Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lee asked about the fiscal impact of the bill on the City. Mr. Black said analysis did <br />not indicate any local fiscal impact on the City. Mr. Lee indicated interest in a fiscal <br />impact statement, saying that he tended not to support things without that information <br />and a policy impact statement. He felt he was being "put on the spot" to vote on <br />something and he could not do it. City Manager Jim Johnson said if the council felt <br />"put on the spot," the motion could be withdrawn and staff directed to secure more <br />information. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted that Representative Prozanski introduced the bill out of concern <br />that a police weapon could be potentially misused by someone assaulting an officer <br />and result in danger to the public. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee said that he did not question the intent of the bill but was concerned that the <br />language of the legislation could be interpreted incorrectly by stakeholders across the <br />state. He said he had not read the bill and could not support something he did not <br />clearly understand. He said that given a hearing was scheduled, he favored voting, as <br />long as the record reflected his concerns. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Black said that the bill was the <br />subject of a public hearing taking place before a House committee the following day at <br />8:30 a.m. <br /> <br />Eugene Police Chief Jim Hill said that the bill concerned assault in the third degree, a <br />Class C felony. Such assault must "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" cause <br />physical injury to an officer in the performance of official duties. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Chief Hill said that assault as discussed in the <br />bill must result in physical injury; otherwise, it was classified as harassment. Spitting <br />was considered harassment. He added that the assault statutes were based on a <br />combination of degrees of physical injury and culpable mental state. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if intent must be proven. Chief Hill said yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he would oppose the amendment to the motion. Regarding Mr. Lee's <br />comments about fiscal impact and policy impact statements, he pointed out that the <br />council had none of that information for any of the bills under consideration, and if that <br />was needed the council should request it. He said that a police officer was an agent of <br />the City, sworn to act with a deadly weapon to protect the public. Assault against an <br />officer was an attempt by an individual to prevent that officer from carrying out that <br />responsibility. Mr. Meisner said that the bill would not criminalize an assault against an <br />officer at home, only in the course of performing official duty. An act that injured an <br />officer and prevented the officer from performing official duties deserved such a <br />remedy. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor reiterated that there was a lack of council policy governing the committee's <br />recommendation, and said she continued to believe existing penalties were sufficient. <br /> <br />The motion to amend failed, 5:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. <br /> <br />The main motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor continued to believe that the legislation reflected in House Bill 2393 and <br />House Bill 2508 could be misused against lawful protesters. <br /> <br /> <br />