06/14/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"11IIII e Goz I, " il I' I 'I U 11 Ii 'i Council Chamber " " :1 " Eugene, Oregon " d June 14, 1971 ': ,I Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His ;1 Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on June 14, 1971 in the Council Chamber with the following councilmen present: Messrs. Teague, Mohr and McDonald, Mrs: Beal, Messrs. Williams and Hershner. Mrs. Campbell and Mr. Gribskov were absent. :1 Public Hearings I' I. " A. Ordinance Relating to Trespassing*(The following are committee aUnutes of May 26, 1971) Mayor Anderson said he felt rather strongly that the Council should take another look at this proposed legislation, especially in light of recent disturbances. He felt that, even though State legislation ,had been proposed which was alnvst identical to this ordinance, the City had need for its own ordinance, and it would express the vi ews of the community. e Mr. Mohr said the record would show that the Council was not opposed to the substance I. of the ordinance, but with identification of the public issue. He suggested that it aUght help to have a broader discussion of the kinds of issues involved. Manager commented that there are advantages to having local ordinances from an i' adminis trati ve and enforcement standpoint, even though the ordinance may dupli cate " I state law. ;j " : City Attorney said he has~een following the state law through the legislature and " t it appears it will be enacted. The City has proposed an ordinance which is almost I, i denti cal. He explained that it would be easier to process the ,local law, and : there were advantages to trial in municipal court. The state law, if passed, would not be adopted until January 1, 1972. i " Ii Dr. Millard Pond, Superintendent of School District No. 4J, said they wanted I I' an enforceable ordinance, and this one certainly looked good. He introduced School ;1 District Attorney Riddlesbarger. ;: " Mr. Riddlesbarger explained the problems the School District has encountered with " , persons on the grounds for purposes not regarded as proper. They very much need an " ,i II enforceable tool, and at present are without any help. Mr. Mohr suggested that uses of public spaces should be spelled out by each administrative agency and that the Council ask each agency to draft a set of consistent " uses of public property whi ch could be inserted into this ordinance. il " iI Mr. Riddlesbarger said he was not sure this would be proper from a legislative I standpoint. He would have no objection to drawing up a lis t in that form whi ch I, " " the Council could use as it saw fit. i: I Mr. Mohr clarified that what he was suggesting was a set of consistent standards which would assure even application across the City. II Mr. Riddlesbarger pointed out that the ordinance was wri tten to apply to pri vate :: as well as public property. It would be asking for trouble to spell out specific 'I uses. -, " Mr. McDonald said the City Attorney had done a good job, and he felt this tool " e should be adopted. i :! Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Riddlesbarger that trying to include standards in " the ordinance would be difficult. Mr. Teague agreed. " Mr. Hershner agreed that the Council should not try to cover all uses, but he felt I' " " each agency should have a policy and have rules and regulations which were I consistent. I, In answer to Mrs. Campbell, Dr. Pond pointed out that each school principal is responsible for his actions and decisions, but that meetings are held regularly to form an overall policy. \ Manager pointed out that, in the final analysis, the equitable application of the ordinance became the responsiblity of the judicial process. I '! Mrs. Beal was concerned about the effect of the ordinance on Lahor, and whether i ~ picketing would still be permissible. City Attorney said the City cannot pass an ordinance which violates rights of people to express themselves by picketing. " :' There was discussion about ,the right to picket on public property. Attorney said that, " " as long{. as picketing was not disorderly, it would be permissible. Ii ,I Y Mr. Mohr requested the Attorney's office to report by memo the distinction between protected activities in public places and activities which would come under the e provision of this ordinance. *All sections printed in italics are from committee report of May 25, 1971. H 6/14/71 - 1 .....