10/25/2011 City Council - Discrimination Based Upon Sexual Orientation

[Doug Loudenback]

As he telegraphed at the last meeting of the City Council below ...



... and as he said that he would on his Facebook page, council member Ed Shadid will offer at this morning's City Council meeting that the following resolution be adopted (Agenda item X.A. Items From Council):

RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTIONS 105 AND 401 OF THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY PERSONNEL POLICIES, AS AMENDED AND ADOPTED DECEMBER 13, 2005, TO INCLUDE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO DISSEMINATE SAID AMENDMENTS.

WHEREAS, The City of Oklahoma City recognizes and supports the policy of equal employment opportunity and promotes a workplace that is free of conduct that can be considered discriminatory, abusive, disorderly, disruptive, or retaliatory; and

WHEREAS, it is the policy of The City of Oklahoma City to represent the diversity of Oklahoma City and to provide equal employment opportunity to all persons on all matters affecting City employment; and

WHEREAS, the Council of The City of Oklahoma City finds it in the best interest of the City to amend Sections 105 and 401 of the Personnel Policies of The City of Oklahoma City, as amended and adopted December 13, 2005 (“Personnel Policies”), to include specific reference to discrimination based upon sexual orientation; and

WHEREAS, this action is desirable and deemed to be in the best interest of the City, its administration, and its employees.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City that the attached sections of the Personnel Policies of The City of Oklahoma City be so amended and adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to disseminate these amended sections of The City of Oklahoma City Personnel Policies to all department and division personnel.

[signature page omitted]

ATTACHMENT

[DL Note: the proposed new text of the affected policy changes is underscored, below]

SECTION 105 - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

The City recognizes and supports the policy of equal employment opportunity. Any employee or applicant for municipal employment shall be afforded equal opportunity without regard to race, creed, ethnic origin, color, religion, disability, sex (to include sexual orientation), or age.

SECTION 401 - DISCRIMINATION

As an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) employer, the City of Oklahoma City will not discriminate against any applicant or employee because of race, color, creed, ethnic origin, religion, sex (to include sexual orientation), age, disability or political affiliation. The City will ensure equal employment opportunity by conducting staffing activities such as selection, promotion, demotion, transfer, training and separation, in accordance with established federal, state, and local EEO laws and regulations. The City promotes a workplace that is free of conduct that can be considered discriminatory, abusive, disorderly, disruptive, or retaliatory. Any employee conduct, whether intentional or unintentional, that results in discrimination or harassment of other employees regarding race, color, creed, disability, age, religion, sex (to include sexual orientation), national origin, or exercise of a legal right, is strictly prohibited. (Refer to Section 1203.23)

The Personnel Director will establish a policy prohibiting all forms of discrimination and harassment; establish procedures for reporting violations; establish disciplinary consequences for policy violations; and publish same as a Personnel Services Bulletin (PSB).

Although Oklahoman reporter Michael Kimball reported on this matter in this morning's Oklahoman, he did not do so accurately. There, he said (emphasis mine),

Sexual orientation would become a protected category in employment discrimination under a measure set to be discussed at Tuesday's Oklahoma City Council meeting.

The ordinance change, to be introduced by Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid, would protect gay and bisexual people from discrimination in city offices and hiring.

The city's equal employment opportunity ordinance now lists only classes protected by federal and state law, like gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, disability and political affiliation.

Discrimination based upon sexual orientation is not explicitly prohibited federally or in Oklahoma.

Kimball's mistake is in not differentiating between ordinances and internal policy matters. Shadid is NOT, by this resolution, proposing a change to city ordinances -- changes to city ordinances require a 3-public-hearing track before they can be finally voted upon. Shadid's resolution simply relates to internal city policy standards and would not require the 3-hearing-track procedure. Since Shadid's proposal only affects internal city policy, the 3-hearing-track procedure is not involved.

If the city does adopt Shadid's proposed resolution, the city's policies will go further to prevent discrimination than state statutes do, which would indeed be interesting. I hope that the council meeting is well-attended since I'd like to hear the positions of the mayor and every council member on this proposal -- if in fact the item is heard today at all -- quite possibly, continuance requests might be requested by one or more council members, which requests, of course, are routinely granted for some but not all council members since all council members are not created equal [tongue in cheek, and with credit to George Orwell's Animal Farm.]

This ought to be fun to watch.

[Doug Loudenback]

Well, that was interesting. At around 9:30 a.m. the wranglings over deferral finally settled on November 15 at which the resolution will be considered. Mayor Cornett was not present.

First, the matter was deferred for 4 weeks, until 11/22. After that vote, to my utter amazement (and I'll have to eat some words if what he said turns out to be true), Patrick Ryan said that he could not be present on 11/22 and he requested that a different date be set SO THAT HE COULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION ... and I had earlier said that if Shadid proposed something, one could make book that Ryan would oppose it. Then Shadid said that if the matter is differed that he would want the mayor to be present. In any event, the matter is now on the November 15 agenda.

Another surprise was that Skip Kelly was not receptive to the proposed resolution. I'll have more to say about that, and the video when it becomes available, shortly.

[workman45]

Well, that was interesting. At around 9:30 a.m. the wranglings over deferral finally settled on November 15 at which the resolution will be considered. Mayor Cornett was not present.

First, the matter was deferred for 4 weeks, until 11/22. After that vote, to my utter amazement (and I'll have to eat some words if what he said turns out to be true), Patrick Ryan said that he could not be present on 11/22 and he requested that a different date be set SO THAT HE COULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION ... and I had earlier said that if Shadid proposed something, one could make book that Ryan would oppose it. Then Shadid said that if the matter is differed that he would want the mayor to be present. In any event, the matter is now on the November 15 agenda.

You heard correctly Doug, that is what Ryan said.

[Just the facts]

Shadid played the 'gay card' way too soon.

[Architect2010]

What the hell does that even mean? This affects real life people. I'm sure they would say it wasn't soon enough.

[Just the facts]

What the hell does that even mean? This affects real life people. I'm sure they would say it wasn't soon enough.

It means he can make all the points he wants but he isn't ging to win anything. He should have waited. You have to run the offense, not just start chucking up hail-marys every time you cross midfield.

[Thunder]

Shadid is a very brave man standing up to OKC. We all know Mayor Cornett's viewpoint are due to lack of attendence. OKC needs to stop discriminating us (the gay people)!

[Doug Loudenback]

I'm not so sure that the resolution won't carry. I can see White, Ryan, Salyer, Greenwell, and Shadid voting aye.

[Just the facts]

I'm not so sure that the resolution won't carry. I can see White, Ryan, Salyer, Greenwell, and Shadid voting aye.

If it passes then I stand corrected. I would prefer there not be any descrimination for any reason (which would make all these protected classes useless). If the person does a good job and doesn't disrupt the work place what more can you ask of an employee?

[Popsy]

Have there been any documented cases of discrimination due to sexual orietation that have occurred in the last 10 to 20 years? I have no knowledge of it. Seems this is just another case of Shadid trying to embrace different constituency groups for his run for congress in the future. He now has the firemen, the gay community, the anti-sprawlers and OKC talk members. Who will he go for next?

[Midtowner]

Have there been any documented cases of discrimination due to sexual orietation that have occurred in the last 10 to 20 years? I have no knowledge of it. Seems this is just another case of Shadid trying to embrace different constituency groups for his run for congress in the future. He now has the firemen, the gay community, the anti-sprawlers and OKC talk members. Who will he go for next?

The case of the transgendered OKC police officer, Paula Schonauer comes to mind. Had to sue for wrongful termination and I believe sexual harassment. I don't know how any of that turned out.

[Richard at Remax]

For some of us who get headaches reading this type of wording what is the main goal of his proposal? thanks

[Doug Loudenback]

For some of us who get headaches reading this type of wording what is the main goal of his proposal? thanks

In plain speech, it would (1) put the city on record as opposing discrimination based upon sexual orientation, (2) prohibit such discrimination in the city's hiring policies, and (3) prohibit such discrimination as to city employees in the workplace in matters such as promotion, demotion, transfer, training and separation.

[Doug Loudenback]

Here's the video.



Use the slider to move to ...
8:48 - end of Shadid's 1st remarks
8:48-18:39 - 3 citizens
18:52 - McAtee
25:20-28:45 - Greenwell
28:46 - McAtee again
29:30-37:45 - Kelly
37:45 - Shadid Again
40:45 - vote on motion to defer until 11/22; passed 5-3 (Ryan, White, Shadid voting no)
41:08 - Ryan can't be present that day, wants to vote aye, wonders about a different date
42:25 - Motion to reconsider passed unanimously
... followed by further interesting discussion; the date of 11/15 was finally picked

[soonerguru]

Figures that these jerks would ask for a deferral on one of Shadid's proposals, after refusing to defer their precious convention center vote. Gag. And was it a coincidence that the mayor was not present? Not impressed with Mayor Cornett on this issue.

[rcjunkie]

Figures that these jerks would ask for a deferral on one of Shadid's proposals, after refusing to defer their precious convention center vote. Gag. And was it a coincidence that the mayor was not present? Not impressed with Mayor Cornett on this issue.

Could you explain how them deferring this proposal is worse than your name calling, classy!!

[Thunder]

Could you explain how them deferring this proposal is worse than your name calling, classy!!

He can't explain it. He doesn't know what's going on. He does not know that deferring helps to pass the proposal. All he is interested in doing is excessive cussing on this forum. :-(

[Roadhawg]

He can't explain it. He doesn't know what's going on. He does not know that deferring helps to pass the proposal. All he is interested in doing is excessive cussing on this forum. :-(

What excessive cussing was he doing?

[soonerguru]

He can't explain it. He doesn't know what's going on. He does not know that deferring helps to pass the proposal. All he is interested in doing is excessive cussing on this forum. :-(

Jerks is cussing? Since when?

[Doug Loudenback]

Editorial by Ted Streuli: The Journal Record ... I think that he is mistaken about Pete White ... while he didn't speak, he did vote not to defer, and, knowing Pete, I fully expect that he supports the proposal ... and Greenwell did say that he supports the proposal even though he wants the Personnel Department's input ... but Streuli had some strong words to say:

Periscope: Rally ‘round the flag

By Ted Streuli
The Journal Record
Posted: 08:08 PM Tuesday, October 25, 2011

My 5-year-old is learning to predict things. Every morning on the way to school and work, we drive by a couple of flagpoles. While we’re still in the garage, he likes to guess how hard the wind is blowing. Then, a half-mile from home, he checks the flags to see if he was right.

“There’s no wind today, Daddy,” he’ll say when Old Glory is hanging limp. “It’s not a good day to go sailing.”

Yes, a flagpole in Edmond helps us predict weather conditions at Lake Thunderbird. Smart boy, that 5-year-old. Good genes (his mother’s, probably).

And in this week’s metaphor, Oklahoma City Councilman Ed Shadid is the flag atop the pole. Shadid suggested that Oklahoma City should add a clause to its employment policy that says the city won’t discriminate against someone based upon sexual orientation.

And as sure as the flag points north in a southerly wind, out came the hems, the haws and the unabashed bigotry. Posts on local news sites quickly revealed many wearing the cloak of ill-informed opinion over a suit of irrational hatred.

Yep. The flag went up and the windbags started blowing hard. That was an easy prediction.

In the council chamber, only Pat Ryan supported Shadid’s proposal. Meg Salyer, running the show in the mayor’s absence, remained neutral. Every other councilor squirmed like a sinner in the front pew.

David Greenwell and Larry McAtee said they wanted to study it more.

Study what, gentlemen? Whether it’s a good policy to allow discrimination in the city’s employment practices? Whether it’s OK to discriminate against this particular group but no other?

Yet the biggest head-scratch of the day came from Skip Kelly, who is black. He said the city didn’t need to make a change unless empirical data showed it should. We didn’t need empirical data to prove that some employers refuse to hire people with disabilities. Or those older than 40. Or Jews. Or Muslims. And surely Councilman Kelly doesn’t believe we needed empirical data to prove that people of color face discriminatory employment practices. Some truths are self-evident.

Here’s the test: If you can hear Bubba saying “I ain’t hirin’ no (insert slur here)” then you can bet your last Southern Cross lapel pin that members of the group referenced have been victims of discrimination.

Let’s get a bit of clarity here. Neither Oklahoma state law nor federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many states and municipalities, however – including Tulsa, Muskogee, McAlester, Perry and Noble – have adopted such a policy. If Oklahoma City councilors need a precedent, there it is.

Being gay puts one in a minority, just as race and religion do to anyone who isn’t a white Protestant. And like race and religion, sexual orientation subjects one to discrimination. We have protected many in that unenviable position, but so far we’ve stopped one group short. It’s time for Oklahoma City to show that we can be forward-thinking on issues other than MAPS.

Even my 5-year-old can tell which way the wind is blowing, and at City Hall it looks like it’s blowing pretty hard to the right. But Ed Shadid showed some chutzpah, and I’m willing to salute.

Hey, I told you he was the flag.

[oneforone]

I would like to think all city hiring managers are going to hire based on an applicants background, experience and how they conduct themselves in the interview. For example Oklahoma City Police more or less takes a person and look at them from every angle and in some cases they turn the applicant inside out. The more less tell you be on the level with us about everything there is to know about you. If we find out your hiding something or you lied about something your finished. I know this because I have several friends that were recently hired or in the hiring process. I was going to go that route myself however, I found a job in the private sector that is working out pretty well for me and I would be crazy to walk away from it with all the time and effort I have invested in it now. Come to think of it every city job is like that in some respect just simply because they don't want the negative publicity on the city.

With that being said, protective classes are really not needed in today's world. Just simply because most managers are focused on finding the right person who can do the job. Sexuality, Gender and everything really don't matter. Finding a person who will do the job and do it well is traditionally the main focus of anything. If a gay man or woman applies for the job and has an outstanding resume their going to get hired. After hiring it is all about how well the person performs the duties of the job and that they can work well with the existing employees. If they create a problem you deal with it. If an existing employee creates the problem you deal with it.

Protective Class status really does not play a roll in the hiring process unless you are government contractor and you have been instructed to hire people from all protected classes. The only time protective class comes into play is when an employee belongs to protected class and is not living up to performance goals set for all workers. Protected Employees will use their status to their advantage. When they are cornered for performance issues or policy violations they threaten to complain because of their protected class status some will go as far as having a lawyer call the office and threaten to sue. Because of that managers have to lay out an elaborate plan for terminating them. It usually takes forever because the manager has to build a case that is fit to go to the Supreme Court. Under normal conditions they could have completed two counsel sessions on paper and terminated on the third offense.

[soonerguru]

I would like to think all city hiring managers are going to hire based on an applicants background, experience and how they conduct themselves in the interview. For example Oklahoma City Police more or less takes a person and look at them from every angle and in some cases they turn the applicant inside out. The more less tell you be on the level with us about everything there is to know about you. If we find out your hiding something or you lied about something your finished. I know this because I have several friends that were recently hired or in the hiring process. I was going to go that route myself however, I found a job in the private sector that is working out pretty well for me and I would be crazy to walk away from it with all the time and effort I have invested in it now. Come to think of it every city job is like that in some respect just simply because they don't want the negative publicity on the city.

With that being said, protective classes are really not needed in today's world. Just simply because most managers are focused on finding the right person who can do the job. Sexuality, Gender and everything really don't matter. Finding a person who will do the job and do it well is traditionally the main focus of anything. If a gay man or woman applies for the job and has an outstanding resume their going to get hired. After hiring it is all about how well the person performs the duties of the job and that they can work well with the existing employees. If they create a problem you deal with it. If an existing employee creates the problem you deal with it.

Protective Class status really does not play a roll in the hiring process unless you are government contractor and you have been instructed to hire people from all protected classes. The only time protective class comes into play is when an employee belongs to protected class and is not living up to performance goals set for all workers. Protected Employees will use their status to their advantage. When they are cornered for performance issues or policy violations they threaten to complain because of their protected class status some will go as far as having a lawyer call the office and threaten to sue. Because of that managers have to lay out an elaborate plan for terminating them. It usually takes forever because the manager has to build a case that is fit to go to the Supreme Court. Under normal conditions they could have completed two counsel sessions on paper and terminated on the third offense.

This is a thoughtful, well reasoned post, but it is wrong. Yes, gays and lesbians are refused employment -- every day. Many have to hide their identity to keep their jobs. Your post reads more like how you would like to see the world versus how the world really is.

This "protected class" argument is hollow and tired. Yes, we protect people from hiring discrimination on the basis that they're Mormons, or atheists, or black, or even military veterans. There are reasons for these protections, namely that these are reasons people have been denied employment.

Is it possible to have "too much freedom?" Can we have "too much happiness?" Along these lines, why are we limited in whose employment we can defend from discrimination? Is it really such a big deal to add gays and lesbians to the list? Of course not. All of the counter-arguments exist to sidestep the issue because conservatives don't like to admit we have gay and lesbian people and that their rights are worth defending.

[Midtowner]

With that being said, protective classes are really not needed in today's world.

That's a pretty laughable situation considering the volume of discrimination litigation which results in awards to the plaintiff.

[Doug Loudenback]

As I've already said, there were two surprises for me in the council's 10/25 discussion on this topic: (1) Skip Kelly made remarks which inferentially if not specifically identified him as being against Shadid's proposal; and (2) Patrick Ryan unequivocally identified himself as being in favor of Shadid's proposal.

Kelly's remarks still boggle my mind. Does he mean to say that litigation is a predicate to establishing the identity of a group which should be included in legislation/policies which prohibit discrimination against that group?

That makes no better (even less) sense to me than when, in 1962 or 1963, my OSU debate team's gift for a job well done was to a trip from Stillwater to Okc to have a nice dinner in the city. The place our debate team's coach (Fred Tewell, father of Doug Tewell, the Edmond golfer) chose was a steak house located immediately south of Frontier City and I think that its name was Wright's Steak House, though I'm not sure about the name. On entering, the host person noticed that we had a black person in our group. The host said that we (the white guys/gals) could eat there but that he (the black guy) could not.

In my lifetime, I have never been more ashamed of the color of my skin than on that night so many years ago.

Naturally, we left the whites-only establishment and traveled further south to Sussy's on Lincoln to have a fine meal and good camaraderie.

We should have just had a fine steak dinner and good camaraderie at the initial eatery and we shouldn't have had to go to Sussy's or wait for the law to require that we (meaning our black member who was part of our "we") had that privilege/right.

But, according to Skip's rationale, we should have just lumped it and taken in stride since there was no lawsuit pending. Good grief, there is something systemically wrong with that sort of logic.

As a black man, Skip has got his mind screwed up on this for reasons that I do not know. Skip is a friend of mine, and if the opportunity exists I intend to discuss this matter with him and I'm certainly e-mailing him about this matter. Of all council members, Skip (one would think) would be the most sensitive to matters concerning discrimination. At 1st Blush: Doug Mistake #1. I remain hopeful that Skip will reconsider his objections to Shadid's proposal and will vote to approve this Okc policy change.

Ryan's statement also blind-sided me. I've never met Ryan but, by reason of other of his council remarks I had put him in a pigeon-hole which would everlastingly oppose anything that Shadid proposed. At 1st Blush: Doug Mistake #2. I was quite clearly wrong about that.

[Urban Pioneer]

Can't really speak on it, but I suspect that later this week the conversation/debate will get much more interesting. Let's just say the timing of the resolution is ironic.