Laserfiche WebLink
· Mr. Fart was concerned that there was no mention of having to tell the truth in the guidelines. He <br /> did not think that Mr. Kelly's amendment allowed the City to correct any misstatements in a <br /> newsletter. Ms. Bridges explained that staff reviewed for correctness of facts. She said that it <br /> was her understanding and intent that by referencing the roles and the processes they were <br /> included in the guidelines. <br /> · Mr. Farr asked about item V. Caveat in the guidelines which stated that the neighborhood <br /> associations could raise funds to finance its own publications. He wondered then about <br /> commercial advertising. Councilors pointed out that if the association was funding the newsletter, <br /> the guidelines did not apply. <br /> · Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the amendment. He said that he was concerned about <br /> the process questions and did not think those questions were covered. He said that all it did was <br /> authorize the City to make minor factual adjustments. <br /> · Mr. Meisner said that he had great concerns about the caveat in the guidelines. He said that in <br /> spite of a disclaimer, the newsletters would be perceived as being published by the City. <br /> · In response to a question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Johnson said that if City dollars were a part of any <br /> newsletter, then the guidelines had to be followed. He allowed that the City would accept funds <br /> from neighborhoods who wanted to publish at a higher rate. <br /> · In response to a question from Mr. Papd, Ms. Bridges explained the process agreements about the <br /> amount of material to be included from the City. <br /> · Mr. Kelly emphasized that Item IV in the guidelines included process and therefore, his <br /> amendment included the process described in the flow charts. He said that the only thing that was <br /> not included in his amendment was Mr. Farr's comment about there being no requirement that the <br /> truth be printed. He pointed out that opinion articles needed to be bylined. <br /> · Ms. Nathanson said that she still thought that the statement was too proscriptive or restrictive. <br /> · Mr. Meisner suggested that the NLC would look carefully with staff at the caveat included in the <br /> guidelines. <br /> · Ms. Nathanson suggested that the NLC review the guidelines after a year. Ms. Taylor agreed. <br /> · Ms. Taylor said that her main concern was that the publications be on time, consistent, and <br /> informative. She suggested reviewing whether or not the newsletters had helped increase <br /> membership at neighborhood meetings. Mr. Farr agreed. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 3:4, with Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap6, <br /> and Mr. Farr voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he would not support the original motion. He added that if there was concern about the <br />guidelines, then the solution was to amend the guidelines. He said that the use of public money did not negate <br />the First Amendment. He said that he thought that the neighborhood needed a voice within adopted <br />guidelines. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that he agreed with Mr. Meisner's concern about the caveat. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wondered if the issue should be postponed so that neighborhoods could comment on the process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6 moved to call the question. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:1, with Mr. Kelly voting no. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />