Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rayor noted that his interest in campaign finance was in strengthened reporting requirements <br />rather than what he termed the "supply side" of campaign finance. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly did not propose the committee take up the issue of campaign finance as a topic in itself <br />because of the council's work plan and because the charter did not need to be changed to enable <br />the City to take action on campaign finance. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor believed there were other issues the committee could address. <br /> <br />Regarding campaign finance reform, Ms. Nathanson said the committee report was helpful; she <br />suggested the committee could prepare a recommendation regarding the advantages and <br />disadvantages of an ordinance versus a charter solution and a voluntary versus mandatory <br />approach. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to direct the committee to <br /> prepare a report on the advantages and disadvantages of electing councilors <br /> by ward or at large. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson indicated the motion was to ensure the council had information prior to the <br />discussion of the issue. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />