10/12/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Smith asked Mr. Goldstein what he means by "long period of time." Mr. e Goldstein responded that that could be interpreted as a number of minutes or other interpretations. Police frequently enforce to the maximum sense of a rule and this will allow enforcement if there are many cars for only a few seconds. The important part of this suggestion is that II congestion could not be alle- viated by resonable efforts to redirect traffic." Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Swanson what his concern is with changing the word "parti- cipants" to "organizers." It is impossible to know prior to an event if parti- cipants will or will not be violent. Mr. Swanson stated that he is concerned about protection of the First Amendment rights of the organizers. There must be reliable information and it must show that they intend to cause violence, not that there is a possibility for violence to occur. If reliable information is received, it would be prudent to delay or revoke the permit until the facts can be determined as to whether or not the parade can be carried out safely. Staff feels this would be more judgmental. Ms. Wooten asked what would happen if a police sergeant had heard that someone would be making trouble. She asked if that information would cause revocation. There could be idle threats or someone trying to stop the parade. Mr. Swanson responded that if there is knowledge of someone planning to cause trouble this would not cause revocation of the permit since that would be trouble caused by a participant. This does allow for a judgment call, but that will always be the case. Mr. Lindberg added that it is clear that judgment calls will have to be made but he is concerned about the ACLU's concerns. In Skokie, Illinois, there were anti-parade organizers who did do violence. He feels in Section 5.520 it should state that this would occur if public safety is being threatened and the violence cannot be contained. Ms. Schue added that she is concerned about "intend to cause violence." She e feels it should be changed to state lito be violent or to participate in violence." Mr. Swanson stated that if a parade would not be permitted because someone may approach the participants, then that would be a clear violation of the law. They could state "intend to engage in violence." CB 2310--An ordinance concerning parades; amending sections 5.500, 5.505, 5.510, and 5.520 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time, and to amend the language of Section 5.505 (3) and (2) to state "...intend to engage in violence..." and to change Administrative Rule 6 to include the language "except on Sun- days." Ms. Smith stated that she feels it is inappropriate for a council-of-the-whole to draft and redraft language and this could be changed later. Ms. Wooten added she would like to see this item delayed again. She feels strongly about the wording of participants rather than organizers. She also feels the traffic congestion section should be more definitive, which would make it easier to focus on. She noted support for the work done by Chief Packard but indicated that she would vote against the motion. Mr. Obie stated that if one voted against the motion, then it would not take- effect immediately. The other e option would be to begin another draft. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1981 Page 4