<br /> Council Chamber
<br /> Eugene, Oregon
<br /> November 6, 1972
<br />Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene,. Oregon was called to order by His .
<br />Honor Mayor Lester E. Ander.son at 7 :.30 p. m. on November 6, 1972 in the Council Chamber with the
<br /> - -.
<br />following ~ouncilmen present: Mr. Mohr, Mrs. Beal, Messrs.McDonald, Teague, Williams, Hershner,
<br />Mrs. Campbell, and Mr. Bradshaw.
<br />l - Public Hearings
<br /> A. Defining Civil Emergency and Curfew, and Authorizing Mayor to Impose Curfew Du~ing
<br /> Civil Emergency
<br />Council Bill No~ 112 - Repealing Section 4.725, adding Sections 4.760, 4.761, and
<br /> . '- 4.762 to City Code re: Defining Civil Emergency and Curfew,
<br /> and authorizing Mayor to impose curfew during civil emer-
<br /> gency was submitted.
<br /> Manager explained provisions of the bill and that the one presented includes amendments
<br /> suggested when it was discussed by the Council at its October 18 committee meeting. The
<br /> amendments remove reference to "riot" in Section 2 (4.770) Definitions (1) . Section 2
<br /> (4.771) Termination of Curfew Proclamations (2) includes the provision for termination
<br /> by the Common Council on majority vote of members present at any regular or special I
<br /> meeting.
<br /> Staff requested the curfew ordinance to give authority at the local level in emergency
<br /> situation to more rapidly clear areas of persons who may be injured or create damage. .
<br /> It is recognized the Mayor or administration may call on the Governor for a curfew, but
<br /> at the same time it is recognized that should such call be made the Governor also as-
<br /> sumes law enforcement \hich it might be desirable to keep at the local level.
<br /> Bob Peters, 1444 East 21st Avenue~ chairman of the Lane County Chapter of American Civil I
<br /> Liberties Union, stated the ACLU's position on the proposed ordinance is that it would I
<br /> place excessive limitations on liberties of the people, it would hinder the press in re- I
<br /> porting emergency situations since the press is not exempted from its p~ovisions, and
<br /> that it would "chill" the natural tendency for neighbors to help others in emergency
<br /> situations such as the 1962 wind storm in Oregon. He said it is clearly not needed in
<br /> such times of distress.
<br /> Theresa Engelmann, 1910 Fairmount Boulevard, opposed adoption of the curfew, saying such
<br /> regulations are susceptible to discriminatory enforcement and the authority is better left
<br /> with the Governor than with local people. She cited ordinances already in effect giving
<br /> authority to protect the community in any emergency and said the Manager has authority
<br /> now if necessary to blockade streets.
<br /> Eric Betz, 1623 East 23rd Avenue, questioned the method of determining a "civil emergency,"
<br /> "violent act," "eminent danger," etc., and said the ordinance would give extraordinary
<br /> powers to the Mayor and Council to close off the entire City. He urged rejection of the .
<br /> curfew as did Walter Harrison, 2358-3 Patterson Drive, who also questioned who would make
<br /> determination of disturbances, saying there appears to be no system of checks and balances
<br /> included in the provisions. He said the authority would allow imposition of curfew re-
<br /> strictions on people other than those causing disturbances, and that there is no procedure
<br /> set forth with regard to notice that a curfew is in effect. Nor with regard to treatment
<br /> of citizens by police' should they violate a curfew without knwoledge that one is in ef-
<br /> fect. Mr. Harrison also questioned constitutionality of any curfew law and said he felt
<br /> this one would violate citizens' right to equal protection under the law.
<br /> David Gwyther, 2230 Floral Hill Drive, suggested delay in enactment of the bill, saying
<br /> he could see no reason for inclusion of the emergency clause providing for its going into
<br /> effect immediately upon passage. He questioned necessity for the provisions prohibiting
<br /> possession of explosives and firearms and the sale of liquor during civil emergencies.
<br /> Cliff Zukin, 1884-25 Alder Street, and Fred Wasson, ASUO Senate, said they feel the pro-
<br /> posed ordinance is aimed at the University and questioned need for the regulations. They
<br /> also argued that terms of the bill are vague and do not adequately define what would con-
<br /> stitute an act of ciolence or public disturbance. Mr. Wasson said the penalties for
<br /> violation of the provisions of this ordinance should be clearly specified and included in
<br /> the ordinance itself. They urged its rejection or that it be more specifically written
<br /> if adopted. -
<br /> Miriam Aagaard, 1391 West 4th Avenue, read statement of the YWCA, University of Oregon,
<br /> opposing enactment of the ordinance indicating their position that ordinances of this
<br /> type historically have been used selectively against minorities. They feel the restric-
<br /> tions would be selectively enforced in Eugene with no way to prevent such selective en-
<br /> forcement since observers, including the press, would be barred from the streets. They
<br />10 .~..
<br /> ~l~
<br /> 11(6(72 - 1 -