07/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Speaking against the Council's committee action to file an appe~l and urging recision of that action were Madge Lorwin, 550 East 15th Avenue; Bayard McConnaughey, 1653 Fair- mount Boulevard; Fred Mohr, 2662 Alder St.reet; and Wesley G. Nivholson, 2370 Mission Avenue! Their statements were' that the Cross was installed on the Butte in an illegal manner, granting of a building permit for its installation was illegal, its continued presence there was causing dissension among Eugene citizens, public money should not be - spent to defend its presence on the ~utte, the city has no authority to file an appeal or take any part in court actions involved with a private party, Council action in this instance was "cutting across Constitutional provisions." Councilman Bradley asked whether staff knew why the city did not appeal a previous court decision when Eugene Sand & Gravel did. Mr. Gardner answered that the issue in the first trial was the validity of issuance of a building permit for erection of the Cross, the issue in this instance was the validity of a Charter amendment. Councilman Bradley felt the Council should know whether an appeal had been filed by Eugene Sand & Gravel before further Council action was taken. Council~oman Beal was not in favor of joining in the appeal, either in name or by ,"backing up with funds.'I Councilman Murray agreed, saying the court decision was that :the Cross should not be on public property; to defend its presence on the Butte was a waste of time and money. Councilman Williams called attention to designation of the Cross as a war memorial by voters through Charter amendment, and that Charter amendment brought about through initiative petition. He fel t the Council had the resonsibility to carry out the \..i11 of the people, and although it could not be said the citizens intended an appeal of a . caUl t decision, they did very strongly say they wanted the Cross on the Butte. Council- man Keller agreed. Councilman Bradley asked for statistics with regard to previous appeals on Charter amendments, how many there had been, how many successful, what types, etc. He said he would like to have some standards on which to base a decision in this instance. There .. was no information available. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to approve action taken in committee - that the city independently and actively appeal the de- cision to remove the Cross, or to join with other litigants and appeal, whichever is "in the best interests _ c?'(, city funds: ~I .' _____ ,_ .' .~. - . Councilman Bradley suggested amendment to condition the action upon whether Eugene Sand & Gravel has perfected an appeal. He thought if an appeal had been filed, then the city would want to withdraw. Councilman Keller said the intent of his motion was that the city should take the lead. - He said he had the impression from committee (' , discussion that some Council members wanted to join in an appeal if one was filed by a participant other than the city. He added that in the event no appeal had been filed today, then the city would proceed. Assistant Manager suggested that action should be either to authorize an appeal, or to withdraw if one is filed by someone else. Councilman Haws said he would favor the motion if it was keeping the issue open for someone else. He would oppose it if it was to 'keep it open for city action. He wondered what would happen - if this motion passed - if no one else filed and the city did. Mr. Keller assumed that the case would be followed through to the Supreme . Court. Vote .was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - Council . -,- members Keller, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, and Haws voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, and Shir~y voting no. _~\r - Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, July 16, 1975, to consideT the balance Of~ .~. ) ~ 7/14/75 - 16 '383 Charles T. Henry City Manager