Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/29/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall May 29, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Crowd Control and Use of Force Policy Presentation Maurice Denner, Carla Newbre, John Brown, Floyd Prozanski, Tim Laue, Angie Sifuentz, and Andrea Ortiz of the Police Commission were present for the work session. Mr. Denner noted that Dr. Munir Katul, chair of the commission, could not be present and sent his regrets. Mr. Denner said the Police Commission had met over a period of 15 months and held two public forums regarding the topics of police use of force and crowd control. Many groups and individuals participated in the review of the policies. Mr. Denner introduced Captain Swensen and retired Lieutenant EIIwood Cushman, who were present to answer questions. He thanked Sergeant Jay Shadwick for his work with the Use of Force Committee. He commended the department for its support of the commission. Mr. Denner also thanked Jeannine Parisi, the commission's staff. Mr. Brown said the commission's recommendations regarding crowd control dealt with three policies: General Order 801.3--Civil Disturbances, General 801.5--Field Forces, and General Order 801.10--Public Assemblies and Demonstrations. The committee's work was guided by the Community Values Statement, which supports the rights of all to free speech and peaceful assembly while balancing those rights with the responsibility to use them peacefully and acknowledging the responsibility of the police to carry out enforcement measures in a proportional way. Policy changes focused mainly on conflict prevention strategies that would allow an event to continue peacefully. Mr. Prozanski, chair of the Use of Force Committee, noted the commission's recommendations regarding use of force policies as they related to General Order 901.1--Use of Force Generally, General Order 901.2--Control Techniques and Less Lethal Weapons, and General Order 901.3-- Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Aerosol Spray. He said the committee reviewed use of force in the context of both routine and crowd control situations. The committee based its recommendations on the community expectation that police officers should not use more force than necessary to MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 1 Work Session safely and effectively accomplish their objectives. Mr. Prozanski said the recommended changes would require some modification to existing policies to reduce the health and physical risks to suspects and officers, and would refine the criteria for use of less lethal weapons and pepper spray. Mr. Prozanski concluded his remarks by saying the commission recommended that the department implement a reporting form to track the use of force and provide statistical information to help assess department training needs. He invited questions. Mayor Torrey clarified that the purpose of the work session was not to make changes to the commission's recommendations, but was an opportunity for the council to express its opinions about the recommendations. Mr. Pap~, a member of the commission, thanked the Use of Force Committee. He noted the long hours Police Commission members had spent reviewing the policies. Mr. Pap~ thought the community would be well-served by the policies. He said that the policies had also been reviewed by the Human Rights Commission (HRC), which was comfortable with them. He noted the presence of Andrea Ortiz of the HRC and said that he would welcome her comments. Mr. Pap~ thanked the members of the commission for their service. Ms. Bettman also thanked the commission for its work. She asked Mr. Denner to distinguish between the recommendations in the findings and the policies. Mr. Denner said the findings represented the consensus of the commission as a whole. The policy recommendations target the day-to-day operating proceedings of the department. Mr. Kelly also thanked the commission. He thought it had done much good work. He endorsed the use of the Community Values Statement, the focus of some policies on de-escalation, the option to bring a situation into compliance, and the key of proportional response. Mr. Kelly was concerned that the words of the Community Values Statement and some of the words in the policies would not translate well in guiding day-to-day operations. He said that he had asked Dr. Katul and Chief Jim Hill what effect the policies would have had on the April and June 2000 protests had if they had been in place the previous year. Dr. Katul had responded that it would be difficult to speculate what would have happened. He said that Chief Hill did not think the policies would have fundamentally altered what happened. Mr. Kelly found that "very troubling." Mr. Kelly cited policies he believed would have changed the police response to the June 17-18, 2000, incidents, such as matching the level of offense with the appropriate response and considering the urgency of the situation and immediate threat to public safety. He said those policies seemed to argue against what he termed the "serial arresting" and the rather urgent actions he viewed in the video tapes of those incidents. Mr. Denner responded that the commission had not evaluated department employee performance in any specific situation as it was not a review board, making it difficult for him to evaluate the policies in terms of the difference they might have made. However, he thought changes had been made that addressed the situations raised by Mr. Kelly. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Also in response to Mr. Kelly, Mr. Brown said he was present at the June 17-18 incidents and believed that if General Order 801.10 had been in existence and information regarding compliance had been communicated to the protesters, it might have made a difference. He did not know if such information was provided by the police at that time, but now it was in policy. Addressing Mr. Kelly's question, Mr. Prozanski said as long as the individual was passively resisting arrest, neither impact weapons or OC spray would be used to effect the arrest. The findings and recommendations also suggested that the department consider other alternatives to force before it would utilize any type of tools against political protesters who, for example, were sitting on the ground and locking arms. Mayor Torrey asked what happened when a person was asked twice to leave the middle of the street, refused to do so, and then went limp when the officer attempted to arrest him; what affect did that have on officer's ability to complete the arrest? Mr. Prozanski said that it should not impact that ability; at that point, the officer would take the steps necessary to effect the arrest. If the individual abandoned passive resistance and moved to the status of active resistance, officers may need to consider other options. Mr. Denner added that the commission was "raising the bar" in terms of training standards for officer performance. Mr. Prozanski clarified that the police would still be able to use control holds on a passive resister to gain compliance. Mr. Meisner thought Mr. Kelly's question difficult to answer given the differing natures of protest events. He referred to the Community Values Statement and said that each time he had a question about the policies he returned to the statement. He thought it the most astonishing thing the commission had done as he believed it was difficult to come up with values for a community like Eugene, and everything the commission had done had flowed from that statement and was consistent with it. Mr. Meisner said the statement addressed the responsibilities of both the police and citizens. He was pleased with the recommendations and had no changes to offer; he merely wanted to see them implemented. Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting at 5:57 p.m. Ms. Taylor had the same question as Mr. Kelly. She suggested the answer to his question depended on the officers present. She asked if the commission considered a policy banning the use of pepper spray and tear gas for all individuals except criminals. Ms. Newbre said the commission discussed that possibility, but the department had made a convincing argument that officer safety was of paramount importance in effecting an arrest. Because officers must have discretion, especially in dynamic situations, and because of evidence that the use of OC spray prevented injuries to both officers and those being arrested, it was difficult for the commission to place tighter restrictions on its use and feel comfortable with that decision. Also in response to Ms. Taylor, Mr. Prozanski added that the officer needed to have a tool to gain compliance. Alternatives such as batons were more dangerous and resulted in abrasions and broken bones. The commission had asked the department to continue to research and monitor the use of OC spray both in Eugene and other parts of the country. He thought OC spray was a viable tool that needed to be accompanied by recommendations for its appropriate use, and the commission had developed recommendations to that end. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she understood the use of OC spray in cases where a person was hurting someone or committing a crime, but she did not understand it in cases where the crime in question was "just being somewhere" and no force was necessary. Mr. Prozanski said that officers were trained to base their response on the type of resistance they faced. OC spray was not to be used punitively. Unless there was resistance, OC spray would not be used. Mr. Rayor referred to Attachment G, General Order 901-2, and suggested that just as long-range impact weapons were not to be used on people in danger of falling, OC spray should not be used on people in danger of falling, for example, from trees. Mr. Prozanski said that as the strict definition of static resistance could include someone holding onto a tree, the policy would provide for the use of OC spray, if appropriate. The department made it clear that before the decision was made, some different criteria would be reviewed by the officer in command. Mr. Prozanski said that the department did not promise it would never happen, but could not offer a situation in which OC spray would be used against protesters in trees. He emphasized that the policies were not "set in stone" and would be modified as warranted. Mr. Prozanski added that the department uses the Department of Public Safety Standards & Training (DPSST) use of force continuum, which does not distinguish passive from static resistance. The commission recommended, and the department accepted the recommendation, that the department separate the two types of resistance. Mr. Rayor expressed concern that he had seen officers tackling people during protests the previous year and he did not see that type of arrest discussed in the policies in the packet, and he did not see where it fit into the use of force continuum. In the situation he mentioned, two women were carrying a banner, and