Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson objected to the coin toss because it appeared to produce results that differed from <br />the resolution, which used references to "first" and "second." She thought the parkway should <br />appear first on the measure because it proceeded discussion of the transportation alternatives. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly did not recollect council discussion of the order of the measures on the ballot. He <br />thought the resolution merely enumerated the measures themselves. He further indicated his <br />belief that his position on the order of the ballot measures had been misrepresented; he had not <br />requested the measures be reversed in order because he was not aware of the order; the City <br />Recorder had informed him that was an administrative decision. He thought it made sense to <br />have the alternative transportation improvements measure first because people were less familiar <br />with it than the parkway measure. Mr. Kelly supported the City Manager's decision as represented <br />by the coin toss. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart agreed with the analysis of Ms. Nathanson. He determined from Mr. Johnson that City <br />Recorder Kate Fieland was involved throughout the entire process of determining the measures' <br />order on the ballot. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said he had considered the order in the resolution the order of the measures, not merely <br />an enumeration of the measures. He added he did not fault the judgement of the manager in the <br />matter, but disagreed with the approach taken. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson. He thought the council as <br />a whole should have been consulted about the order of the measures on the ballot. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner pointed out that, typically, the council neither established the ballot numbers or the <br />order of the measures. He distinguished between administrative procedure and council policy, <br />and said in this case the order of the measures was correctly decided by the manager. He <br />acknowledged the concerns expressed by other councilors, but suggested that those concerns <br />were based less on process than on outcome. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner. She said the <br />resolution was not the governing document for what the ballot would look like, and council had not <br />discussed the issue of the order of the measures. She preferred to maintain the current order if <br />had been established by precedent. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed that the decision was made in a correct and neutral manner. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey did not think the decision was made correctly, and that the manager was mistaken in <br />not returning with the order of the measures to the council. He said that the two measures were <br />like two people running for the same office, and the first measure would have the advantage. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting no. <br />Mr. Johnson indicated that, in the future, the council would be consulted on the order of ballot <br />measures. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz briefly reviewed the memorandum entitled Ballot Title Appeals-Standards and <br />Procedures. He emphasized that discussion of the merits of the ballot measures was not <br />appropriate; the question before the council was what constituted a fair and appropriate ballot title. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />