Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Mitt Romney Doesn't Appear to Know… | Space Needle Refuses to Fly Pride F… »

Thursday, June 21, 2012

News City Will Consider "Wholesale Change" to Pool Policy

Posted by Cienna Madrid on Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Jodi Jaecks:</b> one step closer to changing citywide policy.

Kelly O
Jodi Jaecks: one step closer to changing citywide policy.

Seattle Parks and Recreation superintendent Christopher Williams will consider revising the rules for all people using the city's public pools—not just one breast cancer survivor who was granted an exception to swim topless.

"We recognize we may need to make a wholesale policy change," Williams said in an interview with The Stranger this morning, while adding that he can't comment on what that new policy might look like yet.

The announcement comes after a growing controversy, sparked by a story in yesterday morning's Stranger, that has reached international media markets. Yesterday evening, the department reversed a months-long decision barring breast cancer survivor Jodi Jaecks from swimming topless in Medgar Evers Pool. Earning that exception was a small victory for Jaecks, but it hardly amounted to meaningful public policy change.

But Williams, a cancer survivor himself who explains that he only learned of Jaecks's situation yesterday, says he's extended an apology to Jaecks and an invitation to be part of the rule-changing process.

"Sometimes we make mistakes, but I think our commitment is what we try to correct those mistakes," Williams says.

The department's next step is assembling a small work group of five-to-eight people—mostly health care and legal professionals—to examine the current parks policy and advise how it can be made more inclusive for more than just cancer survivors:

"Frankly, I don’t know all the situations that we may encounter," Williams says. "I think we want a diverse set of eyes on this so the decision is not made in a vacuum... We are only talking about double-mastectomy patients right now, but there may be a whole world of disabilities or differently figured people who we recommend some policy guidelines for."

"It's time the rule be reviewed," agreed Seattle City Council member Sally Bagshaw, chair of the council's parks committee, in a phone conversation this morning. She then dismissed the argument—once used by the parks department to deny Jaecks use of its facilities—that seeing women's mastectomy scars would disrupt the pool's "family friendly" environment:

"It strikes me that when someone’s gone through something this serious," Bagshaw says, "people can and should take care of each other."

FacebookShare

Comments (28) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Who is Medgar Edwards? http://www.seattle.gov/parks/aquatics/ev…

Posted by ScreenName on June 21, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Oh, and great work reporting on this thing that has to happen.

Posted by ScreenName on June 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Hahahaha! "International media markets" = Daily Mail. Hahahahhahaha!

Posted by gloomy gus on June 21, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Jesus, why is this even hard!? "Cover your sex parts: if you don't have sex parts, we are very sorry for your loss. Your scars are not sex parts". No committee needed! I just saved the Parks thousands of bucks.

Posted by zobot

on June 21, 2012 at 2:20 PM

@3, sometimes girls just wanna have fun.

Posted by Cienna Madrid on June 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

@3) That link is one of several examples. It's been picked up by lots of outlets, including the AP.

Posted by Dominic Holden on June 21, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Can't we just let the ladies take their tops off anytime and anywhere, already?
Boob or no boobs, people need to relax about this isssue, I say.

Posted by sall on June 21, 2012 at 2:42 PM

@5, I love it - I think the Mail should be voted "most-amusingly-linked international media outlet on Slog". @6, please be more serious at all times.

Posted by gloomy gus on June 21, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Jodi is so beautiful. Power to her.

Posted by tabathalphabet on June 21, 2012 at 2:51 PM

This is grist for the mill for moving Mr. Williams from Acting Supt. to Supt. (over his laudably decorous and conscientious objections if necessary) if it hasn't been done already.

I know all about falling on your sword for the greater good of the organization (not gonna get into it here), but I also know (because it's been the case for the last several years for the airport manager and the head librarian out here in tumbleweed-land) that local government toffs will refuse to promote those who have been fulfilling a higher job description following the resignation, death, or riding-out-of-town-on-a-rail of their supervisors, claiming budgetary constraints. They can bloody well cut their own salary/benefits/pensions if the shortfall is real.

Posted by rob!

on June 21, 2012 at 3:20 PM

@9

I was just about to post the same thought. Yes, when I see that photo, I someone who is beautiful.

Posted by seatackled on June 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM

@11

Crap, I meant, of course, I SEE someone who is beautiful.

Posted by seatackled on June 21, 2012 at 3:44 PM

No! They can't take time to come up with a thoughtful policy! Cienna won't stand for it!

Posted by bigyaz on June 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM

"She made it clear she wanted to show her scars as a 'badge of courage' and wanted to use the pool to spread her message," says parks spokeswoman Dewey Potter.

Who is Dewey Potter, and what's her problem?

Posted by Geraldo Riviera on June 21, 2012 at 4:12 PM

@10, in the long thread yesterday somebody claimed it wasn't that McGinn was dragging his feet appointing Williams full Superintendent, it was that Williams has a cancer diagnosis himself and has declined an offer to be confirmed in the post. I questioned how that would make any sense, since greater job stability can only reduce the stress of medical treatment, but whoever claimed to know did not return.

Posted by gloomy gus on June 21, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Can we ban men with back fur and man boobs? That's WAY grosser than this lady.

Posted by ShaveMe on June 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I did see that, Gus, which is what prompted my comment above. I agree with you; thanks.

(Re: my local sitch, in the early June election a couple of bonehead republitard county supervisors got displaced by hardworking progressive types [though our Congressional primary results were a major disappointment], so I'll be needling the newbies to do right by the library and airport managers.)

Posted by rob!

on June 21, 2012 at 5:31 PM

How about treating women and men equally? Just a thought. That you are legally obligated to comply with.

Posted by raku on June 21, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Would John Wayne Bobbitt (or some other castrated & de-peened man) be allowed to swim nekkid? Also unsightly, I would guess.

Posted by whatevers on June 21, 2012 at 6:29 PM

@4: but boobs aren't sex parts. At least not any more than armpit hair is.

Posted by stirwise on June 21, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Ding! Fifteen minutes are up! Thanks for coming, and please remove the photograph as you leave.

Posted by crone on June 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I know you'll do right by them, rob! That's a great opportunity to nudge things in the right direction.

Posted by gloomy gus on June 21, 2012 at 7:43 PM

"Where are you taking this...thing? (Well, at least that's what they'd say on the Death Star)

Posted by Stranger'sWorstNightmare on June 21, 2012 at 7:43 PM

@ 4
Agreed. If a man had his penis amputated would that entitle him to swim nude?

Posted by unknown_entity on June 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM

@24 yes. The poor bastard. What's to be offended by? His empty pubic mound?

Posted by zobot

on June 21, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Geez, can we get over this silly superstition that the sight of natural body parts is somehow harmful? People should be allowed to swim nude if they damn well please. If someone is offended, well, if they can't handle the sight of human anatomy that's their problem!

Posted by I have always been... east coaster on June 22, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Swimming topless, with or without breasts, should be every mans/womans/persons right. If men can swim with bare chests (and nipples), women should have the same right.
Not a requirement to swim topless, but clearly the right to do exactly what men have done for years. The kids will get over it in two weeks....their uptight parents...a little longer.
They're only breasts....grow up and get over it.

Posted by brucereno on June 23, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I swim topless all the time, but then I'm a man. Double standards!

Posted by Kacey Daniels on June 24, 2012 at 8:56 AM