Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Tollenaar strongly supported Ms. Swanson Gribskov's suggestion. He was also surprised <br />about the amount of controversy that the proposal brought out, but he believed the controversy <br />had been useful as it made people think about the concept of patriotism. He favored a normally <br />size flag and did not understand why the Veterans of Foreign Wars opposed the move of the <br />memorial now located in Skinner Butte park. Relocating the memorial would give the flag more <br />meaning. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar indicated his agreement with Mr. Lee that if council could not agree, it should <br />submit the proposal to the voters. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the comments he read in the newspaper to the effect of "love it or leave it" <br />concerned him very much. He was concerned what he perceived to be an expression of bias <br />toward diversity. He liked Ms. Swanson Gribskov's suggestion that the council tie the flag and <br />memorial so the symbolism of the flag was clear. He was concerned that a request from a <br />private citizen was resulting in a divided community. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that the issue was not urgent and she questioned why the council was discussing <br />it. She said that the council had many other important issues to address. She was not opposed <br />to a smaller flag, but she wanted to know more about what the community thought, not just one <br />group. She added that she had heard from many veterans who did not want to see a flag on the <br />butte. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved to do nothing and leave the issue open to be brought up <br /> again in one year. <br /> <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson recollected that a constituent brought up concept of honoring and remembering <br />the United States Constitution, and she had been disappointed that was not given consideration <br />in the staff notes. She was intrigued by that concept. She said that her constituents' input was <br />that the original proposal was not appropriate. Its size was interpreted as being undignified. <br />Regarding the issue of symbolism; Ms. Nathanson said that the council had been drawn into a <br />discussion of the appropriate symbolism for community. The conversation did not start out that <br />way; instead, it began as a discussion of what was appropriate for a war memorial park. She <br />could not say a flag was inappropriate for a war memorial. She wanted to make it clear the <br />council was not discussing a symbol for Eugene. She was reluctant to stipulate at this time what <br />the pole size should be unless the council was sure where the flag would be located. <br />Mr. Farr endorsed Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the fact the flag could not be objected to <br />as a symbol. He said that Ms. Swanson Gribskov's suggestions would not work. The <br />proponents would refer the issue to the voters. He said the council needed to decide what was <br />the most sensible approach. He suggested that the issue was not a matter of patriotism, but one <br />of national pride, which he believed the country had lost. Mr. Farr said the community needed to <br />teach children to be proud of the country, and he believed that it could do so by placing a flag on <br />the butte. He said the council should let the voters decide if they want a flag that can be seen by <br />all. <br /> <br /> Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, that council refer the issue of the flag <br /> to the voters. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 4 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />