Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ortiz reported that one of the CCR meetings focused on hate incidents in the community and a draft <br />plan for responding to those incidents was provided to the council for its consideration. She gave a brief <br />overview of each of the categories and said that recommendations and next steps were being developed in <br />each category. She said as the CCR moved forward with its work, it continually asked itself who was not at <br />the table. Regarding the response plan for hate incidents, she hoped that a system of notifying elected <br />officials and affected communities of those incidents could be developed so that allies could reach out to <br />those who were the targets of hate crimes. <br /> <br />Ms. Urbina said the CCR was evaluating the ability of the City to create change internally and externally <br />and reach out to other jurisdictions and agencies to collaborate and bring about change. She said activities <br />such as study circles and guest speakers and trainers could help bring about community norm change. <br /> <br />Ms. Lee introduced Human Rights Program Manager Greg Rikhoff to present the hate incidents response <br />draft plan. She pointed out that the plan represented a convergence of ideas from several sources, including <br />work of the City Council, the CCR, and the Human Rights Program, and would create a new process for the <br />City of Eugene. <br /> <br />Mr. Rikhoff stated that a response to bias crimes and incidents of hate had been a long-standing goal of the <br />council and HRC. He said the discussion would provide direction to staff on further refining the draft plan. <br />He said research had not discovered comparable plans in other communities so Eugene was “inventing the <br />wheel.” He discussed recent hate incidents in which graffiti was involved and said that while the community <br />had a history of responding to those incidents, it lacked a strategic approach that could be tailored to each <br />incident but in every case include the following elements: <br /> <br />? <br /> Support and empower the victims/survivors <br />? <br /> Inform and gain support from the community <br />? <br /> Protect the integrity of any criminal investigation <br />? <br /> Disempower and catch the perpetrators <br /> <br />Mr. Rikhoff reviewed the definitions section of the response plan and noted that while the terms “hate <br />activity” and “bias activity” were often used interchangeably, the term “hate crime” referred to a criminal <br />offense that could involve a wide range of activities and targeted one specific individual, family or group. <br /> <br />Ms. Leonard asked about the source of the hate crime definition. Mr. Rikhoff said the State’s definition was <br />used. <br /> <br />Mr. Rikhoff continued with a review of the proposed response steps. He said that a step for notifying <br />elected officials and affected communities consistent with Ms. Ortiz’s request would be added. <br /> <br />Ms. Urbina observed that organizations each had their own response to hate incidents, with some acknowl- <br />edging the incident and following a protocol while others simply removed the visible evidence, such as <br />graffiti, and moved forward as though it had not happened. She hoped that Eugene’s response plan could <br />provide the basis for consistent protocols among public agencies and local governments. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy emphasized the importance of a timely response to an incident and hoped that was built into the <br />plan. Mr. Rikhoff agreed, and pointed out that not only were responses different among entities, but how the <br />incident was characterized also differed, which sent a confusing message to the community. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 8, 2007 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />