Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lee believed that Ms. Nathanson made some good points, and asked if the council could do <br />nothing. Mr. Klein said that doing nothing was a de facto decision to fund the program with <br />General Funds, or have the City Manager defund it. Mr. Lee asked if it was legal to pay for the <br />program using General Funds. Mr. Klein recommended the council defer such a discussion to <br />an executive session, because he did not want to give arguments to anyone who wished to sue <br />the City. He said the City did not have an opinion from the courts as to what the charter meant <br />without the nullified section. The court left interpretation of the charter without the nullified <br />section to the City Council. <br /> <br />To Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Lee said that the council had few options for the upcoming year. He <br />suggested the council could refer the issue to the voters in the future or work through the <br />legislative process. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said he would agree with Mr. Rayor's remarks if the matter concerned an ordinance <br />rather than the charter. He believed that by rewriting the section related to how the program was <br />funded the council was amending the charter, and it should not be doing so. While he respected <br />the efforts of those who put the charter amendment on the ballot, he hoped others would think <br />seriously before they attempted to amend the charter. The council should not "rewrite things on <br />the fly" that were initially passed as charter amendments. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said he thought the council was mistaken in not taking advantage of the board's <br />expertise on the topic. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct staff to return with Option <br /> A at the appropriate date for a public hearing. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson clarified that she had not been focused on legal challenges in her remarks, but <br />on what was required to make the charter amendment meet the legal tests that were applied by <br />the State courts. She agreed with Mr. Lee that in practical terms the option before the council <br />was the only practical one, but expressed the wish the community had a way to fix the local <br />charter issue before it had to pay for the program in a manner contrary to what the voters <br />supported. <br /> <br />Regarding the use of the board to process the issue, Mr. Kelly expressed willingness to ask the <br />board to attempt to find consensus on potential future revisions of the charter amendment. <br />Other councilors indicated willingness to hear from the board. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed hope that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations made <br />the subject a legislative priority. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein determined that the council was considering Option A with any technical changes <br />needed. The council concurred. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> C. Work Session: Report and Update on City Boards, Commissions, and <br /> Committees <br /> <br />Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office provided an overview on staff's work on the City's <br />Boards, Commissions, and Committees. She described work on the database developed for the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />