Laserfiche WebLink
both sexes with minors of both sexes. He sees this as child molestation, and believes <br />that it would be allowed, if this statute is passed. Since the problem does not exist, it <br />does not belong in the statutes. <br /> <br />If the Council intends to pass this statute, Mr. Munkel recommended the following <br />changes. In terms of familial status, two groups of disabled people are omitted: 1) <br />children living with people who are their custodians but who do not have legal custody; <br />and 2) persons older than 18 years of age who have diminished physical or mental <br />capacity and who require home-based care. <br /> <br />Ms. Welsch asked about the procedure to remove this item from the agenda for <br />reconsideration at a later date, allowing time for study of Mr. Munkel's points, and Mayor <br />Adams said there could be a motion for defeat, without the third reading, to allow for a <br />rework of the bill. It could then be resubmitted by any member of the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Welsch moved to defeat the bill so that it could be reconsidered on Mr. Munkel's <br />points, and Mr. Sharpe seconded it. The motion to defeat passed five to two, with Mr. <br />Wagner and Mr. Lieberman voting Nay. <br /> <br />BILL NO. 8671 - AMENDING CHAPTER 9.08 OF THE UNIVERSITY CITY <br />MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE <br />AND DECENCY, BY REPEALING SECTION 9.08.180 THEREOF, RELATING <br />TO SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, AND ENACTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW <br />SECTION TO BE KNOWN AS "SECTION 9.08.180 SEXUAL MISCONDUCT," <br />THEREBY AMENDING SAID SECTION SO AS TO DELETE THE TERMS <br />"DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE" AND "SEXUAL INTERCOURSE" BUT <br />CONTINUE TO INCLUDE SUCH CONDUCT IN THE DEFINITION OF "SEXUAL <br />CONDUCT"; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING A <br />PENALTY. <br /> <br />Mr. Munkel pointed out a word on page two which he considered to be a mistake. He <br />provided some background for this statement, by advising that definitions come from <br />Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 566, and "Sexual Crimes". The aim or this statute, <br />he pointed out, is to change the definition as stated, from "deviant sexual intercourse" to <br />"sexual conduct", as the result of a recent Texas court decision. There is no problem <br />with the definitions, per se, but with the words "sexual misconduct", which omits <br />"purposely subjects another person to sexual contact". What then follows relates to <br />sexual exposure and contact. The current language removes numbers one and two of <br />the definition, but if the words "sexual contact" are changed to "sexual conduct", that will <br />address the matter. Mr. Munkel said if his interpretation was wrong, then he suggested <br />adding a line to read, "Purposely subjects another person to sexual conduct"; otherwise, <br />rape, sodomy, and other penetrating acts will be omitted, which he does not believe was <br />the intent of the City Attorney when he drafted the Bill. <br /> <br />Page 16 <br /> <br /> <br />