|
<br />"...-
<br />
<br />51J
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />COW1cil Chamber
<br />, Eugene, Oregon
<br />March 22, 1971
<br />
<br />Adjourned meeting of the Common COW1cil of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by Vice
<br />President Mohr, in the absence of Mayor Anderson and President Teague. The meeting was called to order{
<br />at 7:30 p.m. on March 22, 1971 in the Chamber with the following COW1cilmen present: Messrs.McDonald, :!
<br />Gribskov and Hershner; Mrs. Beal. and-Mrs.-.Ciimpbel}:-. ". -In" addifion to__MayoF. Ari deI's on:: and ,President Teague,
<br />Councilman Williams was absent. '
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />II
<br />I'
<br />,I
<br />i.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />
<br />.--'-'t_
<br />
<br />I. Continuation of Hearing, Proposed Trespass ,Ordinance - During the period between the first read-
<br />ing of this ordinance and the "present time, two minor changes were made in the ordinance.
<br />
<br />Wayne Allen, City Attorney's office, indicated that one subsection had been eliminated from the
<br />ordinance. This dealt with public property, where no one was in charge.
<br />
<br />:1.
<br />
<br />C.B. 9340 - Relating to Trespassing, establishing penalties, was submitted the first time on
<br />January 25, 1971, and failing to receive unanimous consent for second reading was held over,
<br />and is brought back for consideration at this time.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Mrs. 'Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be read the second time by cOW1cil bill
<br />number only. Motion carried W1animouslytand the bill was read the second timeby council bill
<br />number only.
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr said he had attempted to determine what the interest was in passage of this bill
<br />at this time. State legislators have proposed an almost identical bill, and he failed to see the
<br />need for duplication.
<br />
<br />1_
<br />
<br />The Manager pointed out that the Police Department and City Attorney's office had both indicated
<br />their belief that there was need for this legislation, and the possibility that the state might
<br />pass a similar bill would in no way dilute Council responsibility to citizens of this city. With
<br />regard to the removal of criminal sanctions from the proposal, this would apply to a great many
<br />ordinances, and there is no assurance a system in lieu of the sanction can be done.
<br />
<br />The City Attorney pointed out that the City has a code provision preventing trespass on private
<br />property at the present time, but the public schools, police department and university have ex-
<br />pressed interest in a valid ordinance to prevent trespass on public property. Ordinance now
<br />written which deal with trespass on public property have been deemed invalid. This might be
<br />viewed as an interim law to take up the gap until a state law hap been enacted.
<br />
<br />In answer to Mr. Mohr: the City Attorney said it was his feeling one law should cover all public
<br />buildings;;. whether schools or city buildings. This ordinance may be a little inflexible, but it
<br />is not discriminatory.
<br />
<br />Councilman McDonald commented that the Council had been working on a trespassing bill for three
<br />or fouryyears, and that the City should have a trespass law.
<br />
<br />,
<br />Mr. Ken Bylund, 1110. West 27th, Lane Coutny Labor COW1cil, said they were basically opposed to
<br />the ordinance, primarily, because they felt it could infringe on the rights of labor unions to do
<br />organizafiDonal work. He suggested that the portion dealing with "those engaged ,in conduct not
<br />consistent with any purpose for which'premises ape open" be stricken, and said they could then
<br />accept the ordinance.'!, .'
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mr. Allen felt the objection was not well taken, since anyone having a lawful right to be there
<br />would not be convicted. Mr. Allen pointed out to Mr. Mohr the need for such a law, saying the
<br />fact that there may be two laws exactly alike in no way negated the necessity for the law. There
<br />are not now two laws.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />In answer to Councilman Hershner, the City Attorney said trespass on private property is now
<br />adequately covered under existing ordinances. The proposed ordinance would repeal the code
<br />regarding trespass on private property and incorporate it in the new material.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr announced that the fact that a councilman was presiding did not nullify his prerogative
<br />to vote as a member of the Council.
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Campbell asked if the schools had initiated this ordinance. The City Attorney said
<br />both school administration and the PTA had requested enactment of a city ordinance to give some
<br />control over public premises. Since no representation had appeared from the schools or
<br />university, Mrs. Campbell did not see how she could justify a yes vote. Mr. Allen explained
<br />that many months had been spent in preparation of this ordinance, and there had been no public
<br />disturbances lately to spur the interest, but the City should be prepared in any event.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mrs. Bea~ moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be approved and given final passage.
<br />Rollcall vote. Messrs. McDonald, Gribskov and Hershner voted aye. Mrs. Beal, Mr. Mohr and Mrs.
<br />Campbell voted no. The chair ruled the vote a tie and that the motion had failed. The bill did
<br />not pass.
<br />
<br />II. Public Hearing, Proposed Referral Selling Ordinance - A number of business groups ln the community
<br />have requested an ordinance to curb the practice of promised discounts or rebates ln exchange for
<br />referrals.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />3/22/71 - I
<br />
|