06/14/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,...- C03 e 6/14/71 ,( , !j Ii Mr. Gribskov moved seconded by MJS. Beal to place this item on the Agenda of June I 'I Ii 14 for publi c hearing. Motion carried. 'I I' 'I 9340 - Relating to trespassing, establishing penalties and repealing sections of the " C.B. Code of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was submitted and read the first time January 25, 1971. Further action was withheld until the meeting of March I, I 'J2, at which time it was read the second time. With a tie vote of Councilmen I I' :' ~.- "- 'pre,?snf; -n failed to_ pass. Upon request of the Mayor, with the support of I, the sclib'o-r-Bo'ard, "~ff has been brought back for further consideration at this 'I I, time. I: ,I Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be approved and given final passage. City Manager explained that the city administration felt that this ordinance was needed and had brought it back for further consideration. Unfortunately, the City Attorney was ill, and could not be present to enter into discussion. " il City Manager explained that the ordinance had been circulated to Council and e public and had been prepared after consultation with attorneys for ACLU and the L I labor segment of the community. Council has received letters from the Secretary I of ,the Labor Council raising questions about the ordinance as it might relate to , I picketing. The City Attorney had pointed out that it would not permit restriction oill lawful activity. The Attorney for the School Board and authorities of the School I' , Board have requested this tool to control unauthorized use of school property. ,i I Mayor Anderson said he was one fo those who had requested the Council to reconsider this matter, since there was a question what action the State might take in this regard. There have been instances in the community where such an ordinance might " have been useful. ;, Dr. Millard Pond, Superintendent of School District #4J, said the District is interested in having an enforceable ordinance which would permit the district to go about its legal business. At times certain occurrences interrupt the educational process, and the district needs a means of control. I, Ii " Mr. Bruce Smith, Attorney for the School District, outlined a memo presented to the :1 City Council which he felt summarized their interpretation of the proposed ordinance, i: especially as it related to public and semi-public property. Schools are in a class I i " by themselves because they are public property, but open for general public use. The 'I ii school can more effectively control activities on shcool property with an enforceable :, local ordinance. I' I' ,I " Councilman Mohr questioned Mr. Smith about sections of the memorandum forwarded by Ii his office to Councilmen. In answer to his question concerning Paragraph 1, Page 2 Mr. Smith said ORS 332.172 was the statute cited and it specifically authorized the use to which school property might be put. Mr. Mohr requested that Mr. Smith ~s office furnish the Council with the exact language the schools would use to determine whether someone was a non-student and whether the use was intimately related to school I purposes. Mr. Smith agreed to provide the Council with this information. Mr. Mohr also asked that the school rules speak to the issue of "invitation or permission by appropriate school officials." Dr. Pond pointed out that management of schools and activities was with the School Superintendent, who in turn delegated responsibility to principals for operation thereof. In:.-certain instances, they must exercise judgment whether or not the process of education or school activities are being interfered with. Mr. Mohr felt guidelines should be set out so that enforcement of rules was consistent. -- In answer to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Smith said the State Statute is not as comprehensive as the proposed ordinance. The ordinance will give the school authorities a workable ordinance and more guidelines under which it can'operate. 0 After further discussion, the majority of the Councilmen expressed agreement with the " I :I need for the ordinance and a rollcall vote was taken. All councilmen present voting I' aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16222. - - B. Mall Activity Guidelines (Corrunittee meeting of\'~a-y'26,,--o:l~7J,J Mayor's Committee made guideline recommendations from which the staff and Eugene Downtown Association committee have develop~d a set of proposed rules and regulations., When these have been accepted by the Council it is proposed that an ordinance be adopted which will I designate an official set of rules to be adopted by resolution which will empower ~ I police and parks departments to enforce those rules. Rules could be amended by Counci 1 resol u,tLon . Mr. Mohr suggested that the Council review the document and that a public hearing be called. Manager suggested that a public hearing should be held at a regular Council meeting, and subsequently an ordinance and resolution developed. Councilman McDonald expressed displeasure wi th Section B-12 which referred to a ru&ing that absolutely no, domestic animals would be permi ttEid in the mall. He e ~ 6/14/71 - 2