2012-05-16_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the I�RC to draft a resolution either for or against the Minnesota. Marriage Amendment in the name of the City of Roseville or its residcnts. I believe that all city officials, whether elected or appointed should make every effort to represent all of their constituents as equally and fairly as possible, and I sec this effort by a non-elected body as an intentional and flagrarrt vxolation of that understanding. As for the special meeting that was held by the Roseville HRC on May 9, 2012 for the purpase to "listen to Roseville residents about whether the HRC should pass a resolution... opposing the proposed constitutional amcndment," (again my ennphasis) the following are my observations and opinions: • I do not believe that the HRC has the authority to call or schedule such a meeting for such a purpose. Any resident can attend the regulariy scheduled meetings of any public body and to make statements, but I believe that only the elected City Council may call a public hearizzg on a particular issue of public concern. I sec no language that would authorize the HRC to call such a meeting of Roseville citizens or to determine which issue is of such public concern. • The published notice of the rneeting specifically stated that the rrieeting was scheduled to "listen to Roseville residents about .. ." and yet, others from outside of the city and those represenling organizations were allowed to make statements and give testimony. I believe this to be also highly i�appropriate for a city appointed commission. • The naeeting hosted something less ihan 1 QO attendees and was obviously stacked in favor of the positxon favored by the commission -- to draft a resolution opposed ta the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. Since Roseville has a population of some plus or minus 30,040 residents, the number at this hearing was certainly not representative and should not be used to determine the feeling of all resident of Roseville. • The HRC making at�d passing such a resolution sets a very dangerous precedent for itself at�d aIl other such appointed commissions in that, such a commission could very well be taken over by a radical group that would seek to pass a very objectionable resolution to all of the residents of Roseville, (ie) a resolution in favor of polygamous unions, or sex with animals, which I might add, some might consider their right. • And finally, there are many thousands of Roseville residents that may not or do not ag,ree with the statement or resolution that the HRC proposes to draft. Since I know that to be true, how and why should a city appointed body be allowed or feel the necessity to speak for and represent only those residents with whom they agree? It is obvious, at Ieast to tx�e, that the members of the HRC are in favor of drafting such an aforemcntioned resoIution. Would those members be offended if the shoe was on ihe other foot and another such commission would dxaft a resolution of opposite intent. So in all fairness, how are those of opposite feelings on this issue to be equally represented by their city representatives, both elected and appointed. For these and many other reasons held by those who favor the passage of the Minnesota Marriage Amendrr►ent, I urgently request that the Roseville Human Raghts Commission not move to draft a resolution either for o.r against this amendment or any other such controversial issue that is beyond the authority and/or ihe jurisdiction of this city's elected or appointed off cials. Dick Houck (an S2 year resident of Rose Township and Roseville} Roseville, MN 551 cc: Membcrs Roseville City Council