Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/27/1973 Meeting MINUTES EUGENE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBER NOVEMBER 27, 1973 . Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting held on November 26, 1973 - was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on November 27, 1973 in the Council Chamber by.His Honor Mayor Lester E.Anderson with following council members present: Mrs. Beal, Mr. Williams. and Mr. Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, and Messrs. Keller, Murray, and Wood. Councilman McDonald was absent. .. I - Public Hearing - Proposed Amendment to Human Rights Ordinance re: Sexual Preference Mayor Anderson outlined procedure for conduct of the hearing and emphasized that action at this meeting was not mandatory. Purpose was to hear testimony with regard to the proposed amendment. Human Rights Commission, acting upon a request from the Gay People's Alliance and a subcommittee study report, recommended amending the human rights ordinance to include sexual orientation as one of the provisions to be protected against discrimination in the areas of housing, employment, and public accommodation. The ordinance now covers race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Council on June 25, 1973 delayed pUblic hearing until fall because many of the interested parties were out of the City during the summer. An ordinance was prepared and previously distributed to Council members which would effect the amendment. Manager explained that the words . "Sexual preference" were used .because of the City Attorney's determination that that term would be more definable than "sexual orientation." He read the definition as included in the proposed ordinance. He noted that violation of any provisions of the ordinance would constitute a misdemeanor, .and read portions of the ordinance covering what would be considered discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. It was"'noted that Council also previously received copies of the Human Rights Commission subcommittee report plus statement of reasons for the report, and petitions and letters on both sides of the issue. City Attorney's memo was distributed regarding structure of the ordinance and comments regarding its enforceability and administration. David Jordan, chairman of the Human Rights Commission, reviewed work of the Commission's subcommittee and public hearing before the Commission early in 1973 at which a great deal of testimony was heard. The Commission recommended the amendment, he said, realiz- ing that discrimination does exist against persons identified as homosexuals, and that it is unwanted and unjust. He said the Commission feels everyone should have the right to live one's life without fear of harrassment or discrimination. He urged adoption of the amendment. Ann Woeste, chairman of the subcommittee of the Commission, related knowledge of the type of discrimination gained from the study and noted the delay in hearing had given opportunity for community education on the subject. She mentioned that open testimony ~--. given mostly by young people in a way pointed up the problem. Older people reserved . comments about discrimination for fear of ostracism. They felt the discrimination would be too great to allow open testimony, and the fact that they had no legal recourse made it apparent the City does have a problem, she said. She added that identification of people in the ter.ms of sexual preference was irrelevant to whether they would be good employes or tenants. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the proposed amendment were: Dominic Vetrie, Gap Road, Brownsville - Associated professor of law at the University of Oregon and member of ACLU, but speaking as a private citizen. Larry Monical, chairman of the Gay People's Alliance, 310 East 14th Avenue Andy Thompson, 489 East 19th Avenue, Apt.2 Linda Gummow, 506 West Centennial, Springfield - Assistant professor of psychology Nancy Dreg, 1997 West 12th Avenue - Lane County Mental Health Chad Rudolph, 1085 Patterson Street William Halseth, 585 East 19th Avenue Jerry. Harris, 1360 West 13th Avenue - Instructor at the University of Oregon Robert Swain, 190 East 29th Avenue - Unitarian minister . George Bryson, 1065~ East 20th Avenue I James Clay, 1360 West 13th Avenue George NicOla, 1552 North Prescott, Portland - Co-ordinator for Oregon Political Caucus Randolph Bourne, 737 East 16th Avenue, Apt. 11 John Damon, 1490 West 4th Avenue Jean M. Santos, 949 West 13th Avenue Ardy Dunn, 2240 Patterson Street, Apt. 1 Wendy Johnsperg, 934 West 4th Avenue .;; 3bL. ~ 11/27/73 ;.. 1 The thrust of their testimony was to call attention~to the need for specific laws to promote education in the community on homosexuality. Other cities (Seattle, East Lansing) and other governmental agencies, they said, have enacted legislation or adopted . . policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual preference; considerable effort has ,been put forth in this community since public hearings before the Human Rights Commis- sion to educate the general public with regard to homosexuality; and there is substantial , .. evidence that discrimination does exist in Eugene. Postition papers presented by psychologists have identified homosexuality as a social behavior rather than a physical disease; there is no potential harm for society in general from homosexual (gays), they are not violent or criminal; the amendment would give a segment of the community the opportunity to develop individual lives openly and without fear of reprisal. A psycho- logical fear because of the past secretive nature of homosexuality has resulted in few cases of actual discrimination being reported. Sexual preference was not a matter of being right