Subject: RE: [Fwd: E.C. Ordinance on assembly & Speech 9.60] Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:45:52 -0600 Message-ID: <FEBBF51AFF7B8B4B8A2F32F6E63092AE021B97FF@COKE.uwec.edu> From: "Drumm, Daniel L." <DRUMM@uwec.edu>
I want to clarify a few things after talking to the assistant city
attorney again today. (We had a 45 minute conversation)
Sorry, the public comment period is this coming Monday. (not Tuesday)
I am now longer concerned about the noise part of the special events
ordinance as it is just a repeat of the existing, and vague, noise
regulations.
I am concerned about the definition of special event because, as
written, it could pertain to a baseball game or an AA meeting held at a
public park, and would require the event to get a permit. I think it
needs to be more specific.
Again, I am not concerned about the Women in Black or other groups,
since the "marches and public assemblies" ordinance defines "march" as
something needing traffic control by police, like street closures, etc.
The attorney admitted that we have never had any such event in Eau
Claire. (Maybe we should have one?)
FYI, the city attorney's office did some major PR (coming to campus,
etc.) to educate people about the new ordinances, but it seems to have
blown up in their face. I get the impression that they wish they had
just kept quiet about it.
-- Dan
_____________________________________________
From: Drumm, Daniel L.
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:15 PM
To: Phillips, James A.;
Subject: RE: [Fwd: E.C. Ordinance on assembly & Speech 9.60]
When I was told about this I immediately called the assistant city
attorney who drafted these ordinances.
She explained, rightly or wrongly, that there is nothing new in there.
This was all done by city council resolution before, and is simply being
put into the city ordinances.
While I did see what I believe are some minor changes, this looks pretty
boiler plate to me. Women in Black will not be affected as they do not
require street closings, or police assistance to reroute traffic. Most
of this stuff is for recouping costs associated with police having to
deal with traffic.
One thing I hope someone mentions if they go to the city council tonight
is the part in the special events section (9.59) where it holds special
events to a higher standard of noise pollution than the rest of the
public and includes very vague language "...shall not permit the sound
of the event to be heard reasonably beyond the boundaries of the public
property used for the special event at unreasonable levels." This could
surely be used to shut down Blues Fest, or any event authorities didn't
like.
-- Dan