Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. LeMasurier referred to the public outreach that had been conducted during the development of the <br />plan as well as the various community response priorities that had been identified. She described the <br />various hate response plan resources that had been most helpful to her in identifying the best practices for <br />the plan. She commented that the plan had primarily focused on the three areas of notification and <br />coordination, assessment and response, and education and outreach with respect to instances of hate and <br />bias activity in the community. She elaborated on each of the three areas for the benefit of the council. <br />Ms. LeMasurier identified the key partners that had participated in the April 2010 Anti Hate Public <br />Forum which had contributed to the development of the plan. <br />Ms. Gyatso discussed the manner in which the Equity and Human Rights staff working in conjunction <br />with the HRC had developed the draft Anti -Hate Resolution. She further noted how similar resolutions <br />had been adopted in a number of other cities. <br />Ms. LeMasurier described the manner in which the Equity and Human Rights staff had coordinated with <br />EPD staff on the development of both the Hate and Bias Incident Response and the Anti -Hate Resolution. <br />Chief Pete Kerns described in greater detail the EPD's contributions to the development of the Hate and <br />Bias Incident Response and the Anti -Hate Resolution. He shared statistical data regarding hate and bias <br />crimes in the community and noted that the level of such reported incidents had briefly dropped in 2009 <br />only to rise again later on. He commented on the yearly training that many EPD staff had received <br />regarding bias crime reporting and further noted that representatives from the Southern Poverty Law <br />Center had contributed to the training efforts. <br />Chief Kerns discussed the priorities of the EPD with respect to the reporting and response procedures <br />involving hate and bias crimes. He further commented on how those priorities had dictated responses to <br />two recent separate hate crime incidents in Eugene. <br />Ms. LeMasurier stated that the HRC and its support staff recommended that a discussion and more <br />detailed review of the Anti -Hate Resolution be scheduled on a future council meeting agenda and further <br />that the proposed resolution be placed on a subsequent City Council Consent Calendar. She noted that <br />the resolution would still officially be considered a draft until it had been further reviewed by the council. <br />Chief Kerns, responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, described how graffiti in the city had been <br />typically classified as either a property crime or a hate /bias crime. He further maintained that the EPD's <br />collaborative efforts with Equity and Human Rights staff had helped make the process of such <br />determinations more accurate and effective. <br />Ms. Ortiz noted that she was glad to see how the resolution had been developed and agreed that it needed <br />to be placed on a future council meeting agenda. She noted her concern that the levels of communication <br />regarding recent incidents of hate crimes in the North Eugene area had not been sufficient. <br />Mr. Pryor discussed his perceptions of how hate crimes occupied various active and inactive realms of <br />public awareness. He maintained that the inactive realms represented a fertile breeding ground for <br />intolerance in the community. <br />Mayor Piercy commented on the importance of embracing diversity in the community and suggested that <br />rather than placing the draft Anti -Hate Resolution on a future council Consent Calendar that the council <br />review the resolution openly before the community as part of the regular council meeting agenda. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 30, 2010 Page 5 <br />Work Session <br />