Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

DAN OLSON: A week from tomorrow, Saint Paul voters will go to the polls to decide if the city's newly-adopted gay rights ordinance should be repealed. And that's the topic of our discussion. In the studio with me, Tracy Elftmann, deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. And on the line with us from Minneapolis, Emma Hixson, the executive director of the Minneapolis Civil Rights Department, who we'll be hearing from in just a moment.

Tracy Elftmann, the deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, is formerly with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC in Washington, DC. Thank you for coming by, Tracy. And I gather you were up late like the rest of us last night.

TRACY ELFTMANN: I was up late rooting for the Twins, of course.

DAN OLSON: Very good. What does the Minnesota Human Rights Act say about protection for gay and lesbian people?

TRACY ELFTMANN: Currently, the state law says nothing about affectional preference or sexual orientation. There are no protections in the state law for those bases.

DAN OLSON: What rights are guaranteed for various other protected groups, so-called?

TRACY ELFTMANN: The Human Rights Act covers several protected groups. It covers race, color, creed, sex, religion, national origin, public assistance status, marital status, disability and age.

DAN OLSON: There is an important point to be made about state employees, though, having protection because there's an executive order, in effect, protecting state employees who are gay and lesbian.

TRACY ELFTMANN: That's right. It was an executive order originally signed, I believe, by Governor Perpich and has been reissued by Governor Carlson.

DAN OLSON: We'll get more on this in just a moment, but what is your impression? Minneapolis and Saint Paul, to my knowledge, are the only cities in Minnesota, which have protection for gay and lesbian people. Is that right as far as you know?

TRACY ELFTMANN: As far as I know, yes.

DAN OLSON: And in a moment, we'll be hearing about the Minneapolis ordinance from Emma Hixson. At the EEOC, when you worked in federal government, what does the federal statute say about protection?

TRACY ELFTMANN: For the same affectional preference, absolutely nothing. In fact, Title 7, which is what the EEOC enforces, really only covers employment. It covers race, religion, national origin, sex, that kind of thing.

DAN OLSON: And on a weekly basis, what's your experience with people calling in who may be gay or lesbian and complaining of discrimination? About how many calls? How many people do you hear from?

TRACY ELFTMANN: We receive approximately 5 to 10 calls a week. Typically, what we will do is inquire if the person lives or was discriminated against in Minneapolis or Saint Paul. We can now refer them to the local human rights commissions there.

DAN OLSON: I don't know much about what is happening elsewhere around the country regarded language pertaining to sexual orientation, sexual preference. It's my understanding Wisconsin had one of the first laws in this area. I have the impression not many other states have enacted laws of this nature.

TRACY ELFTMANN: I think that's right. I don't have a number count, but I do believe that's right. And in the Midwest, we've become real proactive on this area.

DAN OLSON: Yeah. In Minnesota, the attitude apparently has been that state lawmakers have walked up to the line a number of times to talk about language, inserting sexual preference, sexual orientation, but have backed off from it. You're a state official, a person who is in an appointive position, I assume. You're put there by Governor Carlson, is that right?

TRACY ELFTMANN: That's right.

DAN OLSON: What do you think is going to happen? Do you have a guess?

TRACY ELFTMANN: I don't have a guess. And because we're facing a short legislative session, unfortunately, our time to get new amendments proposed and passed is limited. I do know that it has been 18 years in the trying to amend the state law to cover affectional preference and sexual orientation.

DAN OLSON: This is controversial. All protected groups have had controversy associated with their particular protective status. Gay and lesbian, no different. If anything, though, it seems even more controversial.

TRACY ELFTMANN: I think it's controversial because people tend to view this as a moral issue. What we're looking at, though, are whether these people are denied equal opportunities just because of their sexual preference.

DAN OLSON: Stay with us, Tracy Elftmann. As we continue this conversation during the noon hour, we should point out that in a bit, we'll welcome Deb Schlick and Bob Fletcher, two folks from Saint Paul who are working on either side of the campaign to repeal Saint Paul's language regarding sexual orientation in the Saint Paul Human Rights Act. Joining us on the line from Minneapolis is Emma Hixson, the executive director of the Minneapolis Civil Rights Department. Welcome.

EMMA HIXSON: Thank you.

DAN OLSON: Glad you could be with us in the Minneapolis Bureau Office. Why do you think, Emma Hixson, did Minneapolis take the step? Was it back in the early '80s?

EMMA HIXSON: 1974.

DAN OLSON: 1974. Why do you think the city took the step, as far as you know, to insert this language in its ordinance?

EMMA HIXSON: The city council heard testimony from citizens in the city about problems of discrimination against gay and lesbian people, and found that there was a very strong basis for establishing civil rights protection.

DAN OLSON: What has the city found, Emma, in terms of people who are coming with complaints? Is there a high degree of complaint?

EMMA HIXSON: No, not very high. It's the complaint rate for affectional preferences. It's about 4.2% of our overall caseload. And it's estimated that perhaps 10% of the population is gay and lesbian. So the complaints are being filed at a 4.2% rate, which is not terribly high, no.

DAN OLSON: And is it mostly job related discrimination complaints or other kinds of complaints?

EMMA HIXSON: Mostly job related, but we do get complaints in all of the categories, including public accommodations, which is treatment in, for instance, public businesses like restaurants and in housing discrimination. So we've had complaints in all the areas, but mostly employment.

DAN OLSON: I realize you might not be able to cite some of the details with names, but of course, other specifics would be interesting, too, for you to tell us how some of these cases are resolved. What kinds of agreements do people come to?

EMMA HIXSON: Well, most of the cases, I think, are resolved. Some kind of an agreement is reached. And a lot of the cases that we get involve, harassment on the job where an individual is being called names, perhaps even physically harassed because they are gay on the job. And sometimes employers are willing to do training for their staff to try to deal with their attitudes towards the gay employee and that can help to resolve a situation. Sometimes the employment just is severed and there's a monetary settlement to, in some way, compensate the employee who can no longer work in that atmosphere.

DAN OLSON: What does your reading of history-- you weren't around, I don't think, in '74 when the law was passed, were you?

EMMA HIXSON: I wasn't in Minneapolis, no.

DAN OLSON: Right. What does your reading of history tell you? Was there an initial rush of complaints as that ordinance took effect with the sexual preference language in it, or did it build over time?

EMMA HIXSON: Well, let me actually look here and see what the numbers were in 1974. There were 3 complaints in 1974, on this basis, 7 in 1975 and then it shot up to 17 in 1976. That was a peak year.

And that's the highest level that we've ever had was that 7. No, we had 19 and 1987. So those are the highest we've ever had.

DAN OLSON: Yeah, what do you think personally, Emma Hixson, the ordinance in Minneapolis has meant to people who are gay and lesbian? Has it given them a sense of empowerment?

EMMA HIXSON: Absolutely. There's the sense that you do have civil rights protection, that you can't just be arbitrarily denied basic opportunities because of your affectional preference, that there is some recourse if that does happen. It sets a tone, too, I think, for the business community, knowing that these civil rights protections exist. The business community is more likely to take some kind of proactive stance about it so that it doesn't happen, so that the discrimination does not occur.

DAN OLSON: And has there been-- I gather Minneapolis does not have a repeal or initiative effort similar to Saint Paul. I think that is the case. But has there been any attempt in Minneapolis to repeal the language from the ordinance there?

EMMA HIXSON: Not to my knowledge, no. We don't have referendum. And there doesn't seem to be that interest in doing anything to repeal that measure. I think most of the citizens support it.

DAN OLSON: Emma Hixson, stay with us from Minneapolis. Joining us on the telephone now from Saint cloud is Saint Cloud City council member Larry Meyer, who is on the line. Saint Cloud considered and rejected a gay rights ordinance with roughly the same language as Saint Paul. Larry, thank you for joining us this afternoon.

LARRY MEYER (ON PHONE): Hi, how are you.

DAN OLSON: Good. Thank you. I appreciate your standing by. You opposed the Saint Cloud Language for a Gay Rights Ordinance there. Why is that?

LARRY MEYER (ON PHONE): Well, there were so many different reasons. Part of it was some concern at looking at how both the Minnesota Supreme Court and some of the federal appeals court had ruled on cases similar to this before. And we felt that the court was sending a message that when this infringes on religious freedom, that you're going to have a problem with them. That was one of the things that we looked at.

Certainly, another thing, at least that I myself considered is that whether this met the same qualifications as all other protected classes met. In other words, there are many different disaffected groups in society and certainly gay men and lesbians are one of those groups. But I don't think that the discrimination was so systematic that the government needed to step in here and guarantee jobs and apartments for people in this particular group.

Now, that was a judgment call. What wasn't a judgment call, however, was that in the Saint Cloud Human Rights Ordinance mirrors the state statute. In other words, what we wanted was anyone who had a discrimination complaint locally not to have to go down to Saint Paul to deal with it.

And we have pretty much copied their statutes and incorporated them into our local ordinances. This would be the first departure from that. We would depart from what the state has, and as you said earlier in the program, what the federal government has, creating a category that out of all the 850 municipalities in Minnesota, only Minneapolis and Saint Paul has.

DAN OLSON: You used an interesting phrase, Larry, guaranteeing jobs and apartments, for example, to disaffected groups, including gay and lesbian people was your reference. Emma Hixson in Minneapolis, does the city ordinance there guarantee jobs and apartments?

EMMA HIXSON: No, it doesn't. All it does is guarantee that you can't be arbitrarily denied a job for which you're qualified or an apartment that you can afford simply because of your affectional preference, just because you are gay.

DAN OLSON: Tracy Elftmann from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, as you listen to the discussion from Minneapolis and Saint Cloud, a city of Minneapolis where language was adopted, Saint Cloud, which walked up to the line and then turned back the language, does that indicate to you anything about the mood of Minnesota in terms of whether or not state residents are ready for language, which refers to sexual preference, sexual orientation regarding human rights protection?

TRACY ELFTMANN: I think it's indicative of the mood, but I also think it's indicative of education and perhaps a bit of ignorance. Most of the calls that we get from people claiming to have been discriminated against because of affectional preference are in the metro area. We get very few calls from people out of state. And I attribute some of that to education. Some of that to perhaps a fear of even coming forward to make this kind of a claim because there is a lack of education on this issue out state.

DAN OLSON: Larry Meyer, your reaction to Tracy Elftmann's--

LARRY MEYER (ON PHONE): My reaction to that is, as far as the educational state, many companies in Saint Cloud have gay rights protection within their personnel policies in Saint Cloud. Meyer Associates, my company, is one of them. Both our real estate division and our marketing division both have protection right in our personnel policies, non-discrimination.

DAN OLSON: What does that mean? What is the teeth for that protection, Larry? What does it guarantee?

LARRY MEYER (ON PHONE): It guarantees that as far as hiring, as far as advancement within the company, that in no case will your affectional preference be taken into consideration.

DAN OLSON: Has it worked?

LARRY MEYER (ON PHONE): I think that our people are very happy with it. They certainly understand the reason for it. And I really want to stress that I have to put my personal feelings about this completely separate from what government's role should be in determining this. In my particular company, we feel there is no reason for this type of discrimination. However, at Catholic Charities across the street, they may feel completely differently about it. Or up at the Boy Scouts up on the north side of town, they may feel completely different about it for perhaps protection of religion purposes.

DAN OLSON: Tracy Elftmann and Emma Hixson in Minneapolis, several companies, a number of companies in Minnesota, have taken this step. First, Tracy, does it work in your view?

TRACY ELFTMANN: I'm not familiar, actually, with a lot of companies that have taken this step. If they have and it works, I applaud those efforts. I think that's wonderful. That doesn't mean that there isn't any more work left for us to do.

DAN OLSON: Emma, how about your familiarity?

EMMA HIXSON: Well, of course, the only teeth for that would be the company's actual commitment to that policy and whether they would do anything about an abuse that did occur. And hopefully, they would. I think it might be an example of where a lot of businesses are ahead of the political structures in many cases.

The businesses know that there's a need for this kind of policy, that there is discrimination and that it's important for the company to take a proactive stance to prevent that from occurring. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a strong need to have actual civil rights protection. And I certainly disagree in terms of what the role of government should be.

The role of government should be to protect groups from exactly this kind of arbitrary denial of basic needs like jobs and apartments. Just singling people out simply because they may have a different appearance or may be gay is totally arbitrary and that's where government should intercede. And there's plenty of proof of discrimination that's been documented in Minnesota. The governor's task force documented extensive discrimination.

DAN OLSON: Larry Meyer in Saint Cloud-- excuse me, Larry Meyer in Saint Cloud, when the Saint Cloud ordinance was being considered, was it opposition based on moral grounds that was the main objection-- was the main argument by opponents?

LARRY MEYER (ON PHONE): I think that is one of them. To say it was the main objection, I don't know. In my case, it was not.

However, certainly, this issue generates a good many of the fundamentalist religion people and many other religious groups that get involved in the issue. And it does-- the only comfort I gave them at all is that, certainly, the courts had already ruled that they're not going to allow these statutes to stay in the way-- stand in the way of protection of religion. I think there was a case in the Twin Cities regarding Newman Center, as I recall, that had not been decided when we made our decision. But there were a number of federal decisions, Steeber versus the US Army and a number of others that I forget right now. Curran versus the Boy Scouts was another one.

DAN OLSON: All right, Larry, stay on the phone with us, if you will, and stay with the conversation. And you're listening to a Midday discussion of the question that Saint Paul voters will face as they go to the polls a week from tomorrow when they decide if the city's newly adopted gay rights ordinance should be repealed. We've been hearing from Emma Hixson in the city of Minneapolis.

The executive director there of the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission-- department rather, Tracy Elftmann, has joined us. She is the deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Now, two new guests in the studio to further the discussion here, Bob Fletcher of Saint Paul's Citizens Alert, a group working for repeal of the gay rights ordinance and Deborah Schlick of Campaign 90s, the group working against repeal. Thank you both, Bob and Deb for coming in--

BOB FLETCHER: Thank you.

DAN OLSON: --to join the discussion.

DEB SCHLICK: Thank you for having us.

DAN OLSON: You bet. Bob, can you give me, if you have it handy, the language of the question, the ballot question that the Saint Paul voters will be asked to decide on Tuesday, a week from tomorrow?

BOB FLETCHER: Sure. And Deborah, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would read, shall the sexual and affectual orientation provisions of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance be repealed?

DAN OLSON: The net effect would be to take just that language out of the ordinance, not to take the ordinance away. I think--

DEB SCHLICK: Exactly.

BOB FLETCHER: --it's four words.

DAN OLSON: And explain to us what not voting may mean and some of the other intricacies of the ballot question, again, for Saint Paul voters.

DEB SCHLICK: It'll be fairly uncomplicated and fairly simple. People who don't vote won't be counted, and it'll be a simple majority of the people who vote on this question.

DAN OLSON: And this has been described as a fairly quiet campaign so far, Deb and Bob. People saying that neither side wants to create a flap, cause an uproar. Bob, is part of that strategy because frankly, neither side, including yours, wants a very heavy turnout?

BOB FLETCHER: No, I don't think so. I think, at least speaking for our group, we think the city is best served by not having an inflammatory debate and that the issue can be debated on the public policy issues rather than some of the moral issues that some groups like to raise. We, for the most part, support a number of the things in the ordinance. In fact, the public accommodation, public services, the harassment on the job, all of those are important things that need to be addressed.

DAN OLSON: What's the public policy issue, do you think, regarding sexual or affectional preference?

BOB FLETCHER: I think the larger issue is one of competing rights and privileges. When you enhance the rights and privileges of one particular group in society, at some point you infringe on the rights and privileges of another. And it's a public policy debate as to how you balance those. And Larry Meyer has done an, I think, an excellent job of laying out.

DAN OLSON: He's from Citizens Alert.

BOB FLETCHER: No.

DAN OLSON: I'm sorry, from Saint Cloud.

BOB FLETCHER: From Saint Cloud, the council person from Saint Cloud. An excellent job of laying out the public policy issues that cities need to look at. What is government's role? Should government be involved in spending tax dollars to sue private corporations, churches, Boy Scouts on behalf of individuals in society? And we think that crosses over the line to the point that it infringes on the rights of those groups.

DAN OLSON: Protecting human rights costs money. Bob Fletcher raises a legitimate point no doubt about it.

BOB FLETCHER: Well, it's beyond protecting human rights. It's involving the state in litigation based upon a behavior. And that's different than a class or condition. There's clearly a difference in behavior versus class and condition.

DAN OLSON: Before we turn to Deb Schlick for a point to rebut Bob Fletcher, Tracy, the state's experience with the cost of protecting human rights because the discussion can take place in a very rarefied atmosphere. But the bottom line is that the state, for example, which has an act which does not include sexual preference, does have a staff of how large?

TRACY ELFTMANN: Our staff right now is approximately 70 employees.

DAN OLSON: And your annual budget is about?

TRACY ELFTMANN: That I don't know.

DAN OLSON: Yeah. But anyway, you have a lot of people working across the Department of Human Rights.

TRACY ELFTMANN: We have a lot of people. We've continued to have a workload problem. Far too many charges and not enough people.

DAN OLSON: So one of the problems, Deb Schlick, is that language in this ordinance could be very expensive.

DEB SCHLICK: Yeah, but the very first duty of a government is to protect the rights of its citizens. If that ever gets too expensive for a government to do, we're in serious problem, not only in Saint Paul, but in the state of Minnesota.

DAN OLSON: What do you detect in terms of the opposition to the movement? Is it basically good government kind of opposition to the movement, as Bob Fletcher has indicated, or is there also a very strong component of moral outrage here from organized groups that's saying, no, we should not in any way sanction the ability of gay and lesbian people to have protection?

DEB SCHLICK: What we know about the opposition are from two channels. One, the literature we've seen from Citizens Alert, which we think plays up fears. It creates threats about freedom of religion that aren't really there, and it creates threats about job security that aren't there. The other channel we have that gives us a clue to opposition are the hate calls and the hate mail that people involved in this campaign receive. And it's a little less polished than the spokespeople of Citizens Alert.

DAN OLSON: And do you agree with the analysis that both sides have been taking a deliberately low-key effort so as to not rile public sentiment on this and perhaps bring a larger turnout that would affect one side or the other?

DEB SCHLICK: I don't know. The reason we've taken the approach we have is that we think we have a real simple case to make to the public. And it's a case about protection from discrimination and a case about equal rights. And that's just not a very inflammatory or very divisive issue.

BOB FLETCHER: Well, let me just say that I think our side would be better served if it was an inflammatory debate, but I don't think the city would be best served. There are probably a dozen more important issues facing Saint Paul, ranging from economics to crime. This is an important issue, but certainly not so important as to divide the city.

But on the issue of human rights versus gay rights, I think there needs to be a distinction between class, and condition and behavior. And you kept referring, Dan, back to protecting human rights. The average household income for gay and lesbian individuals in our society is over $55,000. If you look at minority individuals in our society, it's far less than $20,000, in some areas, $12,000 to $15,000.

And so clearly, one issue is, has there been adverse economic impact to this group? And Larry referred to it as there are some systemic cause in society or something we're doing as a government to adversely impact these people. And the answer clearly is no. There have been individual instances of discrimination, as there are in a lot of areas. But in terms of addressing adverse economic impact, no one has been able to substantiate that this group of individuals deserves to have this privilege of publicly-financed litigation.

DAN OLSON: We'll get a response from Deb Schlick in just a moment. We're about halfway through our conversation here on the question that, among others, Saint Paul voters will face when they go to the polls a week from tomorrow to decide if the city's newly adopted gay rights ordinance should be repealed. No special protection needed, Deb Schlick.

DEB SCHLICK: The human rights ordinance isn't about special protection. The human rights ordinance is about discrimination. Bob figures about $55,000 come out of a marketing study done for one national magazine. The North Star poll done in Minnesota show very different income levels.

But that's beside the point anyway. Being Black and middle class doesn't save you from discrimination. And the human rights ordinance is designed to control bigotry and hate in our community.

John Chenoweth had a lot of money. Having money didn't save John Chenoweth's life. He was killed by someone the Minneapolis Police is convinced as a serial killer of gay men.

The numbers that are important, instead of income numbers, are numbers about the hate crimes. Reports are increasing by 130% from this year over last year. There are 130 reports of physical threats, physical assaults, verbal harassment and four murders so far in this year of gay identified people.

BOB FLETCHER: We're talking about two completely different issues. First of all, Deborah, there is no evidence that's come to the public's knowledge, and as a police officer, I'm totally unaware of any on the Chenoweth issue. And that's really unfair to throw that issue out in the public for the second time.

