Laserfiche WebLink
officers present. He averred that students could not tell one officer from the other. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown stated that the inability citizens had to regularly distinguish private security officers from EPD <br />officers created difficulties. He noted that in the downtown core alone, there were officers from five or six <br />different security companies. He said there were no laws prohibiting security officers from looking like <br />EPD officers, nor were there any rules governing the use of the word ;police' on such uniforms. He reported <br />that State Senator Floyd Prozanski sponsored a bill that sought to address this issue. It had passed the State <br />Senate and was now before the State House of Representatives. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown listed three reasons there should be an ordinance governing standards for police uniforms: <br /> 1) Uniforms could be misleading and confusing to the public and members of the public may approach <br /> the wrong personnel in an emergency situation; <br /> 2) If someone mistook a security officer for a police officer, it could present a safety issue for the <br /> security officer; <br /> 3) The ordinance would be complaint-driven and would seek voluntary compliance before any penal- <br /> ties would be put into effect. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown conveyed the Police Commission recommendation that the effective date be delayed so that it <br />would not create a financial burden on private security. <br /> <br />Continuing, Mr. Brown encouraged the council to move ahead with a public hearing. He hoped that it <br />would be scheduled before the end of the school year so that University of Oregon students could partici- <br />pate. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown affirmed for Mr. Poling that there had been an incident in which a security person was mistaken <br />for an EPD officer. He explained that the security officer was attempting to handle a disturbance at a <br />University dormitory that the SWAT Team had been called to and was unreachable via EPD radio <br />frequencies. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling indicated his support for the ordinance. He commented that the public was likely to confuse <br />uniforms when in a crisis situation. He felt the UO-DPS uniform should be distinctive from the EPD <br />uniform. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked the Police Commission for its work. He favored moving the issue to a public hearing. <br />He observed that he was not always able to discern a UO-DPS officer from an officer of the EPD. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if the EPD could issue a complaint, given that the ordinance would be complaint-driven. <br />Mr. Brown thought that anyone could file such a complaint. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz welcomed the proposed ordinance. She said members of the community had complained to her <br />that they were unable to tell the difference between private and public officers. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked if City staff was making the extra effort to make people affected by the ordinance aware <br />of the public hearing. Mr. Brown replied that the stakeholders had been contacted. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked what official authority the UO-DPS officers held. EPD Chief Bob Lehner responded that <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />