Among the many housekeeping measures clouding the Nov. 5 general election are a handful of provisions that would give voters, through their decisions, the chance to clean a little house of their own.
Eugene residents have been asked to hold city officials responsible for grossly negligent spending, to force officials out of office if they have conflicts of interest and to require the city to have its own attorney by 2005.
Measure 20-69 would require the city council to adopt a code of ethics that would prevent elected officials from discussing, debating or voting on matters from which they, or their relatives, could financially gain. If intentional, the violation could result in removal from office.
“It’s a way of making sure that they respect a level of integrity in the local government,” said Councilor David Kelly of Ward 3, which represents the University.
Measure 20-70 asks voters whether the city manager should be required to report to the City Council after hiring, promoting or firing individuals. Currently, the manager is not required to do so.
“If we’re supposed to evaluate that person, we have very little basis on how these very important decisions are made,” Ward 2 Councilor Betty Taylor said.
Of all the measures that would affect city officials, Measure 20-71 has caused the biggest controversy. The measure would require the manager staff a city attorney, to be appointed by July 1, 2005.
Proponents of the measure say an in-house lawyer would provide oversight and work toward the city’s best interests. Those in opposition say that an in-house attorney isn’t needed and point to history as proof. For more than 25 years, they say, the city has been fine without its own attorney.
In all, there are nine city ballot measures. Measure 20-67 asks voters to help fund youth and school-based activities cut by state budget shortfalls. The measure could raise property taxes by more than three percent and would raise more than $30 million for local schools by 2007.
The city has asked voters whether it should update language, improve readability and delete obsolete provisions in the City Charter in Measure 20-68.
In the event that an elected city official leaves office, Measure 20-72 asks voters whether an election should be held during any year, rather than only during even years.
If city officials knowingly spend money without authorization or through gross negligence, should they personally be held responsible? That is the question voters have been asked in Measure 20-73.
Measure 20-74 would revise provisions for city ordinances. It would require the City Council to hold a public hearing, require the city to provide public notice at least 10 days before the hearing and would require the city to post the proposed ordinance on the Web site at least 10 days before the hearing.
Measure 20-75 would protect ordinances adopted by voters from revisions without a unanimous vote by the City Council. Currently, the council can amend or repeal any voter ordinance.
Four city councilors are running unopposed for elections, as are two Eugene Water and Electric Board candidates.