10/24/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Mohr moved that Resolution 2114 be held over to the meeting of Novem- ber 27, 1972. Motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt Resolution 2114. In answer to Councilman Hershner, Attorney Wilson said that the quota under which liquor . licenses in Oregon are issued applies to.private clubs as. well as to public dispensers. Councilman Bradshaw said hi;s~:concern is with the issuance of liquor licenses only; he has no desire to infringe upon or deny anyone the right to assemble within the City. Councilman McDonald stated that the City Council does not issue liquor licenses; they make recommendations only to the OLCC. To clarify the affidavit requirement, Manager read the proposed document which would provide that in the event there is no affidavit given to the effect that discrimination on the basis of race is not practiced, the Council shall recommend against issuance of a liquor license. Councilman Mohr suggested the affidavit should be broadened to include not only discrimination on the basis of rac, but also sex, national origin, creed. He said the affidavit itself has never been the subject ofdiscussiori by the Council and that his motion to hold the issue was to give an opportunity for discussion and perhaps bring the language more in line with the Human Rights ordinance. Mayor Anderson explained his vote against tabling the item was not necessarily a 'vote in I favor of the resolution. He said he had reservations about this method of ending dis- crimination, but at the same time did not wat;lt the Human Rights Commission to construe the tabling as meaning the proposal was a dead issue. He said he thought the Council would like to see further examination of the proposal to determine steps which would be . more effective. He suggested the Human Rights Commission might outline their intentions so far as State legislation is concerned or plans in conjunction with other Human Rights groups. He expressed disappointment at the lack of a second for Councilman Mohr's motion to hold until November 27 to give the Council opportunity to meet witn the Com- I mission to more clearly determine the direction to take. I Councilman Mohr suggested referring the matter back to the Human Rights Commission for discussion on the basis of the subcommittee's report and issues pertaining to the Human Rights ordinance. Councilman Williams, chairman of the subcommittee, said the dominate number of votes in the subcommittee were from the Human Rights Commission and it was de- termined that this particular proposal should not be presented to the Council. When that decision was reported to the Council, he said, the Commission leadership wanted to present the resolution requiring the affidavit anyway. He could see no significant point in referring the matter back to the Commission. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. Williams to amend the affidavit required by Resolution 2114 to include in the language as basis of discrimination in addition to race the words "sex, national origin, and creed." In making the amendment Mr. Mohr said it was offered to bring ,the broadest possible reach for'the affidavit and bring it into line with the entire scope of.tae Human Rights . ordinance. Mr. Hershner and Mr. Williams said they would vote for the amendment, but that w~uld not necessarily mean they would favor the main motion to adopt the resolution. Manager explained that the amendment, if approved, would change the scope of the proposal and would make it appropriate to hold further public hearings before final action. Dis- cussion followed in clarification of the motion with. regard to its necessitating public hearing at a later date and its inclusion of religious discrimination as a basis for determining whether to make a favorable recommendation on issuance of liquor'licenses. Mrs. Campbell said she would vote against the amendment because she would like to see the resolution adopted requiring the affidavit in its original form - discrimination on the basis of race only - since she felt the amended form would not be approved. She felt adoption of the original form would give the opportunity to do something effective with regard to discrimination against blacks. Councilman Mohr commented on the idealistic vs pragmatic approach and said that the Council should take the most far-reaching position and do everything it can to accomplish what it stands for in view of its public policy. Further clarification of the amendment was made with regard to public hearing at another time, Mayor Anderson stating that approval of the amendment would substantially change . the thrust of the proposal. Other groups would be interested in the introduction of other bases of discrimination - creed,sex, national origin~ They should be given an opportunity to be heard. Councilman Williams repeated his opinion that the question involved is the right of assembly and what kind of restrictions the Council feels it should make. Councilman Hershner agreed, saying the issue is exactly the same as in the original proposal. 30? - - lQ!24:172..,.,- 4 -'