Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lidz said that the liability to the City, if it was to lose a legal challenge, would depend on the <br />challenge proposed. In terms of "reasonable access" or "reasonable accommodation," Mr. Lidz <br />said that reasonable access was specifically defined within the ordinance. If the definition was <br />broader than the City Council would like, it could be redefined. Mr. Torrey asked if "restroom" <br />would also include public shower facilities at a fitness or swimming pool facility, like the Sheldon <br />Community Center. He also asked if there was a point when a person is legally or medically <br />transformed from one sex to another. Mr. Lidz said that there was no legal answer as to when an <br />individual has transformed from one sex to another. Mr. Lidz said that the City Council could <br />define this in the ordinance, but noted that he has not worked with this issue enough to know the <br />answer. Mr. Meisner said that Oregon has a fairly abbreviated ex parte procedure for change of <br />name, and the procedure for a change of gender is the same. An individual takes the forms to a <br />judge for ex parte signature after posting it for the requisite number of days. This provides for a <br />legal stage to change gender identification, but there is no physical stage that has been identified. <br />Mr. Lidz also noted that on page 27 of the ordinance, there were provisions for health clubs or <br />other entities that operate gender-specific facilities, such as showers or locker rooms. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey said that a number of employers in the community had expressed their frustration that <br />they do not understand the proposed ordinance. They are concerned about their legal <br />responsibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that prior to the two years he spent on the HRC, he had believed that there were no <br />problems and that there was no discrimination. After that experience, he now knew that this was <br />not the case. He has thought long and hard about this issue and said that it was important. He <br />hoped that those who disagreed with him would understand his position. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that it is important to address the concerns of some of the people who oppose <br />the gender related changes. In the big picture, there is such a small potential for abuse that she <br />felt safe with the proposed changes. The ordinance itself addresses the identity with which a <br />person identifies, not the person's medical diagnosis of a gender transformation. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor responded to Mr. Rayor's concern that the registry serve only the citizens of Eugene, <br />noting that since the fees would make the program self-supporting, it would be appropriate to <br />allow anyone to register. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to extend the time for the item by <br /> three minutes. The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that the last time a human rights ordinance was passed by the City Council <br />unanimously. She said that following the public hearing, she hoped the City Council could agree <br />to support the proposed ordinance unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said he supported a registry that would serve only City of Eugene residents. When the <br />motion is made, he would seek amendments to address the cost issue, to show that there will be <br />no requirement to build any new facilities based on the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey closed the work session. The public hearing is scheduled for October 14. Ms. Miller <br />thanked the City Council for the opportunity to work on the project. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />