03/22/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II-A-l . e -- - Councilman Hamel said he would still vote against submitting the fluoridation issue to the voters. He felt the people wanting the measure on the ballot should solicit the signatures for an initiative petition. He didn't think he should say the measure should be on the ballot when adding fluorides to the water was something he was not sure him- self was safe. ~. .. Councilwoman Shirey agreed, sayingJ~e had the same concerns now that S,h,e had.i, .~,......., voted against it previously; . z't", ' "'" .... Councilman Haws asked how the fluoridation issue was submitted to the voters ~ore ,;' whether by petition or by order of the Council. Assistant Manager answered tM~t the~ only initiative petition that c::ame to mind was that on the second vot~ .'on the audi tJt. :~~ ,- Mayor Anderson thought each Council member would have to determine the merit of the issue and decide whether another vote would be in order. He said th~issue was first proposed in 1964 by referral; that measure was repealed on initiative petition. Manager added that the first vote was at the November general election in 1964, which by ini- tiative petition was repealed in a special election in March 1965. The Mayor commented that the character of the constituency had changed since the measure was last voted on. He said he had seen nothing to support the arguments pre- sented at that time - some predictions made at that time did not occur becuase of add- ing fluoride to the water. He didn't want to get into the issue at this time of whe- ther fluoride should or should not be added, rather the issue should be whether the constituency should be allowed to determine that - and that would mean getting the proper information to the voters. He added that fluoridation was of nationwide signi- ficance and Eugene voters should have the advantage of nationwaide information to determine themselves whether they want it. Councilman Bradley thought referring the issue to the voters was asking only for an ad- visory opinion, that the Council itself had the authority to order fluoride added to the water. For that reason, he said, whether proponents of the measure should have the necessary signatures to place the issue on the ballot was not an appropriate argument. But Mr. Hamel said he didn't want to be responsible for waying the people would have fluoride regardless of whether they wanted it - they should decide that. He asked why people should be forced to accept a chemical in their drinking 'water, why should they even be asked. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion to approve and give final passage. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Murray, Bradley, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Haws, Hamel, and Shirey voting no _ and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17594. Council Bill No. 1048 - Ordering special election concurrently with general election on November 2, 1976 re: Fluoridation of water supply, read the first time on March 8, 1976 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. See discussion under Council Bill No. 1047. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Bradley that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Murray, Bradley, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Haws, Hamel, and Shirey voting no ~;and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17595. .... :': .~.-,I" Resolution No. 248~:~ Submitting to voters at special election to be held con- currently with general election on November 2, 1976 a code amendment providing for fluoridation of water supply, was lead by number and title. ' I'foJ 3/22/76 - 21