Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the resolution by <br /> changing the per-person contribution to mayoral candidates from $600 to <br /> $500. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested a friendly amendment to reduce the amount to $300. Ms. Nathanson <br />declined to accept the friendly amendment. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the unfairness that existed was the role that money played in politics. She <br />said it was not unfair to have a voluntary program available, as any candidate could decide <br />whether to participate after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of participation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the resolution by <br /> changing the total expenditure limit for mayoral elections from $60,000 to <br /> $30,000. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that history indicated that $7,500 was close to the average spent by the winning <br />council candidate, but $60,000 was more than any mayoral candidate save one had ever spent on <br />an election. The $30,000 amount was a high average of past mayoral spending. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Mr. Farr, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Pap8 <br /> voting in opposition. <br /> <br /> Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to amend the resolution by deleting <br /> Section 4. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out that deleting Section 4 would eliminate any public awareness of the program. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart questioned whether anyone believed that the provision did not limit free speech. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said there were two ways of publicizing candidates' participation in the program; those <br />who seek to find out can get in touch with the City, or the candidates themselves would advertise <br />that participation. He had sympathy with Mr. Farr's point of view, suggesting that it might be unfair <br />to have the City spend City funds publishing names in the newspaper. He preferred making <br />information available to those who seek to know it. He suggested as a friendly amendment that <br />the second sentence in the section be deleted rather than the entire section. Mr. Farr accepted <br />the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment, saying that removing the City's role meant there was no <br />reason for the City to have a resolution in the first place. In response, Mr. Pap~ said that he did <br />not think the City should have a role. It should put the mechanism in place and take a neutral <br />position. Mr. Farr concurred with Mr. Pap~. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Farr and Mr. Pap8 voting yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the resolution by <br /> stipulating that a candidate could contribute $500 to his or her campaign. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />