The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes Human Relations Commission - 02/11/1999 ,01516777g' MINUTEScs) RR 1999 _ OF THE i I�Si��:�� HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETING l') CITY SECRETARY' FEBRUARY 11,1999 ‘n%-; OFFICE Commissioners Present k�p` Ms.Olga Tamar Ms.Laura Rios Ms.Jeanette Stevens Mr.Errol Summerlin Ms.Toni Tamez Staff Present Dr.Helen Gurley Ms.June Shultz Attorney Mr.Alex Lopez Discussion: The Housing Committee meeting began at approximately 2:00 p.m. Initial discussion began with review of Article III of Housing Ordinance;State of Texas Chapter 341—Administrative Hearing;Chapter 2001—Administrative Process. When discussing Ordinance 20839,it was indicated that the Commission would need to create a map on how to effectively define itself. Alex Lopez indicated that there were three different options of existing processes the Commission could follow as an example. It was emphasized that the Commission must be equivalent to EEOC,HUD and other Federal agencies. Mr.Lopez gave the first option example—Federal Rules that HUD utilizes. It defines the Hearing Process;Timelines;Rights;in general a lot of specific details that would be beneficial to the Commission. There was some discussion on Page 628 of the HUD handout Mr.Lopez provided,pertaining to depositions and notices. Dr. Gurley indicated that HUD would require"substantially equivalent"with whatever the Commission adopts and we would not be able to deviate too much from those standards. Dr.Gurley indicated that HUD had approved the State's Standards and the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission for Human Rights is a good place to start,or other cities have HUD approved guidelines. Mr.Lopez indicated that we assume so,but can't guarantee that it would necessarily mean they would automatically approve what is submitted. Dr. Gurley asked the members present to look at the HUD guidelines. There are guidelines for subpoena power; date timelines are established; notification process; etc. There was discussion on utilization of Hearing Officers vs. Administrative Law Judges. We will need to look at number of Commissioners who would participate in the Hearing Process. Dr.Gurley gave one example of a case that was taken to Court. Dr. Gurley, as the Administrator of Human Relations, represented the Commission;two Commissioners set up for the Hearing and eventually took the case to Municipal Court and HUD took the case to Federal Court. Filing of Charges is outlined under Article III. Notice of Proposed Hearing information also is indicated. Dr. Gurley suggested going through Ordinance 20839 and look at what HUD has outlined in comparison,and add to the Ordinance as is needed. Mr.Lopez indicated that we would need to adopt a procedure that is"substantially equivalent". He also discussed 1 QED really get into information about Hearings by Commission. Article V pertains to the review for conflicts. Under Article II,it addresses the Hearing itself. There was discussion about Public Accommodations Complaints vs.Housing Complaints. It was suggested that with this review of Ordinance 20839, we need to look at it in its entirety to see all possible changes needed. There was further discussion that Public Hearings only apply to Housing Complaints. There is a Conciliation Attempt by the Administrator. A question was raised if HUD was different from EEOC,in that they weren't sure if their Hearings were closed or public. Mr.Lopez indicated he would need to review that question and get back with the Commission. In our rules,if someone files the case in Court,we cease the investigation. The Texas Commission on Human Rights handles the case from inception—from moment the case is filed. Mr.Lopez indicated that Chapter 341 is only one of twenty Chapters—which is strictly one Chapter of Procedures for Fair Housing Issues. Administrative Hearings are part of the Chapter,but it is not the entire Code. There was discussion about concern over how we would handle Pre-Hearing/Discovery. All steps that are taking place must appear in rules and procedures—from taking charge;investigation;findings;conciliation conference(all Pre-Hearing steps). There was a question raised —do we do a"General Procedure" all over again? We need to address "Due Process" safeguards vs.expedited Hearings. There was general discussion on Handouts—page 17 24-42(b)and page 624:3 and 4. With respect to the Hearing,we need to define who will participate,how(in what detail)and when(timelines and parameters). We need to develop a chart of steps of the investigation and when a charge is issued. There was discussion on how there is a conciliation phase prior to issuance of a charge by the Administrator. The charge is mailed to both the Respondent and the Charging Party. At that point the Hearing Procedures begin. The Respondent must respond to the charge. Once the response is received,a decision is made whether or not to pursue the matter further. We need to establish a set timeline in which the Respondent must respond. Concern about having an indeterminate amount of time. Procedure for Discovery invoked then? Need rules established for Discovery. Expedited Rules of Civil Procedures. Further discussion on Page 626. age 232,F—within 120 days after issuance of charge. With respect to Discovery,we need to consider the back and forth aspect of the information. We also need to address the concern that some items might be requested as Public Records. Discovery must be completed within 15 days prior to Hearing,under HUD guidelines. EEOC"only"says as long as open—can't discuss or release any information,once the case is complete or a Notice of Right To Sue has been issues, then the records is considered open. Therefore if the matter is still under investigation, the information is not to be released. With respect to Depositions/Interrogatories—can the public get transcripts or sit in on them? Mr.Lopez will research this. There was further discussion about if there is the possibility of a case going to Court,then we don't release any information, except for a copy of the charge. No detailed information is released,due to anticipation of litigation. Open Records Request should be submitted in writing. We will need to include information for a Respondent's Advisory. Public Records issues,we will need to establish guidelines on what is to be released vs.non-release. Pleadings are generally public record. We will need to review the Open Records Act closely before including in the guidelines. The wording can be stated in broad terms,allowing for it to be discretionary in application. It was suggested—"Can we adopt HUD's guidelines? Can we just rewrite our ordinance? We will need to make a recommendation to the Commission on who will make the decisions and who will be the Judge at the Hearings? Subpoena issue—compelling compliance. There was further discussion on who to go with on overseeing the Hearings. Options put forward:Administrative Law 2 Judge;Attorney;Commission or designated number of Commissioners. Also we will need to address the Appeal Process. To whom can decisions be appealed? Discussion on the Commission designating 1 or 2 Commissioners for this responsibility—then ensuring they have sufficient training to be able to perform therequired duties. Or alternative—hire an Administrative Law Judge or outside Attorneys(possibly on.a rotation basis from a list we maintain)to hear cases. We will need to address who will be designated as referee for questions pertaining to Discovery issues? Legal training will be an important factor in this responsibility. The City can establish a contractual service agreement through the Human Relations Department,for payment for the services of an Administrative Law Judge or outside Attorney,on an as needed basis. Qualifications are specified under Chapter 341.29. We could develop a list of individuals outside of Corpus Christi interested in hearing these cases,advertise in professional journals,formation of a"Pool". The procedure should address if the requirements indicate participates should be from outside the community. If we were to keep it locally based,Todd Hunter was put forward and an individual who might be a good example or retired Judges, who might even be willing to perform the duties on a pro bono basis. We would want the Administrative Law Judges to be removed from the facts. We need to determine which route we want to go with. We will need to establish a policy if the decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge is going to be the decision representative of the Commission? In other words,we won't go back and reverse the decision after the fact. That brings up the appeal issue again—the Commission doesn't really want another appeal step to the Commission afterward. There' was discussion back and forth that this would be a waste of time and it would defeat its purpose,because this could be appealed to the City Council. There was discussion on identification of penalties/restitution/remedies. More discussion ensued about Page 5—Conciliation Conferences,it is now just applicable to Article II,but we can make it applicable to Article III. Mr.Lopez expressed a concern about this. Dr.Gurley conducts a"Conciliation by Administrator",then the Commission can make one additional attempt to conciliate the Complaint before the issuance of a charge. The Commission will determine if the charge needs to be forwarded to an Administrative Law Judge. Quorum issues were discussed. Commission may choose not to pursue a complaint,however the Charging Party can still take the complaint in to State or Federal Court. If a charge is filed by the Administrator,it is filed because it is in violation of City Ordinance. Charging Party can enjoin to sue the respondent in Court. A charge will not be filed if voted against by the Commissioners. Youth Commissioners can participate in the Public Hearing,but they won't vote(as they are under age),at Public Hearing. Pre-Discovery could be address by a Conciliation Committee,but not to point of issuing an opinion. It was suggested that if there is no conciliation resolution,then the Commission could go with Dr.Gurley's recommendation regarding filing of charge and hold a Third Party Hearing. Respondent's Attorney can attend,however there are specific guidelines on this noted on Page 4—2.c. of the Ordinance. It was discussed that there should be no further appeal to the Commission afterward. The decision from the Administrative Law Judge or Attorney will stand for the Commission's response. The Committee then discussed keeping pages 1-6 of the Ordinance,on Page 5 to modify to include Article III,pursuant to HUD guidelines. This will show good faith towards attempts at conciliation. If this fails,then Administrative Law Judge can be utilized. Commissioner Tamar also discussed possibility of consideration of Commissioners overseeing the Hearings. Dr.Gurley indicated that Mediation Training would be very important for them if they were to take on this responsibility. Dr.Gurley discussed a 40-Hour Training Session,which once completed,the individual will be certified in the State of Texas. Dr.Gurley indicated the cost for the training is approximately$950 per individual. There is a possibility that an Instructor could come on-site and the City pay for it—allowing various City staff to attend to offset the costs. There was discussion about Provision Page 620—2nd column(e)of one of Mr.Lopez's handouts. There was a section indicating there should be a designation of a"Chief Docket Clerk". It could be a Hearing Examiner,Administrative Law 3 , indicating there should be a designation of a"Chief Docket Clerk". It could be a Hearing Examiner,Administrative Law Judge,Commissioner,or whomever designated who would file stamp,establish and record time lines,be referral source for discovery,etc. The suggestion was made that to submit for consideration the following: • if we were to ask Council to take our current ordinance,with provisions from 20839; • Pages 1-6,with minor modifications; • Major changes beginning with Page 7; • Removing the rest; • Inserting Rules and Procedures of HUD; • Weed out the redundancy; • Use Administrative Law Judge reference for now; • Keep time lines,Discover,etc.; • Excluding things that won't apply to the Commission. Questions were raise if the time lines would be voluntary—not enforced? Discussion on utilization of a Form or Affidavit to show there was a refusal for compliance. There was further discussion on need for additional work by the subcommittee prior to submission of the draft ordinance. / The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:45 p.m. 4"1"7".‘-.112-7- 5// %9 a Taaz Commissioner Date Minutes Approved Housin 'Committee Chair 4 CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION MONTHLY REPORT Reporting Period February 1999 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION INQUIRIES The Human Relations Office received 566 inquiries during the month of February 1999. Employment 318 Housing Complaints 100 Public Accommodations 2 Other 146 Total Inquiries 566 CHARGES Employment 26 Human Relations to process and investigate 6 EEOC to process and investigates 20 Housing Complaints 2 Public Accommodations 0 Total Charges 28 CLOSURES Employment 09 a)Negotiated Settlement 02 b)No Cause 05 SCANNED Human Relations Commission Monthly Report Page 2 CLOSURES: (Con't.) c)Administrative Closure 0 -No Jurisdiction 0 -Withdrawal w/out Settle 0 - CP's Failure to Cooperate 0 - Unable to Locate Respondent 0 - Unable to Locate Charging Party 0 d)Unsuccessful Conciliation e) Successful Conciliation 0 f)Right-To-Sue Letter by EEOC 2 g)Withdrawal with Settlement 0 h)Transferred to EEOC 0 i)Additional Credits 0 j)Bankruptcy 0 Housing 1 Public Accommodation 0 TOTAL CLOSURES 10 Human Relations Commission Monthly Report Page 3 YEAR TO DATE REPORT February 1999 CHARGES FILED Employment 128 Human Relations to process and investigate: 49 EEOC to process and investigate: 79 Housing Complaints 2 Public Accommodation 0 • Total Charges and Complaints Filed 130 CLOSURES Employment Charges 57 Housing Complaints 1 Public Accommodation Complaints 0 Total Closures 58 SCHEDULE OF FACT-FINDING CONFERENCE Human Relations Commission Monthly Report Page 4 ATTACHMENT A CORPUS CHRISTI HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Month: February 1999 Current Year to Date 1. Number of Employment inquiries/charges filed. Month Oct 01-Feb 28 (a) Number of charges filed 26 128 (b) Number of inquiries only 318 1,597 • 2. Number of Housing complaints/charges. (a) Number of complaints filed 2 02 (b) Number of complaints only , 100 124 3. Number of Public Accommodation inquiries/charges filed. (a) Number of complaints filed 0 • 00 (b) Number of inquiries only 02 09 • 4. Number of other inquiries received (a) • Number of inquiries only 146 • 932 Human Relations Commission Monthly Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT B HUMAN RELATIONS DEPARTMENT COMPARATIVE STATISTICAL INFORMATION FY 99 CASE CLOSURE STATUS INFORMATION Contract Requirement 118 Total Closures submitted to EEOC as of October thru February 1999 57 Closures submitted to EEOC February, 1999 09 Total Closures submitted to EEOC year-to-date February 57 Closures pending Transmittal to EEOC by March, 1999 06 Percentage of Contract completed 48% Percentage needed to be completed by September 30, 1999 100% Intake Information Contract Requirement 232 Total completed/reported to EEOC as February 1999 20 Total Intakes submitted to EEOC year to date October thru 79 February 1999 Total Pending to Report to EEOC 153 Percentage of Contract completed as September 30, 1999 100% Total Dollar Benefits for February 1, 1999 to February 28, 1999 - $1,000 . . . . . . . . . . . ' • ' . t. • . , . . . . . . gEn _.- .."--. 0 0 0 • 0 0 ON II. .., . •' 0 • o E • Cr A il• . il• . VD. • • E, ,o '.o ,0 1/40 VD 43 V:, VD VD 1/40 VD E. 1/40 1/40 1/40 1/40 1/40 e° . 00 00 -4 -4 -4 00 00 -4_ ....) ..4 00 00 -4 -4 -4 . . . • • . • • N . t4 U.) La . IN,.) U.) to.) U.) t...) CA . . ts.) I—. W -•-t • ON 00 4=, 1/40 4=h 1--. a oo v:, l.al t4 -' 3 0 t4LA .-4 -4 --4 Ch •• • -....1 'Ji kl) ..-4 ii t.A.14 00 . . . • . en . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . ., . . •. • . rii . t i • . . . 