Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Delay had questioned why the item had been placed on the agenda <br />because he was unsure any new information could be presented. He <br />felt it had not been. He opposed the motion because he felt the <br />Council acted as it should. The important issue for him was a question <br />of what the Council should be as elected representatives. He felt as <br />such, Councilors should be judged on an aggregate basis of the decisions <br />Councilors make based on various major issues and what actions they <br />take. He was going to continue to make decisions and act as he <br />believed to be right for the community. He said if the citizens <br />did not like that, then they could express that dislike at the polls. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws opposed the motion because he did not think it to be workable. <br />He also did not agree with any theory in which a large number of <br />people in Eugene were allowed to vote their biases at the polls and <br />thus subject those biases to all people in the city. <br /> <br />Ms. Miller agreed there were some matters that could not be .put to a <br />popular vote. She saw Council IS action as saying that the City <br />Council of this year was reiterating the position of City Council of <br />last year regarding the sexual orientation ordinance passed. She felt <br />the Council was saying they still think that ordinance to be a good <br />idea. She felt the Council action was correct. However, Council was <br />not denying what the voters of Eugene were thinking, but making a <br />statement of what the majority of the Council feels is right. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieuallen did not think the directive in Mr. Obie's motion would <br />be workable. He noted that the same facts were used by opposite sides <br />with different interpretations. He did not think it to be workable <br />unless a definitive directive were written. He also expressed confi- <br />dence that both sides of the issue would be well-represented at the <br />Legislative level. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith felt the issue had been blown completely out of perspective. <br />She noted the motion was simply to clarify and to indicate additional <br />information when people are testifying on the issue. She still <br />supported the motion. <br /> <br />'e <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion, which was defeated with all Councilors <br />present voting no, except Smith and Obie voting aye. <br /> <br />F. Legislative Subcommittee Meeting--Cancelled for Thursday, April 12, 1979. <br /> <br />G. Community Development Committee Vacancy--Manager said this would be <br />held until the item regarding appointment process was discussed by <br />Council. <br /> <br />II. Routine Items For Council Approval <br /> <br />A. <br /> <br />Council Minutes April 4, 1979 <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />4/11/79--5 <br /> <br />~/6 <br />