Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson asked about the differences between the board and committee, and why it was a <br />bad idea to remove the text in question. Mayor Torrey also questioned why the council should <br />not refer the committee's recommendation to the voters. Ms. Walston said that the committee <br />asked the board for assistance, and the board submitted a letter regarding its recommendations. <br />The board was not entirely in agreement with the committee's recommendation, and the <br />committee did not come to final agreement, and forwarded the recommendations it did agree on. <br />She noted the memorandum on the topic from the Toxics Board, included in the meeting packet. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that the text should not be referred for deletion because it was fairly recently <br />passed by the voters. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he tended to support the motion. He thought it embarrassing and misleading to <br />have provisions in the charter that were no longer valid. People will read the charter and not <br />realize in the absence of footnotes that the section was invalid and cannot be enforced. He <br />supported the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks. He appreciated the points made related to the <br />validity of the item. He said that the text to be placed in a ballot measure regarded deleting and <br />adding items to the substance list. He recalled that the council agreed to delegate the authority <br />to add and subtract items form that list to the City Manager, and wanted to ensure now that the <br />council action to pass the motion would not override that delegation of authority. Mr. Lidz did not <br />believe that it would, and suggested the two actions were consistent. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not necessarily think the changes being proposed were unproductive, but were <br />being offered to a relatively new charter amendment and were superfluous regarding the <br />implementation of the measure. Since there was a remote chance the State law could change, <br />she wanted to retain the concept. She liked the idea of footnoting the charter to ensure that <br />people were not confused. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that the issue addressed by the charter amendment should never have been <br />included in the charter in the first place. In terms of Ms. Bettman's argument regarding making <br />changes to a relatively new charter amendment, he believed that conditions had changed <br />regarding the wording of the charter, and it was important to bring things up to date. He <br />supported the motion. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 4:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to revise Section 14 with the <br /> language proposed by the City Attorney, and add that item to the list of <br /> noncontroversial items. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted his own opposition to the motion, which he placed on the table in his role as <br />council president. He said the section in question addressed conflict of interest. While he <br />agreed the section needed clarification, he preferred the committee's text. The City Attorney's <br />change would strike the second sentence of the committee's recommendation, which stated <br />what the City Code must contain at a minimum related to the conflict. He said that the sentence <br />was vital because the use of the phrase "disclose the reasons" goes beyond State law. He also <br />thought it important that the charter reflect the fact that the community had a value around the <br />issue of potential and actual conflict of interest through the procedures placed in code. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2002 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />