It comes down now to five commissioners who have been split — two for the change and three unsure.
Mayor Warren Copeland and Commissioner Karen Duncan have both said publicly they’ll vote in favor of the amendment. Assistant Mayor Joyce Chilton and Commissioners Kevin O’Neill and Dan Martin all declined last week to say how they will vote.
Commissioners tabled the ordinance in late September so the city’s volunteer Human Relations Board could research and provide guidance on the topic. The board returned their findings to commission in December, split 4-3 with the majority finding “no compelling evidence of discrimination to substantiate changes.”
Duncan said Thursday she hopes commissioners will vote as planned so the community can move on from what has become a divisive topic.
O’Neill declined last week to comment publicly on the ordinance or how he plans to vote. He has said in past commission meetings that he isn’t necessarily opposed to the ordinance but wanted to make sure the language addresses other areas of inequality.
Chilton said she appreciated the work the Human Relations Board has done.
“We’re just hoping to put an end to this and put our community back together,” Chilton said.
Martin said commissioners have taken the issue seriously and put a lot of effort into understanding both sides.
“This is not typical of the type of issue (the) commission deals with,” he said.
Last week, Martin was still looking over the information submitted to commissioners and he hoped to speak with people on both sides this past weekend to mediate a common ground before the vote.
“Commission, staff and the public want to bring this to a close one way or another, and we will work toward doing that, but to do so in a way and bring better awareness to issues that have been brought to light and that everyone feels welcome here,” Martin said. “I don’t know if the ordinance is the answer to that, but it’s something the community needs to be aware of and try to address.”
“I’m hoping as we go into discussion Tuesday that people will have a dialogue that’s civil,” he said.
Companion bills introduced in the Ohio House and Senate in September could add sexual orientation and gender identity to state employment and housing laws. Those bills still sit in the Judiciary and Commerce and Labor committees respectively.
If the bills are passed at the state level, they would supersede local law.
The house bill is co-sponsored by Republican Springfield Rep. Ross McGregor.
McGregor said during a September commission meeting that he understood the concerns of the commissioners on the fence and offered guidance from his office.
Leading the charge in favor of the amendment, gay rights group Equality Springfield representatives have said the threat to LGBT people living and working in Springfield is real.
Rick Incorvati, the group’s president, said he feels enough anecdotal evidence was presented to commission and the Human Relations Board that it’s difficult to maintain the position that discrimination doesn’t exist in Springfield.
A common challenge from the opposition is that proponents have failed to produce specific cases of discrimination in the city. Proponents say they can’t produce cases because it’s not currently enforceable.
Opponents like Jason Stevens have said, for example, sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace is misinterpreted as sexual harassment and that the amendment should go before Springfield voters at the polls, not city commissioners.
He has questioned the cost and feasibility of enforcement.
Canton, a city a little larger in population than Springfield, added protection for LGBT workers in 2006.
So far only two known allegations of sexual orientation discrimination have been brought before Canton’s Fair Employment Practices Board, said Kris Bates, deputy chief council of the Canton Law Department.
Neither of those cases went to a finding. She was not immediately sure why they didn’t go to a finding, but said it could have been because they were withdrawn, filed from outside their jurisdiction or there was insufficient evidence to make a finding.
Canton is currently drafting language that could add sexual orientation language to its fair housing code, Bates said.
Springfield commissioners will also have to decide on two proposed amendments to the ordinance introduced at their Feb. 14 meeting.
It’s common for ordinances to be amended after passage, but they can also be amended before a vote, according to city Law Director Jerry Strozdas.
The first amendment could place sexual orientation at the end of the list of classes protected by code.
The second could exempt religiously affiliated churches, schools and organizations.
According to the proposed ordinance, sexual orientation “means a person’s actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity, by orientation or practice and between consenting adults.”
About the Author