|
<br />111~
<br />
<br />Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Hayward, McDonald, Beal, Purdy;,Teague and Mohr; City
<br />Manager and staff; and others.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />Committee meeting held April 7, 1969
<br />
<br />1
<br />
<br />The Mayor explained that the Council had called a special public hearing to review a proposed
<br />equal opportunity ordinance submitted by the Human Rights Commission of'the city of Eugene.
<br />After review and discussion, the ordinance will come before the Council for adoption or rejec-
<br />tion at a subsequent meeting.
<br />
<br />Dr. Norman Pott, chairman of the Human Rights Commission, introduced Commission members Erwin
<br />Juilfs, Phil George, Edgar Brewer, Theo Allen, Flora Anderson, Kathy Siegmund and Art'Johnson,
<br />who were present at the hearing. Dr. Pott explained the need for an equal opportunity ordin-
<br />ance and how discrimination was gauged in a community. He further explained that there are
<br />State and Federal laws covering discrimination, but that a local law would encourage communities
<br />to do something in their area, and enable persons to be helped without traveling out of the
<br />community. The City Council, by creation of a Human Rights Commission, encouraged growth of
<br />equal opportunity in the community, and committed themselves to be an equal opportunity
<br />employer.
<br />
<br />Mr. Dominick Vetri, University of Oregon Law School, explained that work began on this ordin~
<br />ancec:about three years ago. There have been many changes and refinements to obtain an ordinance
<br />with a broader reach to get directly to the problems of employment, housing and public accom-
<br />modations. It goes beyond most ordinances to include sex, and would affect businesses operating
<br />in the city of Eugene. It is more explicit than State or Federal legislation. Two ordinances
<br />are before the Council. They are identical, with the exception that one has civil penalties and
<br />the other criminal penalties. The civil ordinance will provide for conciliation and mediation,
<br />but it was felt there might be a need to impose a criminal penalty in some cases.
<br />"
<br />Mr. Wade Gano explained themechanics of enforcement, and that the ordinance provides that the
<br />City Manager employ a special investigator who will make a findings of fact and prepare evi-
<br />dence concerning the alleged discrimination. A three-member panel of the Human Rights Commise
<br />sion is appointed by the Chairman to determine whether the act of discrimination has occurred.
<br />A compromise will be attempted at anon-public proceeding, with a final agreement made public.
<br />If all attempts at conciliation fail, the City Attorney will be requested to prepare civil
<br />action against the person the Commission has decided has. -committed- a discriminatory act.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />Wendy Ray, Community Relations Officer, read the ordinance section by section with audience
<br />comment after each section.
<br />
<br />Mr. Bert Pinkerton, 1972 Emerald, did not understand why this matter should concern the city,
<br />and did not see that there was a problem in the city of ,Eugene.
<br />
<br />Mr. Ray Eaglin, 1312 Mill Street, felt the word sex should be added to chapters (a) and (b) of
<br />Section 5. Mr. Gano said this was not a significant problem in this area, and that it would be
<br />very difficult to write exceptions. Mayor Anderson pointed out that amendments may be written
<br />in the future if problems arise.
<br />
<br />Mr. Willie Mims, 313 High Street, asked what "reasonable effort" would be considere'd. Mr. Gano
<br />explained that this was a'~,broad statement to allow sufficient time to consider each case.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mr. Jerry Garske, 1230 West 7th, said the ordinance placed the burden of proof on the accused,
<br />and asked what protection the a~cused has against being falsely accused. Mr. Gano explained
<br />that this is a civil ordinance, and no burden of proof is necessary until the final adjudication,
<br />and that the burden of proof is then upon the complainant.
<br />
<br />The City Attorney explained that a civil action was merely a conciliatory proceeding. As far
<br />as the criminal aspect, the City Attorney has to evaluate all evidence presented and prove
<br />discrimination beyond a reasonable doubt.
<br />
<br />Dr. Fred Schuster, 550 Kingswood Avenue, did not understand why the Human Rights Commission
<br />passed on the :~validity of the complaints and also originated the legislation. Councilman
<br />Mohr explained that this was a civil action where one citizen brought a non-criminal complaint
<br />against another.
<br />
<br />Councilwoman :Hayward explained that the Human Rights Commission is appointed by the Mayor,
<br />subject to approval of the Council. The Human Rights Commission has no legislative power. The
<br />City Council will adopt the legislation.
<br />
<br />Mr. Art Johnson, attorney, explained that there is no adjudication by the three~man panel or
<br />Human Rights Commission, only investigation and conciliation. If'theyare'tinsticcessful, it
<br />will go to the City Attorney and adjudication will be made by the Court.
<br />
<br />Mr. Ron Levinson, 494 Shamrock, subscribed to the ordinance, and said people had obyiously not
<br />been given equal rights in the past, or such an ordinance would not be necessary.
<br />
<br />t
<br />
<br />Mr. Willie Mims said black people had been without this protection for 300 years, and had gone
<br />to the City Council and asked for the ordinance.
<br />
<br />Mr. Charles Porter" 2680 Baker Street, representing the Social Action Committee of the First
<br />Congregational Church, read a letter from Mrs. Douglas Straton, Chairman, backing the ordinance..,
<br />
<br />Mr. Kenneth J. Damewood, 1290 West 24th Avenue, owner of a duplex, spoke against the ordinance,
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />4/14/69 - 7
<br />
|