CC_Minutes_2012_0827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 27, 2012 Page 29 those rights. Councilmember Pust stated that it was within that framework that she had considered what position the City Council should take. Based on cur- rent state law already in place regarding marriage and which side is trying to be divisive; and from the position of her career as a lawyer, Councilmember Pust opined that, with only two (2) exceptions, Minnesota's Constitutional amend- ments to-date had broadened individual rights. In a democracy, Councilmember Pust opined that those rights were defined as core, self-evident truths, not just enshrined in statutes that can change on political whims; but as constitutional amendments when the value of democracy was considered and memorialized. In her role as a Councilmember, Councilmember Pust opined that it was her re- sponsibility to do what the community elected her to do: listen to citizens and take the action she thought best served the community. When first running for the City Council, Councilmember Pust noted that she ran on a platform to get the community together to talk about its future, resulting in the Imagine Rose- ville 2025 community visioning documents. Councilmember Pust opined that the most resounding thing she heard from the community as a whole was that it wanted to be a welcoming community recognizing the strength of its diversity. In light of the question currently before the City Council, Councilmember Pust stated that she could not find any rationale to support this proposed amendment that, in her opinion, had been designed by people seeking to be divisive. Coun- cilmember Pust opined that it was inherent to protect broad human rights and what governments were elected to protect; and urged all citizens to vote "no" on the proposed amendment. While not an attorney and not as eloquent as Councilmember Pust, Coun- cilmember Willmus opined that this was an issue of what he felt was right. When running for office, Councilmember Willmus opined that he didn't do so by making a determination that he was representing a certain group, but all of Roseville. Because he saw Roseville as an open and welcoming community for all, Councilmember Willmus opined that he saw Roseville as a diverse commu- nity with diverse perspectives. In light of that, Councilmember Willmus stated that he had come to the conclusion on what the right thing to do was, by ac- knowledging that this proposed amendment was restrictive. Councilmember Willmus noted that Article 1 of the Constitution was the Bill of Rights, serving to protect diversity; and opined that he saw the proposed amendment as a challenge to that premise,whether on this issue or any other. Councilmember Willmus opined that personally he would not support the amendment. Councilmember Willmus noted that he had heard from more Ro- seville residents on this issue than any other, even County Road C-2 and Wal- Mart. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the City's HRC position.