CC Minutes - 12/12/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly said that he would like the council to have more thorough analysis of city-wide elections before it put a measure on a ballot. He was concerned about the cost of city-wide elections; because it would be difficult to campaign at the grassroots level, elections would have a media focus, and the costs of reaching out to the entire city would be much more expensive than it was to mail campaign material to the residents of a ward. He said that the limitations on campaign contributions suggested by Mr. Fart were an interesting idea, but he noted that the federal courts had expressed free speech concerns about such limitations. Mr. Kelly said that another concern he had was that the current system created a conduit to the City organization for constituents who needed one, and he thought that constituent services would "go out the door" if the election method was changed. Mr. Kelly pointed out that under the system proposed by the Gang of 9, the voters of a ward could vote against the candidate rtmning from their ward, and that person could still be elected. Mr. Meisner said he wished the Gang of 9 petition was not circulating now. He said that the positions taken by the first speakers indicated the situation was "all or nothing." He thought there were advantages to both systems. He was interested in a hybrid system, which many cities had adopted. Mr. Meisner said that it was the councilors' responsibility to represent the ward they were from as well as the interests of the entire community. Mr. Meisner did not think city-wide elections would solve all the problems that Mr. Fart had identified. He said that voters did not always act in a consistent way. Mr. Meisner said he did not know how he would vote if the petition resulted in a ballot measure. He thought a hybrid system might offer some assurance that there were councilors whose job it was to represent the entire community, while others would represent districts or wards. Ms. Nathanson said she was unsure that the petition would succeed, but she assumed that it would. If the council were to decide to forward a measure to the voters, she would support that action. Absent a more complete discussion, she would forward it without a particular recommendation, awaiting the decision of the voters. She said that the concerns expressed by Mr. Fart had been expressed to her by others, but she believed that perhaps redistricting would address some of those concerns. She advised voters to give redistricting a chance to work. Ms. Nathanson said that constituents often told her they liked ward campaigning because it gave them the opportunity to know the candidates. They liked that someone came to their door to give them a brochure or they had an opportunity to meet a candidate at a neighborhood meeting. They thought that gave them better information than an ad in the newspaper. Regarding campaign reform, Ms. Nathanson noted that in her first campaign for council office she had suggested a voluntary cap on expenditures to the candidates rtmning against her, who had not been interested. Mr. Pap~ said that he heard from many in the community who were interested in the topic. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Meisner's suggestion there was a hybrid option. He said he would like to put something on the ballot so the voters could decide if they wanted to pursue the topic. He did not think the CCRC had spent sufficient time on the subject. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 12, 2001 Page 6 Work Session