CC Minutes - 06/26/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

very beneficial to the relationship between Eugene and the University. Students took advantage of the program, and the feedback he received from students about the program was universally positive. He believed the City needed to have a similar program for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. The State's diversion program was costly and required six to twelve weeks of meeting and counseling. The fines involved were not sufficient to push people into the program. He said that students need such programs because it affected their ability to get students loans and enroll in school. In regard to a marijuana diversion program, Mr. Farr said "let's do it." Mr. Pap~ said he would like to put more funds into the City's work crew. He thought the approach benefitted all involved, including the community, which benefitted from the work done by the crews. He particularly commended trail clearing done by the crews, which enhanced the appearance and safety of City paths. He believed that such work also contributed to the self- esteem of participants. Mr. Pap~ suggested the City look into employing forfeiture funds to underwrite the cost of a marijuana diversion program. He thought it better to "nip problems in the bud" before such problems got bigger. Judge Allen said that the barrier that existed would not be easy to break through, but he would recommend an approach similar to the Busted Program. Mr. Carlson indicated he would follow-up, pointing out that the council had passed an ordinance restricting the use of those funds to drug treatment. Mr. Pap~ suggested the council could revisit the ordinance to accommodate the new program. Ms. Bettman favored the reappointment of the judge. She expressed appreciation to Judge Allen for pointing out that the court was unique to Eugene and in a good way. She also supported expanding the Road Crew, but questioned how the council could pay for an expansion of the crew in the absence of a new revenue source, a concept which the council rejected the previous Monday. She expressed appreciation to the judge for his collaboration with the community and his creative approaches, as evidenced by the Busted Program. She hoped the City Council could find resources to do the right things. Mr. Rayor expressed appreciation to Judge Allen. He also supported having Judge Allen review criminal ordinances. He perceived large variations in the penalties suggested to the council by staff and the discretion the judge had in applying those penalties. He noted recent changes the council made to City ordinances in response to changes to State law in City ordinances and said he often did not understand the variation in penalties. He was concerned about over-reliance on the discretion of the judge given that judges change, and asked for comment from Judge Allen. In response to Mr. Rayor's comments, Judge Allen said that the State frequently made changes to the law and often he did not know the rationale behind the penalties proposed. In terms of other ordinances, he pointed out that different councils were involved in the various actions, so there was no overall review of the consistency between ordinance penalties. He suggested that they would change from council to council. While he agreed about over-reliance on a judge's discretion, he suggested it was important to ensure that judges were acting consistently with community values. Judge Allen said that the court needed to be able to exercise judgment, and there must be some inconsistency because there was no appropriate "cookie cutter" solution. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2002 Page 3 Work Session