Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Clark asked what the ideal number of applicants was for the recruitment process. Ms. Holmes <br />answered that her office did not have a specific number of applicants in mind, but felt that it would be more <br />than the 13 applicants currently under review. She added that approximately 90 applications had been <br />received during the previous recruitment process in 2006. <br /> <br />Ms. Holmes noted that she had spoken with representatives from the City Manager’s office regarding their <br />concerns about the low number of applicants. She said that Mr. Middleton might be making <br />recommendations to the council regarding the number of applications after the position closed on December <br />8. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling noted that the council could meet to discuss the recruitment process and perhaps lower the <br />minimum requirements in order to boost the number of applicants. He expressed that it might be inadvisable <br />to continue to require that all potential candidates have a law degree. <br /> <br />Ms. Holmes, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that it might not be necessary for current <br />applicants to re-apply should the council choose to lower the minimum requirements for the position and re- <br />start the recruitment process. She added that she would discuss that issue with Mr. Middleton and report <br />back to the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy commented that Mr. Middleton had raised concerns about the minimum requirements for the <br />police auditor position being too high. <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION – Options to Address Hate Speech <br /> <br /> <br />City Attorney’s office representative Jerry Lidz reported to the council regarding the options to address hate <br />speech as outlined in the AIS materials. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz briefly discussed the differences in the definitions of hate speech versus hate crimes for the benefit <br />of the council, noting that hate crimes generally described conduct that constituted an offense under the law <br />that was made worse by the perpetrator’s motive to express hatred or bias against the victim, while hate <br />speech was protected under the Constitution except in very narrow circumstances. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz commented that the State and certain cities in Oregon had repeatedly tried over the last several <br />decades to regulate expressive conduct that was deemed to be offensive but that each time the State Supreme <br />Court had deemed that such regulation would be unconstitutional. Mr. Lidz directed the council to his <br />comments from the AIS regarding State v. Johnson by way of illustration. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz expressed that none of the current proposed options regarding hate speech were certain to work <br />and that it would be important for the City to proceed carefully regarding the matter. He described the <br />various processes surrounding the four proposed options to address hate speech. <br /> <br />Amendment of the Harassment Ordinance <br />Mr. Lidz noted that the proposed amendment to the City’s harassment ordinance was identical to a State <br />statute that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional. He noted that the Supreme Court’s focus of <br />opinion in that instance was the statute did not require that a violent response be imminent. He added that <br />the City Attorney’s office might be able to amend the proposed ordinance to address the constitutional flaws <br />noted by the court in the statute, or the City could wait to see how the state legislature responded to the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2008 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />