Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/1990 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall October 8, 1990 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Robert Bennett, Roger Rutan, Shawn Boles, Freeman Holmer, Debra Ehrman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Emily Schue, Ruth Bascom, Bobby Green. The regular meeting of October 8, 1990, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. 1. HUMAN RIGHTS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Mayor Miller provided a background report. The Eugene Human Rights Commission, the first human rights program in Eugene, was created in the 1960s. Since that time, the program has undergone several structural changes to meet the needs of a diversifying community. Discussions about reorganizing the Human Rights Program have surfaced repeatedly throughout the e program's history. In March 1989, the City Council approved creation of the Human Rights Task Force to 1) examine options for restructuring the Human Rights program, and 2) develop recommendation on ways to improve the program's overall efficiency and effectiveness. Mayor Miller said that the task force, composed of the Mayor, Councilor Green, several human rights commissioners, and local human rights activists, began meeting in April 1989 to develop a proposal for strengthening the Human Rights Program. Members of the Human Rights Task Force introduced themselves and gave a brief description of their human rights background. Those present included Cecelia Jackson, Lynn Kahle, Kenya Luvert, Marion Malcolm, Jan Oliver, Marshall Peter, and Oguilvia Skelton. Councilor Bobby Green not present at the meeting. Keli Osborn, Planning and Development Department, provided a brief staff report. She presented the Human Rights Task Force's proposal for changes to the Human Rights Program. Ms. Osborn said that under the proposal, a IS-member commission representing a broad cross section of the community would advise elected officials and staff on human rights issues. One of these members would be the Mayor or a City Councilor; the other 14 would come from throughout the community. The task force proposed subdividing the Human Rights Commission into three committees: the Committee on Discrimination and Harassment, the Committee on Community Education and Outreach, and the Committee on Accessibility. Each committee would have ten members--five from e the Human Rights Commission and another five from the community. In MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 1 1 e addition, a fourth committee, an Agenda Committee composed of the commission and committee chairpersons, is proposed as an administrative group. Ms. Osborn spoke about the strengths of the proposed restructure. Whereas the current Human Rights Program is focused on the concerns of separate constituencies, she said that the proposed model would unify constituencies and be organized around functions to achieve the broader goals of the Human Rights Program. It is hoped that the proposed structure would make the program more efficient and effective by reducing the duplication of efforts among the groups and by developing closer ties with the council. Ms. Osborn pointed out that a human rights mission statement for the City of Eugene was prepared by the task force and is included in the agenda packet. Linda Lynch, Intergovernmental Relations, presented the council with a list of the following recommendations for implementing the proposed Human Rights Program: directing staff to process the decision, scheduling a public hearing, clarifying youth transition issues, recruiting members, confirming or reviewing the recommended work plan, bringing closure to the current commission structure, discussing budget issues, and making a decision on staff resources. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman regarding youth transition issues, Ms. Lynch explained that Councilor Green expressed concern about how youth issues would be handled by a restructured Human Rights Commission. He asked that Lane County and City of Eugene staff, as well as Youth Commission and e Youth Advisory Council representatives, meet to discuss common issues. Ms. Lynch said that to help ensure the smoothest and most successful transitions from the current program to the proposed model, the task force is requesting council approval for a start-up budget for the new program, to supplement whatever balance remains from the existing commissions after January 1991. Staff recommends that $5,000 would be sufficient to finance the program's first five to six months of operation. Ms. lynch said that it is yet unclear what staff resources would be required under the proposed structure but predicted that the need for staff resources would not decline. Mr. Boles asked for a breakdown of the commission's proposed work and administrative costs. Ms. Lynch predicted that the commission would need approximately $10,000 in its budget for commission work and an additional $7,000 to cover administrative costs, excluding staff. Mr. Rutan noted that the council recently received copies of the correspondence from the Commission on the Rights of Women to the Eugene Country Club regarding its policy restricting club membership by women. Mr. Rutan noted that members of the community might perceive that an action of an individual commission represents the position of the council and asked for council discussion. e Ms. Ehrman said she was not surprised to receive this information and felt that this is an appropriate arena in which the commission should be dealing. She noted that although the council may see the work plans of the human MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 2 - ----~ e rights commissions, the commissions conduct most of their work independent of the council, particularly on those items arising that are not reflected in the work plan. Ms. Ehrman felt that the council should not be held directly responsible for the actions of those commissions. Mr. Boles agreed and said that he anticipates that if the proposed restructure is implemented, the council will sign off on the Human Rights Commission work plan at the beginning of each year and maintain a closer link by assigning the Mayor or a councilor to serve on the commission. Mr. Rutan pointed out that with some issues, the commission may benefit from City Council input or endorsement and asked how this might be monitored. Mr. Holmer pointed out that one important function of the Human Rights Program is to educate the larger community on human rights issues. He noted that in the proposed model, recruitment of commission members would be limited to those persons who have "actively demonstrated interest and expertise in efforts to eliminate injustices related to discrimination.1I He felt that the commission should include a broader range of people who more generally represent the public interest. Mr. Peter pointed out that one justification for choosing people who have a demonstrated interest in human rights issues is to ensure that those involved will have a genuine knowledge of the issues, thus reducing the amount of time required to bring members up to speed. e Mr. Bennett echoed Mr. Holmer's concern regarding the importance of selling the community on the importance of human rights issues. He warned that by severely restricting the types of people who are allowed to serve on the commission, the commission runs the risk of not developing communitywide support for human rights issues. Ms. Oliver said that the commission composition was not intended to be as narrow as inferred from the definition. She explained that commission members should have an active concern in Eugene and be willing to become involved in human rights issues beyond their current scope. Addressing Mr. Rutan's concern, Mr. Boles pointed out that either the Mayor or a councilor will be appointed to the commission. It wi 11 be thei r responsibility to flag for the full council any areas of particular concern. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Holmer said that the breadth of representation on the committee could be achieved during member appointment by the City Council. Addressing Mr. Holmer's concern, Ms. Ehrman suggested the possibility of having a Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) representative on the commission. Mr. Boles questioned whether the council is interested in continuing City Council appointment of the Human Rights Program members. Mayor Miller e pointed out that the task force felt it important for the council to continue to appoint commission members in order to ensure that the council has ownership of Human Rights Program membership. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 3 e Mr. Rutan said that he supports this document and commended the task force for its work. Mr. Bennett reiterated his earlier concern on the need for broad representation of commission members. He pointed out that the central goal of the Human Rights Program is to change people's attitudes on human rights issues; this type of education takes place most effectively when people with different perspectives are provided a forum for open discussion. Mr. Rikhoff acknowledged Mr. Bennett's concern but said the community would not regard the program as legitimate unless persons with demonstrated human rights interest and expertise served on the commission. Mr. Rikhoff pointed out that community members would bypass the program unless they saw it as a place of action. Mr. Boles asked when the council would be asked to accept the Human Rights Program work plan. Ms. Lynch responded that the work program would probably come before the council in March. When generating this work plan, Mr. Boles suggested that it would be better for the commission to have a short list of work plan items with greater concentration on those issues. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to accept the Human Rights Task Force report and associated time lines. The motion carried unanimously, 5:0. e Mr. Gleason commended the commission for its work. II. DISCUSSION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITY CODE Doug Eveleth, Planning and Development Department, provided a brief introduction. He noted that on October 8, 1990, the council will conduct a public hearing to consider a package of code amendments for the Eugene Code. Mr. Eveleth explained that the code amendments being considered deal primarily with the Administrative Code in Chapter 8 of the Eugene City Code. This part of the code amendment seeks to consolidate the administrative portions of all the specialty codes and the Administrative Code for the ease of both staff and the customer. Mr. Eveleth said that the second part of the amendment is an ordinance that establishes a civil penalty as an enforcement mechanism. The City is proposing the implementation of a civil penalty mechanism which will be used in situations where an individual ignores the City's request for corrective action or where the individual continually repeats violations. The proposed mechanism would bypass the current municipal court