2012-03-21_HRC_minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Human Rights Commission March 21, 2012 - Minutes Page 2 of 5 Grefenberg noted that the Human Rights Commissions of Falcon Heights, Edina, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth, as well as the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions, had passed resolutions against the proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. Before moving on to discuss the feasibility of the Commission considering in a public and transparent manner this issue of the constitutional amendment on marriage, Chair Grefenberg directed the Commission's attention to another item in the Chair's report: although the Operations Committee is considering revising the Commission's procedure allowing any commissioner to attend any Commission committee meeting, this procedure remained in effect absent any Commission action rescinding its previous rule Chair Grefenberg also reminded commissioners that pursuant to the rules adopted by the Commission last year the Chair sets the meeting agenda and consequently the meeting packet. Thus, he asked the commissioners to please send him and Carolyn Curti any items they wished discussed and any items they wished included in the meeting packet one week before the Commission meeting, by the Wednesday before the next meeting. The commissioners' cooperation would to ensure that the packet is assembled in a timely manner and is posted on the City's web site by Thursday evening prior to the Commission's meeting the following Wednesday. Regarding the marriage amendment, Chair Grefenberg -said his personal opinion was that the Commission should take a position on the constitutional amendment but after an informal public hearing for residents to give their opinion on the issue. He stressed that in referring to this opportunity for public comment he was using the term public hearing informally and not as a formal public hearing under the state's Administrative Procedures Act. Chair Grefenberg advised the Commission that he had spoken with the City Attorney who said there was no reason to prevent the HRC from taking an opinion on tlt this ballot question, adding that she also commented that the Commission could take a position on the voter ID amendment being discussed at the Legislature. Commissioner Doneen suggested that it may be more appropriate for the Commission to ask the public first whether the Commission should take a position on this issue before determining to do so. She referenced also seeking the advice on this issue from those citizens who had volunteered to engage in follow -up activities after last fall's Project 515 program. Commissioner Singleton agreed with this approach. Various Commissioners then discussed the logistics of having a hearing, whether the HRC should take a position, and the timing of a hearing. They discussed several options to hear from the public including at the April HRC meeting, oT-the Program Planning meeting with the Project 515 Advisory Committee on April 3, and then their May meeting at which they would make a final decision. Chair Grefenberg said he was actually considering two Commission meetings in May. Commissioner Wayne Groff said that while he did not disagree with the process being discussed he did think that the constitutional amendment was a human rights issue and that the Human Rights Commission should therefore take a position on it.