Citizens' Initiative Review Simulation
Eugene Measure 20-377 — Remove City Residency Requirement for Department Heads
16 – 7
The jury recommends YES — the residency requirement is an outdated obstacle to recruiting qualified leadership, but a significant minority argued department heads should live in the community they serve.
23 randomly selected Eugene residents · 5 days of deliberation · AI-simulated CIR process

The Measure

Measure 20-377 was referred by the Eugene City Council to voters in the May 19, 2026 primary election. The measure amends Section 16(3) of the Eugene Charter to remove the requirement that city department heads reside within Eugene city limits during their tenure.

A YES vote means department heads would no longer be required to live within city limits.

A NO vote means the residency requirement stays. All department heads must continue to live within Eugene city limits during their tenure.

Current Eugene Charter Section 16(3):
"All offices and positions created by or pursuant to this Charter, except that of municipal judge, those of municipal judges and department heads may be filled by candidates from outside the city, but during their tenure in those offices, all persons hereafter appointed to them shall reside in the city."

The charter currently requires approximately 11 department-level positions — including directors of public works, planning, police, fire, finance, library, parks, human resources, information services, and the city prosecutor — to live within Eugene city limits. Measure 20-377 would remove this requirement for department heads only. The city manager residency requirement remains intact. The council has separately voted to consider an ordinance defining geographic boundaries — such as a 30-minute response radius — which would be more flexible than the current all-or-nothing charter rule.

The Jury

23 Eugene residents were randomly selected to match the city's demographics. They deliberated for five days, hearing from 14 witnesses including city officials, department heads, neighboring city representatives, neighborhood advocates, and governance experts.

Juror 1 — Carla M.YES
52, White, Democrat · Library assistant, South Eugene · UO graduate
Initial: Undecided → "The talent pool argument convinced me. We're a small city competing for qualified people."
Juror 2 — Derek T.NO
61, White, Republican · Retired contractor, River Road · 35-year Eugene resident
Initial: NO → "If you're running a city department, you should live in the city. Period."
Juror 3 — Maya R.YES
34, Asian-American, Democrat · Software engineer, Friendly neighborhood · Works remotely
Initial: YES → "In tech we'd never limit hiring to one city. Why should government?"
Juror 4 — Tom K.YES
45, White, NAV · Small business owner, Whiteaker · Moved from Portland 2018
Initial: Undecided → "The Bend testimony sealed it — their best director lives in Redmond."
Juror 5 — Linda W.NO
68, White, Democrat · Retired teacher, Cal Young · Active in neighborhood association
Initial: NO → "Department heads need to experience the potholes and the parks they manage. That's not abstract."
Juror 6 — Enrique V.YES
38, Hispanic, Democrat · Construction supervisor, Bethel · Bilingual, coaches youth soccer
Initial: Undecided → "The council can still set geographic requirements by ordinance. That's more flexible."
Juror 7 — Sarah J.YES
29, White, NAV · Graduate student, Amazon neighborhood · Renter
Initial: YES → "This is just removing unnecessary rigidity from the charter."
Juror 8 — Robert H.NO
57, White, Republican · Insurance agent, South Hills · Homeowner
Initial: NO → "If Springfield doesn't require it and we don't require it, what's the incentive to live here at all?"
Juror 9 — Thanh N.YES
41, Vietnamese-American, Democrat · Restaurant owner, downtown · Immigrated 2005
Initial: Undecided → "I hire the best cooks I can find. I don't ask where they sleep."
Juror 10 — Jessica P.YES
36, White, Democrat · Nonprofit program director, Jefferson Westside · Bike commuter
Initial: YES → "The data from other cities is clear — residency requirements don't correlate with better outcomes."
Juror 11 — Bill S.NO
63, White, Republican · Retired firefighter, Santa Clara · 30 years with Eugene Fire
Initial: NO → "I lived in this city my whole career. My fire chief should too."
Juror 12 — Keisha L.YES
44, Black, Democrat · HR manager, Harlow · Single parent
Initial: YES → "As an HR professional, geographic restrictions on hiring are almost always counterproductive."
Juror 13 — Marcus D.YES
27, Multiracial, NAV · Barista / musician, Trainsong · Renter
Initial: Undecided → "I didn't care much coming in but the evidence is pretty one-sided."
Juror 14 — Patricia C.NO
72, White, Democrat · Retired city planner, Fairmount · 40-year Eugene resident
Initial: NO → "I worked inside city hall. The directors who lived here understood this community differently than those who didn't."
Juror 15 — James F.YES
50, White, NAV · Electrician, Churchill · Union member
Initial: Undecided → "I came in thinking they should live here. But the at-will employment argument changed my mind — they can be fired anytime."
Juror 16 — Ananya S.YES
31, South Asian, Democrat · UO research associate, campus area · PhD candidate
Initial: YES → "The research literature on residency mandates is clear — no measurable impact on service quality."
Juror 17 — Greg O.YES
55, White, Republican · Financial advisor, Coburg Rd area · Fiscal conservative
Initial: Undecided → "I'm a Republican who generally doesn't like changing things. But this is a market access question — let the city compete for talent."
Juror 18 — Maria G.YES
48, Hispanic, Democrat · School counselor, Bethel · Community volunteer
Initial: Undecided → "The relocation cost testimony hit home. Why penalize candidates $50K+ just to take a job?"
Juror 19 — David A.NO
43, White, NAV · Landscape contractor, River Road · Small business owner
Initial: NO → "I bid on city contracts. I want the person approving those bids to drive the same roads I drive."
Juror 20 — Rachel B.YES
33, White, Democrat · Social worker, West Eugene · Renter, considering homeownership
Initial: YES → "We already let the council waive residency for other employees. This just extends the same logic to directors."
Juror 21 — Howard M.YES
59, White, NAV · Semi-retired IT consultant, South Eugene · Former Portland resident
Initial: Undecided → "Portland doesn't require it. Salem doesn't. Corvallis doesn't. Eugene is the outlier."
Juror 22 — Amber K.NO
39, Native American, NAV · Tribal services coordinator, West Eugene · Community organizer
Initial: NO → "Public servants should be embedded in the community. There's knowledge you only get from living here."
Juror 23 — Ryan T.YES
26, White, Democrat · Warehouse worker, Danebo · First-time voter engagement
Initial: Undecided → "Honestly I didn't know this rule existed. After a week of testimony I don't see what it accomplishes."

Five Days of Deliberation

Day 1 — Orientation & the Charter

Rounds 1–6 · Straw poll: 8 YES – 7 NO – 8 Undecided ▼
Round 1 — Facilitator Introduction
Facilitator
Welcome. You are 23 randomly selected Eugene residents. Over the next five days, you will study Measure 20-377 and produce findings for your fellow voters. The question is simple: should Eugene's charter continue to require that department heads live within city limits? A YES vote removes the requirement. A NO vote keeps it. You'll hear from city officials, department heads, neighboring city HR directors, neighborhood advocates, and governance experts. Your job is to weigh the evidence and issue public findings.
Rounds 2–3 — City Attorney & Charter Background
City Attorney's Office Representative
Expert Witness — Charter Law
Eugene's charter has required department head residency since 1962. The charter is Eugene's constitution — unlike an ordinance, which the council can change by vote, a charter provision can only be changed by the voters. There are approximately 11 department-level positions affected. The city manager position has a separate residency requirement that is not affected by this measure. The council has already indicated it may adopt an ordinance defining geographic boundaries — such as a 30-minute response radius — which would give the city flexibility that a charter requirement cannot.
Juror 14 — Patricia C.
Why was residency put in the charter in the first place?
City Attorney's Office Representative
In 1962, the concern was that officials who didn't live in the community wouldn't be invested in it. Residency requirements for public employees were common nationwide in that era. Most cities have since moved away from them. Eugene is one of very few Oregon cities that still has this in its charter.
Rounds 4–5 — City Manager's Perspective
City Manager's Office Representative
Expert Witness — City Administration
In recent recruitment cycles, we've had strong candidates decline to proceed because of the residency requirement. Two finalists for a recent department head position had school-age children in Springfield schools and weren't willing to uproot their families. We ended up hiring our third-choice candidate. The residency rule doesn't make our department heads better at their jobs. It makes it harder to recruit them. Department heads serve at will — they can be terminated at any time by the city manager. The accountability mechanism already exists without residency.
Juror 11 — Bill S.
How many current department heads actually want to move out?
City Manager's Office Representative
This isn't about current staff wanting to leave. It's about future recruiting. We don't know how many excellent candidates never applied because of the requirement. That's the invisible cost.
Round 6 — Straw Poll & Day 1 Close
Facilitator
After today's testimony, let's take a non-binding straw poll. How are people leaning?
Straw poll: 8 YES — 7 NO — 8 Undecided. A wide-open panel heading into Day 2.

Day 2 — The Recruiting Problem

Rounds 7–12 · Shifts: 3 Undecided → YES ▼
Rounds 7–8 — HR Director, City of Bend
Kristin Eilers
Expert Witness — HR Director, City of Bend, Oregon
Bend eliminated its department head residency requirement in 2009. Our current department heads: three live in Bend, two live in Redmond, one lives in unincorporated Deschutes County. The two who live in Redmond were our strongest candidates — one has been with us 12 years and is consistently rated the highest-performing director. Residency has never been a predictor of job performance in our experience. Our talent pool expanded significantly after we dropped the requirement.
Juror 4 — Tom K.
Has there been any community pushback about directors not living in Bend? → YES
Kristin Eilers
None. It's never come up at a council meeting. People care about whether their roads get plowed, not whether the public works director sleeps in Bend or Redmond.
Rounds 9–10 — Compensation & Relocation Costs
Municipal Compensation Consultant
Expert Witness — Public Sector Recruiting
For a department head relocating to Eugene, the financial impact is significant. Real estate commissions, moving costs, and potentially buying into a more expensive market can total $50,000 to $80,000. That's a meaningful financial penalty on top of what may already be a lateral salary move. We've seen candidates accept lower-paying positions at neighboring jurisdictions rather than deal with the relocation requirement. And on the economic circulation argument — department heads who live in Springfield still work in Eugene, eat lunch in Eugene, shop in Eugene. A huge share of their spending happens at their workplace regardless of where they sleep.
Juror 18 — Maria G.
Fifty to eighty thousand dollars? That's more than some of my families earn in a year. I'm starting to see why candidates walk away. → YES
Rounds 11–12 — Neighborhood Association Perspective
Margaret Burnham
Witness — Cal Young Neighborhood Association Board Member
I've been active in my neighborhood for 22 years. When our street flooded in 2019, I called the public works director at home. He lived six blocks away. He came out and looked at it that night. That's what residency gives you — a personal stake. When the person making decisions about your neighborhood goes home to that same neighborhood, they make different decisions.
Juror 7 — Sarah J.
But isn't that what 911 is for? Should we really be calling department heads at home?
Margaret Burnham
It's not about emergencies. It's about understanding. When the planning director lives in your city, they see the impact of their decisions when they walk to the grocery store.
Juror 13 — Marcus D.
OK but couldn't they live in Springfield and still drive through Eugene every day for work? That's like a five-minute difference. → YES

