Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-08 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto7 City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE:NOVEMBER 8, 1999 CMR: 381:99 SUBJECT:HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION PROPOSED ANTI- DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE REQUEST RECOMMENDATION Staff is forwarding the City of Palo Alto’s Human Relations Commission’s (HRC) request that the Palo Alto City Council adopt an anti-discrimination ordinance in principal as outlined in the enclosed policy statement and instruct the City Attorney to draft a detailed ordinance for Council consideration and enactment. The City Attorney recommends that the City Council also request a staff analysis of existing City anti-discrimination policies and a legal analysis of the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND The proposed anti-discrimination ordinance developed from a discussion of the City Council regarding the Boy Scout issue during the Fall of 1998. The HRC created a sub-committee to research what other cities were doing about anti-discrimination issues. The sub-committee reviewed ordinances from the cities of Berkeley, San Francisco and Cook County, Illinois. In comparing these ordinances to the City of Palo Alto, the sub-committee members noted that the City of Palo Alto had little in the Municipal Code regarding discrimination and rental contracts. The sub-committee prepared an outline of a draft ordinance and presented it to the HRC. The HRC reviewed and approved the subcommittee’s recommended ordinance policy statement in January 1999. The HRC held a public hearing to obtain public comments on the proposed ordinance outline on May 13, 1999. The minutes of the hearing are attached. Many people supported the proposed ordinance stating that the ordinance would serve as a reminder that Palo Alto is a community that will not tolerate discrimination. One member of the public questioned whether this ordinance was the correct approach to housing discrimination, stating that state law addresses the issues involved with housing discrimination and preempts any local regulation. Some people spoke against the ordinance because it would negatively impact the Boy Scouts, stating that the organization could lose the use of the Lucie Stern facilities as well as other city owned facilities. As a result of the forum, the HRC revised the policy statement to incorporate a number of the public’s suggestions. On June 10, 1999, the HRC unanimously approved a revised version of the proposed ordinance policy statement which refined some potential exceptions to the ordinance and provided additional details on protected groups and enforcement provisions. CMR:381:99 Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION The HRC’s anti-discrimination policy statement includes categories for race, sex, color, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation, parental status, marital status, source of income, housing status national origin, ancestry, and military discharge status. The scope of the coverage includes employment by the City of Palo Alto, employment by contractors with the City of Palo Alto, employment provision of services by agencies receiving subsidies, leasing real property owned by the City, City subsidized housing and the provision of City programs, events and facilities. ATTACHMENTS Attachment One: Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Policy Statement Attachment Two: Human Relations Commission May 13, 1999 Minutes PREPARED BY: Kathy Espinoza-Howard, Administrator of Human Services DEPARTMENT HEAD~ ~ ~]~_~ PAUL ~rHII2TtiOZN Director of Community Services CITY ATTORNEY: //iA~E~L PIERRE CAL "c A- t CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: FLEMING Manager CMR:381:99 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT I June 2 t, 1999 Kathy Espinoza-Howard Administrator Office of Human Services Cubberley Community Center 4-000 Middlefieid Road, T2 Palo Alto, CA 94303 RECEIVED JUN Z l 1999 Office of Human Services Re: Proposed Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Dear Kathy: Pursuant to cotmcil member Huber’s suggestion, the Human Relations Commission voted at the last meeting to request staff to request the City Manager to request the City Attorney to draft an ordinance based upon the anti-discrimination ordinance outline that the Human Relations Commission has approved. I enclose with this letter a copy of the proposed ordinance as approved by the HRC at our last meeting. We appreciate your efforts to send this along the proper cha~mels. Very truly yours, Andrew F. Pierce AFP:gjb Enclosure Joe Huber (wenc.) Ariel Calonne (w enc.) June Fleming (wenc.) To: From: City Manager, City Attorney Human Relations Commission Date: Subject: June 21, 1999 OUTLINE OF PROPOSED PALO ALTO ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE Here is an outline of the proposed Palo Alto Anti-Discrimination Ordinance as approved at the June 10, 1999 HRC meeting. I.Statement of Policy The ordinance should contain a statement of policy. We suggest the following: It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to affirm and support and protect the rights of every person, within its jurisdiction to equal economic, political and educational opportunity, to equal accommodations in all business establishments in the City and to equal service and protection by all public agencies of the City. II.Definition/Protected Groups The ordinance should have a list of categories upon which discrimination will be made unlawful. follows: A.Race; B. C. D. E. F. Each category should have a legal definition. Color; Gender; Age; Religion; Disability (to be defined as in state and federal laws); National Origin; Ancestry; Our suggestion for the categories is as Sexual Orientation; Housing status (to be defined similarly to Cook County ordinance, to protect renters, residents of subsidized housing, and persons who are currently unhoused); Marital status. Familial status (families with children) III.Scope of Coverage The ordinance should cover the following topics: A. Employment by the City of Pato Alto; IV Eo Contractors for the City of Palo Alto will be required by contract not to discriminate in employment against the protected groups; Parties receiving funding, subsidies or in kind contributions from the City of Palo Alto will be required to agree not to discriminate against the protected groups; Parties leasing property from the City of Palo Alto for a period of more than 29 consecutive days will be required to agree not to discriminate against the protected groups; All City subsidized housing shall not discriminate against the protected groups, except in the case of legitimate senior or disabled housing project; The City shall not discriminate against any of the protected groups in the provision of any City program, facility or event. Enforcement: The usual enforcement provisions applicable to other Ci~" ordinances such as the administrative penalties found in the Palo Alto Municipal Code section 1.12 and 1.18. IV Enforcement provisions should also include the following: No Violation of the ordinance may be a cause of discipline up to and including discharge against City employees who violate the ordinance; City contractors who violate the ordinance may be barred from further contracting with the City for a designated period (i.e., one year); The City shall have the right to terminate any and all leases if the lessee violates the ordinance. Violations by recipients of subsidies may result in termination of subsidies. Responsibility for enforcement of the ordinance be placed on all department heads with respect to activities under their control and that the City Manager and Human Relations Commission should be given authority to investigate alleged violations with the City Manager being given the ultimate authority to determine penalties. Exceptions: No Housing set aside for seniors and the disabled is exempted from the age discrimination provision; No Groups that provide recreational services to minors may restrict participation by age and gender; C.Employment of family members shall not be construed as employment discrimination; Non-profit sheltered workshops and similar rehabilitation services for the blind or disabled shall be authorized to restrict employn~ent to the communities they serve; 2 go Employers may discriminate on the basis of bona fide occupational qualifications as defined under federal law; A legitimate seniority system in employment, as defined under federal law shall not be considered discriminatory; Go This law shall not prohibit residential landlords from requiring the same financial obligations of all tenants. ATTACHMENT II PALO ALTO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Thursday, May 13, 1999 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Palo Alto Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue PRESENT:Eve Agiewich, Roy Blitzer, Litsie Indergand, Adele Khabbaz, Andrew Pierce, Pat Singer; STAFF: Kathy Espinoza-Howard, Margaret Wong, Jennifer Burns ABSENT:Wynn Hausser The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Pierce at 7:00 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - There were no oral communications. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- The draft minutes were missing pages nine and ten; the minutes will be approved at the next meeting. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS AND DELETIONS - Item 7, the Staff Liaison report on United Way was moved to item two. Commissioner Khabbaz moved, seconded by Commissioner Agiewich, to move item seven, the United Way discussion, to second on the agenda. AYES: unanimous. Commissioner Pierce said that due to constraints of time and a heavy agenda, items 4 and 5 may be tabled until next month. BUSINESS NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY Commissioner Pierce explained that the HRC’s plan was not to take definitive action immediately, but to listen to what people have to say about the ordinance. Commissioner Pierce gave the history of the proposed nondiscrimination policy. Over the last few years, the HRC’s attention had been drawn to a lack of policy in the City of Palo Alto; there is no comprehensive and clear general antidiscrimination ordinance for the City. Several members of the City Council and the City