or wrong, rather the question is whether individuals have the right to live open and honest lives. Discrimination forces homosexuals into economic, psycho- logical, and social insecurity and thereby alienates a segment of the community. Adoption of the amendment would be in line with the present trend of legislation at the State and Federal level to protect the human rights of gay people. Present judg- ment of potential employers of gay people is based on prejudice and requiring employment of known homosexuals could disspell that prejudice. It was stated that many beliefs held with regard to homosexuality are false. I Numerous documents and petitions in favor of the amendment were presented for the record, including a fact sheet on homosexuality presented by the Gay People's Alliance, . a position paper of the Board of Social Issues approved by the Board of the Oregon Psychological Association, and letters from the Oregon Federation of Teachers and Fr. Frank Wilks, pastor of St. Thomas More Parish. A short recess was taken. Speaking in opposition to the amendment were: Rudy Herr, 5255 Donald Street Vernon Hicks, 5281 Cynthia Court, Springfield Dr. Sterling Ellsworth, 401 East 10th Avenue, clinical psychologist John Polston, 2196 DeVos Street Edward L. Cook, Route 2, Box 151" Springfield Lewis Peters, minority relations specialist for the city of Eugene Bessie and Don Ridenour, 3768 West 11th Avenue Ken Myers, 6930 Orchid Lane, Springfield R. G. Miller, 120 Edgewood Drive A. Mr. Shurtliff living in Springfield Bill Richards, 1096 B Street, Springfield Their opposition was based on their concern for the welfare of society and this com- . munity in particular. They believed there was no way homosexuals could be encouraged and still keep the present standards of morality familiar to the community, and that the matter was brought up by a few people and not by demand of a majority of the com- munity. They stressed their belief that the practice of homosexuality was demoraliz- ing and that the adoption of the amendment would force discrimination ~gainst employers and landlords in that they would be required to rent to or hire people they did not want. Undependability of homosexuals as employes was cited, as well as loss of money when they were employed without knowledge of their life style. Dr. Ellsworth, a clinical psychologist, said if the amendment was adopted it should be broadened to include alcoholics, criminals, and others with what society considers abnormal social and psychological behavior patterns. Others were concerned that the amendment would in- crease cases of child molestation and encourage young people to follow the same life ! style. Lewis Peters, minority relations specialist, asked how in meeting his responsi- bility for investigation of complaints of discrimination he would determine whether a person was a homosexual. Several opponents quoted passages from the Bible in support of their stand against homosexuality and noted that many homosexuals are not themselves pleased with their life .style~. The Council was urged to reject the amendment on the basis that it did not reflect'the wishes of the majority of the community. In rebuttal, Jim Hood, 934 West 4th Avenue, reminded the Council that many of the con- cerns raised were addressed by the fact sheet previously presented by the Gay People's . Alliance. He said the proposed amendment would not protect il~egal or offensive acts, only that it would prevent unfair treatment. He added that the Council should be aware of the mute testimony from people who were not present because of fear of reprisal should it become known they were homosexuals. This in itself, he said, should point up the discriminatory practices. He urged that the Council make its decision on the basis of facts rather than emotional and politcal considerations. 3<03 li/27/73 - 2 Mrs. Ridenour maintained that those not appearing were not staying away because of fear of reprisal, rather that they realized what society recognized. She felt those e presenting the amendment were "riding on the shirt tails of the present-day womens' lib movement." Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Manager noted letters received in favor of the amendment from: Thomas F. Nugent, director of Lane County Mental Health Division Diane M. Gardner, 1360 West 13th Avenue Raymond Lokken, no address Lester A. Kirkendall, 12601 S. E. River Road, Portland (two) Therese Engelmann, chairperson of Lane County Community Mental Health Center Letters received in opposition were from: Marta and Crawford Pierce, 659 West 2nd Avenue (corrected in January 28, 1974 minutes to "in favor") Maureen Gieber, 3147 Sorrel Way Sol Cuddeback, no address Mr. and Mrs. J. Gannon, no address Ben and Nellie Russell, 1030 Forrester Way . B. W.. Bond, 1730 Chambers Street Pearl and Ann Wolf, 355 Bond Lane Ethel L. Menge, 4460 Aster Street, Springfield Orpha E. Wilson, 467 West 10th Avenue Rene Laughlin, 1816 Swank Court, Springfield Robert G. Nill, 311 Bertelsen Road Petitions were also presented in favor of the amendment containing some 600 signatures. Councilwoman Campbell asked whether staff had any information from other areas regard- ing adoption and implementation of this type of ordinance. Manager reported similar ordinances adopted in East Lansing and Ann Arbor, Michigan. Those cities have had no significant administrative problems, however because the ordinances were recently adopted there has not been much experience with them. He mentioned that Michigan state law made it a statutory violation to encourage congregation in public places by homosexuals, whereas Ann Arbor's legislation made discrimination against homosexual a misdemeanor. The contradiction coliilld make a difficult position for a proprietor caught between State and municipal law. Councilman Murray asked for clarification of the ordinance with respect to the pro- tection requested against discrimination in the areas of housing and public accommoda- tion. He said it appeared the Council was being asked to legislate something that was . already covered by constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Stan Long, city attorney's office, said that state law is neutral on the subject. However, this measure if adopted would create a shield. There have been too few cases and the law has not been developed enough for definitive comment. Legislative enactment would clearly recognize the situation and thus provide the courts with something specific to point to in dealing with a situation. Councilwoman Beal asked whether other Council members wished to take action at this meeting or have an opportunity to discuss at length with action taken at some later meeting. Councilwoman Campbell preferred reaching a'-decision at this meeting. She congratulated the proponents of the resolution for their presentation and said she would favor the amendment. . Mayor Anderson for the record said.there appeared to be no question from testimony presented at this hearing that discrimination did exist against persons observing various sexual preferences. He recognized the emotional viewpoints, especially of those-.opposing the legislation. He himself had no particular objections to behavior patterns different from the majority of society. At the same time he was not im- pressed with the viewpoint that employers would lose money by hiring homosexuals. However, he was persuaded after talking to many people in the community to look at the legal and political side of the issue. He commented on the importance of the City's . human rights legislation and said that it reflected this community's recognition of protection of the individual's rights under the law. It also gave iliocal government the opportunity to implement state law in meeting the community's goals and objectives in the human rights field, and he had no doubt that the existing equal opportunity ordinance would stand up under a vote of the people. However, he went on, in the situation under consideration there was no direction from any higher level of govern- ment, even though recently adopted state legislation seemed a step in that direction. 3104 11/27/73 - 3 Mayor Anderson continued that he was not convinced that adoption of this ordinance would serve to give the community the education necessary to make the legislation. workable. In addition, the recommendation for adoption coming on a 6 to 5 vote of . the Human Rights Commission seemed indecisive. And he felt that enforcement would present a problem. He praised the membership of the Human Rights Commission for its progressiveness, but it was his feeling that this particular issue would lead into new areas of oppression and discrimination which the City was not properly educated or equipped to 'enforce in terms of either funds or personnel. He commented on other areas of discrimination - the handicapped, elderly, mentally retarded, etc. - and said he was disappointed that the discussion at this hearing had centered around the in- dividual problem rather than on how the ordinance would really h~lp the city of Eugene - how it would contribute to the total welfare of all of the people of the City. He saw no particular benefit in the City's standing alone in experimenting with this type of legislation, and he was not convinced that other cities recently adopting similar legislation had enough experience to determine whether they were moving in the right direction. He felt proponents of the amendment should follow the lead of minorities and women in seeking state and federal legislation, then seek implementation thro~gh city legislation. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs.Campbell to adopt the ordinance as presented (C.B.412). I In making the motion Mrs. Beal said she agreed with much that the Mayor said. However, she did not feel her decision should be based on the thinking of the majority of the . people she represents., She said she heard the same arguments presented against the women's movement. Mayor Anderson wanted it understood that none of his remarks were to be taken as being against the women's liberation movement. Councilman Williams congratulated the Mayor on his statement, saying it was timely and worthwhile. Councilman Wood expressed appreciation to the Gay People's Alliance for the manner in which the issue was brought before the Commission and the Council. It was his feeling that Council members in considering the issue were not as reactionary as prople in the community. His concern was that community norms would not accommodate an extreme change by legiSlation, or that legiSlation would necessarily serve the rights of the people on either side of the issue. He thought it a much broader situa- tion than discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin, and could not favor the amendment even though he did not support discrimination against homosexuals. Councilman Murray commented on the relative newness of the issue of sexual preference which seemed to go in the face of traditional views and beliefs held by many segments of society. Because of his uncertainty as to the right or wrong of the issue~ he said, he would vote against the amendment. If the vote was to be on whether to submit the issue to the voters, he said he would vote for it. . Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated, Councilwomen Beal and Campbell voting aye; Councilmen Williams, Hershner, Keller, Murray, and Wood voting no. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, December 17, 1973. ~ . 3bS 11/27/73 - 4