The following is my edited e-mail to fellow Elected Officials in American Fork (as well as some editorial comments).
I have spent some time over the weekend in further study, discussion and contemplation regarding the above. My position and reasons are set forth below.
My Position: I cannot support both Non-Discrimination ordinances as written or amended. Nor will I vote in favor of a non-binding Resolution.My Reasoning: (In no particular order. It is further non-exclusive. Please excuse repetitive arguments made in previous meetings).
- No demonstrative need. (There has not been a documented case of discrimination in housing or employment in American Fork). Note: This fact was acknowledged in a November Work Meeting. Nothing has been submitted since. As a proponent of limited government; if there is no need, don't legislate.
- Terms and content of the ordinances are not clearly identified. they are fundamentally flawed. Self defined terms are difficult to interpret and enforce.
- Privacy issues exist. Transgenderness creates issues among co-workers.
- The ordinances protect an unprotected class; even though it states it is not creating a special class, it does. The class in this ordinance (sexual orientation and transgenders) seek protection, yet does not want to be a protected class.
- The ordinances legislates perception. How do you determine or sort that out?
- Costs and Administration are undetermined. Costs? Unknown. Who will administer it? The Mayor's Office. Is that a good idea?
- More and longer Public Process is needed. From Salt Lake City's own Intra Staff Memo dated November 9, 2009 states the following: SLC spent 2 years studying and researching similar ordinances. American Fork has spent less than 2 months. Many businesses as well as citizens have not heard about the ordinances. In over 2 months, Salt Lake City held 5 "Dialogue on Discrimination Series," meetings in different venues and discussed all forms of discrimination. SLC invited the public, stakeholders and business owners. Focus groups were formed after the dialogue and/or presentations. SLC commissioned Westminster College to conduct an exhaustive city wide scientific survey. SLC also had an ongoing Public Comment period. American Fork City has had 2 work sessions, where public input was limited, with little notice. One 20 minute Public Hearing is scheduled Tues 12/13 at 7p. Not enough due process for the public and all stakeholders.
- Ordinances such as these should have input, if not actual legislation from the 2012-2014 incoming City Council. (Not that we should "punt" or shy away, but the question here is not "ripe" and is hasty). The incoming City Council will have to enforce the ordinance.
- The Poll referred to by ordinance supporters regards state legislation not municipal.
- The LDS Church has not called for statewide adoption of SLC's ordinance. Mr. Otteson from the Church will not be in American Fork on Tuesday night.
- There are too many unknowns.Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
With best regards and yoursin American Fork City,
Shirl Don LeBaronAmerican Fork City Council Member802 e. bamberger dr. ste b american fork, ut 84003 email@example.com | www.afcity.org www.lebaronlaw.com | www.twitter.com/shirllebaron
E-mail is not a secure transmission medium and should not be used to communicate confidential information. This email does not create a commitment nor is it an official representation of any kind by the City of American Fork. This email also does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you elect to send or receive information via e-mail, Mr. LeBaron cannot assure its security and will not be held liable if it is intercepted or viewed by another party. The information in this e-mail is may be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted based on information contained herein is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you received this e-mail in error, that you have deleted this e-mail and have destroyed any and all copies of this e-mail.