Re: Apology and Where do we go from here?

["Linda Pall" <lpall@moscow.com>]

Dear John, Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council and Visionaries,

Where do we go from here?

Two directions:

(1) Reconsider this ill-considered ordinance and take a serious look at the
Washington State Code that seems quite sufficient for Pullman and Washington
citizen protection. Try again. The first cut did not make it and merely
invites ridicule and a stack of attorney fees defending a doubtful
ordinance. It's the behavior not the clothing (of course, I think you have
plenty of 'cover' with the state statute and enforcement of local
nuisance/disorderly conduct ordinances).

(2) Have the entire council consider adoption of a positive resolution to
address human rights, just as the City of McCall did, 5-0, when confronted
with the Phelps family hate mongering. I received this information today
from Michael Shaw of the Association of Idaho Cities. I know Marilyn Arp and
she has a long, distinguished record of supporting human rights in Idaho.

This would be a wonderful step for the Council to take to affirm what is
much more important for the City than the flap caused by recent decision
about the need for a municipal indecency ordinance.

All the best,
Linda Pall

FROM MICHAEL SHAW:

* When the Phelps family from Kansas brought their hateful and
non-inclusive message to McCall, City Councilmember Marilyn Arp approached
the City Council with a resolution recognizing the City's role in promoting
a civic environment and affirming the need for respect and human dignity
toward all McCall citizens. The resolution, passed by a unanimous 5-0 vote,
is reprinted here in its entirety.

(This resolution was provided to me by Michael Shaw of the Association of
Idaho Cities.)


&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&


McCall City RESOLUTION NO. 02-18

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF McCALL, IDAHO, RECOGNIZING
ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP IN CREATING AND MAINTAINING A CIVIC ENVIRONMENT
IN OUR COMMUNITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Whereas, the City Council of the City of McCall recognizes its
responsibility to help create and maintain a civic environment in our
community in which all citizens are aware of and respect the rights and
human dignity of all citizens;

Whereas, the City Council is committed to help ensure that the City of
McCall is a place where every citizen can participate in our community
without fear of harassment, prejudice, or denial of their basic human and
civil rights;

Whereas, the City Council recognizes that the strength of our nation and our
community depends on the contributions of all citizens regardless of race,
religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital
status, disability, or economic status;

Whereas, the McCall City Council believes that attitudes and acts of
condescension, hostility, stereotyping and other forms of bigotry and
intolerance weaken the health of the community;

Whereas, the City Council is committed to help make the City of McCall a
community where harassment, intimidation, discrimination and violence are
not acceptable;

Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of McCall, Idaho hereby
resolves as follows:
1. To communicate a strong, clear message that any form of prejudice and
hatred will not be tolerated in our community.
2. To publicly support and encourage community, and civic organizations to
develop programs and policies which enhance social justice and human
dignity.
3. To promote awareness and discussion of human dignity issues by
encouraging the community and its leaders to explore plans that promote
human rights.
4. To facilitate employee educational programs designed to prevent
discrimination and to ensure that city policies promote and uphold human
dignity among employees and in its relations to the general public.
5. This Resolution will be in full force and effect immediately upon
its passage and approval by the City Council.


_______________________
Ralph Colton, Mayor

Attest:

_______________________
Cathleen A. Koch, City Clerk





----- Original Message -----
From: "John Guyer" <johnguy@moscow.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:53 PM
Subject: Apology and Where do we go from here?


> Greetings,
>
> The first order of business is an apology to Mark Rounds who has asked a
> very good question regarding the Public Nudity amendment, and is
> deserving of a (hopefully) very good answer.  Many people are tired of
> this discussion, so please feel free to delete here.  If you care about
> this issue, please read the entire post before you respond.
>
> Mark asked what the purpose of the ordinance was.  I need to begin by
> stating that I can only answer for myself as a single council member in
> responding to this question.  My objective was to address the problem of
> random topless encounters.  The carwash may have gained media attention,
> but it was the random encounters that greatly agitated the community.
> This was not about traffic.  It was not about an SOB.  It was about
> people (lots of people) not feeling like they could safely conduct their
> lives without a great deal of alarm.
>
> My responsibility as a representative is to provide a climate where
> people feel safe (however one may define it), and people can conduct
> their lives in peace (whatever that may entail).  It is a difficult
> balance to maintain the rights of the individual as they are exercised
> within the rights of the community.  We must maintain that balance while
> avoiding the extremes of single mindedly thinking of one or the other.
>
> This delicate balance was upset by a small group of people.  It is
> unfortunate, that so much time, money and rhetoric can be wasted by a
> small group of people.  However, as a community representative, I felt
> it was our responsibility to restore this balance.  I supported the
> ordinance because it does that.  I would vote the same today as I did
> then.
>
> It is not appropriate for me, as a community representative, to discuss
> the merits or shortcomings of public decisions on a list serve, or at a
> rally.  It must stand on its own in that regard.
>
> The question we should be asking (and some thankfully are) is, "Now
> what?"
>
> We have addressed the issue that disturbed the balance with an ordinance
> that appears to pass muster on several counts 1) Constitutionality, 2)
> Effectiveness, 3) Unwarranted side effects, 4) Enforcement.  I grant
> quite readily that some on this list, and in the community, find the
> ordinance wanting, or offensive, or both on all, or some of the counts
> stated previously.  Again I will not debate those here.  I can only
> offer the following:
>
> 1) For those that feel women should be able to display their breasts in
> public because men do - I can only say that we disagree on this point.
> I do desire that common sense, and community charity ruled the day, and
> this, or any type of law addressing this, would be unnecessary.
> However, I do not think we can continue to have a community if this is
> permitted.  We will have people living together in ire.  That is not
> community.
>
> 2) For those that feel this ordinance is lacking for a different reason
> - I can say, as I have stated already, this is not cast in stone. I am
> willing to invest whatever time I can, to arrive at an ordinance that
> is, to the best of our ability to determine 1) Constitutional, 2)
> Effective, 3) Does not have unwarranted side effects, 4) Is Enforceable,
> and 5) Is offensive to as few people as possible.
>
> Regards,
>
> John B. Guyer
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> johnguy@moscow.com
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
>
>