one was tackled. He did not understand that. Ms. Newbre said that one of the commission's problems was that it was not a review board, so it had to "dance around" the issues of whether what was done was appropriate. The commission could use those incidents to guide it but could not specifically address incidents. She said that the department could not have a different set of policies for enforcement of civil disobedience than it did for other arrests. Mr. Prozanski suggested that Mr. Rayor's focus was on effecting the arrest, which these policies did not address. He said he could only assume that the officers involved in the arrest witnessed by Mr. Rayor were directed by Command staff to take action, and at this distance and time he suggested the question was "out of our league." Mr. Kelly agreed that the commission was not a review board, but he thought that incidents should inform the commission's decisions. Ms. Newbre responded that the commission attempted to address those incidents contextually. She cited the commission's use of phrases such as "proportional response." To tighten the police response further removed much of the discretion the police needed. She said the police had heard the commission's concerns about enforcement options and would address them through training and different management strategies. Ms. Parisi referred Mr. Kelly to page 2 of General Order 801-10 and said that several commission members, including Ms. Bettman, had worked to get policy changes included that addressed his concerns. Page 2 included the statement officers needed to take into consideration, when contemplating enforcement, what the department's normal enforcement posture for a similar offense would be. Page 3 of that order stated that officers would ensure that enforcement actions would be appropriate to the situation and the conduct of the individuals involved. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the answer, saying it argued that things would have been different during the June 2000 incidents if the policy had been in place. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly said he generally agreed that the policies should apply to a broad range of situations, but he also thought general orders 901-1 and 901-2 should be revised to include a subsection that addressed public assembly demonstrations and civil disturbances. He suggested that a static peaceful resister in a political situation could be allowed to make a statement by holding onto a railing for a certain period of time before being arrested, which might diffuse the situation. Mr. Prozanski thought the commission had taken a step in that direction in the changes it made. He noted that the commission had also asked the department to develop a new policy related to the use of bicycles by patrol and crowd control staff. Mr. Denner added that the policies had been revised to ensure that Command staff considered its response in proportion to the event. Mayor Torrey asked that the changes to the policies be provided to the council in legislative format. Mr. Pap~ returned to the issue of the situational aspects of the policy. He said that he witnessed some of the events of June 2000 and saw some of the video tapes. His contacts from citizens indicated the community was in general very supportive of the police response to the protests or indicated a belief that the police were not forceful enough in dealing with the protests. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Prozanski that the policies were not set in stone, and represented a start in the right direction. He commended the citizen involvement that went into the commission's policy formulation and hoped it would continue. Mr. Rayor acknowledged that the policies represented an attempt to target the police response to protests in terms of the totality of events, and he appreciated that. He thought the policies were positive in nature and, if applied by the officers in the field, would produce a positive result. Mr. Rayor said he was concerned about effecting the arrest and had a difficult time separating that concept from the policies before the council. He thanked the commission for its efforts. Ms. Bettman said that there had been good collaboration between the commission and Police Department and progress had been made. She advocated for a different approach to peaceful political resistance, which she thought should be differentiated from criminal activity. She said the department did not want different categories of people to be affected by different policies, but Ms. Bettman thought that it would be an ongoing issue that needed more discussion. Mr. Kelly could not reconcile the Community Values Statement regarding peaceful and respectful assembly with the fact a control hold could be used to take a passive resister in custody with what he termed "no parameters at all." Referring to the memorandum from Chief Hill responding to questions he had asked earlier (page 74 of the meeting packet), Mr. Kelly found the proposed added policy language related to news media access to be "positively chilling" and requested a response from the commission and the department. Mr. Denner said that the policy language came from the description of civil disturbances in State statute. Because a civil disturbance constituted a violation and rises to criminal behavior, the order to disperse must be given as a resolution to the offense. Mr. Kelly requested a written response that cited State statute. B.Action: Innovative Development The council was joined by former Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer. He provided the council with a slide show presentation regarding two projects that demonstrated MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 5 Work Session innovative development and design excellence: Chatham Village and Hares Island, both located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Mr. Farmer described his own experience living in Chatham Village. Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the presentation. Mr. Meisner thanked Mr. Farmer for his escort through the developments in question during his visit to Pittsburgh, and also thanked him for showing the council the choices that could exist for housing, both rental and owner-occupied. He noted that Chatham Village was a totally market- driven development. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Farmer if he was aware of similarly innovative developments that had failed, and if there was a common theme to those failures. Mr. Farmer acknowledged failures, but said that they failed for different reasons; some were design failures, some were financial failures, and others failed to create a sense of neighborhood. Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Farmer perceived a way to use the skills that existed locally on a smaller scale to achieve the sort of innovation he had seen elsewhere. Mr. Farmer said that he thought the City would have something to offer a local developer if it had a couple of good sites, and staff could then work to determine which local builder or developer could make the sites work. He said that the City needed to reject what he termed the "same old, same old suburban." He praised the infill development that had occurred in Portland and particularly in Seattle, and suggested that the council and Planning Commission consider visiting Seattle to view some innovative infill developments of the type the Land Use Code Update would make possible. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Farmer that there had been considerable public funding ($24 million) dedicated toward Hares Island. The development had been located on a brownfield, which required clean-up. Mr. Farmer said the largest contributor had been the State of Pennsylvania. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Farmer how the City should proceed in addressing the issue of the Eugene Water & Electric Board pole yard and the new federal courthouse complex. Mr. Farmer felt it important for the long term that the pole yard be moved. He suggested it was merely a matter of timing in determining how the redevelopment would occur. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 6 Work Session C.Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Ms. Bettman reported that a forum on redistricting would occur on June 4. She said there were two sessions scheduled at the Eugene Water & Electric Board Training Room. The first session would be from 5:30 to 7 p.m. and the second session would be from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. She reported that staff had accepted her recommendation to employ Samoan Circles for the second session. The Citizen Involvement Committee supported the recommendation. Ms. Bettman briefly described how a Samoan Circle worked. Mr. Rayor had no items. Ms. Taylor had no items. Mr. Kelly reported he had attended a conference sponsored by the National Business Incubation Association, and would provide a written report to the council about his experience. He asked the council to begin to think of the kinds of partnerships the council could support if it chose to pursue incubation as part of its economic development strategies. Mr. Kelly described a typical incubator and some of the uses that could be located in an incubator. He said that he could not think of an obvious sponsor in the community at this time, but believed the City, Chamber of Commerce, and Metropolitan Partnership all had an interest in the topic. He had information to share with potential sponsors. Mr. Pap~ thanked Mr. Kelly for raising the topic. He suggested the University of Oregon Business School and Lane Community College might be sponsors for an incubator or could provide expertise. Mr. Pap~ expressed appreciation to the City Club and League of Women Voters for their recommendations regarding redistricting. Mr. Meisner had no items. City Manager Jim Johnson said that Supplemental Budget No. 3 would include a request for contingency funds related to the City's work with PeaceHealth. He estimated a cost in the range of $15,000 to $20,000. Mayor Torrey said that he had recently met with five representatives of randomly selected businesses to discuss what was going wrong and what was going right in the city. A downtown restaurant owner had expressed concern there was little activity on the mall in the summer. Events that could have occurred at the Hult Center and that might have generated downtown traffic were booked at the Cuthbert Amphitheater. Mayor Torrey referred to a recent traffic fatality at a Iow-income housing development. One of the issues of concern to residents of that development was the lack of a space for children to play. He had visited the site and it was totally surrounded by residential land in the County's jurisdiction. He asked Mr. Johnson if he and County Administrator Bill Van Vactor could discuss the situation. Mr. Johnson said yes, and noted that Lieutenant Pete Kerns of the Eugene Police Department had attended a community meeting at the site. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Torrey suggested that the City install signs downtown stating that parking at the Hult Center garage after 5 p.m. was free if there was no event. He said that downtown businesses might be willing to help fund those signs. D.Work Session: Discussion of Charter Review Issues Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office requested further direction from the council's interest regarding the Citizen Charter Review Committee's charge as it related to the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). Mr. Meisner identified the issue of elected EWEB commissioners serving on City board and commissions, and whether that constituted a conflict. He also said the issue of the board's relative authority had come up during the discussion of the telecommunications measure, when the EVVEB commissioners questioned if the council had the right to question the measure. There were also questions related to the requirement for placing items on a ballot. Mr. Meisner said the issue of EVVEB as it related to urban development seemed to be coming up more often, as demonstrated by the recent discussion on innovative development. He suggested the committee discuss whether it is appropriate to have two distinct public agencies in same charter. If the existing structure was to continue to exist, Mr. Meisner believed it needed more clarity. He thought the committee should also talk about efficiencies, legalities, issues of ethics, and issues of community interest. He called for a fairly broad discussion. Mr. Meisner suggested a staff search of the council minutes where EVVEB was mentioned to determine if other issues had come up that should be addressed through the charter review. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Meisner about the issue raised by the telecommunications measures. Ms. Bettman confirmed with Ms. Walston that the committee had a public comment opportunity at every meeting. She noted that there would be additional opportunity for comment at the council level. Mr. Pap~ concurred with many of Mr. Meisner's comments. He asked "what do we want EWEB to do and how do we want them to do it?" He said that the authority of the utility was an issue for him as he found the provision of water and electricity key to most citizens. He wanted the committee to discuss whether EVVEB should be inside the City organization or be a public utility with its own charter. If it was to be part of the City, Mr. Pap~ thought the two organizations' cultures needed to be brought closer together. He noted the charter requirement that EVVEB provide an annual report to the council. He did not recall receiving such a report. He said EWEB did not seem to believe it was part of the municipality. Mr. Pap~ thought the charter language needed to be clarified in general. Mr. Johnson indicated that EWEB submitted a written annual report to the City. Mr. Kelly said the functional relationship between the City and EWEB was more important to him than the structural relationship, although he did not object to the committee studying that structure. He had an initial negative reaction to adding another department to the City. Mr. Kelly wanted the committee to discuss how to better define the relationship between the City and MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 8 Work Session EWEB without being too specific. He wanted to determine what organization and functional relationship would lead to the best water, power, and urban development for City residents. Ms. Taylor had not thought the EWEB issue was of paramount importance for the committee to discuss. She thought the committee had plenty of work to do now. She suggested the topic of EWEB should come up later if it came up at all. She thought EWEB was doing a good job. Mr. Rayor agreed with Ms. Taylor. He pointed out that when EWEB proposed the telecommunications measure it received thorough scrutiny and conditions imposed by the council on it probably could not be met. He thought the utility was doing a good job providing water and electricity. Mr. Rayor thought it was best the City maintain the current relationship. He thought there was danger in moving away from the status quo. He said there must be 90 years of legislative history regarding the relationship between EWEB and the City, so he found it hard to believe that the relationship between the two bodies was unknown. Mr. Rayor thought the existence of two separate agencies created inherent checks and balances. Mr. Johnson asked if the council was interested in the topics that were mentioned. The council indicated, by straw vote, majority support for the committee to proceed with the topics identified by different councilors. Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor did not support the straw poll. Ms. Bettman indicated that the effort did not have to be a high committee priority. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Johnson said that the City and EWEB did not have the same personnel policies or wage and salary schedules. He confirmed that there was some competition for employees, but not a lot. Mr. Pap~ thought the two organizations were lacking a similar culture, and one was needed. Mr. Johnson noted that for 80 years, the two organizations were separate by charter; the charter did not envision that the two entities would be housed in a single organization. Mr. Pap~ suggested that two separate charters might be appropriate. The meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2001 Page 9 Work Session