12/18/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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