07/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to take action on this I one issue if it could be settled in a half hour. Motion carried unanimously. Time limits were set - 15 minutes for testimony, 15 minutes for e Council discussion. IV - Cross Case, Skinner Butte Cross Case, Skinner Butte - Copies of memo from Assistant Manager were distributed to Council with agenda concerning the question of appealing the Circuit Court order to remove the Cross from Skinner Butte. The memo explained basis for an appeal III-B-l would be protection of the public vote declaring the Cross a war memorial and authorizing its presence on the Butte - 17,185 "Yes;" 6,009 "No." Estimated cost was $25_0 if the Council pursued an appeal independently, joining with otb,er litigants would probably reduce that cost. Three alternatives were offered: (1) Independently and actively appeal the decision; (2) joint with other litigants and.appea1; or (3) accept the decision and remove the Cross - unless the order was held because of appeal by others. Assistant Manager said there was some indication the "traditiona1".litigants were interested in appealing the decision although he was not aware of the availability of any private financing. Councilman Keller said the cost of $2500 did not appeal exorbitant in relation to the number of people voting in favor of the Charter amendment designating the Cross a war memorial. He thought the Council was obligated to those voters. Councilwoman Shirey asked how much money had already been spent by the ci ty in litigation on this case and what was to keep it continuing ad infinitum. Assistant Manager answered that no really definitive costs were avi1ab1e other than the . estimated $3,000 spent in the last appeal. The only alternatives were to accept the decision to remove the Cross or appeal. Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Haws to accept the. third option - accept.the decision and remove the Cross. In making the motion, Councilwoman Bea1 said she was opposed to spending any more public funds in this manner. She felt if the 17,000 voters had substantial interest in the case they should appeal the decision. Assistant Manager said the motion would preclude financing of an appeal by other parties. He said if the Council didn't wish to spend any more money, it might want to allow the city's name to be used in an appeal if private funds were available. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to substitute for the motion that the Council might consider appealing the court order if other parties petition use of the city's name and if no city funds are involved. Councilman Keller was opposed to the motion. He noted the $19+ million budget recently approved by city voters and said he had a difficult time rationalizing re- jection of a request for $2500 to support the opinion of 17,000 of those voters. He said it was obvious the Cross meant something, was of some value, to those 17,000 voters and to ignore them seemed unfair. Mayor Anderson expressed the same opinion. He felt there was an obligation to the voters who -supported the Charter amendment and that some form of litigation e should be continued even to the point of the city's financing it. 7/14/75 - 14 3f>t