Laserfiche WebLink
Relating to the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations for bathroom use by <br />transgendered individuals, Ms. Miller said that she did not believe the proposal that would require <br />extensive physical reconstruction or renovation of existing facilities; a single-use bathroom would <br />present no problems, facilities with private stalls could allow a transgendered individual to use the <br />bathroom he or she needs, and the bathrooms that do not have private stalls might use a system <br />of signage designating when the facility is in use. In rest areas along interstate highways, there <br />are signs that note that attendants of the opposite sex may accompany a disabled person in the <br />bathroom. <br /> <br />Ms. Miller stated that the legal impact of the domestic partner registry is extremely limited but <br />acknowledged it could have an indirect legal impact. Ashland has had a registry since October <br />1999, with approximately 38 people registered. Multnomah County established its registry in June <br />of 1994, with 381 people registered. Ms. Miller predicted that after a few years, Eugene would <br />have a number of registrants somewhere between those numbers. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr commented that this was a defining moment for him. The proposed changes will help <br />protect people. He noted that his son attends Lewis and Clark College, where most dorms have <br />cross-gender bathrooms, which initially shocked him. Mr. Farr said that he measures any <br />proposal on three issues: 1) its effect on education, 2) its effect on the cost of housing, and 3) its <br />effect on the cost of doing business, specifically jobs and the economy. He asked how the <br />proposed ordinance for employee restrooms would impact businesses. Ms. Miller said there was <br />a negligible intended impact. For employees, the exception was to allow an employee to use a <br />bathroom of the gender they most consistently identify with, or make other reasonable facilities <br />available. Building a new bathroom would not be considered reasonable, but an "in use" sign <br />would be considered reasonable. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that the most important issue was how to protect the people of the community. In <br />general, he was in favor of the ordinance, although he expressed concerns about the potential <br />costs for employers, particularly small businesses, in providing a "reasonable facility." <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the proposed ordinance was a matter of simple justice, equity, and fairness. <br />He concurred with Ms. Ortiz's statement that the goal was to protect the most vulnerable citizens <br />and that should not be subject to a vote. To the changes, Mr. Meisner spoke in support of each. <br />He commented that he was willing to consider all of the proposed changes together or separately. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she had been supportive of Human Rights ordinance changes in the past and <br />was generally supportive of the proposed changes. She asked the City Manager to explain the <br />process, asking specifically if a motion was needed to provide for the public hearing. Mr. Carlson <br />said that there was no requirement for a motion. Since the proposal was from one of the City <br />Council's advisory committees, a public hearing was put on the City Council's tentative agenda, <br />although Mr. Carlson noted that this could be changed. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that the staff material does not explicitly state the intention of some of the <br />proposed changes. For example, the material states, there was a "significant threat or danger to <br />the public," but there was no supporting data. She suggested that the number of complaints <br />received or other tangible evidence be provided to the council. In addition, relating to the <br />domestic partnership registration, a list of the tangible benefits that one might receive could be <br />provided to City Councilors. In response, Ms. Miller said that it was not specifically clear to her <br />what those benefits might be. She said that it could be an issue where a private employer might <br />accept the registration as sufficient proof to provide medical insurance to a partner. The benefit of <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />