum on the ballot. He said he agreed with Ken Tollenaar's testimony that the proposed changes were essentially the same as the changes proposed in 1991. He supported Councilor Ehrman's suggestion to provide petitioners with an option of having ballot title appeals reviewed by the City Councilor Lane County Circuit Court. Mr. Robinette said he was greatly influenced by Ken Tollenaar's testimony but supported postponing action for further review. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Gary said the current ordinance does not prevent the CAO from offering legal advice to petitioners as long as it is directed to do so by the City. Mr. Nicholson suggested referring the ordinance as a whole to the eIC, instead of separating the proposed changes that are housekeeping in nature. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 7 7:30 p.m.