Laserfiche WebLink
B.WORK SESSION: Discussion of Recommended Amendments to the Eugene City Charter <br /> <br />City Manager pro tem Jim Carlson, City Attorney Jerome Lidz, and Mary Walston of the City <br />Manager's Office were present for the item. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve Section 23(2)(e) as <br /> recommended by the Citizen Charter Review Committee (CCRC) and place <br /> the recommended Section 23 on the November 2002 ballot. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed the only point of contention regarded whether a felony conviction should result <br />in a councilor's removal from office. He said that the clause only came into effect upon a <br />declaration of the council, so it took the council's conscious involvement to decide whether the <br />conviction was relevant to the office. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked whether the voters would have the benefit of the existing charter language <br />when the voted for the sake of comparison. Mr. Lidz said that the council would need to address <br />that question eventually. He suggested that housekeeping measures could be bundled together in <br />a single measure and the more significant changes offered to the voters individually. He believed <br />it would make sense to place the text in legislative format to show what change was being <br />proposed. Ms. Bettman hoped the council discussed the issue soon. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Lidz that a felony conviction did not preclude a person from <br />running for the council. She said that given that, it seemed inconsistent to give the council the <br />wholesale ability to remove the person from office. She supported the recommended text <br />because of the rationale cited by Mr. Kelly. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that if people convicted of a felony can run for office, it should be up to the voters, <br />not the council, to decide whether a councilor should be removed after a conviction in office. She <br />was not comfortable with the choice that the council would have to make. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly indicated that the change in question was a <br />minor or substantial change, not a housekeeping issue. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jerome Lidz clarified that the text as recommended applied to any offense related to <br />the office and any felony. The council would get to determine if the felony was sufficient to <br />disqualify a candidate for service; he believed the felony could be a serious one completely <br />unrelated to service on the council. That seemed to require a policy decision from the council. <br />Ms. Walston added the entire section was rewritten based on text from the model charter; the <br />committee had been able to reach agreement around the felony issue mentioned by Mr. Lidz. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said other sections of the charter were relevant to the determination under <br />discussion, so she was relying on the arguments forwarded by legal counsel and the CCRC, <br />because it seemed like a thin difference to her if 2(e) were retained or not. She suggested the <br />council focus on whether it should have the discretion to determine that a felony conviction <br />unrelated to a councilor's office was sufficient reason for removal from office. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked what rights were lost when a person was convicted of a felony. Mr. Lidz was <br />unsure as the law had changed. Mr. Rayor suggested that the council consider what rights people <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2002 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />