Laserfiche WebLink
nation of not more than 175 words. He said that the explanation was to inform voters of the <br /> consequences of the vote and its major effect. <br /> <br /> 2. The Voters Pamphlet: Mr. Klein said that the City Code allowed for the publication of a <br /> voters pamphlet that was not limited by 175 words. <br /> <br /> 3. Advertisement: Mr. Klein said that advertising needed to be neutral and present the facts if <br /> it was paid for by the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein said that he had begun to craft ballot language that anticipated some of the council questions. He <br />said the types of information he intended to include were exactly what Mr. Meisner had mentioned. He read <br />the ballot question language he had drafted for each resolution and provided a summary of the explanations <br />that he intended to write. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein explained the process for the ballot title. He said that, once the council had called the election, <br />there would be five days to craft a ballot title. He said that it was possible to appeal the ballot title and <br />bring the matter before the council. He noted that the council would be subject to the same legal constraints <br />in wording the ballot that the original writer was. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 acknowledged that some things had changed since the 1986 vote. He noted, however, that one <br />thing that had not changed was the need to see how the voters felt about the matter. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly express his disappointment in the language that had been presented by staff. He stressed the need <br />for specific consequence language in the ballot title. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein recommended against the council attempting to craft the ballot title language at this meeting. He <br />said that general language recommendations might help but actual ballot title language would not. He noted <br />that the council had occasionally adopted ballot titles itself, but the only way the council could adopt a ballot <br />title was to override the code, and the only way to override the code was by ordinance, which required a <br />public hearing for adoption. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly observed that there would not be time for an ordinance or an appeal by a council member. He <br />said he was willing to submit the issue to a vote under two situations; <br /> <br /> 1. A double ballot measure so people had a choice other than the parkway or nothing. <br /> <br /> 2. The ballot title gives some of the consequences of the vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that unless someone could craft an amended resolution during the meeting it would be <br />difficult to vote for. He raised concern over giving the voters false expectations by not offering a complete <br />ballot question and expressed his desire that the City would not create a misleading ballot like measures 7 or <br />47. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the ultimate question was, ~why would the council not submit the matter to a vote?" <br />He said that he was willing to put both initiatives before the voters and let them make their choice. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />