Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Brown asked if the auditor and representatives of the UO Department of Public Safety (DPS) had <br />discussed the UO's request to the City to give DPS officers more authority. Mr. Gissiner said the topic <br />was discussed generally but was not a focus on the conversation. <br />C. WORK SESSION: Downtown Public Safety Zone <br />The council was joined by Police Chief Kerns and Municipal Court Judge Wayne Allen. Chief Kerns <br />provided a PowerPoint presentation that identified the scope of the Downtown Public Safety Zone <br />(DPSZ), the three types of exclusions permitted under the DPSZ, and the factors officers took into <br />consideration when recommending in favor of excluding someone from downtown. <br />Chief Kerns reviewed the exclusion order process and noted that copies of the forms completed by <br />officers and the court and an informational brochure about the DPSZ had been provided to councilors at <br />their places. <br />Chief Kerns reviewed data indicating that officers excluded people only eight percent of the time they had <br />the opportunity to do so. He reviewed the crime and penalty for offenses involved in exclusion actions, <br />noting the liquor violations and trespassing made up the majority of violations for which people were <br />excluded. <br />Chief Kerns provided statistical data on sexual offenses in the DPSZ that indicated criminal activity in <br />that category was up to a degree sufficient to warrant the category's inclusion in the zone. <br />Chief Kerns reviewed the options before the council and recommended that: 1) the ordinance be extended <br />for 18 months, 2) the council add sexual abuse offenses to the categories covered by the ordinance, and 3) <br />to add the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) for Eugene Code offenses with an ORS equivalent. <br />Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. <br />Ms. Taylor asked Chief Kerns questions clarifying the nature of the offenses for which one could be <br />excluded from downtown. <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that under the ordinance, people had to prove they were not guilty. In response, <br />Judge Allen first clarified that he was not present to speak to the merits of the ordinance. He was taking a <br />neutral position because of his position as a judge. He pointed out to Ms. Taylor that under the ordinance, <br />judges did not have to grant the exclusion if they did not find it in the spirit of the ordinance, which was to <br />reduce repeat offenses. Judges asked themselves if they had a good reason to exclude someone from <br />public property because they believed there was a chance of a repeat offense. Judge Allen said that judges <br />reviewed the police report and supporting affidavits before making that decision even when defendants <br />did not appear. <br />Ms. Taylor asked what recompense one excluded from downtown received if they were found not guilty, <br />other than the end of the exclusion. Judge Allen indicated Municipal Court offered no remedy. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Judge Allen shared a bar graph that indicated the exclusions <br />issued over two years. <br />Mr. Brown recalled that Portland had established an exclusion zone that was no longer in place. He asked <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council October 25, 2010 Page 5 <br />Work Session <br />