Originally published on Page 1 of the weekly Coast Lake News, Wednesday July 14, 2010.
Part 3 of three parts – Part 1, Part 2
In short, according to Oregon law, this ordinance should have been properly posted so the public knew it was coming; openly placed on the agenda, so interested individuals could attend that meeting; and the decision to adopt it should have been arrived at openly, i.e. the public should have clearly known what the ordinance would do when adopted. Instead, the ordinance was posted (at least in the Post Office) on June 11 and adopted on July 8, days short of the customary 30 days between posting and decision-making. It was not listed on the agenda, but was brought up under “Items Not on the Agenda” after public comment and just prior to adjournment. And then, it was referred to only as Ordinance 10-269. When Councilor Armstrong, who had been out of town for the June meeting, asked what the ordinance was, only the title “Civil Violations and Enforcement” was read. Eubanks immediately moved to accept the ordinance,
Armstrong seconded and the Council unanimously adopted it.

At the time, City Attorney Carleton said the City Charter allowed the Council to adopt the Ordinance in that manner. But a close reading of Chapter VIII (Ordinances) of the Charter puts that claim in doubt. According to Section 34 Mode of Enactment of the Lakeside City Charter,

“(1) Except as the second and third paragraphs of this section provide to the contrary, every ordinance of the council shall, before being put upon its final passage, be read fully and distinctly in open council meeting on two different days.(2) Except as the third paragraph of this section provides to the contrary, an ordinance may be enacted at a single meeting of the council by unanimous vote of all council members present, upon being read first in full and then by title. (3) Any of the readings may be by title only if no council member present at the meetings requests to have the ordinance read in full and if a copy of the ordinance is provided for each council member and three copies are provided for public inspection in the office of the city recorder not later than one week before the first reading of the ordinance and if notice of their availability is given forthwith upon the filing, by written notice posted in three conspicuous public places in the city or by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. An ordinance enacted after being read by title alone shall have not legal effect if it differs substantially from its terms as it was thus filed prior to such reading, unless each section incorporating such a difference is read fully and distinctly in open council meeting as finally amended prior to being approved by the council.”

The Charter is clear. Before adoption, the ordinance must be read aloud at open council meetings on two days; OR it can read aloud once fully and then by title at only one meeting (if it is adopted unanimously); OR it can be read by title only if: no member requests it be read in full, AND each councilor has a copy, AND three copies are provided for public inspection,
AND if notice of their availability is publicly posted in at least three places or in advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation.

While a copy of the Ordinance itself was posted at the Lakeside Post Office, there has been no copy on the bulletin
board for some time. And no notice has ever been posted that copies of the ordinance were available for “public inspection
in the office of the city recorder.” Procedures, requirements, and expectations for passing ordinances are clearly laid out in
state law and in the City Charter. These outlines are written and designed to keep the public informed and to foster a government that is open and transparent.

On the other hand, the Council’s actual procedure kept information about the ordinance away from the public and was , it
seems, designed to block the possibility of any public input.