|
<br />.. ,~
<br />l'.lQ
<br />. 'U
<br />
<br />4/l4l69
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />saying he felt he had a right to choose his tenants.
<br />
<br />Mr. Gordon Crider; 4045 Oak Street, Pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church, read a statement
<br />from fifty-four parishioners who supported the ordinance.
<br />
<br />The Council discussed the selection of the three-man panel, and its duties under the ordinance.
<br />The City Attorney questioned the validity of Section 9 (b) and whether a criminal penalty could
<br />be ,imposed, or whether it should not be a civil penalty. Mr. Vetri explained that this clause
<br />had been included to resolve the question of an obstinate violator, and agreed that Section
<br />9(b) could very well be stricken. The Council agreed that this section should be amended.
<br />
<br />Mr. Jim Jenkins, 2035 Charnelton, First United Methodist Church, 'said the administrative board
<br />of his church had gone on record as favoring this ordinance.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Mary Briscoe, speaking for Mrs. John Bascomb, president of the League of Women Voters,
<br />read a statement in support of the ordinance.
<br />
<br />Mr. Garske again~:expressed his concern that persons of dubious character might bring false
<br />charges. Mrs. Hayward commented that she was sure everyone was concerned that no invalid
<br />charges be made against citizens in the community, anq that no false arrests be made. However,
<br />she does not want discrimination to take place in the community. Mr. Vetri explained that the
<br />city investigator would determine whether there was any merit to the charges, and that this wou14
<br />be an adequate means of protecting reputations of individuals in the 'community. '
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />The City Attorney gave members of the Council a resume of federal, state and the proposed city
<br />ordinance, and explained that he had a problem looking at two identical ordinances, one with
<br />a civil penalty and the other exactly the same with criminal sanctions, and criminal penalties.
<br />He suggested that they be put into one ordinance.
<br />
<br />Mr. Johnson said the point raised by the Attorney deserves further consideration. The
<br />Commission had considered amending the criminal statute to provide additionally that jurisdic-
<br />tion in municipal court would not lie in a case where that particular matter o~ complaint had
<br />already been filed in the civil route, so they could not have, in effect, double jeopardy.
<br />
<br />Dr. Purdy asked Mr. Johnson if he would be opposed to the three-man panel being appo.inted by
<br />the Mayor, or by the Mayor and the City'Council. Dr. Purdy felt this would be better ,than
<br />placing it with the Commission or Chairman. Mr. Johnson could see no objection, and felt it
<br />might be desirable.
<br />
<br />The City Manager asked if the respondent was not satisfied with the decision of the panel,
<br />what his appeal would be from the civil process. Mr. Johnson replied that, if he did not
<br />accept his efforts at conciliation, the matter would be referred to the City Attorney's office
<br />to make a decision whether to take the matter to municipal court. '
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />There was a discussion concerning the appointment and makeup of the three-man panel. The Mayor
<br />commented that members of the Human Rights Commission are knowledgeable of many situations
<br />where it would be necessary for the Mayor to study each case" and, he would probably have to go
<br />to the Chairman of the Commission to seek council. There would be nothing to prevent the
<br />Human Rights Commission from soliciting outside help if they felt it was required. Mayor
<br />Anderson felt the Human Rights Commissi6n would be better disposed to take on this task.
<br />
<br />Councilman Teague asked the Commission what consideration had been given individual rights.
<br />He asked if ~he Commission considered writing a letter of intent to clarify the ordinance. Dr.
<br />, Potts sa~d they did not.
<br />
<br />Mr. Tom Gunning said black people have no choice or individual rights - they have no right to
<br />own or to earn because of discrimination.
<br />
<br />Dr. Potts said people still may impose conditions on rental or sal~-of their property. The
<br />point is, those conditions must apply to all people, with no discrimination on the basis of
<br />aex, nationality, color, religion etc.
<br />
<br />Mr. Paul Cope, 3979 Alder, felt having two ordinances was overdoing it, and would like to see
<br />the Council deal with only one ordinance.
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr said Dr. Pott had touched on the very important and primary purpose: of. the
<br />ordinance. The law creates an expectation of behavior. Society has moved ahead and the govern-
<br />ment is just catching up.
<br />
<br />t
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Hayward asked if the next step would be consideration of the ordinance at a regular
<br />meeting. Mayor Anderson said that was correct, and suggested that the Council give the City
<br />Attorney direction regarding changes and modifications.
<br />
<br />After discussion of possible amendments, Councilwoman Hayward moved'seconded by Mr. Mohr that
<br />the City Attorney make provision that if a complaint goes the civil route, the municipal court
<br />has no jurisdiction over it. The motion carried.
<br />
<br />The Mayor
<br />cha llenge
<br />to work.
<br />Gano for
<br />
<br />said that the City has an excellent Human Rights Commission that will accept a
<br />and has given this problem local recognition. However, the test will be getting it
<br />He thanked Dr. Pott and members of the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Vetri and Mr.
<br />their participation in preparation of the ordinance.
<br />
<br />the City Attorney explained that Mr. Arthur Johnson, attorney and member of the Human Rights Commission,
<br />4/14/69 - 8
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|