Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 12-19 HRRMMINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA • REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 19, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Human Rights Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Weyrauch at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Weyrauch, Commissioners Miller, Kuhar and Reichgott. Also present was Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz and Councilmember Gene Lhotka. City Attorney Richard Schieffer was present to address the Commission on the No- Fault Grievance process. Also in attendance were Douglas Rossi, Superintendent of Brooklyn Center School District No. 286, Wallace Bernards, Principal of Brooklyn Center Junior-Senior High School and Len Baufield, Assistant Principal of Brooklyn Center Junior-Senior High School. Chairman Weyrauch noted Commissioners Campion, Tolve, Johnson and Lemke were not present and had not been excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 11-26-79 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuhar and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the minutes of the November 26, 1979 Human Rights Commission meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Weyrauch opened the meeting and introduced the representatives from District 286 schools and noted that they were in attendance at this evening's meeting in response to a letter sent from the Human Rights Commission to the school district which proposed developing a program related to drug and alcohol education as it relates to students. Mr. Rossi addressed the Commission and noted that the Brooklyn Center Junior- Senior High School has a chemical dependency coordinator who works in the school twenty hours per week. He explained that the parents of students are an area where progress has not been made and noted that he is concerned with parent education with regard to drug and alcohol abuse. Mr. Wallace Bernards addressed the Commission members and stated that in general there is a great deal of frustration on the part of school administrators and teachers with regard to the drug problem in the schools. He explained there is a problem with communicating the problem of drug abuse to the parents of the students. He noted that studies have shown that student performance and atti- tude have deteriorated in correlation with the increase in drug use in the school. He explained the dropout rate has also increased and that this appears to be a general problem in area schools. He noted that many of the dropouts can be linked to drug use. Mr. Bernards stated that he was very supportive of the detached worker program and that the school's relationship with the Brooklyn Center Police Department with regard to the drug problem in the schools has been excellent. He added that the State Legislature is looking at juvenile laws with regard to drug use and other items including truancy, and that in general the school administration is sympathetic with these legislative actions. Mr. Baufield noted that he has attended workshops across the country, dealing with the drug abuse problem, and noted that the problem is present in all 12-19-79 -1- cities across the nation, large or small. He added that there is a frustation with the legislative process in that it is not able to deal with the problem effectively at this paint. Chairman Weyrauch a ed if he was correct in assuming that a major part of the problem is with the -arenas and questioned whether the community education program was being c idered to deal with this aspect of the problem. Super- intendent Rossi not+,:. that he did not have a specific proposal to present to the Commission this evening with regard to the development of any additional educational programs in regard to the drug abuse problem. Commissioner Kuhar q--aestioned Mr. Baufield inquiring how other communities across the nation weze'working with schools with regard to the drug abuse pro- blem. Mr. Baufield :voted that in his attendance at various seminars across the nation he could think of no programs in this area where there was coordin- ation between the school district and the community. Mr. Bernards explained that the Minnesota Education Association has declared the drug problem as one of the most serious problems in education. REPORT ON NO-FAULT GRIEVANCE PROCESS FROM CITY ATTORNEY RICHARD SCHIEFFER Chairman Weyrauch noted that, since Mr. Schieffer has to attend another meeting this evening he would request that the present discussion be deferred until later in the meeting so that Mr. Schieffer could make his presentation to the Commission members. City Attorney Richard Schieffer addressed the Commission members and explained that the term No-Fault generally denotes conciliation as opposed to accusation. He explained that in his opinion the State Human Rights Department has not been very precise in defining this procedure. He explained that the Human Rights Commissions in Bloomington and Richfield are really just beginning to develop the process. Mr. Schieffer stated that, in his estimation, the best vehicle to develop this process is to consider the adoption of an ordinance which would define what the Commission could do with the No-Fault process. He explained that he had examined some of the legal problems with the No-Fault process and noted that the State Human Rights Statutes carries criminal penalties. Mr. Schieffer posed the question whether the Commission should grant immunity from prosecu- tion for its deliberations in the No-Fault process and noted that the Commission could not grant this immunity for the State. He explained another option would be to give the Miranda warning to the parties involved. A third option he noted would be to do nothing and state that this is not a criminal proceeding. Mr. Schieffer next addressed the problem of immunity of Commission members and the City. He explained that actions could be brought against the City and individual Commission members. He stated that he felt, with regard to the 'No-Fault process, Commissioners should have the same immunity as judges and hearing examiners have in their respective areas. He explained that this immunity could be stated and clarified in an ordinance. He mentioned that the State Human Rights Statute briefly mentions local commissions noting that cases may be referred to the local commissions but does not outline the explicit _ duties of local commissions. Mr. Schieffer explained that the payment of legal fees, if actions are brought against the Commission or individual members, should also be addressed before any consideration is given to implementation of a No-Fault process. 