Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 01-25-1983 Regular — reading text

certain way - saying interpreting the ordinance to mean places that encourage the acts - by his interpretation if waitresses costumes were skimpy they were pandering sexuality to get people in to blll drinks. He felt clarification was needed on that point. He felt selectivity could lead to cops on the take. The Attorney said that he felt he was correct that he respected the observation of selectivity in the ordinance should be minimized and to the extent it could be; saying it was an extremely difficult area to legislate in. He indicated in time that adjustments would be made or some modifications, as Council determined they should be made. Mr. Ramsey expressed the fear it would cost the taxpayers too much money. Mr. Bishop asked what would be wrong with saying it would be enforced in every establishment selling alcohol; it would be a big enforcement problem but that would solve the selective enforcement; but he did not think that was the intent of the original ordinance. The Attorney said legally speaking there might be nothing wrong with it; he had not looked at it from that point of view but had looked at it from a practical viewpoint that it might be difficult in that there are patrons who go to those places who are not there for the purpose of exploiting things prohibited by the statute and you would affect every restaurant and every or many of the patrons who go into thos~ places and if it were Council' s policy decision that they wanted to do that it could be done. Mr. Franklin said that what Mr. Bishop was talking about was an item which he personally did not vote to approve; that he voted to approve Ordinance 740 the way it is written and he was prepared to stand by that ordinance the way it was written until at such time they found that they could not enforce this particular ordinance and by looking at some of the other cOl11J1unities which i:~: had passed similar ordinances, make adjustments to it. r~ I 1 "';'~~" i': l~", ,! .::' He ,:': ,.. that t- l: 3- . I . ". 1""':,': clarified paragraph A which mentioned cleavage pertained to the lower portion of the body and paragraph 2 B pertained to 1:: ,,'. female upper portion of the body and nowhere did it mention cl~ avage. Mt. Franklin moved that they move on to further business. HIe Mayor asked if there further cOl11J1ents on the clarification. PEAKER ntleman who did not give his name said regardless of the law terpretation, the Police Dept. was going to enforce the ardless of the intent and if they wished to go into a rant and if there were a person in there showing cleavage g1aringly prohibited in the statute they could be arrested if that r 1- 25- 83 222 ANTI- NUDITY officer to arrest that person. He indicated that desir.ed CONTINUED Brannigan' did sclose early the other night as reported in the morning paper. He did not see in modern society as we have today and not arguing nudity - the intent of the law if they were going to have a law against nudity or dancing or pandering then they must specify exactly what was to be outlawed and not to outlaw everything in this City. He felt people should be able to exercise freedom of choice. He asked Council to look into their own minds. Mayor asked for his name - Floyd Cain. CHRIS WILSON Chris Wilson of the Sound Restaurant asked the Council ( saying some restaurant owners had asked him to come and ask some ques- tions) what was the responsibility of the restaurant owner when a patron comes in who might violate the law - asking if they should not serve them and should they call the police. The City Attorney said he did not see that as the owners' responsibility; he saw the intent of the ordinance as addressing itself to those institutions that commercially sponsor the acts prohibited by the ordinance, and as long as the restaurant was not commercially sponsoring nudity and some of the other things, he did not see the restaurant or any institution as having any liability under the ordinance. PAUL LIOLLIO Paul Liollio representing Liollio' s Restaurant expressed his utmost respect for the Mayor and Council and what they were trying to do with the ordinance and to some measure he agreed with what they were trying to bring to the community. He said as restaurant owners had some questions -- - saying his res- taurant was not the kind that would expllcitly advertise illicit behavior in City. He indicated they had serious concern and our questions. H~ said they did not question Council IS authority to pass ordinances and to regulate that kind of behavior but were concerned about where their limits were and what they should do in case of an emergency, if someone might disagree with their uniforms. He asked for an explanation of what to do when Warner Amex has a promotional sale and without announcement and take the scramble off Channel 7 and give it on Channel 6 and the lounges have televisions and sometimes Channel 6 carries the movie on a promotional basis from time to time and there were movies that could possibly be considered under the ordinance against the ordinance. asking as if they would be responsible for that occurrence He indicated again he had the utmost respect for them for what they were trying to do but these were serious questions they needed answers to - for whomever would be ponsibility' res_ for penalties or what. Ci ty At torney sa'id the f i. ques t ion. deal in~ rs t wIth. the responsibility of an owner if someone should , co' e iato his restaurant in some attire that would viol. t~ the ordinance and in the ordinance, if the p~ tro. came into their business they would not be responsible fer that patron in his opinion. He said as to whether or not . they could be responsible for movies shown on a te1evi- i sion set in his restaurant he thought the answer was 1 po. sibly yes, depending on the movies " that ,.are shown in the restaurant.. Mr. Lil11io said 4Iey.. did no.t a.d.. v, e1il!....!. tise that and it was something that WaFber Amex diU on ' their own without notice to anyone. The A't:torne~ sJa.d : tf e';  1- 25- 83 ANTI- NUDITY he felt their responsibility in that instance would 223 CONTINUED be to turn the set off. Mr. Lillio said this should be clarified because if that were the law if a movie ran on Warner Amex unscrambled channels for channel 6 on a promotional basis that as required by the the restaurants ought to turn their televisions off. He said