Laserfiche WebLink
have at different points of their encounters with the legal system to help it determine the answer: <br />for example, if a person could not vote in a general election, perhaps they should not be able to <br />vote to put something on a ballot. Mr. Lidz said he would have to research the issue and get back <br />to Mr. Rayor. His reservation was that the State legislature made statutory changes. The council <br />was contemplating changes to a charter. Mr. Lidz suggested that what the State did might be <br />instructive, but he believed the council would want to make its own decision. He added that there <br />was nothing at the federal level related to voting rights. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested to Mr. Rayor that the two qualifiers to consider were the fact of the council's <br />discretion and the fact the provision applied only to a felony committed after an election. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the council could refer a recall to the voters. Mr. Lidz said there was no <br />provision for doing so. Ms. Nathanson asked if the council could initiate such an action on the <br />citizens' behalf. Mr. Lidz said he would have to do further research to answer the question. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson suggested that the decision to remove a councilor was best left up to the citizens. <br />She said that determining whether a felony disqualified a councilor would become a judgment call <br />for the remainder of the council, and she did not believe it would always be a "cut and dried" <br />situation and not at least somewhat political. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that after rereading the section in question, it appeared, in the absence of a <br />comma, that the last phrase, pertaining to the office, applied to both objects. Mr. Lidz said that <br />staff could include a comma if the council thought it would clarify the section. The comma was <br />removed to remove redundancy. <br /> <br />Kate Fieland of the City Recorder's Office noted that the City had no separate provisions for recall <br />in the City Code. She described the State recall process, and said there was nothing in State law <br />to preclude the council from initiating a recall petition. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey did not support the section unless the council was limited to referring the issue of <br />removing the errant councilor to the voters of the relevant ward. He wanted to avoid "political <br />hassles" around the removal of a councilor. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for another round of comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Lidz if the section had due process implications; for example, would the <br />council have to make findings in law if it used its discretion in removing a sitting councilor? If the <br />decision was truly discretionary and seven councilors choose to deprive a councilor of his or her <br />seat for a minor offense, could the councilor in question challenge that on the basis of due <br />process? Mr. Lidz said yes. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Lidz said he was not aware of any strict liability <br />felonies. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz said that the council's use of the term "discretion" raised concern about the wording of <br />the subjection and the committee's intent. He did not think the intent of the proposed section was <br />to grant the council discretion not to remove someone from office in the case something occurred; <br />rather, that the council needed to make a finding of fact such a thing occurred. He suggested that <br />text clarifying the intent be added, such as "if the council finds that any of the following occurred," <br />or something similar. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2002 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />