The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-10-06 Council Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana met in the Council Chambers of the County-City Building on Monday, July 10, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council President Timothy A. Rouse and the Invocation and Pledge to the Flag were given. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS: Present: Derek D. Dieter 1st District Charlotte Pfeifer 2nd District Roland Kelly 3rd District Vice-President Ann Puzzello 4th District David Varner 5th District Ervin Kuspa 6th District Al “Buddy” Kirsits At-Large Timothy Rouse At-Large President Karen L. White At-Large Chairperson Committee of the Whole OTHERS PRESENT: John Voorde City Clerk Mary Beth Wisniewski Chief Deputy Janice I. Talboom Deputy City Clerk Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Council Attorney REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES To the Common Council of the City of South Bend: The sub-committee has inspected the minutes of the June 26, 2006, meeting of the Council and found them to be correct. Therefore, we recommend the same be approved. s/Timothy A. Rouse s/David Varner Councilmember White made a motion that the minutes of the June 26, 2006, meeting of the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. SPECIAL BUSINESS There was no special business to come before the Council at this time. RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 7:06 p.m., Councilmember Varner made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember White, Chairperson, Committee of the Whole, presiding. Councilmember White explained the procedures to be followed for tonight’s meeting in accordance with Article 1, Section 2-11 of the South Bend Municipal Code and that 1 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 pamphlets were available to the public, which outline the Council rules and procedures, and are located on the railing in the Council Chambers. PUBLIC HEARINGS BILL NO. 27-06 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19, ARTICLE 3 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR ENACTMENT OF PARK RULES Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to continue this bill until the July 24, 2006 meeting of the Council and refer to the Parcs Committee. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. MOTION TO HEAR BILL 38-06 BEFORE BILL NO. 29-06 Councilmember Varner made a motion to hear Bill 38-06 before Bill 29-06 due to the expected length of the public hearing for Bill 29-06. Councilmember Rouse seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. MOTION TO HEAR BILL 29-06 THEN BILL 38-06 DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF THE PRESENTER However, due to the presenter of Bill 38-06 not being present at this time, a motion was made by Councilmember Varner to hear Bill 29-06 and then Bill 38-06. Councilmember Kuspa seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 29-06 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 9, OF CHAPTER 2 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE ADDRESSING THE HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE BY THE INCLUSIONS OF NEW PROVISIONS ADDRESSING GENDER IDENTITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to hear the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember Charlotte D. Pfeifer, Chairperson, Personnel and Finance Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full Council with an unfavorable recommendation. Councilmember Charlotte D. Pfeifer and Councilmember Roland Kelly were co-sponsors of this bill and made the formal presentation along with City Attorney Charles Leone and Executive Director of the South Bend Human Rights Commission Lonnie Douglas. Roland Kelly, 1325 E. Wayne Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is very honored to be a co-sponsor to this bill. He noted that this has been a very testy issue, a lot of debate both pro and con. He stated that he has had a number of calls and e-mails that he has received regarding this issue. In every case they were respectful of his opinion, even when they disagree with him. Charlotte D. Pfeifer, 1013 W. Washington, Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she has had a lot of meetings with the Council, and noted that they don’t always agree, however, they get along pretty well actually, even when they don’t agree. She stated that she has every faith that tonight the Council is going to do the right thing. She stated that this is to those who she thinks needs to listen to her. She stated that it is an honor and a pleasure to address everyone this evening.Councilmember Pfeifer stated that there is a 2 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 very significant decision that needs to be made this evening. It will be a culmination of two years of work, organizing research, planning and gathering information. She and Councilmember Kelly have talked about this for at least the last six weeks, and want to thank everyone in the audience and the listening audience for the way that everyone has conducted themselves respectfully. There are some challenges in the community with the young people today, and one of the things that took place when she was growing up was that adults have to practice what they preach. We cannot act disrespectful and expect our children to be respectful and we have a lot to be proud about the way everyone has handle themselves. She stated that obviously everyone knows that she has very strong feelings, she noted that she is very passionate about things, and feels very strongly about justice and human rights. She stated that she is black, female, and a baby boomer, who was born in 1947, right after World War II. She stated that she is overweight and struggles with weight problems and she wears her hair in dread locks. She wears her hair in dread locks for a good reason, and she intends to keep it this way because you cannot separate dread locks and that’s the way she feels we are as humans. You cannot separate them, what you do to one you do to all. She stated that you cannot pretend that we allow for a large segment of the community, if we allow them to be disrespectful, we are compromising humanity. She wanted to remind everyone of that. She stated that it was very interesting that the Reverend in the invocation tonight, talked about Abraham Lincoln, and she was going to say the same thing. She reminded everyone that it starts out with “a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” It did not say some men, it didn’t say woman men, white men, straight men, it said all men. She stated that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, those rights include, life, liberty and the pursuant of happiness. She reminds everyone that a couple of years ago at a Community Prayer Breakfast, that she had the honor to hear President Jimmy Carter and his wife talk about what it means to be privileged. In those days, about 15 years ago, she stated that she was struggling, she had children, she didn’t feel privileged at all.But President Carter reminded everyone that if you own a home, if you have a place to live, you are privileged. If when you go home and it has been burglarized and you can turn it over to an insurance company, you are privileged. That if you call the police and they show up, and they treat you with respect, for some of us that is a privilege. And that you can go out when you get your insurance company and replace everything that was stolen that is privileged. She stated that she realizes that she had a privileged life. She wants everyone to know that there are many who have privileges and privileges are a benefit whether or not you acknowledge it, many of us have privileges that others do not have. She stated that she is not going to allow anyone to put people into a box or categorize them as a group. She would like for everyone to think about a human being a person, a person that you know, someone that you care about, not some that you love, because we often disrespect and mistreat people we love and the people we care about we treat better. Think about that human being that matters to you, who either maybe gay or maybe perceived of gay. Do you really think that person doesn’t deserve to live in decent housing? Do you really think that person doesn’t deserve to have employment? Do you really think that person doesn’t deserve to go to a restaurant and be served? Do you really think that person ought to be discriminated against and have no recourse? The recourse that everyone else has, that what she is talking about here tonight. She advised about the bill before the Council tonight, she stated what it does not have in it. There are a lot of misperceptions of this bill and she would like to clarify them. This bill is not about marriage or civil contracts or about couples. This bill has nothing to do with the homosexual agenda. She stated that she is not homosexual, she is married, a Christian, and has been her entire life. She knows nothing about promoting a homosexual agenda. She knows everything about promoting a human agenda. She stated that she was listening to C-Span this weekend and they were talking about some of the wonderful people that have gone before us. One of them was Barbara Jordan. She remembered watching Barbara as a young person, and at the Democratic Convention, when this black women, someone who looked like her, came upon the stage and lit the whole audience up, she lit the world up, with her eloquence. She was brilliant. Barbara Jordan was a lesbian. It was kept hidden, Barbara Jordan, had to keep it hidden, because if people knew she was a lesbian, her career may have been compromised. A brilliant woman like Barbara Jordan. She stated that when she was coming along and growing up in Niles, Michigan, she remembered when her girlfriends in high school got jobs down at Woolworth’s. She wanted a job, so she went down and took the test, a 100 point test, and she got 98 on it. They did not hire her, she 3 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 didn’t think anything of it. Except the girl in the locker room next to her had just gotten hired after she did. Fortunately, they had just formed the Human Rights Commission in the City of Niles, she saw it in the paper. She stated that even then she read the newspaper. She stated that she wrote them a letter. She told them about what had happened to her. They went down to Woolworth’s and they even had the nerve to have her test there, that’s how bold they were. She had 98, they asked why they did not hire her, and they could not justify it. So guess what? She was the first black person that worked at Woolworth’s, because, she had re-dress and reported and they did something about it. She stated that she could go on and on, but you get the point. There are many people who went before her who made it so that she could sit on this Council, and work at Indiana University, South Bend, have an education, and own a home. There are people that she can never thank because they are gone. However, now, she has the opportunity to stand up for people who need her, and cannot stand up for themselves. She stated that she would not be a moral person if she did not do this. This bill is not about special rights. This is about giving rights to people that don’t have rights, the same rights as everyone else. This is not about religion or the church, this is not about protecting anyone who breaks the laws. This bill is about human rights, social justice, and civil rights, yes, civil rights! It is not civil to disrespect or discriminate against human beings. This bill is about being able to report a perceived discrimination, by the way gay and straight people can report if the ordinance is amended. This bill adds protection where there is none. The Council has the power under home rule. In this bill there are protections for the church and other religious institutions. There is also a recognition and support for the Supreme Court Ruling against the Boy Scouts. This allows gay and straight people to file a complaint to move forward and gives the opportunity to stand up against injustice, discrimination, and prejudice. She hoped that everyone on the Council would join her and Councilmember Kelly and do the right thing. She hoped that an opportunity would not be missed to stand up for people who cannot stand up for themselves. By the way, these are people who are working, paying bills, parents, and law abiding. She is not talking about anyone who is acting in a disrespectful way, and based on how they look, or act, or people what they think about how they look or act, they are discriminated against. Councilmember Pfeifer stated that the Council has the chance tonight to make history. To change the course and send a message that the City of South Bend does not support discrimination and begged them to vote with her tonight. Councilmember Kelly stated Councilmember Pfeifer has done a remarkable job on this bill tonight and it is a pleasure to be able to work with her. He stated that his motivations are very simple on this bill. He has said it before and said it again, that he opposes discrimination in any form for any reason. People are entitled to their civil rights, it’s guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Despite what anyone chooses to do with their life course, deserves their civil rights. That is all he is after and supports this legislation as much as he possible can. He stated that he has been through the depression, World War II, and spent a couple of years in the Navy and he has viewed a couple of cases of discrimination at that time. Those instances really turned him off and this is why he feels so passionate about the subject today. He served in Memphis, and saw discrimination against black people. These are not special rights, its civil rights and guaranteeing the rights that people already have. People have approached him and tell him that there is discrimination against gays and lesbians in the community, but they do not have recourse. This bill would allow for the recourse and give those cases investigated by the Human Rights Commission and then determine if there is grounds for action or not. Many cases will probably be thrown out, but at least give them the opportunity to be heard. That is all that is being asked of the Council tonight. Councilmember Kelly urged the Council’s support of the amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance. Charles Leone, South Bend City Attorney, 1400 County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, stated that the starting point for looking at enforceability issues is Indiana’s Home Rule Statute. That act was added in 1980, in its current form and talks very specifically about the rights that cities have with respect to governing their own affairs and dealing with issues that are relevant to the city. The most relevant portion is Section IV of that Act, that talks about the abrogation of the old rule of law. The old rule of law was that unless the legislature specifically granted a power to the City that that City did 4 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 not have that power. That rule of law is now gone. The statute specifically says that Cities have all powers granted by statute and all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs even though not granted by statute.Another section specifically talks about that the statute should be interpreted broadly to effectuate its purposes. In any situation where new legislation, an ordinance comes into effect, there is no 100% guarantee that the courts will interpret that legislation in a way that is favorable to the body that passes that legislation. Courts in fact take a variety of factors into account and in fact they interpret the laws in different ways. The language is fairly specific, his research has determined that across the country in cities where municipal ordinances have been enacted, he stated that he believed only three (3) nationwide have been in fact struck down for various reasons. He did not have a list of exactly why that is. For the most part, those ordinances have been upheld and found to be constitutional in several different states. It’s hard of course to go state by state, because some states have home rule acts that are different than Indiana’s Home Rule Act. Although, Indiana’s Act is in fact is fairly broad and fairly specific. So under those circumstances, there is clearly a good argument, good foundation, good support for the Council accepting the authority to enact this ordinance under those circumstances his thinks it is appropriate. Council President Rouse asked Mr. Leone if any other city has an ordinance like this one. st He was only aware that Indianapolis, a 1 Class City is the only other city in the State of Indiana with an ordinance like this, and it was passed just last year in 2005. nd Councilmember Rouse stated that South Bend is a 2 Class City and if challenged, South nd Bend would be the first 2 Class City to have a mandatory ordinance. He noted that South Bend would be going from nothing to a mandatory ordinance. He also stated that he believes that the Council was misinformed that there were other cities that have such and ordinance and that is not the case. Mr. Leone responded that the Home Rule Issues are not specific to civil rights acts. The Home Rule Issues apply to virtually every ordinance that this Council considers and in fact regulates the way that people act within the city limits of the City of South Bend, so as he discusses Home Rule, he is not talking about just what the City of South Bend is doing or the City of Indianapolis is doing, he is talking about everything that the Council’s passes. The scrap yard ordinance, the adult business ordinance, any of these ordinances and in fact, that’s what he relies on, he relies on the authority that the legislation has given the City.If you read it, it says that the city has a lot of authority. Council President Rouse asked that in December, 2005, both the lawyer for the Human Rights Commission and Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand issued opinions that kind of flied contrary to what you are presenting here today. Mr. Leone stated that he did not think that they flied contrary to what he is saying today. What he is saying is that there are strong basis for supporting this ordinance. There are clearly concerns and of course as the Council is always debate within the legal community. No one knows until a judge tells that if in fact an ordinance is valid or not valid. The City of South Bend has had in the past ordinance’s struck down. The City also has had ordinances upheld.That is the role of the judicial branch. The City cannot wait, obviously if this is the right thing to do, then what legislatures typically do is go ahead an enact the ordinance or the statute depending upon the legislature and in fact if the court says at some point, yes it is a valid enactment or no, it is not a valid enactment. So there is certainly some risk in getting the bill passed. Councilmember Varner stated that the Council is in possession of an opinion or a brief one by the attorney for the Human Rights Commission, Aladean DeRose that pointed out a conflict which she saw, and one from the Council’s Attorney Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand, who points out conflicts which she saw. Councilmember Varner stated that when it comes times to make a decision, that there are three (3) separate opinions from respected legal minds from people that we have no reason to believe are biased, they are simple presenting opinions and we will be forced at this time to make some sort of decision in one way or the other. Either one of which may be correct, but the Council should make a decision based on that. 5 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 Mr. Leone stated that the Council does not have to sit as a Court. Certainly, the Council needs to have legal advise, in terms of what is appropriate to do. But he thinks that it is not the role of the Council to make that decision in advance. Councilmember Varner asked then what use are these opinions that you present the Council with? Mr. Leone stated that they give a broad context within which to operate. For legislative purposes this is the appropriate way to start. Councilmember Pfeifer asked Mr. Leone is he could recall any other times that the City of South Bend, has been the first to enact legislation? She remembers about the open can liquor law. Mr. Leone stated that was before his time, but believe Councilmember Pfeifer was correct. Councilmember Pfeifer stated that she believes that the City of South Bend passed that legislation before the State of Indiana, and now everyone else has followed suit. Councilmember Kelly advised that he sponsored a piece of legislation concerning gun control during his first term on the Council. The bill passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 4 nays. It was a very controversial issue that allowed for both pro and con discussion and attended by many people. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand was on staff at that time and was with Councilmember Kelly. The bill was passed by the Council and shot down by the State Legislature. Councilmember Kelly stated that they tried and he would try again if he could legally. Lonnie Douglas, Executive Director, South Bend Human Rights Commission, 301 S. St. Louis Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is making a presentation on how the Human Rights Commission deals with cases that come before the Commission. Mr. Douglas stated that the South Bend Human Rights Commission was formed in 1956, prior to any of the Federal Agencies like EEOC and HUD coming into existing and dealing with housing and employment issues. The purpose of the Human Rights Commission being formed was to deal with issues on a first basis of employment involving race and sex here in the City. Mr. Douglas advised that this year, the Human th Rights Commission is celebrating its 50 Anniversary. He is very proud of that fact. Mr. Douglas stated that in order to file a charge with the City of South Bend, there are so rules that must be adhered to and they are called rules that govern jurisdiction. The jurisdictional requirements for the South Bend Human Rights Commission are first and foremost in employment in order to file a charge, the employer and the person filing the charge must be located in the City of South Bend. The employer must have six (6) or more employees. That does not hold true for housing, education and public accommodation. One person can file against another in those areas. A person must clearly state why they feel that they have been discriminated against and the fact that it is illegal. The charge must be filed within ninety (90) days of the alleged violation. He also stated that the respondent must include both public and private entities. When a person walks into the South Bend Human Rights Commission Office and asks to file a charge, first and foremost, they screen them. There is an intake officer, that sits down with them and ascertains the information that they are giving and decide whether or not that person has the legal background or basis to file a charge. Once that has been established and they have standings to file a charge, then that person is allow to file the charge and the Human Rights Commission takes the charge electronically and print out a copy of that charge at that time. If the claim is filed with EEOC or HUD, it is electronically filed with them also, so when the Human Rights Commission takes the charge it automatically goes to those entities. Mr. Douglas stated that once the charge is taken, he gets a copy from the intake office and he assigns it to one of four (4) investigators. Those investigators are charged with really taking care of the bulk of their ordinance and that is investing the charge in such a way that they send out what he calls interrogatories and the request for the production of documents. That all goes out in a letter that is sent to the respondent that asks the respondent to please respond within 6 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 twenty (20) days with an answer to the charge and within thirty (30) days with “request of documents” and “all of the interrogatories and questions.” Once the investigators receives that information back, they then of course bring the charging party in and go over the information with that person and then they ask for witnesses or witness statements or anything that they can garner from that person, to further their side of the investigation. Once that has been done the investigator attempts to meet with the respondent to talk about the same things, they go over the information that the charging party has given and ask for witnesses for the respondent as well. From time to time, more often than not, they will set up a conference to bring both people together and have them try to mediate or conciliate this charge. The South Bend Human Rights Commission is not in the business to brow beating or beating up anyone, they are in the business of service and trying to help resolve issues. At the fact finding conference, if they are unable to resolve the issues, they move on with the investigation and the investigator then must weight all the evidence out, submit to the him, the Director of the South Bend Human Rights Commission, who in turn submits it to the Human Rights Commission, which consists of nine (9) people, who in actuality make the final decision concerning that charge. If in fact the charge is labeled no-cause or found to be no-cause, then the Commission will vote on that and if they follow through it is no cause and the case if closed with one exception, and that one exception being that the person filing the charge has an opportunity to appeal the decision, if in fact they have new evidence or something that could sway the Commission in terms of the decision that they have made, the Commission will appoint a hearing officer to hear the information and make a recommendation back to the Commission in terms of a final recommended order. If the Commission goes along with that recommended order, it becomes a final order which is done by the Commissions Attorney. The case is then closed. On the other side of ledger, if the Commission finds probable cause or reason to believe that discrimination has occurred then what happens is that they bring the two parties together again in an effort to resolve the issue. This is called a conciliation conference. At the conciliation conference they go over pro and cons of going further and try to help the two parties resolve their issues again. If that is not successful, then the case is set before a public hearing officer, the public hearing officer is an attorney that is employed by the South Bend Human Rights Commission contractually to hear these cases and make decisions based upon them. The public hearing officer conducts a hearing just like any other hearing is conducted and at the end of that hearing they make a recommendation to the Commission again, based on the facts that they have discerned as to whether or not they believe there has been discrimination or if there has not been discrimination. If they concur with the Commission, then it comes back to the Commission with a recommendation or as it is called and order. If the order is favorable the Commission again votes on it, if they vote on it and decide that yes it is, then it comes back to the Human Rights Commission, and they have to do a cease and desist order and try to eliminate the discriminatory practice wherever it might be or whatever it might be in the City of South Bend. After the finding and as part of the probable cause they are required to monitor that respondent for two (2) years to make sure that they do not violate the agreement and to make sure that the discriminatory practice has ceased. After that the respondent can have if they so desire, to have the Court review the Human Rights Process to make sure that they did not error in their process, they are not supposed to evaluate the decisions made, just the process itself. That would be the only “opportunity” that the respondent would have to have that review, is at the end of the process. In terms of the charging party, in housing and employment they have other avenues in which they go down, one is that in employment, after or before probable cause is found, if the case has been with the commission for ninety (90) days, they can request a right to sue and go straight to federal court. The Commission tries to advise the charging party to go through the entire administrative law process because that is why it was set up and usually Courts tend to through out cases that are brought before them before the administrative process is complete. The City of South Bend has an obligation to further fair housing, so in housing cases, the Commission becomes an agent for the charging party and if a cause is found the City Attorney acts in trying to resolve the issue. Mr. Douglas stated that completes how the Human Rights Commission investigates a charge. Councilmember Rouse thanked Mr. Douglas for his very detailed flow chart account of st how the process works. This ordinance has a find of $1,500.00 for the 1 occurrence; $2,500.00 for any there after. Councilmember Rouse referred to Bill 29-06, and asked 7 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 the question if after the person goes through the whole process, if they disagree with the Commission and the investigators, what recourse do they have? Mr. Rouse clarified that he is talking about the respondent, the person who is being charged with discrimination. Mr. Douglas responded by saying that the respondent can asked that a court review the process, not the actual decision making, but the process. Councilmember Rouse then asked, what recourse would the respondent have asking a court of law to review this process, when the court does not even recognize this protected class? Mr. Douglas stated that he was not sure that he understood the question. Councilmember Rouse asked what recourse would the respondent have if they are charged by the Commission, as being in violation of this ordinance, after he goes through the whole ten miles? What court can they go to? Mr. Douglas stated that he know understands the question. He stated that the respondent has the right for a court review and that can be appealed also. Mr. Rouse stated that there is no court that recognizes this particular class. Mr. Douglas asked Councilmember Rouse if he was referring to the class in Bill 29-06? Councilmember Rouse responded yes, what court would recognize this protected class? He stated that he would like to know what court could the respondent go to and tell them that the South Bend Human Rights Commission has charged them with discrimination and the respondent does not believe that they have done anything wrong. Mr. Douglas stated that it was his belief and can check with their attorney, that they have a right to appeal it to a higher court, and the court could act on that. Councilmember Rouse stated that he is asking Mr. Douglas because he has the expertise in trying these cases and feels that Mr. Leone does not. What recourse based on experience, when this class is not recognized by Indiana State Law? Mr. Douglas stated that the respondent would still have recourse with a higher court through an appeal. Councilmember Dieter asked Mr. Douglas if the South Bend Human Rights Commission is asking the Council for this amendment as another tool needed? Was something else needed to help within the parameters of the Commission to help with the problem itself? Mr. Douglas responded that he believes his boss’s the Commissioners came before the Council and asked for this amendment to the ordinance. Councilmember Dieter asked if Mr. Douglas or the Commissioners came before the Council and asked for this amendment. Mr. Douglas believes that the Commissioners wrote a letter to the Council. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that the letter was sent by the Commission on March 10, 2005. Councilmember Pfeifer thanked Mr. Douglas for his presentation and description of the process of filing a charge. She asked if the Council added two additional factors of diversity would this change the process? Mr. Douglas stated that the process would remain the same. Councilmember Pfeifer asked Mr. Douglas if he believed that there is discrimination of GLBT people in this community? 8 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 Mr. Douglas responded yes he does. Councilmember Pfeifer asked to Mr. Douglas if he could speak on how they operate now? Are the majority of the cases that come before the Human Rights Commission settled without fines and courts? Mr. Douglas responded that the majority of their cases are found to be no cause. Of the rest of the cases, they settle 10 to 15 percent of the cases depending upon the year. The reason for such high settlement rate is because they operate in pro-active mode rather than a re-active mode. They believe that education is the key to everything that they do. They try to educate not only the respondent but those citizens of the City of South Bend. Councilmember Pfeifer stated that just because a person files an allegation doesn’t mean that they will be successful. Mr. Douglas stated that they would still investigate. He commended his staff on a job well done. Councilmember Pfeifer stated that if the amendment is passed tonight, will the Human Rights Commission implement it? Mr. Douglas responded yes. Councilmember Rouse asked that in 1997, the Indiana Civil Rights Commission asked all Human Rights Commissions to report cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The letter was sent by the Director of the Indiana Civil Rights Commission, Mr. Lee. Councilmember Rouse asked Mr. Douglas if he received that letter? Mr. Douglas responded yes, that he received the letter. Councilmember Rouse asked Mr. Douglas how many cases since 1997, has the South Bend Human Rights Commission reported to the Indiana Civil Rights Commission? Mr. Douglas responded two (2). Councilmember White, Chairperson, Committee of the Whole, asked the Council Attorney for the time taken for the formal presentation. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that there was 42 minutes spent as part of the formal presentation. Now would begin the five (5) minute maximum per speaker for those in favor. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. The following individuals spoke in favor of this bill. Don Olson, 51772 Heath Court, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is a member of PFAFLG, Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. He stated that he is the proud father of adult son, who happens to be gay. He stated that he would like to address the issue of discrimination in the GLBT Community. Discrimination against GLBT persons is present today, it is present on a national level and it is present in South Bend. There is a climate in this City that causes many to live closeted lives. Fearing the consequences of living an open and honest life. Those who do live openly, do so at great risk because they live without the basic protection afforded all other citizens and employees of this city. Main stream research documents the effects of discrimination against gays and lesbians. In 2002, the American Psychological Association testimony before Congress states that “It is the empirically based position of our Association that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is detrimental to mental health and public good” In addition a 2004 brief by the APA, “there is a growing recognition that social prejudice and discrimination against lesbians and gay men take a cumulative toll on their 9 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 well being within lesbian and gay populations those who more frequently feel stigmatized or discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or who feel compelled to conceal their homosexuality tend to report more frequent stress and other mental health concerns. Children of same sex couples are also vulnerable to prejudice and discrimination, directed against their parents. The children then experience stress as a direct result.” It also states that psychological research provides no evidence to justify this discrimination. Other reputable groups such as the American Psychiatric Association, The American Medical Association, The American Nurses Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics share the same view. What the evidence does show is that discrimination causes harm to GLBT individuals and families. He stated that they face a great challenge in asking people to come forward, not being protected to tell about their personal situations. Data has been presented in 2005 that twenty (20) individuals in South Bend, had concerns that they would have like to have taken to the Human Rights Commission. This is a significant number, but don’t depend on the study alone, many individuals have stood at this podium, written letters, and sent e-mails and even spoke to the newspaper about their experience ofdiscrimination. The Human Rights Commission has acknowledged this discrimination against GLBT individuals exists here and has asked for the Council to provide a remedy. Can the Council honestly say that they don’t believe that there is discrimination against GLBT individuals is occurring in South Bend? Still some voices are forced to remain silent. Tonight, the Council can change this. Provide a remedy, a place to go, where someone will listen to and investigate the stories. The Human Rights Commission is already set up to do this. They have already asked the Council to provide such a remedy. All that is needed if for the Council to be courageous enough to take a stand for what is right, just and fair. Protection for all who live, work or conduct business in South Bend. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the amendment of the South Bend Human Rights Ordinance to include sexuality orientation and gender identity. Gail McGuire, 1629 Belmont, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is a married, mother of two and a Professor of Sociology of Indiana University, South Bend. Her area of specialization is inequality in the workplace. She is representing South Bend Equality. She is speaking on the economic justification for amending the Human Rights Ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity. She stated that she had two basic points, first, there is business support for this kind of legislation and second, amending the Human Rights Ordinance makes good business sense for South Bend. In regard to the first point, over 92% of Fortune 500 Businesses that have policies that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians, this includes Wal-Mart the largest of the Fortune 500 companies as well as all five of the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Indiana. Forty major Indiana employers also have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation including Westpoint, Conseco, Eli Lilly & Co., National Collegiate Athletic Asociation, Allied Van Lines, and American United Life Insurance. Additionally, a number of companies have gender identity expression in their non- discrimination policy, such as IBM, American Airlines, Walgreens, Lucent Technologies, Xerox and Verizonwireless. South Bend Equality has also presented the Common Council with letters from local businesses that support Bill No. 29-06. In regards to the second point, research shows that the level of diversity and inclusiveness in a City is as positively related to its economic vitality. She quoted statements from CEO’s who believe that prohibiting discrimination against GLBT is a sound economic strategy. Daniel Carp, Chairman & CEO, Eastman Kodak “in our competitive marketplace diverse markets offer opportunity for growth, we need the ideas and insights of diverse and an inclusive workforce to attract and better serve customers.” Ted Childs, Vice-President of Global Workforce Diversity at IBM explained “the contributions that are made by the IBM members of the GLBT accrue directly to our bottom line, our goal is to assembly the most talented workforce in the industry and to use the skills of that diverse team to respond to the needs of our customers.” Clearly companies of this caliber are looking to do business in communities that also value to contributions of a diverse workforce. st Passing Bill 29-06 is one way that South Bend can show that it is the 21 century city that it aspires to be and that it understands and appreciates the value of diversity. On behalf of South Bend Equality, she urged the Council to vote favorably for Bill 29-06, it would be good for business, good for employees, and good for the economic growth of the city. She stated that she is one of the statistics that are often read about, she stated that she was discriminated against simply because of her sexual orientation, despite the fact that she is 10 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 a tenured faculty member, very productive member at IUSB, a mother, a volunteer in the community and gives money to this community in a variety of ways. By not passing this bill, she is one of the statistics, one of the people that could possible be affected by not protecting GLBT people. She stated that she hopes the Council won’t let that happen. Stacy Davis, 304 Runaway Bay Circle, Mishawaka, Indiana, stated that she teaches in South Bend. She stated that she is both a student and a teacher of rhetorical criticism for the use of language to make a point. Although her area of expertise is Hebrew Bible, she respectfully suggested to the Council that the study of language may be useful as the Council decides whether they support the bill to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the South Bend Human Rights Ordinance. The idea that only identities based solely on genetics or those that are already existing are worthy of protection is unsupported by the existing ordinance as it reads, simply because there is no gene for religion. Therefore, even if homosexuality is a choice, and that is debatable, so is religion that is not debatable. The ordinance already protects religion as a choice. Some maybe concerned that the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to the ordinance creates some form of special rights. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, which she knows and loves, special means “surpassing what is common or usual or exceptional” guaranteeing rights of equal access to housing, employment and education to citizens who happen not be heterosexual is not exceptional. Such rights are basic. She stated that she is concerned what basic means and does not mean, may have clouded the debate concerning the proposed amendment. She understands that there is no hidden meaning or agenda behind the attempts to add language to the existing ordinance. The plainly stated goal is to guarantee protection to as many of South Bend Citizens as possible. Additionally, it should be noted that historically what has not been stated in plain language cannot be assumed. For example, although the Declaration of Independence which has been quoted several times tonight claim that all people are created equal, in the case of U.S. Citizens who happen to look like her, it took three constitutional amendments, one civil rights act, and a voting rights act to guarantee what the Declaration had supposedly assumed. She pleaded that the rights of gays, lesbian, bi- sexual and trans-gendered citizens need to be protected and are not protected in the current ordinance as it is written. Experience suggests otherwise, and no one should have to hope, assume or even have to pray, that their rights are guaranteed. Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the ordinance would clearly state in writing the City’s commitment to equal protection under the law and the power of the specific written should not be underestimated in this matter. Mary Porter, 52081 Woodridge Drive, South Bend, Indiana, spoke on behalf of South Bend Equality, would like to reiterate why the proposed amendment is enforceable. She stated that the Home Rule Act and the Indiana Civil Rights Act provide the Common Council with legislative power to amend the ordinance. The Home Rule Act grants municipalities broad powers to effectively govern local affairs. She further noted that adding sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes does not cause a conflict with the Indiana Civil Rights Act. Indiana Courts have repeatedly ruled that a local ordinance and a state statute are in conflict, when the ordinance forbids that which the statute expressly permits. Not, where an ordinance merely supplements the protections that the statute already provides. Such supplemental burdens need only be logically consistent with the statutory purpose. The purpose of the Indiana Civil Rights Act is stated as follows: “The promotion of equal opportunity without regard to race, religions, colors, sex, disability, national origin, or ancestry through reasonable methods.” The public policy underlying the Indiana Civil Rights Act is to provide equal opportunity in employment, housing, and public accommodations for all of the states citizens. The evidence presented to the Common Council showed that South Bend cannot promote equal opportunity for all of its citizens without adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the ordinance. The amendment does not conflict with state law and is in fact logically consistent with the statutory purpose and broad public policy underlying the ICRA. If this bill is approved, then enforcement should not be a problem. The members of South Bend Equality and other concerned citizens would not have worked on this ordinance for two years for the amendment, if it would simply be overturned. When you vote to approve this amendment, a historic moment, when you vote in favor of this amendment, you will be on record as being against discrimination. If the amendment is approved it doesn’t mean that discrimination against GLBT citizens will end. It means 11 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 that these citizens will be able to bring their stories to the Human Rights Commission, instead of bringing them to the South Bend Common Council. If the amendment is not approved, GLBT citizens who experience discrimination will only be able to continue to bring their stories to the South Bend Common Council as they have for the past two years. Danielle Redman, 518 N. Scott Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she lives with her sister, mom and her mom’s partner Denise. She stated that she loves them very much. She advised that her mom and her partner Denise take care of her and her sister, with their problems no matter what they are, they are always there for them. Some of things that they do for her and her sister are helping bake cookies for school activities, going on field trips, taking her to orchestra concerts and to tennis and always volunteering to help in the classroom and whatever the teacher needs help with and always help with homework. She further noted that they take her and her sister to ballgames and help at the children’s dispensary. There are kids that say bad things to her, like they say they don’t like her mom because she’s gay and they hate me because she is gay, and they say they hate her whole family because her mom is gay. She indicated that those things hurt her a lot. She urged the Council to pass this amendment, so that families like hers are protected. Rhonda Redman, 518 N. Scott Street, South Bend, Indiana, advised that Danielle is her daughter and that she wanted to come speak to the Council and was not asked by her and the words that she wrote are her own. After listen to much public comment by members of Mr. Mangan’s group, she keeps coming back to a most disturbing realization of the stereotypically image they portray of members of the GLBT community in no way resembles herself or her family. She stated that some may remember her from many years of community involvement, she is a mother of three, who just happens to be a lesbian. She stated that she and her partner Denise have been a commitment monogamous relationship for almost four years. Family is their #1 priority, and they are extremely active and involved parents. They continue to strive to provide their girls with positive experiences, where they can learn to be respectful positive members of society. Volunteerism and giving back to society are greatly valued in her family. Her son who is also here tonight has apparently learned these lessons well and can honestly say that she is proud of the young man that he has become. Her oldest daughter spoke before her regarding their family and lifestyle, she told how she is treated by fellow students because of her being gay, and how that makes her feel. This nothing new for her, she has had to deal with this issue, since she was in second grade. The sad irony here is that, they have done nothing to make her a target, other than simply show up to support her in her activities and to help out whenever they are needed. To her daughters credit, she still wants her around, despite the price she’s often forced to pay for it. For those who believe that there is not an anti-gay climate in South Bend, can you look at her child and tell her that she is not being harmed. She believes that she feels quite the opposite. She stated that her youngest daughter is autistic, which is why she is unable to be here tonight. Last night as she was fast asleep in the comfort of her own bed, it occurred to her that she would have to face people, who believe that for this young child, sleeping in her own bed, in their own home, is a special right. She respectfully disagrees, to some this is a issue of morality, to her, it is an issue of treating her family and children with fairness and the same level of respect afforded any other family in the city. She believes her children deserve this. She challenged the Council to consider before their vote, instead of simply accepting inaccurate stereotypes of a so called “status group” she asked the Council to see them as the individuals that they truly are. The GLBT community is an incredibly diverse group of individuals. They are not simply a group, they are human beings of value, people who contribute daily to the betterment of the City. She urged the Council to vote favorably on Bill 29-06 to amend the Human Rights Ordinance, to include sexuality orientation and gender identity. Maureen Lafferty, 739 Marquette Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, read into the record a letter on behalf of Ellen Ann Anderson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Indiana University, Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 12 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 7/10/06 To the Members of the South Bend Common Council President Timothy Rouse wrote an editorial that appeared in the South Bend Tribune on July 9, 2006. In that editorial, he questioned the validity of recent survey findings showing that 79% of Hoosiers agree that lesbians and gay men “deserve the same civil rights protections as everyone else.” I’m sorry I can’t be there in person to respond to Mr. Rouse’s concerns, but I am currently in Baltimore at a professional conference. I’d like to assure the members of the Common Council that the data from the 2005 Indiana Poll are trustworthy and reliable. I have two main points to make. The first point I want to make concerns the fairness of the questions. Mr. Rouse infers that because I study the gay rights movement, the survey questions I designed might be biased or at least might be perceived to be biased. Survey researchers like me worry about biased questions all the time. Because bad questions give us useless answers. That’s why we test questions ahead of time to make sure they are fair, and we use questions for earlier surveys so we can compare results. The 2005 Indiana Poll used questions that had been field tested in a variety of other surveys, making only minor changes, such as using the word “Hoosiers” instead of the work “Americans.” It’s not surprising, then, that the results of the 2005 Indiana Poll look very similar to findings from other surveys. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that lesbians and gay men should be included in civil rights laws. For example, the 2004 National Election Study found that 80% of Americans favored laws to protect lesbians and gay men against job discrimination. The National Election Study is one of the most respected and long-running surveys of American opinion in the nation; it is the standard against which other public opinion surveys are measured. The second point I want to make concerns the number of people that were surveyed. Mr. Rouse infers that because we surveyed “only” 504 adult Hoosiers, our findings do not offer a true picture of actual public opinion. This is a common misperception. The 2005 Indian Poll surveyed a random subset of Hoosiers men and women, old and young, black and white, Republican and Democrat who look like the rest of the state. This technique allows researchers to gauge overall public opinion very accurately, even when only a relatively small number of people are interviewed. In fact, the National Election Study can measure the attitudes of over 200 million people by interviewing only 2,000 people. In sum, the findings of this recent survey are real and they are credible. Four out of five Hoosiers believe that lesbians and gay men deserve the same civil rights protections as everybody else. Yours truly, Ellen Ann Andersen Associate Professor of Political Science Catherine Pittman, 2628 Summit Ridge, South Bend, Indiana, passed out two handouts, 1. South Bend Equality – Petitions; 2. No Special Rights.net, petition. She stated that the Human Rights Commission has indeed made a statement that they recognize that discrimination is occurring against GLBT individuals and that they have asked the South Bend Common Council to find a remedy to this.They wanted it to be investigated and find a remedy to be found. It has been over a year ago, that they made that request and it is in writing. Also, because only two cases have been reported of GLBT discrimination, GLBT individuals no that there is no recourse for them when they go the Human Rights Commission, so it underestimates the number of people who would come if they new that there was recourse, that someone would be able to listen to them. She talked about some of the petitions that the Council may have seen circulating around. Mr. Mangan’s group has done a good job of trying to confuse this issue. There have been presentations on all kinds of irrelevant issues in this Council Room. In a similar manner, the petition that his group has circulated raises all kinds of irrelevant issues.The petition mentions same sex 13 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 marriage, mandatory sensitivity training for school students, GLBT sex education for any grade level, and the criminalizing of public bible reading. None of these issues are relevant to the proposed amendment. In fact, the amendment is not even mentioned on the petition that they circulated. There is no way of knowing that the individual who signed the petition even knows what Bill 29-06 involves. She asked how many of the individuals who signed Mr. Mangan’s petition would actually be opposed to this bill. Would they really be against given GLBT citizens the simple right to seek assistance from the Human Rights Commission, if they were harassed at their job, or they were denied a place to rent. It is impossible to know what people really thought, one thing they do know is that the majority of Hoosier’s do believe that GLBT individuals should have the same civil rights protection as others. Are the people who signed the petitions really against everything that has to do with GLBT citizens? If this is the case than the petitions are evidence of a different kind. They could be seen as evidence that there is a group of individuals in this community that feel they are justified in treating GLBT individuals anyway they chose. They don’t want any limitations whatsoever placed on their ability to discriminate. It is hard to draw a clear conclusion about what Mr. Mangan’s group of petitions mean? The petitions that she collected on the other hand send a clear message, they clearly explain what the specific legislation entails and the signatures have a clear meaning. The people who signed our petitions who number over 1200, including over 800 South Bend residents, have clearly expressed their support for Bill 29-06, and stand with the majority of Hoosiers who believe GLBT individuals deserve Civil Rights. She encouraged the Council to compare the different petitions carefully, before considering voting on Bill 29-06. Councilmember White asked if a copy of the petition is on file with the Office of the City Clerk? Ms. Pittman stated that a complete copy of the signed petitions are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Jane Ann Himsel, Attorney, One Indiana Square Ste. 1800, Indianapolis, Indiana. She stated that she has been representing South Bend Equality and helping them work through some of the legal issues. She stated that quite frankly she did not want to speak tonight, because there is nothing about this that would suggest that the Council would like to hear from someone in Indianapolis has to say. She stated that she sat in the Committee Meeting this afternoon, and felt absolutely compelled to stand up tonight as address the Council. She asked the Council to please be courageous, and join Indianapolis, and do the right thing tonight. She is very concerned that there is a misperception that somehow if the Council fails to pass this, GLBT would somehow be able to somehow go to Indianapolis, go to the Indiana Civil Rights, go to the Federal Courts and obtain relief from day to day discrimination in employment and housing. They cannot do that, the Indiana Civil Rights Act, does not yet protect GLBT people, the Indiana Civil Rights Commission cannot act on their behalf, at the current time. The th Federal Law Title 7, Employment law, as interpreted by the 7 Circuit, which is the Federal Court of Appeals that governs Indiana, has made crystal clear that GLBT people are not protected by Title 7, except in a vary, vary, vary, narrow swath of cases, that involve same sex discrimination. Folks, it you don’t pass this ordinance, these people have no recourse. She stated that she has employers for fifteen (15) years, there is discrimination out there. She would like to think that none of her clients have every engaged in any of it. This is the most important work that she has ever done. She pleaded with the Council to do the rights thing, pass this, send a message to the people of the State of Indiana that South Bend wants to include everybody and give everybody equal protection under the laws, that’s all this is. Martha Carroll, 638 E. Ewing Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she urged the Council to vote yes on Bill 29-06. The Council has the opportunity this evening to say yes to Civil Rights for all and no to discrimination against people who live in your respective districts, pay taxes, attend school, churches and work here in South Bend. It’s only fair! She stated that people learn fair at a very early age. She advised that one day during recess, she pushed, Letha Whitehead off the merry-go-round, her friends and her laughed as she hit the dirt. She was after all not like her, she was poor and dirty and had sores on her legs. Why was she on their merry-go-round? They didn’t want her there, so 14 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 she pushed her off. It was funny until she came around to where she had landed, her eyes met hers, she can remember it to this day. She stated that she had hurt another human being for no other reason than that she was who she was. There was no teacher to correct her, none of her friends disapproved, but she knew and Letha knew, what she did was wrong. The Council, as adults, Americans, as elected leaders in the community know that discrimination is wrong. The tied is turning and the nation is moving towards justice on this issue. Thank God, for courageous politicians who have dared to do the right thing in spite of opposition. Heroes take risks, she hoped that the Council would act heroically tonight. For some, it may be a faith issue, she knows that good people of faith disagree about homosexuality. The argument will go on for some time no doubt, meanwhile, what about Civil Rights for everyone. That’s what this is about, the Council is not voting tonight about approving or disapproving whether people are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgendred. The Council is voting to ensure that basic civil rights for all people who live in South Bend. Many people have worked hard to bring this topic to this point. Is it worth the effort, yes, she believes that it is. She stated that she grew up in Louisiana in the 1950’s and 1960’s, she did not know the law, but she knew the way things worked. She saw it all around her, and the signs that clearly indicated who was welcomed and who was not in public places. The jokes she heard at home and at school, and the ways her parents and all the other adults she knew spoke to and about the minority groups in her town. Did the laws enacted change all that? Not overnight , still it was clear that a new day was coming. Now when she goes home all the outward visible vestiges of racist closed society are gone. Are there racist people there now, you bet there are! But here is the difference, it is no longer okay to be racists. The society at large no longer approves of it! The Council’s yes vote tonight, will say to this community, that it is no longer acceptable to discriminate. Continued inaction and silence gives permission to most violate forces within the Community to act without fear of consequence. It gives those who discriminate in more subtle way, permission to continue to do so. The Council’s yes vote tonight, shows everyone in this Community that they recognize the rights of all citizens and protect those rights for everyone. The universe leans towards justice, and South Bend is only one small part of a movement, that began long before any of us were born and will continue long after we are all gone. In our country, it began for the right for freedom, and liberty for white men who owned property. Another war gave freedom to men, women and children of color. The suffrage movement followed and those women’s were ridiculed. And then the Civil Rights Movement, will eventually mean that GLBT people would be included as well. Over the last 230 years have learned what it means to live more fully into the words that we have know since we were children and stood and said together at the beginning of this meeting. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of American, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be among those who mean those words. Debra Davis, 13024 Pierce Road, Wakarusa, Indiana, stated that she works in the South Bend Community. She has been reading and hearing people state their opinions that tonight people are asking for special rights. She is here tonight to disagree with that statement. She comes to represent those of those that live with the fact that society does not understand their daily struggle. Most desire the same things all human’s desire. The basic freedoms for which many people continue to die. There are three basic needs that she believes we all have. These are to love and be loved so deeply, that your hurts, joys and lives become one. To devote and give yourself to the well being of others. To work hard, so that at the end of the day, you can say to yourself that you did a good job, today, that you are proud and what you have accomplished and earned a paycheck. She believes that most of us deep down desire those basic needs be fulfilled. So what you as a Council are voting on tonight is not a special right for anyone. The language here tonight asking to be added to the ordinance, does one thing for many, it frees those to devote 100% of themselves to their places of employment. This language does this by removing the fear that is settled in back of many minds. The fear that they could lose their jobs tomorrow, if the wrong person finds outs who they love. The need to guard every word spoken in the break room or in the staff meeting, for fear someone might figure something out and then have to pay the consequence. An example in her life, was that she was working in a group home for the mentally challenged. A female co-worker overheard a conversation that she had on her phone with her significant other, with whom she has been with for over seventeen years. She realized that she was a lesbian, and decided that since she and 15 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 her husband were having some problems, maybe she should try out being a lesbian. Like it was something to try on, like a piece of clothing. She noted that when she did not respond to her advances, her attitudes toward her changed. Where previously they had worked well as a team. Now, she was frequently angry and argumentative in her dealings with her. Previously where they easily each stepped up and shared the work load, due to her seniority, now, she was expected to carry a greatly percentage of the work load. Where previously they would step in for each other when a task needed done, she would still allow her to help her co-worker. But when she needed assistance, the co-worker would not assist her, because she was always to busy. If a task was done late or overlooked, the co-worker would report the incident to the manager. She stated that she was very lucky in this situation, her superior knew her work ethic. The supervisor knew that the co-worker was being unrealistic. The complaints were overlooked, and at her request a shift change and a change of where she worked was granted. She never brought up the cause of these problems with her manager. The reason that she tells this story, is that there are many people in authority, who have preconceived ideas about sexual identity. Where is she was to reveal the cause of these problems to her manager at this time, she could have easily decided that this way to get rid of her and cost her her job. The fact is, that there are many people like her, doing their days work, with the fear of losing their jobs, when co-workers or superiors, find out their sexual identity. She would like the Council to step into their shoes for a moment and picture what it is like to live everyday working in fear. Imagine, how much more engaged employees they could become at their workplaces without that fear lurking in the background. This is what she is asking the Council to do tonight for the community. Help GLBT’s become the kind of workers the Community needs them to be. Henry R. Mascotte, 17989 Edgewood Walk, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is a member of South Bend Equality and PFAFLG, Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Mr. Mascotte stated that he has a lesbian sister and a gay step-son. He stated that one of the issues mentioned tonight and spoken of in the newspaper over the last couple of years which faces both Indiana and South Bend is the loss of talented and creative Hoosiers who choose to live elsewhere, the so called “brain drain.” He asked his step-son, to share with him some of the reasons for leaving South Bend, Indiana. He step-son told him that his decision to pursue a life and career away from South Bend and Indiana was the result of many factors. Chiefly, was a desire to be able to be himself, in an accepting environment. Mr. Mascotte stated who would not want that. South Bend was not that environment, he noted that he had to cover his homosexuality for fear of ridicule, violence, the fear of being fired or not hired, simply for being who he was. When thinking about a future in South Bend, it looked bleak. The idea of having to live a live to stay closeted, was horrible enough. If he had to hide so did everyone else, and that meant that it would be extremely hard to find a partner and build a home together. Ultimately, like many gay people he opted to live in a large metropolitian area where both businesses and social environments are typically more accepting or at least tolerant. There were even anti-discrimination laws in the big cities to protect his livelihood and domestic partnership laws to protect any family that he might build. He felt like the cities were behind him, he felt safer and more importantly respected. He wasn’t the only gay person from South Bend, who felt this way and moved away from South Bend to a large city. His first job with Anderson Consulting, he ran into a high school classmate, who was in his advanced classes who finally felt comfortable to come out to him. He was a bright talented guy, who family had done very well in South Bend. He too left as well. His step-son graduated Suma-cum-laude from John Adams High School, BS in finance from Indiana University, Bloomington, Magna-cum-laude, IBM Corporation, finance internship, Andersen Consulting, Chicago, IL , Continental Bank, Chicago, IL; Chicago Title & Trust Co., Chicago, IL; Planet U, San Francisco, CA, a dot com corporation in the dot com era. Presently, employed Fidelity National Financial, Santa Ana California. His step-son lives in Rancho Mirage, near Palm Springs, California, who makes six figures and play a lot of taxes and owns his own home and has just brought property outside of the Joshua Tree Area outside of Palm Springs. He noted that his step-son lives alone, with his two dogs, in a diverse neighborhood. This is just one gay persons reasons for leaving the South Bend and the State of Indiana. This gives you some idea why South Bend would do well to pass this amendment. If South Bend wishes to attracted talented and creative Hoosiers to stay in the state and city and feel welcome and respected. 16 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 Joseph Schultz, 15344 U.S. 6, LaPaz, Indiana, stated that he works in South Bend. Mr. Schultz stated that in 1990 he worked at Jeans West in University Park Mall, Mishawaka, Indiana. During that time he was the manager for six months. He noted that the store increased in sales the most of any store in the district. He was manager of the month once during the six month tenure with the company. Mr. Shultz stated that during that time his first manager, who knew he was gay, had no problems with it. But there was a shifting of districts and a new manager came in. This new manager also knew he was gay, and at that time thought he did not have a problem with it. But the new managers attitude was appearing to become cold towards him. But he put this up to being unfamiliar with his work ethic. During the two visit that the new manager came to his store, the till was short. The only time that the till was short was the two times when this new manager came to observe the store. The till was short exactly $50.00 each time. At the second visit, the manager stated that he had seen one of the employees take this fifty dollars and pass it off to an alleged customer in the hallway. Mr. Schultz stated that he was disturbed by this but wasn’t sure what he could do about it. A few days later the manager came back into the store and told him that he was going to be let go, because he could not control his till. He stated that they also told him that they didn’t trust him any longer with the money, even with the increase in sales at the store did not matter. Mr. Schultz stated that he found out shortly afterwards that everyone that he had hired in the store during his time there had been fired, except for the employee that had allegedly taken the fifty dollars. He stated that he thought that this was very odd considering that was the reason he was let go. He noted that this was a while ago, and one could say that this was in Mishawaka and not in South Bend, but he believes that it was at best naïve, and worst disingenuous to assume that things are different now. He stated that he had nowhere to go and there was no recourse because of Indiana’s employment laws and there was nobody to report to. Anybody in the same situation now, would have no recourse either. Mr. Schultz stated that the no special rights stickers being worn tonight are hypocritical. No matter how much political jargon or legal technicality or psychological studies that they have done, the opposition to this is primarily religious. Religion is a protected class, so to say that GLBT’s are asking for special rights when everyone else enjoys these rights is quite hypocritical. What is being asked tonight is to protect their very special rights to discriminate against GLBT’s , who either subscribe or conform to their religion. In a way this is religious persecution, because he does not agree with them, he doesn’t think that he should lose his job because he does not agree with someone else’s religion. As a Christian, he posed the question to those that are basing this amendment on their faith, if they think of the GLBT community as the least of your brothers and sisters among them, how do you want to say how you treated them. George Garner, 112 Franklin Place, South Bend, Indiana, thanked Councilmember Pfeifer for sharing her experiences and how they relate to being an African American Woman. He indicated that he cannot relate, because he is a straight white male, age 18- 35. He noted that the majority of people in the audience cannot relate to those experiences, because they didn’t have those experiences in life growing up. Mr. Garner stated that he is here tonight to speak in favor of stopping discrimination in any form and urged the Council to vote favorably on this amendment. rd Maria Melendez, 938 S. 23 Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is a heterosexual citizen of the City of South Bend and that it really pains her to know that saying that raises her creditability. She stated that it pains her to think that if she stood before the Council and begun her speak by saying she was a lesbian or bi-sexual citizen of South Bend that that would mean something different about her statement. If your answer is yes to this for any reason, then right away that is the potential for discrimination. There has been evidence and testimony to that kind of discrimination here tonight. She stated that the reason that she is speaking in favor of Bill 29-06 is because that it should not be the case that she has the added privilege right now as a heterosexual. This bill is not about being gay or leading a gay lifestyle it is about protecting Americans, its about standing up to protect Americans against discrimination. She stated that the Council can be part of South Bend’s important history of being a community that is full of leadership and vision. She noted that it was her observation about her neighbors and her fellow citizens that oppose this bill, are better dressed than many of her neighbors and fellow citizens that are in favor of this bill. She noted that there are many wonderful suits, ties, women on the opposition have very elaborately done hair. She noted that there is a point 17 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 to this observation, and that it is not to put down her fellow neighbors or citizens that they need better hairdressers, though in fact they may, the point is at present, that if this group here were to exit this building on moth and walk into a place of education or employment, if they were to walk into a realtor’s office, the issue of discrimination, the act of discrimination, could be as easy as a fashion assessment and could be as inconsequential. It could be as meaningless as that and the Council can change that tonight, by standing up and saying that discrimination in form is not what the Council is about. This is the promise of American that the Council is fulfilling, this is the promise of American that takes people’s hard work, vision and insight to define and understand and it takes courage to extend that promise to protect all citizens. She urged the Council to support Bill 29-06. William Eagen, 3402 Scarlet Maple Ct., South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is a member of the Human Rights Commission, however, tonight he is speaking on behalf of himself and not the commission. Mr. Eagen commended Councilmember Rouse for his point of view in the South Bend Tribune. However, he took exception to some of the points made in the article. The matter of enforceability, won’t be able to be determined until it is tested, in the Courts, Indianapolis, the legislature and in Washington D.C. Bill 29-06 is worth trying out. Things do not go smoothly all the time. Mr. Eagen stated that he is old enough to remember the New Deal, most people in attendance here tonight don’t. There was a great risk taking the New Deal proposals came out. There was a very conservative Supreme Court, despite that, Congress and the President passed the New Deal provisions. It is true, some on the provisions as the NRA, were declared unconstitutional by the Court. At that time no one new how many provisions were going to make or not make the cut. A risk was taken in order to make progress, there is a necessity for risk. We are constantly being called upon to make decisions, based on information that is possibly incomplete or incorrect information. For instance, we depend upon weather forecast, economic predictions to make decisions. Knowing full well that they are more likely wrong than right. So we plan cookouts, for an expected beautiful day, and then there is rain, thunder, lightning and hail. When the economic future is not to bright, we buy bonds and go into a bleak market, but we have to work with what we have. Councilmember Rouse stated that most of the information that he requested, he did not receive. Mr. Eagen stated that he agreed with Councilmember Rouse and that the information he requested would have been useful in this discussion. Mr. Eagen stated that he does not understand bureaucracy, so therefore, he doesn’t understand how the President of the Council could not get the information that he requested. The point of the Mayor issuing an Executive Order, would only cover City employees. It would not cover the rest of the population. Mr. Eagen urged the Council to move in a direction of fairness and seek what happens. Mayor Stephen J. Luecke, 1400 County-City Building, South Bend, Indiana, stated that despite the fact that he is wearing a suite and tie, he is in favor of the ordinance. Mayor Luecke stated that he does believe that there is discrimination in South Bend, Indiana and in the nation, based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. If we all look into our hearts, and around this community you can come to this conclusion. He believes that it is appropriate to address this issue at local level. The City does have the authority under Home Rule. Certainly, it would be better if addressed as the State or Federal level, but it has not been. So, sometimes it is called upon us as individuals or communities to take the lead. South Bend’s Human Rights Commission started in 1956, before State or nd Federal Laws were in place on this issue. South Bend would be the first 2 Class city with a mandatory ordinance. He will point out that South Bend was the first city as far as he knows to have a drug house ordinance in the State of Indiana. He doesn’t think that it is bad to be first when you are taking a position of principle. It has been suggested that there are other approaches to address this. He could as Mayor issue an Executive Order, he can and will if need be. But, that would only apply to City of South Bend Employees, it would not apply to housing, and would not apply to other employers throughout the City. He thinks that it would be better for everyone to have a citywide ordinance that is really inclusive for the entire community. This is an issue on which people of good heart and good faith disagree. Individuals will reach conclusions for different reasons, but he hopes that common ground can be found. He believes that the common ground that can be found is that this is a nation with high ideals, built on the proposition that all persons are created equal. Over the history of this Country, it has come to understand equality 18 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 and rights more fully. The original documents establish the right of freedom and religion, because these settlers had experienced persecution and discrimination in that arena. Since then, other protected classes have been added. This has been a growth process, people who had not been seen as fully human, had been given that respect and given their rights. He stated that peopled are called to see common humanity in one another, to respect it, and to protect human rights. He urged the Council to support this amendment, and take a stand against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, to provide protection, provide a forum, and means of redress. These are our neighbors, our friends, our brothers, our sisters, our children, where will there go to ask for assistance, where will they go to seek protection, they should be able to go to the Human Rights Commission in the City of South Bend. He encouraged the Council to adopt Bill 29-06. Isabel Gonzalez, 232 S. Holiday Drive, South Bend, Indiana thanked the Council for taking the time and especially to Councilmember’s Charlotte Pfeifer and Roland Kelly for having the open forum and allowing the public to speak, pro and con on this issue. She stated that she arrived in this great City in 1992. In the past 14 years she has seen how this City has grown and diversified and faced many, many challenges. She stated that she has gotten to know many of the members of the City Council, some of whom she has worked closely with. She stated that she speaks very little on the issues, but tonight she felt compelled to let her feelings be known. She stated that the Council has a responsibility tonight to look into their hearts and look at the facts. She advised that she has attended the meetings and forums held on Bill 29-06 and there are many emotions on this topic. A lot of letters, e-mails, and phone calls have been made. Ms. Gonzalez stated that she too is a member of the South Bend Human Rights Commission, however, she is speaking on behalf of herself and not the Commission. She stated that she has 30 years of Human Resource Management background and noted that she sees discrimination, in housing in South Bend. She urged the Council to vote favorably on Bill 29-06. Councilmember Varner made a motion to recess for ten (10) minutes. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. The following individuals spoke in opposition to this bill. Patrick Mangan, P. O. Box 552, Notre Dame, Indiana, stated that being at this late point and time in the evening, he feels a little like the professor at the time of the course evaluation, when he was reading through those evaluations and had one that stopped him. It said that if I had only ten minutes to live, I would want to spend it in your class. And as the Professor started to feel puffed up, he read the words, because it would seem like an eternity! Mr. Mangan stated that he trusts the loving opposition side of this presentation will race by quickly and not seem like an eternity. He stated that he appreciates the opportunity to respond this issue. As you know, its not a simple issue, it has many facets to it. And, to that end, he has collected a lot of information which he has presented to the Council. He asked the City Clerk, John Voorde, to pass out the binders that they have complied information for the Council to have tonight. Some of the material the Council has seen before, some of it is new, it will give the Council a convenient place to refer to the material. The binders will allow the Council an opportunity to review the many documents that have come to Council. Mr. Mangan stated that he will be referring to several tabs in the binders during his presentation. Mr. Mangan stated that he would like to begin his presentation by showing a DVD entitled “It’s Not Gay” Mr. Mangan stated that he spent time with the individual in the DVD, Mr. Kermit Rainman, he recently met with him and discussed issues of former homosexuals who have for one reason or another come out of homosexuality to live very successfully heterosexual lives. Video – Kermit Rainman – (A copy is on file with the Office of the City Clerk) Mr. Mangan advised that there are others who have left the homosexual life style, and are afraid to come forward to speak in public for fear of being harassed by those whose life style they have chosen to leave. He asked the question of what really is being done here, why are we here. Many others have suggested what we are here to do and not to do. He would like to suggest that at such a late hour this evening in an elongated discussion that has been going on for a few years, because people matter, and the truth matters. Because 19 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 getting the public policy right matters. He has spent 25 years of his life reaching out to people all around the world. He has spent a great deal of time with those who struggle with homosexuality. He stated that he has aided many people in coming to know freedom from that struggle, through Christ and through their faith. He has personally engaged with individuals who have suffered through AIDS, who wish to God, that they had never taken the first step. He stated that he can with full conscience and full honesty and complete passion, come here tonight and say Bill 29-06 is not a pro-homosexual ordinance. Because if the Council were to pass it, and to affirm the behaviors there will be people, many of the people, perhaps some of the people in the room tonight who will die, because of the dangerous practices associated with homosexuality in the GLBT lifestyle. He too has fought the Civil Rights battles, he came to high school in the middle of race riots. He noted that he has raised over $30 million dollars for charity in this community for people of all races. He was the first to recruit and hire minorities and women in the United Way and promote their participation, some of whom are in the room tonight. He stated that he serves on the board of the Urban League, and frankly, it is hard for him to talk in terms of color because he doesn’t see it that way. He noted that wherever his goes, he feels at home in whether in China, Haiti or the West Side, North Side, South Side, or the Northeast Side, whether in the suburbs or whether in the inner city. He has one of the same views as one of the sponsors of this bill. Mr. Mangan stated that he and Roland have had many conversations over the years and Roland has told him directly that he is opposed to discrimination in all of its forms, and will be until the day he dies. Mr. Mangan stated that so does he.This is not an issue that is based on race, it is not based on an immutable quality, that distinction, that needs to be understood. The attorneys need to address the legal ramifications, but the Courts have never recognized sexual practices as the basis of a special class and in particular what is being brought before the Council now, because it fails every test. It is not immutable, it’s changeable, it choose able, it’s repairable. There is no united common charateristic that unites this class. Mr. Mangan referred to the young doctor who spoke earlier, with eloquence about religion being a choice, she was a great speaker. But the Supreme Court considers religion a faith choice sacred because the founders made it immutable in the first amendment of the constitution and that is why the two are different. What is being talked about now, it that taking immutable legal rights and applying them to changeable sexual preferences, sexual orientations, sexual practices. The definitions that we would have to use to defined these sexual practices, these classes could not be read in a High School civics lesson. The newspaper could not print those definitions. Now, there are individuals in the Community who passionately believe that they are right, they desperately want the Council to put into law, that what they are doing in okay. They want to be affirmed by being agreed with. There are many who love each and every person in the room and don’t need to affirm their behavior to demonstrate that love. Their personhood can be affirmed by speaking the truth in love, by lovingly opposing their behavior, even though they have for the time being identified that behavior as being their true identity. When it is simply a part of their behavior pattern and could change and does change for thousands of individuals. 25% of adolescents think at one point or another that they might be homosexual, because of their awkwardness in dealing with persons of the opposite sex. By the time they reach 22 years of age, 75% of that group no longer have any thought that they are homosexual. There will be more discussion tonight about the medical problems, biological problems, the destruction of parts of the body, serious deadly sexually transmitted diseases, citing the centers for disease control in study after study, the information is in the binders that were passed out. A book could be produced from every tab in the binder passed out to the Council and it would not contain all of the information that is there documenting the harms of this lifestyle. Mr. Mangan stated that his heart goes out to every single person that has stood at the microphone and who has aimed their frustration, anger, an animosity at him or at the good people who have waited for hours and politely listened while waiting for their opportunity to speak. He stated that his heart goes out to them, because he feels that their pain is real, even though their conclusions are false. He stated that his heart goes out to them because the one thing that they want to hear is the one thing that cannot, must not say and that homosexual’s sexual are equal, are healthy or are good. That makes this circumstances entirely different than dealing with issues of race, religion and ethnic background. If you ask all of the citizens in the State of Indiana, do you want homosexuals and GLBT’s to be treated fairly, nine out of ten would say yes. This is evidence that we do not need this ordinance. But, if you ask that same group of people if they want the weight of law to 20 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 supercede your faith beliefs in the way you conduct your business and the way you manage your property and the way you live in your home, or happen to have a duplex and in all these matters, do you want the force of law to state that homosexual, bi-sexual, trans-sexual sex acts, cross-dressing is equivalent to heterosexuality and to the family structures that are present. You would get the same number to say no. And, in the only place where we would have voter weigh in on this, it was seen in the last Presidential Election, another homosexual special right came up. In eleven states, gay marriage was on the ballot, and out of those eleven states the vote was no! Some have referred to the term the “homosexual agenda” as if it were Bigfoot. As if once has never seen it, as if it didn’t exist, as if there weren’t schools of attorney’s across the United States fighting battles with pro-family attorneys all across the nation. So, in the interest of full disclosure in education, he referred to tab #9, he is not suggesting that Catherine Pittman or that Hank Mascotte or South Bend Equality is part of a vast left wing conspiracy. He suggested that speaker after speaker comes and says passionately, this has nothing to do with gay marriage, it has nothing to do with redefining the family, it has nothing to do with any of the things on his petition. He noted in tab #9 the page from the IndyStar.com from Mary Byrne, who operates a bookstore on East Street that caters to gays and lesbians, “the proposal’s, passage is just a start.” “The push at this point needs to be working to defeat the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.” He believes that every speaker that has spoken before him tonight has been honest, he doesn’t believe that they are trying to be deceptive or trying to mislead the Council. But from adopting passed Adult Business Ordinances that it is not the local problem down the street, it the million dollar porn attorney who walks up a picks up your ordinance and tries to make hay with it. It will be the special attorney’s that are fighting this out, who will come in and take one of the tragic situations that may not have any validity in law, maybe more about someone being unkind in any form of recognizable discrimination and turn this proposed ordinance into a club to beat business owners who have faith. The exclusions that have been suggested over again about religious institutions are really geared to a really small percentage because it is only a few that have a statement listed in their mission statement, it is something that attorney’s could run loop holes through. The church is not the building that we meet in on Sunday, it is the sum total of all the household and businesses and property and all of life. It’s a seven day a week experience and that is why the faith community is not at all happy with the notion of this tiny little exclusion for their building. Nor would they accept it if it were somewhat broader, but still affirmed the legitimacy of homosexual behavior, because the Church has at its root a deeply held conviction, that to stand by silently or to affirm a behavior that leads to death is to stand by while you watch someone drive through a bridge that is out to their demise. And the compassion of the church is what brings them here, not their hatred. He stated that he has not heard one person here from the church run down homosexual or use derogatory terms. He sees no evidence of discrimination here. He stated that he saw some people that were afraid, they were afraid to say that they were homosexual, because if they let their clients know that they were homosexual, they might have a bad reaction. That was one of things that was cited as an incident. It never happened, it was in the mind of the person who felt it. What they felt was very real to them, but it didn’t exist, it didn’t happen. How can the Council possibly consider such things as evidence? Other than the fact that the person needs assistance in finding confidence in their life choices. Incidentally, on of the higher psychological problems associated with the GLBT lifestyle is paranoia, and a number of other psychological disorders. One would think that if you were to go to foreign countries where they have a more open and a more sexual permissive environment, that those stats would go down. We are constantly told the lie, that the reason that there is so many feelings of desperation and so many feelings of suicide in the GLBT community is society’s lack of acceptance. Yet, when you look at the society’s that are most open, you have the same conditions, high level of drug and alcohol abuse, high levels of psychological issues, high levels of guilt. Those are not imposed by a misunderstanding society, those come from deep within a person’s sole. Mr. Mangan advised that he is not here tonight to decide what a person’s conscience should tell them, but there is a place that they can get help. He stated that he does not think that it is the South Bend Common Council honestly, He thinks that the place to go is to the Lord with this. But there is so much more and there is so much here, that needs to be dealt with, when you flip the page in the binder under tab 9, there is the page entitled the “Demands.” These are published written national demands, they were published as part of the gay rights platform in 1972. There is also a set of demands one 21 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 for the federal and state. There are also demands that were published in 1993 as part of the platform of demands and their related items when the march on Washington occurred. Mr. Mangan stated that when you see stickers that say “Protect our Children” and somebody comes up indignantly and says how can you say that, aren’t they exaggerating! He noted the circled items in tab #9 which were repeatedly part of the national homosexual agenda asked for lower the age of consent laws and ask for no age of consent. Ask for sexual education about what homosexual sex is by homosexual by all ages including kindergarten. It’s not Big Foot it exists! Its in writing, it’s in the binders that were passed out to the Council. They say they want to redesign the family, and that they want to have an allowance for any number of people in a marriage. Mr. Mangan stated that they don’t want re-engineering of the family, they mean it, because it is real. This is an agenda and it is being pushed all over the country, its being battled in courts all across the United States. Mr. Mangan then referred to the beginning of the binders, with the eleven out of eleven states that said no to gay marriage, for essentially the same reasons that you should be saying no to this special rights initiative, there are two recent court decisions, one in the State of New York and one in Georgia, both of which rejected those same sex marriage advocates for much of same reason that they are asking to reject this same sex, bisexual and trans-gendered basis for a special class. Seems like a lot of people have gotten confused by the statement “special rights are not civil rights” he asked all present here to night to hold up their posters in the audience. Special Rights are not Civil Rights. Kermit Rainman stated that Special Rights undermine Constitutional Rights. In order to give Special Rights out to the GLBT Community, you infringe upon the First Amendment Rights of those people who disagree. In those balancing acts they are dealing with a sacred right the founding fathers put in first. That was a right to our faith. You might hear debates about what the Bible says about it. Mr. Mangan referred to tab #12, he stated that there are quotes from the Old Testament, New Testament, from Jesus in the Gospels and a number of related passages. In more than one version of the scripture, so that it can been seen that the scriptures that are the basis of the holy faith of nearly 2 billion people in the world that call themselves Christians, is unmistakable in its condemnation in rejection of the action of homosexual sex acts. It has nothing to do with the chapter on shell fish that everyone likes to bring up. You read the chapter Leviticus 18, it is talked about in the same breath as incest and having sex with animals and having sex with your mother, your aunt, and that is the basis on which it is mentioned in context in scriptures. Mr. Mangan stated is the scripture being mean, is God being mean, No, he is saying that if you do these things, that it is going to harm you. For six thousand years, they have been saying that it harms the society, it’s against nature. You cannot perpetuate a society based on homosexual practice. You have to have practicing heterosexuals to produce children to go on. Civil Rights Leaders and leaders in the community like Juan Manigault, published his opinion, unfortunately, he was unable to be here tonight. Mr. Manigault stated that civilizations are lost at this point, when you redefine the sexual morals of the society and redefine the family no civilization has endured one generation past the time that embraced homosexuality as normal. There are good reasons, why we should have the courage to look into our friends eyes in the Community and say I understand your pain, I understand that you want to hear, I embrace you sexual preference. But cannot do that, and really care for you. He stated that they must speak the truth in love and say that he cares for you enough to urge the person to seek out and not to pursue a lifestyle that could shorten your life. Do not pursue a lifestyle that is going to bring you great heartache. That is why folks are gather here tonight, they have come here lovingly to say it’s wrong, we cannot agree with it, they hope that they will take the opportunity to get help, come to reparative therapy and look to Christ. There are many other things in the binders, he pointed out the petition. The petition states to please inform the local, state and federal elected and appointed officials are Councils, Commissions and Boards that they are unalterably opposed to the Homosexual and GLBT agenda to obtain special rights for homosexuals and GLBT’s through all of the following methods but not limited to these methods only. It fairly precise, adding the terms gender identity and sexual orientation to corporate municipal philanthropic anti-discrimination statements. He stated that that is pretty plain and clear. Mr. Mangan stated that he read the ordinance backward and forward and this statement seems to be dead on this ordinance. It also says, that those who have signed it are opposed to offering same sex marriage or same sex civil unions, or to creating hate crimes legislation that criminalizes speech that disagrees with homosexuals and GLBt’s like public Bible reading, like what is happening right now, in 22 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 the nation of Canada, the nation just to the North, who started down this same slippery slope, of trying to equate sexual practice with discrimination and now have preachers in prison for reading the same versus of the bible and free to put in this binder and could read out loud. They don’t have that right, because people mixed up the issue and went down the wrong path. Well intended, but went the wrong path. Mandatory or voluntary sensitivity training of employees and officials in government offices as well as students in schools. Mandatory or voluntary homosexual and GLBT sex education for any grade level for the schools, mandatory or voluntary sensitivity training for employees in private or publicly held businesses. Mr. Mangan stated that we have all hear the horror stories, we know how many people has lost their jobs because they simply did not sign on to a pro-homosexual statement in their places of business. The City of San Francisco put a gun to he head of the major airlines and said that they can’t land in the airport unless you do this. So much for arguing intellectually or arguing in a way that expects to win today based on principle. He has seen the homosexual movement bully these companies around, but we have also seen a number of people that said you know what, it you are going to go that way, I’m going to boycott you, I’m no longer going to invest in your company. Ford is in trouble right now over this very issue. One only has to wait to see how low they will sink before they reverse themselves yet again going back and forth on this issue. Some people said it is good for business, he doesn’t know anybody in business who is eager to have this come to town. Most of the developers are saying that it is going to create another barrier. Most of the developers are already frustrated with the tax base and many development issues and they don’t want to see another barrier created to develop our community. There are many fine young people who leave the community for bigger and brighter shores. He dare say it is not many, who are leaving because we have not had this ordinance. For the Cities who do pass these, there is almost no use of them whatsoever. There is almost no complaints filed, very few have ever been proven. Very few have every been proven in advance of one of these ordinances being filed. He suggested that it is no more than a political attempt to offer legitimacy on a moral issue to homosexual sexual activity. That is what many capable speakers are going to share with you tonight. He encouraged the Council to examine the evidence that is here from Attorney’s from Pepperdine University to the University of Notre Dame to the Liberty Counsel. Liberty Counsel goes into depth explaining the four criteria. There are going to be many fine speakers who are going to share with you. Mr. Mangan stated in closing, his official portion of the remonstrance against this. Because thousands of men and women have found freedom from all of the afflictions being described here through faith and through counseling, his pray is that those who may have come into the room tonight, here from the homosexual and GLBT community, maybe with some anger and some hurt in their hearts will lovingly lay that anger in the loving arms of Jesus, who can set them free. He asked them to join him in loving them in this special way of lovingly opposing these harmful behaviors in such a way that it could save their life. Jay Dunlap, 61623 Kingston Court, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he has four children, three of them who attend school in South Bend at St. Matthew’s Grade School. He is here tonight to speak because of his families experience similar to others that have spoken here tonight. He stated that he has a loved one who experiences same sex attractions. Unlike some of the others that have already spoken, he saw his brother go through, was very difficult and painful. When he would hear in the media and in various reports, that what his brother was experiencing was healthy and normal, it did not match with what he was seeing. He saw his brother in and out of the hospital either because of physical problems or because of psychological problems he was suffering because of the same sex attractions. Mr. Dunlap stated that his brother died young. He was not quite 27 years old and died 20 years ago. Mr. Dunlap advised that he wanted to understand what his brother went through. He found an organization called NARTH National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which is an excellent resource because it pulls together all kinds of in depth research that has been and published in professional journals that looks at the psychological, social and physical consequences of the gay lifestyle. Mr. Dunlap stated that he saw in the facts that were presented, exactly what his brother experienced. Starting that with the fact, as a teenager, he was seduced at an athletic club, by an older man. Mr. Mangan referred to the National Agenda, that very explicitly said that it wanted to get rid of age of consent laws. The very same thing that he saw his brother suffer from for years until he died, because of that kind of experience. Mr. Dunlap stated that he wanted to also speak on behalf of his family, not only because 23 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 of his brother, but also because of his children. The ordinance before the Council this evening, would have much more of a direct impact on services that the church provides to this city, then say for instances what has happened in the state of Massachusetts. The Supreme Court in that state decided to create homosexual marriage. One of the unintended consequences of that supreme court decision has been that Catholic Charities, long time provided of adoption services in Boston, has had to shut down its operation, because the church would not consent to placing children in homosexual families. The law now is interpreted to mandate it. A State wide decision saying that you must have gay marriage means that you cannot discriminate against homosexual in adoption. Mr. Dunlap questioned how this ordinance would effect Catholic Charities here is South Bend, through which he has adopted three of his children. How would it affect a school like St. Matthew’s where he sends his children. The language that Mr. Mangan referred to, seems very narrowly defined to protect religious educators and ministers. What about the science teacher, who is going to teach biology to the junior high kids, in a way that naturally of necessity touches on moral issues. What about the literature teachers, who much choose and teach literature that touches on the full range of human experience including important moral issues. If St. Matthews and other religious schools in this town are subject to the ordinance before the Council tonight, he would suggest that there is no way to protect those schools and the integrity of those schools of faith, be they Christian, Jewish, whatever! He thanked the Council for their kindness and leadership on this issue and the many prospective's that are brought here tonight.Mr. Dunlap stated on a final note that it was noted 79% of Indiana Residents agreed with this statement in a poll that the GLBT Community deserves the same civil rights protection as anyone else. He agrees with that, everyone does, but the ordinance before the Council tonight, is not the same civil rights as everyone else, its special rights. Dr. Charles Rice, Professor Emeritus, Notre Dame Law School, 59800 Tyholland Lane, Mishawaka, Indiana stated that he mailed on Saturday, to each member of the Council the article that he had in the South Bend Tribune on Friday. He rather not rehash that, but had two points to raise that may be overlooked. The first point is that contrary to statements that have come from members of this Council as well as others, this ordinance does not exempt churches. You have to be very clear about that.The existing ordinance gives to church schools a limited exception for hiring employees and for selecting students. Now, this new amendment in Section 127 e has a general provision which says that protections in this article against discriminatory practices with regard gender identity and sexual orientation shall not apply to decisions essentially of a church school or any activity of a church when they affect the mission, practice or belief of that church. Now, that is a later pronouncement and it is a general pronouncement, it’s a debatable question that which he stated he did not know the answer and that’s the problem with this ordinance. He stated that in 49 years as a lawyer, he can’t recall having read any legislative proposal that wasn’t more poorly drafted. This is extraordinarily vague and imprecise. It is entirely possibly that this section 127 e overrides the protections in 128 e and h. As to hiring employees and selecting students, he stated that he doesn’t know the answer to that and neither does the Council. That’s one of the problems with the ordinance. The second point he stated is what this ordinance does, is put into the hands of activists a weapon of intimidation. Which is extraordinary, others have described the differences between gender identity and sexual orientation on the one hand and the existing civil rights on the other hand, race, religion, disability and so on. The big difference is behavior; gender identity and sexual orientation are explicitly, and without limit key to behavior. Behavior is protected, explicitly and without limit. Now he stated that he has had experience and still do of being on the legal committees of several legal defense outfits, the American Center for Law and Justice, for example the Thomas Moore Law Center, Ann Arbor and a couple of others. He has been involved in these cases, and when Mr. Mangan talked about the attorney’s coming in, he knows what he is talking about. This thing provides for activists a weapon of intimidation where the process routinely time and time again, throughout the country has been for the ACLU to come in to town, to get a case and then present it to the school board, or the church or whatever it might be that has a religious issues and so on, and the choice that they present is this either do what we want, put this instruction in the school, take this out, put that down, take that down, whatever, do what we want or we sue and you got to hire a lawyer, and you got to pay our lawyer if you loose. This ordinance provides not only for damages and penalties, it provides in housing and employment cases, for attorney’s fees and it 24 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 does not provide incidentally, for attorney fees for the respondent even if he wins. So you see what is going to happen, he stated that he would guarantee it. The people will come in here, and the choice will be presented to the Catholic School or whatever other agency do what we tell you or go hire your lawyer. And if it’s an employment case, pay our lawyer too! He has recently been involved in a case, where the bill for the ACLU’s lawyer was $450,000.00, were not talking chump change. So in five minutes that all he wanted to do is make those two points because, we tend to overlook this, and tend to regard this as some kind of benign thing, it isn’t, it’s the worst piece of legislative trash, he believes in his experience. He is not throwing rocks at the Council, because you didn’t write it, the definitions come from the Indianapolis law, and this thing came from some national outfit and he thinks it is perhaps purposely vague. But it is extraordinarily, vague and imprecise and opens the door to abuse and oppression. Councilmember Pfeifer asked Mr. Rice if he read the existing ordinance that governs the Human Rights Commission? Mr. Rice stated that yes he did. Councilmember Pfeifer asked Mr. Rice his opinion of it? In terms of how it is written? Mr. Rice stated that he had no problems with the existing ordinance. He may have written parts of it differently. Ms. Pfeifer asked Mr. Rice if it was a piece of trash. Mr. Rice apologized for getting exuberant. He stated that didn’t mean to. Ms. Pfeifer stated that it was alright. She asked Mr. Rice again if he thought that the existing ordinance was a piece of trash. Mr. Rice stated no it is not. Councilmember Pfeifer asked if the present one is well written. Mr. Rice stated that he found no comparably objections to the present one, compared to the objections to this one being presented tonight. Jon Wilson, 5625 Abshire Drive, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is a pastor of thirteen years, and been in the helping profession for a number of years. He stated that he has a number of friends on both side of this proposed amendment. He stated that this argument is not about people, it is about behavior. Mr. Wilson stated that everyone can love one another, disagree and be friends, because he has friends on both sides of this argument. But, this something that must be addressed. Mr. Wilson read into the record a statement “I have attended these three open meetings at the County-City Building, regarding the proposed amendment to protect the gay community from discrimination. Although the people have been polite, the topic is loaded with tension and potentially devastating ramifications. How naïve and short sided to believe the impact of this bill to be limited only to the specific actions. It was interesting that the South Bend Tribune ran a series in the paper about the personal and societal high price of teenage pregnancies at the same time that one of the meetings was being conducted in May 2006. Our young people pay the price with a seemingly endless cycle of poverty and fatherlessness with no end in sight. My generation in the 1960’s opened wide the door of a celebration of sexual freedom. Of which none of us understood how far reaching and destructive impact would go. We along with our children have eaten the fruit of our rebellion impacted our families and our society. Now, we stand again at another door, for the same empty promise, that sexual freedom is something to be celebrated and legitimized. He proposed a questioned that he has not heard anyone ask publicly in these meetings. What is the will of God about this issue? He speaks as a pastor at this point, many do not care but for many others in this City it is the primary question to be considered about this amendment. Our God is both loving and holy, he loves people and shines in the brightness of moral purity. As with sexual immorality practiced between both males and females, these act of homosexuality are in direct rebellion to the nature of his will. He will is clear in the 25 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 scriptures, he hates all forms of immorality. How long can we as individuals and as a society walk in a rebellion to God, and then ask for his blessings. Please know that the God of heaven cares nothing about out political correctness, when it opposes his best for the world that he loves. He turned now to the children that will have to live with the decision that will be made here tonight. In the name of authority and society endorse what the God of heaven has called sin.Their rebellion causes many who follow to stumble and open the doors to a wake of broken lives. God would have all of us treat one another with respect and kindness and embrace the moral light of purity that he has prescribed in the scriptures and demonstrated in the life of his son Jesus. It is not only God’s will that concerns me, but the will of those who are the founders of the gay agenda in America. It is foolish for one to turn their head and not acknowledge that there is a gay agenda in this country, that is aggressively pushed by its leadership. It appears that they will stop at nothing until their promiscuity is celebrated and accepted by the general populous in America. Have you ever seen the video of the gay day parade in San Francisco? If so, no one could argue that there is such an agenda. In the video, float after float depicting homosexual acts each seemingly trying to increase the shock factor there was a float built by the North American Man Boy Society, this organization celebrates homosexual sex between men and minor boys. What would the organizers of the Gay Day Parade allow proponents child molestation in their celebration. It makes him as why do birds of feather really flock together. Two questions that should be considered: Should this amendment be passed in the City of South Bend, how long will it be until there is pressure placed upon the schools to host professionals who will be recruited to re- educate the children about the normality and freedom of homosexuality. When will a Michiana pastor of a bible believing church be confronted by the Human Rights Commission for in sighting prejudice or discrimination against homosexuals simply because he or she may read scriptures that teach all sexual immorality including homosexuality is a sin. He prayed that we turn our eyes to heaven and asked for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven may we do his will. Fred Everett, 22160 White Spruce Court, South Bend, Indiana, thanked the Council for their graciousness in giving so many people the opportunity to address this bill. He stated that there is no inconsistency with being in favor of civil rights and having respect for all human beings and truly caring about them while at the same time opposing this amendment. There is not any consistency. Mr. Mangan did a good job of describing why that is. The issue really is behavior and those of expression.The weight of the law should not come down against people who for sincere and religious reasons truly believe that certain types of behavior are objectionable. It is not simply just about who people are but what they do. Having such a broad protection is essentially having a special right or protection. Everyone should have their rights and civil rights respected, but not because of their behaviors. The fact is that we only protect things that are good. No one protects something that is bad, that doesn’t make sense. Part of the Council’s job is to see what things are good and what things are bad and hopefully to try to encourage people to do the goods things and discourage them from doing the bad things. When you say a certain behavior deserves protection how can one not conclude that what is being said is that this is something that is good, because it is being protected. Otherwise, why protect something that is bad, and so there is no way to escape the fact that passing an amendment of this sort is sending out a very clear message that this type of behavior deserves respect and protection and that it gives it legitimacy and validation it would not otherwise have. Mr. Dunlap raised the issue about catholic charities in the state of Massachusetts, who for more than 100 years were providing adoption services, and now suddenly, because of their clear ethical positions about believing that this would be immoral to place a child in a home with two homosexual adults, they no longer can do their work that they have done so well for over a century. Where is the tolerance there? Where is the willingness to be respectful of others? He happened to pick up today a children’s story at the South Bend Public Library, it is called King and King. He stated that he read it for the first time today, and it tells about the story of a young prince, who’s mother is very over bearing, and who basically gives the prince an ultimatum that he needs to get married. The Prince starts to interview all of these various Princesses. The prince’s mother wants the interview done very quickly, so ultimately, the Prince cannot find any princesses that he likes, but he does finds a prince, who he falls in love with. In the end, he ends up marrying him and so they are known as King and King. The last page has a very graphic picture of them both kissing each other with hearts by their 26 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 mouths. The reason his brought up this book tonight is because this book is located in the children’s section of the South Bend Public Library, and he is not saying that it should be banned, but to say that this book was actually used for second graders, in Massachusetts this past year. He urged the Council not to pass this amendment tonight. (Time limit was invoked) Dr. Phil Sutton, PhD, 528 Ostemo Place, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is a licensed clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, school psychologist in Indiana, and an licensed psychologist in Michigan and Ohio. In that capacity he serves as part of his work children, children from pre-school age to high school and he is also the father of four and at last count a grandfather of three. Dr. Sutton said that when he spoke last on May 10, 2006, he closed with the comments with the following words: “Offering special rights to persons acting in ways that are harmful to their own medical, psychological and relational health would only enable their risk of harm and prevent there receiving the hope and the help in which they may need. He also said that such an ordinance would also disaffirm our children. Presenting to them the GLBT lifestyles as healthy ways to live when they are not. Dr. Sutton referred to a research study in the NARTH brochure that he delivered to the Council at their office last week. In a 1992 study, of over 34,000 Minnesota teenagers, one-fourth, roughly 26% of twelve year olds reported that they were uncertain if they were heterosexual or homosexual. This compared with the only 2- 3% of adults who self-lable as homosexual. This means by his calculation that roughly 90% of the twelve year olds who may be uncertain about their sexual orientation would be falsely identified as persons who would label themselves as gay when they became adults. With that study in mind, he offered three points: 1. The earlier that a young person begins a mood altering behavior the more likely it is that he/she will develop a self defeating habit, compulsion or addiction. Whether smoking tobacco, using drugs or engaging in sexual behaviors, whether the same or opposite sex, the younger a person starts, the harder it is to stop. Many adult men regret that they ever began viewing pornography over the internet, when they were younger. The behaviors typically of the GLBT lifestyles all to commonly become habitual, compulsive and frequently addictive to those who practice them. The younger a person starts the more difficult to stop. What may feel fun and free in the beginning all too soon entraps. 2. The proposed ordinance if passed would give young people the false message that the GLBT and lifestyles are not as dangerous as unbiased research shows them to be. He has spoken previously about the medical, psychological and relational dangers of these behaviors along with the NARTH brochures that he distributed last week. 3. In other parts of the Country after ordinances like Bill 29-06 have been passed, local school systems have been petitioned to provide so called gay affirming teaching and also counseling programs in the schools. In such programs students who are not confident that they are heterosexual too often are encouraged to explore the homosexual lifestyle. Again, what feels fun and free in the beginning often entraps. He asked the Council again, not to approve Bill 29-06, it is not in the best interest either of our current or future children, or of those who currently live one of the lifestyles. Dr. Dave Jenkins, Pastor, Calvary Baptist Church, 50596 Mayfair, South Bend, Indiana, commended the Council for addressing this issue. He appreciates Mr. Kelly and Ms. Pfeifer’s passion for this and this issue needs to be resolved. Dr. Jenkins agreed that this is a critical issue of discrimination and as a Pastor he preaches against this. He wishes that everyone could embrace what Confucius, Moses and Jesus taught us, to do unto others, as we would have done onto us. He opposes this for two reasons, in spite of the fact that he is a preacher he will keep them brief. First of all spiritual, what concerns him in this issues is when you begin to enter into the area of sexuality and try to legislate it, what he does not hear is issues of right and wrong, or to quote a famous book from a psychiatrist Dr. Meneger “whatever became of sin” we don’t address that issue in this. As a pastor, this concerns him, he appreciates Bishop D’Arcy addressing it in the South Bend Tribune, and as a protestant he says this is something that has to be considered. It is a critical issue and need to be careful, when you go into these areas. Whether it is heterosexual or homosexual those are issues that need to be explored. As a pastor he has counseled with people in homosexuality and he has shown them respect and consideration in that process. The second issue why he is opposed to it is politically. Fifteen years ago, he was in Palm Springs, California, pasturing, he was on the Human Rights Commission there. They made history there as well as he hear what was going to 27 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 happen tonight, this is going around the country, and at that time, they were assured that there was not a homosexual agenda on this issue. But last year in June, he was in San Francisco for a number of weeks, and the news had a lot about what is in the current California legislature, about teaching homosexuality, to the kindergarten through fourth grade children. This is an important issue and there is more to this, and we need to address the issue. This is not a civil rights issue, he implored the Council to continue to pursue it. He has Pastored in the South Bend area for twenty-years, and we are great people here, we are ahead of the curve, in many areas, but this is not the solution. He believes that there is another way this can be done. He encouraged the Council to oppose it and continue to explore it, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Pfeifer keep pushing the issue. He stated that he is opposed to discrimination in every form, but this is not a good solution to it. Please oppose this bill. Thomas Burnett, 18907 Cleveland Rd., South Bend, Indiana, stated that he wanted to talk about his rights tonight. He has not heard one other person even discuss this aspect of it. He believes that he has under the constitution the right of free association to associate with and do business with who he wants to for any reason that he wants to. He owns two houses in South Bend, and what the Council proposes tonight would make him civilly liable for substantial damages and attorney’s fees, if he refuses to rent one of his houses to a homosexual. He is disgusted by homosexuality, he believes that there are a few acts on the face of this earth that are worst than this, he equates this entirely with bestiality, incest, child molesting, all those are criminal acts. He sees no difference between homosexuality and these other criminal acts mentioned. He does not want to do business with these people, they are evil. The vary nature of what they do is disgusting. He is disgusted by these people. He feels that this impacts his rights terribly and is totally against this. He stated that the Council is going to have to look at what this is going to do not only to him, but to a lot of landlords in South Bend. There are a lot of landlords who are not going to want to rent to these people. We have already got a lot of vacant houses in this City, because there aren’t any jobs here. If you make more rules about this kind of thing, we are going to have a lot more of them. You can start with his two houses, because he would probably give the City the title, because he doesn’t want to do business with the homosexuals. He feels he has the right to do business and should have the right, and absolutely should have the right to do business with who he feels like he should do business with. He stated that he should not feel like he is put under legal constraints by the City of South Bend. He considers this proposal an outrage and urged the Council to reject this. Nancy M. Hartman, 1709 Lincolnway West, Mishawaka, Indiana, stated that she works in South Bend, Indiana. Ms. Hartman stated that she did not know if the gentleman that spoke before her stated whether he was a Christian or not? But she wanted to say that as a Christian, and a grandma, she stands here and asked the Council to vote against this proposal. As a Christian, she is in sales not management, she is called to love. Yet, she is also called to condemn behavior that scripture condemns. She has a lot of practice in doing this because she is a parent. She loves her kids, but sometimes there are times that they behave in such a way that she stated that she doesn’t like them. She wanted everyone here tonight that has spoken on the other side to know that she loves them, and cannot think of a thing that she wouldn’t do to help them, if they needed it. She stated that she has probably helped a lot of them at her work, without condemning or judging them. Ms. Hartman stated however, she is against this. She asked the Council to vote against this. Rev. Michael Patton, 707 Sherman Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is a Pastor in this community. He is a leader as well in this community and is asking the Council not to support this ordinance. He believes that there are other ways that can solve the issues and the concerns that have been heard tonight. As a Pastor and a leader in this Community, there are many people within the Community that are a part of the GLBT group, that he has ministered to, people that he has had to support as well, and as well he does love them as human beings. He stated that he does not love the acts or behaviors of the GLBT community. He thinks that as he pleads to the spiritual side of everyone here and the natural side, please vote against the ordinance tonight, based on all of the information that the Council has heard from Mr. Mangan, and the No Special Rights Group. He believes that there needs to be more dialogue on this issue, through 28 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 meetings and discussions to come to a common solution that will address the concerns that have been presented here. Rev. Patton asked the Council to do the right thing and vote against the ordinance tonight. Jan Torma, 901 Wheatly Drive, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is full-time nursing faculty at an area college here. She is a registered nurse and a wellness educator, a community wellness educator, she is here to summarize and conclude her statement that she began in this room in May, 2006, with Members of the City Council, in which she is lovingly opposing the special rights initiatives of the GLBT Community. Medically speaking the homosexual lifestyle is a chosen lifestyle. There is no proof that people are born homosexual. No gene has been found or discovered, there are no immutable characteristics such as race, skin color associated with this lifestyle. GLBT individuals do not qualify for inclusion in this ordinance as a protected class. By promoting this revised ordinance, the Council is in fact promoting the homosexual lifestyle. There are devastating health consequences, for individuals who engage in the GLBT lifestyle and the promotion of this lifestyle will lower the standard of health in the community. She spoke of the risk of getting anal cancer soaring by 4,000 % in those who engage in anal intercourse, according to the March 2006 issue of Health Psychology and the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. She spoke about the realities of anal penetration with a penis, a human fist, and sex toys, that irreparably damage the tissue and nerve endings in the anus and the rectum, often requiring an irreversible colostomy. This presents a drastic change in ones activities of daily living and coping with an altered body image is a huge psychological challenge. In November, 2005 the Center for Disease Control, issued a warning about an alarming increase in the spread of Syphilis nationwide, and attributed most of the grow to gay sexual activities. In addition, there is evidence that antibiotic resistance among homosexual males, is 23.8%, eight times the rate for heterosexual males. The genital human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common STD in the United States and it has no cure. We know that HPV is the cause of genital warts, there is a growing body of evidence demonstrating its association with anogenital cancers. HPV differs from other STDs in it mode of transmission, it spreads from skin to skin, it is that kind of contact. HPV infects the entire genital area; the penis, scrotum, vulva and surrounding areas. Condoms do not cover the scrotum, nor most of the other areas that can be infected with the virus. According to the CDC, there is an extremely high prevalence of HPV infection among homosexual and bisexual men and almost universal infection among HIV positive individuals. She stated that she was lecturing in a pharmacology class for nursing students s a few weeks ago. According to the text by Lilley, in the United States unprotected anal intercourse among male homosexuals is still the most common cause of new cases of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection. HIV can have a dormant phase of 10 years or more before giving rise to AIDS, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. AIDS is the end stage of the disease process caused by HIV. There is no cure and it is ultimately fatal. It results in a severe disorder of the body’s immune system functioning, leading to an inability of the body to fight off disease. She stated that they want to build a healthy society, not one that is built of sexually transmitted diseases, for which there is no cure. They want to build a civilization of life not a civilization of death. She appealed to the Council, to their intellectual honesty and strongly urge the Council, to vote against adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the ordinance governing the South Bend Human Rights Commission. Mary Grabill, 22361 Kern Road, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she is a nurse and she teaches, and sometimes does a little counseling She wanted to let the people here tonight to know that God is a healer, and a deliverer. There is nothing that we can go through that God is not deeper. He is deeper and a healer and a deliverer and no matter what people say, that he will give us the strength to go on. She is saying this because she is a black woman, and it seems like every time that when something comes up, it always about being black and civil rights, well that’s good because homosexuality and lesbianism, and bi-sexual and all the other stuff doesn’t come under the subject of human rights, because black people were born black, being a homosexual, being a lesbian that is something that you choose to go into. That lifestyle is chosen or introduced into that lifestyle. God so loved the World, that he gave his own son, not just for black or white or whatever, for the whole World, because we are all his creation. God wants all of us to be 29 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 healed, delivered and made free. But, we have to want to be what the creator made us to be. Stuart Clark, 1860 St. Michaels Court, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he has lived there for three years, grew up in the New Carlisle area, a small town. He knew of one homosexual individual in that town. The whole town knew about it, he worked in the Library. He never knew what happened to him. Mr. Clark stated that he worked for over forty years electrician, and he worked with a man, that he heard was homosexual. He did not abuse him, he talked with him about the job and job related work. Mr. Clark stated that over time he made some signs in reference to a code that he heard about. Mr. Clark stated that he is concerned about the folks that believe that they are locked in. Mr. Clark referenced a book Psycho-Cybernetics written by Maxwell Maltz, written in 1960, it is still on the bookshelves, he saw that with two upgrades probably since computers have become so popular. The opening statement that he made in the book that’s all he had to read was “we are what we think we are” and of course this man was a plastic surgeon, who worked with famous, beautiful, handsome people who wanted him to change their faces. But he discovered what they really needed was for them to take a different look at themselves and do some analysis, with counseling; he understands that, they could change without the surgery.Another reference is the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Mr. Clark referenced a couple of words out of that book: “For every impulse we have as Human Beings we are not dogs, we have the ability, really the privilege, of making a choice. We make a choice for every impulse comes into our lives. He had to make a choice to get out of the chair he was sitting in to come up here to speak. But he thought that if he doesn’t speak now, shame on him. He stated that he sees a deterioration in this country, that has come along ever since, he guessed, Judge Black, who decided to take religion out of politics, the separation of church and state. This has been implied in so many of these cases that now Christians cannot even speak for themselves hardly, on the street. The other reference is of course the Ten Commandments. He looked at the civil law side of it, a mans property rights were protected in that, Though shall not steal, his life is protected, Though shall not murder, his family and wife were protected, They were not to commit adultery. But the thing that really impressed him about that was before it was written, it was written with a promise, God had told these people if you will do these things, I will put none of these diseases upon you, and this is what happened with the Nation of Israel for centuries as long as they were obedient, they didn’t have any diseases. When they went the way that our country is going, they became rampant with diseases and went into slavery. One more thing under the constitution, were are under that umbrella, you are supposed to promote the general welfare, not the specific favors. Luke Bruner, 5818 Winamar Drive, Apt 3-A, Mishawaka, Indiana, stated that he is a student at Holy Cross College. Thanked the Council for letting him address them today. The issue at hand that he would like to address is the addition of sexual orientation to list of causes that a person may not be discriminated for in the City of South Bend. This issue is an emotionally charged one, yet he believes that many people here tonight agree with him, that when it comes to writing public policy, it is always better for cooler heads to prevail. Indeed it is always best for logic and reason to guide us when policy and law are being framed. He also believes that it is best for policy to be clear and concise and to say what it really means and implies. Indeed it would be foolish if a lawmaker were to write our policy shall be to do this, when he or she really intended our policy should be to do that instead. He examined the term sexual orientation in a big greater detail. This term seems to be inclusive term, encompassing all sexual orientations, however, yet it appears that the intention of this legislation and what people here tonight want is not to encompass all sexual orientations, but in fact only some sexual orientations. If one consults any number of organizations such as the American Psychological Association, one encounters a rather exhaustive list of sexual orientations, these include heterosexuality, pedophilia, homosexuality and a very long list that went on for quite a few pages. Mr. Bruner stated that he quit looking after three. He stated that he is quite sure that this City does not want to mandate by force of law, that day care providers may not discriminate against persons with a pedophiliac sexual orientation. Mr. Bruner stated that he hopes that he is not mistaken, that this Council is in favor of such a thing, please correct him. It seems then to a reasonable person, that an inclusive and all encompassing term is being used, when what is really meant is homosexual, bi-sexual, trans-gendered 30 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 and heterosexual orientation. These are terms that by definition encompass all adults who seem to have really any sort of sexual attraction to other adults. Some may argue that those sexual orientations out of those just listed are mental illnesses. And in such do not deserve this special protection, such persons point out that homosexuality was at one time considered a mental illness, but in the 1970’s was removed from the category by the APA. They took a vote on the matter. Surely, these and other conditions could be removed from the list of mental illnesses, by a popular vote of the APA, meaning they would then mandate special protections under this law. Others may argue that those sexual orientations outside of those listed, cross the threshold into criminal activity, and as such, might not be covered by this law. Mr. Bruner pointed out that only in the last three years has the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws, which essentially criminalized homosexual activity up to that point in several states. Although it may seem absurd, only a majority vote in the legislature is needed to appeal pedophilia laws or a court ruling of similar matters. Yet, 50-100 years ago, it would have been absurd to say anti-homosexual sodomy laws will one day be overturned. Futhermore, this amendment carries no clause to his understanding excepting orientations deemed to be mental illnesses or criminal. Finally reaching clarity on sexual orientation, it seems overly ambiguous for us, and most importantly does not say what is really meant. Yet, these words and phrases very clearly cover orientation, other than those just listed, and covers only orientation and not action.He urged the Council not to pass this resolution as stated, because the resolution does not seem to ask or enforce what it is actually wanted. It is explained to him as being one thing, and has turned out to be another. He questioned the purpose of this commission, that investigates such bias’ because political speech is not receiving extra-special protection, and indeed he could be punished for these very reasons. (Time limited emposed) Tom Uebbing, 1737 Brookmede, South Bend, Indiana, stated that this issue can be summarized as two wrongs don’t make a right!By opposing this legislation, he is not in anyway condoning the verbal or physical abuse that may have been heard tonight. Mr. Uebbing, stated that unlike one of the speakers tonight, he is willing to do business with homosexuals. He stated that he had a couple of ladies come into where he works, one referred to the other as her partner, the other called her dear. The factors that he objects to, just don’t come into play with that. He has no animosity towards homosexuals. However, this is a two-dimensional issue, and existing laws already cover a lot of what has been brought up tonight. What citizens and the Council cannot ignore however, is that the basis on which these special rights are being founded involves unnatural and immoral sexual activity, which should never be elevated for a special place in the law. Mr. Uebbing stated that he makes a distinction between orientation and the actions. He because of this inescapable moral dimension of the issue there are limits on the accommodations that society can give those who are living the gay lifestyle. His particular concerns, which have been mentioned many, many times before, has to do with, positions involving youth, role models for youth and the education of youth should this thing pass. With all the negative medical, physical, moral, emotional effects mentioned, with those effect in mind, the frequent charges in the press of bigotry, just don’t stick. By voting no on this proposal, the Council can be quite confident, that such a decision, involves not bigotry, but setting common sense limits. He stated that he attending the public hearing chaired by Councilmember Charlotte Pfeifer, held at the Fiddler’s Hearth in 2004, he was struck by the good qualities of endearing humanity of some of the gay right supporters who spoke. His appreciation for the goodness and humanity that he saw in them, could not lead him however, to endorse special rights for homosexuals. Because then he would not be loyal to the truth or to them. He would not be their true friend, for love and truth are inseparable. While pro family groups such as no special rights may be considered the greatest enemy of gay rights supporters, in the end, they are the best friend that gays ever had, because they are willing to speak the truth in love, even at the cost of rejection. He humbly asked the Council to vote against this proposal. Kevin L. Mitschelen, 16061 Petro Drive, Mishawaka, Indiana, stated that his is a father, an elder at City Chapel, and married to a great and wonderful wife. He thanked the Council for believing in democracy, he sees it displayed here tonight.He stated that the Council is hearing from the Kings and Queens of this land. He wanted the Council to th know that he is running a campaign, he is running as the 6 District, Representative 31 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 against Mr. Bauer. He is opposed to this ordinance for several reasons. He is opposed as well to discrimination, whatsoever, in saying that he has to make a distinction of behavior and genetics. First, from someone who obeys the laws, set up by our creator. The Creator or God, if you will has established some foundational laws for any society. We as a society cannot abolish those laws, or we will see the ruin of it. He says this in grace, knowing full well that he is asking for mercy all the time. He has dedicated his campaign, to protect organizations like the Boy Scouts, and other parent/church organizations like what was mentioned before, the Catholic Charities and Hope Rescue Mission. This ordinance will send a confusing message to their freedoms and by-laws that are set up. He stated that he could have avoided tonight’s debate, but as a candidate, he must fight for the foundation of our culture. One of the leaders of this bill spoke about our creator, the big question is that will we as a community honor the words written in his book? We are trying to ignore the elephant in the room, the elephant was eluded to in tonight’s prayer. Mr. Mitschelen stated that quite frankly, his is still trying to figure out who we pray to will all do respect. Mr. Mitschelen stated that he says this in grace and mercy, knowing that those words written in the bible make it clear, that he should lay down his life, if necessary for anyone in this room, this is not a genetics issue, this is one of behavior. Rights haven’t been violated, this will effect business in a negative and will cause confusion. Especially those individuals confused about gender. Mr. Mitschelen further noted that he is for the marriage amendment act as well. He stated that he worships at a downtown church, he sees children walk through their doors every single day, many confused. He used to work with teenagers, many of them would come to him, many came from good homes, some that didn’t come from good homes, he would have to work with them, love them with a great deal of patience. He stated that he sees a lot confusion with the kids today, he believes that this would add to their confusion. He stated that he loves all the people in this room. Mr. Mitschelen advised the City Council that they have a great charge tonight. Are you going to stay with the foundations that have been set up for many, many years or are you going to go on your own path? Mr. Mitschelen suggested that the Council stay with the foundations that have been set up by our creator. Joe Sergio, PhD, Organizational Psychologist, 1919 S. Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he has a master degree clinical psychology, PhD in organizational behavior management from the University of Notre Dame, researcher by education, and a businessman by profession, married for 28 years, 4 children, and spent his entire life in the South Bend area. He found it very interesting as a man looking for factual information to build off of. Of the kinds of things that haven’t been brought in through all of these hearings. Some of those things, include the genetic basis for the GLBT lifestyle. In the first hearings, and speeches, he made a significant number of notes and the times that it was referred back about having no control that it was all genetic. Yet, he has challenged anyone to bring information for this, because half of America believes that there is volumes of genetic research supporting the immutable genetic basis of this. It does not exist. He still challenges people to bring solid research forward. Mr. Sergio stated that interestingly enough while his is based upon behavior, that no body wants to speak about what those behaviors are. The activities that the GLBT lifestyle engages in, and quite frankly, he did not want to either. He has found research that has been done where they have done an assessment of what those behaviors are, and he thinks once you read them, you will see why no one wants to even mention them. Because they are very difficult, and he is a man who has spent the last 10 years fighting pornography and sexual addiction and is used to speaking about these subjects, and still he doesn’t want to say these things and is not going to say these things out loud, because they are that graphic. Mr. Sergio stated that he can give the Council a copy of that information if they would like to have a copy. (Time limit imposed) Mr. Sergio stated that he would like to finish with one sentence. Ed Henry and Ray Thomas, both past chairs of the Human Rights Commission wanted to be here, they have both spoken out publicly against this ordinance. Neither of them were able to remain here to speak. In Rebuttal, Councilmember Kelly stated that Mr. Mangan was eloquent tonight, however, he respectfully disagrees with some of his statements tonight. The statement that was made throughout the objections tonight that this is a case of special rights, its not special rights, we have never intended it to be a special right for anyone, we are just trying to make sure that the civil rights that we were all guaranteed to have is done. Two 32 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 words that were used tonight to focus on this situation one is fairness and the other is justice. That’s what we are after is fairness and justice for the people who are discriminated against because of their lifestyle. Mr. Kelly stated that he is not condoning the lifestyle at all, it is just saying that discrimination exists in our community and people are being discriminated against in various ways and we are just giving them some recourse which they do not have presently. The referral of the brain drain in our City, we have been talking about that topic for some time. We are loosing good intelligent people from the community, not necessarily just GLBT types, because of the way that they are treated in South Bend. Mr. Kelly stated that by passing this amendment to the ordinance we can curb the brain drain. Sexually transmitted diseases were brought up, it’s a terrible thing, but sexually transmitted diseases affect heterosexual as well as homosexuals. He stated that to him, he doesn’t believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice, he stated that there have been arguments about that all evening long, but anyone who would choose the homosexual lifestyle in our homophobic society has got to be out in left field somewhere, he just does not believe that it is a matter of choice. Mr. Kelly stated that is his personal view, he is not a clinical psychologist, he cannot speak on a professional basis, but it just doesn’t seem right to him that anyone would choose that lifestyle given the kind of problems that exist in the Community. Councilmember Pfeifer stated that she would leave it up to Councilmembers, if they would like to ask questions of City Attorney Chuck Leone, or Human Rights Commission Executive Director Lonnie Douglas about any of the issues that were raised. Councilmember Pfeifer stated that what she wanted to say in summary, is that, our form of government in the United States, we do have a separation of church and state. That is the way that our government is, we protect the minority, from the Tierney of the Majority. That is the way that our government is. This ordinance has nothing at all to do with behavior being protected, it’s about protecting people, human beings that’s what it is about. The behavior was mentioned over and over again, what people do sexually, this ordinance has nothing to do with what people do sexually. This is about protecting people. The very fact that young people are confused and undecided about their orientation is even more reason that they need to be protected from discrimination while they are sorting things out. A couple of weeks ago, a southern Indiana man who put together the black holocaust museum in Milwaukee, died. He died at the age of 80 because sixty years ago when he was being lynched, in Southern Indiana, for a crime he did not commit, somebody stepped forward and said he is innocent. Tonight, we have the opportunity to step forward and say that these people being mistreated is inappropriate and unacceptable in our community. In the areas of education, public accommodations, housing and employment, that is what we are talking about. We have the chance to step forward to protect people who cannot step forward and protect themselves. She challenged each and everyone to think about human beings, about individuals, that you care about. Remember the times that people stepped forward for you. Now it is your chance to return the favor. She asked the Council to vote with them tonight. Councilmember Puzzello stated that she believes strongly in equality and freedom. The freedom of opportunity under the law for everyone. She also thinks that she owes respect to everyone who does the best they can with the gifts given to them. That includes helping to achieve equality for all people, and not accepting fear or making judgments against those who are different from her. She thinks that we all have to fight against this human tendency to make judgments. We have to fight that all of our lives, all of us! Tonight, we are not talking about marriage, and we are not talking about trying to change people’s religious convictions, a person who has the money to rent or buy a home, or has the education or training to hold a job, should under freedom of opportunity be allowed to do so. We cannot lovingly deny anyone this right. This is discrimination and certainly has nothing to do with love. When speaking of discrimination against anyone, it is often mentioned that when it comes to employment, we want to hire the best employee possible. Well, she wants the best employees in her City and the best neighbors in her neighborhood. Please give all law abiding citizens a equal playing field. Councilmember Varner thanked everyone for their participation tonight. 850 e-mails, numerous phone calls, volumes of information, most of which read and highlighted and conducted on a high level a very professional level and a very respectful level, and however this turns out tonight, he hopes that everyone walks away with the 33 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 understanding that it was conducted in a way that democracy was supposed to be conducted. Part of democracy assumes that there is going to be disagreement. A part of democracy assumes that decisions will be made and people will live with those. He takes exception at this point and time, to Councilmember Pfeifer oversimplification to what we are doing here tonight. He had his suspicions that there have been more involved with the legal aspect of this, than that was actually understandable by himself, who is not a lawyer. He thinks that Professor Rice lends a great deal of credence after his explanation, that there is more here than just adding rights or providing status for discrimination cases. However well intended, its turned out to be something a little bit different. Emotion which has been a great deal this evening, on both sides, is great for pleading a case a rallying a cause, emotion is not a good way to make a decision. It’s not a good way to consider a decision. The decision which is what we are being asked here to which is to create, a protected status of the GLBT population. We have throughout the history of the discrimination, through the Civil Rights Movement and Human Rights Movements, created a process through the courts and through legislation which is created a systematic means by determining if and when the status of a people or an organization or group of people who request special status, its not quick, its probably not pretty, involves a lot of meetings like this, but the process as he understands it, simply before the status is recognized they must meet three or four criteria which have been established by courts over time. The next step will be legislation be formulated on a Federal level and has been done in the past, it goes from the Federal level which makes it uniform and if it is uniform, he thinks that it is more fair than if 350 cities or counties write 350 different ordinances. It is certainly more understandable. It will also be better researched, it will be better documented, it will be better tested, for all of the information that he has received, and tried to cover as much as possible, can walk away with a lot of questions of the validity of it. The Council does not have the time, nor the staff or the effort. He believes that if the Council does not have good information, a good decision cannot be made. He believes that the Council has the responsibility to make a decision that is good not an emotional decision. He stated that he took a lot of notes, that got him thinking, that despite the fact that it won’t be quick or easy, if in fact that it is determined that gay and lesbian status should be protected, it will proceed down the normal pathway, it will happen, we will have it, and we will move on from there. Because it will be more specific and thought through legislation. Councilmember Kirsits thanked everyone for attending tonight’s meeting, he thanked Mr. Mangan for the nice book. Councilmember Kirsits stated he did read most of what is in the binder tonight. It was an overview of everything that the Council got. He wondered about the subtle rainbow tab, if that meant anything? He reiterated a lot of information has been received by the Council. He gave great consideration to Mr. Uebbing, and his incredible writings and kind of got to know him through the meetings and really respect what he has written. On the other hand, he appreciates everyone with their comments being lovingly opposed, however, he thinks that every Councilmember here can state that some of the e-mails and contacts that they received were way out there, almost to the point of hatred. A voice mail was received today, on his recorder at home, that he had investigated to see if it was a plant to get him to go to the other side of the issue. This voice mail thoroughly disgusted his son, who he thought was old enough to listen to it. As a member of this city, a lifelong resident, one who was educated both in the public schools and the catholic schools and was fortunate enough to attend a public school that had a great diverse population on to a catholic school that had no idea of what it was to have minorities. He found himself very fortunate, as someone who has chosen schooling for his children here, based on its diverse population representing African Americans, Hispanics and even Asians. What he worries about with the City is that when you are a resident of the corporate City limits of South Bend, you get the benefits of the City and as well all know you get the challenges to. Often times it takes a special person and when he breaks this down to a simpler issue of his neighborhood that he loves dearly, he looks at neighbors and friends there that have celebrated in the triumphs and outright tragedies in his neighborhood. That quite possible that wouldn’t be his neighbor because just because they are gay or lesbian. Because they would be discriminated against in employment and would not have the financial means or wouldn’t have been able to buy that house. As someone who has lived all his life in this City, who has worked twenty eight years on the Fire Department to protect its citizens and have represented its citizens as a Councilmember for seven years, he finds that wrong. He certainly feels that a pubic 34 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 policy is needed for those who have the hatred and violent nature in them towards this emotional issue are not allow to do that. As far as the ordinance, as one who has worked with citizens for community values to get the strip bars, and adult entertainment under control and eliminated in this City, we built the legislative district some of that is challenged in the Courts and hope that they will rule in our favor, we think it makes us a better and stronger city. However, he thinks that this ordinance while it is strong to an extent, also puts in it those amendments that legislative history that he has talked about and the language in here that protects those institutions those catholic organizations, those religious organizations, that they would not be extremely affected by this. He thinks its time for this City to take a step forward, he doesn’t think that this is going to have adverse effect to turn this into a gay San Francisco Parade, but he thinks that its going to be a matter of fairness for all its citizens that choose to live and accept the benefits and take up the challenges of living in the City of South Bend. Councilmember Dieter thanked everyone for their time and effort that has been put in. He appreciates both sides of the issue. Basically the time line sticks out, of the way this started through neighborhood meetings and then the Human Rights Commission then coming on a little bit afterwards. He stated that if this issue was a problem, that the Human Rights Commission could not handle it at that time, that they would have approached the Council before these meetings that Charlotte had. Another issue that stuck out is that the people from the Human Rights Commission that spoke on behalf of themselves and not the Commission, so that again points to something else. Also, he agree with Dr. Varner and that the enforceability and the information that he received from different people on that. He stated that Mr. Rice with his article, he was right on the money on that , if we do get to this point, he also agreed with Councilmember Kirsits, that the Council and everyone on the Council is opposed to discrimination of any kind. However, the way that the ordinance the way it stands now, it doesn’t address and is very vague on its definition. The choices that people make in their own lives is up to them. But what is being put out here tonight, he is not in agreement with. So, that is how he will be voting tonight. Councilmember Kuspa stated that this is a very important decision that the Council has to make. He has been off for a while, he stated that he had back surgery and while at home recuperating he has received numerous phone calls and information regarding the amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance, both pro and con on this issue. When you get right down to the ordinance and the definition of gender identity and sexual orientation, it is to vague. There are people saying that it is a religious issue, it’s a natural law issue, it is something that has to be lived with, something that needs a plan. It’s like everything else, if the Council tries to pin down a certain employer and tell them that they have to do this or they have to do that, he thinks its also against their rights also. He appreciates all the information he has received, the good, bad, pro, and con. The Council has to decide and live with that decision. It is a very difficult issue. Councilmember Rouse stated like his other colleagues, he would like thank everyone for participating in this process. Contrary, to what Ellen Anderson is saying, that 504 adult residence represent the feeling of the State of Indiana, we have had 850 e-mails and letters and he can tell you from 850 it is definitely against this ordinance. The e-mail’s and letters that this Council received was probably, 3-1 against the ordinance. He stated maybe we are strange residents in South Bend, or Hoosiers, but from what information that he had and he thinks that its more decisively from the 850 that it is 107 residents in the City of South Bend, and that is about 3-1 against this ordinance. But that is not really the issue with him, he took an oath of office that said that he would stand as a legislator for the City of South Bend. The oath reads as follows: “ I Timothy A. Rouse, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana and I will faithfully and impartially discharged the duties of the office of the Common Council Member at Large, according to the law and the best of my ability. He stated that he did not say in any sense say that he was going to be come a trailblazer and change the law and use this office to amend the constitution of the United States or the State of Indiana. And strictly, from a legislative perspective, he does not feel that there has been due diligence given to this ordinance. He stated that as a matter of fact, if he looks at the record of when it went into Council into committee and 35 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 he cannot find hardly one time that it met in dialogue with the Committee to come to the ordinance that we are asked to sign as a Common Council of the City of South Bend. So he stands boldly, saying it is wrong, he cannot support it, and it does not give it due diligence. Councilmember White thanked the co-sponsors of this bill for all of their work, their passion and commitment to this issue. It has been an issue that has been discussed during the last two years. She really appreciates the manner is which the co-sponsors have gone about putting the issues on the table. Embracing the community at large but also allowing the Council to have opportunity for input. Tonight is just an excellent example of the process and democracy at its best, in regard to hearing those in favor as well as those in opposition. She stated that she has heard a lot of comments in regard to Civil Rights versus Special Rights. She has received a number of e-mails as well as telephone messages and has kept a tally of those who have expressed their support versus those who have been opposition. According to her tally the vote is running 2-1 in opposition to amending the Human Rights Ordinance. There are a lot of issues that need to still be addressed. There is a way that she believes this Council can continue to have the level of discussions that she believes are needed to continue to wrestle and articulate as well as talk about an issue that is very dear to everyone’s heart. She doesn’t believe that anyone is saying that they support discrimination in any form or fashion. But as the Council begins to look at amending the Human Rights Ordinance, there are still a number of issues that she believes need to be addressed. Again, she reiterated thanks to everyone for their commitment on this issue. Councilmember Pfeifer made a comment to the audience. She stated that Councilmember Rouse and herself often disagree over things. And she feels a need to clarify that they are nine Councilmembers. We are elected, we are equals, there is no boss here. Any Councilmember who wants to bring forth legislation and research it, and do the work that they want to do, has the right to do that. They do not have to ask permission of anyone to do it. But Councilmember Rouse wanted was a certain procedural way and that’s not her procedural way. She did it her procedural way, the way that she has been doing it for eleven years, the way she will continue to do it, until she stops serving here, and that is her right as a three time elected legislature that she can do it that way. She stated that she did it the legal way. She wanted people to understand that the way she did this, is the way that she has co-sponsored and sponsored four other pieces of legislation and that it is her right to do that. Councilmember Rouse responded that they are nine separate Councilmembers, we do disagree but we still respect each other. It is his understanding, but we go with parliamentary procedure, but when a issue is submitted to a committee, it should be received by the Committee. Each Councilmember can legislate his/her own ordinance in its own legislation, but when it comes into a committee, then the committee should have the privilege of reviewing the issues before it, and when that doesn’t happen, that is his only point. He questioned nothing about the co-sponsors of this bill. It did go into committee officially, and it came out of legislation out of that committee. We do disagree on some points, but wanted to make it clear to the audience that he has the most high esteem for Councilmember Pfeifer, however, they disagree. He stated that they agree to disagree and a matter of fact that Councilmember Pfeifer and himself have served in a ministry for persons who have died of HIV and they were both there ministering to that family. He stated that he thinks that they will continue to do that, in the future. But we do have this disagreement on how things should be handled, but that does not diminish the esteem that they have for each other. Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill as substituted. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which was defeated by a roll call vote of four ayes (Councilmembers, Pfeifer, Kelly, Puzzello, Kirsits) five nays (Councilmembers, Dieter, Varner, Kuspa, White, Rouse) Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that a motion is needed to recommend, so you are recommending either favorable or unfavorable. 36 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 Councilmember Varner made a motion for unfavorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill as substituted. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which was passed by a roll call vote of five ayes (Councilmembers, Dieter, Varner, Kuspa White, Rouse) and four nays (Councilmembers Pfeifer, Kelly, Puzzello, Kirsits) BILL NO. 38-06 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, TO ADD ARTICLE 13, SECTIONS 17-119 THROUGH 17-125 TO CHAPTER 17 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE ADDRESSING POST CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER ISSUES Councilmember Al “Buddy” Kirsits, Chairperson, Utilities Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and sends it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Jason J. Durr, P.E., Assistant City Engineer, 1300 County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Durr advised that this bill is for post-construction storm water erosion control. It establishes permit procedures which include the review of erosion control plans, inspection of erosion control measures and the maintenance of erosion control measures after and during construction. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. RISE AND REPORT Councilmember Dieter made a motion to rise and report to the full Council. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by voice vote of nine (9) ayes. ATTEST: ATTEST: _________________________ ______________________ John Voorde, City Clerk Karen L. White, Chairperson Committee of the Whole REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County-City Building at 11:50 p.m. Council President Timothy A. Rouse presided with nine (9) members present. BILLS, THIRD READING 37 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 BILL NO. 29-06 A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 9, OF CHAPTER 2 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE ADDRESSING THE HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE BY THE INCLUSIONS OF NEW PROVISIONS ADDRESSING GENDER IDENTITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION This bill had third reading. Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to consider the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine ayes. Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion to pass this bill as substituted. Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion which carried. The motion was defeated by a roll call vote of 4 ayes (Pfeifer, Kelly, Puzzello, Kirsits) and 5 nays (Dieter, Varner, Kuspa, White, Rouse). Councilmember Varner made a motion to that this substitute bill be defeated. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of five (5) ayes (Dieter, Varner, Kuspa, White, Rouse) and 4 nays (Pfeifer, Kelly, Puzzello, Kirsits) ORDINANCE NO. 9684-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, TO ADD ARTICLE 13, SECTIONS 17-119 THROUGH 17-125 TO CHAPTER 17 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE ADDRESSING POST CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER ISSUES This bill had third reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 3611-06 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4747 WEST CLEVELAND ROAD TO BE AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A FIVE (5) YEAR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR PEI- GENESIS, INC. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, has adopted a Declaratory Resolution designating certain areas within the City as Economic Revitalization Areas for the purpose of tax abatement consideration; and WHEREAS, a Declaratory Resolution designated the area commonly known as 4747 , West Cleveland Road South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows: 38 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 Commencing from the East Quarter of said Section 20, said point being approximately 68.62 feet South of the South right-of-way of Indiana East/West Toll Road (300’ total R/W) thence North 0104’10” West along the East line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, 704.03 feet to the point of beginning of this description; (note: The bearing for this description was derived from the recorded documents from the Right-of-Way undertaking); thence North 7734’00” West, along the North right-of-way of Cleveland Road 1346.24 feet; thence North 0038’36” West, 629.12 feet to the South line of the Plat of Clarence A. Gregory’s High Meadows Estates Subdivision; thence North 8937’14” East along the South line of the Plat of Clarence A. Gregory’s High Meadows Estates Subdivision and Hartman DeMaegt Subdivision, as recorded under Book 21, page H4 and Book 27, page H respectively; 1304.45 feet to the East line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 20; thence continuing along the South boundary of Hartmen DeMaegt Subdivision on a bearing of North 8937’14” East, 80.5 feet to a point on a line West 80.5 feet of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; thence South 0104’10” East, 946.09 feet to a point on the North line of Cleveland Road; thence continuing along the said North line of Cleveland Road on a bearing of North 7734’00” West, 82.79 feet to the point of beginning. and which has Key Number 25-1012-0199.37, as an Economic Revitalization Area; and WHEREAS, notice of the adoption of a Declaratory Resolution and the public hearing before the Council has been published pursuant to Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-2.5; and WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing for the purposes of hearing all remonstrances and objections from interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the qualifications for an economic revitalization area have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council hereby confirms its Declaratory Resolution designating the area described herein as an Economic Revitalization Area for the purposes of tax abatement. Such designation is for Personal property tax abatement only and is limited to two (2) calendar years from the date of adoption of the Declaratory Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION II. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for and is granted Personal property tax deduction for a period of five (5) years, and further determines that the petition complies with Chapter 2, Article 6, of the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend and Indiana Code 6-1.1-12 et seq. SECTION III. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approved by the Mayor. s/Timothy A. Rouse Member of the Common Council Mr. Marcell Levin, Attorney at Law, May, Oberfell, Lorber, 300 N. Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for the bill. Mr. Levin advised that Tuliptree Associates, LLC is in the process of acquiring 20 acres of land in South Bend to build a new manufacturing facility. The initial facility will be approximately 142,400 square feet; however, the site will support a facility in excess of 350,000 square feet and the building is being designed to accommodate phased expansion. The facility will be leased to PEI-Genesis. As the new facility will be twice the size of PEI’s existing facility, new equipment will need to be purchased including: conveyors, glue machines, insertion machines, rackers, loaders, ovens, test equipment, automatic baggers, mold machines and tools, numerous other tools and equipment, 39 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 automatic baggers, mold machines and tools, numerous other tools and equipment, as well as logistical distribution equipment and information technology equipment. It is estimated that the total project will generate (12) twelve new, permanent, full-time jobs representing a new annual payroll of $340,000. The project will also maintain 140 existing, permanent, full-time jobs and (4) four existing, part-time, jobs representing an annual payroll of $3,700,000. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Dieter made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Puzzello seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 3612-06 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4747 WEST CLEVELAND ROAD AS AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A (8) EIGHT-YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR TULIPTREE ASSOCIATES, LLC., PEI-GENESIS, INC. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, has adopted a Declaratory Resolution designating certain areas within the City as Economic Revitalization Areas for the purpose of tax abatement consideration; and WHEREAS, a Declaratory Resolution designated the area commonly known as 4747 West Cleveland Road, South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows: Commencing from the East Quarter of said Section 20, said point being approximately 68.62 feet South of the South right-of-way of Indiana East/West Toll Road (300’ total R/W) thence North 0104’10” West along the East line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, 704.03 feet to the point of beginning of this description; (note: The bearing for this description was derived from the recorded documents from the Right-of- Way undertaking); thence North 7734’00” West, along the North right- of-way of Cleveland Road 1346.24 feet; thence North 0038’36” West, 629.12 feet to the South line of the Plat of Clarence A. Gregory’s High Meadows Estates Subdivision; thence North 8937’14” East along the South line of the Plat of Clarence A. Gregory’s High Meadows Estates Subdivision and Hartman DeMaegt Subdivision, as recorded under Book 21, page H4 and Book 27, page H respectively; 1304.45 feet to the East line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 20; thence continuing along the South boundary of Hartmen DeMaegt Subdivision on a bearing of North 8937’14” East, 80.5 feet to a point on a line West 80.5 feet of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; thence South 0104’10” East, 946.09 feet to a point on the North line of Cleveland Road; thence continuing along the said North line of Cleveland Road on a bearing of North 7734’00” West, 82.79 feet to the point of beginning. and which has Key Number 25-1012-0199.37, as an Economic Revitalization Area; and 40 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 WHEREAS, notice of the adoption of a Declaratory Resolution and the public hearing before the Council has been published pursuant to Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-2.5; and WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing for the purposes of hearing all remonstrance’s and objections from interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the qualifications for an economic revitalization area have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council hereby confirms its Declaratory Resolution designating the area described herein as an Economic Revitalization Area for the purposes of tax abatement. Such designation is for Real property tax abatement only and is limited to two (2) calendar years from the date of adoption of the Declaratory Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION II. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for and is granted Real property tax deduction for a period of eight (8) years, and further determines that the petition, the Memorandum of Agreement between the Petitioner and the City of South Bend, and the Statement of Benefits comply with Chapter 2, Article 6, of the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend and Indiana Code 6-1.1-12 et seq. SECTION III. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approved by the Mayor. s/Timothy A. Rouse Member of the Common Council Mr. Marcell Levin, Attorney at Law, May, Oberfell, Lorber, 300 N. Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for the bill. Mr. Levin advised that Tuliptree Associates, LLC/PEI-Genesis, Inc., core business is the manufacture, assembly, and distribution of electronic components, primarily electronic connectors. The company also designs and manufactures electronic systems, cable assemblies, and specialized connectors and components. The addition will allow PEI- Genesis to consolidate its North American manufacturing operations. The estimated cost of the addition is $7,250,000. As a result of the expansion, the company will increase its full-time workforce by (12) twelve people. It is estimated that the total project will generate (12) twelve new, permanent, full-time jobs representing a new annual payroll of $340,000. The project will also maintain 140 existing, permanent, full-time jobs and (4) four existing, part-time, jobs representing an annual payroll of $3,700,000. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Varner made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Kuspa seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember Pfeifer asked Mr. Levin if he know if his company would be interested in partnering in a venture with the City? Mr. Levin stated that he was not able to answer the question at this time. He would need to consult with the company. 41 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 3613-06 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 6140 BRIDGETON LANE AS RESIDENTIALLY DISTRESSED AREAS FOR PURPOSES OF A FIVE (5) YEAR RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR AUSTIN J. HICKEY WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, has adopted a Declaratory Resolution designating certain areas within the City as Residentially Distressed Areas for the purpose of tax abatement consideration; and WHEREAS, a Declaratory Resolution designated the area commonly known as 6140 Bridgeton Lane, South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows: a parcel of land being Lot 27 as the same is shown and designated on the plat of Kensington Farms East, P.U.D., Section 6, Part Two, the same being recorded as instrument number 9857462 in the office of the recorder of St. Joseph County, Indiana, , and this property has Tax Key Number 23-1050-3201.06be designated as a Residentially Distressed Area under the provisions of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., and South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76 et seq., and; WHEREAS, notice of the adoption of a Declaratory Resolution and the public hearing before the Council has been published pursuant to Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-2.5; and WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing for the purposes of hearing all remonstrances and objections from interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the qualifications for a residentially distressed area have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the petition for real property tax abatement and the Statement of Benefits form meet the requirements of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., for tax abatement. SECTION II. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the area meets one of the following conditions as formally established in Ordinance no. 8845-97, which was passed on December 8, 1997: A. The area is comprised of parcels that are either unimproved or contain only one (1) or two (2) family dwellings designed for up to four (4) families, including accessory buildings for those dwellings; or B. Any dwellings in the area are not permanently occupied and are: i. the subject of an order issued under IC 36-7-9; or ii. evidencing significant building deficiencies; or C. Parcels of property in the area: i. have been sold and not redeemed under IC 6-1.1-24 and IC 6-1.1-25; or ii. are owned by a unit of local government; or D. A significant number of dwelling units within the area are not permanently occupied or a significant number of parcels in the area are vacant land; or E. A significant number of dwelling units within the area are: 42 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 i. the subject of an order issued under IC 36-7-9; or ii. evidencing significant building deficiencies; or F. The area has experienced a net loss in the number of dwelling units, as documented by census information, local building and demolition permits, or certificates of occupancy, or the areas are owned by Indiana or the United States; or G. The area (plus any areas previously designated under this subsection) will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total area within the Council’s jurisdiction. SECTION III. The Common Council also hereby determines and finds the following: A. That the description of the proposed redevelopment meets the applicable standards for such development. B. That the estimate of the value of the redevelopment is reasonable for projects of this nature; C. That the other benefits about which information was requested are benefits that can be reasonably expected to result from the proposed described redevelopment; and D. That the totality of benefits is sufficient to justify the requested deduction, all of which satisfy the requirements of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-3. E. The deduction will not be allowed unless the dwelling is rehabilitated to meet local code standards for habitability. F. The deduction will not be allowed unless the dwelling rehabilitation is completed within five (5) calendar years from the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION IV. The Common Council hereby confirms its Declaratory Resolution designating the area described herein as a Residentially Distressed Area for the purposes of tax abatement. Such designation is for Real property tax abatement only and is limited to five (5) calendar years from the date of adoption of the Declaratory Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION V. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for and is granted Real property tax deduction for a period of five (5) years, and further determines that the petition complies with Chapter 2, Article 6, of the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend and Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq. SECTION VI. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/Timothy A. Rouse Member of the Common Council Mr. Bernard J. Feeney, Registered Land Surveyor, Land, Feeney & Associates, Inc., 715 South Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation on this bill on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Austin J. Hickey Mr. Feeney advised that the petitioner intends to construct a single-family, three to four- bedroom home on a vacant lot located at 6140 Bridgeton. The estimated cost of the home will be $350,000. A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Kelly made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. 43 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 BILLS, FIRST READING BILL NO. 39-06 FIRST READING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1921 GREENOCK, 1927 GREENOCK, 1931 GREENOCK, 1935 GREENOCK, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT (5) IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to the Area Plan Commission. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 40-06 FIRST READING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF 1424 SLATER DRIVE, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 6 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to the Area Plan Commission. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 41-06 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $514,000 FROM EDIT FUND 408 AND $40,730 FROM EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FUND 288 FOR THE FIRE STATION NO. 2 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to consider the substitute version of this bill. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to the Health and Public Safety Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on July 24, 2006. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried. BILL NO. 42-06 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA FUNDING $20,300.00 FROM CDBG PROGRAM INCOME TO VARIOUS ACCOUNTS WITHIN FUND 212 “COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT” IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT This bill had first reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to refer this bill to the Community and Economic Development Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on July 24, 2006. Councilmember Kuspa seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to come before the Council at this time. NEW BUSINESS Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to receive the Community and Economic Development Committee’s Review of Tax Abatement Procedures Report by November 1, 2006 instead of the October 1, 2006 date. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. 44 REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 Councilmember Charlotte D. Pfeifer, Chairperson, Personnel & Finance Committee announced that the Council will be holding a Budget 101 Session on Saturday, July 15, 2006 from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 (noon) for anyone interested in learning general information about the city’s budget, including revenue sources and projections, and an overview of how tax dollars are allocated. She encourage everyone to attend. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Mr. Steve Wessco, Mishawaka, Indiana, thanked the Council for everything they did this evening. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, President Rouse adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m., Tuesday, July 11, 2006. ATTEST: ATTEST: __________________________ ___________________________ John Voorde, City Clerk Timothy A. Rouse, President 45