2016_0224 HRC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 8, 2016 Page 20 1Councilmember Laliberte thanked the HRC for their work in updating this chap- 2ter, which hadn’t been addressed during the broader Uniform Commission Code 3review, she opined that they had made it a better document. Councilmember 4Laliberte agreed that the aforementioned Item B should be removed from the 5HRC scope, duties and function, as it was no longer relevant. 6 7Mayor Roe agreed that he had no interest in retaining that Item in this document. 8 9If the HRC doesn’t feel it should be part of their mission, Councilmember McGe- 10hee expressed her interest in it being looked at as part of the City Council’s ongo- 11ing look at SE Roseville, or planning and programming for Parks & Recreation 12programs to ensure accessibility to existing or future buildings and facilities. If 13not belonging under the HRC’s scope, Councilmember McGehee suggested it be- 14long by reference somewhere for city staff as part of their process. 15 16Chair Groff offered his agreement in part with Councilmember McGehee specific 17to “human relations,” and opined he thought it covered educational efforts and 18should refer back to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 19 20Mayor Roe agreed that a human relations program sounded like a document, and 21if based on programs and education, it was covered elsewhere allowing for re- 22moval of Item B from this chapter to eliminate confusion. 23 24Mayor Roe addressed language highlighted by the HRC under Section 205.02 25(third line) related to participation in the affairs of this community by assisting the 26state department of Human Rights in implementing the Minnesota Human Rights 27Act. Mayor Roe questioned what form that would take for the Roseville HRC. 28 29Chair Groff advised that the HRC had discussed this section, and suggested it 30needed further clarification to remove any indication of an enforcement function, 31but also allowing reference to the State Human Rights Act as the initiation of the 32Roseville HRC and its promotion and education of those values in Roseville. 33 34Mayor Roe questioned if the language included in the following paragraphs 35(Items A through F) sufficiently covered other agencies and groups that allowed 36eliminating the aforementioned language. 37 38Councilmember Willmus opined that by leaving the language within the scope of 39this chapter, it created an environment of confusion of what the Roseville HRC 40could actually do, and therefore caused him concern. 41 42Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in leaving the language referenc- 43ing the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and its reference in that paragraph, but in- 44stead of saying the Roseville HRC “advised,” perhaps state that it “supported” 45those efforts.