My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/22/1977 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1977
>
08/22/1977 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2007 12:27:11 AM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:24:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
8/22/1977
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> -- <br /> Council felt a concern, and that a strong ordinance would encourage <br /> e complainants to go through the City rather than being tied up in <br /> state or federal processes, which sometimes take two or three <br /> years. Also, it was felt necessary that the City establish its <br /> seriousness about addressing the discrimination issue in the city. <br /> He said the issue is not that the system is not being used, noting <br /> there were about five complaints a month. He said people who are <br /> personally aggrieveddo not have any kind of vindication or equitable ) <br /> relief and the Human Rights rationale was that the employers were <br /> merely getting their hands slapped. With a stiffer fine, it was <br /> felt persons would be encouraged to use the system and employers <br /> would be more careful about their discrimination practices. <br /> Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's office, responded to Mr. Williams' <br /> question regarding why the City was involved. This would allow <br /> a swifter remedy for discrimination than going through the state <br /> and federal processes. In preparing the new ordinance, there was <br /> discussion of including attorneys' fees, but it was found impossible <br /> under the City Code. Increasing the fine to encourage use of the <br /> mediation process seemed the best way to go. <br /> Mr. Obie did not see any urgency in passing this ordinance. He <br /> was in favor of the Human Rights people and Mr. Larsen working <br /> together to develop better terminology in the ordinance. <br /> Mr. Bradley wondered if any thought had been given to establishing <br /> two separate fines, one for innocent violation and one for willful <br /> e violation. Ms. Benjamin replied the original fine of $100 under <br /> Paragraph (a) and $500 under Paragraph (b) had both been raised <br /> to a maximum possible fine of $1,000. It was felt a judge hearing <br /> a case would use discretion in determining what the fine in each <br /> case should be. Mr. Bradley wondered if a $500 maximum fine for <br /> innocent violation and a $1,000 fine for willful violation might <br /> be in order. Andy Clement reminded Council it had instructed the <br /> Human Rights staff to increase the fine from $100 to $1,000 for <br /> both. <br /> C.B. 1526--Concerning penalties; amending Section 4.990(2) of Code, <br /> 1971; and declaring an emergency was read by council <br /> bill number and title only, there being no Council <br /> member present requesting it be read in full. <br /> Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that C.B. 1526 be read <br /> the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous <br /> consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at <br /> this time. <br /> e <br /> 8/22/77--3 <br /> lo33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.