Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuman Relations Commission - Minutes - 06/13/1974C I T Y O F F 0 R T C 0 L L I N S MEMORANDUM TO: The Human Relations Commission FROM: John McGraw, Acting Secretary SUBJECT: Minutes of the June 13, 1974 Regular Meeting I. The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairman, Dave Moore at 8:00 p.m. II. Present were: Members: Mrs. Ben Napheys Rev. Ed. Ostertag Dr. Parker Preble Mrs. Margret Batson Guests: Mr. Dave Moore Mr. John Clifford Mr. Sam Van Why Mrs. Ann Azari Mrs. Sam Van Why Mr. Don Deutsche, Cresap, McCormick and Paget Inc. Staff: Mr. John McGraw, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager III. The minutes of the May 9, 1974 regular meeting. Rev. Ostertag moved that the minutes be approved as distributed. Mr. Van Why seconded and the motion carried 8-0. IV. Consideration of the Human Rights Ordinance Sub -Committee Report and Recommendations. A. Vice-Chariman Moore gave a brief introduction and called for the report by Sub -Committee Charimaq Van Why. (See Report) 1. Cha .man Van Why made one addition to the Public Hearings Summary% With regard to the recommendations for the addition to the ordinance of non-discrimination on the basis of mental retardation or physical handicap, the committee recommends that the addition not be made at this time but that careful consideration be given to it's inclusion as an amendment subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance. The committee recognizes that discrimination on such basis exists and in many cases is as much a breech of the individuals civil rights as is discrimination made illegal under the proposed Ordinance. However, the lack of definition associated with the terms "mental retardation" and "physically handicap", opens the spectrum of possible cases considerably and may Minutes of June 1low inued op likely cause the Ordinance to be uninforceable in this area. Further research toward an adequately inforceable definition is currently being carried out by the Committee. However, the Committee recommends enactment of the proposed Ordinance as amended with consideration of a possible amend- ment to include mental retardation and physical handicap with defininitions. 2. Recommended amendments to The Proposed Ordinance. (Refer to Ordinance) Section I. Definitions. The following have been added: b. Marital Status. d. Complaint. e. Respondent. f. Employer. The wording has been changed. Section II. The.wording has been changed throughout to delete the listing or "race, color, creed..." and to in- clude "discrimination" which by definition includes the list "race, color, creed..." Section III. Employment. - Page 5 item "d" has been added. - "e". 1-5. The list of "race, color, creed..." has been replaced by the word "discrimination". - "V. The words have been rearranged in order to clarify the use of the word "employment". Section IV. Public Accommodations. The list "race, color..." has been replaced by the word "discrimination". Section V. Interfering with operation of Ordinance Prohibited. Sub -section "a" has been added. Section VII. Enforcement. A new Section VII replaces the old. Sub -section "a" -An harassment clause has been added. Part 1, the wording has been changed to clarify the intent. Sub -section "a", last paragraph is new. Sub -section "b", a new second paragraph has been added. Sub -section "c". Read as follows: If at any time the City Manager determines that the factual allegations are materially untrue, he shall dismiss the complaint 2 Minutes of June 13**inued and take no further action thereon other than informing the complainant and the respondant that the complaint has been dismissed; which action shall inform the complainant and the respondant of the complainants right of appeal and who has jurisdiction of the appeal. In the event that the complainant is dissatisfied with the City Manager's decision to dismiss the complaint, the complainant shall have right to appeal such decision to the Human Relations Commission. Such appeal shall be perfected by filing a Notice of Appeal with the City Manager within 30 days of the complainant's receipt of the Notice of Dismissal which notice shall inform the complainant of his or her right of appeal and who has jurisdiction of such appeal. Should the Human Relations Commission reverse the decision of the City Manager and determine that the factual allegations of the complainant are materially true, the City Manager shall pursue the complaint in the same manner as if he had found the allegations to be materially true. If the City Manager is of the views that, assuming the material allegations of the complaint to be true, a violation under this ordinance cannot be established, he will dismiss the complaint and notify the complainant and the respondant of such action, which notice shall inform the complainant of his or her right to appeal and who has jurisdiction of the appeal. In the event the complainant is dissatisfied with the decision to dismiss made by the City Manager, the complainant shall have the right of appeal such decision to the Municipal Court by filing a Notice of Appeal in the Municipal Court within 30 days of the complainant's receipt of the dismissal notice. The Municipal Court will either affirm or reverse the dismissal of the City Manager. Should the Municipal Court order the complaint be revised and prosecuted, a Municipal Judge other than the one making such order shall hear the case when it comes before the Court, for final disposition. In the event the City Manager is unable of officiate an agreement through conference, conciliation, or persuasion, and he is of the view that the violation can be established under the terms of this ordinance, he shall file a complaint in the Municipal Court. Any disclosure or statements made by the person charged in the course of conciliation efforts will not be used in Municipal Court. Mr. Napheys requested an explaination as to why the complainants appeal after the City Manager's finding that the factual allegations of the com- plaint are materially untrue, is directed to "The Human Relations Commission" which is not constituted for such purpose. Mr. Van Why; "This sub -section was in the original proposed draft. Mr. Moore; "Material fact is not necessarily a legal determination and that's all the Commission would be considering. Probable cause would require legal determination and that decision would be appealed to the Court." 