12-19-79 -2- The City Attorney explained there is a conflict between privacy and public information in this area and that the No-Fault manual does not clarify this distinction. He explained that the issue of data privacy is unclear at the present time and is changing constantly. Mr. Schieffer next examined what the role of the Commissioners might be if the No-Fault conciliation process fails and the grieved parties take the issue to the State. He explained that a Commissioner may be required to appear at the State's hearings and become involved in the grievance process as pursued by the State Department of Human Rights. He explained that the records of Commission proceedings could be brought to the Human Rights Department and involved in the grievance. He noted that these requirements would be difficult to meet as volunteer Commissioners, although in his opinion he felt that conveying such information to the State could be simplified and the personal contacts of Com- mission members could possibly be eliminated. Mr. Schieffer explained that the Bloomington Human Rights Commission refers grievances to the City Manager who in turn refers them to the Chief of Police who conducts a formal investigation and presents the information to the Com- mission. Mr. Schieffer outlined a typical procedure for a No-Fault grievance which would first involve an intake person taking the initial information and determining whether there is a probable cause. He explained the next step would be to invite the parties involved to conciliation. In conclusion, the City Attorney stated that a policy decision would be nec- essary regarding the Commission's and the City's desire to implement the No- Fault process and that, in his opinion, an ordinance may be the best solution to addressing the problems involved in the implementation of the No-Fault process. Chairman Weyrauch agreed that an ordinance would be necessary if the Commission were to be involved with the No-Fault process. He noted that the Commission does not have authority on its own to implement the No-Fault process. Commissioner Kuhar stated that she feels the answer to such questions as immunity and liability be answered before any policy is recommended. Commissioner Reichgott stated that she felt the Commission's willingness to implement the No-Fault process is directly linked to the risks of the process to the Commissioners. She explained that she felt a clarification of the risks is essential before any request would go to the City Council. She also expressed a concern with the benefits of the No-Fault process as opposed to its risks. She explained that the Commission could possibly be risking a greal deal for only a few potential cases. City Attorney Richard Schieffer stated that there have been few lawsuits in his time with the City related to sensitive zoning issues, but he noted the No-Fault process involves a more personal set of problems and perhaps a higher risk with regard to litigation. Commissioner Kuhar inquired what would happen if State standards in the human rights grievance were different than federal standards. The City Attorney noted that overlapping jurisdictions are a problem and explained that he does not have a definitive answer for this situation. Commissioner Kuhar questioned how the Open Meeting Law might relate to the No- Fault process. The City Attorney explained that he tends to think that the law applies to the Commission as it is an agent of the City. Commissioner Kuhar questioned whether notes would have to be taken during the No-Fault 12-19-79 -3- proceedings. The City Attorney stated that the No-Fault manual refers to records and feels that if the records are to be effectively used by the State they must be transcripts of the proceedings. He explained that a court reporter in this instance could be a considerable expense. Commissioner Miller pointed out that in employment discrimination cases the employee's records may be difficult to obtain. The City Attorney stated that he agreed and noted that the Commission does not have subpoena power in this instance. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he feels the more complex cases could be deferred to the state or if no conciliation is possible in certain cases they could also be deferred. Commissioner Kuhar questioned whether the Commission would submit findings'to the State. The City Attorney stated that the Commission would not submit any findings to the State and that.it would only determine if the parties can reach a conciliation. Commissioner Reichgott expressed a concern over the issue of the potential time involved with the procedure for Commission members. The City Attorney noted that transcripts of the Commission proceedings would be one way to eliminate individual appearances by Commission members if the case should be taken to the State Department of Human Rights. Chairman Weyrauch inquired whether the City Attorney had any questions of the Commission which would help him in his discussion of the No-Fault process with the City Manager. Mr. Schieffer explained that he would draft a memorandum to the City Manager regarding the No-Fault process as it relates to the Human Rights Commission. Chairman Weyrauch thanked City Attorney Richard Sehieffer on behalf of the Commission for his presentation to the Commission members. Commissioner Reichgott questioned whether a subcommittee of the Commission re- garding the No-Fault process would be helpful at this point. The City Attorney explained that he would like to request direction from the City staff and, the City Manager before any more action is taken regarding the No-Fault process. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 286 Superintendent Rossi stated that he, Mr. Bernards, and Mr. Baufield attended this evening's meeting for a sharing of information with the Human Rights Com- mission. Mr. Bernards expressed a support for the detached worker program, parents education, and legislative support in the area of drug abuse. Council- member Lhotka inquired what specific things the school district might be looking for regarding the education of parents in the drug abuse area. Mr. Bernards stated that, in his opinion, it was to alert parents to the problem so that they are not totally surprised when the problem affects them directly. Super- intendent Rossi explained that in the past the school has contracted with a private company and one of the services provided by the company, the Johnston Institute, was parent education in the area of drug use and abuse. He noted that in the past there has been a relatively poor turnout for parents meetings concerning the drug problem. Commissioner Kuhar inquired whether the P.T.A. was involved in any presentations regarding this problem. Superintendent Rossi indicated that he was not sure if the P.T.A. had any chemical related program but he noted they do have the 12-19-79 -4- 1. ability to develop one. Chairman Weyrauch expressed appreciation on behalf of the Human Rights commission to Mr. Rossi, Mr. Bernards, and Mr. Baufield for attending this evening's meeting and noted that we have a mutual concern and mutual desire to see something accom- plished in this area. Chairman Weyrauch asked if any of the Commission members had any further dis- cussion on the No-Fault process. He explained that it was a general consensus of the Commission that Administrative Assistant Bublitz should discuss the status of the No-Fault process with the City Manager before any more discussion is pur- sued by the Commission. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of Commission members as to what they would like to see done with the No-Fault process. Commissioner Miller stated that the development of an ordinance with regard to the No-Fault process seemed to be a reasonable approach and noted that the ordinance could help to determine how the Commission would work with the State Department of Human Rights. He also indicated that an important consideration would be how much time the Commission members are willing to spend on the process. Chairman Weyrauch stated that he felt more answers are needed on the process before any recommendations are made. He noted a general consensus among Com- mission members to support the process but that certain questions regarding the implementation of the No-Fault process remained unanswered. Commissioner Reichgott indicated that she feels some of the questions regarding the No-Fault process may not have definite answers and that the City Attorney may inform the Commission that there will be risks in certain areas of the process for the Commission and its members. Commissioner Kuhar indicated that she feels it would be helpful to know how many human rights cases now being handled by the State have originated in Brooklyn Center. Chairman Weyrauch asked Commission members what direction they would like to take regarding the problems expressed by the representatives from District 286. He suggested that a temporary subcommittee could be formed to explore the pro- blem more completely. Commissioner Reichgott stated that she feels a subcom- mittee is important but that she feels a greater commitment to following through on the No-Fault process. Chairman Weyrauch asked the Commission members for volunteers to serve on the subcommittee to explore the drug prob- lems discussed by representatives from District 286. Commissioners Reichgott, Kuhar and Miller volunteered to work on the temporary subcommittee. Council- member Lhotka stated that he would also like to work on the problem with the subcommittee. The subcommittee members set Wednesday, January 9, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. for a meeting of the subcommittee. A general discussion of Commission meeting dates ensued and there was a general consensus of Commission members that the next meeting of the Human Rights Commission be set for Thursday, January 17, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. Counciimember Lhotka requested that a discussion of future Commission meeting dates be placed on the agenda for this meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Weyrauch discussed the status of Commissioner Campion and noted num- erous absences from Commission meetings over the past months along with three consecutive unexcused absences by Commissioner Campion. Chairman Weyrauch stated that he is recommending to Councilmember Lhotka to take the necessary 12-19-79 -5- steps to remove Commissioner Campion from the Commission because of his record of attendance. There was :a general consensus of the Commission members present to approve Chairman Weyrauch recommendation. STATUS OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CHAIRMANSHIP FOR 19$0 Councilmember Lhotka stated that Chairman Weyrauch would be stepping down from the chairmanship of the Commission due to the time constraints placed on Mr. Weyrauch due to his work schedule and the conflicts that arise with Commission meetings. He noted that Chairman Weyrauch will remain as a member of the Com- mission. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would recommend Jayne Kuhar as the new Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission. Chairman Weyrauch stated that he feels the talent and enthusiasm on the present Commission is the best he has ever experienced as a member and chairman of the Human Rights Commission. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Reichgott and seconded by Commissioner Kuhar to adjourn the Human Rights Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Chairman • 12-19-79 -6-