07-10-06 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

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