City of Eugene
7/23/2007 9:11:02 PM
11/2/2006 4:11:19 PM
City Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
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 plain text
<br /> , <br /> Eugene) Oregon <br /> Council Chamber <br /> December 18, 1972 <br /> ~ Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene) Oreg6~ - adjourned from the <br /> regular meeting held December 11) 1972 - was called to order by His Mayor Lester E. <br /> Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on December 18) 1972 in the Council Chamber with the following council- <br /> men present: Mr. Mohr) Mrs. Beal) Messrs. McDonald) Teague:) Williams) Hershner) Mrs. Campbell) <br /> and Mr. Bradshaw. <br /> I - Budget Committee Meeting - Manager announced the Budget Committee would meet Thursday) <br /> December 21) at 6:30 a.m. in the McNutt Room. <br /> II - Committee-of-the-Whole Cancellation - Manager said the committee-of-the-whole. meeting <br /> :- scheduled for December 20 has been cancelled because there is very. little business that <br /> requires Council attentfon at that time. <br /> III - Annual Audit) Year Ending June 30) 1972 - Copies of the Audit Report for 1971-72 pre- <br /> pared by Lybrand) Ross Bros. &, Montgomery were distributed' to. Council members. "Manager <br /> said discussion was not expected at this meeting but could be carried on at some future <br /> time. Richard Flomer and Robert Graves of the auditing firm were present, and Mr. Flomer <br /> commented on how pleased the firm was with co-operation .recei~ed from the Financ Depart- <br /> ment staff in preparing the audit. <br /> -~/- IV - Public Hearings <br /> A. Ordinance Amendments <br /> 1. Disorderly Conduct <br /> 2. Indecent Touching <br /> 3. Public Indecency <br /> 4. Resisting Arrest <br /> Council Bill No. 138 ,- Amending Section 4.725 and repealing: Section 4.740 <br /> of. the City Code re: Disorderly Conduct; and <br /> Council Bill No. 139 - Adding Section 4.765 to' City Code re: Indecent Touching; <br /> and <br /> Council Bill No. 140 - Amending Section 4.755 of the City Code re: Public <br /> Indecency; and <br /> . Council ,Bill No.. 141 - Amending Section 4.910 and, adding Sections' 4.911 and <br /> 4.912 to the City Code re: Resisting Arrest were Sub-' <br /> mi tted and read the first time by council bill number and title only) there being <br /> no, councilman presen t requesting that they be read in full. <br /> Manager said a communication was received from the American Civil Liberties UniQn, <br /> in response to opportunity given to review the proposed ordinances. Copies of'the <br /> City Attorney's response to the ACLU communication were distributed to Council <br /> members. It. reflected some 'acceptance of the changes proposed by the ACLU. <br /> --, .Bob Peters, chairman of the Lane County Chapter of the ACLU)' said there still remain <br /> . , <br /> substantial areas of disagreement. He raised the question of whether there was a <br /> need. for .urgency. in handling these ordinances) since the State already has statutes <br /> covering these matters in all but one area. He felt the need for careful consideration <br /> of these matters before they are acted upon. <br /> Mr':',Peters s'ciid.the ACLU objects to the use of the words "obscene language" in C.B.138 <br /> because the meaning of the term is very obscure. In Subsection (3) of that ordinance, <br /> the ACLU recommends the deletion of all that follows the word "which" immediately <br /> following (c) gestures, and substitute "create the imminent danger of violent reaction." <br /> With regard to Subsection (4), Mr. Peters said the ACLU does not object to the con- <br /> cept of the provision to order dispersal of a crowd but to the lack of ,precision in. <br /> the language of the subsection. He stated that Subsection (6) is still vague, and it <br /> is unlikely that anyone could determine the intended meaning of.the ordinance from its <br /> language. He added that if it is directed at the use of such offensive items as ~'stick <br /> bombs" and the like this intention should be made explicit. <br /> Speaking about, C.B..139) .Mr. Peters said that even though the procscribed conduct may <br /> be offensive to a substantial number of people and may be, deemed vulgar and in poor <br /> taste, it does not threaten the "health, safety, and welfare" of the people of the <br /> ._'~ ci ty of Eugene. In the'opinion of the ACLU, he said, the City should resist the <br /> "- temptation to legislate taste to conform with the standards of the majority. <br /> - In C.B.141, Resisting Arrest (3), Mr. Peters said the ACLU felt the ordinance poses a <br /> substantial question which deserves careful discussion by members of the Council. He <br /> said Mr. Long, assistant city attorney, cites authority admitting that the proposed <br /> ordinance."departs from common law and the American majority view governing the <br /> right t.o resi1;3,t an unlawful arrest." He warned that the City sho~ld not act precipi~ <br /> 3~ 12/18/72 - 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.