Minutes Human Rights 1 14 02 DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
January 14, 2002
Kathy Stevens called the mooting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at
4:15 p.m. On Monday, January '14, 2002 in Conference Room 2 at the City Hall Annex.
Roll Call:
Present:
Kathy Stevens, ~K;e-Chair
Evelyn Jackson
Marry O'Shea
Staff: Kelly Larson
Bill Blum
Judy Giesen
Raydora Drummer
Chuck Ryan
Carol Spinoso
~Minutes:
Judy moved to accept Commissioner O'Shea's attachment to the original November 5,
2001 meeting minutes. Evelyn seconded. All in favor.
Judy moved to approve the November 5, 2001 minutes as amended. Chuck seconded.
All in favor.
Marty moved to approve the December 10, 2001 mooting minutes as submitted. Judy
seconded. All in favor.
Carol summarized the December Caseload Report. There were 36 intakes, 0 cases in
backlog, 6 cases under active investigation, 3 cases in mediation/conciliation, 1 case in
ALJ review, 2 cases in the public headng process, 1 new case filed, and 1 case was
closed. The case synopsis involves disability discrimination in the area of employment.
Vice-Chairperson's Report:
Kathy reported on recent DCAP activities.
Director's Repo~
Kelly reported on past and future initiatives,
Director to Recommend DHRC #3935 Proceed to Public Hearing
Kelly asked that this item be pulled from the agenda.
Bill stated that the Commission and Dorothy O'Brien will jointly appeal Judge Zager's
ruling on the Petition for Judicial Review to the iowa Supreme Court.
Updates from Committee Chairs on Goal Activities
Raydora stated that a member of the Jewish community will speak at next month's
meeting.
Judy distributed an update on the Spanish lessons.
Evelyn provided an updated with her involvement with the Chamber of Commerce
Leadership Class.
Judy provided an update on planning activities for Faces & Voices.
Marty moved to adopt the policy on Commission initiated complaints. Judy seconded.
All in favor.
New Business
New Commissioner Orientation:
Kathy will work with staff to plan orientation/training for new and current
commissioners.
Marry moved and Judy seconded to adjoum the meeting. All in favor. The meeting
adjoumed at 5:11 p.m.
Minutes approved as submitted:
Minutes approved as corrected:
TO:
DATE:
SUBMI'Iq'ED BY:
RE:
Human Rights Commi~ioners
1-8-2002
Marty O'Shea, Human Rights Coimdssioner
Revising of the November 5~ 2001 Minutes
The following is an account of the discussions at the November 5~ I-IRC meeting. Under the
agenda item, Public Hearing Process T'nnelines, I have put these discussions in order of their
occurrence and numbered each item.
Marty disffibuted revised handouts on the timelines of the Parris and Taylor public hearing
proeedmes. He stated that he felt the Pards vs Mare ease was handled badly by staff and
that the Taylor case was handled differently than the Pards case.
Matty distn'buted Recommendations for Public Heating 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 wood lose our HUD money. Therefore,
the Commi.qsion would have to shorten the employment timeline.
Marry pointed out that thc office received the ALJ's decision on August 20~. Kelly
stated she had no idea when it was received, but staff mailed notifications out within a day
of reen'rving the ALJ's decision. Marry 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
inexensable 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, they needed to take action within this amount of time (30 days). Mart3, stated the
letter you (Kelly) wrote in the Taylor ease, the case that you lost, you wrote you must
read all the transcripts. You must read everything. And in the Pards ease, you stated you
may review the ease, if you dec/de. Kelly states that' s how the language reads in the
statute. It says may. Marty states you didn't quote the statute in the first ease (Taylor).
But you did quote the statute in the second case (Pards) though the first ease, the statme
wasn't quoted, and you said you must review the ease. Kelly said she did not want to
argue.
Kathy Blau stated to Marty, it sounds like you're saying to me there needs m be some
kind of decision, when statements come from Kelly, that it needs to be more dear on what
we must do and what we may do. Marry said it needs m 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 case. That's the point. But in this case, we dam near didn't
read this case. And wood this case have ever been read ifI didn't speak up?
o
10.
11.
12.
Kathy Stevens stated she and Evelyn had already read the case at that point. Marty said it
was addressed outside of the open meetings laws because it was never on the agenda. It
was under New Business that I brought it up and thankfully Kathy Blan made the motion
to review the case. But 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 timefiame for acting on this proposed decision is diffexent in this case than in
the employment case you recently decided. In a housing case, the ordinance states that
the commission may review the decision, but such review must be completed within thirty
days after the order is issued. Consequently, if the Commission decides to review this
decision_the action must be taken before September 19_ 2001.~ Kathy Stevens said she
read it differently. She ignored the may and went with the underlined part stating if the
Commission decides to review this decision, the action must be taken before September
19a, 2001.
Many 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, if we are reviewing the ease you must read it. But with this one, I very
distinctly recall looking at the ordinance because I was concerned about the short time
flame and the ordinance has this specific language about it automatically becoming final."
Chuck Ryan asked Kelly, '~rhat I think I heard is there are some eases, such as Taylor,
that we must review." Kelly answered, '~!qo.~ Chuck asked, "Is it tree that we do not
need to review any eases? You mean there are no eases that are a must?" Kelly in,cared,
yes. Chuck stated his impression was Taylor was not optional and Parfis was optional in
regards to review, and due to the shortage of time, he excused himself because he felt he
could not read the ease in such a short time.
Kathy Blau said she felt that it would be a good idea to look at, as a Commission, our
commitments. And we should be reading every ease 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 if an individual can't read every siagle 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 conflict.
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.