11/12/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. . Council could decide to leave out some sections or strengthen them. Ms. Smith . stated that if organizers were holding a conference with their exhibits not open to the public, they would not need to comply. Mr. Sercombe stated it would be covered if it were open to the public. Ms. Smith indicated that clarification is needed. Mr. Obie stated that if it were private, smoking would be okay, but not if ~n event were open to the public. Ms. Miller stated that events may be open to the public only under certain conditions and they must decide what 1I0pen to the publicll means. Mr. Lieuallen stated that this could cover a large exhibit hall or smaller conferences. He asked if the meeting of a public body would be covered under State law. Mr. Sercombe responded that it would be. Ms. Schue stated that she was confused and asked for clarification. Mr. Sercombe indicated that the words lIonly where alcoholic beverages are consumedll could be inserted. Ms. Smith stated that perhaps it needs to be sent back to committee. Mr. Obie and Mayor Keller agreed. Ms. Miller stated there is a close analogy between smoking and drinking, and that a distinction based on alcoholic bev- erages would not be so unusual. Mr. Obie asked if cabaret events are like restaurants. Mr. Sercombe responded they are if they are serving food and have more than 50 people. Mr. Delay suggested that in Subsection i, the word lIareasll rather than IIgatheringsll be inserted. Mr. Obie stated that the council should look at this conceptually and then do more work on the ordinance. Ms. Smith stated that instead of passing the ordinance in concept, they could pass a strong recommendation urging busi- nesses to develop such areas/policies and then the council would not have to deal with an ordinance that would be difficult to enforce. Ms. Schue asked if she was suggesting that it be a policy statement rather than an ordinance. Ms. . Smith stated that was correct. Ms. Schue stated that she personally could not accept that. Mr. Hamel stated that he agreed with Ms. Smith's suggestion. Otherwise, the council is trying to legislate the lives of the residents of the city of Eugene and he does not think the council has that right. The council has the right to prevent smoking within City Hall and other City-owned facilities, but not el sewhere. He does not smoke and does not appreciate smoke, but does not feel this legislation should be passed. As long as tobacco is legal, there is nothing that can be done about it. Mr. Obie stated that he understands Ms. Smithls and Mr. Hamel IS comments regarding perceiving the ordinance as a policy statement. He does not see this ordinance as stepping on the rights of people as much as providing an oppor- tunity for those who do not smoke to exist. This should be looked upon as a policy because it would be difficult to enforce. Ms. Smith stated that she does support the basic concept, but her concern is enforcement. Most ordinances are passed because they are necessary and enforce- able. She asked what recourse a citizen would have to enforce this ordinance. Mr. Sercombe stated that a citizen could file a complaint with the City Prose- cutor if one could get the identification of the person violating the ordinance. Business owners are only required to post signs. Ms. Smith stated that she would like to have a report brought back regarding possible financial impact of enforcement. Mr. Henry agreed to that although he felt it would be guesswork. .- There may be some indication in a month or so. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 1980 Page 6