Re: City Council Update

[Pam Palmer <ppalmer@moscow.com>]

John-

Thank you for your clarification.  I'm interested to know which communities
have "successfully endured high court challenges" with the same language
that is currently in Moscow's draft public nudity ordinance.  In particular,
which cases have been tried and in which courts?  I'm not an attorney, but I
must say that I'm baffled how the language in the draft ordinance as it
reads now could be upheld by any court, high or not.

Also, since this ordinance does not address the issue of whether a topless
carwash or other new sexually oriented businesses could open for business in
Moscow, does this ordinance really do what it was meant to do?

Lastly, in respect for all the children yet to come into the world, is it
possible that the Council could write a more positive statement about
breastfeeding? If you look at the following language, it sounds like
something that is associated with a woman who has already been arrested and
is preparing her defense.  Perhaps the La Leche League or a similar
organization could suggest language that has been used in other states to
promote and encourage breastfeeding, rather than simply making it a line of
defense.  

> 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.

Is the Administrative Committee considering new language at Monday's
meeting?  If so, could you post the language to MV2020 prior to the meeting?

I understand the difficulty in weighing the desires of our community and I
wish you the best in your decision-making.

Pam Palmer


On 7/2/02 12:08 PM, "John Guyer" <johnguy@moscow.com> wrote:

> Pam,
> 
> Thank you for keeping the list members informed.  I believe you
> presented a nice summary.  I would like to clarify two points, if I may.
> 
> 1) I did vote against the MOTION, not the ordinance (as you surmised).
> This was not a protest vote, merely proper procedure.  If the motion
> failed that does not mean the ordinance would fail, rather, another
> motion could then be made.  As you surmised, I would have preferred the
> motion pass the ordinance on the first reading under suspension of the
> rules (which would have finalized the issue).  Each council member voted
> their conscience and that is the great thing about representative
> government.  We all carefully weigh our concerns when we cast our votes.
> 
> 2) The ordinance came together quickly because it was modeled after
> other community ordinances that have successfully endured high court
> challenges.  That does not mean it perfectly addresses every issue, but
> that it represents a consensus from across the United States of wording
> has been found to work for many communities.  It provides clear, albeit
> modest guidelines for dress.
> 
> I admire, and respect the other council members decisions because I
> witnessed the struggle as they weighed the issues.  Each member has a
> desire to provide the best for our community and applies their judgement
> to what that might be.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> John B. Guyer
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 208.882.6584
> johnguy@moscow.com
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .