Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuman Relations Commission - Minutes - 07/21/2000E HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting - July 21, 2000 Human Resources Department Conference Room 8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Bill Bertschy I Staff Liaison: Angelina Powell Ph. 221-6525 Chairperson: Bob Lank Phone: 493-5809 A special meeting of the Human Relations Commission was held on July 21, 2000 in the Human Resources Department conference room, 200 West Mountain Avenue. HRC Members present: Dan Devine, Tim Daugherty, Shion Hung, Bob Lank, Debbie Love and Man Oberoi. HRC Member absent: Mary Gomez and Barry Siff. Appellant present: Meng U. Chang Respondents present: Helen Somersall and Nancy Taylor, representing Catholic Charities Northern Staff Members present: Greg Tempel, Assistant City Attorney Barbara Spalding, Human Rights Officer I. The special meeting of the Human Relations Commission (HRC) was called to order by Bob Lank, Chair, at 8:34 a.m. The meeting was called to hear an appeal of a decision by the Human Rights Officer in the case of Meng U. Chang. Chair Bob Lank announced that he was acquainted with several people employed by Catholic Charities Northern (CCN). He indicated that either party to the appeal could ask him to excuse himself. Assistant City Attorney Greg Tempel asked Bob if he had any personal or business relationship with either party. Bob responded that he did not. Neither party to the appeal had an objection to Bob remaining on the HRC appeal panel. II. Statement by Appellant Meng U. Chang Bob Lank asked Mr. Chang to relate why he felt Ms. Spalding's decision in this case was incorrect. Mr. Chang related that he was thrown out of the CCN facility. He felt that was wrong. He felt that he was discriminated against because of his race. Ms. Spalding responded that she fully investigated the case and found no probable cause. Greg Tempel interjected and informed Mr. Chang that this hearing was not for the purpose of his asking questions from those present, but an opportunity for him to present his case to the HRC. Greg informed Mr.Chang that the appeal hearing rules allow Mr. Chang ten minutes to present his case to the HRC. Mr. Chang related that he tried to talk to one of the girls who works at CCN about some personal Human Relations Commission July 21, 2000 Page 2 issues. Chad Sebern from CCN then told him to leave because he should not be discussing personal matters with employees. Mr. Chang then went into a lengthy discussion about past injustices he and others had suffered at CCN. Ms. Spalding clarified the parameters that she was required to work with. The Human Rights Ordinance allows her to investigate complaints that happened no more than sixty days prior to the date of the complaint. She could not investigate alleged instances of discrimination that happened prior to that time. Shion Hung asked Mr. Chang what he was doing at CCN on the day of the alleged incident. Mr. Chang replied that he was reading the help wanted ads in the paper in an effort to find a job. III. Respondent's Statement Ms. Helen Somersall, representing CCN, presented the case on behalf of her agency. She gave a brief description of the services provided by her agency, including the operation of a job bank. Clients come to their facility at 7:30 a.m. and draw a number as part of the job assignment process established by the agency. If the employer specifies a special skill or job requirement, such as having a car, the agency tries to make the best match it can outside the lottery system. Otherwise, the jobs are assigned based on the number drawn by the client. Ms. Somersall noted that her agency will not serve people who are belligerent or aggressive. She also indicated that she had instructed Chad Sebern, the Job Bank Coordinator, to ask anyone who is not there seriously looking for a job to leave the facility because CCN is not a day shelter, and because people not looking for a job sometimes disrupt those that are. In the situation in question, the young woman with whom Mr. Chang was talking (a CCN volunteer), indicated to Chad Sebern that Mr. Chang made her uncomfortable by asking her personal questions. It was at that point that Chad asked Mr. Chang to leave. Bob Lank asked HRC members if they had any questions for Ms. Somersall. Man Oberoi wanted to know what types of jobs were available through the job bank. Ms. Somersall listed the typical types of jobs that were available, most very temporary in nature. Dan Devine asked if CCN had a client code of conduct posted in the facility. Ms. Somersall indicated that there were several signs located around the shelter outlining behavior expectations. Shion Hung asked if Mr. Chang was a frequent user of the CCN job bank. Ms. Somersall indicated that she had seen Mr. Chang there several times. IV. Appellant/Respondent Responses Mr. Chang indicated that a lot of people had complained about Chad Sebern in the past. Greg Tempel asked what the nature of the complaints were. Mr. Chang responded that a lot of people did not have their numbers called because of racial discrimination. However, he did not know their names or how to contact them. Man Oberoi asked Mr. Chang how many times he had gotten a job through the CCN job bank. Mr. Chang responded that he had gotten a temporary job only one previous time. Debbie Love asked Mr. Human Relations Commission July 21, 2000 Page 3 Chang if he had drawn a number on the day he was asked to leave the facility. He responded that he did not. He only went to CCN to read the help wanted ads. Tim Daugherty asked Barbara Spalding what she had found out about the discussion between the CCN volunteer who complained about Mr. Chang and, Mr. Chang. Ms. Spalding responded that she had asked Chad Sebern about a number of issues related to the job bank, including what instructions volunteers receive regarding dealing with problem clients. Chad himself deals directly with intoxicated and abusive clients. Volunteers are not expected to deal with problem clients. She also asked Chad about what happened on the day in question. Chad informed Mr. Chang that he was not to ask CCN employees and volunteers personal questions. He had had prior discussions with Mr. Chang about this issue. Further, Mr. Chang had not come for the purpose of using the job bank that day. He arrived around 10:30 a.m., three hours after the start of the job lottery process. Within a few minutes after arriving, he started asking the volunteer personal questions. Ms. Spalding continued that her charge was to determine if Mr. Chang was asked to leave the CCN facilities because of racial discrimination on part of CCN. Her finding was that Mr. Chang was asked to leave, not because of racial discrimination, but because he failed to follow CCN procedures. Specifically, he was not at the facility to use the job bank, and he was asking a CCN volunteer inappropriate questions. Consequently, there was no probable cause. Ms. Somersail clarified a point - Mr. Chang was asked to leave the facility for that day only. He was not asked to leave the program. In fact, he has been back at CCN since this incident occurred. Mr. Chang indicated that asking personal questions was protected by federal law. Tim Daugherty reminded Mr. Chang that the issue before the HRC is whether he was discriminated against by CCN, not to decide a freedom of speech issue. Bob Lank asked both parties if they had any concluding remarks. Mr. Chang reiterated that Chad was lying about the entire incident. Ms. Somersall reiterated that CCN has a right to enforce agency rules. Bob Lank asked for a motion to end the taking of evidence by the HRC. Shion Hung made the motion to end the taking of evidence, and was seconded. The motion passed unanimously. V. Deliberations by the HRC Greg Tempel reminded HRC members that Paragraph 6 of the Appeal Procedures outlines the burden of proof required to reverse a dismissal decision by the Human Rights Officer. Paragraph 8 outlines the types of actions that can be taken by the HRC. Shion Hung indicated that the first issue to decide is whether there was new evidence presented today related to the incident in question. After some discussion, the consensus of HRC members was that there was no new evidence presented by either party. Bob Lank then asked if the decision by the Human Rights Officer was erroneous, or if the evidence was not considered properly. After some discussion, HRC members reached a consensus that the decision was not erroneous, and that evidence was considered properly. Bob Lank asked if the Human Rights Officer abused her discretion, or acted beyond the scope of her authority. After some discussion, HRC members reached a consensus that she did neither. 11 P� Human Relations Commission July 21, 2000 Page 4 Tim Daugherty made the motion to affirm the decision by the Human Rights Officer. Man Oberoi seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously by the HRC. Greg Tempel indicated that he would prepare a formal document to be signed by HRC Chair Bob Lank. The document will indicate that the HRC affirmed the decision by the Human Rights Officer. All parties will be sent copies. Bob Lank asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:13 a.m.