vision2020
RE: Moscow 2002-13: A Parent's Concerns / Questions
the ordinance does not apply to a person who is prepubescent.
Chris Bainbridge
City Clerk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saundra Lund [SMTP:sslund@moscow.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:34 AM
> To: vision2020@moscow.com; steveb@moscow.com; jmack@turbonet.com;
> peg_hamlett@msn.com
> Cc: jmhill@moscow.com; johnguy@moscow.com; mtethoma@moscow.com;
> comstock@moscow.com
> Subject: Moscow 2002-13: A Parent's Concerns / Questions
>
> Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, and Visionaries,
>
> As all should know by now, I am vehemently opposed to Moscow Ordinance
> No. 2002-13 for too many reasons to list again here.
>
> However, in discussing this misguided ordinance with other parents, it
> has occurred to me that we know *nothing* about how this specific
> ordinance will be handled with respect to our minor female children, one
> of this community's most precious resources. This should be a concern
> not just of parents, but of every member of our community.
>
> Can someone please tell me exactly how perceived ordinance violations by
> minor female children will be handled by law enforcement (Moscow Police
> Department), step-by-step? Tell me all . . . leave out no detail
> because many parents have grave concerns about the process. Perhaps
> education by those in the know will put some fears to rest, but I'll be
> honest in saying that I've got my doubts.
>
> If I'm directing this question, and some of the specific concerns listed
> below, to the wrong people, please direct me to the appropriate
> person(s) to ask.
>
> Surely the City Council considered how the ordinance would be handled
> with respect to our female children before passing it. Or, did they
> just pass that delicate buck on to Chief Weaver and his officers to
> puzzle through? The ordinance has been "on the books" for a month now,
> and a significant percentage of the violations I've seen have been by
> female minor children, so this isn't a trivial concern.
>
> Surely risk management would dictate thorough consideration and strict
> guidelines and specific training be in place before implementation of an
> ordinance that probes into extremely private matters with our female
> children when the risk of damage to our daughters from inappropriate
> handling is so significant.
>
> To give you an idea of the types of questions parents, and their
> children, are asking, I'll list some specific questions and concerns.
>
> What are the steps an officer will take when (s)he subjectively decides
> that a minor female is in violation? Will that child be approached, or
> is there an official or unofficial "hands-and-eyes off" policy? If
> that's the case, then why wasn't the law written to *exclude* our minor
> daughters?
>
> Since "education" is part of the stated law enforcement strategy with
> respect to this ordinance, what language will be used to "warn" our
> prepubescent, pubescent, and postpubescent daughters? Are there
> illustrations or educational drawings that will be used to "educate" our
> daughters? If so, where and when can the public review those materials?
>
> (Incidentally, virtually all the parents I've spoken with think such an
> educational visual aide would be helpful **for their own use*** since
> the actual language of the ordinance is thought to be unintelligible to
> most minor children and many adults.)
>
> A group of ten-to-thirteen-year-old-girls asked me to pass along the
> following: "Why is it OK for cops to stare at our chests when it's not
> OK for *anyone* to stare at our chests?"
>
> Assuming there isn't a "hands-and-eyes off" policy with respect to our
> daughters, when an officer perceives a violation, will our daughters be
> detained, either to "educate" them or cite them? Will any questioning
> or discussion be held until parents are present?
>
> Exactly *how* will an officer determine that a violation has, in fact,
> occurred? Will the police be requiring our daughters to take off their
> shirts, leotards, or bathing suit tops??? If so, who will be present?
>
> Since whether or not the ordinance applies to a female depends on
> whether she's started menstruating or not, will the police be asking our
> daughters this question? Will her word be enough, or will you require
> confirmation from her parents, or will a doctor's statement be required?
>
> What specific training has our law enforcement received to be able to
> appropriately ask our daughters such intensely personal and private
> questions???
>
> These are but a few of the questions and concerns parents and their
> daughters are expressing after having some time (something the City
> Council seemed to feel they were short of in the rapid adoption of this
> ordinance) to think about how this will affect their lives.
>
> One father made the following comment to me: "You know, I didn't really
> pay too much attention to this whole thing when it came up. But, now
> that I see how far into my daughter's private life this lets the law,
> I'm totally against it and mad as h*ll that the City Council didn't
> think this thing through."
>
> A mother made the following comment: "What gives this city the right to
> second-guess me about a piece of clothing *I* determined was appropriate
> and bought for my daughters at The Bon or the Emporium or any other
> merchant here in town? I'm not thrilled about the notion of a topless
> carwash, but I think that's a whole lot less objectionable than having
> the police looking at my daughter's chest and asking her, or me, for
> that matter, questions about her periods, for God's sake! I think we've
> got good cops, but I sure don't want them asking my daughters *these*
> kinds of things!"
>
> I look forward to hearing back from anyone who can shed any light on how
> this ordinance will be applied with respect to our young daughters.
>
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to
> do nothing.
> Edmund Burke
>
Back to TOC