Anti-Discrimination Law Advances Through City Council Committee
Ordinance would initiate a Human Relations Commission and offer new civil rights protections.
A City Council committee on Thursday night recommended adoption of a law that would prohibit discrimination in workplaces and public facilities, while establishing a new Bethlehem Human Relations Commission to enforce it.
The law would extend protections to gays, lesbians and transgender persons, in addition to those already covered under the Pennsylvania Human Relations law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, ancestry, national origin, handicap or the need to use a guide or support animal.
A new Human Relations Commission would enable aggrieved city residents, employees or visitors an opportunity to have their complaints addressed in Bethlehem, as opposed to Harrisburg where a state panel convenes.
“The ordinance before you and the Human Relations Commission that it will form will send a clear message that Bethlehem welcomes citizens from all kinds of backgrounds and that we will ensure that they will have an equal opportunity to succeed here in Bethlehem,” said Mayor John Callahan, who began boosting this proposal in 2010.
“This is about inclusivity. This is about tolerance. It’s about respect. But it’s also about Bethlehem’s ability to continue to attract the best and the brightest from around the world.”
Bethlehem is currently the largest city in Pennsylvania without an anti-discrimination law or a Human Relations Commission to address discrimination complaints.
Allentown has had a law since 1964 and amended it in 2002 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Easton adopted its law in 2007. Two counties and 16 other cities also have anti-discrimination laws.
Though the proposed ordinance appeared to have little, if any, opposition, the meeting of council’s Human Resources and Environment Committee took three hours. About 100 members of the public attended and some 30 of them spoke, almost universally in favor of the proposed law.
The supporters included representatives of AARP and the American Civil Liberties Union; Bethlehem NAACP President Esther Lee; former city councilman and current state Human Relations Commission board member Ismael Arcelay; and several gays, lesbians and transgender people who call Bethlehem home.
“It is so important that more of us be open and honest about who we are and be safe in doing so. That is why this ordinance is so important” said Dixie Dugan White, co-founder of Integrity/Bethlehem, an organization for gay, lesbian and transgender Episcopalians and their friends and families.
“It’s not fun to spend time with an adolescent who is contemplating suicide or finds solace in alcohol or drugs because they’ve been ostracized by their family or bullied at school,” said White, who has had a career as a county caseworker.
“Hiding in a closet is a sick and degrading choice that many of us have made in order to feel safe on the job and elsewhere.”
The committee, consisting of Chairman Gordon Mowrer, Councilman David DiGiacinto and Councilwoman Jean Belinski voted unanimously to move the legislation forward with some amendments that may yet be turned back by the full council.
All seven members of City Council were at the meeting. Among council members there appeared to be general support for the law.
But there was some debate over some of the law’s details, including whether council should provide a sunset clause that would put the law and commission under a review in three years. Law and commission supporters argued strenuously against that idea advanced by DiGiacinto.
Stephen Glassman, chairman of the state Human Relations Commission said doing that could end up politicizing human rights in the city down the road.
“If you can guarantee that you’re going to get rid of discrimination in three years, then you can get rid of the commission,” said city resident Rob Hopkins. “But if you cannot, it’s horrible to face the possibility of a different council coming in that would get rid of it. That does not protect the people of Bethlehem.”
Council also discussed whether commission appointments should be made by the mayor or council and how many commission members there should be. Some of this may not be worked out until the full council addresses the law for the first time on May 18.
Bethlehem actually had a Human Relations Commission in the 1960s, establishing it in 1963, according to DiGiacinto. That would have made Bethlehem the third city in the state to do so following Philadelphia and Reading. But the commission was de-funded and stopped operating in 1971, and repealed by law in the mid 1980s, DiGiacinto said.
A reconstituted commission will cost the city little, Callahan said. City Solicitor Jack Spirk has agreed to work for the commission pro bono, as have several other attorneys in the city, the mayor said.
DiGiacinto pointed out that the law would allow commission members to be reimbursed for expenses incurred while conducting investigations.
Dana Grubb
7:40 am on Friday, April 29, 2011
Daryl,
Why not mention that Callahan and Glassman were FIFTEEN MINUTES LATE for a 7:00 PM meeting that's been scheduled for over a month and that he requested so Council could review this. How disrespectful is that? I was told that they were at dinner. They insulted every person who was there on time for the meeting, including Council. Then they kept interjecting into Council's discussion without being asked any questions or requesting permission to speak. How rude could two people be? Then Callahan stressed that Bethlehem has a strong mayor form of government in response to a Councilman's motion to have Council make the appointments, acting like a child that couldn't have his cake and eat it too. His behavior is childish and immature. Too bad, because the topic on hand deserved serious discourse and respectful treatment, and only the public and Council seemed ready to treat it as such.
Daryl Nerl
2:09 pm on Friday, April 29, 2011
Dana,
The mayor's lateness to the meeting seemed to me a minor point in light of the overall scope of the discussion and a three-hour meeting, in which a lot of issues were discussed. There were a lot of things that happened at this meeting that I didn't mention. That's part of the nature of what I have to do. Thanks for bringing it up here, nonetheless.
Patriot2
8:43 am on Friday, April 29, 2011
So what authority does a human relations commission have over a private business in the city? Sounds like another government beauracracy making it more difficult for businesses in the city to hire and fire in an at-will employment state.
I don't trust anyone appointed by this Mayor to serve independently on any commission. This needs to be a council appointed position.
Mary Anne Looby
9:53 am on Friday, April 29, 2011
How about applying these laws to the thousands of men and women who work in the restaurant industry and are constanly harassed and berated by their employers. There are some great restaurants in this city, but if the patrons knew how abusive the owners are to the employees they just might take their business elsewhere. You Know who you are! Callahan was probably having a free dinner at one of them !!!!
Al Bernotas
6:08 pm on Friday, April 29, 2011
Cannot help but leave a comment.
No human being should have to suffer discrimination. And no law, no matter how well intentioned is going to stop it all. Yet, it is a good statement to be made by the City, and if it passes, it should be enforced. Although, there are many ordinances in this City that are not enforced, especially if you are part of the administration, or if you have a connection to someone in the administration. Always? No, not always, but often enough to make you have a doubt about how equitably laws are enforced in Bethlehem.
But, I digress. Who is going to pay for the unlimited expense reimbursements to Commission members? Who is going to pay for the Commission staff? You know who - the taxpayers. So, the statement by the Mayor that this is not going to cost the City any money is more mumbo jumbo double talk. This is more spending by a City up to its ears in debt.
As for City Council appointments, all commission and board appointments should be by City Council. Nominations for commissions and boards should come from everyone - the individuals themselves, the City Council, the Public, and the Mayor. Council should approve candidates. There are too many patronage, in-law, relative, and friend appointments, all by the administration. It is time for a more egalitarian approach. The Mayor should continue appointments of direct reports. Seven heads instead of one should handle appointments to other Commission and Board positions.
Dana Grubb
6:49 pm on Friday, April 29, 2011
Daryl,
There are some who were at the meeting who felt the mayor's tardiness affected both the pace and structure of the meeting. It was disjointed. What should have been a presentation by the mayor at the start became public comment, then his presentation, then Glassman's input, then more public comment, then Council's discussion, then Council's vote, then additional public comment. Nobody had any clue that a second public comment period would be offered, especially after the first round was inserted into that time when the mayor's position and proposal should have been articulated.
However, I understand your point.
Al's point is very well-taken, especially when you consider that complaints could be lodged against the city, one of the larger employers in Bethlehem, and the mayor as head of city government is also making appointments to the commission. If that isn't a conflict, I don't know what is. Woe be to any city employee who dares to file a charge against his own boss, especially Callahan, if that boss is selecting pals, cronies and politically beholding commission appointees.