3 Minutes of June l*9tinued Mr. Napheys: "Why is the Commission appeal there at all. Rev. Ostertag: Indicated that he supported the involvement of the Commission in the inforcement of the Ordinance and that Mr. James Reynolds, Director of Colorado Civil Rights Commission, during a sub -committee meeting had also expressed support for the involvement of the Commission. Dr. Preble: Supported the involvement of the Commission in the appellant process because it leads to more education of the public and gives more chance for a possible conciliation. Mr. Napheys; "The Commission is not a judicial board". Dr. Preble: Indicated that the Commission is en- franchized as a judidal body. Mr. Napheys: Indicated that in his opinion the in- volvement of the H.R.C. as perscribed by this proposal as it is, causes a case to go in and out of the judicial process which is legally improper. Mr. Moore; "It is not a question of law." Mr. Napheys: "Any appeal should go directly to the Court." Rev. Ostertag: "The Commissions involvement would provide a cooling period." Mr. Napheys: "One of the main reasons for the Ordinance is to provide for speedy action. We are establishing a "Blue Ribbon Jury" which would not be conducive to justice." Mrs. Azari: "The H.R.C. would not be involved in any conciliation." Mr. Van Why moved approval of the first paragraph of sub -section c under Section VII. Mr. Clifford seconded the motion. Rev. Ostertag requested a delay until a letter which was requested from Mr. Reynolds, Director of Colorado Civil Rights Commission arrived. (See last appendix). Mr. Van Why restated the motion. Mr. Moore reread the paragraph for clarification and then indicated a change in his position; "If the City Manager determines that the material facts in the case 4 Minutes of June 1 40tinued are untrue and the complainant appeals the decision, it should go to the Court. Mr. Napheys objected to the quasi -trial and fact finding procedure that would be required of the Commission as being too time consumming. Mr. Van Why indicated that Mr. Terrence Belton, Boulder Human Rights Officer spoke against H.R.C. involvement because of it's collective incompetance in making legal decisions. Mr. Moore reasoned that the H.R.C. involvement might -place a decision in the political arena, jeopardize it's objectivity and sensationalize the issue. Mr. Van Why called for the question. Dr. Preble seconded and the motion was defeated 4 to 3 with Mr. Van Why Abstaining. Mr. Van Why moved that the Human Rights Ordinance Sub - Committee be directed to amend the effected portions of sub -section C of Section 7 to delete the H.R.C. as the appellant body and insert the Municipal Court in it's place and furthermore, that the Human Relations Commission adopt and propose the Ordinance as amended to the City Council. Mr. Clifford seconded the motion. Mr. Napheys indicated that he was not on the Commission when the Ordinance was originally proposed to the City Council and that he would like to express two doubts as follows: 1. The question of double jeopardy has not yet been answered by the Courts and, 2. The power of the Municipal Court in civil law enforcement has not yet been answered by the Courts. Although there are reasons for the Courts to go either way, in the case of an unfavorable High Court ruling the Ordinance may be a step back for the cause of civil rights. Mr. Moore indicated that the H.R.C. seems to be agreed that the local Ordinance is morally right and fully within the intent of State and National Civil Rights Legislation. Although there are atleast two legal questions yet unanswered, questions can not be answered until they are asked. In this case the most appropriate means of asking the questions of the Courts is by way of the enforcement of the Ordinance. Until the questions are answered we can only enforce what we, ( with community support and no apparent opposition), k Minutes of June lb*tinued consider to be morally right and apparently not in conflict with any law. Mr. Van Why: "Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution regarding Home Rule seems to make a State Supreme Court supportive position more likely than a position of non-support. Dr. Preble: "Mr. March, City Attorney, is aware of the points Mr. Napheys has raised and has made his comments to the Council Rev. Ostertag called for the question and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Napheys requested that his comments, questions, and concerns be given full airing in the minutes. Vice -Chairman Moore so instructed the acting secretary. Mr. Van Why directed the attention of the H.R.C. members to the attatched letter regarding the pro- vision for non-discrimination on the basis of mental retardation and physical handicap beginning with the words In this booklet ... " and requested action by the H.R.C. Mr. Napheys suggested that enough was currently covered in the Ordinance and that anymore would be too much. Vice -Chairman Moore suggested that a motion to adopt the Human Rights Sub -Committee Report and proposed recommend- ations to the City Council would now be in order. Dr. Preble so moved. Mrs. Azari and Rev. Ostertag seconded the motion and Mr. Clifford called for the question. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Preble requested that his name be included among those in attendance at the May 15, 1974 Human Rights Ordinance Public Hearing in so much as the minutes themselves reflected his presence. Mr. Van Why moved that the total Sub -committee Report including tapes be approved and provided for City Council consideration. Dr. Preble seconded the motion. Mr. Napheys asked if the substance of the input at the hearings by thos other than those whom submitted written statements was included in the report to avoid a double hearing for same and not others. Minutes of June l*Wined to Mr. Van Why answered that the report was taken from the tapes, that the tapes too would be available for Council consideration and that the H.R.C. has an obligation to submit with the report any written statements. Vice-Chariman Moore called for the question and the motion carried unanimously. V. Vice-Chariman Moore reported that The Larimer County Human Resource Board has requested exificio members from the Loveland and Ft. Collins H.R.C.'s to attend their meetings. The Vice-Chariman indicated that he had been attending in lieu of the Charimans presence or a meeting to elect such a member from the H.R.C. The Vice -Chairman called for Nominations. Mrs. Azari nominated Mrs. Batson Dr. Preble seconded the Nomination. Mr. Van Why moved that Nominations cease and that the secretary cast a unanimous ballot for Mrs. Batson. The Vice -Chairman called for the question and the motion carried unanimously. VI. Vice -Chairman Moore declared the meeting adjourned. 7