09/27/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,..- 1 70/ e 9/27/71 . , --------~--- - ---- - -- ----- F 'I (: 'I II II I~ The media had felt that Paragraph 9 was somewhat similar to the first amendment to the ;! I; constitution. Mr. Bishoff commented that identification of news media could be covered I: ,I " :1 by presentation of identification from the employers. :' Beulah Wood, 2045 River View, felt there should be a means besides an ordinance ~o have discussions with the public. She asked if any members of the public had input' into " preparation of the ordinance. ;, I: I' Mayor Anderson outlined the procedure for drafting of an ordinance, public hearings and final adoption. Miss Wood had some further questions about the preparation of the ordinance and Council procedures. She felt some terms of the ordinance were ambiguous, and that they should " ! be corrected. Irene McDonald, 2715 Terrace View Drive, asked about Article 1, and felt the word "intentional" might cause a great deal of difficulty, and that intent might be difficult e " to prove. . Mel McDerman, 3625 Willamette, asked if this ordinance had been widely phb.licized. " He felt the public was entitled to know of its contents. I, Tim Told, 2045 River View, asked if there weren't other laws to govern this type of conduct. He .did not feel the ordinance was necessary. He agreed order was necessary 1- at council meetings, but he felt this was already covered by other laws. '. Mayor Anderson agreed that there are such laws, and asked the City Attorney to give background on reasoning for tThis ordinance. i: City Attorney said there is a state law which prohibits willful disturbance or breaking up of any assembly. This could be applied if there is no comparable city ordinance. The proposed ordinance is more restrictive, and refers only to City Council meetings. Councilman Mohr asked Miss Woods whether she felt ambiguous words should be deleted, or I more clearly defined. He suggested a carefully drawn definition be inserted. I' i ~ Miss Woods suggested the ordinance be drawn up in language so that people could under- stand it. Councilwoman Beal explained the meaning of Council meetings, reasons for holding them, and why it was felt a code of conduct was required. i Councilwoman Campbell felt the Council was trying to protect the needs of the public I with this ordinance. At many meetings the Council had been intimidated until it felt , ." it just couldn't take it any longer. That is the reason for the ordinance. Councilman Williams explained that the Council sub,committee had 'met with the 'criminal law committee for a discussion of the proposed ordinance and resoiliution. One of the 1 concerns expressed was that cities should not be making eriminal law, and if they should, it should not be different from state law. For that reason, he objected to " redraft of the original proposal. : " In answer to Mr. Mohr, Mr. Williams said he would agree to a time limit on the ordinance and discuss criminal law as a whole at a later time. As far as adoption of the ordinance, he would be in favor of adopting the original draft, since it conforms with state law. In answer to Mrs. Campbell's question about the possibility of holding meetings in other e ': locations, Manager said the Fire Marshall has established a limit 'on the number of persons who can be admitted to the chambers to co~ply with the Fire Code. The City Charter provides the City Council may not hold official meetings except in the City Hall. Th~ Council could hold a p~lic hearing in another mocation, but any official ;, action would have to be in the City Hall. There was discussion concerning limitation of testimony, and whose decision this should be. The resolution provides that the Council could overrule the Mayor, in the event it did not concur with his decision. Mr. Williams suggested that the Council adopt the original ordinance modeled after state law, rather than the revised draft. Mrs. Beal felt the new law would be less restrictive and with the insertion of new words, would make it more difficult to get a conviction. I Mr. Teague suggested, and Mr. Hershner agreed, thatperhFPs the committee should meet again. There were some doubts about the amended proposal. Mr. Hershner suggested that the words "intentionally" and "in a substantial manner" I' be deleted. He could accept this ordinance if this was accomplished. Mr. Williams would agree with this suggestion. He had been concerned with the word "substantiEtl." Mr. Williams 'asked to be informed what the new Oregon State Law would be in 1972. Attorney agreed to furnish a draft of the state code. e ~ 9/27/71 - 2