AUBURN — Auburn Common Council members considered including protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the city’s nondiscrimination policy, but they decided not to include them in a revised version.
At the council’s meeting Monday, council members unanimously passed on first reading an ordinance implementing a policy in line with Title VI of the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act. Council members Mike Watson and Jim Finchum were absent.
Local government bodies are required by federal law to pass similar ordinances so their citizens may not be subject to discrimination under any program receiving federal dollars.
Title VI prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color or national origin. City Attorney Erik Weber included some additional protections in a first draft of Auburn’s ordinance, presented to the council at its Sept. 15 meeting. However, he stripped from the revised version of the document any language not included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Councilman Mike Walter said Monday the council should go beyond the minimum required by the federal government and leave the additional language in the ordinance.
“We should acknowledge that we are in the second decade of the 21st century,” he said, referring to protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
At the council’s Sept. 15 meeting, Walter made some of the same points. Councilman Matthew Kruse disagreed at that meeting, saying the council should limit its ordinance to the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If the council continued to add more protections, it would struggle to find a place to draw the line, he said.
Auburn’s personnel policy already guarantees equal employment opportunities regardless of race, religion, color, age, gender, sex, disability, genetics, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation or any other legally protected status. The policy was most recently revised Sept. 20, 2011, according to the city’s website.
Walter made a motion to amend Monday’s ordinance to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family or marital status, ancestry, genetics or veteran status. While he noted that the personnel policy includes some of the same language, he pointed out it does not include protection against discrimination on the grounds of gender identity or expression.
Walter’s motion died because it did not receive a second from another council member. A second reading of the ordinance, as well as a public hearing, will take place at the council’s next meeting, Oct. 19 at 6 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers.