CC Minutes - 11/09/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor opposed any fee, saying that some people base their votes on information distributed in the pamphlet and it would enable people to "buy their way into the pamphlet." She added that if paid signature gatherers were allowed, they should be required to wear identification buttons. Ms. Swanson Gribskov agreed with Ms. Taylor, but said she did not wish to spend any money on defending the requirements. Mr. Laue arrived at the meeting. Addressing a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Klein said that if the ordinance was challenged, the ACLU would likely represent whoever raised the challenge. In response to a follow-up question, City Manager Jim Johnson said the ACLU objection to the ordinance was based on its constitutionality and doing as Mr. Tollenaar has suggested would be "very safe." Mr. Farr said he was interested knowing how the ACLU felt about Mr. Tollenaar's suggestion, adding that he also did not wish to spend money on enforcing the current ordinance or defending it in court. In response to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Fieland said since the current ordinance was passed in 1995, no one has used paid signature gatherers for including arguments in the voter's pamphlet. Mr. Lee said it was a matter of "access" and ideally the democratic process should be "value-driven" not "money-driven," but added that common sense should prevail and the expense of defending a challenge avoided. Mr. Meisner said he agreed with the comments made and expressed support for Mr. Tollenaar's suggestion and staff's recommendation. Ms. Nathanson said she regretted that the City would not get an opportunity to test the ordinance but agreed that resources should not be spent defending it. She recalled that the process came to the council's attention because citizens had reported what seemed to be abuses. She said it may be more efficient to continue the City's efforts toward reforming the initiative process statewide as well as locally. Mr. Tollenaar said he preferred a system that confined the arguments to a structure such as exists now. He called the individual arguments found in the voter's pamphlet, particularly the State's, often redundant, irrelevant, and sometimes humorous and adding great expense to the cost of producing the pamphlet. He said he understood the ACLU's position and favored returning to the previous process of allowing arguments to be placed in the pamphlet by paying a fee. Mr. Meisner said he favored the rebuttal portion of the pamphlet and wished the State pamphlet included that feature. Ms. Taylor wondered if the City was obliged to defend itself if the ACLU filed a lawsuit. Mr. Klein said he would recommend that the City respond to the suit but, if the City decided to change the ordinance after the suit is filed, the City would be required to pay any fees incurred by the ACLU in filing the suit. Ms. Taylor said she would be interested on the group's position on the identification button. Mr. Klein said the basic question is whether one can treat someone differently only because they are paid to gather signatures. Ms. Taylor suggested prohibiting individual arguments altogether if the current process was changed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 2 5:30 p.m.