0 %0 . , • w 00. . . . . . 4 . - . . • . . . . • . • ..R 8 . . , . . • „ . .. mo . .. . . . . . . . .. , . . • . . . . w . . o . rt . . . . . 1 . fa 1/40 : . . . 0 q) . . • ,- . o . . ' is 0 . . . . . m _ •4 ... • ,.... • . .. . ..- . •-• ., • .. . . . . • • . ,_, . . . ..., •. . . . . . . ' Pt. /0 • 0 . . F3 . : 0 E • . -. • cr ..R. R. $... a ' „, , „.5., (,,D 0 e,-, l.1 • DD . - ,-- . , . . . . .• r -, ko 1/40 1/40 1/40. 1/40 1/40 1/40 '.0 1/40 1/40 — 1/40 1/40 1/40 1/40 1/40 • 01::$ M ' • '.0 '.boo 00 00 . '0 '.0 00 00 00 \Jo '.0 00 00 00 , . :I . • . _ . . . . . . . - p.. • . . . . • I:1 o--. N.) ts.) U.) ts..) N.) 1—, t...) U.)W . t....) L..) VD . t•J ON •U).14 U.) 4:. 1 ji )-4 t•.) 0 U.) 1—+ 1/40' VI 00 00 ON t•J• . w)• oo -4 1....t .p., ....) V) oo 1/40 •••ta . . ' . .. . . , .. . . . . , . . . . , • ' R .. . . r • . . . • . . „4 . IN) .. . • ...., • ON ----1 ON 00 I—, i .... .1....„.4 uE . . • 00 N) ,_. ,..., ,- _4 00 -4 N.) .p. ...4 C'. . 0 ,.. . . • + ;. . . • . . 1 . I . . . . . . . ' . . . . . ' . . , . - - Tr m ,--1 ,-I kso In NON ,-iltnin Mr-IMONW N 1-41-IIN in Imeer-4 N NI 'll ' r1 ;-- i I e I V) VD - I • , . . ' . . . . . , 0 N . ' mqtNWO m ONIrimN . r4000 ,-1 P-4 00000 ,--4 NCIONold- NN1-1 ,-4 M ' 81 .. , 000000mm 00 00 000. 0\ 000000mm N ON ON CA ON ' ONONONONOONONOONON N • • CA z OZ0 00 ti) g 0 • 44 OZ A ,—. 4.1 OZ [21A1, 40 A 0 , CV . . 0 . . cd' 0 • 4 . . 0-4 0 . 11 0:1 . .. .. - . ._ . . . . et el 0 • r- oo v, CA et 0 sil • CA N 00 ON ,:t N N 1.-.1 ¼0 00 N `Zr • r-4 OCIONin ., 0 t-I ' 4 ON N 041• 00 1-4 N es) el eq ,-. ,-i ,--1 M . N N N 0000 NNN0000 • Nt-- N0000 .-• ON- ON Os ON ON r4g MO\ Ch 0101 Irg • CA ChM MCA CV N 0 0 .4.11 +4 Oa 0 • ›.- 0 ,0 41 > 0 1 t • 4) H 0 • ts oogo 0 ti o 0 g -8 '5 1:14 OZ A 1—, 44 ci) OZA1, 44 cA • OZA ,-, 44 cA ., .• . . . ‘,. • . L i eiiliiii % City Of :.g: ,.> HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION `` `' Corpus COMMISSIONER LISTING „ G` 0; = [=? ._ = Christi co ff.v : F`:, ,. n \EIONN�,r CHAIRPERSON: Reverend Willie Davila , t:ti, ' fc; 4518 Saratoga Blvd, Corpus Christi, TX 78413 ,V Business Phone: (361) 852-9677/Fax: 852-9676 Commissioner—Vice Chair Commissioner Ms.Anna M. Mercado Mr.Errol Summerlin 2830 Tumbleweed,Corpus Christi,TX 78410 102 Pueblo St.,Corpus Christi,TX 78405 Business Phone: (361)241-4535 Business Phone: (361)883-3667,Ext. 143 Commissioner Commissioner Ms. Jeanette Stevens Ms. Olga Tamar 525 Browner Parkway,Corpus Christi,TX 78411 4582 River Park,Corpus Christi,TX 78410 Business Phone: (361)857-8991 Business Phone: (361)241-2234 Commissioner Commissioner Ms. Lena Coleman - Ms. Toni Tamez P. O.Box 5907,Corpus Christi,TX 78465 1038 Pyramid,Corpus Christi,TX 78412 Business Phone: (361)857-7729 Business Phone: (361)992-4209/9941089 Commissioner - Commissioner Rabbi Paul Joseph Dr. Sylvester Peterson 4402 Saratoga Blvd.,Corpus Christi,TX 78413 13550 Queen Johanna Court,Corpus Christi;TX Business Phone:(361)857-8181 Business Phone: (361)886-9063 78410 Commissioner Commissioner Ms. Laura Rios Oscar Hinojosa, Sr. 4901 Saratoga Blvd.,Corpus Christi,TX 78413 3509 Crestside,Corpus Christi,TX 78411 Business Phone:(361)980-2505 Home Phone:(361)855-5447 Commissioner Legal Advisor Sandra Terrell-Davis Mr.Alex Lopez 3126 Dunbarton Oaks,Corpus Christi,TX 78414 Legal Department, 561Flr.,City Hall Business Phone: (361)885-6177/985-8528 Business Phone: (361)880-3364 Youth Commissioner(West Oso H.S.) Youth Commissioner(West Oso H.S.) Mr.Daniel Carmona Ms.Kelly Garza 745 Bloomington,Corpus Christi,TX 78416 4301 Yolanda,Corpus Christi,TX 78416 Home Phone:(361)854-4571 Home Phone:(361)851-2341 School Phone:(361)289-5214 School Phone:(361)289-5214 . Youth Commissioner(Flour Bluff H.S.) Human Relations Administrator Ms.Blaire Pittman Helen R. Gurley,Ph.D. 14325 Caribe,Corpus Christi,TX 78418 Human Relations Department,4th Flr.,City Hall Home Phone:(361)949-9383/949-9414 Business Phone:(361)880-3190 School Phone:(361)694-9200 Home Phone:(361)992-5390 Revised: 6/16/1999 Department of Human Relations P.O. Box 9277 • Corpus Christi, Texas 78469-9277 • (512) 880-3190