CC Minutes - 02/25/02 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to a question from Councilor Farr regarding whether publishing names in the newspaper of participants and non-participants in the voluntary program would be showing preference for a particular candidate, Mr. Klein said that the City would be providing neutral information and not promoting a candidacy. He said it was lawful for the City to publish neutral information. In response to a question from Councilor Fart regarding the reason to go beyond the existing state voluntary limits, Ms. Fieland said that the State required no additional accounting for the rest of the election. Addressing the audience, Councilor Fart said that federal and State law did not allow the City to mandate limits. He raised concern that even though the word voluntary was used, the City was mandating a response from candidates. Councilor Kelly noted that dozens of cities nationwide had enacted voluntary spending limit programs. He added that the issue was not being rushed since it had been on the council work program since the previous April. Councilor Nathanson commented that there was still a necessity to discuss making a pledge contingent on being matched by opponents. She also expressed interest in a discussion of reporting contributions and expenditures. She added that there was language in the resolution that needed clarification to get to the council intent. She expressed concern that the council was "writing on the fly" and reiterated her desire to see the resolution start in November 2002 so that her issues could be addressed. Councilor Bettman expressed a desire to see the resolution in place for the May election. She suggested that a limit just be on expenditures and not on contributions for the May election to make things fair to the candidates who had already accepted campaign contributions. Councilor Pap~ commented that the resolution had not been discussed since it was put in the work program during the previous April. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Farr, moved to postpone the topic until the second work session after the May primary. Councilor Taylor expressed a desire to take action that evening even if it was rushing the process. Councilor Kelly acknowledged that there were topics that had yet to be resolved but expressed his belief that there was enough of a foundation to vote on that evening. He raised concern that if the topic were postponed then there would be no action by the November 2002 election. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion by postponing the topic until a special session between February 27 and March 11. Councilor Meisner noted that there would be potential attendance problems with the dates proposed by the amendment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2002 Page 6 Regular Session