system and would allow an administrative civil penalty to be assessed. Appeals would go to a Hearings Official. Mr. Eveleth highlighted three key components of the proposal, namely that the e ultimate goal with respect to this new system is to gain compliance, not enforcement; that there be no interruption in due process or in the rights of MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 4 ---~ e the individual to appeal; and that the overall cost of enforcement be reduced by substantial gains in efficiency. Mr. Eveleth noted that Planning and Development Department representatives, Marsha Miller, Dick Gassman, and Greta Utecht, and City Attorney Glenn Klein would be available to answer questions. Mr. Holmer asked for clarification on the appeals process. In response, Ms. Miller said that the Hearings Official decision could be appealed to the Circuit Court or, if the issue was determined to be a land-use decision, the decision could be appealed to the land Use Board of Appeals (lUBA). Mr. Holmer asked about the size of penalties which could be assessed and asked whether the City would be achieving full-cost recovery. Ms. Miller responded that fines range between $25-$500 each, depending on their severity as calculated in the Civil Penalty Matrix. Ms. Utecht added that assessing fines with the civil penalty mechanism would allow the City to recover its enforcement costs far more effectively than it has in the past because it provides an incentive for the violator to pay the fine right away. Mr. Holmer suggested the possibility of increasing the maximum fine allowable to $5,000. Mr. Boles asked whether staff had an opportunity to run the matrix on past enforcement violation cases to determine what the average fine might be. Ms. Miller said that an evaluation of past fines in the matrix revealed an average fine of $75-$100. e Mr. Holmer noted that the staff memo alternates between the term "civil penaltyll and IIfine." He said that he prefers the term "fine" because it sounds more forceful but said that whatever the term used, it should be consistent. Mr. Klein explained that the term "civil penaltyll was chosen to reflect that this would be a civil rather than criminal infraction. He said that the Oregon State Statue refers to this as "administrative civil penalty;" either term could be used with the same effect. Mr. Bennett noted that sometimes a potential violator may be hesitant to pay a fine because of a genuine disagreement over interpretation. He asked whether there is some procedure for handling the potential violator's need for clarification without the threat of an increasing fine. Mr. Eveleth said that there is an opportunity to get clarification from a Hearings Official before being assessed a penalty. Mr. Boles also noted that the matrix addresses this concern to some degree in providing a lower fine for individuals who are attempting to resolve the dispute. Mr. Boles requested a one-year review of the civil penalty enforcement program to determine its effectiveness in compliance. Mr. Eveleth pointed out that approximately 95 percent of the situations which require civil penalty enforcement are brought to the City's attention by persons who live near the proposed violation. Responding to a question from Mr. Rutan, he predicted that approximately 75 percent of those concerns e raised by neighbors are legitimate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 5 III. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE e Linda Lynch said that the council asked to review the purpose and processes of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee. She noted that all the necessary information is included in the council's agenda packet and said that she would be available for questions. Mr. Rutan reminded the council that in its attempt to reduce the work load, the council decided not to eliminate any of the three council positions on the Intergovernmental Relations Committee. The council made this decision because it felt that it was important to have a broad spectrum of interests represented on the committee. Mr. Rutan pointed out that the council also agreed recently that committee minutes would not be included on the council's Consent Calendar but would be a separate agenda item. Mr. Rutan also pointed out that the function of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee is to coordinate rather than approve funding requests. He pointed out the need to have a data base to deal with the many funding applications and requests. Mr. Holmer indicated that it is not appropriate for the council to approve all decisions made by the Intergovernmental Relations Committee, especially during the budget season. He requested that the council continue to receive copies of the committee's minutes but said that because the full council has not had an opportunity to become educated on the issues in the way that the three council representatives have, it would not be appropriate for the e council to approve those minutes. Mr. Boles said that he is not uncomfortable with a post hoc ratification of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee minutes. He requested that the minutes be drafted in a manner in which the committee's recommendations are easily visible in the minutes. Ms. Lynch said that this would be possible. At 7:10 p.m., the Eugene City Council adjourned its meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~~~? Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Traci Northman) mncc 100890-530 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 6