CC Minutes - 06/08/98 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

wished to testify were employed and needed to leave the meeting. He reviewed a series of arguments favoring and opposing creating a police review process, as follows: · Too expensive. / The identified cost was a pittance in comparison to property tax incentives given the private development community. The process would permit citizens to participate in an important element of government. · Too cumbersome. / The proposed process is a group of volunteers monitoring government activities. The administration of the process is important. · Unnecessary. / Will consider at next public hearing. Max J. Groesbeck, 315 Vernal Street, stated that he had been a citizen of Eugene for 47 years and had begun to participate in civic meetings since the June 1, 1997, incident. He said that he saw no reason to create a police review process because the police were hired to do a job and the City Manger was hired to oversee and control the police. He said he believed the issue of police review had been raised by those who object to the status quo. Nick Urhausen, 2858 Warren Street, stated that he had attended public Police Forums and some meetings of the External Review Advisory Committee. He said he did not believed development of a police review process was required, but that he was willing to allow the proposal to go to voters because he did not believe it would pass. Craig Miller, 1275 West 17th Avenue, suggested that the Berlin Wall was similar to a philosophical barrier which existed between those who supported and opposed development of a police review process. He said he believed the increasing population of the City was responsible for its increasing problems. He said he believed developing a police review process was important for the future. William Lindquist, Post Office Box 5101, was not present. Polly Nelson, Post Office Box 50426, stated that she represented the Eugene chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. She said her organization supported placing the charter amendment on a ballot because it believed establishing a police review process would result in better policing. She also said her organization was concerned that, at some time in the future, consideration be given to incorporating police policy review with the proposed review process for complaints against police. Misha Seymour, 1313 Lincoln Street #306, stated that he believed citizen police review was badly needed because police are fallible. He discussed the police Rapid Deployment Unit, Special Weapons and Tactics Unit, and police actions at the June 1, 1997, incident. He said that he believed police should be gentle and empowering, but that some in Eugene were out of control. Brian Simonitch, 208 East 2nd Avenue, stated that he had attended meetings of the External Review Advisory Committee and was opposed to establishment of any citizen police review process. He recounted his experience as a Lane County youth corrections officer and said that he believed all monitoring of public officials was ineffective. He said he did not believe the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 16 7:30 p.m.