07/27/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Bob Guldin, 110 Mayfair Lanet stated that the changes are positive and progres- sive in comparlson with the original ordinance. He noted that he was involved with the March 1st Coalition which had a demonstration on March It 1980t and they had problems with the Police Department at that time. In December 1979 the Iranian-American Friendship Committee was told they could not hold a parade. He feels there is a need to limit the arbitrary power of the police and would suggest that the sole consideration should be traffic control. The down- town mall is in the center of town and at the present time a separate permit must also be filed for use of that area. It is difficult to get both permits in a short period of time. The parade permit should override other permit require- ments. In regard to the cost of police and insurancet he feels it is politically incorrect for people to have to pay to exercise First Amendment rights. People in this country want freedom of speech and assembly. The parade ordinance should be rewritten so people could express their First Amendment rights and there should not be a cost to the applicant for insurance or police. Bruce Smitht 965 Sherwood Placet stated that he represents the ACLU and the council had previously received materials from him. He would like to correct a statement made by the City Attorney's Office. The ACLU did not hire anyone to work with this ordinance. This was brought to the City Attorney Office's attention last fall and they have tried to work with the administration regarding this process. The First Amendment is the most precious of all in the Bill of Rights. In some casest the courts have ruled that parades could not be prevented and officials have had to get a court injunction to stop a parade. The courts have upheld not issuing prior restraints such as the unreasonable burden placed on those wanting to exercise free speech rights such as the Nazi Party in . Skokiet Illinois. Although there are some problems, the City Attorney's Office has cooperated fully with the ACLU. The high cost of insurance may stop those who have some assets but who may not be able to pay the high fee andt the more controversial the item, the higher the cost of insurance. He feels this is unreasonable prior restraint. Organizations must be indigent and sign off on a hold-harmless agreement if their fee is to be waived. No one really knows what the extent of liability might be nor the extent of supervision that might be needed. Those desiring to hold a parade who have assets of their own would be ill-advised to sign a hold-harmless agreement. They feel this is also unreason- able prior restraint. If additional police are requiredt the cost for their services may be levied but if the applicant is indigent, there is no cost. These costs are the City's responsibility for those exercising their rights to free speech. He gave a similar example of the City's traffic control at Autzen Stadium during the football season noting that costs for police are not levied against the University during those times. If the ordinance as written is still constitutionally defective, he would urge them to consider these items carefully. Mike Goldstein, 848 West lOth Avenue, stated that he was from the National Lawyers' GUlld and they had distributed a letter previously. He feels this is better than the previous version but it is still unacceptable, although the City Attorney's Office has been very cooperative. Their major areas of objection are the cost of insurance and payment for police costs. He feels that requiring tne applicant to pay money or assume liability could have a negative effect on whether one chooses to use one's First Amendment rights. He feels the scope of . MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 27t 1981 Page 3