CC Minutes - 07/27/98 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson said that since her motion to amend was creating confusion, she was considering withdrawing it. Mayor Torrey stated that he appreciated the concern for accuracy of Ms. Nathanson and said that he would support the motion, if given the opportunity to vote, but that he believed the intention of the ordinance to refer to the flag of the United States of America could be established by a review of the "legislative intent" involved. Mr. Klein said it was possible for the council to amend the proposed ordinance, despite its decision to incorporate language of the charter amendment initiative petition. Ms. Nathanson requested that her motion to amend be withdrawn. Mayor Torrey determined that there was no objection to Ms. Nathanson withdrawing her motion to amend and declared that it was no longer under consideration. In response to a question from Mr. Fart, Mr. Klein explained that if the motion to read Council Bill 4660 a second time was not adopted by a unanimous vote, the mayor would ask if any councilor wished the bill to be read in full and the second consideration of the bill would be postponed at least until the next meeting of the council. Ms. Taylor said that she did not believe the ordinance should be placed on the ballot, but would vote for the motion to enable the apparent will of the majority of councilors to be accomplished. The motion was adopted unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4660 by number only. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that Council Bill 4660 be approved and given final passage. Ms. Swanson Gribskov stated that she had been consistent in saying that the process followed in development of the proposed ordinance was not well-conceived. She said she believed deliberations of the council which could have let to agreement on a compromise alternative had been inappropriately "shod-circuited." She said she would vote for the motion because she recognized that six votes were required for its passage. Mr. Fart re-stated that the vote to be taken was on whether voters should be allowed to decide about erecting a flagpole on Skinner Butte, not whether it was appropriate to do so. Mr. Meisner stated that he would not vote to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot. He said he believed the issue was an ideal issue for which to use "preferential voting" to determine voter preferences among a variety of choices. He also said he believed that many who signed petitions about a flag on Skinner Butte were unaware that it made a flagpole of at least 90 feet mandatory, that the memorial would create divisiveness in the community, that he opposed the practice of having the council refer issues to voters on the basis of an initiative petition, and that referring the issue to voters invalidated representational government. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 27, 1998 Page 6 7:30 p.m.