11/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1975 e be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill numberonly. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17471. I-A-3 D. Code Amendment re: Human Rights Commission/Women's Commission Manager reviewed history of request for creation of a women's commission by various women's groups in the community. Also, proposal presented by the Mayor involving creation of a new structure which would include a women's commission along with commissions concerned with other areas of discrimination - senior citizens, handi- capped, and minorities. A task force, comprising Council members Murray and Shirey and members of the women's groups, worked out the proposal presented at this time: Four commission, each having nine members, to be concerned with the needs of women, aging, handicapped, and minorities, and a human rights council made up of eight members, two from each commission. Manager read a summary of the ordinance and said that notices of this hearing had been sent to the various groups involved. , Councilman Murray, chairman of the task force, explained that the ordinance pro- vided for separation of the advocacy function from the hearing and judicial process. It also provided for separation of special interest advocacy groups, but at the same time provided for co-ordination through a human rights council. He thought the bill would give speedy and fair dispatch of all complaints and was a major improve- e ment over the existing structure. Councilwoman Shirey agreed. Mike Phillips, chairman of the present Human Rights Commission, said that group strongly endorsed separation of the advocacy function from the judicial function. He explained that the Commission had resisted any effort to separate people in this community into separate groups, but he felt the proposed ordinance would do just the opposite. In that respect, he said, it was misguided, and he urged that it not be adopted. He noted several different areas of discrimination and wondered where complaints could be taken in situations where commission lines crossed, such as women experiencing discrimination primarily because of race. Also, whether the senior citizens group would be concerned with problems of the young. He wondered if religious discrimination would be excluded. Because of these types of problems, Mr. Phillips said he felt the city would be moving backward, and that while it would be highly advantageous in addressing human rights problems, he thought separat- ing persons into identifiable groups was ill-advised. Public hearing was opened. I-A-4 Lucille Trine, a volunteer senior citizen Council assistant, said there was no thought of discrimination in any of the senior citizen groups. There were things needed from time to time, she said, and they might appeal to the commission for ad- vice or help. She didn't believe any of the four commissions would in any way hinder justice. - Therese Engelmann, 1910 Fairmount Boulevard, said a women's commission was requested - because the Human Rights Commission was not doing enough for women. Discovering problems of minority groups was difficult, she said, and could only be done with advocates. Also, the old "terrible thoughts" that go with the old racial dis- crimination had to be separated from what is happening now. She added that the commission on minorities could deal with religious discrimination. 11/10/75 - 5 580