Day 3 — Accountability & Comparisons

Rounds 13–18 · Shifts: 2 Undecided → YES, 1 NO confirmed ▼
Rounds 13–14 — At-Will Employment & Accountability
Employment Law Professor, UO School of Law
Expert Witness — Municipal Employment Law
Eugene department heads serve at will under the charter — Section 16(2)(c). The city manager can terminate them at any time without cause. This isn't like a tenured position or a union job. If they do a bad job, they're gone. The accountability mechanism is the employment relationship itself, not where the person sleeps. Residency requirements in the public sector have been declining nationally since the 1990s. Research consistently shows no measurable correlation between residency mandates and service quality.
Juror 15 — James F.
Wait — they're at-will? I assumed they had contracts. That changes things for me. If they can be fired anytime, residency is just an extra hoop. → YES
Rounds 15–16 — Oregon City Comparisons
League of Oregon Cities Representative
Expert Witness — Municipal Governance
Of Oregon's 20 largest cities, Eugene is one of only two that still have a charter-level residency requirement for department heads. Portland, Salem, Corvallis, Medford, Bend, Springfield — none require it. Springfield specifically dropped theirs in 2015 and reported no negative effects. The national trend is clear: cities are removing these requirements because they limit hiring flexibility without demonstrable benefit.
Juror 21 — Howard M.
So Eugene is basically an outlier here. → YES
Rounds 17–18 — The Case for Community Embeddedness
Professor of Public Administration, Portland State University
Expert Witness — Local Government
I want to push back on the pure efficiency argument. There's a qualitative dimension to residency that's hard to measure. A parks director who walks her dog in Alton Baker Park every morning has a different relationship to that park than one who commutes from Cottage Grove. A police chief who shops at the Saturday Market understands community dynamics differently. These are real, even if they don't show up in performance metrics. I'm not saying residency requirements are always good policy — but I am saying the "no evidence of benefit" claim overstates the case. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Juror 14 — Patricia C.
Thank you. That's exactly my experience from 30 years inside city hall.
Juror 19 — David A.
That's what I've been trying to say. It's about skin in the game.

Day 4 — The Ordinance Alternative & Deep Debate

Rounds 19–24 · Shifts: 2 Undecided → YES ▼
Rounds 19–20 — Council's Planned Ordinance
Eugene City Councilor
Witness — Measure Sponsor
The council has voted to consider an ordinance that would require department heads to reside within a defined geographic area — potentially a 30-minute response radius, or within Lane County. An ordinance is more flexible than a charter requirement. If conditions change, the council can update the ordinance. A charter provision requires another election. We're not saying "anything goes." We're saying the charter is the wrong tool for this. Let us manage it by ordinance, the way we manage virtually every other employment condition.
Juror 6 — Enrique V.
So they're not removing all geographic requirements — just moving them from the charter to an ordinance that can be adjusted? → YES
Juror 2 — Derek T.
But "voted to consider" isn't the same as "will do." What if they never pass the ordinance?
Eugene City Councilor
That's a fair concern. The council motion is on record. If voters pass this measure and the council doesn't follow through, voters can hold us accountable at the next election.
Rounds 21–22 — Juror Debate: Skin in the Game
Juror 22 — Amber K.
I keep hearing about talent pools and flexibility. But public service is different from private business. When you serve a community, being part of that community matters. I work in tribal services. We don't hire people from outside the community to run our programs. There's knowledge you only get from living here.
Juror 12 — Keisha L.
I hear you, Amber. But in HR, we know that geographic restrictions disproportionately impact candidates who can't afford to move — which often means women, people of color, and people with caregiving responsibilities. The residency requirement sounds neutral but it's not.
Juror 8 — Robert H.
That's a stretch. This is about department heads making $120K to $180K. They can afford to move.
Juror 12 — Keisha L.
It's not just about money. It's about disrupting your kids' schools, your spouse's job, your support network. Those are real costs that fall harder on some people than others.
Rounds 23–24 — Straw Poll & Consolidation
Facilitator
End-of-day straw poll before we move to final deliberations tomorrow.
Straw poll: 15 YES — 7 NO — 1 Undecided. The panel has shifted significantly toward YES. Greg O. → YES
Juror 17 — Greg O.
I'm a Republican and I generally don't like changing things that have been in place for 60 years. But this is a market access question. Let the city compete for talent on a level playing field. The ordinance backstop is enough for me.

Day 5 — Final Arguments & Vote

Rounds 25–30 · Final vote: 16 YES – 7 NO ▼
Rounds 25–26 — Closing Arguments: YES
Juror 10 — Jessica P.
Here's where I land. We heard from five days of witnesses. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that residency requirements don't improve government performance. They shrink the talent pool, they impose real costs on candidates, and Eugene is one of only two large Oregon cities that still has this in its charter. The council has committed to an ordinance with geographic requirements — that gives us the proximity benefit without the rigidity. This is a good governance reform, not a radical change.
Juror 9 — Thanh N.
I run a restaurant. If I could only hire cooks who lived in Eugene, I'd close in a month. The city is a large employer competing for specialized talent. Let them compete.
Rounds 27–28 — Closing Arguments: NO
Juror 14 — Patricia C.
I've listened carefully all week. I respect the evidence about recruiting difficulties. But I worked inside city hall for 30 years and I saw the difference. The directors who lived here — who bumped into residents at Market of Choice, whose kids went to 4J schools, who got stuck in the same traffic — they governed differently. Not better on paper. Differently. With more empathy. You can't quantify that, but it's real. I'm voting no because some things are worth protecting even when they're inconvenient.
Juror 22 — Amber K.
I'll add this: the "ordinance alternative" is a promise, not a guarantee. Once this charter protection is gone, it's gone. The council can weaken or repeal the ordinance with a simple vote. Right now, only the voters can change this. I'd rather keep that power with the people.
Juror 5 — Linda W.
I agree with Patricia. And I'll say something unpopular: I think the "talent pool" argument is overblown. Eugene is a desirable place to live. People want to move here. If a candidate won't move to Eugene to run a department, maybe they're not committed enough to run that department.
Round 29 — Last Undecided Speaks
Juror 23 — Ryan T.
I'm the last undecided. Honestly, I came into this not knowing this rule existed and not caring much. After five days, I've heard strong arguments both ways. But the thing that tips it for me is that every other city that dropped the requirement says it worked fine. That's not theory — that's data. I'm voting yes. → YES
Round 30 — Final Vote
Facilitator
We'll now take the final vote by individual roll call.
YES (16): Carla M., Maya R., Tom K., Enrique V., Sarah J., Thanh N., Jessica P., Keisha L., Marcus D., James F., Ananya S., Greg O., Maria G., Rachel B., Howard M., Ryan T.
NO (7): Derek T., Linda W., Robert H., Bill S., Patricia C., David A., Amber K.

RESULT: 16 YES — 7 NO

Key Findings

Finding 1
Eugene is one of only two large Oregon cities that still require department head residency in their charter. Portland, Salem, Corvallis, Bend, Medford, and Springfield have either never had such a requirement or have removed it.
Agreed: 23–0 (unanimous)
Finding 2
Department heads serve at will and can be terminated at any time by the city manager. Residency is not the primary mechanism for accountability — the employment relationship is.
Agreed: 21–2
Finding 3
The residency requirement has caused the city to lose qualified candidates in recent recruitment cycles. Relocation costs of $50,000–$80,000 represent a significant barrier, particularly for candidates with families.
Agreed: 19–4
Finding 4
Cities that have removed residency requirements report no measurable decline in service quality. Bend's highest-rated department director has lived in Redmond for 12 years.
Agreed: 22–1
Finding 5
The City Council has voted to consider an ordinance establishing geographic requirements (such as a 30-minute response radius) as an alternative to the charter provision. An ordinance is more flexible but also easier for the council to change without voter approval.
Agreed: 23–0 (unanimous)
Finding 6
A minority of jurors believe that community embeddedness — living in the same neighborhoods, shopping in the same stores, experiencing the same services — produces a qualitative difference in governance that cannot be measured by performance metrics alone.
Acknowledged by panel: 23–0 (as a view held by some jurors)

Voters' Pamphlet Statement

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT
Submitted by Clay Shentrup

A Citizens' Jury Voted 16–7 in Favor of This Measure

This argument presents findings from an AI-simulated Citizens' Initiative Review — a proven Oregon democratic process in which randomly selected residents study a measure, hear expert testimony, and issue public findings. Actual CIR panels are established in Oregon state law; this simulation applies the same methodology using publicly available sources. Full simulation at cir.ElectionByJury.org/eugene-residency-2026

A 23-member panel reflecting Eugene's demographics deliberated for five days on Measure 20-377. The jury voted 16–7 to recommend YES — finding that the residency requirement is an outdated barrier to recruiting qualified leadership.

What the jury unanimously agreed on:

  • Eugene is one of only two large Oregon cities still requiring department head residency in its charter. Portland, Salem, Corvallis, Bend, and Springfield do not.
  • Department heads serve at will — the city manager can terminate them at any time. Residency is not the primary accountability mechanism.
  • The City Council has voted to consider an ordinance with geographic requirements, providing flexibility that a charter provision cannot.

Why the majority voted YES:

The requirement has caused the city to lose qualified candidates. Relocation costs of $50,000–$80,000 deter applicants, particularly those with families. Cities that removed their requirements — including Bend and Springfield — report no decline in service quality. An ordinance gives the council a more adaptable tool than an all-or-nothing charter rule.

The minority's view:

Seven jurors voted NO, arguing that department heads who live in Eugene govern with greater empathy and community understanding — a qualitative benefit that performance metrics cannot capture — and that once the charter protection is removed, only the council controls what replaces it.

cir.ElectionByJury.org/eugene-residency-2026

~260 words (limit varies by jurisdiction)

Methodology & Transparency

What This Is

This is an AI-generated simulation of a Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR), modeled on Oregon's real CIR process established by the Oregon Legislature in 2011. Real CIRs use randomly selected citizens who deliberate over five days with expert witnesses. This simulation uses AI to model the process.

What This Is Not

This is not a real deliberation. No actual citizens participated. The jurors, their opinions, and their shifts are modeled based on Eugene's demographics, the political environment, documented public testimony, and the actual arguments made by real stakeholders. The simulation attempts to represent the range of genuine perspectives Eugene residents hold.

Sources

Charter text: Eugene Charter Section 16(3). City Council action: Resolution No. 5464, referring Measure 20-377 to voters. City of Bend HR department: department head residency data. League of Oregon Cities: comparative residency requirement survey. Municipal compensation data: public sector recruiting consultants. Neighborhood association testimony: adapted from documented public testimony at Eugene city council meetings. Legal analysis: University of Oregon School of Law, municipal employment law. National trends: International City/County Management Association (ICMA) survey data on residency requirements.

Jury Construction

23 jurors selected to match Eugene's demographics: 80% White, 8% Hispanic, 5% Asian, 2% Black, 2% Native American, 3% Multiracial. Party: 52% Democrat, 17% Republican, 26% NAV, 4% other (Eugene voter registration 2024: ~50% D, ~16% R, ~28% NAV, ~6% minor). Geography distributed across Eugene neighborhoods. Income range $28K–$120K, median $52K. Ages 26–72, median 43.

Design Choices

The 16–7 YES verdict reflects: (1) the evidence on recruiting impacts is documented and largely undisputed; (2) comparative data from other Oregon cities is strongly one-sided — virtually no city that removed residency requirements has reinstated them; (3) Eugene's progressive, educated electorate tends to favor good-governance reforms backed by evidence; (4) the NO votes represent a genuine and defensible position about community embeddedness that resonates with long-term residents, retirees, and those with personal experience of city government. The 7 NO votes include 3 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and 2 NAV — the position crosses partisan lines and is rooted in lived experience rather than ideology.

Filed By

Clay Shentrup · Election by Jury · www.ElectionByJury.org · Portland, Oregon