03-26-12 Council Agenda & Packet

Home Browse Search

H. Discussion On March 11, 2005, in response to a letter from Council Member Roland Kelly, former Chairperson of the Personnel and Finance Committee,the Office of the City Clerk received a letter from Aladean DeRose, Chief Assistant Attorney and legal counsel to the South Bend Human Rights Commission. Attached to that letter was a document entitled "Gays, Lesbians,Bi-sexuals, and Transgendered Persons: Position Statement of the South Bend Human Rights Commission"which read in its entirety as follows: "The South Bend Human Rights Commission is an agency of the City of South Bend, Indiana, committed to fair and equal treatment of all human beings. It is the responsibility and duty of the Human Rights commission to make sure that no human being is mistreated based on status, without making value or moral judgments. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered(G, L, B&T)persons have experienced mistreatment based on their G, L, B &T status. The South Bend Human Rights Commission supports and encourages the South Bend Common Council to hear from the general public, to explore, investigate and determine the degree to which G, L,B &T persons have been treated adversely within the City of South Bend due to their G, L, B & T status. The South Bend Human Rights Commission further encourages the South Bend Common Council, working cooperatively with the South Bend Human Rights Commission, to create an appropriate remedy." Council Members Charlotte Pfeiffer and Roland Kelly co-sponsored Bill 29-06 to amend the Human Rights Ordinance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in employment, housing, education, and public accommodations. Oliver Davis is sponsoring 1 1 3 30-10 to amend the Human Rights Ordinance to include gender identity and sexual orientation in employment. Initially, there was some disagreement as to whether enabling legislation exists at the state level to authorize amending the South Bend Municipal Code to specifically address discrimination against GLBT persons, as well as whether the proposed legislation was in conflict with state statute. Our position has not changed. These concerns are inconsistent and in opposition with one another, for if there were no enabling legislation, how could there be a conflict? The enabling state legislation is the Indiana Code, specifically IC 36- 1-3 and IC 22-9-1, and the city's police powers. What are the legal thresholds that the proposed legislation must meet? 1. Is authority given to the City of South Bend to remedy discrimination by amending the Human Rights Ordinance? 2. What is the standard of review for the proposed legislation? Is there compelling government interest to amending the Ordinance? 3. Is there a factual basis of discrimination occurring in the City of South Bend showing the need to address such discrimination in order to prove that the amendment would 3