Live blogging the vote for 2012-296, human rights ordinance.

[AshleyLauren]

Round 2.

Welcome back and thank you. We are back at City Hall today for another hearing amongst the RCD/PHS committee members about the bill 2012-296. Several more in attendance today then there were yesterday. The numbers between sides appears to be a little more even between the blue stickers and the red stickers. Yesterday, there was a sea of sleepy faces with bored or blank expressions. Today, the room is a low hum or whispers taking place, lots of walking around, and A LOT OF BLUE CARDS!! Bill Gulliford is the chair of this particular committee. He has made it clear he wants clear, concise, and objective comments. NO one should stand up to just state which side they are on or give a personal account. Despite his warnings, the line of people to hand in their cards is long and growing. Gulliford suggested he will not put a time limit on this meeting, as there is not another meeting after this one like there was yesterday (lucky for Bishop), but he assumes we will be out of her around 3:30-4. While it is admirable of Gulliford to take a stand saying it is of the utmost importance to listen to the public, making sure to pat himself on the back that it was his option to allow public comments, I highly doubt he knows what he has gotten himself into; unless of course, he meant 3am :-)

CC President Joost is not in attendance, CCM Jones is not in attendance (member pushing the bill), Daniels is not in attendance for now. From where I sit I do not see Crescimbeni (firecracker from yesterday), and E. Denise Lee is not here again today (a member of the council I know several were wanting to hear from).

Unfortunately, we were dismissed yesterday after only hearing from one side, and the conversation was just gaining momentum;  hopefully, today we will see a different show.

Recreation, Community Development, Public Health & Safety Committee
Matters relating to recreation; public housing; economic development; affordable housing; farms; forestry; fish and game; parks; zoo; international trade and travel issues; Sister Cities program; Jacksonville Public Library; Parks, Recreation and Entertainment Department; Agriculture Department; Jacksonville Economic Development Commission; Jacksonville Housing Commission; Jacksonville Housing Authority; Community Services Department; ad valorem property tax exemptions; historic preservation; community revitalization; Waterways Commission; vessels for hire; Urban Services Districts; the Neighborhoods Department; education and schools; Duval County School Board; literacy issues; higher education institutions and issues; military bases; personnel and affairs; base realignment and closure (BRAC) issues; veterans' issues; Jacksonville Children's Commission; child services; public safety; motor vehicle inspections; collections; crime victim services; Sheriff's Office; Fire and Rescue Department; emergency preparedness and civil defenses; hospitals; Health Department; human services; welfare; health; and all related subjects.


The members are:
Bill Gulliford - Chair
Reginald Brown - Vice Chair-absent
Lori Boyer
Doyle Carter
Kimberly Daniels-absent and possible rejoining
Robin Lumb
Matt Schellenberg

With this lot, it could be a pretty calm afternoon.

[AshleyLauren]

That was fast. We are already on the 296 bill.

After receiving the stack of blue cards, Gulliford has corrected his statement that we will not get through entire stack. He offered the floor to previous elected city officials first, all stating they are here for the record and will give other the opportunity.

First up, "this ordinance strives to protect a group that clearly does not need protecting." The HR commission is composed of people who are unelected, unaccountable and tax-payer funded. The HRC may give an individual the right to sue in court. The HRC can command payment for anywhere from 5-50k depending on the HR complaint.

UNF's study about "How should people be treated equally in the work place?" Based off gender:95% age 85% and sexual orientation 86%. Schellenberg points out sexual orientation in the study was tallied to be of more importance for equality than someones age.

Daniels in the house. Out the gate, Daniels calls upon a member of the Human Rights commission. Just a reminder, yesterday Daniels proposed someone else needs to deal with these cases not the HRC because she was uncomfortable with the commission. Again, Daniels is worried about a religious exemption. Daniels points out she has been waiting 12 days to receive answers for her questions about religious/gender/race case statistics.
HRC apologizes if someone feels the HRC has not kept up. States the HRC keeps up with the race, religious, age, gender, all information. Gulliford attempts to shut down the argument. Daniels has the final word stating, She is very dissatisfied.

[AshleyLauren]

Warren Jones is also here now.
What can the HRC do for these aggrievances??
Depending on which section of the ordinance code is considered whether it is employment or housing, any grievance for sexual orientation will only go through the stage of conciliation with the HRC, in other words the stage where the two sides come to an agreement between themselves. Depending on the final wording if the bill is passed, will depend on whether the HRC has the legal right to compel individuals to participate in conciliation, as it stands now the HRC can only invite or request the participation. If they refuse in employment (the most aggressive), then it is up to the complainant to close the case in the HRC and then they must request permission to sue. If not, the HRC files for a hearing, and then it could progress as far as the circuit court.

Lumb makes the first legit request, he asks Lumb to come up with all the scenarios and the path the HRC would take to resolve the issues. He asked for it in writing so that everyone may see what would actually change with the new bill and the power the HRC has to see justice served, and if they do not choices the complainant has next. 

[AshleyLauren]

Halverson: Chair of Haskell: Stand in support of 296. Claims our ability to attract top candidates is affected due to Jacksonville's HRO:
1. experiences unable to attract top candidates to the city with specific reference to sexual orientation
2. current employees (younger gay and lesbians) find it uncomfortable to live here.
3. younger employees view Jacksonville's job market as unfair due to these inequalities.

Yarborough claims Forbes magazine ranked Jacksonville #3 out of 10 for content job workers, and a increase in job growth. (I wonder how many of those questioned on there level of contentedness are Jacksonville born and raised?)
Schellenberg asks Halverson, Why would web.com bring their business from New York City to Jacksonville, FL if it was not a good city to expand?? (The same reason British Airways choose Jacksonville over Montreal for their North American call center. It was cheaper).

This is a first: Schellenberg is stating that the people come to Jacksonville and choose not to stay in Jacksonville based a company, community, or lack or ordinance are in fact discriminating against Jacksonville without getting to know the people or the city.

Lumb asks why Tallahassee never took up the legislation presented for a statewide law that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Halverson states, the Chamber of Commerce, which he was a member of, decided it was better decided on a local level. Lumb also states the reason this bill has never passed before is because Jax is a consolidated city government.

[Purplebike]

Thanks for the updates AshleyLauren! Very useful.

[AshleyLauren]

Carlucci: It boils down to this,  there is a section of our community that is impeded.

Lumb disagrees saying it is probably not a problem involving homophobia or a lack of ordinances for discrimination. He disagrees, from his experience it is not but he believes it probably an issue of different political opinions and such large forms of diversity.

Side note: If the manner in which the city council members speak to those at the podium is indicative of their personal characteristics/manners, then we have some things to work on in this city.

[AshleyLauren]

Gulliford is allowing only 25 more minutes for public comment. To be fair he has split the pile between for and against and will call from each, and the speaker has three minutes.


Opposing: Claims Jacksonville is not discriminatory towards anyone.

Supporting: Claims 32 different occurrences towards her since she moved here in 1990. Including, bomb threats, attacks, slashing of tires while on UNF campus, police stating, "what did she expect your a faggot?", among other things.  Points out white heterosexual females and males of a certain status within the city have clearly never been been treated in such a way.

Don Redman asks, "Do you feel you are a male or a female?" Points out people are acting this way towards her because of her behavior. Ms. Mead makes a clear point it cannot be because of her behavior because she is not acting with "faggot behavior" when these occurences happen. Lumb comes to the rescue, apologizing with Don Redman's line of questioning and guaranteeing that no ones behavior in this city should bring upon that type of attack without being legally dealt with.

[AshleyLauren]

Opposing: The lawyer from Orlando is back. Anyone else find it odd the lawyer has been given the opportunity to speak at every meeting?
Tells CC Members if this passes then their vote will eventually be part of promoting changes made for marriage laws at a state level.

Last speaker. Supporter: 21 states have implemented state wide ordinance to protect sexual orientation. Speaker presents Council members with a list of cities in Florida that have passed such a bill and the dates implemented. The top on the list are larger cities and have done so between 12-17 years ago.


Bill Gulliford comments he has attempted to make this process fair to both sides. We will pick up where we have left off next time.


***Bill Gulliford allows Kim Daniels to speak at her personal request. When the floor was given to her, without hesitation, about 40-50 stood up and walked out.***

Daniels tells the room how upset she is because of the mockery towards the Bible made during the hearings. Makes clear she is also discriminated, her life is threatened constantly, reminds us religion is a protected class, and that we should give respect if you want it. And she was upset because at the last CC meeting it was anti-god.

Jones suggests the public is brought down on one day that is not a committee day and it is unfair and inconsiderate to both sides. He concludes, We need to stop making this a religious issue, it is not it's about discrimination and rights.

MEETING ADJOURNED.

[RiversideLoki]

So in essence, I still need to send Daniels those tin foil hats and crucifixes, huh?

[AshleyLauren]

So in essence, I still need to send Daniels those tin foil hats and crucifixes, huh?

Looks that way...there are a few more items she probably could use but I will leave it at that.

[Charles Hunter]

Great summary Ashley.  Was an interesting meeting, and I hope Bill Bishop - chair of Rules - will agree with Gulliford to hold a joint meeting.  I sat in a couple places, mostly surrounded by the "No" group.  They were polite and respectful of those speaking.

One thing Ashley didn't mention, after applause for first speaker (former Council Chair Ginger Soud), Gulliford warned the crowd that if there is another outburst or applause, he will shut down the public testimony.  It worked, everyone kept quiet (except for some murmuring during Daniels' and Redman's excursions into ... wherever the hell they go) for the rest of the speakers.  They did use a lot of time questioning Soud, Halvorson, and the lady from HRC.

[AshleyLauren]

Great summary Ashley.  Was an interesting meeting, and I hope Bill Bishop - chair of Rules - will agree with Gulliford to hold a joint meeting.  I sat in a couple places, mostly surrounded by the "No" group.  They were polite and respectful of those speaking.

One thing Ashley didn't mention, after applause for first speaker (former Council Chair Ginger Soud), Gulliford warned the crowd that if there is another outburst or applause, he will shut down the public testimony.  It worked, everyone kept quiet (except for some murmuring during Daniels' and Redman's excursions into ... wherever the hell they go) for the rest of the speakers.  They did use a lot of time questioning Soud, Halvorson, and the lady from HRC.

Thank you, Charles Hunter!! No one acknowledged my presence,even after I spoke to a few people, I assume because I was not wearing a red or blue sticker and def not those horrid t-shirts, so that made me neutral territory. I felt everyone respected the rules Gulliford set forth, but it is easy to respect the rules when the person in charge cares about what the people are there for; in that regard, Bill Bishop could learn a thing or two for the next Rules Committee. From where I sat, all I got was some huffs and a lot of eye-rolling at CC members. Although, I have to admit I was amongst the very loud gasps when Redman asked, "Do you feel you are male or female?" I am still in shock.

[Timkin]

Great summary Ashley.  Was an interesting meeting, and I hope Bill Bishop - chair of Rules - will agree with Gulliford to hold a joint meeting.  I sat in a couple places, mostly surrounded by the "No" group.  They were polite and respectful of those speaking.

One thing Ashley didn't mention, after applause for first speaker (former Council Chair Ginger Soud), Gulliford warned the crowd that if there is another outburst or applause, he will shut down the public testimony.  It worked, everyone kept quiet (except for some murmuring during Daniels' and Redman's excursions into ... wherever the hell they go) for the rest of the speakers.  They did use a lot of time questioning Soud, Halvorson, and the lady from HRC.

Thank you, Charles Hunter!! No one acknowledged my presence,even after I spoke to a few people, I assume because I was not wearing a red or blue sticker and def not those horrid t-shirts, so that made me neutral territory. I felt everyone respected the rules Gulliford set forth, but it is easy to respect the rules when the person in charge cares about what the people are there for; in that regard, Bill Bishop could learn a thing or two for the next Rules Committee. From where I sat, all I got was some huffs and a lot of eye-rolling at CC members. Although, I have to admit I was amongst the very loud gasps when Redman asked, "Do you feel you are male or female?" I am still in shock.

I wish Redman and Daniels were immediately dismissed from their council positions.  Completely incompetent and ignorant of both of them .

[Bridges]

I am honestly blown away that these are the people representing us.  I support the bill 100% and think that there isn't any real argument against it...But, honestly, can they not craft an argument that is made in a reasonable manner and not completely out there?  It's like a competition to see who can say the most outlandish and off topic thing.

This bill needs to be passed, not just because it is the right thing, but because the longer it drags on, the closer we get to full crazy. 

[isphil]

I found it disturbing that Council Members are allowed to ask questions that are disguised as a way to present their own opinions to the Public commenters. Some do the 'questions' bordered on interrogation.  These so called 'questions' in reality are just a method of trying to discredit those members of the public who make comments.