Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Fart said that Section 54 needed to stay in the motion because there were serious questions <br />as to whether the Toxics Right-to-Know law was functioning the way the voters understood it <br />should. He believed that there was no harm in leaving the item in the original motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he would support the amendment but did not feel strongly about it. He <br />stressed that, no matter how the vote resulted, the committee would look to the existing <br />expertise to make decisions. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend resulted in a tie. Mayor Torrey voted with the <br /> opposition. The motion to amend failed, 5:4, with Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, Ms. <br /> Taylor, and Mr. Rayor voting in favor. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to delete Item A from the original <br /> motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor commented that he liked the ward system. He said that running citywide for City <br />Council positions was not feasible. He added that the councilors currently had good <br />communication with their constituents. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he also liked the ward system, but thought that a discussion on wards would <br />be worthwhile because a number of people had raised the issue. He noted that whatever the <br />proposed committee produced needed to be approved by the council. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend failed, 6:2, with Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor voting yes. <br /> The main motion passed, 7:1, with Mr. Lee voting in opposition. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to select all the members of the <br /> proposed committee "at large." <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson opposed the motion. She stressed the importance of a blend of openness with <br />expertise on the proposed committee. She suggested a larger committee with a high quorum <br />requirement. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner commented that he would have preferred a larger committee as well. He said that <br />he was against assigned seats in the committee. He suggested encouraging people with <br />experience to apply. He stressed the importance of having a citizen committee with <br />comprehensive representation. He supported the idea of an "at large" committee. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart opposed the motion. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:3, with Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting <br /> in opposition. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved to set the following timeline for the citizen committee <br /> process: <br /> <br /> 1. Recruitment begins not later than September 1, 2000; <br /> 2. Recruitment ends by September 30, 2000; <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />