Approximately 70 people attended the San Luis Obispo City Council meeting Tuesday afternoon. The council approved changes to the city’s noise ordinance policy. Photo by Kate McIntyre- Mustang Daily

The San Luis Obispo City Council voted unanimously Tuesday in favor of Police Chief Deborah Linden’s proposal that would allow for stricter enforcement and administration of noise violations in the city. Linden and Public Information Officer Ian Parkinson presented the council with recommendations to amend the procedures for residential noise regulations, the first of five strategies Linden and Parkinson first presented at a Sept. 29 council meeting.

Parkinson is a candidate for San Luis Obispo County sheriff.

Linden recommended that residences in violation of noise regulations be placed on a ‘premises list’ after the first issuance of a Disturbance Advisory Card (DAC). DACs are the formal citation city residents receive when they violate city noise regulations. She also recommended that residences remain on the list for six months after the violation.

As of Jan. 19 there were 137 houses on the city’s premises list. Chief Linden said the number would drastically rise if the ordinance was adopted.

The number of noise complaints to the police department has dropped from 2897 violations in 2007 to 2700 last year. However, the number of DACs has increased over the same time period.

The fine for a DAC is $350. Residents also have the option of performing 35 hours of community service in lieu of the administrative fine.

Other municipal code changes included the creation of a process for property owners or tenants to apply for early removal from the premises list, the ability to hold residential property owners responsible for repeat noise violations, and to modify the notification process to property owners and have a community service option for first time offenders only.

Council Member Allen Settle motioned to pass the ordinance, amending the length of time on the premises list, from six to nine months, which was approved by all council members.

Linden’s remaining four strategies dealt with unruly gatherings, a curfew for those under 18, regulation of property owners’ licenses and a safety enhancement zone ordinance.

Associated Students Inc. president Kelly Griggs said she was disappointed in the decision and that it solidified the notion that this was targeted at students with the ordinances language and the nine month amendment related to the length of the academic school year.

“Students weren’t asked to participate in the beginning; we sort of had to come in after the fact, so we were reacting rather than sitting down and collaborating beforehand,” Griggs said.

Some Cal Poly students attended the meeting and voiced their opinions.

“I feel that a lot of these actions and propositions are alienating the student population from the rest of the community. A true and effective community is one that works together instead of being split like oil and water,” mechanical engineering junior Derek Brangham said.

While some saw the ordinance as a way of splitting the community others saw it as a way to protect their community.

Community member Sandra Rowley spoke at the meeting and said, “Most students are here for an education unfortunately there are some that are here to party. Some think that becuase they are considered adults under the law it means they are free to do anything they want, anytime they want, without consequences and without taking responsibility for their actions.”

Stock image

San Luis Obispo Police Chief Deb Linden is proposing amendments to the city’s noise regulations at a special city council meeting at 4:30 p.m. at San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
The council originally heard a presentation by Linden in September that addressed five strategies to reduce neighborhood noise and party-related disturbances. As directed by the council, the police staff moved forward with the five strategies and will present their suggestions tonight.

In September, Linden and her staff proposed that violators of the noise ordinance be issued only one Disturbance Advisory Card (DAC) in any 12-month period, as opposed to the six-month period currently in effect. This means that violators would remain on the police department’s premises list for one year.

She also suggested that modifications be made to encourage property owners to regulate residents’ behavior, including the ability to hold property owners accountable for repeat noise violations and that an early turnover of residents would mean early removal from the premises list.

Police cannot legally enter a residence without permission unless they have information that someone is suffering an imminent risk. Since many people refuse to answer the door, and thus cannot be issued a DAC, Linden proposed that there be consequences if residents refuse to answer the door during a verified noise violation.

The council also suggested in September that first-time offenders be allowed to do community service instead of paying the $350 fine.

Kelly Griggs, Cal Poly’s ASI president and chair of the Student Community Liaison Committee, sent an e-mail to all Cal Poly students regarding the city-proposed noise ordinance modifications and encouraging students to attend the city council meeting.

Kate McIntyre contributed to this staff report.

Aaron Berk is a computer engineering junior and Mustang Daily political columnist.

I cannot think of a more important document when it comes to politics, our rights, and what the United States stands for than the United States Constitution. For the past year or two I’ve tried to commit to reading through the Constitution on Independence Day. It’s not a particularly long document and yet it covers so many topics. Article 1, Section 4 requires that “the Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year” which is a requirement I don’t think Congress has had a hard time meeting; I can hardly imagine our Congress meeting once a year these days as legislating has seemingly become a year-round task. Other parts show the basic rights we as Americans stand for: “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” (4th amendment). Overall, the Constitution is an amazing document in many ways.

What is said in the Constitution takes precedence over any other laws passed in the United States. There are ways to modify the Constitution if need be, but otherwise there are strict rules imposed on our legislatures as for what they can and cannot dictate about our lives. Nowadays it seems the Congress thinks it can pass whatever laws it likes; representatives regularly ignore the Constitution or cite the “general welfare” clause, but often times in citing the general welfare clause they ignore other parts of the Constitution and even in some cases huge concepts behind the Constitution (in particular, a limited federal government).

The rule of law is a very important thing. Rule of law allows for a judicial system to deal with crimes and is the vehicle for a just society. I think oftentimes people underestimate the importance of living under the rule of law but it’s a huge mechanism that helps society function efficiently and I think without it that life wouldn’t be as pleasant as it is. With that having been said, it’s very disturbing when branches of the federal government break the laws set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution, I would argue, is more important than any other body of laws in the United States, and so for a representative to disregard those laws is a huge threat to the rule of law. Once the most important laws in a society are regularly and inconsequentially broken, it’s easy for the whole system to come crumbling down.

There are many reasons people reference the Constitution during political discussions (perhaps they are referring to the legality of an action, or are citing the Constitution as a historical piece) but I think more often than not they are referencing the principles outlined in the Constitution as well as highlighting the need for a Constitution-like, central document that helps outline what our country does and does not stand for.

First let me discuss the principles outlined in the Constitution. I see them as two-fold: restrictions on the federal government and universal human rights. Much of the Constitution outlines how our federal government should be set up and run. It allows for the House, Senate, executive branch and the judicial branch. It describes the powers they have, how they should operate, etc. The Constitution also clearly outlines what the powers of the federal government are, in the 18 enumerated powers found in Article 1, Section 8. On the flip side of the powers of the federal government, are the rights of the people that are outlined in the bill of rights. The rights outlined in the bill of rights are basic rights that are not given from the government, but rather natural rights that we have as human beings. These are generally the more commonly known parts of the Constitution: freedom of speech, the right to assemble, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, right to due process, the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

In addition to the principles outlined in the Constitution, is the principle of having a binding document that outlines our rules of law in our society. The Constitution serves as a framework for the rules governing the country in which we live. It is important to have a document that encapsulates what the United States is supposed to be: a republic with a limited federal government and basic rights of people that are not to be violated.

We fought the Revolutionary War for the principles outlined in the Constitution. It is our history and it helps define the way we wish to live our lives. I find the lack of understanding by many of our officials of the Constitution as a great threat to all the things that help make the United States the great place that it has been.

Skateboards are legal on campus; riding them isn’t. The University Police Department enforces the law for safety reasons, but not everyone agrees with the ban on skateboards.

Last year the UPD gave 112 tickets to skateboarders.

“The only time skateboards are legal on campus is when they are being held,” Sgt. Robert Eckrote said. “There is no riding allowed at all on any of Cal Poly’s property.”

No one at the UPD knows exactly when the law was implemented, but Sgt. Lori Hashim said it has been around for more than 20 years. The officers’  concern is with the safety of riders and bystanders and with property damage and related costs. There is also a potential danger to motorists.

“There is a possibility of a driver swerving to avoid a skateboard and colliding with another vehicle or pedestrian,” he said.

The UPD has medical reports of injuries reported, but they do not keep statistics of specific injuries so a number for people injured from skateboards is not available. Health & Counseling Services also does not keep data of injuries on campus. “We don’t have statistical information but the majority of accidents we see are from skateboard and bike falls,” administrative analyst Alexandra Kohler said.

Despite the ban and dangers, skaters can be seen around campus holding and riding their boards.

Nick Shellhammer, a horticulture junior,  skateboards to school but not on campus. Though he follows the law, he doesn’t agree with it. “I don’t think it should be illegal unless people are vandalizing,” he said. “I swear I see more bikers swerving between people than I do skateboarders.”

There is more of a concern for people skating and doing tricks than those skating for transportation. Skateboard tricks cause property damage and mean replacement of benches, curbs and rails.

Associate director of facility services Doug Overman said property damage on campus is nowhere near the problem it used to be. “Skateboarding damage has really tapered off,” he said. “Five or six years ago it was a problem; skate parks have made it less of one.”

When caught riding on campus the UPD will first give a warning, then citations thereafter. Violators have the option to attend a bicycle and skateboard diversion class, which will clear them of a first citation. Several years ago, the fine was $25 for every offense.

“Skaters were willing to risk riding and pay the fine,” police records manager Fred Mills said. “The UPD went to court to elevate prices and have fees increase for every continuing offense.”

Fines for skateboarding start at $146 for the first, $190 for the second and $380 if caught a third time. Rollerblades and scooters, like Razors, are also prohibited.

Local gay marriage advocates gathered at Mitchell Park Tuesday to oppose the California Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold Proposition 8, the proposition passed last November that banned same-sex marriage.

About 250 community members congregated for an event organized by the San Luis Obispo chapter of Marriage Equality USA. The 6-1 ruling determined that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place before the vote remain valid.

After the passage of Porposition 8, several same-sex couples took the vote results to the courts, stating that the ballot measure was unconstitutional under state law.

The court rejected those claims, with the majority opinion stating that it is not the court’s role to determine whether Proposition 8 “is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals believe it should be a part of the California Constitution,” but instead “is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

According to public law and political theory professor Ronald Den Otter , the ruling was almost inevitable.

“The decision wasn’t unexpected,” Den Otter said. “Very few people thought that the court would find that Proposition 8 constituted a constitutional revision and therefore, required approval of the legislature before being submitted to the voters. Very few people also thought that Proposition 8 was retroactive and therefore invalidated the approximattely 18,000 same-sex marriages that had been performed before November 4, 2009.”

Some Cal Poly student organizations attended to show their support for same-sex marriage, including the Pride Center and Delta Lambda Phi, a fraternity for gay, bisexual and progressive men.

The Supreme Court decision was a let-down for Delta Lambda Phi president Brad Purpura, who was optimistic about the possibility of Proposition 8 being overruled.

“I’m completely dumb-founded actually,” Purpura said. “I was sure that it was going to get overruled. Given what the justices said last year when they originally allowed gay marriage, I thought there was no way they were going to go back on that, but the decision today lit a fire inside myself. Now I’m fighting harder than I did prior because it’s just a matter of time until I’m afforded the rights of everyone else.”

David Kilburn, San Luis Obispo’s chapter leader of Marriage Equality USA, said that although he and his husband get to keep their marriage, it’s unfair that same-sex couples do not have the opportunity to marry.

“I’m not giving it up, but at the same time, it has a whole different meaning now that I know that we’ve been forced into a situation of having a special right,” he said. “We didn’t ask for a special right. We asked for marriage equality. That’s all we wanted.”

The crowd at Mitchell Park waved signs supporting same-sex marriage at oncoming cars and members of various organizations dedicated their support.

Helen Carroll, a clergywoman from the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of San Luis Obispo County, offered words of encouragement to the crowd and led all participants in a prayer. Carroll emphasized that she is one of many church affiliates who supports marriage equality.

“The court made the decision that they thought best met the people’s wishes,” Carroll said. “What the decision did, beyond disappointing me, was gave me a road map for how it is to go about making justice. That road map involved changing the constitution. I have already made a covenant that I will not sanctify marriages by signing certificates until I can sign them for everyone.”

A few Proposition 8 supporters were present as well. Rather than approaching the matter from a religious angle, they argued that the group at Mitchell Park should respect the decision made by California voters.

“People voted twice on this issue,” San Luis Obispo resident Dane Senser said. “To me, it’s not about equality. I believe there is plenty of equality. It’s not about being homophobic or anything else … How many times do you have to vote on this? You have to go with the will of the people.”

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Maine and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage and Vermont will be added to the list in September.

But supporters of gay marriage in California are hopeful, like Devin Ward, a teacher in Santa Maria, who was wearing a shirt that read “No More Mr. Nice Gay.”

“There’s a momentum. A momentum that cannot be denied that’s happening slowly but surely throughout the country,” Ward said.

Supporters from California and around the nation will meet in Fresno this Saturday for the Meet in the Middle 4 Equality conference — the next step at organizing grassroots efforts for legalizing gay marriage.

This year’s mock trial team at the regional competition held in Fresno, Calif. Cal Poly offers political science courses that help students prepare for the intercollegiate competitions. Courtesy photo

For students who are law school-bound or for those who just have a keen interest in all things judiciary, Cal Poly’s Mock Trial Club provides a way to practice their skills in a competitive environment.

The club team, which was started at Cal Poly during the 2006-2007 school year, gives students the opportunity to participate in court cases similar to real life trials with other
teams throughout the country. All of the 900 teams compete within the American Mock Trial Association and represent 600 schools.

Each year, the cases switch from civil to criminal, in order for members to become familiar with and practice both sides of law. Whatever issue is at hand, each case mimics a real life trial students would see in a courtroom.

At each competition, students participate in four trials. Each trial has two judges with a total of eight possible ballots. Last year, Cal Poly won two of the ballots; this year, they won a good sportsmanship award.

Mock trial coach and political science professor Matthew Moore has been the club’s advisor since it began. During his time as coach, Moore said he has seen the club’s successes grow as their numbers do the same.

During the first year of the club’s existence, there were only about 10 students who participated and their low numbers and inexperience led to a losing season.

“At the first competition many students were still learning how the trials ran, and the club was able to learn from their mistakes and see what kind of improvements needed to be made,” Moore said.

This year, the club’s numbers grew, allowing for two separate teams, both of which consist of eight people. Moore said that his goal is to have a total of three teams and encourages anyone familiar with the program or interested in law to participate.

The Mock Trial Club consists of all students, while professors and attorneys serve in an advisory role. Any full-time Cal Poly undergraduate is allowed to audition.
“The students started the club and it was my job to do the logistics and get lawyers together to help start the process,” Moore said.

This year, the teams participated in intercollegiate competitions at Fresno State and Claremont-McKenna.

Although the teams didn’t advance as far as they had wanted to this year, Moore said that performing consistently better at the competitions inspires the club.
“It’s more encouraging that every year we figure out a little bit more on how to do better,” he said.

Funding for the club comes through the Instructionally Related Activities (IRA) program, which provides funding for almost all events, including competitions and scrimmages, which are often far away. The funding is new this year and gave the teams more opportunities to compete.

Moore said that the experience gained during mock trial has undoubtedly made students more knowledgeable regarding real life court situations.

Political science senior and mock trial participant Charles Talpas agrees.

“It’s essential for anyone interested in continuing law after Cal Poly to participate in mock trials; it’s a great opportunity for the future,” he said, adding that the trials helped him
gain a better knowledge of what actually happens during a court case, as well as a better handle on law terminology.

“Every lawyer or judge that watched us have said that they wished they would have done mock trials in undergrad,” Talpas said. “There is so much you don’t learn until after law school.”

As of this year, Cal Poly’s political science department offers POLS X295 (fall) and POLS X395 (winter) to help students prepare for and participate in intercollegiate competitions. These classes also help participants connect their courtroom experiences with the American legal system, Moore said.

As for next year, the club is planning on competing in at least one intercollegiate scrimmage and two rounds of scrimmages during fall quarter before going on to more competitions in the winter.

“If we keep the same kind of progress that we’ve been making for the last couple of years, I think that next year we’ll do even better,” he said.
For more information in participating in the mock trials, e-mail Matthew Moore at mocktrial@calpoly.edu.