Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> I <br /> . regarding the Affirmative Action report. He felt the Human Rights <br /> Council should be working more closely with the City in regard to areas <br /> of potential discrimination. His final response was that if by this <br /> time next year, a similar report were made to Council) he felt Council <br /> was going to have to take a hard look at whether the Human Rights Council <br /> and commissions structure was functioning as Council felt it should. <br /> Mr. Obie questioned why a year's time was needed for this. Mr. R u sse 11 <br /> replied a year's time would be necessary for evaluation of the current <br /> sy stem. There had been a problem of continuity, citing three changes of <br /> staff members in the last year; and noting the problems the people who <br /> had been selected for the commissions and whether they were ones who were <br /> really effective and committed to serving on those commissions. <br /> Ms. Smith said the recommendation in the report regarding appointments <br /> addressed the selection process, and she was hopeful that participation <br /> by the commission members in the interview and selection process would <br /> be accepted. She hoped there would be better communication between the <br /> commissions and the Council in selecting new members for the commissions. <br /> Mr. Russell urged Mr. Obie to review the report as some of the responses <br /> for questions he had raised would be found there. <br /> Mr. Delay noted in Recommendation No.4 that he was in favor of the in- <br /> crease in a fine for discrimination. He questioned how much discussion <br /> had been held regarding that issue. Mr. Russell said there had been a <br /> - great deal of discussion, and the recommendation had come as a result of <br /> recommendations from staff. It was difficult to resolve the problem of <br /> complaints as the ordinance did not provide for a stiff enough penalty to <br /> make people comply. Betsy Merck, Human Rights Specialist, noted the $100 <br /> fine for discrimination and a $500 if it were a criminal penalty. The <br /> complainant could never recoup money. It was felt a $1,000 fine would <br /> discourage employers from discriminating. Mr. Delay asked whether this <br /> would make the City Human Rights Commissions more viable to individuals. <br /> Ms. Merck replied that most individuals were interested in recouping <br /> money for themselves; the Human Rights Commissions were more interested <br /> in getting employers to comply. Mr. Russell added that the inreased <br /> fine might be an incentive to employers to sit down and talk about <br /> discrimination. <br /> Mr. Lieuallen asked whether alternatives regarding discrimination com- <br /> plaints had been considered. Ms. Merck replied they had, but it seemed <br /> they were very limited alternatives under the charter. <br /> Mr. Lieuallen felt the recommendations under the new procedures were <br /> going to make the appointment process a better one, noting that was <br /> one of the main defects. He was curious about the staffing and assign- <br /> ments, and the report's statement that the human rights staff should <br /> reflect the constituency it served. Mr. Russell replied it was aimed <br /> mostly at the Minorities Commission, with the Commission feeling that <br /> it was difficult for a non-minority staff member to be effective in <br /> e working with the Minority Commission. A more general concern was <br /> 6/22/77 --7 <br /> ttqq <br />