Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Swanson Gribskov, noting that having a presiding judge model has <br />worked well for the court. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr expressed interest in Mr. Tollenaar's concept of having one full-time judge, augmented <br />by pad-time judges. He said, however, that he believed an organization was best operated when <br />there was consistency, e.g., full-time judges. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said to justify such a significant change there should be good reasons such as <br />decreased costs or improved services. She pointed out that changing would not decrease costs <br />and it was not clear to her that services would be improved. She asked City Manager to identify <br />any problems. Mr. Johnson said he was not aware of any problems and court staff morale was <br />good. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Judge Allen said he was at court every day, but the <br />actual time was equivalent to about half time. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said his proposal was not intended at all to solve existing problems, and certainly it <br />had nothing to do with the performance of current staff. He said his suggestion was an effort to <br />correct a structural problem that would enhance the role of the court in the community. Mr. <br />Tollenaar said nationally "we are beginning to recognize that the total crime problem is closely <br />related with the way minor street offenses are handled." The type of person that might be <br />attracted to the job, he continued, might be one interested in specializing in these types of cases. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion by <br /> changing the last phrase to one full-time employee judge. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Tollenaar clarified that he intended that the <br />balance of the work be carried out by contract with part-time judges. Mr. Meisner said he could <br />not support the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue was unsupportive, noting that Judge Allen was addressing quality-of-life and street <br />crime. He said he saw no advantages to changing the model at this time. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she supported the amendment, but opposed the main motion. She <br />explained the amendment would allow for both flexibility and stability. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she favored the motion for the same reasons stated by Ms. Swanson <br />Gribskov. She expressed interest in the potential for "doing it differently" with respect to street <br />crime as discussed by Mr. Tollenaar, but added that she is not sure it require a full-time judge to <br />develop the ideas and programs. As an alternative, she said, if it were important enough to the <br />council, it might be referred to the Council Committee on Public Safety. <br />Ms. Taylor reiterated her preference for at least one full-time judge and agreed with Mr. <br />Tollenaar's remarks. She said she supported both the amendment and the motion, assuming the <br />council will discuss it again. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Judge Allen said that to his knowledge none of the <br />current judges would be interested in a full-time position. Judge Allen added that the non- <br />compliance problem was the main problem with the criminal justice system in this and every <br />other community in the country and part-time judges allowed for respites that made for a fresher <br /> <br />Minutes--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 3 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />