The miseducation of (half) a City Council

By Ammi Midstokke
Reader Staff

Like many of you, I sat through hours of testimony at the Nov. 19 meeting of the Sandpoint City Council. It was heartbreaking, exhausting, infuriating and embarrassing. At each claim of delusion and mental illness, a gasp of hallelujahs and amens burst out from behind me. There were snickers and scoffs. There were a great many horrified sighs from those of us traumatized by the women willing to re-traumatize themselves by standing before a crowd of strangers to share their stories of rape, assault and abuse. 

I heard misused terms, made up diagnoses, and men standing up against “misogyny” and for “women’s rights.” In two-minute intervals, I heard the tearful tales of woman after woman after woman who had been violated, who had not healed, who still felt afraid. 

I heard men say — generous and protective as they are — they will allow breasted-biological-males-identifying-as-females into their locker rooms, willingly and without harassment. How benevolent of them.

I heard queer people and their allies stand up and ask for pause, protection and pragmatism. I heard businesses raise concerns, and courageous adolescents participate in the democratic process.

I heard Mayor Jeremy Grimm open the meeting with virtuous opinion, a mind closed and made up, pulling on the emotional marionette strings of a crowd with the resonant statement that he has a conscience. 

Does the moral high ground of having a conscience apply to one group more than another? What inhibited that conscience from coming to the table to work on amendments that created safe spaces for all? 

I heard Councilor Joel Aispuro attempt to out-semantic the city’s lawyers, who demonstrated more patience than the parents of sextuplet toddlers. Meanwhile, Councilor Justin Dick held ground for his right to weigh in on the matter. Then, after he assured us he likes trans people — and that he accidentally created a bathroom solution for them while making his restrooms ADA compliant — he merely voted. 

I heard half of the council question the process, the rapidity, and the mayor’s approach to drafting and presenting an amendment for vote without their input. I heard them try to slow down an important decision, to gain more clarity first.

What I did not hear was a cohesive attempt to find a solution that addressed the two primary issues: women want to feel safe in spaces and not get raped — thankyouverymuch — and this town would like discrimination protection for all. 

To be clear: Nothing decided on Nov. 19 will reduce the rate of sexual assault in our town. The data shows the opposite, actually. But if our good mayor and half his council were making decisions based on data, they would have made a different one. Perhaps the conscience is not obliged to research, and runs on faith alone. 

The businesses and citizens supporting the previous NDO are under fire this week. The internet slacktivists are crying out “ban” and “boycott,” and wasting their time on fake one-star reviews. If they’d spend a modicum of that energy on solving the problems of violent assault and discrimination, this community could do the very thing in which we’re all in agreement: Keeping people safe, and this town thriving.

Sandpoint took a step back, but in this dance, that just means it’s time to take two steps forward. 

We can thank those businesses and individuals who spoke out against discrimination. We can educate about and advocate for the positive impacts of comprehensive NDOs. We can respect the need for safe spaces for all, and work toward creating them. We can come to the table for meaningful dialogue and workable solutions. We can support our council in responding to upcoming legislation, and creating an NDO that reflects our community’s broader concerns. We can vote.

We can be better than what we witnessed last week, because we are.

Ammi Midstokke is a writer and author raised in North Idaho. As a homeschooled high school dropout, she spends her time trying to get better at grammar, and defending freedom.