[Vision2020] Noise Ordinance Admin Meeting

[Garrett Clevenger]

Dan et al,

I believe I should set the "context" of what has
happened.

None of this is meant to be taken personally.  They
are just my observations and understanding of the
history of the NOM

The "confrontation" against our First Amendment began
when the NOM was brought to the city council 2 months
or so ago.  Though Aaron and Tom voted to bring it to
the council, Aaron, Tom and Linda were receptive to my
concerns, and I have thanked them for that.

The "confrontation" escalated when the city council
unanimously voted to approve it at the first city
council meeting without taking any public input after
I was told by city council folk that I would be able
to address the whole council at that meeting.

The "confrontation" was not lessened when repeated
emails to some city council members, with a plea to
reply with answers, went unanswered.

The "confrontation" came to a head when the city
council voted again to pass the NOM.

That led us to the last "confrontation" and I take
full responsibility, when in the "heat of the battle"
my tone was "confrontational."  When put in a
flight/fight situation, I chose to fight.  When I
realized that was a bad tone, I apologized and believe
I was civil (though, honestly, I do not believe I
really was all that "confrontational" to begin with,
especially considering the response)

While honey attracts bees, at some point, with all
those bees buzzing about, someone will react to fear
of getting stung. I believe with 2 "stings" against
our civil rights so far, one more vote "sting" and
this is all over.

I have a hard time, though it's my fault, thinking
that my last testimony was the "start" of my testimony
considering all my words before hand.  In fact, my
last testimony was a final "battle cry" against people
who from what I could only assume would vote a third
time to pass the NOM.

We are talking about our First Amendment rights here,
something all of us should respect, and it is ironic
that my desire to not repress our freedom of
expression has now played into this current
"controversy."

I have always said I have no problem punishing people
who are obviously disturbing the peace.  We should all
be held responsible for our "expressions."  Now we
have me "expressing myself" at a meeting and that
taken as a personal attack which causes another person
to "express himself" in a way I interpret as an
attack. Obviously, we both broke our ideal.  I
apologized and want to move away from this but...

I did not find Aaron's comments funny, Dan.  I felt it
hurtful and humiliating.  I believe the difference
between Aaron's comments towards me and to Bill do not
deserve a comparison because of the "context" of our
different situations and the fact that they are both
elected officials, while I am just some guy who
happened to defend my rights against a draconian law. 
Plus, Aaron's tone, in my opinion, was out of anger,
not humor.

I do understand that there were other people who
wanted to speak.  Of course I did not want to
monopolize the mic.  But I have not received adequate
answers to most of my questions and I knew that was
going to be the last time I had a chance to look all
these people in the eye and ask them to answer my
concerns.

I have been adamantly opposed to this NOM because I
feel it is unconstitutional.  This should be taken
seriously and should not be a time to make belittling
comments to constituents.  That is not professional,
and I hope, Dan, that you won't be condoning that
behavior while you are on the council.

I believe I have tried to remain as unconfrontational
as possible, but I cannot interpret what people
reading my words or hear me speak think, so may I ask
you to clarify what I said or did that deserved the
response in question?  I want to know for my own
development.

Believe me, I am very saddened that events have turned
in to personal attacks.  That was not my intent and
ask for feedback as to how I may have presented myself
differently considering the "context" of all the
"confrontations."

The fact is, as a city council member, you will have
to deal with people like me who are just trying to be
heard in a system that seems unaccountable.  If we can
all learn to have a civil dialog, perhaps we will be
able to solve our problems without so much heartache.

That will only happen, though, when our city
representatives thoughtfully answer the concerns of
their constituents.

I am still curious about your views on the NOM, Dan. 
You did not respond to my question in the last email
(let's not start a bad habit :)

Thank you,

Garrett


--- Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com> wrote:

> Garrett, you say:
> ". . . do you think it is appropriate for [Ament] to
> use his platform as
> chair of the Admin committee to be telling people
> testifying,
> 
> 'I'm going to squash your rights'."
> 
> I believe Ament was making an attempt at humor,
> which I saw and
> chuckled, but maybe you took more seriously than it
> was meant.  If you
> will also recall, Lambert was having issue with his
> cell phone, and
> Ament said, in jest, "you are being annoying", or
> something to that
> effect, since that was the topic at hand.
> 
> Public officials have to give as many people as they
> can a chance to
> speak, and this was not a "public hearing", per se,
> so he may not have
> had to allow any public testimony whatsoever.  But,
> I believe Ament was
> thinking "There are a lot of people here today, so
> we don't want to let
> one person monopolize the discussion."  I hope you
> can agree with that.
> 
> DC
> 
> 
>