2012-09-19_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Human Rights Commission May 16, 2012 - Draft Minutes Page 3 of 8 �A copy of the Committee's Report with attached resolutions is hereby incorporated into these minutes and attached herein.] Chair Grefenberg asked if there was any additional public comment on this item now before the Commission. There being none, he asked Commissioner Jill Brisbois to explained t the resolutions she and Commissioners Dao, Doneen and Siliciano had drafted opposing the constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. y Commissioner Brisbois reported the Committee was recommending a public resolution opposing the constitutional amendment and had drafted feedback from the Project 515 meeting, other meetings and coma received at the public forum and afterwards. She said some people had rai it this i-s was a human right or whether this action was within the that the Commission bass a resolution based on rents from residents ed the question whether purview of the Commission At 1'ast week's meeting there appeared to be a ma' ority consensus that this issue was a human right, and that the Commission should. address the issue and make a public statement ' �' °�' +�,� � . Commissioner Brisbois moved and Commissioner Groff seconded that the Human Rights Commission pass a resolution to publicly oppose the proposed constitutional amendment entitled "recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman," and urge Roseville and Minnesota citizens to vote NO on November 6. 2012. Chair Grefenberg said this motion initiated the since the question of whether the Commission remained under consideration. zssion but would not necessarily conclude it, d advise the Council to pass a similar resolution Commissioners Groff said the HRC has discussed this issue for over two months, and if any other protected class, such as person of color or a person with a handicap, weFe was substituted for a same sex couple, this would not be debated and the. r °`�"'rri�ivn there would be a resounding yes, the Commission should oppose the constitutional amendment. In response to a question from Commissioner Singleton, Brisbois clarified that her motion was sim�Ifthat�th�eQommissio�n ass a resolution opposing the marriage amendment. It was not yet the actual resolution which was what she would subsequently report. Commissioners-Doneen said the motion4s was within the scope of the Commission, as described in the City Code, section 204.05, citing that the Commission should assume the leadership in Deco nizin and resolving potential problem areas in the community. There being no further discussion the Chair called for the a vote on the Brisbois /Groff motion. Motion prevailed unanimously. Commissioner Brisbois then reviewed the memo resolution from the drafting committee, explaining that she h%ad it included two draft resolution o tp ions. The first resolution :F0,Q.i.:A4:%VTed included eke lAr „m°„ *6° 4r °q°„ * °d +2 *'A° C; *u C2 „„r;' a provision that the Commission recommend to the