Laserfiche WebLink
want? Do we want to have buildings burn down? Do we want to have people injured like the <br />young man that was hit on the head with a wrench last year? Are we looking for those type of <br />activities before we bring a level of response that stops that? I would say no. I would say we did <br />the right thing. I would also tell you from numerous people who were at the events and told me <br />that there was ample opportunity for those to leave the area numerous times they were told, we <br />ask you to disperse. Now, if someone does not understand what the word disperse means, <br />maybe we should change our language and say, You must leave the area. The fact is, people <br />who were there had the opportunity to leave and they knew they were supposed to leave. Some <br />of those who chose to stay unfortunately made that choice and I'm sure that many of them regret <br />not having left. <br /> <br />"The organizers of this event, by definition, openly call for the absence of government by means <br />of violence. That comes right out of a dictionary. Regardless of their goal to remove the rule of <br />law, I would urge anyone who believes that they have been mistreated under the law, in our city <br />that they seek redress for that mistreatment using either the complaint form, contacting our <br />Human Rights division, or frankly bringing a civil action against employees of the City--in this <br />particular case we are talking about police officers. The laws of our City are meant to protect <br />everyone, not just those who chose to ignore them. Eighty-five percent of the people who have <br />called the City Hall and responded to this issue since Monday morning, there were 63 who said <br />that the action was appropriate, there were 11 who said that it was not. Numerous people who <br />have contacted me. In fact, I would hope that the police officers back there would recognize that <br />in one speech that I gave yesterday you got a standing ovation. It wasn't for me, it was for you. <br /> <br />"Do I wish none of this happened in our community? Absolutely. But I'll tell you if we start <br />playing too many games with saying, well, we'll go up to you and say would you please not do <br />this, it is not going to work. And we have a responsibility to protect all of our citizens including <br />those who come to this community to visit. Thank you." <br /> <br />B.Work Session: Charter Review <br /> <br />Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office was present for the item. She noted that the council <br />had previously been polled on issues it wished to address in a review of the City Charter, and she <br />solicited additional ideas on the scope of that review. Ms. Walston suggested that the level of <br />review would determine to some degree the citizen involvement process. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner called for a broad examination of the roles and responsibilities of the council and City <br />Manager, chapters III and IV of the charter. He was not anticipating specific changes, but wanted <br />a public process that engaged the public about what authority the council had and what authority <br />the manager had, suggesting it would be an educational opportunity for citizens. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner also wanted to examine Chapter X, Section 44 of the charter regarding the authority <br />of the EWEB commissioners, as well as those sections that were perhaps out-dated by time, but <br />said he would leave the specifics to an appointed citizen charter review committee. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr did not object to a review of the entire charter. He also wanted to examine Chapter X, <br />Section 44, and those sections of the charter related to the Toxics Right-to-Know law (Chapter 4 <br />Section 50). He noted the Appeal Court's action in invalidating a section of the amendment, <br />which had led to the amendment not being implemented as desired by the voters. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />