10-11-76 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

11 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 11, 1976 Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend met in the Council Chambers of the County -City Building on Monday, October 11, 1976, at 7:00 p.m., Council President Roger O. Parent presiding. The meeting was called to order and the Pledge to the Flag was given. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council Members Serge, Szymkowiak, Miller, Taylor, Kopczynski, Adams, Dombrowski, Horvath and Parent ABSENT: None Council Member Kopczynski made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole,. seconded by Council Member Adams. The motion carried. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend met in the Committee of the Whole on Monday, October 11, 1976, at 7:05 p.m., with nine members present. Chairman Frank _Horvath presiding. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE 9 PERTAINING TO MASSAGE ES- TABLISHMENTS, MASSAGE TECHNICIANS; AND THE PRACTICE OF MASSAGE This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and op- ponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Thomas Brunner made the presentation for the ordinance. He presented amendments to the ordinance to the Council. He indicated that he was informed the Council was deferring everything but the public hearing on this until they have had an opportunity to review the proposed amendment. Council Member Horvath indicated the Council needed further time to study the proposed amendments, however, they would have public hearing because the ordinance had been advertised. Mr. Brunner, City Attorney, indicated that too often massage parlors have been the front for illegal activities, mainly prostitution. He said mas- sage has been a recommended practice in the community for many, many years. He indicated this ordinance sets up a procedure for licensing legitimate massage parlors. He said the amendments he was offering was to clarify some language in the ordinance. He said he believed this ordi- nance was constitutional and would stand a test. He then read the following amendments to the ordinances Page 1, Section 1 (c) add "to a patron "; page 2 (d) strike "exterior or" (3) strike "furniture or" and "hard and 'substitute "solid" for hard; Seca 112 strike (3) in its entirety; on page 4_define stockholders add "who owns fifteen (15) percent or more of the stock: page 5 (c) 2 strike "in all respects;" page 6 (c) 2 strike "in all respects "; page 7, section 7 -120 strike "or the breasts of any female patron ". He indicated these amendments had been worked out in accordance with several massage technicians in the community. Ms. Kathy Cekanski, Council's attorney, said that in accordance with the request of the Council she had made a review of this ordinance. She presented her amendments to the Council. She indicated she thought the Council needed more time to look into this because it was important that they try to obtain the best legislation. Mr. Bruce Stewart, attorney, indicated his interest in this ordinance was that he represented a client. in the massage business. He indicated he had reviewed the proposed ordinanc_, althought not as amended, but the amendments did not cover some of what he considered to be de- fects from a constitutional standpoint. He said Section 7 -111, (a) he did not think the security` deposit was constitutional defensible. He said he thought (c) went to far since the same room could be used for male and female at different times. He said (d) the lighting problem and ( g g P locked door presents a problem that could be overturned in the courts. He said in Section 7 -112 the hours of operation should be looked at very carefully. He said in paragraph (3) of that section he thought there was too much detail, and it could be corrected by requiring the match- ing of sex between the massager and the patron. He said in paragraph (g) police officers and building inspectors were obligated to recognize disease. He said in Section 7 -113 he said he thought that the requiring of fingerprints and all convictions, including ordinance violations m a constitutional stand oint -went too far. He said paragraph (c) sub section 5 was overbroad fro p