09/13/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.... e (p 9~ 9/13/71 I Mr. WilJiams was concerned about state laws regarding hi tchhiking, and whether it would be 'legal to place such a structure in the public right of way. Ci ty Attorney explained'that the law has been interpreted by many judges, and that generally, it is felt that a person cannot stand in the roadway itself, but may use the sidewalk. Mrs. Campbell expressed concern that this nright be competition for the mass transi t system. Mr. Spencer explained that the system was planning to discontinue service to the college. ' There was further discussion about location of the shelters. Mr. Paul Perkins, Survival Center, University of Oregon, explained that discharge points would be required, so that persons could change direction of travel. Mayor Anderson said he felt this was an excellent idea, and that facilities for hitchhiking were certainly needed. e Question called on motion as stated. Motion carried. Approve B. Discussion of Comndttee Report Establishing Rules of Conduct for Council Meetings 9/8/71 Mayor Anderson commented that, after Council discussion that some control was needed, he had appointed a comndttee chaired by President Teague with Mr. Hershner and Mr. Williams to draft a proposal regarding conduct at Council meetings. I Councilman Teague commented on steps taken by the comndttee before drafting an ordinance, including perusal of many such ordinances from other states and cities. The comnd ttee agreed there was need for an ordinance setting forth definite rules for Council procedure and for participation of the public, and that there must be an effective means of enforcement. Councilman Hershner said there was need for guidelines for conduct at Council meetings. He questioned why a city ordinance was required, when it was almost identical to the S t:ate Sta tute. City Attorney ecplained that, under the city ordinance, a case would be tried in' Municipal Court. This had some adnrinistrative advantages, in that Police Department personnel could appear during regular working hours, which would save overtime pay. Generally, the Municipal Court docket is current, and the case can come to trial earlier than in District Court. Mr. Williams said it had been very clear that there was need for enactment of this kind of ordinance and resolution. The comnd t tee had revi ewed in detai 1 many docu- ments from around the country, and he felt this particular document was a model, and an outstanding piece of work. Mr. Mohr, asked what the comnd ttee intended in terms of enforcement of the ordinance. He was concerned about what would be done after a person was warned, and whether they I would be warned before the ordinance was invoked. I City Manager said it was the intent of the comndttee to fall back on the resolution, I and that, failure to obey the warning would mean eviction from the Council mee,ting. If this was not sufficient, the Sergeant-at-arms could invoke the ordinance, which would mean arrest. City Attorney said it would be possible a person would violate the ordinance, even e though a warning had not been gi ven. The warning was a condi tion to being evi cted, not a condition to being arrested. Mr. ,Mohr expressed concern that. the Council had a recommendation''from the criminal law comndttee that the City discontinue making crinrinal law in the City. He felt perhaps the Council should be trying an alternative system for enforcing Council will. He had no doubt about the need for control at. the meetings, but was concerned that a person could be considered to be comrrcttting a crime without warning and could be subject to arrest on that basis. City Attorney pointed out that this is now the case under the state law, and such a person would be violating state law, even though a warning had been given. I Mrs'.,Hershner said that, through the comndttee meetings, it had been his feeling I that having only' eviction as a remedy nright be welcomed by certain types of persons. I He felt the criminal sanctions were valuable. ~r. Hershner realized the city might I move away from crinrinal ordinances, but this had not been implemented or officially adopted. I Mr. Mohr suggested that the committee might meet with the criminal law committee sometime in the next week and go over both the philosophy and the problems of implementation of this"ordinance with them. Councilman Williams said he would be glad to meet wi th the criminal law committee and discuss the ordinance. Basically he thought the ordinance was appropriate, e given current state of criminal law in Eugene, and the city should not get out-of I 9/13/71 - 8 :! ...