02/14/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bob Blizzard, 3135 Van Avenue, spoke as chairman of the Handi- capped eommission. He said the Commission had reviewed the pro- posed amendments and supported both of the proposed changes. He said it would streamline the process of testimony before the Legi sl ature. Don ehalmers, 2500 Spring Boulevard, spoke on behalf of the Youth Commission, indicating that it supported the two amendments as proposed by Councilmembers Haws and Smith. He said that as the Commission saw it, they would be speaking as a commission and testifying before the Legislature as a commission and not on behalf of the eity of Eugene. He questioned Section VII, which stated copies of the resolution would be distributed to the bodies and asked for clarification. He said would the procedure be a matter of having a written statement available by the City Manager saying, "This is the position the eity has taken on this issue". e Sarah Lichtenstein, 1650 Kona Street, spoke as president of the Women's eommission. She indicated that there was no expectation on behalf of her commission that extensive testimony would be given or that opposing positions contrary to the City would be made, but she said the Commission felt some flexibility needed to be determined by the City to allow testimony. She felt the Council ought to trust its commissions and urged support of the proposed amendments. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony being presented. . Assistant City Manager indicated that the proposed resolution had been considered by the Airport Commission and had been gen- erally accepted although a suggestion was made that a modification to Section II include that testimony before the legislative bodies be at an individual's expense and not at the public's expense. He went on to state that the staff was more comfortable with the original resolution than with the amendments as proposed, as it would allow opportunity for the staff to testify in administrative matters where they have direction from the Council. He said the proposed amendments posed a couple of dilemmas, that it could be adopted in principle, but perhaps some of the language needed to be Changed. Specifically, in Section I, he said there is no lan- guage which would restrain the staff from testifying, and asked the question what does the staff do in this situation. He posed the question how does a staff member work with a commission who is taking a position opposite to the City eouncil. Is it proper to support staff member and commission with City funds who would oppose eity eouncil's position. He indicated in Section II that the proposed amendent proposes to remove the opportunity for a prompt response to the Legislature, saying that often bills are introduced and hearings are called within a 24-hour period and there is a necessity for quick response . to those situations. He said there was also a philosophical point _ 2/14/7 7 --14 90