02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

whereby a panel of Commission members adjudicates complaints filed by the Commis- sion; (3) ,gives the city manager discretionary power to enforce the anti-discimina- tion clau~e in all city contracts; (4) changes title of Commission officers to . chairperson and vice chairperson rather than chairman and secretary. Manager said that from an administrative standpoint involvement in a completely thorough audit of contracts and affirmative action programs in the long run would become a major effort and would probably require additional staff. Initially, at least, an 'attempt would be made to cover this responsibility with existing staff. The questi,on of transferring evaluation of discrimination complaints to the hear- ings official, he said, may raise some questions. There has been no discussion with the hearings official; but there is nothing in the ordinance against a second hearings official should the work be more than one could handle or if the present hearings official did not want to take it on. Mike Phill;ips, member of the Commission, enlarged upon the city attorney's explana- tion of tne Commission's reasons for recommending the amendments. He said that including age, mental or physical handicap, and marital status as bases for pro- hibiting discrimination were in addition to those already listed in the city's ordinance and brought it into conformance with provisions added to state law in 1971 legislative session. Also, evaluation of complaints by hearings official not only provided for fairness to both complainant and respondent in discrimination proceedings but gave the appearance of fairness which in the prese~t procedure of the Commission's judging complaints on its own findings was not evident. The Com- mission in the past yea:( or so on occasion has wished to act on complaints but re- frained because of this procedure - in particular, complaints arising from an aSPIRG study which found some 30% of apartment owners were discriminating on the basis of race. With regard to the amendment concerning enforcement of city con- tracts, Mr. Phi llips said the Commission fel t the amendment would improve the situation as a matter of policy and propriety for the city in dealing with and add- ing to the profit of businesses which discriminate. The amendment changing the titles of officers of the Commission were recommended, he said, to remove any desig- nation identified with the male gender. Councilman Haws asked what expense to the city could be expected from evaluation of discrimination complaints by the hearings official. He also asked why there was a difference in the categories on which discrimination complaints could be based in various sections of the amendment, and for an explanation of the quorum and majority requirements in panel decisions. John Porter, planning director, answered that the hearings officla is paid $25 per hour which also covers secretarial expense, and it was estimated fewer than five Commission complaints would be initiated in a year. Mr. Phillips explained that the bases for discrimination included in this amendment were the same as those added to st~te law in 1971. He sai~ decisions in panel hearings required two votes to carry, so if only a quorum was present (two members) there would have to,be agreement on the issue. In response to Mr. Haws' question about the type of notice given resondents, Mr. Phillips said they are given a copy of the complaint and advised as to hearing procedures ten days in ad- vance of the hearing. Councilwoman Beal referred to previous discussion on personnel reduction and wondered how it would affect the affirmative action program. Manager explained that in look- ing at reductions in staff personnel, management would have to be sensitive to the statutory as well as moral commitments to maintain affirmative action programs. There was no intent in meeting the financial situation faced by the city to forget the affirmative action program. Councilman Bradley asked questions about age limits in the amendment (18 to 65 years), ~ whether the state law was enabling legislation, mechanics of the Commission in ini~ tiating discrimination complaints, whether these provisions were unique in city codes, whether it would be wise for the hearings official to evaluate complaints initiated both by the Commission and private citizens, penalty provisions, and whe- 2/24/75 - 2 70 - --