Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2010 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />discrimination. Ms. DeRose noted that they don’t do interpretations in a vacuum. She <br />noted that if they are wrong they are simply an agency who has quasi-judicial jurisdiction <br />and the Circuit Court is the court of appeals for Human Rights Commission issues. It’s <br />not an agency acting out a legislative plan; it is an agency making a determination which <br />is then subject to court review. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter asked City Clerk John Voorde to read into the record a letter from <br />Philip M. Sutton, PhD, dated July 23, 2010. <br /> <br />Council Member Derek Dieter <br />South Bend Common Council <br />227 West Jefferson Blvd. Suite 400 S <br />South Bend, Indiana 46601 <br /> <br />Re: Bill 30-10 <br /> <br />Dear Council Member Dieter: <br /> <br />I am writing to ask you not to approve Bill 30-10 which would add “sexual orientation” <br />and gender identity” to the South Bend non discrimination code. While I hoped to read a <br />state at the July 26, 2010 meeting of the South Bend Common Council explaining the <br />reasons for my opposition to the bill, I will be at a family reunion over the weekend in <br />Ohio and am uncertain about when on Monday I will be able to return. Therefore, I have <br />enclosed the text of my remarks which I hop you will find time to read and consider. If I <br />ever may assist you or any member of the South Bend Common Council by providing <br />information of a professional or scientific nature to help explain some of the issues <br />related to this bill, please do not hesitate to contact me. <br /> <br />Sincerely yours, <br /> <br />Philip M. Sutton, Ph.D. <br />Licensed Psychologist (MI & OH) <br />Licensed Clinical Social Worker (IN) <br />Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (IN) <br /> <br />Councilmember Varner stated that fundamentally a few years ago they tried to pass a <br />similar bill. He stated that he did not support it then and does not support it now for a <br />variety of reasons. He stated that he is a small business owner and feels that this is <br />another law that government is trying to impose. He applauds both side and thanked <br />everyone for their comments this evening. But for those reasons he will be voting against <br />this bill tonight. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rouse stated that when this bill was filed it did not follow the normal <br />procedure. He stated that the sponsors of this bill did not interface with the other <br />Councilmembers. He stated that when he found out that this bill was being filed he had a <br />strong proclivity to file another bill. A bill similar that would address the issue of ex- <br />felons. He stated that he knows that the ex-felon is the most discriminated group in this <br />country. He stated that no where on an application does it ask a person if they are GLBT <br />but can ask if he or she is an ex-felon. And if they lie that is cause to fire that person. He <br />stated that he had the desire to file such a bill, but for the very same reasons that were <br />raised here tonight that it would do more harm than good. He believes that everybody <br />has the right to work, but if there is no work and businesses are leaving the city right now <br />or have left the city such as St. Joseph Regional Medical Center and for that reason to <br />debate this would be remiss. Councilmember Rouse stated that he agrees with Bishop <br />Rhoades, Bishop D’Arcy and Professor Rice that this bill is vague. He stated that he has <br />members of his family that are gay just like Governor Kernan stated tonight and he is <br />right they love them greatly. However, that doesn’t mean that he is going to pass <br />legislation to condone their lifestyle. He stated that if this bill is going to be voted on <br />tonight he will be voting against it. <br /> <br /> 12 <br /> <br />