Laserfiche WebLink
company. She believed the resolution would be a stronger policy statement if it was neutral. She <br />questioned what the phrase "found to be justified" meant. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ questioned the purpose of item 5 in the resolution. He suggested that any report <br />should go to the County Assessor, who had the power to take action. Mr. Lee said that the item <br />was included to give the City an opportunity to react to the outcome of the appeal, and since the <br />Hyundai controversy drove the resolution, the language was retained. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the resolution would be improved if it was not specific <br />to a single company. He could not support the resolution unless the reference was omitted. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported the resolution. He thanked Mr. Lee for his effort to reach a compromise. He <br />did not think the resolution singled out a single company. Mr. Rayor said that when the trial judge <br />found the company liable he had been concerned. He said that the City must track such cases <br />because of the potential of future tax reductions for Hyundai due to its location in the Enterprise <br />Zone, and he believed the citizens expected it to ensure that Hyundai followed the law. Mr. Rayor <br />said that if Hyundai won its appeal, it was a "whole new ball game." <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that if the vote on the motion was a tie, he would vote against it because of the <br />reference to Hyundai. He reminded the council that he had been one of the original councilors <br />who supported the passage of the Human Rights Ordinance and was very concerned about the <br />subject of discrimination. However, he found the references specific to Hyundai to be <br />inappropriate, and recommended that they be removed from the resolution. Mayor Torrey asked <br />the council to remember due process and the appeal filed by Hyundai, adding that if the company <br />lost its appeal he would do everything he could to ensure the company did not receive the <br />benefits it was currently receiving. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Mayor Torrey. He appreciated Mr. Lee's <br />leadership but believed the resolution was premature because the appeals process was not <br />completed. He questioned whether another company would have been singled out in the same <br />way, and said he did not think so because the issue of Hyundai was so politicized in the <br />community. He stressed the diversity of the Hyundai work force and said that if the incident <br />occurred, it was an isolated incident. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fart moved to amend the motion by revising the first paragraph to read <br /> as follows (italicized text added) "The motion adopted by the council on <br /> October 13, 1999, as mentioned in the background section of the cover <br /> memorandum for this agenda item, is hereby rescinded until the appellate <br /> court decision is rendered" and by deleting the remainder of the text. <br /> <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out that rather than condemning Hyundai, the resolution expressed "deep <br />concern" about the court decision. He did not think the resolution was "all about" Hyundai, <br />suggesting it was both a specific and general motion. It affirmed the City's commitment to <br />opposing discrimination and mentioned the Hyundai case because the council was not acting in a <br />vacuum. A resolution that mentioned no company would be a prospective act in the absence of <br />any history. In response to Mr. Fart's remarks, Mr. Kelly said that he would act the same if the <br />company was different. He was a user of computers and it would be hypocritical of him to say <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />