Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

those services. Mr. Poling asked if the advocates would be trained by the police or courts. He also asked who would monitor their work to ensure they did not shift from advocacy to giving legal advice. Chief Kerns said Municipal Court would be responsible for the contract and would oversee the work of the advocates. He emphasized that there was always a judge in the Municipal Courtroom to ensure that advocates were not violating the law by acting as attorneys. Mr. Poling had not initially favored giving up the temporary exclusion reflected in Section 8.476. However, based on information provided by staff and the overall nature of the approach being taken, he supported deleting the section. Mr. Poling believed the ordinance was not perfect or necessarily the solution to downtown’s problems, but it was a tool to address problems downtown. Because downtown was where the problem was occurring, Mr. Poling thought the council needed to take action to address it. He acknowledged that many positive things occurred downtown and he appreciated the changes that were being made, but he also believed the DPSZ would have positive benefits. Mr. Poling determined from City Attorney Klein that City Manager Ruiz could return to the council with an ordinance to extend the sunset period. Mr. Poling thought that was necessary given unanticipated delays in the hiring, training, and officer deployment process. Ms. Solomon asked how the City could offer advocacy for individuals cited for a DPSZ violation but did not provide similar services for those cited elsewhere in the community. She feared the council’s action would open the door to a larger advocacy program. Chief Kerns indicated that the City offered advocates for targeted groups, such as those who spoke only Spanish. Speaking to the question of how to prevent expansion of the service, Chief Kerns suggested that City could not expand the service without the authority of the council. He said the City was not obliged to provide an advocate in other processes just because the council chose to do so in this circumstance. Ms. Solomon asked if the advocacy program would go away when the ordinance expired. Chief Kerns said yes. Ms. Solomon determined from Chief Kerns that the City’s current contract for advocacy service called for payment by the hour and he anticipated that approach would continue. Ms. Solomon asked if the City received had complaints about a lack of advocacy services. Chief Kerns said no. Ms. Solomon suggested the advocacy services element of the ordinance was a solution in search of a problem and she could not support the expenditure. Mr. Brown could not support the ordinance for reasons he had stated before. He termed the revisions made to the ordinance “lipstick on a gorilla.” He did not think the statistics provided to the council demonstrated the program’s effectiveness. He believed criminal activity had been shifted. Some crimes were down in the DPSZ but they were up outside the zone. There had been an increase in assault inside the DPSZ. Mr. Brown suggested the number of sex offenses in downtown in the last 2-1/2 years did not warrant their inclusion in the list of crimes for which one could be excluded. Mr. Zelenka supported the revisions to the ordinance, particularly the addition of advocacy services and the elimination of the temporary exclusion. He appreciated the council’s willingness to consider changes. He had not supported the initial ordinance because of concerns regarding its constitutionality. He had been concerned that Eugene Police Department statistics indicated 60 percent of those excluded were homeless. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2010 Page 4 Work Session