08-09-10 Common Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 2010 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Rita Kopala, 66559 Ivy Road, Lakeville, Indiana, stated that she has been attending these meetings for a long time. She thanked the Council for their transparency regarding public access to documents. Joseph Schultz, 15344 U. S. 6, Marshall County, Indiana, stated that the Council has their meetings posted on the City website and recently they have suspended viewing. He asked when they might have them back available to view on the web. Catherine Pittman, 2628 Summit Ridge Drive, South Bend, Indiana, thanked the Council for listening and continuing to reflect on additional information regarding Bill 30-10 amending the Human Rights Ordinance to add employment fairness to gay, lesbian, bi- sexual and transgendered persons. She stated that they will continue to bring their concerns to the Council because for now they have nowhere to go a voice them. She again thanked the Council for listening to their concerns regarding this bill. nd Pam Wesolowski, 1102 S. 32 Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she was formerly the Pre-Trial Diversion Director at the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office. After Mike Barnes left office, she began working as a paralegal for a South Bend law firm. She had worked there for over a year, and had received a good yearly evaluation accompanied with a raise. She stated that she put in for her vacation, got it approved and coordinated with her partner who lived in New Mexico at the time The week prior to her vacation, the lawyer she worked for overhead me saying that I was picking up my partner from the O’Hare Airport. She was on the phone during her lunch break, not in a public area of the firm. The very next morning, she stated that she had been at work about an hour when the lawyer called her into the conference room. She stated that he fired her. She was told that he wasn’t going to work with a lesbian. She stated that she was the same person who had received a good evaluation and raise, the same person who had worked at the firm for over a year, but now she had lost her job solely due to her sexual orientation. Ms. Wesolowski stated that she wanted the Council to hear from someone who has lost employment because of sexual orientation. She urged the Council to pass Bill 30-10. Lisa Carl, 605 Marquette Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, passed out a letter that was written by Professor Charles Rice to Erick Miller, the Executive Director of Advance America, in Indianapolis. Miller has asked Rice his opinion on Indiana House Bill 1250, introduced on January 12, 2009. That the bill would extend existing anti-discrimination laws to apply to discrimination motivated by sexual orientation, gender identity, age disability, and other traits. She noted that Rice’s complaints about HB 1250 are nearly identical to his complaints about South Bend Bill 30-10 namely, that the language is vague and that the religious exemption is inadequate. Rice states that HB 1250 is imprecise and dangerous. He concludes that it is an invitation to litigation. Sound familiar? HB 1250 and Bill 30-10 were drafted at different times, by different attorneys, for different governing bodies, using different language. A comparison of what Charles Rice says about each bill makes it clear that he is nothing more than a “hired gun”for“community values organization. There is little doubt that one could present him with any legislation involving GLBT issues and he would state that there is a language problem. For example, for Bill 30-10, Rice complains about the inclusion of the word “perceived in the definition of sexual orientation. In HB 1250, he is critical of the word “perceived” being left out of the definition of gender identity. It’s obvious that no language can be written on the subject of GLBT rights that will please Professor Rice. Should the Council place their trust in the evaluation of a person who has a history of opposing all similar legislation? 26