Laserfiche WebLink
<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 - <br />