Re: City Council Update

["John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>]

Burkas, of course!!!
John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn Clabough" <shawnc@outtrack.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Cc: <pegh@uidaho.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: City Council Update


> So if the city pool allows a female in with a triangle-top bikini (most
> allow for the breast to be shown below the top of the areola), or allows a
> bikini to get wet where it is no longer opaque, is the city then liable if
> another patron sees it?  I also can't wait for the first suit of someone
> seeing a "cleft of the buttocks" in the low-waist pants that many students
> wear.  What's next?
>
> Shawn Clabough
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pam Palmer
> To: Saundra Lund; vision2020@moscow.com
> Cc: jmhill@moscow.com; jmack@turbonet.com; johnguy@moscow.com;
> comstock@moscow.com; mthomason@avistacorp.com; pegh@uidaho.edu;
> steveb@moscow.com
> Sent: 7/2/02 9:03 AM
> Subject: Re: City Council Update
>
> In response to Saundra Lund's post last night, here's a brief summary of
> the
> Council meeting.
>
> The Council passed a Public Nudity ordinance on first reading, which
> means
> they will consider it again at their next Council meeting.  Three
> Council
> members, Steve Busch, JoAnn Mack, and Jack Hill, wanted more time to
> work on
> some of the language in the ordinance, which a first reading provides
> them.
> Two Council members, Mike Thomason and John Guyer, wanted to pass the
> ordinance as it was presented last night and pass it under suspension of
> the
> rules requiring three separate readings.  They voted against the
> ordinance
> on first reading (presumably to protest that it wasn't being passed last
> night.)  Mayor Comstock, although he couldn't vote last night, expressed
> his
> interest to see the ordinance passed last night as well.  (The Mayor
> only
> votes in the event of a tie.)
>
> The applicable section of the ordinance they passed under first reading
> reads:
>
> SECTION 1:  That Moscow City Code Title 10, Chapter 1, Section 16(A)
> (B),
> and (C) be, and the same is hereby amended as follows:
>
> A.  No person shall willfully expose to view or fail to cover completely
> and
> opaquely any portion of such person's anus, cleft of the buttocks,
> genitals,
> any portion of the pubescent female breast below the point immediately
> above
> the top of the areola on or in any public place or place open to public
> view.
>
> B.  It shall be a defense to exposure of failure to cover the pubescent
> female breast below the point immediately above the top of the areola
> that
> the person was in the act of breastfeeding at the time of such exposure
> or
> failure to cover.
>
> C.  This Section shall not apply to a person who is prepubescent.
>
> For the full ordinance, contact Moscow City Clerk, Chris Bainbridge
> <cbainbridge@ci.moscow.id.us>.  Or check out the city web site....
>
> The City Council chambers were full last night, with people speaking for
> and
> against the ordinance as presented.  KLEW TV was videotaping the
> proceedings
> and there were several newspaper reporters in the audience (including
> the
> Argonaut), so check out local papers for their versions of the meeting.
>
> Most of the work for this ordinance was probably done in 1998, when the
> Council was considering it at that time, so I'm not surprised that it
> was
> fairly easy to pull it together in such a short time.
>
> I appreciate Saundra's comments regarding breastfeeding.  Our society
> still
> has a long way to go to create a nurturing and positive atmosphere that
> encourages mothers to breastfeed their children for the first several
> years
> of their life.  In over eight years as a childbirth educator, I heard
> many
> stories about women who were shunned by family or friends because of
> their
> decision to breastfeed, or because they continued to breastfeed beyond
> the
> time that other people thought was acceptable.
>
> Let's get to work.
> Pam Palmer
>
> P.S. - It's a good idea that Saundra sent a copy of her post to the City
> Council.  I found out yesterday that the MV2020 comments aren't
> considered
> by the City Council unless the email is addressed to the City Council as
> well.  I ended up forwarding every MV2020 post on the topless issue to
> the
> City Clerk yesterday (before the Administrative committee meeting) and
> asked
> her to make sure that they were presented to the Council for their
> consideration.  She forwarded them to Gary Riedner, the City Supervisor,
> who
> was going to make the decision on what to do with all the comments.
>
> In the future, if you want your comment to count for something, send a
> copy
> to all the City Council and the Mayor.  Since it's the Council members
> that
> make the decisions, I did not include the emails for the City attorney
> and
> the City Supervisor in this message.  Their plates are usually pretty
> full,
> and it's the Mayor who will direct work assignments to the City
> Supervisor,
> who in turn directs work to the City Attorney.
>