We appreciate the dedication of our City Council members to keeping Sweet Home on an even keel financially and otherwise.
We also appreciate the way they’ve made it a point to get along, to be civil even when they disagree – unlike some other civic bodies in our region.
Lately, the council has found itself in somewhat new territory: considering ordinances proposed by one of its own.
Recently elected Councilor Jeff Goodwin has, as we’ve reported in recent weeks, proposed a number of laws that would ban marijuana within the city limits. We won’t go into the details of each one here, but his proposals have prompted the council to take action.
Mayor Jim Gourley has asked the Administration and Finance Committee to come up with a procedure to handle how councilors introduce legislation (see page 11), something we don’t believe should be as complicated as it has been.
When Goodwin introduced his pot laws, the council first decided to vote whether to put those proposals on the agenda, then decided to set a public hearing to let citizens have their say on the issue.
One thing we noticed about that series of events was that it appeared to leave Sweet Home’s legal marijuana supporters with the impression that the council was seriously considering prohibiting recreational marijuana and possibly even medical marijuana.
One reason for that appeared to be the lack of any apparent enthusiasm for Councilor Bruce Hobbs’ motion to dismiss the proposals outright. No one seconded his motion, which kept the prohibition ordinance proposals in play.
Councilors assured audience members near the end of the public meeting on May 6 that they weren’t going to prohibit marijuana, that any action to ban retail outlets as allowed under Measure 91 would only come from a vote of the people. One suggested that the whole thing was blown out of proportion via social media and posts by a single individual.
It’s not hard, though, to see why advocates of legal marijuana aren’t sure what’s going on here, given the council’s reluctance to kill the ordinance proposals prior to that meeting. In a work session scheduled for June 2, the council will discuss proposed regulations on time, manner and place of sales and use of marijuana.
This controversy has had some confusing twists and turns, which might have been less so if there were clear steps for councilors to follow in proposing ordinances. Councilors are allowed to submit legislation to the council under the city’s charter, but the existing process is not, apparently, clearly defined.
Goodwin has also proposed a resolution to create a moment of silence following the Pledge of Allegiance at council meetings. While not as controversial as his pot proposals, again, the process of how that would get done is a little confusing, hence the mayor’s decision to move it to Administration and Finance.
We wonder why the council couldn’t simply entertain a motion put forth by one of its members, and vote whether or not to hold a first reading on the night an ordinance is proposed or at the next meeting, with public meetings tied to second and third reading dates or held in between. At that point we would expect the council to vote it up or down. That’s basically the way staff-proposed ordinances get done. Why should it be any different for a council member?
It’s simple and straightforward. There would be adequate time to ponder the proposal and debate it over the course of several weeks, even if it the initial proposal did come without warning.
Problem solved.
The Administration and Finance Committee will no doubt come up with a process, but in doing so, the City Council should bear in mind the authority of a councilor. Each council member is elected by the citizens of this city. Most of us vote for the ones whose values most closely match our own.
We expect councilors to look out for our interests and make the law work the way we think it ought to. We expect councilors to be somewhat activist, though that hasn’t been the case. Unlike Goodwin, they rarely – if ever – introduce legislation. In practice, that’s been the role of the staff.
Why? In Salem our state legislators do little but introduce legislation and shepherd it through the maze of the state capitol. Why shouldn’t local council members do the same?
Just like legislators in Salem, our council has a staff to help it work through the issues. We like the idea of council members trotting their ideas out for others to pick apart and either reject or support. It’s healthy, particularly if done with the kind of civility that has characterized our City Council in recent years.
If we need a process for this to happen, fine. It sounds like the council is going to work on one.
But to borrow a phrase well-known to many local folks, let’s not fool around and make things more complicated than they need to be.
Just “get ‘r’ done.”