Laserfiche WebLink
that RAM chips should be manufactured somewhere other than Eugene. His concern was about <br />specific hiring practices. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee said that if the council was passing an ordinance, he would be persuaded by the <br />argument regarding the need for neutral language, but the resolution before the council was <br />nonbinding. He had preferred not to mention a specific company, but had been willing to <br />compromise on the issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said that he had no problem with the "Whereas" statements in the resolution because <br />they were factual. He was somewhat sensitive to the issue because the companies he had been <br />involved with had faced charges of discrimination, only 2 of 45 of which were sustained, and 1 of <br />the 2 overturned on appeal. For that reason, he believed it was inappropriate to act until the <br />appeals process was completed. He also felt it was inappropriate to single out Hyundai when the <br />principles involved should apply to all companies that discriminate. For that reason, he opposed <br />the sections of the resolution specific to Hyundai. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 noted that 21 discrimination complaints had been filed against the City of Eugene over <br />a five-year period (1994-1999). Fourteen were closed with no evidence or jurisdiction; four were <br />withdrawn; and three had "other" dispositions. He said that there could also be "runaway" juries. <br />Mr. Pap8 said that could be errant managers working for a company; while that did not eliminate <br />the company's liability for the actions of such individuals, he did not think the entire organization <br />should be condemned. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she was proud of her vote in favor of the Human Rights Ordinance, because <br />it was the right thing to do. She believed she had done the right thing in her vote to sunset the <br />Enterprise Zone. Because of the purpose of the zone, which was to create employment, Ms. <br />Nathanson was particularly disturbed by charges of discrimination against Hyundai. She said she <br />would like to be able to vote for something. She felt she was on the right side of the <br />issue--against discrimination and against granting tax waivers to companies that violate the law. <br />Because of that, she proposed to divide the question. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to divide the question by <br /> including "Whereas" statements 1, 2, 3, and 8, and "Therefore" statements 1, <br /> 3, 4, and 6 in one motion, and "Whereas" statements 4, 5, 6, and 7, "Thereas <br /> statements" 2 and 5 in a second motion. <br /> <br /> The vote on the motion to divide the question was 4:4; Mr. PapS, Ms. <br /> Nathanson, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Farr voting yes, and Ms. Taylor, Mr. Rayor, Mr. <br /> Meisner, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in the affirmative <br /> and the motion passed, 5:4. <br /> <br />The separated motions follow: <br /> <br /> MOTION <br /> <br /> Whereas, the City of Eugene has adopted a Human Rights Ordinance at Eugene <br /> Code Section 4.613 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, <br /> sex, national origin, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, source of <br /> income, and disability; and <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />