Loading...
Minutes Human Rights 11 05 01DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINUTES OF November 5, 2001 Thom Determan called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 4:15 p.m. on Monday, November 5, 2001 in Conference Room 2 at the City. Hall Annex. Roll Call: Present: Kathy Blau Judy Giesen Kathy Stevens Raydora Drummer Marty O'Shea Thom Determan Evelyn Jackson Ruby Sutton Chuck Ryan Staff: Carol Spinoso Kelly Larson Approval of Minutes: Thom noted the correct spelling of Burton Everist's name. Kathy Stevens moved to approve the minutes of the October 8, 2001 Human Rights Commission meetings as corrected. Kathy B. seconded. No further discussion. The minutes were unanimously approved as corrected. Caseload Report: Carol summarized the October Caseload Report. There were 47 intakes, 0 cases in backlog, 4 cases under active investigation, 3 cases in mediation, I case in administrative review, 1 case in ALJ review, 2 cases in the public hearing process, 1 new case was filed, and 5 cases were closed. The case synopsis involves alleged housing discrimination on the basis of national origin and religion. Chairperson's Report: Thom reported on Chair initiatives over the past month. Director's Repo~ Kelly reported on staff initiatives over the past month. Updates from Committee Chairs on Goal Pro.qress © © Chuck provided an update on business card development. Kathy S. presented articles for the "Human Rights: They're Our Rights" column. Judy provided an update on producing radio and TV spots. Kathy S. asked the Commission to consider either holding the Human Rights Banquet annually, or presenting the Shining Moment Award every other year, so there is a forum to present the Shining Moment Award, Raydora provided an update on inviting protected class groups to meetings. Kathy Blau presented recommendations regarding the appropriate situations for filing commission-initiated complaints. Judy reported on the community Spanish lessons. Ruby reported on her efforts with housing discrimination. Kathy Blau presented recommendations regarding Disabled Parking Concerns. Public Hearing Process Tirnelines Marty distributed revised handouts on the timelines of the Pards and Taylor public headng procedures. New Business Ruby announced that the NAACP Banquet is November 10~. Proceeds will go to winners of the Martin Luther King essay contest, Kathy B. moved and Kathy S. seconded to adjourn the meeting. All in favor. The meeting adjoumed at 5:50 p.m. Minutes approved as submitted: Minutes approved as corrected: TO: Human Rights Comnfissioners SUBMITTED BY: Marry O'Shca, Human Rights Commissioner RE: Revising of the November 5~ 2001 Minutes The following is an account of the diseussiuns at thc November 5~ HRC menting. Undd;Oe~ agenda item, Public Hearing Process Timelines, I have put these discussions in order of their occurrence and numbered each item. Marty distributed revised handouts on the timelines of the Parfis and Taylor public hearing procedures. He stated that he felt the Pan-is vs Maro case was handled badly by staff and that the Taylor case was handled differently than the Parris case. Marty distributed Recommendations for Public Hearing Process in which he voiced concerns of how the Commission should have form letters in place to make sure we handle all cases the same way every time. Kelly stated to make all procedures the same, we would have to change the HUD timeline or we would lose our HUD money. Therefore, the Commission would have to shorten the employment timeline. Marry pointed out that the office received the ALl' s decision on August 20~. Kelly stated she had no idea when it was received, but staff mailed notifications out within a day of receiving the ALi's decision. Marty pointed out the notifications of the decision was mailed out with very little direction. Most people on the Commission haven't gone through a case. The Commission had only 7 days, really 5 days, to respond. That's inexcusable and it should never have happened. Kelly asked if other Commissioners felt the letter she sent was that unclear. She stated in the letter that if the Commission wanted to act, thcy needed to take action within this amount oftime O0 days). Marry stated the letter you (Kelly) wrote in the Taylor case, the case that you lost, you wrote you must read all the transcripts. You must read everything. And in the Pards case, you stated you may review the case, if you decide. Kelly states that's how the language reads in thc statute. It says may. Marty states you didn't quote the statute in the first case (Taylor). But you did quote the statute in the second case (Pan/s) though the first case, the statute wasn't quoted, and you said you must review the case. Kelly said she did not want to argue. Kathy Blau stated to Mart3,, it sounds like you're saying to me there needs to be some kind of decision, when statements come from Kelly, that it needs to be more clear on what we must do and what we may do. Marty said it needs to be the same every time. If the policy is that the Commission will read the ALI' s decision, and by the way, the policy has always been that the Commission reads all the cases. There has not been one time that this Commission has not read the ease. That's the point. But in this case, we dam near didn't read this case. And would this case have ever been read ifI didn't speak up? 10. 11. 12. Kathy Stevens stated she and Evelyn had already read the ease at that point. Marry said it was addressed outside of the open meetings laws because it was never on the ageada~ It was under New Business that I brought it up and thankfully Kathy Blau made the motion to review the case. Bm it was not a legal motion because it was not on the agenda. Kathy Stevens reads Kelly's letter dated August 21, 2001. Kelly' s letter stated "Please note that the timeframe for acting on this proposed decision is different in this case than in the employment case you recently decided. In a housing case, the ordinance states that the commission may review the dec/sion, but such review n-mst be completed within thirty days after the order is issued. Consequently, if tbe Commission decides to review thi.q decision_ the action must be taken before September 19. 200t ." Kathy Stevens said she read it differently. She ignored the may and went with the underlined part stating ifthe Commission decides to review this decision, the action must be taken before September 19m, 2001. Marty asked, "And in the same vain how is Taylor a must? You must read that case. It is in the packet too." Kelly said, "I would have to look at that letter. I don't recall, but my thought is, [twe are reviewing the case you must read it. But with this one, I very distinctly recall looking at the ordinance because I was concerned about the short time frame and the ordinance has this specific language about it automatically becoming final." Chuck Ryan asked Kelly, "What I think I heard is there are some cases, such as Taylor, that we must review." Kelly answered, "No." Chuck asked, "Is it tree that we do not need to review any cases? You mean there are no cases that are a must?" Kelly indicated, yes. Chuck stated his impression was Taylor was not optional and Pards was optional in regards to review, and due to the shortage of time, he excused himself because he felt he could not read the case in such a short time. Kathy Blau said she felt that it would be a good idea to look at, as a Commission, our comments. And we should be reading every case as a Commission, even if the statute states it or not, we as a Commission should be doing this. Judy states that we have to be reasonable about this, that we are all volunteers, and yes we have a very big commitment. "I feel that [tan individual can't read every single case, they shouldn't have to give a reason why they can't read any given case." Chuck and Judy agree that as a Commission we should have the commitment but as individuals there may be times you will not be able to do this and it should be understood by other Commissioners that every Commissioner can't read every case every time. Ruby Sutton felt that people should have to give a reason even if it is personal, but people shouldn't be pressured into giving a reason, if you have a eonttiet. Evelyn Jackson said we need sit down and discuss the Commission's duties and responsibilities so we as Commissioners know what we're supposed to do as Commissioners.