Reset sought for anti-discrimination proposal

CHILLICOTHE – There were six pieces of legislation on city council’s agenda Wednesday night, but it seemed hardly anyone at the meeting really noticed.

The elephant in the room on a particularly balmy night in council chambers was anti-discrimination legislation that is scheduled for a Monday night discussion of the Community Affairs Committee, legislation that several on council and in the audience said needs to be taken completely back to square one.

Councilman Josh Cartee announced during the June 27 council meeting his intent to bring to council a template he had been working with Mayor Luke Feeney on for an anti-discrimination ordinance to address gaps in state and federal legislation. The template, which he initially said was based on similar legislation in Columbus and later noted it incorporated pieces from other municipalities such as Newark, could then be changed and adapted to fit the city’s specific needs.

A couple of days later, he made a formal committee request via email, attaching a copy of the legislation with what he called its “proposed language.” That language prohibits discriminatory practices within the city in such areas as employment, housing and public accommodations, and includes sexual orientation and gender identity among its descriptions of protected classes. It lays out the types of acts that would be considered discriminatory; provides for creation of a three-member Community Relations Commission that would be responsible for, among other things, managing citizen complaints and holding hearings on complaints and lays out penalties for those found to be in violation.

On Wednesday, with council members Cartee and Alicia Gray absent from the rescheduled meeting and Feeney not yet back from his appearance at the Democratic National Convention, former councilwoman Nancy Ames was critical of the process the proposal has followed to this point.

Ames said the committee should not be presented with a draft ordinance, but should have been a part of initial discussions on the possibility of such legislation, heard and discussed different points of view, looked for precedent and reached a consensus, then taken that consensus to the law director to be put into legislative form for public input and further consideration.

“By letting the committee be a part of the process from the start, there is ownership in the legislation,” Ames said. “There is always discourse and disagreement but the completed document is one of inclusion and consensus. Input from the public also builds support.

“Unfortunately, the process was not followed in regard to the proposed non-discrimination legislation and this has created problems. This issue has become divisive in our community.”

Ames called for the current document to be dropped and for the committee to start over together from the very beginning of the process if it hopes to arrive at legislation that will have the desired effect. The sentiment was echoed by current councilwoman Pat Patrick and councilman David Clay.

Wednesday’s meeting also became a forum for addressing accusations that have been leveled by Pastor Terry Williams against Tammy Eallonardo who, in her role as president of the board of the Economic Development Alliance of Southern Ohio, forwarded along to members of her board the proposed ordinance language and a copy of a petition being circulated against the ordinance. In the email, she asked those board members to review each document and make up their own minds, stating that she opposed the ordinance for several reasons from a business perspective. She had expressed similar objections at the previous City Council meeting.

Williams, with strong feelings about several of the points made in the petition, proceeded to send letters to Eallonardo’s employer, city and county officials and the Economic Development Alliance suggesting she was endorsing the content of the petition and accusing her of holding discriminatory views.

Wednesday, Chris Manegold, CEO of the Economic Development Alliance of Southern Ohio, took issue before council saying the members of his organization are incensed and do not accept the allegations made by Williams. Clay also defended Eallonardo, calling her a respected member of the business community and tireless servant of the community who had presented well-thought out business objections to the legislation and who had done nothing more than ask her board members to make up their own minds on the ordinance and petition.

Manegold noted his organization has already extended an invitation to Williams to meet with its board to discuss his concerns at its next meeting in mid-August.

In an email response to that invitation on Friday, Williams said he is interested in a meeting, but “not in a closed-door meeting and not until your organization makes clear its position on the inappropriate actions taken by your chairperson in her leading of discussion and email communication of July 19.” He further states his ministerial code of ethics as being violated if he were to take part in a private meeting.

Manegold extended the invitation again Wednesday. Williams, speaking during public comment after Manegold, did not address the invitation but did show council members pictures of a sign at his church carrying a message of acceptance of diversity that had been vandalized after he spoke at the last council meeting in favor of the ordinance. He declared it an act of discrimination in the community.

The Community Affairs committee is scheduled to meet to discuss the legislation at 7 p.m. Monday in room A of the Ross County Service Center, 475 Western Ave.