Council MInutes

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
10 East Church Street – Town Hall
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Wednesday, May 18, 2011 – 7:00 PM

1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL

President Robert J. Donchez called the meeting to order. Pastor Marge Hassler, of West Side Moravian Church, offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag. Present were Jean Belinski, David T. DiGiacinto, Karen Dolan, Eric R. Evans, Gordon B. Mowrer, J. William Reynolds, and Robert J. Donchez, 7.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of May 3, 2011 were approved.

5. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Bill No. 12 – 2011 – Establishing Article 145 – Bethlehem Human Relations Commission

President Donchez reviewed the process involving the proposed Human Relations Commission Ordinance, Bill No. 12 – 2011, listed on the Agenda for First Reading. President Donchez recalled there were 28 speakers at the Human Resources and Environment Committee meeting on April 28, 2011 at which the proposal was reviewed. President Donchez, affirming that in order for an Ordinance to become law it is considered at two City Council Meetings on First and Final Reading, confirmed that Bill No. 12, Establishing a Human Relations Commission, is being considered on First Reading at this evening’s City Council Meeting. President Donchez stated that Final Reading would be at the June 7 City Council Meeting. President Donchez announced that 100 copies of the Ordinance amendments have been provided for the public. President Donchez explained that for each Amendment to be discussed on the floor there will be a motion, second, vote on the motion, and discussion on the Amendment. At the conclusion of the discussion, Members of Council will vote on each Amendment. President Donchez informed the assembly that 18 Amendments have been proposed. President Donchez noted it is possible there may be additional Amendments proposed at the June 7 Council Meeting.

Adrian Shanker, 1020 W. Chew Street, Allentown, commented that with the Ordinance Council is considering making Bethlehem the latest City to end discrimination against all people. Observing that the Ordinance has specific protections for people of faith, and specific protections for people of color, of all abilities, of all genders and sexual orientations, Mr. Shanker said all of those protected classes are what the Ordinance is about. Mr. Shanker noted the Ordinance will make Bethlehem a welcoming place to be for everyone. Mr. Shanker informed the assembly that since the Committee meeting a number of additional organizations in Bethlehem have come forward to support the Ordinance including Lehigh University that has submitted a letter, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of the Lehigh Valley, Bethlehem YWCA, Jewish Federation of the Lehigh Valley, and a letter submitted by Pastor Don Garrett of the Unitarian Universalist Church. Mr. Shanker read from Pastor Garrett’s letter expressing concern about the religious exemption clause in the Ordinance that he stressed was a very wide loophole, and that a religious exemption is necessary to protect faith institutions from government interference. However, Pastor Garrett expressed that a faith institution should not arbitrarily exempt unrelated positions from civil rights protections. Mr. Shanker urged Council to take out the sunset provision, and to fix the time for when complaints can be filed. Mr. Shanker stated there is no rational reason for anyone to oppose this legislation because it does nothing to hurt business, nothing to hurt people of faith, is about inclusion for everyone, and not just protecting one marginalized community but supporting all people who live, work, visit, and enjoy the City. Mr. Shanker stated he looked forward to City Council voting in favor of the Bill tonight and on June 7.

Andy Hoover, 105 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, Legislative Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU of PA), said he is at the Meeting on behalf of the 17,000 members of the ACLU of PA including 159 members in Bethlehem. He advised that ACLU, founded in 1920, is one of the nation’s oldest civil rights organizations and its activities in Pennsylvania dates back to the 1930’s. Mr. Hoover recounted he submitted a letter to City Council last month explaining the advantages and need for local non-discrimination ordinances. Mr. Hoover reiterated that local non-discrimination ordinances are beneficial for several reasons including local law insures timely responses to discrimination claims, relieves the burden on the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, and provides a local perspective in resolving disputes. In addition, local ordinances can and do provide protections that do not currently exist in State law including sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, and familial status. Mr. Hoover, stating that an extremely broad religious exemption has been written into Bill No. 12 – 2011, said no other organization has the depth of experience in both protecting religious freedom and insuring civil rights as does the ACLU. Continuing on to say that numerous organizations work for religious freedom and many work for civil rights, Mr. Hoover noted that few if any organizations advocate for both as does the ACLU. Mr. Hoover expressed his belief that the ACLU is uniquely positioned to comment on the balance of religious freedom and civil rights. Mr. Hoover commented that in balancing non-discrimination protections and religious expression the First Amendment rights of religious institutions must be respected. Religious institutions should be exempt from non-discrimination laws when hiring positions that teach the faith. However, they should not be exempt when hiring positions that do not teach the faith. Employees who do not teach the faith have a right to be free from discrimination and do not have a direct connection to the institution carrying out its religious mission. This position is reinforced by case law. Mr. Hoover advised that the ministerial exception allows religious institutions to ignore non-discrimination laws when hiring for positions that relate to teaching and expressing the faith. Mr. Hoover explained the exemption currently in Bill No. 12 – 2011 goes further and would be a radical new step backwards. By exempting anyone with a connection to a religious institution the Ordinance would be eviscerated. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the existing local non-discrimination Ordinances in Pennsylvania do not have exemptions this broad. Observing that business must abide by the laws on behalf of its community, Mr. Hoover said if the government decides it is beneficial to the greater good to institute certain laws and regulations then businesses that choose to engage in public commerce have an obligation to follow the rules. Mr. Hoover stated the idea of a religious exemption to the Federal Civil Rights Act as broad as that proposed in Bill No. 12 – 2011 is unthinkable today. Mr. Hoover communicated that City Council would be wise to support an amendment to insure that the religious exemption is revised. Mr. Hoover stated that the ACLU of PA encourages City Council to vote yes on a revision to the religious exemption and yes on the Bill.

Mark Albright, 533 Magnolia Road, Hellertown, stated he is a Northampton County Attorney, member of the Greater Lehigh Valley Chapter of the ACLU, and vice president of the congregation of the Unitarian Universalist Church. Communicating that the City’s roots lie in the Moravian aspiration for people to live lives of peace and productivity without fear of persecution, Mr. Albright said that dream has not been available to a significant segment of the population who visit, live, or work in the City who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. They face discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations. Mr. Albright stressed it is time for the City to enact an antidiscrimination ordinance for the benefit of everyone who finds their way here. Mr. Albright continued on to say that neither Bethlehem nor any of its diverse ethnic or faith communities is threatened by extending equal rights to all, and all will be protected. The notion of taking care of conflicts in human relations here without having to go to Harrisburg for relief is in everyone’s best interests. Mr. Albright urged Council to accept the suggestions of Stephen Glassman and others familiar with ordinances of this kind throughout Pennsylvania. He stated it is important to enact the legislation in a way that is the most meaningful, using proven, widely accepted and recognized language and filing deadlines. Mr. Albright begged Council to reject the sunset provision, complaint filing deadlines of less than 180 days, and an overly broad religious exemption that would permit ongoing discrimination in some contexts not integral to an organization’s faith practices or operations.

Wendy Bitterman, Shady Oaks Drive, Saylorsburg, stating she speaks in support of the Human Relations Commission Ordinance, explained the many ties she has to Bethlehem, and noted she worked in Bethlehem for a number of years. Ms. Bitterman enumerated the many activities in Bethlehem that she and her partner enjoy and in which they participate. Ms. Bitterman, commenting she loves Bethlehem and it has much to offer, said it is a shame that the City lags behind in the embrace of equality for all individuals. Noting she works for an employer who celebrates diversity, Ms. Bitterman stressed how unfair that individuals are deprived of their rights such as to housing and employment based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Ms. Bitterman added that city by city and state by state the laws are changing. Ms. Bitterman communicated it would be a shame for Bethlehem to lag behind any further in this legislative initiative. She urged Council to pass the legislation and thanked the Members for their wisdom and leadership in doing so.

Barbara Baus, 1728 Butztown Road, said she supports the Ordinance as a citizen and taxpayer and expressed the hope that it will be passed in a way that will protect all people. She added that people sometimes do not realize how important human rights are unless they do not have them.

Susan Schaffer, 3341 Lord Byron Drive, informing the assembly she has always been an advocate for people with disabilities, stressed it is an important aspect of the Human Relations Commission. Ms. Schaffer advised there is not a lot of teeth in the ADA law, and explained that unless someone is publicly embarrassed nothing will be done. Referring to the duties of the Human Relations Commission, Ms. Schaffer noted she has done work in those areas, has a Master’s Degree in Rehabilitation, and she created a program called Infobility about 20 years ago. The program informs and empowers people about disability, and helps people with challenges. She continued on to enumerate she has done programs in schools, research and awareness programs. Ms. Schaffer recounted that many years ago Carl Odner founded the Lehigh Valley Center for Independent Living, and explained she wants to continue the legacy. Ms. Schaffer said she wants people to see the world is not over when they have a challenge, and to understand that a disability is different and not a bad thing. Ms. Schaffer expressed the hope that she can add something to the Commission from a disability perspective.

Liz Bradbury, 427-1/2 North Ninth Street, Allentown, stated she is Executive Director of Pennsylvania Diversity Network based in the Lehigh Valley, and Allentown Human Relations Commissioner with over 13 years service, including Chair for three years. Ms. Bradbury advised as Executive Director she helps gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who have been discriminated against. She noted that Bethlehem is one of four of Pennsylvania’s largest cities that does not protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination. The only other cities in the group of fifteen that do not have this law are Wilkes-Barre, Williamsport, and Altoona. Ms. Bradbury recalled that at the Human Resources and Environment Committee meeting on April 28, 2011 she told the Committee about a number of instances in which gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have been discriminated against in Bethlehem and how they have no recourse under the law. Ms. Bradbury highlighted the fact that there are groups, individuals, and organizations that seek to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as their primary mission. She cited several recent examples, and stressed it clearly demonstrates that there is a need for an Ordinance that protects against discrimination. Ms. Bradbury explained that others take a subtler but perhaps more effective approach to discrimination and try to weaken anti-discrimination laws by creating exemption language that seeks to nullify the actual protections, and added the language sometimes happens by mistake. She pointed out these broad loopholes in anti-discrimination laws directly effect protections against discrimination. Ms. Bradbury advised the appropriate religious exemption language already exists in the anti-discrimination ordinances of 20 Pennsylvania municipalities and in Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Law. Ms. Bradbury implored the City to amend and pass a non-discrimination ordinance that will be able to accomplish both fairness and inclusivity for all people.

Cathy Burgi, 1728 Butztown Road, recounted she spoke at the Human Resources and Environment Committee meeting on April 28, 2011 and informed the assembly she has been discriminated against in the City of Bethlehem by one of the hospitals. Ms. Burgi, explaining she was given a separate set of rules that no one else had to follow and she had no recourse, advised she no longer works in the City. Ms. Burgi highlighted the fact that she never received a negative evaluation and was very professional in her job. Ms. Burgi enumerated the many activities in Bethlehem that she and her partner enjoy. Ms. Burgi pointed out there is a glaring omission for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in the community. Ms. Burgi asked the Members of Council to please reflect on the many diverse people who live in the City, and to pass the Ordinance in a manner that will close the loopholes and give everyone a fair shake.

Larry Humberd, 1702 11th Street, Bethlehem Township, said there must be careful discrimination all the time, and expressed his concern that the matter is going down the path that will have unintended consequences that will do more harm than good. Mr. Humberd exemplified there is discrimination against drug dealers, and sexual predators, and all the laws are discriminating. Expressing his belief that there have been very many inappropriate prejudices and harmful things that have happened from person to person and that there needs to be equal rights, Mr. Humberd said in the context of trying to create equal rights sometimes the idea of special rights comes out of that and ends up being counterproductive or harmful. Mr. Humberd wondered about the context of a man who considers himself to be a woman and wants to use the ladies dressing room, or restroom in a store or in a school. Mr. Humberd cited examples of how these laws can defeat the purpose of equality including a photographer in New Mexico who was fined $7,000 for refusing to film the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple after the photographer had referred the couple to another photographer. He noted the national policy for the Boy Scouts is to prohibit open homosexuals from serving as leaders. Stating he wants equality, Mr. Humberd said he does not want this to be turned into something that will be counterproductive and negative. He thought the exception clauses are not too broad.

Reverend Scott Allen, 713 Cherokee Street, Rector of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, spoke in favor of Bill No. 12 – 2011 and affirmed it is a needed asset in the life of the City. Reverend Allen said he opposes the proposed amendment in Section 145.04 primarily as a Christian minister, Episcopal priest, chair of the Anti-Racism Commission for the diocese of Bethlehem, and religious leader in the City. Reverend Allen stated that in his reading of the Gospels he can see no place where Our Lord sanctioned discrimination in any form. While affirming the First Amendment right of religious groups to discriminate in employment of ministers who hold office in the religious organization based on their understanding of scripture, Reverend Allen believed that Section 145.04 provides an ambiguous slippery slope which can in effect nullify the spirit and intention of the Ordinance by providing too many opportunities for exceptions and exemptions to groups casually and informally connected to religious bodies who discriminate. It could also extend perhaps to those who could claim an historical association which no longer exists organizationally. Affirming that he had his bishop and Bethlehem area Episcopal Clergy sign the petition to support the Ordinance, Reverend Allen said he cannot fathom that they did so thinking there would be a myriad of loopholes, nor did he. Reverend Allen urged City Council to reject the majority of Section 145.04 so that it may be proclaimed that the City is open to all and that discrimination based on the listed classes of the Bill will not be accommodated.

Hillary Kwiatek, 638 Spring Street, stated she is at the Meeting on behalf of her husband in support of the Bill, and added she hopes it is not weakened with proposed amendments. Ms. Kwiatek, noting she has lived in several big cities, said she chose Bethlehem because it had an inclusive sense of a thriving lifestyle for everybody. Advising she was shocked that Bethlehem did not have this Ordinance, Ms. Kwiatek commented this is a great opportunity to tell everyone they are welcome in Bethlehem to live, work, worship, and raise their families here. She added it has positive benefits for the economy and will have a positive impact on everything that goes on in Bethlehem. Ms. Kwiatek asked Council to support the Ordinance.

Janet Kney, 823 N. 25th Street, Allentown, said she is at the Meeting as a representative of the Allentown Human Relations Commission on which she has served since the 1990’s, and stated she is the Chair, a post that she has held in previous years. Ms. Kney confirmed that Allentown passed its Human Relations Ordinance creating a Commission and establishing protections in housing, employment, and public accommodations in 1963. There have been amendments from time to time, and most recently by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes. Ms. Kney continued on to say Allentown’s Ordinance has served the City well and allowed it to solve local problems at the local level, and to extend protections locally that do not exist across Pennsylvania. Ms. Kney affirmed that Allentown’s residents have a valuable resource for seeking and finding resolution to myriad issues without litigation. Ms. Kney noted that City staff has reported to the Commission on the resolution of complaints from citizens. In the past year, the Commissioners have begun to investigate and resolve or adjudicate complaints. Over the years it has been observed that no particular group of people has received more attention than any other group, and complaints have been spread across the range of protected classes. Ms. Kney enumerated that the Commission has spent much of its time fostering harmony and celebrating diversity in a variety of ways including workshops, public forums, and Commission recognition of individual achievements. The Commission is currently devoting a portion of each monthly meeting to conversations with individuals and organizations, are learning about the tensions that exist in neighborhoods, and looking forward to easing the tensions. Ms. Kney, on behalf of the Commission, offered congratulations on consideration of the Bethlehem Human Relations Ordinance and urged its passage along with the provisions regarding religious exemptions, sunset provision, and filing deadline as suggested earlier.

Ilse Stoll, 220 W. Langhorne Avenue, noting she has lived in Bethlehem for 45 years, thought the Ordinance is a long time coming so that people have equal rights throughout the City as do surrounding cities. Ms. Stoll stated she is strongly in favor of passage of the Ordinance.

Joel Peitzer, 3835 Green Pond Road, stated he is representing and is vice president of Northampton Community College Pride that is the gay-straight alliance at the college. Mr. Peitzer said he and the group are pleased to see the Ordinance being proposed. He said it is a terrifying thought that he and others could graduate and go into the workforce and not have any opportunities because of a lack of protection, and all their work would be for nothing. He added that they trust the City Council to make the right decision on the Ordinance.

Rob Hopkins, 726 W. Market Street, recounting that he spoke at the Human Resources and Environment Committee meeting on April 28, 2011, reiterated he has sold real estate in Bethlehem for over 10 years and discrimination is alive and well. Mr. Hopkins exemplified that many years ago a client had a house in Bethlehem that he wanted to rent and he specified that because of his religious convictions he refused to rent to any Christian. Mr. Hopkins told him that is his right in the City of Bethlehem but he would have to find another realtor. Mr. Hopkins said the Ordinance is needed not only to protect gay people but everyone in the City so there is a local body they can go to when they have discrimination happen to them. Mr. Hopkins urged Council to support the Ordinance.

Allyson Diane Hamm, 27 N. West Street, Allentown, said she works for Equality Pennsylvania, an organization that works on the advocacy for equal rights for people living throughout Pennsylvania, and also works part-time in Bethlehem. Ms. Hamm added that Allentown’s law helped her make her choice to live in Allentown. Ms. Hamm pointed out that as she works part-time in Bethlehem she does not have the protections but she is asked occasionally in conversation whether she is married, etc. Ms. Hamm, explaining she chooses to live her life authentically and honestly, said every time she answers a question she puts her job at risk. Ms. Hamm did not think anybody should have to choose between telling the truth about who they are and having employment, housing, or public accommodation. Ms. Hamm advised that she is involved in the Unitarian Universalist Church on a local and national level, and gives diversity training across the county to help churches address some similar concerns as are being considered presently. Ms. Hamm explained the program is designed to try to get people to think beyond race, color, disability or ability, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and to look at the actual skills that are needed for employment. Ms. Hamm communicated it is the religious organizations that have special rights as they have exemptions but a line needs to be drawn when they infringe upon others and hurt other people. Ms. Hamm, advising she is also a facilitator for a local GLBT youth group, some of whom are at the Meeting this evening, expressed she was nervous about their coming to the Meeting because she did not want them to hear people speaking out against who they are. Ms. Hamm explained they are at risk disproportionately for suicide, and she works to try to prevent that. Ms. Hamm expressed that she wants to make sure that Bethlehem, the State of Pennsylvania, and eventually the country is a place where everybody feels welcome and valued and has the same rights.

Jessica Mitchell, 1556 Sculac Road, Bethlehem Township, noted she is a member of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Community Church of the Lehigh Valley. Ms. Mitchell asked Council to pass the anti-discrimination Ordinance and establish a Human Relations Commission. She added it is unthinkable that Bethlehem does not already have an Ordinance. Ms. Mitchell, informing the assembly she has seen first-hand the effect that discrimination has on people, explained how her mother was discriminated against at work because she was a lesbian, and advised her mother left the job because she had no protection in Bethlehem. Ms. Mitchell said she finds it appalling that hard-working, tax-paying, voting residents of the City have to live in fear because there is no protection for them. Ms. Mitchell asked Members of Council to consider how they might feel if the tables were turned. Ms. Mitchell urged Council to pass the Ordinance so that every resident can enjoy the same protections, and establish a Human Relations Commission so that when issues occur they can be handled on a local level.

Robert Stevens, E. Market Street, said he understands the difficulty in not taking a side and passing an Ordinance that protects all the citizens of Bethlehem. Expressing his concern as a citizen was with Section C, Mr. Stevens believed it is taking a position. Mr. Stevens stated he would like to see the Ordinance in a neutral light since he observes broadness, especially the exemption. Mr. Stevens, affirming he holds no malice towards anyone and that every human being should be treated equally and fairly, communicated that treating people equally and fairly does not mean that one must agree with their individual choices and conform to their world view. Mr. Stevens commented that he appreciates the City considering the ramifications the Ordinance would have on the religious community. Mr. Stevens did not understand why the City would tell the people who go to church that they are free to believe what they want but are not free to live it out in their daily lives. He thought the rhetoric in the amendment is completely contradictory and needs reworking. Mr. Stevens thought all people should be afforded the same rights but indicated the Ordinance seems to be heavy on giving more support to the advocacy of the gay community than to equal fairness to citizens no matter what their sexual orientation. Mr. Stephens asked Council not to vote in favor of the Ordinance tonight simply because it is vague and cannot be voted on without proper clarification.

Mary Pongracz, 321 W. Fourth Street, stating that discrimination has no address, commented the Ordinance is about guaranteeing everybody fair treatment, and affirmed she has experienced discrimination. Ms. Pongracz communicated that human beings have the right to be who they are. Ms. Pongracz, expressing that the attack on religion disturbs her, noted the Federal law states people are guaranteed freedom of religion and means someone does not have to be religious. Informing the assembly that when she retired from the Bethlehem Area School District in 1985 the Superintendent asked her what programs she would like to see instituted, Ms. Pongracz told him there should be a program for teenage suicide. Ms. Pongracz stated if people do not help each other the community fails.

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, explained that he suffered discrimination unknown to him because his parents were born in Europe and resided on the South Side. Mr. Antalics informed the assembly at that time people such as his parents were considered foreign invaders living in shanty town. He added that to his father the Lehigh River was like a social iron curtain. Mr. Antalics expressed he was relegated to an unspoken second class citizenship in high school in Bethlehem. Stating when people from the South Side moved to the North Side they were gentrified, Mr. Antalics advised that South Side homes became occupied by Latinos onto whom has been projected the same subtle discrimination he experienced. Mr. Antalics suggested that subtle discrimination be looked at and come up with a clause saying that all people are created equal no matter where they are from.

James Brice, 1411 Clover Avenue, commenting that Bethlehem does not have a lot of money, questioned why any money should be spent on doing things above and beyond what the State does. Mr. Brice said if the City wants to spend money that will help the maximum number of residents it should be spent on the parks, streets, pools, and to fix the lightbulbs. Mr. Brice queried what will be done when someone’s granddaughter is in the dressing room and a guy goes in there. Mr. Brice wondered what happened to common sense.

Timothy Gertner, 715 N. New Street, stated he is director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Fair Questioning, Intersects, and Allied Services at Lehigh University, and a professor at Northampton Community College. Mr. Gertner noted that after graduation some students make decisions on where to live, and some people are looking at leaving Bethlehem to move to cities that have protections. Mr. Gertner stated he would like Bethlehem to be a place that also has those rights. Mr. Gertner urged Council to pass the Ordinance for students, faculty, and staff in town and for the community. Mr. Gertner, affirming that he speaks with the support of Lehigh University, confirmed Lehigh University supports the Bill. Mr. Gertner, advising that Lehigh University is one of the few institutions in the area that has protections that are inclusive, said the policy on campus is a model for other campuses.

Al Bernotas, 1004 Johnston Drive, expressing that the people at the Meeting should be comfortable in the fact that with all the Amendments the Ordinance will pass, stated no one should be discriminated against. Mr. Bernotas noted that age discrimination is very subtle. Referring to the Ordinance, Mr. Bernotas commented he did not believe that any money should be spent. He did not think money should be spent by the Commission, or that paid staff should be hired, and thought City staff should be used. Mr. Bernotas thought all members of the Commission should be appointed by City Council. Mr. Bernotas thought the Commission’s meetings should be video or audio taped. Mr. Bernotas added that he and others have been asking that City Council Meetings be video taped, and pointed out there is a citizen using a video camera at this Meeting to tape this session, and others, and they are put on YouTube. Mr. Bernotas further advised he has to come to City Hall if he wants to listen to a tape of a Zoning Hearing Board meeting, or bring his own machine to the meeting to tape it. Mr. Bernotas said he would like to see City meetings posted on the Internet.

Bill Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, recalled he suggested at the last City Council Meeting that the coverage of the Ordinance be broadened to include any addiction that does not impair a performance and discrimination pursuant to sexual harassment. Mr. Scheirer felt that sexual harassment itself is discrimination, and sexual harassment should be explicitly included in the coverage of the Ordinance. Stating that Bethlehem is a special place and could provide leadership to the rest of the State, Mr. Scheirer encouraged Council to craft the best Human Relations Ordinance in Pennsylvania.

Use Permit Agreement – Musikfest; Bill No. 12 - 2011

Robert Pfenning, 2830 Linden Street, noted that at this evening’s Finance Committee meeting prior to this City Council Meeting Mr. Evans observed that perhaps a three year contract for the Use Permit Agreement for Musikfest is not desirable. Mr. Pfenning expressed his agreement since the matter is in a state of flux and thought a one year agreement makes a lot of sense at this time. Mr. Pfenning, referring to the Controller’s question about the reimbursement amounts to the City under the Agreement, said when Musikfest started it was probably appropriate for the City to consider supporting the fledging event. However, Mr. Pfenning stressed that Musikfest is now 25 years old, and as a taxpayer he thought the contribution by the City should be zero and said he would like to have an analysis of the actual flows in and out of the General Fund to see how much tax revenue is generated and what expenditures offset it. Mr. Pfenning was glad to see under Special Provisions paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 pertaining to business privilege licenses and questioned who enforces it. Mr. Pfenning thought other Use Permits are much stronger on recycling provisions and questioned if the language is sufficient. It was not clear to Mr. Pfenning whether the vendor permit restrictions and monitoring applies to the South Side. Turning to Bill No. 12, Mr. Pfenning observed that with regard to the sunset amendment a new Council may reverse the Ordinance with or without a sunset provision and Council should consider leaving in the sunset provision so at the end of three years the Commission could be reviewed for effectiveness. Referring to Commission appointments, Mr. Pfenning commented he is not a protected class in terms of political viewpoints, and the Mayor could throw out his application for the Commission. Mr. Pfenning, adding he would not bother applying for anything in the City because it would not get farther than the Mayor, expressed support for the 60-40 appointments by the Mayor and Council so it would give him a fighting chance to find at least one Council Member who might listen to him. Mr. Pfenning remarked, otherwise, he is stuck and that is discrimination also.

Resolution 11 J; Bill No. 12 - 2011

Dana Grubb, 2420 Henderson Place, encouraged City Council to support the recommendation of the Historic and Architectural Review Board in Resolution 11 J to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for 564 Main Street. Mr. Grubb, noting he provided photographs, said the generator along side the Sun Inn that was installed was within about five feet of the sidewalk, is more than 6 feet high, and when the permit was applied for no one at City Hall noted it might be an issue with HARB. Turning to Bill 12, Mr. Grubb thought the number of Commission members should be fixed rather than have a range, and that City Council make all the appointments, but if not that the majority of appointments should be made by a margin of one member. Mr. Grubb felt if charges are levied against the City that is one of the largest employers and the Administration is making recommendations for Commission members there may be undue influence exerted. Mr. Grubb agreed with Mr. Scheirer’s concerns about sexual harassment.

Elizabeth Fear, 1403 Main Street, communicated people need to help each other to bring the City and the world to a better place. She said it is hard enough to be a teenager and it is harder to be an LGBT youth. Ms. Fear stated it is sad to have to fight for the right to be able to work as hard as everyone else, and employers will be happier with happy employees. Ms. Fear, commenting it is sad to have a sunset provision hanging over everyone’s heads, noted there is no need to put the whole thing back on the table in three years. Ms. Fear added that business owners have signed in support of the Bill. Ms. Fear pointed out that the Ordinance will provide for matters to be handled here and people will not have to go to Harrisburg and take off from work, and it is a better situation for businesses and citizens.

Stephen Glassman, 1600 Hamden Boulevard, Reading, Chairperson of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, thanked the Mayor for introducing the Ordinance and Council for considering it, and noted he had a productive meeting with Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, and Council Member DiGiacinto following the Committee meeting. Mr. Glassman highlighted the fact that the reason there are civil rights laws is because there was a need to address invidious discrimination and to work towards eradicating it for a number of protected classes that were not receiving equal treatment under the law. The movement started with African Americans, and the legacy of slavery, and expanded to include other groups. Mr. Glassman, stating these are laws that guarantee everyone equal treatment, said there is nothing in this law that would guarantee special rights to any group. Mr. Glassman affirmed that sexual harassment is covered under gender and has been a category that has been adjudicated and investigated for 55 years at the State level, and added those who are immigrants are covered. Mr. Glassman observed that some of the points raised by opponents of the legislation are talking points of some right-wing national organizations that come up at meetings in cities that consider these laws. Mr. Glassman, referring to an example given earlier, noted that business privilege licenses are obtained because it is a privilege to own and operate a business in a location. Mr. Glassman stated one cannot decide to open a business and then discriminate against people on any basis that are in laws that protect people at the federal, state, or local level. Pointing out that religion has been used over the years to discriminate against groups, Mr. Glassman communicated that now one looks back with shock that one would discriminate against someone because they are a woman, or have a disability, or they are an immigrant, or are of a particular race or color, and noted religion was used for doing that. Mr. Glassman noted that a business has to serve everyone that is in the Ordinance and there are not exceptions to that. Mr. Glassman explained it is important to recognize that the issue of bathrooms is one that is used in order to frighten people. These are cases not of boys deciding they want to use the girls locker room. It is about people who have gender identity issues where they know that they are one gender even though they may look as another gender until they go through sexual reassignment surgeries.

6. OLD BUSINESS.

A. Old Business – Members of Council

None.

B. Tabled Items

None.

C. Unfinished Business

1. Establishing Article 1716 – Landmarks and Properties of Historical Interest
(Assigned to Preservation Plan Task Force)

7. COMMUNICATIONS

A. City Council Solicitor – Tax Ordinance – EMS Building and Fire Pumper

The Clerk read a memorandum dated May 3, 2011 from Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, that proposed an amendment to Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2010-49 passed by City Council on December 21, 2010 to read as follows:

For the construction of an EMS facility and acquisition of a fire pumper, the
sum of seventy-five hundreds (.75) mills on each dollar of assessed value
[or the sum of seven and five tenths (7.50) cents on each one hundred dollars
of assessed valuation]; The sum of seventy-five hundreds (.75) mills on each
dollar of assessed value (or the sum of seven and five tenths (7.50) cents on
each one hundred dollars of assessed valuation] shall be placed in a separate
bank account, separated and segregated from all other monies, entitled
EMS Facility/Fire Pumper and shall not be co-mingled with any other monies
whatsoever. All disbursements from this EMS Facility/Fire Pumper account
shall be subject to City Council approval prior to disbursement to assure that
these funds are utilized for the construction of an EMS facility and
acquisition of a fire pumper only.

Attorney Spadoni also questioned if Article 121.08(d) with regard to the Gaming Local Share Account should be modified as well.

President Donchez referred the request to the Finance Committee.

B. Director of Planning and Zoning – Historic Preservation Plan

The Clerk read a memorandum from Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, to which was attached the final draft of the Historic Preservation Plan, stating that the Plan was compiled with the assistance of a historic preservation task force and the consulting services of Phillips Preiss Grygiel LLC and following input of public meetings, a blog and resident and student surveys.

President Donchez referred the request to the Community Development Committee.

C. City Council Solicitor – Bethlehem Human Relations Commission Ordinance

The memorandum dated May 13, 2011 from Attorney Spadoni advised that he had a telephone conference with Steven Glassman, Chairperson of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, on May 11, 2011. Mr. Glassman had comments regarding several Sections of the Ordinance, as follows: Section 145.05 – paid staff may be hired by the Mayor to assist in the performance of the duties of the Commission and any compensation must be approved by City Council; Section 145.06 – should be amended to the 180 day proposal; Section 145.08 – agreed, and suggested that the Commission provide advisory reports on a quarterly basis to City Council; Section 145.09 – amend to: City Council retains the right to review the provisions of this Ordinance. There was discussion as to the Chairperson being appointed by members of the Commission. It was indicated by Mr. Glassman that the language in Section 145.04, Exception, was problematic and possibly would expose the city to litigation. Mr. Glassman strongly urged that his proposed revisions be enacted, and was emphatic that his language is in line with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

8. Reports.

A. President of Council

President Donchez, referring to live feed of City Council Meetings, advised that research on the matter is being conducted, and a summary of costs will be forwarded to the Members of Council for consideration in the 2012 Budget. President Donchez affirmed it is an issue he had raised about a year ago.

B. Mayor

1. Administrative Order – James K. Heitmann – Historic Conservation Commission –
South Bethlehem and Mount Airy

Mayor Callahan reappointed James K. Heitmann to membership on the Historic Conservation Commission – South Bethlehem and Mount Airy, effective until May 2014. Mr. Evans and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 2011-75 to confirm the reappointment.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution passed.

2. Administrative Order – Kenneth C. Loush – Historic Conservation Commission –
South Bethlehem and Mount Airy

Mayor Callahan reappointed Kenneth C. Loush to membership on the Historic Conservation Commission – South Bethlehem and Mount Airy, effective until May 2014. Mr. Evans and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 2011-76 to confirm the reappointment.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution passed.

3. Administrative Order – Barbara K. Fraust - Fine Arts Commission

Mayor Callahan reappointed Barbara K. Fraust to membership on the Fine Arts Commission, effective until May 2014. Mr. Evans and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 2011-77 to confirm the reappointment.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution passed.

4. Administrative Order – Dorothy Saby - Bethlehem Housing Authority

Mayor Callahan reappointed Dorothy Saby to membership on the Bethlehem Housing Authority, effective until May 2016. Mr. Evans and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 2011-78 to confirm the reappointment.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution passed.

5. Administrative Order – LauraLynne Burtner – Bethlehem Authority

Mayor Callahan appointed LauraLynne Burtner to membership on the Bethlehem Authority, effective until January 2014. Mr. Evans and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2011-79 to confirm the appointment.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution passed.

C. Finance Committee

Mr. Reynolds, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented an oral report of the meeting held May 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM prior to this evening’s City Council Meeting on the following subjects: Human Resources Director – Salary; Transfer of Funds – Water Fund – Maintenance Contract; Amending General Fund Budget – Health Bureau Adjustments; Amending Liquid Fuels Fund Budget – 2011 Allocation; Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Street Paver – BEDCO Funds; Amending Sewer Capital Budget – Account Adjustments; and Use Permit Agreement - Musikfest.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

A. Bill No. 11 – 2011 – Amending Article 531 – Parking Generally – Section 531.04(f) – Penalty Reference

The Clerk read Bill No. 11 – 2011 – Amending Article 531 – Parking Generally – Section 531.04(f) – Penalty Reference, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 11 – 2011, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 2011-12, was declared adopted.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 12 – 2011 – Establishing Article 145 – Bethlehem Human Relations Commission

The Clerk read Bill No. 12 – 2011 – Establishing Article 145 – Bethlehem Human Relations Commission, sponsored by Ms. Dolan and Mr. Evans, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, COUNTIES
OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON, COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA AMENDING THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES
TO INCLUDE ARTICLE 145, THE BETHLEHEM HUMAN
RELATIONS COMMISSION

Attorney Spadoni confirmed he had a lengthy telephone conversation last week with Mr. Glassman and Council Member DiGiacinto, and the amendments that were agreed upon were drafted and are before Council for discussion.

President Donchez recounted that the proposed Ordinance presented by the Administration was reviewed at the Human Resources and Environment Committee on April 28, 2011, Amendments were made at the Committee meeting, and additional Amendments were also drafted for consideration at this evening’s Council Meeting. President Donchez affirmed that 100 copies of all the Amendments were printed for the public for this evening’s City Council Meeting.

Amendment 1

Ms. Dolan and Mr. Reynolds moved to present Amendment 1, as follows:

That Section 145.06, A 2 that reads as follows:

145.06 Procedures; Expanded Procedures.

A. Filing a complaint.

2. Complaints may be filed in person at the City Clerk’s office or by mailing such complaints to the City Clerk’s office or to the Chairperson of the Human Relations Commission. All complaints must be received by the City Clerk’s office or by the Human Relations Commission within ~~180~~ 90 days of the alleged act of discrimination to be considered timely.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

145.06 Procedures; Expanded Procedures.

A. Filing a complaint.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Mr. Reynolds said he thinks the 180 days is a better way to proceed since it is a more adequate timeframe than 90 days.

President Donchez expressed his agreement that 180 days is more fair.

Voting AYE on Amendment 1: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 1 passed.

Amendment 2

Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Evans moved to present Amendment 2, as follows:

That Section 145.08 that reads as follows:

145.08 Annual Report

The Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall keep records of its meetings and activities. The Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall make an annual report which shall be forwarded to Bethlehem City Council and the City of Bethlehem Administration no later than January 31 of each year.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

145.08 Annual Report

The Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall keep records of its meetings and activities. The Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall ~~make an annual~~ provide advisory reports on a quarterly basis which shall be forwarded to Bethlehem City Council and the City of Bethlehem Administration ~~no later than January 31 of each year.~~

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Voting AYE on Amendment 2: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 2 passed.

Amendment 3

Mr. DiGiacinto and Mrs. Belinski moved to present Amendment 3, as follows:

That Section 145.09 that reads as follows:

145.09 Term of Ordinance and Review

This Ordinance shall be in effect for three years from the date of its enactment. Ninety (90) days prior to the end of the three year term, a review shall be conducted by City Council of the work of the Bethlehem Human Relations Commission and a determination shall be made concerning renewal or non-renewal of the Bethlehem Human Relations Commission.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

145.09 Term of Ordinance and Review

This Ordinance shall be in effect for three years from the date of its enactment. Ninety (90) days prior to the end of the three year term, a review shall be conducted by City Council retains the right to review the provisions of this Ordinance of the work of the Bethlehem Human Relations Commission and a determination shall be made concerning renewal or non-renewal of the Bethlehem Human Relations Commission.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Mr. Reynolds queried if City Council retains the right to review the provisions of the Ordinance what is the practical use of the right to review it.

Attorney Spadoni, noting there was discussion with Mr. Glassman and Council Member DiGiacinto about the amendment, stated there was concern about the sunset provision. There was recognition that this language reaffirms and reemphasizes the current law. Attorney Spadoni highlighted the fact that a present City Council cannot bind a future City Council. Attorney Spadoni continued on to say that City Council in 2012 or 2014, for example, would retain the right to review this Ordinance.

In response to Mr. Reynolds, Mr. DiGiacinto affirmed that Attorney Spadoni’s response reflects the telephone discussion about the amendment.

Ms. Dolan pointed out that review of the Ordinance does not necessarily mean weakening of the Ordinance and there might be future Councils that wish to strengthen the Ordinance. Ms. Dolan observed this is a reminder that the Ordinance is a living document. Ms. Dolan added she thinks the sexual harassment issue should be looked at. Ms. Dolan stated she is in favor of the affirmation that Council reserves the right to review the Ordinance in the future.

Voting AYE on Amendment 3: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 3 passed.

Amendment 4

Ms. Dolan and Mrs. Belinski moved to present Amendment 4, as follows:

That Section 145.05 that reads as follows:

145.05 Establishment of Human Relations Commission.

A. Pursuant to 43 P.S. § 962.1 of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, there is hereby established a Human Relations Commission in and for Bethlehem (hereinafter referred to as the “Bethlehem Human Relations Commission” or the “Commission”).

B. The Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall consist of no fewer than ~~seven~~ nine and no more that ~~fifteen~~ thirteen members, who shall serve overlapping terms of three years each. At all times there shall be an odd number of members. ~~All members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with approval by City Council.~~ 60% of the Commission members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of City Council and 40% of the Commission members shall be appointed by City Council. The Commission may elect up to three nonvoting, ex officio members to broaden the diversity that serves on the Commission. Members shall be residents of the City ~~or individuals who work full time within the City~~ business owners who operate within the City. No voting member of the Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall hold any office in any political party. Members of the Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall serve without salary but may be paid expenses incurred in the performance of their duties, as approved by Bethlehem Council. Paid staff may be hired, as approved by ~~the Mayor~~ City Council, to assist in the performance of the duties of the Commission.

C. One of the Commission’s members shall be appointed as the Chairperson of the Commission by the Commission. The Chairperson will be responsible for setting Commission meetings, coordinating with the City Clerk regarding received complaints and answers, and generally ensuring that the duties of the Commission are fulfilled. The Chairperson may delegate responsibility for Commission duties to specific Commissioners or to paid staff, if applicable.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

B. The Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall consist of no fewer than ~~seven~~ nine and no more that ~~fifteen~~ thirteen members, who shall serve overlapping terms of three years each. At all times there shall be an odd number of members. ~~All members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with approval by City Council.~~ 60% of the Commission members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of City Council and 40% of the Commission members shall be appointed by City Council. The Commission may elect up to three nonvoting, ex officio members to broaden the diversity that serves on the Commission. Members shall be residents of the City or ~~individuals who work full time within the City~~ business owners who operate within the City. No voting member of the Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall hold any office in any political party. Members of the Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall serve without salary but may be paid expenses incurred in the performance of their duties, as approved by Bethlehem Council. Paid staff may be hired , ~~as approved~~ by the Mayor ~~City Council,~~ to assist in the performance of the duties of the Commission , and any compensation must be approved by City Council.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Ms. Dolan commented it is good to keep the size flexible because sometimes when a Commission is first initiated there are a certain number of members and later there may be a different number of members. Ms. Dolan stated that a fixed number of members does not allow for growth that is sometimes encouraging when a Commission gets underway. Ms. Dolan thought the number will be determined by the number of applicants. Ms. Dolan, while acknowledging the concern expressed about money being possibly spent, pointed out that under the City’s budget process a proposal to spend money does not mean money will be spent because expenditures must be approved. Ms. Dolan highlighted the fact that there is no line item for a Human Relations Commission and communicated she did not envision one being added. Adding there is no budgetary line item for the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) and the EAC works well, Ms. Dolan noted the EAC does get assistance from City staff that is at the Mayor’s discretion; e.g., copying, collating, etc.

Voting AYE on Amendment 4: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 4 passed.

Amendment 5

Mr. Evans and Ms. Dolan moved to present Amendment 5, as follows:

That the following paragraph in Section 145.02 that reads as follows:

145.02 Definitions.

DISCRIMINATION: Any discriminatory act(s) taken by any person, employer, employment agency, labor organization or public accommodation on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, sex, religion, ancestry, genetic information, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, marital status, age, mental or physical disability, use of guide or support animals and/or mechanical aids.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

DISCRIMINATION: Any discriminatory act(s) taken by any person, employer, landlord, employment agency, labor organization or public accommodation on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, sex, religion, ancestry, genetic information, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, marital status, age, mental or physical disability, use of guide or support animals and/or mechanical aids.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Ms. Dolan commented that some of the discrimination that friends who are gay and lesbian have experienced have been from their landlords, and stated she supports the Amendment.

Mr. Evans advised that Amendments 5 through 10 that he presented came from suggestions of Mr. Glassman.

Voting AYE on Amendment 5: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 5 passed.

Amendment 6

Mr. Evans and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to present Amendment 6, as follows:

That the following paragraph in Section 145.02 that reads as follows:

145.02 Definitions.

DISCRIMINATORY ACTS: All acts defined in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act as unlawful discriminatory practices. The fact that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act would not define a practice as unlawful when that practice is taken on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information or marital status shall not exempt such practice from being considered a discriminatory act under this chapter.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

DISCRIMINATORY ACTS: All acts defined in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act as unlawful discriminatory practices. The fact that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act would not define a practice as unlawful when that practice is taken on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information , familial status, or marital status shall not exempt such practice from being considered a discriminatory act under this chapter.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Voting AYE on Amendment 6: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 6 passed.

Amendment 7

Mr. Evans and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to present Amendment 7, as follows:

That the following paragraph in Section 145.02 that reads as follows:

145.02 Definitions.

GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION: Self perception, or perception by others, as male or female, and shall include an individual’s appearance, behavior, or physical characteristics, that may be in accord with, or opposed to, one’s physical anatomy, chromosomal sex, or sex assigned at birth, and shall include, but is not limited to, persons who are undergoing or have completed sex reassignment, are transgendered or gender variant.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Ms. Dolan observed it is a grammar correction.

Voting AYE on Amendment 7: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 7 passed.

Amendment 8

Mr. Evans and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to present Amendment 8, as follows:

That paragraph D in Section 145.04 that reads as follows:

145.05 Establishment of Human Relations Commission.

D. City Council hereby grants to the Bethlehem Human Relations Council all of the powers necessary to the execution of its duties (as set forth below), provided that those powers shall not exceed those exercised by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

145.05 Establishment of Human Relations Commission.

D. City Council hereby grants to the Bethlehem Human Relations Commission all of the powers necessary to the execution of its duties (as set forth below), provided that those powers shall not exceed those exercised by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Voting AYE on Amendment 8: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 8 passed.

Amendment 9

Mr. Evans and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to present Amendment 9, as follows:

That paragraph F 4 b in Section 145.06 that reads as follows:

145.06 Procedures; Expanded Procedures.

F. If the fact finding conference was not successful in resolving the complaint and the Commission has adopted the Expanded Procedures set forth below, the Commission shall undertake the procedures set out in Subsections 1 through 6 of this section.

4. Public hearing.

b. The Commission may designate one or more of its members to preside at such a hearing or it may, at its election, conduct such hearing ~~en banc~~.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

145.06 Procedures; Expanded Procedures.

4. Public hearing.

b. The Commission may designate one or more of its members to preside at such a hearing or it may, at its election, conduct such hearing with a panel of either 2 or 3 Commissioners.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Voting AYE on Amendment 9: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 9 passed.

Amendment 10

Mr. Evans and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to present Amendment 10, as follows:

That the 1st sentence in paragraph C, Section 145.05 that reads as follows:

145.05 Establishment of Human Relations Commission.

C. ~~One of the Commission’s members shall be appointed as the Chairperson of the Commission by~~ the Commission. The Chairperson will be responsible for setting Commission meetings, coordinating with the City Clerk regarding received complaints and answers, and generally ensuring that the duties of the Commission are fulfilled. The Chairperson may delegate responsibility for Commission duties to specific Commissioners or to paid staff, if applicable.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

145.05 Establishment of Human Relations Commission.

C. The Commission shall select one of its members as the Chairman of the Commission. The Chairperson will be responsible for setting Commission meetings, coordinating with the City Clerk regarding received complaints and answers, and generally ensuring that the duties of the Commission are fulfilled. The Chairperson may delegate responsibility for Commission duties to specific Commissioners or to paid staff, if applicable.

In response to Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Evans explained he thought the amended language is more simple to understand and clarifies the selection.

Amendment 10, as Amended

Ms. Dolan stated that, for consistency, since the word Chairperson is used throughout, the word Chairman should be changed to Chairperson.

Ms. Dolan moved to change the word Chairman to Chairperson and Mr. DiGiacinto seconded the motion, as follows:

That the 1st sentence in paragraph C, Section 145.05 that reads as follows:

145.05 Establishment of Human Relations Commission.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

145.05 Establishment of Human Relations Commission.

C. The Commission shall select one of its members as the Chair ~~man~~ person of the Commission. The Chairperson will be responsible for setting Commission meetings, coordinating with the City Clerk regarding received complaints and answers, and generally ensuring that the duties of the Commission are fulfilled. The Chairperson may delegate responsibility for Commission duties to specific Commissioners or to paid staff, if applicable.

Voting AYE on the Amendment to Amendment 10: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Voting AYE on Amendment 10, as Amended: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 10, as Amended passed.

Amendment 11

Mr. Evans and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to present Amendment 11, as follows:

That paragraph E be added to Section 145.05 to read as follows:

145.05 Establishment of Human Relations Commission.

E. Duties

The Commission shall:

a. Promote mutual understanding, respect and cooperation among all racial, cultural, religious, ethnic, nationality and other groups within the City

b. Make studies into the status of human relations in the City

c. Cooperate with and assist other organizations, public or private, to improve relationships among the citizens of the City

d. Conduct an educational program for furtherance of the improvement of human relations in the City

e. Act as a referral group for complaints of alleged discrimination within the City and, wherever possible, the Commission shall refer the complainants to appropriate social, civic or government agencies for further action.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

Mr. Evans explained that Amendments 11, 12, and 15 have a common theme and reflect the focus that he thinks the Commission should have. Mr. Evans denoted that, as the duties of the Commission were left open, he proposed duties that were enumerated in the City’s previous Human Relations Commission Ordinance of 1963. Mr. Evans added he thinks those duties are still relevant and belonged in the new Ordinance. Mr. Evans communicated that the Amendment gives the Commission a charge and a positive mission statement.

Ms. Dolan queried whether the Amendment makes any changes to what she thought was the primary duty of the Commission that was to hear cases and render decisions, or whether the Commission is to be a referral group.

Mr. Evans, commenting that the Commission would have qualified people who have an important job, noted the main idea behind the Commission should be to investigate, identify whether the complaint is real or perceived, to work with the various groups to resolve it, and to educate people on what might need to be done. If it is not able to be resolved then the Commission would refer the matter to the appropriate agency or authority.

Ms. Dolan stated she would vote for the Amendment because in spirit she thought it was a very good idea. However, Ms. Dolan said she wanted to make sure between now and the next City Council Meeting that the duties are not being stated incorrectly for what it is hoped the Commission will accomplish.

Mayor Callahan commented the proposed language is not something that he and Mr. Glassman had an opportunity to discuss. Mayor Callahan stated the Administration would not be in favor of this change simply because, although those are important duties of the Commission, a very important duty is to determine a finding and not just to refer. Mayor Callahan affirmed this is the appropriate venue for a finding to occur, and to deal with issues on a local level. Mayor Callahan expressed that the Amendment would take away the teeth or the ability to enforce the Ordinance, the Commission would simply become a referral group, and would be rendered powerless.

President Donchez stated that Mayor Callahan’s comments would be taken into consideration but it is Council’s decision, and suggested when the document is finished it be reviewed by the Administration and Attorney Spadoni for any changes.

Voting AYE on Amendment 11: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 6. Voting NAY: Mr. Reynolds, 1. Amendment 11 passed.

Amendment 12

Mr. Reynolds and Mrs. Belinski moved to present Amendment 12, as follows:

That paragraphs E and F in Section 145.06 that read as follows, be deleted:

145.06 Procedures; Expanded Procedures.

E. Option of the Commission to elect for expanded procedures. The Commission shall have the authority to elect to adopt expanded procedures as set forth in Subsection F of this section subject to approval by City Council and appropriation of funding for such procedures. A majority of Commission members must vote in favor of adopting expanded procedures in order for such procedures to be adopted. In the event that such procedures are adopted, they must, while in effect, be applied to all complaints that are not resolved through a fact finding conference. If the Commission has adopted expanded procedures, it may also, by majority vote and in its sole discretion, eliminate such procedures.

1. Investigation. The Commission shall, in a timely fashion, investigate the allegations
of discrimination set forth in the complaint. The Commission may, in the conduct of such investigation, issue subpoenas to any person charged with an unlawful practice to furnish information, records or other documents, or to give sworn testimony, as necessary to assist in its investigation.

2. Finding of no cause. If it shall be determined after the Commission’s investigation
that there is no basis for the allegations of the complaint, the Commission shall cause to be issued and served upon the parties written notice of such determination. This notice shall inform the person aggrieved that he/she has the right to pursue the matter in court by filing a lawsuit.

3. Conciliation. If the Commission, after investigation, determines that probable cause
exists for the allegations of the complaint, the Commission shall immediately endeavor to eliminate the unlawful practice complained of by persuasion, conference and conciliation.

~~4. Public hearing.~~

a. If the Commission, in its discretion, finds it is not possible to eliminate the
unlawful practices by persuasion, conference or conciliation, the Commission shall cause to be issued and served a written notice, together with a copy of the complaint, which informs the respondent that the respondent must answer the charges of such complaint at a hearing before the Commission at a time and place to be specified in such notice.

~~b. The Commission may designate one or more of its members to preside at such a hearing or it may, at its election, conduct such hearing en banc.~~

c. At the public hearing, the case in support of the complaint shall be presented to the Commission by pro bono counsel, by Commission staff or by the City Solicitor’s office. The case in support of the complaint may instead be presented by the complainant’s attorney, if the complainant is represented. Both the complainant and the respondent may appear at the hearing with or without counsel and provide testimony. In addition, both the complainant and the respondent may introduce the testimony of additional witnesses and may submit documentary evidence. The Commission and the parties shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence at the hearing.

5. Findings. If upon all the evidence at the hearing the Commission shall find that a respondent has engaged in or is engaging in any unlawful discriminatory practice as defined in this chapter, the Commission shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and cause to be served on such respondent an order requiring such respondent to cease and desist from such unlawful discriminatory practice and to take such additional action as the Commission deems appropriate. The Commission shall have the authority to order any remedies available to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

6. Finding of No Discrimination. If upon all the evidence the Commission shall find
that a respondent has not engaged in any unlawful discriminatory practice, the Commission shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and cause to be served on the parties an order dismissing the complaint as to such respondent.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 6. Voting NAY: Mr. Reynolds, 1. The motion passed.

Ms. Dolan inquired about the origin of the Amendment.

Mr. Evans explained through his discussions and studies the common theme that he thought should be considered for the City’s Human Relations Commission is that of solving the problems, and having steps and procedures. Mr. Evans communicated his concern was with Expanded Procedures, and he thought the charge should be for citizens to work with other citizens to educate them and bring matters to a conclusion but not what is listed under the Expanded Procedures section in Bill 12 that includes appropriation of funding, issuing subpoenas, sworn testimony, public hearings, cease and desist orders, ordering of remedies, etc. Mr. Evans noted the judicial powers and the idea of having citizens being subject to sworn testimony under subpoena power was not the direction he thought the Commission should take. Once the members are selected, Mr. Evans commented he would rather have something positive taking place rather than moving to the steps listed under Expanded Powers. While noting that use of Expanded Powers requires City Council approval, Mr. Evans thought by removing the sections the Commission would not be inclined to seek such procedures in order to find a remedy, and would focus on the procedures available to them.

Mr. Evans clarified to Ms. Dolan that at the beginning of Section 145.06 there is a list of Procedures in Paragraphs A, B, C, and D available to the Commission. Mr. Evans wanted the Commission to utilize those Procedures rather than having the Commission utilize the Expanded Procedures listed in Paragraphs E and F.

Ms. Dolan asked Mr. Glassman whether it is standard to have Paragraphs E and F in Human Relations Commissions Ordinances.

Mr. Glassman, advising it was never intended that the Commission itself would have the right to elect Expanded Procedures, emphasized it is the City Council that is supposed to have the right to elect Expanded Procedures. He continued on to say City Council is the only one who can decide whether budget allocations are assigned to any particular Commission. Mr. Glassman pointed out the confusion is that the word Commission is used in Paragraphs E and F that is wrong and should state City Council. Mr. Glassman explained the language of the Ordinance was based on another Ordinance from a different municipality whose elected officials are known as Commissioners instead of City Council Members.

Mr. Evans stated he would still keep his Amendment to delete the paragraphs.

Ms. Dolan communicated she would vote to not delete it and make an amendment to change Commission to City Council, now that it is known it must be read completely different. Ms. Dolan noted there is time before the next City Council Meeting to look at it, now understanding what it means. Ms. Dolan indicated it would be more difficult to put it back in after it is deleted, than to put the right words in and consider whether or not it belongs in the Ordinance.

Attorney Spadoni, commenting that these things need to be looked at closely, affirmed it was heard tonight for the first time that the Commission was a reference to the legislative body in that municipality as opposed to the Human Relations Commission.

Mr. Reynolds suggested that a possible solution would be to table the Amendment so that it could be reviewed, and amendments could be offered at the Final Reading of the Ordinance, given the uncertainty of the matter.

Amendment 12 - Tabled

Mr. Reynolds moved to Table Amendment 12, and Ms. Dolan seconded the motion.

Voting AYE to Table Amendment 12: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 6. Voting NAY: Mr. Evans, 1. Amendment 12 was Tabled.

Amendment 13

Mr. Evans and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to present Amendment 13, as follows:

That “; Expanded Procedures” in the title of Section 145.06 be deleted:

145.06 Procedures ; Expanded Procedures .

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 5.
Voting NAY: Ms. Dolan and Mr. Reynolds, 2. The motion passed.

Amendment 13 – Tabled

Based on the fact that Amendment 12 was Tabled, Mr. Evans moved to Table Amendments 13 and 14 because they both refer directly to Amendment 12. Ms. Dolan seconded the motion.

Voting AYE to Table Amendment 13: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 13 was Tabled.

Amendment 14

Mr. Evans and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to present Amendment 14, as follows:

That Paragraph D in Section 145.06 that reads as follows:

D. Disposition of the complaint. Provided the Commission has not elected under Subsection E of this section to use expanded procedures, and if the complaint is not resolved through the fact finding conference, the Commission shall, at the second Commission meeting following the fact finding conference, consider the findings prepared by the Commissioner who conducted the fact finding conference. The Commission shall accept or reject the findings by public vote. The Commission shall provide the parties with the findings of fact and conclusion, shall notify the parties of the outcome of the vote, and this notice shall also indicate that the person aggrieved has a right to pursue the matter in court by filing a lawsuit.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

D. Disposition of the complaint. ~~Provided the Commission has not elected under Subsection E of this section to use expanded procedures, and~~ i If the complaint is not resolved through the fact finding conference, the Commission shall, at the second Commission meeting following the fact finding conference, consider the findings prepared by the Commissioner who conducted the fact finding conference. The Commission shall accept or reject the findings by public vote. The Commission shall provide the parties with the findings of fact and conclusion, shall notify the parties of the outcome of the vote, and this notice shall also indicate that the person aggrieved has a right to pursue the matter in court by filing a lawsuit.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Ms. Dolan and Mr. Reynolds, 2. The motion passed.

Amendment 14 - Tabled

Mr. Evans moved to Table Amendment 14 and Ms. Dolan seconded the motion.

Voting AYE to Table Amendment 13: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 14 was Tabled.

Amendment 15

Mr. Evans and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to present Amendment 15, as follows:

That Section 145.07 that reads as follows, be deleted:

~~145.07 Private Right of Action and Nonlimitation of Remedies.~~

A. Any person(s) aggrieved by a violation of this chapter shall have a right of action in the appropriate Court of Common Pleas either Lehigh or Northampton or any other court of competent jurisdiction and may recover for each violation the following remedies:

~~1. Back pay, front pay and other actual damages, as those remedies are defined in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and case law interpreting the same;~~

~~2. Emotional distress damages;~~

~~3. Exemplary damages;~~

~~4. Reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs; and~~

~~5. Such other relief, including injunctive relief, as the court may deem appropriate.~~

B. The right of action created by this chapter may be brought upon receipt by the aggrieved person(s) of notice that the Commission has dismissed the complaint or, if no such notice is received, after one year from the date of the filing of the complaint. If the person aggrieved has received notice that the Commission has dismissed the complaint, an action under this chapter must be brought by the aggrieved person within one year from the date of receipt of said notice or it will be barred. Equitable principles such as waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling shall apply to the time limitations for the filing of any complaint or other pleading under this chapter.

~~C. Nothing in this chapter limits the right of an aggrieved person to recover under any other applicable law or legal theory.~~

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Ms. Dolan and Mr. Reynolds, 2. The motion passed.

Mr. Evans, expressing that Section 145.07 is punitive rather than medicinal, queried whether it is the intent to have the Human Relations Commission punish people or to solve problems, is it to solve issues long term or to sit in a courtroom as a result of lawsuits. Mr. Evans said he does not think that the provisions in Section 145.07 is usually seen in Bethlehem Ordinances when there are punitive damages, and City has not fostered this type of action between its citizens. Mr. Evans communicated he does not think the provisions belong in the Ordinance and he is not comfortable with them. Mr. Evans continued on to say he does not think punishing or punitive damages is a role of City government, and it is available in the State and Federal laws. Mr. Evans observed that Bethlehem can rise above punitive measures and work through the procedures that are laid out, and the Commission can be very effective without having Section 145.07 as an end result.

Ms. Dolan pointed out there are punitive provisions in the City’s Ordinances such as fines, and prison terms that define what happens when laws are broken. Ms. Dolan explained she thinks Section 145.07 is important because if the Commission cannot make right a wrong since they do not have the power to fine or invoke a prison term, all they can do is sit down with the parties and try to reach an agreement. If someone has been egregiously racist or biased and refuses to acknowledge or make good on something then the Section provides that if the Commission is not doing its job a person has the right to go forward and seek remedy from the courts. Ms. Dolan thought it is important to make clear that the Human Relations Commission is not the end of the process in Bethlehem if the Commission is not able to resolve a problem, and people can seek redress through the law.

Mr. Reynolds asked if there is anything in Section 145.07, Private Right of Action and Nonlimitation of Remedies, that would be entering new ground for the City of Bethlehem.

John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, replying no, said there exists a private right of action. Attorney Spirk further informed Mr. Reynolds that the rights that currently exist under Federal and State law already contain a private right of action. Attorney Spirk noted the response may be yes and no depending on which right someone is talking about to the extent that a municipality is adding new rights or protections that do not already exist because there is no Federal or State right.

Mr. Reynolds queried whether the inclusion of the language stated in Section 145.07 is somewhat tied to the fact that State and Federal law might not necessarily extend to this type of provision.

Attorney Spirk advised as to those rights that are not covered under Federal and State law the answer is yes. He added this provides a mechanism that would not exist without it in this municipality.

Mr. Reynolds thought this is a necessary part of the Ordinance and is something that needs to be kept in the Ordinance.

President Donchez agreed this is a key component of the Ordinance that gives it some teeth and added he will vote to keep the provision in the Ordinance.

Amendment 15 – Failed

Voting AYE on Amendment 15: Mr. Evans, 1. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 6. Amendment 15 failed.

Amendment 16

Mr. Evans and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to present Amendment 16, as follows:

That Section 145.04 that reads as follows:

145.04 Exception.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a religious corporation or association, not supported in whole or in part by governmental appropriations, to refuse to hire or employ an individual on the basis of religion.

Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to prohibit a church, religious denomination ~~or association of churches~~ that is exempt from Federal taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or any entity affiliated with that church, religious denomination or association of churches, from engaging in any conduct or activity that is required by, or that implements or expresses its religious beliefs or tenets of faith. Nor shall anything in this chapter be interpreted to require any such church, religious denomination or association of churches, or any entity affiliated with that church, religious denomination or association to engage in any conduct or activity that is prohibited by its religious beliefs or tenets of faith. Nor shall any such church, religious denomination or association be required to engage in any conduct or activity that would violate its religious beliefs or tenets, as a condition of entering into any contract with any agency of this City.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to prohibit a church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other house of religious worship, religion, religious denomination, or an association of the foregoing, and any bona fide private or fraternal organization that is exempt from Federal taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or any entity affiliated with that church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other house of religious worship, religion, religious denomination, or an association of the foregoing, and any bona fide private or fraternal organization from engaging in any conduct or activity that is required by, or that implements or expresses its religious beliefs or tenets of faith. Nor shall anything in this chapter be interpreted to require any such church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other house of religious worship, religion, religious denomination, or an association of the foregoing, and any bona fide private or fraternal organization or any entity affiliated with that church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other house of religious worship, religion, religious denomination, or an association of the foregoing, and any bona fide private or fraternal organization to engage in any conduct or activity that is prohibited by its religious beliefs or tenets of faith. Nor shall any such church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other house of religious worship, religion, religious denomination, or an association of the foregoing, and any bona fide private or fraternal organization be required to engage in any conduct or activity that would violate its religious beliefs or tenets, as a condition of entering into any contract with any agency of this City.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Ms. Dolan and Mr. Reynolds, 2. The motion passed.

Mr. Evans explained there were concerns that those outside of the religion of Christianity should also be included, and the wording is an attempt to do that, as well as fraternal organizations such as MORA, for example, should be included.

Mr. Reynolds, asking the origin of the language, queried whether Mr. Evans decided to add the references to synagogues, mosque, temple, or other house of religious worship. Mr. Evans indicated in the affirmative. Mr. Reynolds asked Mr. Glassman to speak to the Amendment and how it relates to other Commissions throughout the State.

Mr. Glassman, saying it is unique and does not exist anywhere else, thought it was confusing and added he would like to know who proposed the language. Mr. Glassman commented it does not seem to reflect what is in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, as does the next Amendment and the two seem to be potentially in conflict with one another. Mr. Glassman advised religion includes every single denomination and non-believers as well. He pointed out that synagogue, mosque, temple do not have to be stated because they are all covered under religion. Mr. Glassman communicated that the Amendment makes it more confusing than it needs to be and is difficult to read and fully understand.

Attorney Spadoni observed it may be unique but that may be something that Bethlehem in its legislative judgment may choose or not choose to do. Attorney Spadoni stated the language is clear, and the additional wording is tracked through the Amendment.

Ms. Dolan said it is clear, and it is clearly wrong. Ms. Dolan stated she thinks the origin of the language in the Ordinance that was presented to Committee was from the Catholic Church. Ms. Dolan noted that she brought up the point that Judaism does not have churches and is a religion, not a denomination. Ms. Dolan observed the Amendment fixes that but does not fix the real problem and is not reflecting what Council is trying to do. Ms. Dolan explained that a religious exemption or exception means that in some way the Human Relations Ordinance is being weakened because the City respects religion with which she agreed. Ms. Dolan communicated the reasoning is that not every single entity has to follow the Ordinance because some people have religious convictions and the City is not going to make them go against those religious convictions even though one might disagree with those religious convictions and the City is going to exempt them. Ms. Dolan noted that, as has been stated by Mr. Glassman, it does not need to be spelled out. Ms. Dolan stated the clause that is provided by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission is clear that it is barring any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any charitable, or educational organization such as a Catholic school that is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization or any bona fide private or fraternal organization. Ms. Dolan continued on to explain that regarding all those groups it is being said they do not have to follow this. Ms. Dolan said what is also clear in the State language is that it does not extend to the hiring of a janitor. Ms. Dolan advised in one case the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Mormons to keep their principles that if someone is in one of their temples then the person cannot smoke, drink, etc. Ms. Dolan referred to another case involving a school that was not allowing women who were pregnant to take maternity leave if they were not married, and allowing women to become pregnant once every two years. In the case it was found that another class of protected persons was being created that was not already in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and it had to be upheld. Ms. Dolan communicated that Council would want to pass an Ordinance that it knows is going to exempt religious organizations and their associated organizations from the Ordinance if it is offensive to their religious beliefs. The provision is also going to make exempt fraternal organizations so that the Republican Club is not going to have to accept Democrats and vice versa. Ms. Dolan commented the language in the Amendment is looser and would allow some of those things to happen. Ms. Dolan stated she would rather not have an exemption and make the religious community deal with issues of discrimination than have an Ordinance that makes it possible for various things to start occurring. Ms. Dolan thought it is a dangerous direction to accept amended language that came from the Catholic Church as part of the City’s public Ordinance.

Mr. Mowrer thought it was language that came from Jay Leeson that he talked to him about and some of the logic is that over 50% of the community is Roman Catholic.

Mr. Reynolds referred to the last page of a memo emailed to City Council on May 18, 2011. He pointed out that in number 8 it states that in response to some comments about whether the current language of the exemption could be made clearer to make it clear that it applies to not only churches but also mosques, synagogues, temples, and other religious institutions, the current language of the Ordinance could be modified to read church, synagogue, temple, or other house of religious worship, religion, religious denomination, or an association of any of the foregoing. Mr. Reynolds highlighted the fact that is the exact language in the Amendment. While commenting if that is a decision Council decides to make that is fine, Mr. Reynolds stressed that Council needs to understand where the language came from, who it came from, and what the interests are behind it.

Ms. Dolan added that when Mr. Leeson was a Member of Council he worked for the Diocese of Allentown. Ms. Dolan communicated that, rather than looking out for the interests of the majority, the exemption in the Ordinance is meant to look out for the interests of all religions, not the majority religion. Ms. Dolan added that the spirit of Bethlehem is in the present language, and the spirit of looking out for the Catholics in the community is equally served by protecting all religions.

Attorney Spadoni affirmed that he passed the email on as soon as he received it today.

Voting AYE on Amendment 16: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 4. Voting NAY: Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan and Mr. Reynolds, 3. Amendment 16 passed.

Amendment 17

Ms. Dolan and Mr. Reynolds moved to present Amendment 17, as follows:

That Section 145.04 that reads as follows:

145.04 Exception.

Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to prohibit a church, religious denomination or association of churches that is exempt from Federal taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or any entity affiliated with that church, religious denomination or association of churches, from engaging in any conduct or activity that is required by, or that implements or expresses its religious beliefs or tenets of faith. Nor shall anything in this chapter be interpreted to require any such church, religious denomination or association of churches, or any entity affiliated with that church, religious denomination or association to engage in any conduct or activity that is prohibited by its religious beliefs or tenets of faith. Nor shall any such church, religious denomination or association be required to engage in any conduct or activity that would violate its religious beliefs or tenets, as a condition of entering into any contract with any agency of this City.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

Nothing in this clause shall bar any religious or denominational institution or organization or any charitable or educational organization which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization or any bona fide private or fraternal organization from giving preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or to members of such private or fraternal organization or from making such selection as is calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles or the aims, purposes or fraternal principles for which it is established or maintained. Nor shall it apply to the rental of rooms in a landlord-occupied rooming house with a common entrance, or with respect to discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, the advertising, the rental or leasing of housing accommodations in a single-sex dormitory or rooms in one’s personal residence in which common living areas are shared.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, and Mr. Reynolds, 4. Voting NAY: Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 3. The motion passed.

Ms. Dolan explained the Amendment is saying there is nothing in the Human Relations Commission Ordinance that would prevent any religious, charitable, or educational organization from making choices based on their religious beliefs. If they want to only hire Catholic teachers, then they can only hire Catholic teachers. Under the Ordinance that would be discriminatory but the Amendment is to exempt them. If the Amendment passes, the City is also exempting groups like Men Of Retirement Age (MORA) from having to become Men and Women of Retirement Age, and allowing them to have only Italians in the group. It specifies the rental of rooms because these are people who are not in the same protected classes that are at the Federal or State level, and gets to the heart of the fears of some people that their personal beliefs are going to be offended, or that they would have to rent a room in their house to a man who is turning into a woman. Ms. Dolan continued on to explain that the Amendment provides that someone would not have to rent a room in their house to such persons because they would be exempted under the Amendment. Ms. Dolan added it pertains to all religions.

Amendment 17 – Failed

Voting AYE on Amendment 17: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, and Mr. Reynolds, 3.
Voting NAY: Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 4. Amendment 17 failed.

Amendment 18

President Donchez advised that he offered the Amendment in the event that Members of Council were interested in having fixed numbers rather than the percentages of 60% and 40%, as follows:

That the 3rd sentence in paragraph B of Section 145.05 that reads as follows:

145.05 Establishment of Human Relations Commission.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

145.05 Establishment of Human Relations Commission.

B. The Bethlehem Human Relations Commission shall consist of no fewer than ~~seven~~ nine and no more than ~~fifteen~~ thirteen members, who shall serve overlapping terms of three years each. At all times there shall be an odd number of members. ~~All members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with approval by City Council~~. For a thirteen member Commission, 8 of the Commission members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of City Council and 5 of the Commission members shall be appointed by City Council. For a nine member Commission, 6 of the Commission members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of City Council and 3 of the Commission members shall be appointed by City Council.

Amendment 18 – No Sponsors

There were no sponsors for Amendment 18.

Motion – Approving Bill No. 12 – 2011, As Amended

Mr. DiGiacinto and Mrs. Belinski moved to approve Bill No. 12 – 2011, As Amended.

Ms. Dolan pointed out that voting in favor of Bill No. 12 – 2011 would be voting in favor of the Catholic 50% majority. Ms. Dolan stressed that Members of Council have worked really hard on the Bill and then at the last minute language would be accepted from someone who works with the Catholic Church. Ms. Dolan stated she is personally offended. Questioning why the Members would approve the Bill as amended, Ms. Dolan highlighted the fact that removal of the language pertaining to landlords concerns a lot of people. Ms. Dolan explained that removal of the language means that someone who did not want to rent a room in their home to a transgender person has to go before the Human Relations Commission. Ms. Dolan expressed that the hope that before the next City Council Meeting she can convince the Members of Council that exemptions should not be passed that favor Catholics. Rather, exemptions should be passed that recognize all religions. Ms. Dolan stated she hopes the change is made by the next City Council Meeting because she will not be able to vote for the Bill since she does not want a Human Relations Commission that allows exemptions only to Christians.

Mr. Reynolds said he will vote in support of the Bill tonight, however he shares many of Ms. Dolan’s reservations. Mr. Reynolds commented he will speak to various people over the next two weeks and offer Amendments. Mr. Reynolds observed that the Members of Council agree on a lot that is contained in the Ordinance, and there are a lot of good provisions. Mr. Reynolds thought that if Council can successfully pass some changes at the next Meeting then everyone will end up with something that all can be proud of. Mr. Reynolds expressed that if language is not included that he thinks creates the type of Commission that is needed then he will seriously think about voting against the Ordinance. Mr. Reynolds commented he thinks the possibility is that Council can agree on language with which the Members can all be happy.

Voting AYE on Bill No. 12 – 2011, As Amended: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Evans, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Ms. Dolan and Mr. Mowrer, 2.

11. RESOLUTIONS

A. Authorizing Use Permit Agreements for Public Property - ArtsQuest – Musikfest 2011, Musikfest 2012 and Musikfest 2013

Mr. Evans and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2011-80 that authorized the execution of Use Permit Agreements between ArtsQuest and the City of Bethlehem for use of certain City streets identified in the Use Permit Agreement for Streets and certain City properties as identified in the Use Permit Agreement for Festival Sites, for Musikfest 2011, 2012 and 2013, for the times periods listed on the agreements, according to the terms and conditions.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution passed.
Motion – Considering Resolutions 11 B through 11 I as a Group

Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Mowrer moved to consider Resolutions 11 B through 11 I as a group. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The motion passed.

B. Certificate of Appropriateness – 85 West Broad Street

Ms. Dolan and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution No. 2011-81 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the table style and the number of tables and chairs for outdoor dining at 85 West Broad Street.

C. Certificate of Appropriateness – 504 Main Street

Ms. Dolan and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2011-82 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 24” x 36” double-sided sign which will be mounted on an existing wrought iron bracket at 504 Main Street.

D. Certificate of Appropriateness – 441 High Street

Ms. Dolan and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2011-83 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to clean brickwork and repair deteriorated mortar and spalled bricks with historically accurate mortar and workmanship at 441 High Street.

E. Certificate of Appropriateness – 437 High Street

Ms. Dolan and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2011-84 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to clean brickwork and repair deteriorated mortar and spalled bricks with historically accurate mortar and workmanship at 437 High Street.

F. Certificate of Appropriateness – 247 East Market Street

Ms. Dolan and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2011-85 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove non-original siding to expose original wood siding, repair and repaint, install an antique mailbox, snow guards and remove an unused stucco chimney on the rear roof at 247 East Market Street.

G. Certificate of Appropriateness – 459 Main Street

Ms. Dolan and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2011-86 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 30” x 30” hanging sign and bracket fastened into mortar joints and to remove and replace vinyl lettering on windows and transom at 459 Main Street.

H. Certificate of Appropriateness – 500 Main Street

Ms. Dolan and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2011-87 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the awning fabric and reuse the previously approved outdoor seating at 500 Main Street.

I. Certificate of Appropriateness – 569 Main Street

Ms. Dolan and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2011-88 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to re-use the previously approved outdoor dining tables and chairs at 569 Main Street.

Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 B through 11 I: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolutions passed.

J. Certificate of Appropriateness – 564 Main Street

Mr. Evans and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 2011-89 that denied a Certificate of Appropriateness to seek approval for an already installed emergency generator and replacement fence at 564 Main Street.

Mr. Evans, advising that he drove by the site, communicated that people would be appalled by the outward appearance of the generator that is large and industrial in size, is close to the sidewalk, very visible, and was not authorized before it was installed. Mr. Evans added there are now questions surrounding why it was needed, how often a backup generator of that size would be utilized, and the fact that when utilized it will throw off exhaust and noise. Mr. Evans stated he will definitely support the recommendation of HARB to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness passed.

12. NEW BUSINESS.

None.

13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Various Issues

Eddie Rodriquez, 1845 Linden Street, communicated that everyone is a human being and everybody has rights. Mr. Rodriquez expressed that he takes exception to some comments made this evening. Mr. Rodriquez questioned where is the investigation regarding what happened to him that he had informed City officials about in the past. Mr. Rodriquez related that he did what he was instructed to do by the Police Department regarding contacting the Department and he was accused of harassing Police Officers. Mr. Rodriquez stressed what happened was not right.

Bill No. 12 – 2011 – Human Relations Commission

Adrian Shanker, 1020 Chew Street, Vice President of the Pennsylvania Diversity Network, said he is pleased that City Council voted to move Bill No. 12 – 2011 on to Final Reading on June 7 but is disappointed with two votes that essentially gut all of the teeth out of the Ordinance. Mr. Shanker pointed out that the majority of Council voted to strip the Ordinance of the enforcement of authority that is needed to make the Ordinance useful. Mr. Shanker advised, as a Human Relations Commissioner in Allentown, he can confirm that the enforcement authority is used so that the Commission can use the Ordinance. Mr. Shanker restated it is nice to have the law but there needs to be the enforcement authority to have it. Mr. Shanker expressed the hope that Ms. Dolan would vote for it anyway even if it does not have all the key protections in the final version. Mr. Shanker informed the Members that they will be contacted multiple times over the next two weeks to make sure they are aware of the implications in two of the Amendments passed tonight. Mr. Shanker, highlighting, the fact that Council passed the language from the Diocese of Allentown, stressed it has to be recognized that the Ordinance is meant to protect people based on religious freedom as well and is not meant to allow one religious organization to dominate the discussion about religious freedom. Mr. Shanker stated the Catholic Church is on record in multiple places opposing the civil rights of many people, in particular the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, and the Church has lobbied against the Ordinance on the State level. Mr. Shanker asserted that taking language from the Catholic Diocese and putting it into the City’s Ordinance at the expense of language from the State Human Relations Commission that has been upheld in court challenges and mirrors language in other municipalities is an affront to religious freedom and to civil rights. Mr. Shanker urged the four Members who supported the Catholic Church in lieu of civil rights to reconsider their votes in the next two weeks, and added he is happy to speak with them at length.

Allyson Diane Hamm, 27 N. West Street, Allentown, seconded everything Mr. Shanker said. Ms. Hamm noted that as a member of the Allentown Human Relations Commission she has been targeted by hate mail campaigns and having her address publicly displayed on the Internet is a safety concern for her.

Planning Commission, Public Safety, and Use Permit Agreement - Musikfest

Robert Pfenning, 2830 Linden Street, related one of the items on the March 10, 2011 Planning Commission meeting was a minor subdivision of a piece of property on Biery’s Bridge Road. The Ordinance required the developer to expand the roadway, and put in curb and sidewalks for 290 linear feet. The developer requested either a waiver or a deferral. The Administration chose to request that in lieu of these improvements the developer pay $12,000 to the City for unspecified traffic calming measures further down on Biery’s Bridge Road. Mr. Pfenning advised the developer said stop it. Mr. Pfenning highlighted the fact that the Public Safety Committee meeting of May 5, 2011 was cancelled by the Administration due to scheduling conflicts, he wanted to know about several agenda items, and he does not know the information about the items. Mr. Pfenning, referring to the Finance Committee meeting that took place before this evening’s Council Meeting, pointed out that objections had been raised about the Use Permit Agreement between the City and ArtsQuest for Musikfest. However, Mr. Pfenning remarked that nothing further was discussed about the matter at this evening’s City Council Meeting.

Bill No. 12 – 2011 – Human Relations Commission

Liz Bradbury, 427-1/2 North Ninth Street, Allentown, said she is speaking as an Allentown Human Relations Commissioner and is the volunteer investigator to implement the Ordinance in instances of discrimination when a complainant comes to the City. Ms. Bradbury explained that, because she has the right to subpoena power, the Commission has the right to subpoena and has the right to level fines, it does not get to that stage. Ms. Bradbury, communicating she can say to someone that a matter needs to be talked about, noted if the person says they do not want to, she can inform them that she can subpoena them and then they talk. A conciliation can then be worked out. Ms. Bradbury informed the Members that in her memory it has not reached the point where a fine was levied or there had to be a subpoena. Ms. Bradbury advised that is why the Expanded Procedures need to stay in Bethlehem’s Ordinance, it is in the laws of municipalities, and is in the State law.

Bill Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, said he heard the Catholic Church being criticized this evening for proposing the explicit inclusion of other religions. Mr. Scheirer stated when the origin of the language was questioned and identified with the Catholic Church the line was crossed into motivation. Mr. Scheirer thought the Amendment should stand on its own, as is noted in Roberts Rules, and be weighed on the basis of what it says and not where it comes from.

Thomas Carroll, 248 E. Union Boulevard, said what was allowed tonight without being gaveled down was a speaker to talk about motivations and in a sense, at the same time, putting forward a tremendously important piece of legislation, to spew hatred for the Catholic Church.

Attorney Spadoni commented he does not think it was questioning the motivation of the vote, and he thought it was appropriate to delineate where it came from and how it came to Council. Attorney Spadoni added if a Council Member wants to put that forward they have that right.

Use Permit Agreement – Musikfest; Business in Bethlehem

Dana Grubb, 2420 Henderson Place, expressing that he shared Mr. Pfenning’s thoughts regarding the Use Permit Agreement for Musikfest, noted that between the Finance Committee meeting and the City Council Meeting the interest in the matter seemed to evaporate. Mr. Grubb, referring to announcements about businesses moving into Stabler Center and the Macungie industrial park, pointed out none of them are located in Bethlehem. Mr. Grubb wondered why the companies were not locating in Bethlehem at the Lehigh Valley Industrial Park, and what the City might need to do in order to get them to locate at the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation properties.

Bill No. 12 – 2011 – Human Relations Commission

Robert Stephens, Market Street, regarding comments expressed about people going into dressing rooms, for example, observed persons with a religious view are encountering something that is contradictory to their beliefs. Mr. Stephens communicated that, whether someone is for or against the Ordinance, it seems like there is a level of concern or fear that is at the heart of this. Mr. Stephens said he is still concerned for businesses since there is some ambiguity.

Farmers Market at SteelStacks; Bill No. 12 – 2011 – Human Relations Commission

Hillary Kwiatek, 638 Spring Street, stated that the Farmers Market at SteelStacks was fantastic, and she is excited about the ArtsQuest site. She expressed the hope that some resolution can be reached regarding Bill No. 12 – 2011 that does not gut the teeth of the Ordinance since the enforcement powers are what makes the Ordinance workable. Ms. Kwiatek communicated that a message should be sent to businesses that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law in Bethlehem.
Bill No. 12 – 2011 – Human Relations Commission

Elizabeth Fear, 1403 Main Street, expressed her agreement with other speakers that it is important to have the enforcement clause in the Ordinance otherwise there is no efficacy. Ms. Fear urged the Members to reconsider the religious exemption fix including the landlord language. Ms. Fear agreed that addresses should not be released, and related incidences that occurred to her car.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

ATTEST:

City Clerk

Language Translation Disclaimer

Council MInutes