Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Ortiz explained that her request for notification specifically meant that councilors would be notified as <br />soon as an incident was detected. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy strongly supported Ms. Ortiz’s request as it was important for elected officials, as leaders of the <br />community, to demonstrate they cared, understood what happened, and were responding to it, whenever and <br />wherever an incident occurred. She added that notification should also include other elected officials such as <br />county commissioners, as all leaders had a responsibility to respond. <br /> <br />Ms. Urbina cited examples of incidents in the River Road area where graffiti was in areas both inside and <br />outside the City limits and the difference between City and County responses to removing it. She also <br />shared her experiences while counter-leafleting with those whose property had been targeted. <br /> <br />Mr. Rikhoff explained that counter-leafleting was sponsored by the Community Alliance of Lane County <br />(CALC) and provided support to victims of hate activities through personal contact by volunteers who <br />provided information about available community resources. <br /> <br />Ms. Flynn asked that counter-leafleting include materials in Spanish and other languages as well as English. <br />She suggested that non-English radio stations could also be used to spread the message of community <br />support for victims. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz asked if hate activities were tracked at the local and state levels. Mr. Rikhoff said the Eugene <br />Police Department tracked activities that were criminal in nature but it was difficult to maintain an accurate <br />record of non-criminal activities. He said there were state and federal reporting requirements but many <br />jurisdictions lacked the resources to comply; therefore, accurate data on the incidence of hate activities was <br />not available. <br /> <br />Mr. Rikhoff continued his review of response steps related to assessing and meeting the needs of victims and <br />survivors, affected communities and the community as a whole. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy remarked that there was a balance between trying to be respectful of the individuals who were <br />the target of a hate activity and informing the community so the community could stand up against that <br />activity. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked what types of services were available for victims and whether funding was available. <br />Mr. Rikhoff replied that the County provided victims’ services through the District Attorney’s Office. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said the County provided services for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence but there <br />was no funding for services to victims of hate crimes beyond what might result from restitution if the <br />perpetrator was caught and convicted. Mr. Rikhoff noted that schools might provide services to students <br />who were victimized but there was little available to members of the community at-large. <br /> <br />Mr. Rikhoff continued with a review of steps to educate the larger community. He said that public <br />statements in response to an incident should be timely and developed in concert with the affected parties to <br />ensure they did not feel alienated or re-victimized. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 8, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />