Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuman Relations Commission - Minutes - 03/10/1977• CITY OF FORT COLLINS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 24, 1977 TO: Human Relations Commission FROM: Mary Ann Kennaugh, Secretary RE: Minutes of the March 10, 1977 Regular Meeting I. Call To Order Called to Order by Chairwoman Batson at 7:34 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 W. LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. II. Role Call Members Present - Margaret Batson, Chairwoman Ben Napheys, Vice Chairman Gloria Hershberger, Secretary Rev. Ed Ostertag Steve Smith Kelsey Smith Members Absent Art Jackson, excused Don Shoemaker, excused Ken Drieth, excused III. Consider Approval of Minutes Guests Susan Jones, Assistant to the City Manager Dorothy Lasley Buz Hicks Bill Clothier Ray Harper Other members of the Larimer County Association of the Blind and Physically Handicapped and Concerned Citizens Staff John D. McGraw, Director of Human Resources Rosita Bachmann, Human Rights Officer Mary Ann Kennaugh, Secretary Commission member Napheys moved approval of the February 10, 1977 meeting minutes as distributed. Commission member Hershberger seconded and the minutes were approved 5 - 0. IV. Consider Creation of Handicapped Advisory Committee - Buz Hicks gave a brief summary of the proposal as attached to the February 10, 1977 minutes. (Exhibit "A" attached hereto.) - Chairwoman Batson indicated that City Council had expressed their support for the group's establishment and functioning, and that the Human Relations Commission's role would be to give moral support and any other help it could. March 24, 1977 Human Relations Comnsion • Minutes of the 3/10177 Regular Meeting Page Two The White House Conference on the Handicapped, to be held May 23-27, 1977 . was discussed. The establishment of on -going communication between national, state, and local committees on the handicapped is part of the planning for the White House Conference. Social Security benefits were discussed as one area needing reform and consideration at the White House Conference (Currently, Social Security Income and medical benefits can be decreased if an individual makes as little as $50/month on a job. This tends to decrease the incentive for the handicapped to work.) Commission member Ostertag suggested that the Human Relations Commission set up a joint study -sharing session on the handicapped with the Chamber of Commerce following the national conference. It was further suggested that some of the delegates to the White House conference be invited to attend this study session. The Handicapped Group expressed their desire to have some delegates at the White House Conference from their group. The group indicated that only delegates selected at the state conference have voting power at the Washington conference; however, no members from this group had been selected and the extent of their involvement at the national conference would be limited to off -hours lobbying. The group indicated that the Human Relations Committee could write a letter to Washington (specifically to Jack Smith, Executive Director of the White House Conference on Handicapped Individuals) to back up the group's request and to encourage Washington Conference Director, Jack Smith, to invite them. (Attendance at the conference is by invitation only.) Commission member Napheys moved that the resolutions passed at the January 13, 1977 and the February 10, 1977 meetings regarding the creation of a Handicapped Advisory Committee as a standing committee of the Human Relations Commission, and the concurrent amendment to the Commission's by-laws, be rescinded, and that the Chairwoman be authorized to appoint a special committee to be designated the Handicapped Advisory Committee, pursuant to the Human Relations Commission By-laws and membership functions. Commission member Ostertag seconded. Discussion followed. Commission member Napheys indicated that the membership functions, and operating guidelines for the Committee were fine(See Exhibit "A"), and that he would like to see at least one or two Human Relations Commission members on the Committee if it is to be a special committee of the Human Relations Commission. Commission member Ostertag indicated his concurrence and that this suggestion was in order. Chairwoman Batson called for the question, and motion passed 6 - 0 with the following vote: Ayes: Commission members Batson, Napheys, Hershberger, Ostertag, Smith and Smith. Nays: None. Commission member Ostertag moved that the Human Relations Commission write a letter encouraging Fort Collins representation at the White House Conference on Handicapped Individuals. Gloria Hershberger seconded, and the motion passed 6 - 0 with the following vote: Ayes: Commission members Batson, Napheys, Hershberger, Ostertag, Smith and Smith. Nays: None. March 24, 1977 • • Human Relations Commission Minutes of the 3/10177 Regular Meeting Page Three Chairwoman Batson indicated the Commission would receive suggestions from the handicapped group (who proposed the establishment of the special committee) for applicants for membership on the Handicapped Advisory Com- mittee. She further indicated that appointments of Human Relations Com- mission members to the Committee would be in an ex-officio capacity, and appointed the following members to serve as ex-officio members on the Com- mittee: Commission member Ostertag Commission member Hershberger - Bill Clothier indicated he has a collection of materials on the handicapped available for use by anyone interested. Buz Hicks indicated that the Larimer County Association of the Blind and Physically Handicapped has a file cabinet available for access. Commission member Ostertag noted that the Chamber of Commerce should be made aware of and have access to these materials. - John McGraw indicated that the Handicapped Advisory Committee also has access to Human Relations Commission staff functions and facilities. - Commission member Ostertag suggested that the agenda for the Human Relations Commission's June meeting include a report on the White House Conference by the Committee or from one of the delegates who attended. (Delegates to the Conference, as elected at the State conference, are David Anthony and Ted Sharp from Weld County.) - Buz Hicks invited all present to attend the next meeting of the Larimer County Association of the Blind and Physically Handicapped to be held March 17, 1977, at St. Luke's Church, 7:00 p.m. - John McGraw reminded the Committee of the availability of reimbersements for the transportation costs of handicapped committee members to Human Relations Commission meetings. - Buz Hicks indicated that the group known as the Colorado Handicapped Workers, Inc., who are soliciting support of the handicapped through the selling of light bulbs, is a non -charitable profit making group and in no way connected with the Larimer County Association of the Blind and Physically Handicapped. Although this group is operating within the l.aw, it defines "handicapped" to include pregnant women,etc., and their benefits are derived from working for the organization, but that few truly handicapped persons are employed by it. It is creating problems for other charitable, non-profit groups and purchase of their product (light bulbs) is discouraged. It was noted that Council- woman Gray would be contacting the Attorney Generals' Office in Denver about the group. The Human Relations Commission cannot take any official action in the matter. It was noted that independent, individual action could be taken to make the community aware of the situation through the news media, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. March 24, 1977 0 • Human Relations Commission Minutes of the 3/10/77 Regular Meeting Page Four V. Police - Grievance Procedure A. Commission member Hershberger indicated that the final draft of the proposal to include the Human Relations Commission as an appellant advisor to the City administration in the proposed Police - Grievance Procedure is not yet com- pleted. Commission member Napheys moved that this item be tabled until the next meeting. Commission member Hershberger seconded, and motion passed 6-0 with the following vote: Ayes: Commission members Batson, Napheys, Hersh- berger, Ostertag, Smith and Smith. Nays: None. - John McGraw read his memo addressed to the City Manager regarding this matter. (Exhibit "B") Commission member Napheys requested that a copy of such memo be included with the final proposal presented by Lucia Liley. B. Commission member Hershberger indicated (as requested at the 2/13/77 meeting) that 19 complaints had been received by the Police Department in 1976, five of which were filed by minorities. Of these five, I had been substantiated and the officers disciplined. As requested, Commission member Hershberger is to present further information as to the number of complaints filed by non -minorities and their disposition. VI:: Other Business A. Commission member Ostertag expressed his dissatisfaction with the 2/13/77 meeting minutes regarding Item VII, Human Rights Annual Report, in that the minutes inadequately reflected the frustration of the Human Relations Commission in knowing what was going on, what the procedures are, and what progress is being made at the Human Rights Office. - Napheys - Aren't you referring to the Affirmative Action article in The Wnrd? - Ostertag - No, I am referring to the Human Rights Annual Report. Commission member Ostertag further felt that the Human Relations Commission has no way of finding out the procedures involved in the handling of complaints. - Rosita Bachmann - A Civil Rights Specialist will never make this infor- mation public. (Referring to specifics involved in a discrimination case, e.g. names of the parties involved.) - Napheys - You can once the case goes to court. (Bachmann- The parties concerned can make it public at any time. - McGraw - (Addressing Ostertag) Would you like the format of the minutes changed? (Ostertag: No) Are you concerned about being informed about the Human Rights Office? March 24, 1977 Human Relations Commission Minutes of the 3/10/77 Regular Meeting Page Five - Bachmann - General case information is presented to the commission in / quarterly reports. Commission member Ostertag indicated that he would check his notes from the last meeting to determine the specific frustration expressed by the Human Relations Commission over the Human Rights Annual Report and address the issues at the next meeting. B. Commission member Ostertag - Regarding the approved motion of the Human Relations Commission at the February 10, 1977 meeting to take no action regarding the Affirmative Action article printed in The Word, the "action of no action by the Human Relations Commission was the worst position of all. There must be some substance that leads to this type of article; some views regarding the situation must be erroneous. The Human Relations Commission, as a body, is not entering into dialogue with the editor of the article; but, Commission member Ostertag "hopes that, if Commission members have such information (reference to erroneous views), they make it known." - Chairwoman Batson - "i don't know how extensively an individual can go into this type of thing. The only way I know you can, is to start asking. (It is) something that each Human Relations Commission member would have to look into on his/her own." - Ostertag - There has been no retraction of the article or statement of mistake; he is saying some serious things about the City. - McGraw - The statements are regarding preceptions, not verifiable facts, and the demand for retraction of perceptions is not appropriate and would not likely be honored. - Ostertag - Some people in the City are expressing fear of voicing complaints. - Napheys - Regarding the last meeting and the discovery of "true facts, we (the Human Relations Commission) were not in the position to be a fact- finding committee. - McGraw - The Affirmative Action Plan is: 1)an attempt to deal with many issues, some of which were reidentified in the article, and 2) an attempt to identify facts regarding perceived problems with achieving Equal Employment Opportunity status and overcoming them. We need to know what the labor force market looks like and compare it to employment statistics. We currently do not have applicable labor force statistics; we need to look at what point minorities were screened out of the hiring process. Current personnel records do not accommodate ready collection of these types of statistics, but they (Personnel records) are currently in the process of being amended. - Ostertag - The reference to the fact that there are individuals who would not feel free to voice their true feelings is my concern. We need to find whether there are individuals like this, talk to them, and expose their concerns. "If there is any way we can become aware of these facts, we should do so." - Batson - Each Human Relations Commission member must do his/her own investigation and find out. March 24, 1977 • • Human Relations Commission Minutes of the 3/10/77 Regular Meeting Page Six - McGraw - How do you go about making these people comfortable in airing their concerns to someone who can find the facts and deal with the problems? - Bachmann - Discrimination complaints can be filed with outside agencies; within the City, employment grievances can be taken to the Personnel Board. e.g. criticism of a supervisor. Perhaps we need to do some counseling on how to better deal with internal complaints. - Ostertag - "In the Affirmative Action Plan, there is no choice but to face the criticism?" - Bachmann - Equal Employment Opportunity counselors refer employees to our office if they have a problem. Employees are referred to the Affirmative Action Officer who reports to the City Manager. A grievance questionnaire was distributed to all City career employees in December, 1976. Analysis of the survey data is to be made public. 50% of the employees do not know about the (grievance) procedure. This is a deficiency. - Ostertag - Are there circumstances to prevent employees from presenting grievnaces? - Bachmann - Yes - we are dealing with human beings. There is not a gracious way of confronting a supervisor with a grievance. In the recent survey, one question dealt with whether or not an individual would feel free to file a grievance. We will be addressing the response to this question. About 1/3 felt they would get into trouble if they filed a grievance. - Commission member Napheys requested that the survey analysis be presented to the Human Relations Commission. - Bachmann - "I don't know if this is the proper body to address Affirmative Action, but you are welcome to have survey statistics." (Copies will be distributed for the next meeting.) C. Commission member Napheys moved that the Human Relations Commission express their thanks for the City Boards and Commissions appreciation dinner. Commission member Ostertag seconded and motion was approved by consensus. VII. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. • YIIOI'OSAL FOR THE CREATION OF A SPECIAL "BANDICAPPEDu ADVISORY CC1iMr""TEE PROPOSAL handicapped Advisory Committle A. Mc;rbcrshi2. This cowmittee shall be comprised of six (6) handicapped and three (3) non-banrorsa-ppcd n frog members appointed by the liuman Relations fied applicants, 1'ic!abers of Bald Co'.:nittee shall serve four (4) years or until their auccescors are a;>puint.ed, and appointments to tech Coe. mitteeAlly uhallofeesuch as to achieve overlapping members Tray be appointed by the Conaaittee. g. Functions. 1) To collect and assess data on the handicapped in the City. 2) To rccommand such action as would be necessary or advise,ble to il:,prove the accessibility to the handi- c Aped of Uui.ldi.rigs within the City. 3) To rec.:n.:cnd tiuch action �.s taould be necessary or advisable to provide iirprovcd transportation services to the handicapped. 4) To work with the City PlanlTfng Department and the Ylalining and Zoning Board on revisions of the zoning ordinances relating to the handicapped• 5) To educate and eoordii.ate with the husil:css cor::""" ty on prohlems of the h j!dfca}ped in the area of cc,p7oyi.�ent. To establish a clearing hv':Ise for the dis:,:minatzon of 6) inforT-ation pertinent to the reeds of the l;andfcappcd. 11 ado t su�_h ru1Cs (;, CeratinP__C'.�idclines. The ce;..�littee sha 1 11neces ::ry and desirebir_ inch and operating p*occd s as ll not be inconsistent with the Charter rules and procedures sha or Crdir.anccs of the City of Fort CollinsCo ior with e r By-laws of the lluman Relations Cor.nfssion. Copies of these rules and procedures shall be presented to the liu;nan Relations Ccn.Tission for official confirmation and a copy of said rules and pro- cedures s1,311 then be filed with the City Clerk. �XNiB7� CITY OF FORT COLLINS M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 1, 1977 TO: Robert L. Brunton, City Manager fir( FROM: John D. McGraw, Human Resources Directorl `J. j1t tr RE: The Proposed Inclusion of the Human RelalionsCornrnission as an Advisory to the City Administration in the Proposed Police Grievance Procedure In reviewing this proposal, I am mindful of the difficulties experienced by the Human Relations Commission in handling community discrimination grievances prior to the enactment of the Human Rights Ordinance. During that period, the Human Relations Comm'ssion was viewed by many residents as ineffective, because it was assigned a responsibility for resolving complaints over which it had no legal authority. The current proposal suggests that the Commission review, in an.advisory capa- city, actions taken by the Police Department to remedy individual citizen com- plaints. As I understand the proposal, the pnooscrs envision that the Com- mission will, in most cases, merely review the report submitted by the Police Department on its action on a given complaint. However, it is also envisioned that some cociplainants will not be satisfied with the action taken by the Police Department. In such instances, the Human Relations Commission t:ould re- view the complaint, the action taken by the Police Department, and hold a hear- ing at which the Complainant would provide testimony regarding his dissatisfaction with the action of the Police Department to resolve the ceu;plaint. I am, first of all, unclear as to the limitations of this hearing. Are both parties to be present or represented at the hearing? Can the Commission call witnesses? or hear witnesses? Can the Commission call for evidence? If so, to what extent? Can the Commission deal with confidential matters? If so, can the Coi,.mission call for a closed session? Subsequent to the hearing, it is proposed that the Commission advise the City Administration on an appropriate action based on the merits of the case as pre- sented in the hearing. If the Commission does not have access to information sufficient to discern the facts, then I question the competence of their advice. Will this function of the Commission require an amendment to the Commission's Creating Ordinance or By -Laws? JDM/mak cc: Lucia Liley, Assistant City Attorney r ATTACHMENT "A" All answered questi 0aires were combined into one Oeral pool and analyzed as a whole. ANALYSIS OF ALL QUESTIONNAIRES COMBINED (397 answered returns) I. The responses to the following questions indicate that a substantial number of career employees do not know enough about the question to answer it. Criteria: 25% and over. Question 8 shows that 31.5% of the employees do not know if it is easy to contact their EEO representative. Question 9 shows that 26% of the employees do not know if a real effort is being made to provide equal opportunity for employees at the division level. Question 10 shows that 28% of the employees do not know if a real effort is being made to provide equal employment opportunity for women in their department. II. The responses to the following questions indicate employees' general approval of what the City is doing now. Yes answers substantially higher. Criteria: Twice as many yes as no answers. Question 8 - 61% said it is easy to contact their EEO departmental representative; compared to 7% who said it is not easy. Question 9 - 56% said that a real effort is being made to provide equal employment opportunity for employees in their division; com- pared to 16% who said a real effort was not being made. Question 10 - 56% said that a real effort is being made to provide equal employment opportunity for women in their department; com- pared to 15% who said a real effort was not being made. uestion 11 - 63% said that a real effort is being made to provide equal employment opportunity for minority group members in their department; compared to 11% who said a real effort is not being made. Question 12 - 70% said that they are making good use of their abilities; compared to 22% who said they were not making good use of their abilities. Question 13 - 71% said that they have been given an opportunity to get the training necessary to do their job; compared to 16% who said that they had not been given the training necessary to do their job. Question 15 - 78% said that they have talked to their supervisors about their job performance in the past twelve months; compared to 18% who said they had not talked to their supervisors about their job performance. Question 19 - 72% said that they are, generally speaking, satisfied with their job; compared to 15% who said they were not satisfied with their job. Question 27 - 72% did not feel that younger employees receive better treatment than older employees in their department; compared to 12% who felt that younger employees do receive better treatment than older employees. Question 29 - 69% said they would feel free to file a discrimination grievance if they felt they had been discriminated against; compared to 27% who said they would not feel free to file a discriminatino grievance. III. There were no items showing general dissatisfaction. Criteria: Twice as many negative as positive reponses. IV. The answers to the following questions indicate strong division between yes and no responses: Question 14 - 44% agreed with the statement "Where you work, do the best qualified individuals generally get the promotions?"; compared to 34% who disagreed with the statement. Question 16 - 49% said that they had talked with their supervisors in the past twelve months about their opportunities for promotion; com- pared to:46% who said that they had not talked with their supervisors about opportunities for promotion. Question 17 - 33% said that they had talked to their supervisors in the past twelve months about equal employment opportunity; compared to 57% who said that they had not talked to their supervisors about equal employment opportunity. Question 18 - 60% said that they had talked with their supervisors in the past twelve months about their training needs; compared to 32% who said that they had not talked with their supervisors about their training needs. Question 20 - 39% said that they were satisfied with their opportunities for promotion; compared to 48% who said that they were not satisified with their opportunities for promotion. uestion 30 - 33% said that they felt they would get into trouble if the filed a discrimination grievance; compared to 45% who said they would not. Question 31 - 37% said that they felt they would get into trouble if they filed a personnel grievance; compared to 40% who said they would not. Question 32 - 50.5% said they knew how to file a discrimination grievance; compared to 47% who said they did not. Question 33 - 30% said that they thought the system for handling dis- crimination grievances if effective; compared to 32% who felt it is not effective. - 2 - V. The answers to the three (3) employees Representative is: following question indicate that one (1) out of every in the City do not know who their department EEO Question 7 - 33% said that they did not know who the Equal Employment Opportunity Representative for their department is; compared to 66% who said that they did know who their EEO Representative is. - 3 - I. Background Information ATTACIIHENT "A" Analo s Of All City Departments At Larc 404 Returned 7 individuals chose not to answer but returned the questionnaire Symbols - NA = Not answered. 1. How long have you worked for the city? O 1-12 months L] 36-60 months 12-36 months O Over 60 months 2. What is"your highest level of education? Less than high Attended technical, school graduate vocational, or buaineas school High echool graduate Bachelors Degree Advanced Degree 3. How old are you? QLees than 20 years U 20 to 30 years 4. Are you a aupervicor? l_ 1 Yes 5. what is your sex? CJ Male [_-::] 31 to 40 years EA41 to 50 years EJ51 years or above O No UFemale 6. Are you a member of a minc,rity grcixp? (That is, Black, Spc.nich Surncu.cd Amcriean, Am^riean Indian, or Oriental) Yes O No 7. De you know who the Equal Employment Opportunity Representative for your department is? 261 - Yes 133 No . NA: 3 66% 33% 1% 8. Is it easy for you to contact your Equal Employment Opportunity departmental representative? r 242 Yes 28 No 125 NA: 2 61% 7% 31.5% .5% -1- • II. J(b Opportunities 9. Is a real effort being made to provide equal employment opportunity for employees 'in your diviai60 223 Yes 64 No F104� 77 r NA: 6 56% 16% 26% 2% 10. Is a real effort being made to provide equal employment opportunity for women inryour department? 221 Yes Fiil No 111 77 X NA: 5 56% 15% 28% 1% 11. Is -:a real effort being.v—nde to. provide.. equal employment opportunity for minority group members in your department? 249 Yes 45 No 92 77 NA:11 63% 11% 23% 3% 12. Do you feel you are making goad uce of your abilities in your current job? 279 Yee F 88 No 25 77 NA: 5 70% 22% 6% 2% 13. Have you been given en opportunity to get the training neccsoary to do your job? 277 Yes 64 No 40 77 NA:10 71% 16% 10% 3% 14. Where you work, do the best qualified individuals generally get the��--prorotions? 1Yes 76 ll No 76 7? NA:12 44% 34% 19% 3% Have you and your supervisor talked about any of the following topics in the pact twelve n.ontha7 15. Your job performance 308 Yes 72 No 13 7? NA: 4 78% 18% 3% 1% 16. Opportunities for pror;otion IF971 YG7 182 No [12 77 NA: 6 49% 46% 3% 2% 17. Equal employment opportunity FillYes 227 No BEI 77 NA: 7 33% 57% 8% 2% -2- 18. Your training needs [241J Yes L-128 j No 18 77 NA:10 60% 32% 5% 3% 19. Generally speaking, are you satisfied with yGur job? 288 Yes F-581 No 44 1 77 NA: 7 72% 15% 11% 2% 20. Are you satisfied with your opportunities for promotion? 157 Yes 19 No 42 77 NA: 8 39% 48% 11% 2% If NO, why are your chances for promotion poor? (Check as many as apply) 21. Lack of higher -level vacancies Yes-, 179 94% 22. Unfairness in prerotions Yes 71 37% 23. Difficulty in getting information Yes L5?,�` 27% 24. Need r:ore experience Yes �4J 25% 25. Need r__ire training Yea 59 31% 26. I have no interest in a promotion Yes 16 8% 27. Do younger employees receive better treatment than older employees where you work? 48 Yes 284 No � ?? NA: 9 12% 72% 14% 2% 28. Now are erployees from minority groups generally treated where you work? (Check one) 12% 46 Better than other ei:ployees 80% 317 Abcut the sage as other er:ployees NA:19 4% [J5 Worse than other ecployees 4% III. On Grievances 29. Would you feel free to file a discrimination grievance if you felt you had been discriminated against? 274 Yes 109 No NA:14 69% 27% 4% -3- 30. Do you feel you would get into trouble if you filed a discriwination grievance? 130 Yes 11781 No 81� 77 33% 45% 20% 31. Do you feel you would get into trouble if you filed a personnel grievance? 147 Yes F1571No 84 77 37% 40% 21% 32. Do you know how to file a discrimination grievance? 201 Yes ® No ?; 2 50.5% 47% .5% 0 33. Do ycu think the system for handling discrimination grievances is effective? 121 Yes 125 No ?:88 30% 32% 22% 34. Use the remainder of this page to wake any coi_aents or suggestions. If your co.r.:ents relate to a specific item in this questionnaire, pleaae show the question nui.:ber. Feel free to discuss any subject which you feel would be of help in conducting this review. NA: 8 2% NA: 9 2% NA: 9 2% NA:63 16% -4-