Laserfiche WebLink
2. The City Council condemns afl forms of discriminatory hiring practices and <br /> expresses deep concern about Hyundai's actions as found in the lower court <br /> decision in California. <br /> <br /> 5. The City Council directs the City Manager to report back to the council once <br /> Hyundai 's appeal of the Superior Court's decision had been completed. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he would support both motions but believed passage of the first motion without <br />the second motion indicated the council was willing to have a "completely spineless Human <br />Rights Ordinance." Ms. Taylor agreed. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he would support the first motion. As an employer, he was proud of his record of <br />nondiscrimination and had never had a discrimination complaint. He said the motion allowed him <br />to affirm his commitment to nondiscrimination. He continued to be opposed to naming Hyundai <br />in the resolution because the appeal process was not complete. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson disagreed with Mr. Meisner's statement that the motion did nothing, saying the <br />motion directed the City Manager to report violations to the County Assessor and directed the <br />Human Rights Commission to work to address cross-cultural issues and problems. She agreed <br />with Mr. Pap8 that it was not within the City's power to actually do anything; the City could neither <br />prosecute the company nor withhold tax waivers. The motion represented everything the council <br />could do. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment the question was divided. He said that passing the first <br />motion without the second motion signified that when there was no specific issue under <br />consideration, the council was all for nondiscrimination, but when a tough, upsetting, specific <br />situation arose, the council would "eventually get around to doing something." Mr. Kelly said that <br />the second motion was specific but did not generally condemn an organization. The motion <br />expressed deep concern about Hyundai's actions as found in the lower court decision. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap8 moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend motion 1 to direct <br /> the City Manager to report back to the council on any decision with regard to <br /> discrimination in an Enterprise Zone. <br /> <br />There was discussion of the wording of the motion. Because of a lack of time, Mr. Pap8 <br />withdrew his motion and Ms. Nathanson withdrew her second. <br /> <br /> Motion 1 passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he found it interesting that whenever the council discussed a particular <br />company, "that was political, and it was resisted." He said that the court case had been so <br />heavily reported in the community the council had an opportunity to respond regarding its <br />concern about the actions as found by a court. Mr. Meisner believed that there was a significant <br />part of the council that wanted to ignore the issue. He thought it was important to make a <br />statement about the situation, and to be specific. He supported motion 2. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr reiterated that he would not support motion 2. He believed the motion set a dangerous <br />precedent, and he feared that the community would expect the manager to bring forth every act <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />