2012-04-18_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Human Rights Commission March 21, 2012 - Draft Minutes Page 2 of 5 48 Grefenber� noted that the Human Ri�hts Commissions of Falcon Heights, Edina, St. Paul, 49 Minneapolis, and Duluth, as well as the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions, had 50 passed resolutions against the proposed constitutional amendment on marria�e. 51 52 Before movin� on to discuss the feasibility of the Commission considerin� in a public and 53 transparent manner this issue of the constitutional amendment on marriage, Chair Grefenberg 54 directed the Commission's attention to another item in the Chair's report: �) although the 55 Operations Committee is considerin� revisin� the Commission's procedure allowing anX 56 commissioner to attend any Commission committee meetin ,g this procedure remained in effect 57 absent any Commission action rescindin� its previous rule. �_��" ^^�+;�„° ;�^'„�';�� ^„ 58 ce�s� ��a��e-��e��e��-��c��«��t�rt°�;-�� 59 60 Chair Grefenber a�� reminded commissioners that pursuant to the rules adopted b.r� 61 Commission last year the Chair sets the meeting agenda and consequently the meetin� packet. Thus, 62 he asked the commissioners to nlease send him and Carolvn Curti anv items thev wished discussed 63 and an_y items they wished included in the meeting�acket one week before the Commission 64 meetin�� '��^�st� *�, ��s� by the Wednesday before the next meeting. 65 The commissioners' cooperation would �e ensure that the packet is assembled in a timely manner 66 and is posted on the Cit,y's web site bv Thursda,v evening_prior to the Commission's meeting the 67 followin� Wednesda� 68 69 Re_ag rdin� the marria�e amendment, Chair Grefenberg ^^,�°�' *'�° ^^��;^�;^r «,'�°*'�°r *'�° u��' 7p °'�^„'a *^'r° ^ °;*;^r ^r *'�° m ram°r* u° said his personal opinion was that the 71 Commission should take a position on the constitutional amendment but after an informal 72 r�ee�e��t��t�e u'��''�^'�' ^ public hearing for residents to give their opinion on the �E 73 *°'�;rrt ° �;*;^r ^N *'�° ^„°*;*„*;^r�' � ra�°„+ issue.. He stressed that in referrin tg o this 74 opportunit.Yfor public comment he was using the term public hearing informally and not as a 75 formal �ublic hearin� under the state's Administrative Procedures Act.s�e�� 76 77 Chair Grefenber� advised the Commission that he had spoken with the City Attorney who said there 78 was no reason �� to prevent the HRC from taking an opinion on t-l� this ballot question, e� 79 adding that she also commented that the Commission could take a position on the voter ID 80 amendment �� being discussed at the Legislature. 81 82 Commissioner poneen su�gested that it ma,y be mare a�propriate for the Commission to ask the 83 public first whether the Commission should take a�osition on this issue before determinin� to do 84 so. She referenced also seekin� the advice on this issue from those citizens who had volunteered to 85 enga�e in follow-u� activities after last fall's Project 515 �rogram. Commissioner Sin leg ton a re�ed 86 with this a�proach. 87 88 Various Commissioners then discussed the logistics of having a hearing, whether the HRC should 89 take a position, and the timing of a hearing . They discussed several 90 options to hear from the public including at the April HRC meeting, e�-the Program Planning 91 meeting with the Project 515 Advisory Committee on April 3, and then their �°'��^�- ��'r�' �'°��°�^^ 92 �r� May meeting at which they would make a final decision. Chair Grefenberg said he was 93 actually considering two Commission meetings in MaY