The Eugene city attorney’s office is revising a proposed clarification of city law regarding certain alcohol violations after an outcry from student leaders and some city officials.
The revised proposal would add new wording to city code detailing two specific alcohol offenses and the penalties for each. In addition, it would increase the maximum fine for repeat offenders from $2,500 to $5,000 and the maximum jail sentence from 100 days to one year.
The revision would bring city code up to date with state standards so more cases could be tried in Eugene Municipal Court, instead of more stringent state circuit courts, Eugene Police Department Lt. Rich Stronach said. The new proposal is scheduled for a vote by City Council on June 10.
The original proposal included a section forcing local courts to fine first-time violators of two alcohol offenses — Furnishing Liquor to Prohibited Persons and Allowing Unlawful Consumption — a minimum of $350. The proposal would have made the University’s BUSTED program, an educational alternative to paying a fine, useless and unused because of the mandatory sentencing.
The original proposal also called for an increase in the maximum fine for repeat offenders.
The Eugene City Council was scheduled to vote May 13 on the original proposal. ASUO President Rachel Pilliod and a handful of students came to the meeting ready to fight the proposal. But at the last minute, the item was removed from the agenda after some city officials, including Council President David Kelly, voiced concern that the mandatory sentencing clause would take power away from the courts.
“It was a miscommunication between the various departments involved,” Eugene Police Department spokeswoman Pam Alejandre said.
Student advocates said the original proposal was unacceptable because it didn’t allow courts to impose penalties on a case-by-case basis. According to Eugene Municipal Court, more than 83 percent of alcohol-related cases result in enrollment in a diversion program that provides an alternative to stiff fines.
“Basically, we felt this took away the judge’s discretion,” said Jesse Harding, incoming ASUO Community Outreach coordinator. “I know people who went to diversion programs, and this has helped them a lot.”
State law requires mandatory sentencing for individuals who furnish alcohol to a minor or who “exercise control” over a location, such as a party, where a minor is drinking alcohol. But current city codes are more lenient.
Stronach said revisions to the city code are necessary because current offenders are often tried by the state instead of municipal courts. The new proposal clarifies city law regulating alcohol-related offenses in the hopes that more cases find their way into the local system, which also ensures the money paid out in fines goes to the city and not the state.
Stronach said he was not thinking about city revenues when his department drafted this proposal.
“Quite frankly, if City Council does not pass this, it will mean more money out of pocket for the offenders,” Stronach said.
Harding, who is also president of Pi Kappa Alpha, said he hopes the final version of the proposal keeps out the mandatory sentencing provision.
If his fraternity held a party and he was slapped with a $350 fine because minors were consuming alcohol in his house, Harding said he wouldn’t be able to afford the cash payment and would prefer a diversion program.
“I’d have to call my parents and say, ‘There was a party at my house the night before. Can you pay this fine?’” he said.