02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e' ther complaints should be handled through civil court. Mr. Phillips explained with regard to age limits that the provision, in both state law and this amendment, re- ferred specifically to persons being discriminated against, particularly in the em- ployment field. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said the state law was not en- abling legislation. In general, he said, the city code was not greater than state law; the term "general equivalency" would be more accurate. Mr. Phillips explained that the Commission had not initiated any complaints because it was felt to be in- appropriate under the existing procedure. The process contemplated would include preliminary investigation for consideration of the Commission or its designee. In the past, he said, that investigation had been delegated to staff. Lewis Peters, minority relations specialist, said the mechanism contemplated was being used in Salem and Portland. With regard to hearings official evaluation of all complaints regardless of who initiated them, Mr. Phillips said the Commission membership itself was multiracial and represented varying philosophies, ages, both sexes, etc., and he thought that both complainants and respondents had a greater sense of being dealt with fairly by panels drawn from that group. His personal judgment was that particuarly where emphasis was on conciliation, this panel system was better than the state procedure where there was staff investigation and agency decision. With regard to the penalty clause, Mr. Phillips said the aim now was toward conciliation, failing that a com- plaint would be referred to the city attorney for prosecution. The maximum lawful penalty was felt to be a deterrent to discrimination on any basis. Mr. Long re- sponded to Councilman Bradley I.S inquiry about prosecuting through civil court that it was important to handle discrimination complaints quickly and with minimum ex- pense, going through the courts with attendant proof, delays in scheduling, etc., would be time consuming and expensive. In response to Mr. Bradley's inquiry as to whether philosophically the Commission's initiation of complaints could be considered a good policy in view of government's traditional role of responding rather than seeking out, Mr. Phillips gave his per- sonal view that it was. He thought it an important policy in terms of alleviatin~ the effect of discrimination. He said some systematic areas at discrimination had been identified in the community where it was difficult for an individual to even recognize there had been discrimination - that is, an individual contact would not reveal what could come to light in a second or third contact such as occurred in the study carried out by the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group. Mr. Phillips cited regulatory Federal agencies with a history of initiating com- plaints and said the Human Rights Commission in the state of New York acted as com- plainant almost exclusively. Councilman Haw was still unclear about the limit on categories in the code as bases for prohibiting discrimination. Manager .explained that if the upper age limit of 65 was removed from the code the city would be in violation of state mandatory re- quirement for retirement at that age. With regard to the lower age limit, he said, there were many positions considered unsuitable for those younger than 18 - police officers, for instance, cannot be certified younger than 21. Mr. Murray suggested action be taken on the proposed amendments and any provisions of the existing ordinance of continuing concern to Council members could be brought back for discussion later. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public hearing at the February 24 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/12/75 Pub Hrng Manager noted intent of the amendment was to put Eugene's ordinance into conformance with State law thereby making more rapid the handling of discrimination complaints. Public hearing was opened. 7} 2/24/75 - 3