Attorney suggested this would be a good thing for the HRC to look into. A subcommittee was formed last year which drafted an outline for an ordinance based on ordinances that have been adopted in other areas, mainly Cook County, IL and San Francisco, CA. The HRC hopes to recommend an outline to Council, which would then direct the City Attorney to draft a final version. Commissioner Pierce went on to explain that the proposed ordinance contains a statement of policy and a listing of protected groups similar to the ones that the HRC is expected to watch out for under the City’s charter. State law limits what a city can regulate, so the ordinance is not proposing to address private discrimination in housing or employment; those categories are preempted by state law. What is novel about Palo Alto’s proposed ordinance is that it includes sexual orientation and housing status as categories, the latter including renters and tenants as well as the homeless and the housed. Commissioner Pierce stressed that the HRC was looking for constructive criticism from the community, areas to be made either broader or narrower and what might need to be modified. Commissioner Agiewich added that some enforcement provisions were included in the draft outline, and that all of those are subject to modification. Commissioner Agiewich also emphasized that the ordinance is not aimed at any particular group but is rather a statement of policy for the City. Gertrude Welch, chairperson of the Santa Clara County Human Relations Commission commended the HRC for dealing with this issue. She said having an antidiscrimination policy is a reminder that Palo Alto is a con~nunity that will not tolerate discrimination and urged the commission to include all the protected groups. Ms. Welch suggested adding economic status to that list of protected groups, but said she was aware that would need a strict legal definition. Ms. Welch ended her statements by inviting the conm~is- sioners to the County HRC’s dialogue on hate issues in the fall, reminding them that hate language leads to discrimination and to hate crime and violence. Ed Glazier, a resident of Palo Alto and a gay man, spoke in favor of the ordinance. He said that there is still discrimination in many quarters of the community, and many groups must look to legal protection to ensure their rights. Mr. Glazier went on to say, that he believes there are those who feel the Boy Scouts should be given an exemption from the ordinance, and as a former Eagle Scout he urged the HRC not to give in to such voices. Mr. Glazier pointed out that the Boy Scouts have been sho~vn to discriminate against homosexuals, atheists and agnostics, both in membership and in employment. He believes that to exempt them would send the wrong message to impressionable youth. Jim Duggan, vice chair of the Santa Clara County HRC spoke in support of the ordinance. He said at some point the City might want to expand the proposed outline, but they should not allow it to be watered down in any’ way. Mr. Duggan said the ordinance does two important things: it ac "knowledges that dis- crimination is real, and it affirms that fair play’ and mutual respect are part of the qualities that have made Palo Alto the success that it is. Mar)’ Howland, a Palo Alto resident, urged the HRC to add flexibility to the proposal. She believes there are places for some kinds of discrimination such as in activities for seniors, for children, for teens, etc. The Boy Scouts has activities that are not discriminatory, while the Palo Alto t~ecreation Department has activities that are. Ms. Howland cautioned that the City should be watchful that it does not alienate too many of its programs. There is the possibility that some programs, which are a benefit to the community, will no longer be able to use City facilities. 2 Commissioner Pierce asked Ms. Howland to be as specific as possible to assist the commission in fine- tuning the ordinance. He pointed out that the ordinance would probably allow for some age discrimination in recreational programs and in senior housing, but asked what else Ms. Howell would suggest. Ms. Howell said that she believes the Boy Scouts should be exempted; her son, who is developmentally disabled as well as African American, and who is a Boy Scout, has never been asked anything specific about his beliefs nor has she been asked hers. Commissioner Agiewich asked Ms. Howell if she could justify the City supporting a program that dis- criminates based on sexual preference or belief in a supreme being. Ms. Howell answered that she does not understand why it is acceptable to discriminate based on age but not anything else. She said she does not support the national policy of the Boy Scouts nor is she defending it, but the Palo Alto Boy Scouts do a lot for the community, and a lot for her son. Marlene Prendergast, executive director of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation thanked the HRC for sponsoring the public forum. She commented on the ordinance based on the perspective that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, in addition to being an affordable housing developer and advocate, is a property manager and landlord of the affordable housing communities it has created in Palo Alto. Ms. Prendergrast questioned ~vhether this ordinance is the right approach to housing discrimination. As a threshold matter, state law occupies the field of housing discrimination and preempts any local regulation; federal and state laws adequately cover the subject and to add a local level enforcement could be repetitive and confusing. Ms. Prendergast said that undefined terms such as "violation," "enforcement," "penalties," "discipline" and "plenary authority of the human relations commission to investigate violations" would call for a quasi- judicia! process that would involve a lot of legal issues. Getting a process established to deal ~vith such matters would be costly and difficult, and it would be critical to do it right to avoid liability. Ms. Prender- grast said that the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission already has these procedures and regulations in place and there is the possibility of legislation at the state level that would make sexual orientation a protected category. Ms. Prendergrast suggested the HRC should support changes at the state level and should continue to support agencies like Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing. Ms. Prender- grast also wondered if including housing status as a category would raise the issue of whether it constitutes discrimination for a landlord to require landlord references from a possible tenant ~vho is currently home- less. Ms. Prendergast said that the idea of adding another layer of accountability to fair housing laws seems .wrong. Commissioner Blitzer asked what Ms. Prendergast would recommend the HRC do in trying to make sure their constituents are not put at a disadvantage. Ms. Prendergrast said that there is a pervasive amount of law already in housing discrimination, thus there is no need to add the layer of City enforcement. Com- missioner Blitzer asked if her suggestion would be to take out the housing section and leave other~ in. Ms. Prendergast said that seemed logical. Commissioner Agiewich asked if Ms. Prendergast’s main comment addressed city-subsidized housing. Commissioner Agiewich agreed that a lot of field of fair housing is preempted by state and federal gov- ernment regulations, but she explained that the HRC"s intention was to have the policy apply to all City activities. Commissioner Pierce asked if the Palo Alto Housing Corporation currently operates under federal regula- 3 tions imposed because they receive federal funding, and if so would it be better for the City ordinance to conform to federal requirements. That way, there would still be only one standard. Ms. Prendergast agreed that that would be better, but said it still seemed like another layer. David Paige, a Palo Alto resident read about the issue of the antidiscrimination ordinance in the local paper. He said his main point is that he appreciates any efforts the government makes to discourage bigotry and intolerance, and he commended the Boy Scouts for their honesty and the many good things they do. Mr. Paige said the one thing they are not good about is their policy about discrimination and prejudice. Mr. Paige is in favor of the ordinance. Ellen Wyman of 546 Washington Avenue spoke about the issue of the Boy Scouts losing the use of the Lucie Stem facilities. Ms. Wyman said she believes Lucie Stem had specifically left that building to the Scouts and it would be unconscionable to take it away from them for a different use. Ms. Wyman said the bequest was not intended to be a gift to the City, and the City was willing to accept the property for use as she intended it. Commissioner Blitzer assured Ms. Wyman that the HRC had looked into the issue of Lucie Stem’s will and found that there was nothing specified about the Boy Scouts. Commissioner Agiewich asked Ms. Wyman if she had a vie~v about ~vhether the City should be obligated to continue a policy that is illegal. Ms. Wyman answered that ifa building has been accepted, the intent of the donor must be hondred. Ms. Agiewich asked if that meant the building had to be used as the donor intended it for rest of life of the building. Ms. Wyman said that in that case, the title should be transferred to the other group and they should deal with any legal issues. Dan Hoffman, an attorney from San Jose and friend of Santa Clara County’s HRC, spoke about what effect this ordinance will have on the Palo Alto community. Mr. Hoffman said that the rest of the County looks to Palo Alto as a leader in many areas of public policy. Mr. Hoffman brought up the issue of the Boy Scouts, saying he did not want to comment on the local Scouts but on their national policy. Mr. Hoffman likened the situation to the problem of fraternal organizations such as the Elks and Rotary who did not admit women until a ruling by the United States Supreme Court forced them to; it may take litigation of this kind to get the Boy Scouts to change their national policy. Mr. Hoffman ~vould like to see as few exceptions as possible in the Palo Alto ordinance. Jolm Skelton, resident of Palo Alto and a member of Boy Scouts Troop 57, had two points to make. The first was that Troop 57 is a specia! troop, sponsored by parents and not by a church group, representing the values of parents. Mr. Skelton said Troop 57 is not about bigotry, racial discrimination, religious discrimi- nation, economic discrimination or sexual preference discrimination, but about teaching boys to be leaders, and about values. Secondly, Mr. Skelton said that the scoutmasters do not tolerate discrimination from boys on any of the grounds in ordinance; in fact there have been gay boys in the troop. Commissioner Blitzer asked Mr. Skelton how he would handle the situation with the Boy Scouts. Mr. Skelton said he did not have a legal answer, but that common sense said that the Boy Scouts deserve to continue to use the Lucie Stem facility. Commissioner Agiewich asked if it were possible for the troop to disavow the national policy of the Boy Scouts. Mr. Skelton said he did not know. Commissioner Indergand asked if any of the gay boys were openly gay. She also asked if, as adults, the same boys were gay, would they be allowed to be scoutmasters. Mr. Skelton said that would depend on the parent community at the time, and that the boys in question were not openly gay at the time they were involved with the troop. Commissioner Pierce said he had read the t~vo California Supreme Court cases involving the Boy Scouts. The first one involved two-young bo.ys in the Cub Scouts who were not allowed to continue because they refused to take the oath of religion. The second one was an Eagle Scout ~vho had been ousted because of a newspaper article that came out about how he was a ~vell-adjusted gay youth; in that case the Troop had been supportive of him staying but the national office had him taken out anyway. Commissioner Pierce asked Mr. Skelton how Troop 57 would deal with either of these cases. Mr. Skelton said he did not "know. Commissioner Pierce asked Mr. Skelton how the HRC could write an ordinance that doesn’t evict the Boy Scouts, if there were some language the Boy Scouts could agree to in their lease that would allow them to stay without making the ordinance ineffective. Mr. Skelton said he did not "kno~v. Robert Smith of Palo Alto spoke in favor of the ordinance as written. On the subject of the Boy Scouts and their relationship to the Lucie Stem Center, Mr. Smith said that although the local scouting organiza- tion may not share the national policy of discrimination, the official view of the Pacific Skyline Council is one of discrimination against homosexuality and atheism/agnosticism. The Boy Scouts do not accept homosexuals as Boy Scout or leaders. Mr. Smith said that the ambiguity expressed by some of the speak- ers that evening points out the need for the antidiscrimination ordinance; if the City is providing resources, all groups benefiting should at least clarify where they stand. Mr. Smith went on to say that Lucie Stem was concerned with various kinds of discrimination, and he wondered what she would say today about the Boy Scouts, if they were the kind of organization she would have wanted to support. As a parting point, Mr. Smith said he would pei-sonally be upset if the Boy Scouts were to lose Lucie Stern use, but that the responsibility belongs to the Boy Scouts; the ordinance is right on target. Conmaissioner Pierce said the commission would like to hear from any official member of the Boy Scouts’ to discuss this further and hear their point of view. Commissioner Agie~vich shared some points raised with her by people not present at the hearing. Mid- peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing had suggested including marital status as a protected group. Commis- sioner Agiewich had also heard from someone from Girl Scouts and the comment ~vas that Girl Scouts own their building but have a ground lease with the City, so they would be affected by the ordinance. Commissioner Blitzer said that as the liaison to the Youth Council, he wanted to convey their concerns that youth not be discriminated against and that they be fairly represented. Commissioner Pierce said that the Girl Scouts do not have a policy regarding a belief in supreme being or sexual orientation. Commissioner Agiewich pointed out that they do discriminate in terms of gender. Commissioner Pierce thanked everyone who came, and said that all the speakers had spoken fairly and from the heart. Commissioner Pierce said that at their next meeting the HRC will discuss fine tuning the antidiscrimination proposal. STAFF LIAISON REPORT UNITED WAY Ms. Espinoza-Howard reported that the May 7 meeting to discuss the HSRAP process and United Way crisis had gone well; 90% of the HSRAP agencies attended. Ms. Espinoza-Howard felt they had a good debriefing, and had collected testimony on how to improve the HSRAP process. Ms. Espinoza-Howard said that the agencies and staff had spent time discussing the United Way funding crisis; staff asked at that time how the HSRAP agencies had been effected by the cuts. Some of the HSRAP agencies have not had payment since December of 1998, and the total lost, including lost monies for this fiscal year and lost allocations and designations for next fiscal year, is about $2.3 million. Commissioner Khabbaz commented that she had thought the designations were going through. Ms. Espinoza-Howard said the designations would not be distributed; as designations accumulate, they will be paid out as United Way is able, but Board Chair Michael Fox had told agencies not to count on them. Commissioner Indergand asked what the total shortfall is for all the agencies. Ms. Espinoza-Howard said the total is a little over $12 million. Ms. Espinoza-Ho.ward said that there is a relief fund being developed by private industry and the County; city governments need to look at this, and Ms. Espinoza-Howard has asked for a meeting of staff people from the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Milpitas and Smata Clara County to plan a regional strategy. Commissioner Pierce asked how much of the United Way loss would affect services in Palo Alto. Ms. Espinoza-Howard did not have that information. Commissioner Pierce asked how much money Palo Alto needs to come up with to cover those services. Commissioner Khabbaz pointed out that for many of these organizations, much of the United Way money was not earmarked and was used for administrative costs;" if the agencies cannot fund some of their other services they will not exist to give services to Palo Alto. Ms. Espinoza-Howard cited as an example Senior Adult Legal Assistance (SALA), which is being recom- mended for $8,000 in funding from Palo Alto. However, 20% of SALA’s budget is dependent on United Way funding, so they may be unable to provide any services, even those in Palo Alto which are being paid for by the City. Commissioner Khabbaz said that Santa Clara County is looking closely at services within the County that will be effected; they estimated that out of all the organizations that the County works with there is a $7 million shortfall:. Commissioner Pierce asked what the HRC’s role should be. Ms. Espinoza-Howard said that she believes the HRC should support the regional look at the problem and should support the relief fund to give the community an opportunity to review and reconstruct a new model for the United Way. 6 Commissioner Pierce asked whether there was any contingency money in Palo Alto. Ms. Espinoza- Howard said that the administration is looking at how much money is available, and emphasized that it is important to see the big picture. Commissioner Agiewich asked if in contributing to relief fund, the City could designate it to one of the agencies on the list. Ms. Espinoza-Howard said that would be possible to look at. Commissioner Khabbaz said she had spoken with a few agencies, and they are against that kind of selective funding; the agencies have worked hard to put together a system to see how much money each should get from United Way, and by supporting the regional approach that process can be honored. Commissioner Pierce asked who would be administering the relief fund. Ms. Espinoza-Howard said the fund would be administered by a neutral body, probably not by United Way. Commissioner Pierce asked about the meeting about HSRAP, if there had been any comments on the process. Ms. Espinoza-Howard said that the agencies felt the form needs a lot of revision; there were several comments about duplication. The agencies would also like the City to use the internet to provide the forms and reports to make the process easier. Commissioner Indergand asked if there were anything the HRC should do at the Finance Committee meeting with regards to recognizing the relief fund for United Way agencies. Commissioner Pierce said that that should be discussed with the HSRAP discussion. HSRAP Ms. Espinoza-Howard said the HRC had decided at the last meeting to go forward with the recommerida- tion to Finance Committee on the May 20, including the augmentation of HSRAP to fund the East Palo Alto Swim Program; she asked if there were any other additions or recommendations. Conmaissioner Pierce asked whether the agencies who had asked for more than they were funded through HSRAP should be given additional funds in light of the United Way crisis. Comrnissioner Pierce stressed that he did not mean to interfere with the relief fund, but thought it might be a way for the City to help in the meantime. Commissioner Agiewich cited the example of SALA, saying that they had taken a 20% hit from United Way and asked if the extra $2,000 they had asked for through HSRAP but didn’t get might" be critical to them now. Ms. Espinoza-Howard said the HSRAP proposal will be presented at the Finance Committee meeting on May 20 and they will be looking for changes, deletions, additions, etc. Commissioner Pierce said the HRC had planned to present something in writing at the Finance Committee meeting, but asked if there were there anything else the HRC can do. Commissioner Indergand said it is not clear whether it ~vould be better to ask Council to extend themselves for the relief fund or whether it would be more appropriate to ask for an increase in funding of the HSRAP agencies. Commissioner Blitzer asked Commissioner Khabbaz to speak to the issue. Commissioner Khabbaz said she would like to recommend to Counci! that they put as much money as possible in to emergency relief fund; if it is all the same amount of money, it is much better to put it all in one pot than spread it out. Commissioner Pierce said that the HRC would present a letter supporting the East Palo Alto aquatics program and would verbally support putting money into the United Way relief fund. Commissioner Indergand made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agiewich, to encourage Council to give as much money as possible to the emergency relief fund for United Way and author- ize Commissioner Pierce to speak for the HRC at next Finance Committee meeting. AYES: Unani- mous. ROLE OF THE HRC IN PROPOSED CITY ORDINANCES BAN ON SLEEPING IN CARS Commissioner Agiewich asked Councilmember Huber what he knew about the ban on sleeping in cars in r.esidential areas, and Councilmember Huber was not sure whether it had gone to the policy and services committee; the ordinance seems to have fizzled away. Commissioner Indergand said she had been asked at the last HRC meeting to speak to Council to offer the services of the HRC in researching and advising Council on this ordinance. However the issue was not discussed and Commissioner Indergand simply told Council in a general way that the HRC would be available to advise Council. Commissioner Pierce said ChiefDwzcer had told him this ordinance ~vas not currently an issue. Commis- sioner Pierce asked the chief how Palo Alto police deal with people sleeping in cars. Chief Dwyer said that if someone does it in a neighborhood repeatedly and there are complaints, the police would tell the individual to move along or go to a place that is not as residential. PANHANDLING ON MEDIAN STRIPS Commissioner Pierce asked about the status of the ordinance banning panhandling on median strips. Commissioner Btitzer questioned the intent of this particular ordinance, stating that he does not believe it is an issue of safety. Commissioners Pierce and Agiewich both echoed Commissioner Blitzer’s concern that this is not a safety issue but rather is targeted against certain people. Commissioner Indergand had spoken with one person who was concerned about safety of the cars passing; the person said she had seen someone ahnost get into an accident after stopping to talk to or give money to someone on the median strip. Commissioner Pierce had spoken to ChiefDwyer about this issue, and was told that the proposal may’ be going on Council’s consent calendar. Ms. Espinoza-Ho~vard said she would watch for the issue to come up in agenda review and will email the HRC to apprise them of it. Commissioner Khabbaz suggested making a motion not to support this proposal so that when the appropri- ate timecomes the HRC can say that they have discussed the issue. Commissioner Agiewich agreed; whoever goes to Council can then say they are speaking for the HRC. Commissioner Blitzer moved, seconded by Commissioner Agiewich, that HRC should not support the ordinance to ban panhandling on median strips because the intention is to single out certain individuals. AYES: Unanimous. Commissioner Agiewich moved, seconded by Commissioner Khabbaz to amend the previous motion to send a representative to the Council to voice the HRC’s opposition to the proposed ordinance on banning panhandling on median strips. AYES: Unanimous. Commissioner Pierce suggested putting numbers 4, the Role of Human Relations Commission on Diversity Issues and 5, Civility in Public Meetings on next month’s agenda. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Affordable Housing Commissioner Agiewich reported that she and Commissioner Pierce had applied to the Community Resource Group to advise the County on how to use Stanford land; neither was selected, so they will have to monitor as private citizens. Disability Awareness Commissioner Khabbaz reported that the new committee (Commissioners Khabbaz and Singer) would be meeting to move forward on some projects; the committee would also like to come up with a new list of things to tackle. Fee Reduction Program Ms. Espinoza-Howard reported that at the last meeting the commissioners had been given an analysis of the program; participation in the fee reduction program has nearly doubled in the past year. Ms. Espinoza- Howard said that Commissioner Hausser had some ideas for creating more publicity for the program and that it would be good to have him comment when he returns. INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Agiewich reported that she would go to the Palo Alto Mediation Program (PAMP) meeting next month. PAMP has finished its selection process and they have selected five new mediators who are now going into training. Commissioner Agiewich will meet with the new mediators on Saturday, May 22. There are also five mediators whose terms are ending and who wish to be reappointed. The mediators have been receiving further training. They had a joint training with the Mountain View Mediation Program, and an advanced training with Man, in Schwartz. Mr. Schwartz wii! train the new mediators as well. Commissioner Blitzer reported that members of the Youth Council were pleased to have met with Coun- cilmember Ojakian. Commissioner Blitzer expressed his appreciation to Ms. Espinoza-Howard for making that meeting happen. Commissioner Blitzer reported that the Youth Council are in the throes of their two major projects for 1999: a dance for middle schoolers at Mitchell Park, and on the May 22 there is a three- on-three fundraiser basketball tournament. Signups for the tournament were light and the Youth Council- members have been trying to figure out how to generate more interest. Convnissioner Blitzer said that the Youth Council charter would change next year; they will be an advisory group rather than events oriented. Commissioner Indergand reported that the Community Wor "king Group is having a big celebration on May 19, one year from the time the group was started. Commissioner Indergand said this is a progress report and that the group has made some significant progress: they now have two possible sites. One site is the Menlo Park VA and the other is closer to downtown Palo Alto. Commissioner Indergand said the CWG is encouraged and is moving forward quickly on making the Opportunity Center a reality. Conzrnissioner Khabbaz reported Council had voted on May 10 on the Finance Committee’s recommenda- 9 tions of CDBG funding; the recommendations passed unanimously. Commissioner Singer did not have a report. Commissioner Pierce reported that as the new liaison to the police department, he had spoken with Chief D~vyer about the police department proposal which was not recommended for funding. The chief was concerned that his proposal was viewed as competing with the Urban Ministry’s proposal; they were completely different proposals. Chief Dw~’er also said that if the City Manager ~vants to fund the proposal as part of police department budget, that would be fine, but that is not likely to happen. Commissioner Pierce also asked the chief about racial profiling, in particular about some of the other cities that have adopted the policy of keeping statistics concerning who is stopped by police. The chief told Commissioner Pierce that the current dispatch program would not support this kind of program, but he would be supportive of an upgrade that would. Chief Dyer also said that if a state law were passed man- dating the keeping of statistics, the Palo Alto police department would comply. At one point Palo Alto policedid a study of who got traffic tickets and they did not notice any racial disproportion. Commissioner Pierce said he did not believe that answered the question of who is being stopped and not getting a ticket. Commissioner Pierce reported that another issue Chief Dwyer brought up was Megan’s Law; Palo Alto police are thinking about disclosing information regarding offenders’ locations within four blocks. This would allow people to find out about particular information if they wanted to; the information would be distributed to schools. Commissioner Pierce asked Chief D~2~’er to fax him some information about the program and said the HRC would be happy to comment and advise. Commissioner Agie~vich said she would like to agendize this issue; she does not think that under Megan’s La~v there is a mandate to dis- seminate information. Commissioner Pierce said that he thinks the police would limit people as to the use of the information. Commissioners Agiewich and Blitzer expressed concern about the impact of this and what possible problems might occur. Commissioner Pierce reported that the Santa Clara County HRC had discussed nothing relating specifically to Palo Alto. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Councilmember Huber was attending the Finance Conm~ittee meeting and was unable to participate in the HRC meeting. STAFF REPORT Ms. Espinoza-Howard reported that at the last meeting, Commissioner Hausser had requested that staff explore an HRC membership on the shuttle committee. The transportation people said that they would welcome a member of the HRC on the committee; Commissioner Singer volunteered to be the HRC representative. Commissioner Blitzer asked if the work staff has done on the HSRAP process had been recognized by the administration. Ms. Espinoza-Howard said that the administration has been really positive and supportive, and that including an HRC commissioner on the HSRAP recommendation committee had been good show of partnership. 10 Commissioner Blitzer asked if the People in Need committee was still meeting. Ms. Espinoza-Howard said that the next meeting would be May 20, 1999 at 2 PM. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Agiewich announced that she is going to be teaching a class for the City on July 17 on tenants’ rights; this class is a direct outgrowth of the Tenants’ Workshop held in February. Commissioner Agiewich will work with Ms. Espinoza-Howard and staff to get a mailing list together. This Will be a single-session class, and Conmaissioner Agiewich will do another one later if necessary. CALL FOR AGENDA ITEMS Agenda items that may be on the June agenda are: the final follow-up to the Nondiscrimination Policy; the role of the HRC in diversity issues; civility in public meetings; the Megan’s Laxv issue; the role of the HRC in the two Civic Center ordinances; and the HRC retreat in August. Commissioner Agiewich moved, seconded by Commissioner Blitzer to adjourn the meeting. AYES: Unanimous. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:40 P.M. 11