[Vision2020] Noise Ordinance Admin Meeting

[Garrett Clevenger]

Dan,

Thanks for your reply.

You are correct.  That's why I stated in my first
paragraph, "saying things that may have been phrased
better."  

I have also thanked Aaron multiple times.

I'll say it again, "Thank you for not letting this NOM
become law as is."

In your defense of Aaron, do you think it is
appropriate for him to use his platform as chair of
the Admin committee to be telling people testifying,

"I'm going to squash your rights"

At this point, my documentation of this process has
definitely made me agree with you,

"As the saying goes, you attract more bees with honey
. . ."

I believe that works for everybody, but being an
elected official, it would be wise of you to heed that
even more if you plan to get reelected.

Perhaps Aaron should have heeded that advise while he
was a city councilman from the beginning.

Since it appears that you don't support the NOM,
either, what do you not like about it?

Believe me, this has been a learning process for me.

Garrett,

I would hope that you also give Ament some credit, in
that he asked Fife
to look at the info you sent in along with the
information he got from
Liz Brandt.

As the saying goes, you attract more bees with honey .
. .

Starting off your testimony in a confrontational way
obviously didn't
bode well for you.

I hope we get a Noise Ordinance that works for
everyone.

DC

P.S.  Yes, you read it here first, Vizzz peeps:  I
defended Aaron Ament.

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of
Garrett Clevenger
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:02 AM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Noise Ordinance Admin Meeting


I attended the 11/13/07 Admin meeting regarding the
Noise Ordinance Modification.  While the other
meetings were frustrating, this one was like having
salt poured on an open wound while given a lolipop.  

After working on all this for the past 2 months or so,
my frustration tolerance has decreased.  I think with
that and the nervousness of having every word you say
recorded can lead to saying things that may have been
phrased better.  I introduced myself and said I found
it ironic that the agenda item before was scheduled to
be hearing about a Second Amendment issue [involving
the city being able to regulate "ownership, possession
or transportation" of firearms.  Obviously, that would
be unconstitutional.]  I then said now here we are
talking about our First Amendment rights and me seeing
the council trample on our rights.

Aaron got upset and said he wasn't going to listen to
me talk to him like that.  He said he saw me look in
his eyes and say it.  I apologized and thanked him for
bringing it back to the admin meeting.  I knew at that
point there was too much tension to have a rational
discussion about this, but I continued and presented
my testimony.  I had the feeling that at least he was
not listening to what I was saying.  When I finished,
Aaron thanked me and indicated it was time for me to
leave.  I asked if I could ask any questions.  I asked
what part of my testimony did they not agree with. 
Aaron thought that was inappropriate since I just gave
it.  I said I've been saying basically the same thing
for weeks and have not gotten much feedback and that I
don't want this to just go back to the council and be
voted on again and made into law.  I said I was sorry
for being frustrated, but that I was frustrated.

Near the end, Aaron said to me, "I'm going to squash
your rights" and asked me to leave.

Now, I understand disagreements.  I understand getting
frustrated when
you feel you are being attacked.  But to have the
disrespect of an
elected official on top of all the grief over fighting
the NOM adds
insult to injury.  Especially when it is being
videotaped and many
people are in the room.  Especially even more when
that person is the
one who voted to send the NOM to the council in the
first place.

Instead of talking about the importance of insuring we
have responsible laws and working on ways to solve the
problem, my testimony was spent dealing with personal
emotional issues of feeling offended, something that
if it was bothering Aaron should have been dealt with
on a one-on-one basis.

My feeling is that using power to intimidate others is
addictive, and
thus we should be be wary of letting any one person be
able to dominate
any sphere because we fear retaliation.  Especially
when the person in
power primarily seems to be defending his ego.

If people you voted for are treating you like this,
what are people you don't vote for doing to you?

The fact of the matter is, the NOM would not have made
it to the city council without Aaron voting to approve
it.  It's great that he now does not support it and I
thank him for this accountability.

We are talking about our First Amendment rights,
something I care deeply about.  From what I can tell,
if I had not brought up my concerns from the
beginning, the NOM would now be law.  I'm not about to
allow our city government hijack the Constitution to
suit there needs.  With the apparent lack of
accountability and aggressive behaviors displayed
towards me, this process has been stripping my will to
fight back.  Yet with all the blood spilled over
insuring our rights, it has seemed important enough to
suffer this disrespect.  They can give it to me, but I
will not let them do it without accountability.

It's obvious we have a dysfunctional City Council. 
I've heard their bickering amongst each other and
there seems to be a lot of animosity towards one
another.  They vote to pass laws that are obviously
unconstitutional and
many of them don't engage in the feedback process
necessary to write
responsible laws. 
Plus, some want to squash the whole democratic process
by voting to suspend the rules on passing laws.  This
system seems highly unaccountable and should be
subject to citizen scrutiny.

Fortunately, there is a sweet side to all this.  Liz
Brandt, a UI Law Professor who I should have spoken
with earlier, thankfully testified that this law is
probably unconstitutional.  She indicated ways to make
it more legal.  The city seemed receptive and now
Randy Fife is rewording the NOM.  So whatever the
outcome of this, I feel a sense of vindication that
all this heartache perhaps is not for naught.

Garrett Clevenger

Written Record for Moscow's Noise Ordinance
Modification: 

http://garrettclevenger.com/NOMhistory.html

This is a "living history" and am trying to get as
much input into it as possible.  If you would like to
add your thoughts, then please respond.