My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 04/10/02 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2002
>
CC Minutes - 04/10/02 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:27:37 AM
Creation date
8/1/2005 12:11:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
participate in the program in the primary election could not participate in the program in the <br />general election if they had carryover contributions. <br /> <br />Speaking to the reporting issue, Mr. Kelly believed State law mandated C&E reporting unless the <br />candidate spent less than $2,000. He pointed out to Mr. Farr that participation in the State <br />program would mean the candidate was automatically complying with the City program and <br />receiving its benefits. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to adopt the resolution marked as <br /> revised Attachment A and revised Attachment B, with an effective date of <br /> May 22, 2002. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr reiterated his concern that the program gave an edge to the incumbent candidate and to <br />someone who chose to participate in the program as opposed to someone who chose to exercise <br />their free speech rights. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner wanted to amend the resolution to require C&E reporting in conjunction with the <br />program. He disagreed with Mr. Kelly that participants in the State program would enjoy the <br />benefits of the City program given the manner in which the resolution was written. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not see why a candidate pledging to spend less than $2,000 would not be willing to <br />similarly commit to spend less than $7,500. She thought the program was fair because it let the <br />public know who was spending less money. She did not know how to avoid the advantage of <br />incumbency. Ms. Taylor thought it important to change the influence money had over elections. <br />She did not support changing the amount one could give to one's own campaign. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend the resolution by <br /> changing the amount for per-person contributions for all candidates to $100. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested as a friendly amendment a change from $100 to $300 for mayoral races. Ms. <br />Taylor declined to accept the friendly amendment. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor voting yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. PapS, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the resolution by changing <br /> the amount of per-person contributions to $100 for council candidates. The <br /> motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Farr voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 suggested the council place a sunset on the resolution to ensure it was reviewed in the <br />future. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson identified five needed amendments to the resolution she would require before she <br />could support it: 1) requiring C&E reports as suggested by Mr. Meisner; 2) a mechanism to <br />provide a candidate with release from the program if other candidates declined to participate; 3) a <br />mechanism that recognized a candidate's participation in the State program; 4) clarification of how <br />to account for the value of expenditures made on behalf of the candidate; and 5) limits to per- <br />person mayoral limits. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.