|
REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 1973
<br />COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (CONTINUED)
<br />stated that the commission needed manpower and only nine members was making it quite a burden on
<br />that membership. By the expansion to 15 members, the burden would be eliminated and the job
<br />effectively accomplished. Mr. James Roemer, City Attorney, stated that, as he saw the issue, the
<br />main concern was the inclusion of the subpoena power. He cited an instance when he had cancelled
<br />a hearing of the commission. He stated that, if a person does not have the ability to command
<br />someone to appear at a hearing, many of those people would not come at all. He felt that, if a
<br />person believed in human rights, the commission must be given the ability to effectuate the
<br />ordinance. He stated that there were safeguards regarding the subpoena power for both sides. In
<br />those cases, there would be a judicial review. There would also be a cease and desist order
<br />which is a voluntary type of thing. Mr. Roemer stated that there was discrimination in the City
<br />of South Bend and he felt the proposed ordinances were needed. Mrs. Frederick Mutzl, President of
<br />the St. Joseph County Fair Tax Association, spoke in support of Miss Guthrie's opinion that the
<br />commission would be too large with 15 members. She stated that she also supported Mrs. Allen's
<br />questioning of the power being put into the hands of appointed people. She suggested that one
<br />possible amendment to the ordinance might be that the policy of the City of South Bend include
<br />political party affiliation, as well as race, color and creed. Mr. David Wells, 5104 Bloomfield,
<br />asked how often the subpoena powers have been used in the housing ordinance, and Mr. Roemer answer,
<br />that they had never been used. Mr. Wells asked what happened when someone failed to answer a
<br />subpoena. Mr. Roemer stated that, if a person disregarded the subpoena, there would be nothing th,
<br />could be done under the previous ordinance. Under the new ordinance, if the person did not responi
<br />the matter would still have to be taken to the Superior Court. He stated that it would not be up
<br />to the commission. Miss Fanny Grunwald, 227 South Frances Street, felt the question of being able
<br />to handle the job should be taken into consideration. She felt this was very important and many
<br />times the person applying for the job does not have the necessary qualifications. She wondered
<br />if this sometimes had been confused with discrimination. Mr. Peter Smet, 417 St. Vincent Street,
<br />questioned the power of subpoena for anappointed body and the procedure that Mr. Roemer outlined.
<br />He stated that a group of 15 individuals could take someone to court and literally "break him befo:
<br />he was found innocent ". Mr. Gene Evans, a member of the staff of the Civic Planning Association,
<br />stated that the association was definitely interested and concerned about human rights; however, t:
<br />association was also concerned about providing powers to a body that could harrass other humans.
<br />The present ordinance had not been tried and proven that it would not work, according to his
<br />opinion. He indicated that, if the commission has not tried to use the vehicle in the past in the
<br />housing ordinance, he wondered if they would even use the vehicle they were trying to obtain now
<br />in the employment ordinance. He indicated that the ordinance has a number of items which are very
<br />solid in the kinds of action held open for the commission. He felt this would scare an employer
<br />or someone being accused of discrimination. He felt serious consideration should be given to the
<br />proposed ordinance. Mrs. Allen stated that she supported the addition of the word "sex" to the
<br />ordinance. She asked who paid for the litigation in the lawsuits. Mr. Roemer stated that the
<br />legal staff would work for the commission and there would be no additional charge to the city.
<br />Mr. Evans wondered about the payment of the litigation costs for the defendants. Mr. Roemer states
<br />that the respondents would always incur a cost and there was nothing that the city could do about
<br />that. Mr. Stanley stated that the subpoena power was not used in the housing ordinance because it
<br />would have violated the person's rights. Ms. Candelaria indicated that full cooperation had been
<br />received in the housing ordinance simply because the power was there if needed. She stated that
<br />the present ordinance was quite ineffective and was composed of two parts. Because the State Civi:
<br />Rights Commission superseded the city, cases must be referred to the state at times and there was
<br />always a backlog. She concluded by stating that, of the cities that have human relations
<br />commissions, over 60% have revised their ordinances in order to come up to par with the state.
<br />Councilman Taylor asked if the proposed ordinance would put the City of South Bend in line with
<br />the Indiana laws, and Mr. Stanley indicated that it would. Councilman Taylor asked if there was a:
<br />existing commission operating out of Indianapolis, and Mr. Stanley also indicated that there was.
<br />Councilman Taylor indicated that, as he saw the matter, the commission really would not have any
<br />power because the state has that power. He felt the choice would be for the individual if he
<br />wanted to take care of the issue at home or deal with someone from the commission in Indianapolis.
<br />Council President Nemeth indicated that, if there is a conflict, the state law supersedes. He
<br />wondered if the subpoena power was enforceable now as Mr. Stanley had stated it was not enforceabl,
<br />in the housing ordinance. Mr. Stanley indicated that it would be enforceable now because the
<br />respondent would have the right for judicial review. Council President Nemeth asked how the
<br />subpoena would be issued and if the order had to go through the courts, and Mr. Roemer answered
<br />that the subpoena would be issued and the person would have the right to decide whether or not he
<br />would respond. He stated that the commission did not have the power to cite someone in contempt
<br />of court. Council President Nemeth wondered if this could be done under the present law as far as
<br />housing. He stated that all the Council would be doing regarding the subpoena would be extending
<br />this power to the employment area, as well as the housing area. He stated that, under the existirn
<br />law, there was a penalty provision. He indicated that it was not incorporated in the proposed
<br />ordinance for ,employment. It was agreed that the penalty provision was not needed in the ordinance
<br />Councilman Kopczynski stated that the legal staff would be responsible for taking care of the city
<br />in the subpoena cases. He wondered if there was additional time to spend with the human rights
<br />commission. Mr. Roemer indicated that, if anything was repealed, the legal staff must do the job.
<br />He stated that, at such a time when additional personnel were needed if that should occur, he would
<br />make such a request. He assured the Council that the passing of the ordinance would not result in
<br />a request for additional personnel in the Legal Department. Councilman Parent stated that the cit:
<br />must keep obtaining "tools" to work with. This will enable a better tool to deal with human con-
<br />flicts and problems. He felt that the city would not be doing anything that could not be done at
<br />the state level by the passage of the ordinance. He recommended the ordinance be acted upon
<br />favorably. Councilman Serge asked if there had been any serious problems in the program. Ms.
<br />Janice Patton, Director of the Human Relations and Fair Employment Practices Commission, indicated
<br />that the commission has-been handicapped by not having the necessary powers. She stated that
<br />discrimination is not as bad as it was previously; however, it was still in existence within the
<br />City of South Bend. Councilman Serge stated that there have been union problems dealing with the
<br />blacks and whites. He wondered if Chairman Newburn had checked into the situation. He did not
<br />know if the subpoena power was needed. Mr. Stanley stated that the most important phase of the
<br />program was the investigation phase which dealt with an invalid or valid claim. Councilman
<br />Szymkowiak asked how many cases have been handled that dealt with employment and housing. Ms.
<br />Patton indicated that, in the area of housing, the commission has had eight complaints and one was
<br />conciliated without issuing a subpoena. In employment, the commission had handled over 100 cases
<br />and there have been problems with investigations. Councilman Szymkowiak asked how long Ms. Patton
<br />had been Director of the commission, and she indicated that she had been employed since October of
<br />t
<br />
|