City Beat: Rights of business owners debated at council

City Hall was overflowing Aug. 13 with people anxious to speak or listen to business owners and others address proposed changes to the city’s nondiscrimination policy, a move that has broad implications for Springfield companies.

Passions were high for the 62 citizens who voiced their support and opposition for an ordinance that would permit the Mayor’s Commission on Human Rights to investigate cases of discrimination in matters of housing, employment or public services based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

A majority of the speakers at the public hearing, 37, said they support the move to protect members of Springfield’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance.

Several of the 77 citizens who signed up to speak on the measure waited outside after Fire Chief David Hall said two additional viewing rooms had filled and City Hall had reached capacity. City Clerk Brenda Cirtin called speakers four at a time, so those in other parts of the building or outside could move to the third-floor meeting to address council members, and council limited speakers to three minutes to adequately hear from the large number of citizens.

Business owners and landlords who opposed revising the ordinance said the changes would infringe on their rights as owners and operators.

Longtime Springfield attorney Dee Wampler said giving Mayor’s Commission investigators access to private business files is unconstitutional.

“The ordinance says they shall have access. Well, you can’t do that,” Wampler said, adding that the volunteer board also has no right to hear testimony from the parties involved in a discrimination claim.

Councilman Jeff Seifried asked Assistant City Attorney Nancy Yendes to provide council with a report that examines any legal issues the ordinance may raise by the next meeting.

Phyllis Netzer, a landlord and Murney Associates real estate agent, said she was pleased the city was fighting discrimination.

“In 1927, I would not have been issued a real estate license. I feel that issue of discrimination is no different,” she said.

Deborah Good, who described herself as a teacher and former small-business owner, said no one should have to face discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“I don’t know how many have been discriminated against in our community, but I know how many should be and that’s none,” Good said.

Former Councilman Nick Ibarra said he hopes his former council colleagues would not strip the rights of business owners to operate their organizations according to their beliefs.

“If the government has the right to violate personal beliefs, then I ask what rights can’t the government violate?” Ibarra said.

Speakers such as Lela Panagides, a former Microsoft and Tyco executive and current CEO of Springfield-based Leap Into Leadership, said businesses are stronger when they are diverse and inclusive. Others such as Emily Church, owner of Everything Kitchens LLC, said the government should not be allowed to force business owners to ignore their beliefs in hiring decisions.

Several pastors addressed council, speaking on both sides of the issue. Pastor Mark Kiser of online Christian ministry AsleepKnowMore.com, stood against the measure. “This fails to protect our cherished religious freedoms,” Kiser said.

Currently, the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance prohibits discrimination in housing, employment or public accommodations based on race, creed, color, gender, religion, disability, familial status, national origin or ancestry. Those who feel they have been injured by a discriminatory practice may file a complaint with the commission. After an investigation and/or attempts to mediate between parties, the commission can recommend the city prosecutor’s office conduct its own investigation and bring a civil action. Penalties include a fine of up to $1,000 or up to 30 days in jail.

The ordinance offers exceptions for religious-based organizations, such as Assemblies of God, allowing the organization to prefer employees who promote values in concert with its institutional aims. Private businesses are not exempt.

Kathy Munzinger, a co-owner of Springfield-based Munzinger & Co. Inc., a sales agency serving marine suppliers in the Midwest, said following the meeting that she attended in hopes of making a difference. Munzinger has two children, one who is gay and one who is not.

“I support (the ordinance) because they both deserve equal rights to housing and employment in their hometown,” Munzinger told council.

Dave Taylor, station manager of Christian radio station KWFC-FM, said the measure would discriminate against Christian business owners.

“The policy to hinder discrimination is in itself discrimination,” Taylor said.

Erik Hansen, chief operating officer at Springfield-based marketing firm Classy Llama Studios, said the additions to the city’s nondiscrimination policy would restrict the freedom of those who hire. “Business owners ought to be able to make hiring decisions based on their convictions,” he said.

Dr. Gil Mobley dismissed the notion pushed forward by some of the opposition such as Church that sending the issue to the ballots was the right move.

“Civil rights have never been extended based on a popular vote,” Mobley said, calling for council members to approve the ordinance change.

A continuation of the public hearing and second reading of the bill is scheduled for the Aug. 27 council meeting.

Incentives plan progresses
Council considered the third and final piece of legislation tied to Kraft Foods’ bid to receive a 50 percent tax abatement for 10 years on $49 million worth of improvements to its east Springfield plant.

Springfield Economic Development Director Mary Lilly Smith said the ordinance would issue up to $26 million in industrial revenue bonds to fund improvements. Smith estimated local taxing districts would miss out on more than $813,000 in new taxes during the 10-year abatement period. Previously, council passed a resolution to issue the bonds and ratified terms of the incentives package.

Three members of the public spoke in favor of the incentives, and no one came forward in opposition of the ordinance. A second reading and vote is expected Aug. 27.[[In-content Ad]]