HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-03-22 CorrespondenceLEONA L. DURHAM
Attorney at Law
803 East College, Suite 3
Iowa City, Iowa, 52240 319/3369363
The Iowa City City Council
Civic Center,:
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear City Council Members:
The purpose of this letter is two -fold: to place myself on,
record in support of the proposed human rights ordinance as
written and to make some observations about the Council'
meeting of March 15."
As on& member'of the 'Council pointed out, those in attendance
1 at that meeting were :very '',orderly and respectful`of the
Council, and this despite .the fact that the issue is an emo-
tionally'charged one' - form any people. The; speakers, without
:"exception, conducted,,themselves as ,they were requested by the
Mayor at the beginning of ':the meeting. Even the most out-
; rageous, uninformed and offensive remarks of certain members
� of the Councii were treated seriously and without resort to
persona lity'attack.
It cannot be said, however, that the citizens present at the
meeting were.accorded thesame respect by every member of the
a' I cl..reerspounecifically to Council Member'Vevera's
sharp and caustic,iepsonse`,to the woman, who objected to'the
> presence of the television camera. I remind the Council that.
he,objection_was invited by the Mayor when she', informed the
audience of the proposed filming. 'Thus, `the gratuitous insult `
'Which burst from Mr.',Vevera when an objection was made was
paiticularly,unnecessary. That he prefaced his=remark by
sneeringly referring to the speaker as "young lady" suggests
z that his attitudes may be not only anti -gay, but anti -female,
a as well.
y
lNonetheless,,Mr. Vevera is to,becommended for.. one thing at
least: he wasiabsolutely correct in his observation that not
,', all those
present ,,were gay,,'that'there-were many!"straight"
people in attendance,; too. The very correctness of''that ob—
servation, however, argues most persuasively for the need for
y an ordinancelsuch as that presently before the Council.
!Mr.'Vevera,apparently assumed that ,the person objecting to
> the camera was'a gay person., I do not know whether she is or is
'not and I assume he doesn't know either.
— - —
,
c
II
,.,
The fact is, homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not an
act; itis, rather, a'thought, pattern of thought, or set of
beliefs. 'Had a speaker appeared before the Council and
contended that he'or she was a heterosexual, on the one hand,
and sexually inactive on the other, no one would have
' doubted the possibility that such a dual contention might
be'true.
,,.'. It is important that homosexuality be similarly understood.
A person might well be chaste or sexually inactive, and a
homosexual notwithstanding that fact. l
Thus,,`it is plain that to 'permit discrimination against homo-
r', Isexuals is to permit discrimination based on thought `or. appear-
ance '(Mr. Truman's "sissy" behavior or the behavior of women
who have refused to adopt the majority--read male---view of
how "ladies! properly dress and conduct themselves).
To observe that many of those in attendance Tuesday night might,
indeed, have been straight suggests the other ''level on: which
discrimination may „ absent this ordinance, be practiced. Many
of,those straight people in ,attendance, and the woman who ob-
I ject'd to the, camera may well have,been one such, could, be-
causediscrimination against homosexuals is not based on sexual'
f activity, suffer reprisals because of their very presence at
` the meetin Thus straight people
p could have had as much
the Mr.fVeveraoassumedrthenwoman who, spoke as be
people. That
to ` and'sfelt therefore'- freetoaddress h to be such
an insulting I
" s her in'such an insulting
,manner," serves,to"'vividly'illustrate this point. Her very
r presence at,the meeting and,her willingness to speak out places
M„ her in; jeopardy of: suffering the discrimination the ordinance
would,'serve`,to prohibit.,
r In considering the proposed ordinance, '!,the Council does not,
'in fact, face the issue of "affectionak preference but is,
rather;: dealing with the issues of "associationaT preference,"
`and: the right to think what'one pleases and to decline to
adopt the 'standards of dress ,'and "behavior established by a
male-dominated,",macho-oriented culture:"
To permit discrimination based on such irrationalcriteria is
to deny.the:most fundamental>premises on which this country is
,presumed to have been founded. For the Iowa City` City' Council
s, to=fail -to`adopt this ordinance as written would be for them
toactin an_utterly reprehensible and irresponsible manner
,and to do a disservice to every citizen, straight', or gay; of
a' Iowa City.
SYN .
S n erely,
ona Durham
Attorney at Law
}
i'
i
�,
I,
_.�
__
�wrir-. _....._ r '.
Min mum Deposit
Fact Sheet
e
�N�E�I�N�Y'/aOeF�i,l�Ca/wMyPCFiIGAIN AS
N"': A. i l�ii Gl ■ Vl ly p Y
fi' YaS, ! l i..'a IJt ryt 1
:TheY
hsia��t
Y,rr ink � ,.•et lay t �taS Y.!'/,Y
PLAID PANTRY' BO'dIe B1II':�
ty' ■ chn ,. '* ` 1 'il', div...d IK
4 �s worlan ^ t a
s7oRes g! yz x
r
+'I I
very conce mad with the propaganda that
i the opponents of Bottle Bill legislation are
telling people around the country. 1 am a
retailer,the person with the kind of business I•.
that a Bottle Bill will hurt according to this '.I In s recent letter to Gov. Robert Rey; Tom McCall,
Propaganda. The Oregon Bottle Oil has not former governor of Oregon who in 1971 led his
hurt my business mor any other business as people state to be:the first In the country to adopt e
.would have you believe. I own the second largest deposit law;. wrote:
-%� food chain, In number of stores In Oregon. Our
'.beer sales
are the second :largest In the state.'; 'The opposition Is always out in force. It relies on
Over 295 of our sales are from beer end sof[ campaigns. featuring' messive expenditures to. spread
drinks.: 1 would not sur;ort any legislation that misrepresentation about the bottle bill. Actually
.would t the erre mosll bold•fecelles. As their abf ricatlons
pu of out me ouslncss and the Oregon Bottte o, the bottle L1 eli face "
BI11 has not put me out o! business. - 1 am for it 9 ys lobs, 't really clean
IOOS............ Industry Is spending millions of up anything very much, irposes a tremendous inconven.
dollars tryingln every way possible to kill fence and actually adds to the cost of beer and soda
iBottle 8111 legislation.,. If opponents would poD. None of the charges stands up to critical examl-
telY,the truth as to what Is happening in Oregon:. netlon."
instead of asking us look like a disaster state
I wouldn't be as concerned as 1 em. I think that
the People should be told the truth.'
Letter from John Piacentinl, Owner,
li t Plaid Pantry Convenience, Stores,.
S to Gov. Robert Ray, reb.. 4, 1971'
HAVEN'T SOME RETAILERS,! DISTRIBUTORS, OR BOTTLERS.GONE OUT OF BUSINESS IN OREGON AS
A RESULT OF THE MINIMUM DEPOSIT LAW ON BEVERAGE CONTAINERS?
d ,
(FACT: No: No store, large or small, has gone out of business as a result of the
bottle bill. No distributor has gone out of, business. No bottling plant has
shut down since the bill 'went linto effect,,though some have changed ownership'.
WILL THE DEPOSIT BILL CAUSE FINANCIAL LOSSES IPI THE BEER AND CARBONATED SOFT-DRINK
INDUSTRIES? -
FACT: No: In Oregon, one year ;after the enactment of the law, beer and soft-drink
producers experienced more than $8'million',in increased operating income.
Bottlers have said that: the law has not adverse -Ty affected their business in
{' Oregon and that they experienced a gain inl'market share,; although this required
increased' Investments 'In'capital equipment:to wash ,'fI11 and deliver refill
able: bottles.
WILL ANY JOBS BE LOST?,
FACT: According,to the latest: figures (1976) there',has been a net increase of 365
new, full-time jobs due to'the 'deposit law in{Oregon'. Over300 new truck
driving jobs and 575 full ,and part-time jobs!in handling and warehousing were
created.: At the same time, between 167 and 227 jobs were lost in the canning
industry:
.i.
t��
In Iowa, job lose would be more than offset by jobs to wash, sort, fill,
handle and transport returnable containers. Beer distributors would add from
240 to 336 new employees for handling and sorting returnables. There would be
a comparable increase in the soft drink industry. An estimated 379 part-
time jobs would be added in Iowa's grocery stores. Additionally,there would
be an increase in employment for supporting industries supplying assembly line
equipment and machinery, for the bottlers.
WILL MY STORE'S SALES GO DOWN?
FACT: No. In 1973, soft-drink sales in Oregon increased almost 10% from the year
before (national average was 5.8%). Beer sales were up 2.9% during the first
year (despite earlier fears by the industry that sales would decrease between
8% and 30%). In addition, grocers favor returnables because they believe
that customers will use`,their refund deposits to make other store purchases.
John Piacentini,'owner of the Plaid Pantry Grocery Chain in Oregon, does not
know of one instance where a. Customer has left a:store because "convenience"'
containers' were not available. While some brands and some sizes' and kinds
of containers are no longer available, soft drink and beer sales have not
decreased.,° (After three years, more than 90% of :the Oregon public is satisfied
witT h the deposit law.)
HOW CAN I HANDLE ALL OF THE BOTTLES?
FACT: As late as 1966,80% of all soft drinks were in returnable' bottles,. Stores,
designed during that period, were constructed with bottle storage demands in
- mind. If a store is cramped, the bottler can increase the number of!pickups,'
reduce the number of brands available, or build braces to provide' additional
stacking'space: Oregon' bottlers have also created a standard size container'.
that can be used, by all bottlers` -'.and which have made stacking and handling,
easy.
WON'T .THE SWITCH TO RETURNABLES.CREATE SANITATION PROBLEMS IN THE STORAGE:AREAS?
FACT: ;Asa retailer, you can refuse to accept dirty bottles. In' addition,'bolttles
presently. returned' to stores in Oregon are not creating a health hazard, and
there is no reason to believe that any competently operated distributorship
would allow returned bottles to remain uncollected in the hands of''retailers
for so many weeks that they might, become a`sanitary or' aesthetic hazard.
WILL 'CONSUMERS SAVE MONEY BY PURCHASING BEVERAGES IN RETURNABLE CONTAINERS?
r
FACT:"IIt does 'cost more for business to handle returnables and these costs are passed
than beverages'inuthrowaways. In Iowa arecenttgrocerySstoress survey cheaper
alongbeverages in
Y Y grocery survey ,
showed that consumers pay 1.3 to 1.9''cents per ounce for soft drinks in non
returnable cans and 0.9 to 0 cents per ounce for the same beverage in returnable
'eight -packs not inc uding deposits.
WHY? '
FACT: This it because the consumer must pay the full cost of the container with
every beverage he buys in'a throwaway.,', According,to market analysts, Sanford'
C. Bernstein & Co., the
'major expense in throwaway `container ,production goes
for packaging -''-not for labor, ingredients, or transportation. With return
,
ables, the consumer saves money by borrowing the expensive packaging.
r
Mr. N. E. Norton, President of Royal Crown - Dr. Pepper, states:
"While costs of cans and bottles vary, depending on freight costs, volume,
+� design'. of,.the container;:' etc., we can assume ,approximate costs. to the bottler
of 4 -cents for a throwaway bottle,,6 cents for a can, and l0 cents) for a'refill-
able bottle. In marketing soft drinks: in a throwaway bottle or can, the
bottler must include the cost of 'the container - 4,cents or 6 cents. On the
other hand, if ,the bottler markets his, product in refillable bottles and obtains
the national average of 15 trips per bottle, his container costs are fractions
of a cent. If'his bottle washing :costs,are 1 or 2 cents, he can supply a soft
drink in a' -refillable bottle to the retailer at 3,!to 4`cents less!.than he can
in a throwaway bottle or can. -Then, if; it costs the retailerT or 11/2 cents
to handle' returnables,' the consumer can still purchase a', soft drink'in a
refillable bottle from 2 t 3 cents less than he, can in a'throwawayPbottle or,
can."
For more information please contact:
IPiRGI Iowa Memorial Union/ Iowa City, Iowa/ 353-70,25 or
David Perret/ Civic Center/ Iowa 'City, Iowa/:354-1800 ii
I
�r tY
i.<
.,�ne
V`
.
, Donk let any...
�� you. +�
FLOfipA7COl Oi;ADO> p . w4i r �a
AND + "(y
-_ z The
y h
e�fr"
..alp,.'.
S+�e�iA�y�'� Jl. • .. �977b��c�� "i
Bfle g�'f
tk ��
PLAID PANTRY,,�� `� "
Ifs R T Y dt
sroREs a'r , IS WOrlc�rlg.
•n:Y�Li,�y 5J�x8 ,,- rYf�7tt:C'r
I
i
'I am very eoncoroed with the Propaganda that
the opponents of Bottle Bill legisleiton are
" telling people around the country. I am a
the person with the kind of business
retailers
1
Robert Pay. Tom NcG 1,
Gov. o
. i .
that Bottle Bill will hurt affording to this In a recent, letter to o Y.
Propaganda. The Oregon 9ottle Bill has not. toneer governor of Oregon who In 1971 led his
hurt my ousiness nor any other business as People state to bethe first in the country to adopt.a,
would have you. believe. I. own the secondlargest deposit law; wrote: -
food chain,in numberof stores in Oregon. Our 'The opposition is always out in force. It relies on
6 beer. sal es ere the second largest in the state. campaigns featuring nasi va expenditures to spread
Over 29: of our sales are from beer and soft'. ..misrepresentation about the bottle bill.'. Actuatl
- drinks. ' -I would not support any legislation that _th�ey_er�e vastlybold-face lies.' As their abr atioms
I� would put me out of business and. the Oregon Bottle y. the boille , estroys lobs, doesn't really clean
Bill has not put me out of business, I am for it uP anything very much irposes atremendous inconven-
100t..,........ Industry 1s spending millions of fence and actually adds to the cost of beer and soda
dollars trying In every ny possible to kill pop. Nne of the charges si
oends up to critical exeml-
Bottle 9111 legislation.: If opponents would notion.
tell .the truth as to what Is happening in Oregon
instead of making us. look like a disaster state
I wouldn't be is concerned as Iam. 1 think that
the People should be told, the truth."
Letter free John Piacentini, Owner,
'. Plaid Pantry Convenience, Stores.
to Gov. Robert Ray. Feb. a, 1977
i
E RETAILERS 'DISTRIBUTORS, OR BOTTLERS
GONE OUT OF BUSINESS IN OREGON AS
HAVEN'
Tr
,
A ESULT OF THE MINIMUM, DEPOSIT 'LAWION BEVERAGE CONTAINERS?
R
FACT: No: No store, large or shall, has gone out of business as a result of the
rbottlebill. ,No'distributor has gone out of business. No bottling plant has
shut down since the bill went into effect, though some have changed ownership.
WILL THE DEPOSIT BILL', CAUSE FINANCIAL LOSSES IPI THE BEER AND CARBONATED SOFT-DRINK
INDUSTRIES?
FACT: No! In.Oregon, one year after the enactment of the law, beer and soft-drink
producers experienced more than $8 million 'I,in increased operating income.
Bottlers have said that the law has not adversely a fected their business in
Oregon and that they experienced again in market share; although this required
increased -.investments in capital equipment to wash, fill, and deliver refill.
able bottles.
WILL ANY JOBS BE LOST?
increase e of 365L
FACT:. According to the latest figures (1976) there h
as been a net
'—
Oregon. Over 300 new truck jobs due to the deposit law in Or g,
new full-time Jo P
driving jobs and 575 full s,and part. -time jobs in handling and warehousing'': were
created.At the same time, between 167 and 227 jobs were lost in the canning
industry.'
L
In Iowa, job AD would be more than offset by* jobs to wash, sort, fill,
handle and transport returnable containers. Beer distributors would add from
240 to 336 new employees for handling and sorting returnables. There would be
a comparable increase in the soft drink industry. An estimated 379 part-
time jobs would be added in Iowa's grocery stores. Additionally, there would
be an increase in employment for supporting industries supplying assembly line
equipment and machinery for the bottlers.
WILL 119Y STORE'S SALES GO DOWN?
FACT: No' In 1973, soft-drink sales in Oregon increased almost 1O% from the year
before (national average was 5.8%). Beer sales were up 2.9% during the first
year (despite earlier fears by the industry that sales would decrease between
8% and 30X). In addition, grocers favor returnables because they believe
that customers will use their refund deposits to.make other store purchases.
John Piacentini, owner of the Plaid Pantry Grocery Chain in Oregon, does not
know of one instance where a"customer has left a store because "convenience
containers were :not available. While some brands land 'some sizes and kinds
of containers are no 'longer available, soft drinkandbeer sales have not
decreased. (After three years, more than 900. of the Oregon public is satisfied
7i h the deposit law.)
.P
\s HOW CAN I HANDLE ALL OF THE BOTTLES?
D FACT: As late as 1966, 80% of all soft drinks were in returnable bottles. Stores,
designed during that period, were constructed with bottle, storage demands in
mind. If a store is cramped, the bottler can increase the number of pickups,
reduce the number of brands available, or build braces to provide additional
stacking space. Oregon bottlers have also created a standard size container
that can be used by all bottlers and which have made stacking and handling
easy.
WON'T THE SWITCH TO RETURNABLES CREATE SANITATION;PROBLEMS IN THE STORAGE AREAS?
FACT: 'As a'retai1er, you can refuse to accept dirty bottles. In:addition; bottles
;presently returned to stores in Oregon are not creating 'a'health hazard, and
there.is no reason to believe that any'competently operated distributorship
":would 'allow return ed' bottles toremain' uncollected in the: hands of retailers
-.
for so many weeks that they might become a sanitary or aesthetic hazard.
'. WILL CONSUMERS SAVE MONEY BY PURCHASING BEVERAGES 1.11 RETURNABLE CONTAINERS?
FACT: It does cost more for business to handle returnables and these costs are passed
along to'the'consumer. ,Nevertheless, beverages in returnables are still cheaper
than beverages in throwaways.. In Iowa City, a recent grocery store survey
"showed that consumers pay; 1.3 -to 1.9 cents per ounce for soft drinks in non-
,.. returnable cans and.O.9 to 0 cel nts per ounce for the same beverage in returnable
eight-pac snot inc ud ng deposits).
WHY?
FACT: This is because the consumer must pay the full cost of the container with
ever beverage he buys'in a;throwawa ." According to market; analysts, Sanford
Y 9Y 9
C. Berns tein)&'Co. '; the: major: expense in throwaway container production goes
for packaging= not for labor, ingredients, or transportation. With return-
ables, the consumer saves ''money by borrowing, the expensive packaging.
Mr. Ni E. Norton, President of Royal Crown - Dr. Pepper, states:'
While costs of cans and bottles vary, depending on freight', costs, volume,
design of the container, etc., we can assume approximate costs to the bottler
of.4 cents for a;throwaway bottle,'6 cents for a can, and 10 cents for a refill -
"able bottle. in marketing soft drinks in throwaway bottle or can, the
bottler must include the`cost.of the container- 4 cents or 6 cents.) On the
other hand, if the bottler markets, his product in refillable bottles'' and ',obtains
the national average of 15 trips.. per, bottle, his container costs are fractions
of a cent. If his bottlewashing, costs are l or 2 cents,, he can supply a soft
drink'in a refillable bottle to the retailer at 3 to 4 cents less than he can
in a throwaway bottle or can.. Then, if it costs the retailer? or,I l/2 cents
.i
to handle returnables, the consumer can still purchase a'soft drink in a
refillable'' bottle from 2 t 3'cents less than he can in a throwaway bottle or
can.
For more information please contact:
IP/RG/ Iowa Memorial Union/ Iowa City, Iowa/ 353-7095 or
David Perret/ Civic Center/ Iowa" City,, Iowa/ 354-1800
DATE: March 18, 1977
TO: Carol deProsse
l
FROM: Linda Schreiber
RE: Bylaws
Max felt that as boards/commissions
bylaws are adopted or amended a format
i should be followed for
consistency. I developed the followingformat:'
I. Authority
IL Purpose
III.i MembershiP i
"Sections covering:
Qualification
Compensation
Orientation
Absences
Vacancies
Terms
IV. ,;Officers
co
Sections covering: n
i v
Number i
Election
Vacancies
Chairperson ;
Vice -Chairperson
Secretary
V`;Meetings
Sections covering:
Regular Meetings
Special Meetings
Place
Notice
Quorum
Proxy
Public Discussion
a, VI. (Duties
"Sectionscovering:
Powers
li
Authority
��QL..
Carol deProsse
March 18, 1977
Page 2
VII. Conduct of Board/Commission Business
Sections covering: Agenda
Secretary'
Minutes
Review Policy
Referrals from Council
Attendance at Council
Meetings
Annual Report
VIII..' Subcommittee Appointments
IX.Amendments
If you agree with this format (let me know your
ideas); I wi1T forward,this
communication along with your comments to the
Committee on Community Needs
`,and Mayors Youth.
Thanks
In
cc:` Max Selzer
r;
Rules Commi tteeReport
1`
i
i
it
i
i,
i
y