Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ continued to be concerned about the text in Criterion 5. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to amend the motion by deleting the <br /> phrase "and attempt to respect existing ward boundaries and configurations <br /> to the extent possible." The motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Fart and Mr. Pap~ voting <br /> yes. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~ left the meeting. <br /> <br />B. Work Session: Instant Runoff Voting <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that the way the <br />council would put a ballot measure on the ballot was to adopt a resolution. The draft resolution in <br />the meeting packet was not yet ready for adoption, but was prepared for council review and <br />feedback. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> return with a ballot measure for the September 2001 ballot authorizing instant <br /> runoff voting. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the council eliminate the sentence in Section 1 of the draft resolution that <br />read "Instant runoff would not be used until expressly authorized by State statute." He thought the <br />council would have a clearer statement of voter intent if there were no caveats placed on the <br />measure, and he thought it would be difficult to garner support for the measure if its future were <br />dependent on action by the legislature. He thought if the sentence was removed and the ballot <br />measure passed, the State Elections Division might have a change of head. If the elections <br />division did not have a change of head, the council need not spend money to defend the measure <br />from a State challenge. <br />Mr. Klein clarified that because the measure would be a charter amendment, staff did not think the <br />council would have the choice not to defend it. He said the council had discretion about how far <br />to take the issue, and estimated it would cost the City $25,000 to $50,000 to defend the measure. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor requested the status of instant runoff voting legislation in Salem. He also suggested <br />the council should be forwarding the recommendations of the Citizen Charter Review Committee <br />to the voters at one election. Mr. Johnson said the State Senate would be holding a hearing on <br />HB285, and the City was testifying in favor of the bill if the amendments were favorable because <br />of the council's vote in support of instant runoff voting. The County Elections Clerk advised the <br />City that its adoption of instant runoff voting would require consistency with State statutes and <br />could also require new software and new voting machines. The current version of HB285 at the <br />legislature indicated that instant runoff voting could be used at the City's expense. The City <br />opposed that provision. Regarding Mr. Rayor's question about forwarding the committee's <br />recommendations at one time, Mr. Johnson clarified that this was the only pending <br />recommendation, but he anticipated there would be more. The committee wanted the method to <br />be available for the May 2002 primary. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations had taken no position on <br />the bill related to instant runoff voting at the State legislature because it had not seen the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />