CC Minutes - 09/10/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly noted the Citizen Charter Review Committee had considered the issue of at-large council wards and members felt strongly that at-large wards were not the right approach. He looked to the committee's recommendation on the issue for his direction. Mr. Fart did not think the committee was representative of the community and said the question should be posed to the larger public. Ms. Nathanson thought the concept in the motion was interesting but agreed with Mr. Rayor that such last-minute concepts were difficult to address. She did not recall that the Citizen Charter Review Committee had discussed the concept reflected in the motion. Mr. Johnson concurred with Ms. Nathanson's recollection. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that the concept in the motion would require a charter amendment to implement if adopted. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Johnson said there had been little public comment at the committee level about the issue of at-large elections. Ms. Bettman disagreed with Mr. Fart, saying she thought the committee was a balanced committee and she believed the motion would be circumventing its work. She further pointed out that the proposal did not meet the criteria adopted by the council. She also noted that the council had an at-large representative in the mayor. Ms. Taylor opposed the motion as she believed that at-large elections represented a step away from democracy and campaign finance reform because citywide elections would cost more and the balance of power would go to those with money. She also thought the position of mayor should be a rotating position. Mr. Meisner noted that in conversations with other elected officials from progressive communities at the National League of Cities, he learned that many cities had at least half of their councilors elected on an at-large basis. It had not proved to be an impediment to democracy or progressivity or a barrier to campaign finance reform. Mr. Meisner intended to vote no on the motion, not because he was not interested in the concept, but he thought the timing wrong and he did not want to present just a single combination approach that could not be immediately implemented to the public. He suggested the Citizen Charter Review Committee be asked to take another look at the issue. Mayor Torrey noted his long-time support for at-large elections. In response to arguments that elections would be more costly, he pointed out the school board was elected in an at-large vote and he had not seen overwhelming campaign costs. He thought such an arguments against at- large elections was a "red herring." He said the citizens should vote on all councilors because all the councilors had a dramatic impact on the lives of citizens. Mayor Torrey anticipated a citizen would force the issue by placing an initiative on the ballot if the council did not discuss it. Mr. Rayor thought having a smaller geographic boundary did help hold election costs down. He believed that at-large elections would greatly complicate the issue of constituent service. Ms. Nathanson opposed the motion because it could not be implemented by the council at this point and she believed it would confuse people if included in the discussion of redistricting. She MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 9 Work Session