The Parade Ordinance passed, with a number of changes. The following requirements were eliminated for sidewalk and small street functions (less than 750 attendees):
- $70(+) event fee
- Insurance requirement
- Monitor names and contact info
- Monitors will not be required for sidewalk demo's;
- For small street events, monitors can be identified simply by appearance the day of the demo - no further contact information need be provided
- Civil penalty provision was deleted
Another welcome change: route planning will be handled by the traffic oversight agency, not the police.
The presence of vehicles and animals are noted as things that may change the nature of an event, thus the type of permit needed. Below is some clarification, based on the Council meeting:
- Vehicles, for the purpose of this ordinance, will mean automotive vehicles, as opposed to things like bicycles. (per Sam Adams, mayoral aide)
- Though common sense would indicate that the presence of animals in a procession, for the purposes of a parade ordinance, would mean "performance-type animals," the term seemed less than well-defined. However, dogs were given the green light, especially if they are aided-living companions. (based on general assent and statement of Sam Adams, mayoral aide)
Other points worth noting:
- If 75% of the expected number attending an event are not present within 15 minutes of the start time, the event may be re-categorized and some resources re-allocated. It is generally understood that the aforementioned "15 minutes" means 15 minutes after the start time, not before. But, as is, the wording does not state that specifically.
- If a permit is revoked, an "attempt" must be made by the police department to contact the event organizer.
Protocol for Events without Permits:
- Police will use their discretion in enforcing street and sidewalk regulations
- Commander of the Central Precinct, Rosy Sizer(sp?) mentioned the precinct considers the size and composition of an event when deciding what resources to use and what procedure to follow. There were no more specifics regarding police procedure other than that the police use their "discretion" to decide how to proceed.
Dan Handelman, of Portland CopWatch, expressed concern about the following:
- Police "discretion" policy is too vague
- Permit revocation process needs to be clearer and more concrete
- Language should be included specifically protecting events involving political dissent
The Licensing Bureau reaffirmed its stance that the ordinance should remain "content neutral," not contain language specifically protecting one type of event more than another. This ignores the fact that events involving political dissent are more likely to need protection from 1st amendment violations, obliquely illustrated by Commander Sizer's(sp?) attempt to describe what is involved in police "discretion," ie: type of event, "composition" of event attendees.
Dan Saltzman moved to accept only written testimony in further deliberations on the PJTTF issue, as "we've already heard six hours of discussion about this matter." The motion passed. (Apparently the Bill of Rights and government intrusion into private lives is not a hot issue for the Council at large.)
Copyleft October 2001