City Hall was crowded with people Monday night--people on both sides of a proposed ordinance who wished to participate in the democratic process. Just as at the last City Council meeting, when the proposal was heard on first reading, emotions were running high. The item was slated relatively early on the meeting's agenda and most expected a long and passionate discussion of the relative merits of this ordinance. The council chambers were eerily quiet as the moment of truth approached.
When item 97-1006 was introduced, Alderman Roland Paulsgrove moved "for the purpose of discussion" that the ordinance be passed and was promptly seconded by Bill Hayes. No sooner had the motion been recognized by Mayor Fred Kimble than Alderman Tony Gerk called for the vote. Gerk's motion was again immediately seconded. Gene Rude and Kimble requested a roll call on Gerk's motion, which is non-debatable according to Robert's Rules of Order.
By a vote of 6-1, with Paulsgrove voting against and Kimble not participating, Gerk's motion to call the question passed overwhelmingly. Next the council voted on the ordinance itself; it failed 8-0, including the Mayor's symbolic vote. Not a single word of discussion was uttered by either council members or the public in attendance on this issue. Only Paulsgrove and Kimble seemed at all surprised by Gerk's calling of the question.
Had this amendment to Galesburg's existing Human Rights Ordinance passed, it would have added protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It would have made it illegal for individuals or businesses in the city to treat bisexuals, heterosexuals or homosexuals differentially in terms of accommodation, credit, education, employment or housing. Sexual orientation was simply to be added as another category to the present ordinance which now protects us from discrimination due to one's age, ethnicity, gender, handicap or religion.
During the days and weeks preceding this meeting many residents had contacted their council members and voiced their opinions on the matter. Additionally, there was much private discussion among them about this issue. Most saw this as a politically explosive controversy they were keen to evade if possible. There was even an early plan to let the issue die for lack of a motion or a second when it came up. In this way council members could have avoided going on the record with a vote.
Later discussions with council members confirmed that most anticipated such a move- although not everyone was privy to exactly who would do what. "No one spoke to me beforehand about blocking discussion," said Kimble, "and I was saddened to see this episode turn out the way it did. There was nothing I could do at that point to change things."
While most in the audience were stunned, a small group of opponents to the ordinance, led by Father Bruce King of St. Patrick's Catholic Church, stood up to applaud and cheer. Almost immediately, the vast majority of those in attendance rose and left the council chambers to congregate within the City Hall rotunda.
Those who had intended to speak in support of the ordinance made little effort to hide their contempt for the manner in which the City Council handled this matter. The words of one Galesburg homosexual who attended the meeting summed up these feelings: "The City Council seems very willing to have extended debate on such issues as who signs checks and 'back-in' parking--but about this issue not even one uttered the words 'homosexual' or 'sexual orientation'. This whole affair was clearly well orchestrated behind the scenes. We expected to be told we were not welcome in Galesburg but we expected the courtesy and respect of permitting discussion of the issue."
A key issue for the proponents of the ordinance was addressing the charges which were leveled against homosexuals at the last meeting. "We hadn't expected the ridiculous charges which were made by some of the religious right. Particularly their efforts to tar all homosexuals as sexual perverts or molesters. Initially, we didn't think such outrageous statements were deserving of reply- but this time we came prepared with documented evidence to the contrary."
Rick Garcia is one interested outsider who was present Monday evening. He represents the Illinois Federation for Human Rights, a nonprofit organization "founded to secure, defend and protect the basic rights of gay and lesbian Illinoisans." According to Garcia this group currently has over 15,000 supporters statewide. "I've attended meetings and discussions like this all over the country but I've never seen a body as gutless as this one. It's an abomination!"
Paul Steenis, who moved to Galesburg 16 years ago, was flabbergasted at the City Council's action. "I've never been so embarrassed. After being told for months that this wasn't a 'real' issue we find at tonight's meeting that it has clearly become an issue of great community interest. I spoke to several council members who claimed to be open to debate and discussion yet they have shown their true colors this evening."
Before Monday night, Rude had been clearly against even taking a vote on this ordinance and actively lobbied his fellow alderman. Both he and Gerk have contended from the beginning that the issue of gay discrimination is a non-issue in Galesburg. His advice to the other aldermen was that no one make the initial motion or second and let the issue die.
Clearly, there was considerable comment made to all of them. All reported many, many telephone calls and letters from constituents--the vast majority of which were reported to oppose the ordinance. At the same time most admitted that supporters of the ordinance had contacted them with stories of discrimination and fear.
On Sunday afternoon, Kimble expressed sympathy with supporters of the ordinance. "I am opposed to all forms of discrimination. This discussion is not about the morals issues surrounding homosexuality; it is about the inappropriateness of denying civil rights to a group of fellow citizens. I am, however, bothered by the potential of continually adding to the list of protected groups covered by this ordinance; where do we draw the line?"
When Paulsgrove made the initial motion, it was because he felt that citizens deserved the right to voice their opinions pro or con. "In all sincerity I thought we should allow reasonable discussion, with some limits as to length and decorum. Whether the issue under discussion affects one person or 6,000, we as an elected body have an obligation to allow public participation. I wanted to give people a chance to talk but there was nothing I could do once the question was called."
Paulsgrove's willingness to permit discussion must not be confused with support of the ordinance. "My concern is whether this issue is properly the concern of city government. If we really needed such protections I feel it is up to the federal and state governments to pass the necessary laws. Civil rights should not rest upon a patchwork of local ordinances. I understand that some people have experienced real problems but the city is not the proper place to seek remedy."
"I just don't know of more than one or two instances where this has been an issue in Galesburg," said Gerk. "In most cases this is no one else's business and would stay that way if attention isn't drawn to the issue. In those few cases where a problem may exist, changing the Human Relations ordinance simply isn't going to make any real difference. The legal options for people who have been discriminated against shouldn't have anything to do with the city."
According to Councilmember Hayes, "The necessary protections already exist at other levels. The present civil rights laws protect us from sexual discrimination and I feel that should cover it. I see no need for additional language on the city's books."
"I wasn't surprised at how the issue was handled Monday night," said Councilmember Nancy Dahlberg. "I saw no need for further discussion of the issue. It was only going to be identical to that we heard on first reading. There was nothing that anybody was going to say that hadn't already been said."
"My major objection to this ordinance was the wording 'sexual orientation.' It is so broad that it could be interpreted to include far more than just homosexuality. Beyond that, I've never been aware of this type of discrimination existing in Galesburg. Both my husband and I have dealt intimately for years with the issues of credit, employment and housing without once coming across this problem. For that reason I'm still not convinced that this is a local problem."
Rude is opposing Kimble for Mayor in April's municipal election and said he was very concerned about the unnecessary decisiveness of this issue. "I've said from the start that this is a non issue. There already exists sufficient legal recourse for those who feel they have been unjustly discriminated against. Existing laws provide that no one has the right to discriminate against another on this basis."
"I think the whole thing was pretty well discussed and I did not desire any further polarization of this community. Everybody has the right to their own opinion, but we had already heard enough. It would have done far more damage to allow this inflammatory and emotionally charged discussion to continue when it wouldn't have made any difference in the final outcome. It don't know of a single member of the city council who ever considered supporting this ordinance."
After the meeting Kimble expressed displeasure at the actions of his colleagues and explained his own negative vote on the ordinance. "I have no qualms regarding protecting homosexuals from discrimination but I'm still troubled by where we must draw the line to adding more and more protected categories. I spoke to a number of legally knowledgeable people whom I respect and they all shared this concern."
"I was prepared to make a statement tonight outlining my views opposing both discrimination and this ordinance. In fact, earlier today I spoke to one of those opposed to the ordinance on moral and religious grounds and I had to tell him that I discounted those arguments. I don't think our failure to pass this ordinance will have any appreciable impact on homosexuals within this community--nor do I think passage of the ordinance would have done any harm either."
When Kimble was asked if he would support a more generic anti-discrimination ordinance which did not depend upon a listing of protected categories he was intrigued: "Just how would we go about wording such an ordinance? Given the opportunity to pass a properly worded version of what you suggest I would have to anticipate supporting such a measure."
"If we simply keep adding categories to the existing ordinance eventually we will come upon protected groups which are absurd. And there are other groups which may well be just as worthy of protection as homosexuals that are not now covered. For example, I think a very good case could be made to include protections against discrimination for the mentally handicapped. We have already seen evidence of such discrimination during the attempted siting of group homes within Galesburg."
Galesburg's third Mayoral candidate, Knox County Board Member Bob Sheehan, sees the conduct of Rude and Kimble as illustrative of their greater differences as candidates. He arrived at Monday's meeting after this agenda item had been so quickly disposed of and spoke with many of those gathered in the City Hall rotunda.
"First of all I'm apparently the only one of the three candidates for Mayor who stands steadfastly in support of measures to protect citizens from discrimination. Do not let people cloud this issue; this is about discrimination not morality. Second, I'm for open government. Important issues such as this one deserve to be completely discussed in a public forum where members of the community are afforded an opportunity to participate."
As the council meeting continued Monday night, most of those whose attendance was prompted by this issue left. One person stayed throughout the meeting, quietly scribbling notes on a legal pad. Paul Steenis had intended to participate in the discussion in support of the ordinance. His outrage at the council's blocking of discussion prompted him to make an impassioned speech at the meeting's conclusion--after waiting through hours of discussion of issues such as rezoning for Hy Vee, the proper level of humidity in City Hall and whether or not to oppose the construction of a radio tower outside the city limits.
While clearly nervous but nonetheless intensely emotional, Steenis reflected the feelings of many who had earlier walked out as he chastised the City Council's lack of openness and respect for the democratic process. His anger was aimed at being cheated out of the opportunity to publicly make a case in support of the ordinance. He interpreted the council's actions as telling gays they are not welcome as equals in Galesburg and he suggested that many gays and lesbians are likely to take the hint and leave.
Steenis made these comments to a nearly empty City Council chamber. To the credit of the members, all listened closely to what were clearly heartfelt remarks by a man who took this opportunity to proudly first proclaim his own sexual orientation in a very public forum.
"I want you to know that I have never been more embarrassed to be a resident of Galesburg than I am this evening. Tonight, as democratically elected officials of Galesburg, you have set an example for me, and for the current and future generations of citizens, that open, public discussion, dialogue and debate are not a part of the democratic process--at least not in this City.
"Tonight, we have learned that an issue of importance and substance, an issue that affects the daily quality of life for many of us, is not even important enough to discuss in these council chambers.
"Tonight, we have learned that this is not a community that opens its arms to all of its citizens.
"Tonight, we've learned that being a hardworking, upstanding, contributing member of this community is not enough to secure employment, housing or services--you must be heterosexual as well.
"By your silence on the human rights ordinance before you this evening, you've sent a strong message that those of us who are gay or lesbian are not welcome here.
"You've told us tonight that our gay and lesbian friends, colleagues, parents, relatives, sons and daughters are not welcome members of the Galesburg family--that in order for us to benefit from the fruits of our labor (or to labor at all), we need to look elsewhere--we'll have no life in Galesburg.
"This is a sad day for Galesburg. If you had asked me just a few months ago how I felt about the future of Galesburg, I would have said that it is very bright. Now, I'm not so certain..."