It may very well be that the person that killed Mr. Chenoweth was gay himself. We don't know the answer to that. We're going to have to wait to find out. To use that at this point is unfair.

Second, on the issue of harassment or gay bashing, it's reprehensible. I'll state that and others will state that it should not happen. We need to take more aggressive action, as a society than we are to address that. And I concur with you.

But the ordinance that we're talking about here is not going to stop that. In Minneapolis, where most of this harassment that you're referring to has been taking place, they've had the ordinance on the books since '74 and it has not addressed it. So there are two separate issues, eliminating abuse, and bashing and assault that needs to be aggressively dealt with by society. But this is a different issue.

DAN OLSON: What's the status, do you think, Bob Fletcher, of discrimination on the job against gays and lesbians in Saint Paul?

BOB FLETCHER: Well, I think there is discrimination, and I think that's why we support probably 80% of the ordinance. Most employers ought to be compelled to abide by these ordinances that have been passed. In fact, we would say that the public accommodation for large employers, for large apartment buildings, it ought to apply.

But for smaller employers or for organizations like the Boy Scouts, Big Brothers who have some value system underlying their organization, then it should not apply. And that's why we believe the ordinance is too broad and too far reaching. If we built in some exemptions, Dan, we'd be glad to support a compromise.

DAN OLSON: Deb Schlick.

DEB SCHLICK: The exemptions aren't needed. Freedom of religion is aggressively protected and recognized by the human rights ordinance. And Mr. Fletcher's own flyers from Citizens Alert cite all the cases that verify that.

Father Buchanan of Holy Childhood School in 1979 did not hire a music teacher because the man was gay. The court said clearly, yes, your right to freedom of religion, allows you to make that decision. The Boy Scouts won their case in San Francisco. Big Brothers won their case in Minneapolis in 1979 and are allowed to inform parents that an adult matched up with their child may be gay.

DAN OLSON: What do you think is the nature of the organizing effort among those folks who want to repeal the language in the ordinance, Deb Schlick? Do you gather that it is based mainly on moral opposition or other factors?

DEB SCHLICK: I think it's based on the arguments that Mr. Fletcher has been making, trying to paint equal rights as special privileges, trying to frighten people into believing that somehow someone else having the same rights that every other citizen in the city has is a threat to them. The specter of hiring quotas is often brought up. Human rights ordinance clearly, clearly does not mandate hiring quotas, does not compel hiring quotas. It only asks that discrimination be not allowed in the workplace.

BOB FLETCHER: Well, let me address just a couple of issues. One, on the court issues, the court in this country is a changing, fluid body. We never know where the court is going to be. And consequently, we have the debate over abortion or pro-choice continually being appealed at new levels.

The same is true here. We don't know for sure where the courts are going to be. If the court precedent of the past back in 1979 would have stopped this prosecution on behalf of human rights departments against churches, we wouldn't have had to worry.

But the truth is the archdiocese was sued again, even though there was previous precedent. And Father Buchanan's church spent over $10,000, the archdiocese spending in the tens of thousands to appeal their cases on up the ladder. So the issue isn't simply where the courts ultimately are, it's should human rights departments be prosecuting?

Second, on the issue of quotas. No, there are no quotas spelled out in the ordinance, but let me read directly from section 5. "The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that these employees are treated during employment without regard to."

And then it lists all the protected class and adds sexual and affectual orientation. Such action will include, but not limited to the following-- employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment and recruiting advertising. This is the same section that the Human Rights Department currently enforces contract compliance and monitoring with.

DAN OLSON: All right, Tracy Elftmann is that a quota from the Minnesota Department's Human Rights point of view?

TRACY ELFTMANN: It's not a quota. And my understanding of the Saint Paul ordinance is that the references to sexual orientation and sexual preference are not cross-referenced to the affirmative action obligations of contractors.

DAN OLSON: Let's go to the telephone to invite some of the listeners into the conversation who we gave the telephone number out to. Thanks for standing by. You're on the line and we're listening for your question. Go ahead, please.

SPEAKER 1 (ON PHONE): I just had a couple of comments addressing-- a couple of comments that the gentleman from Citizens Alert--

DAN OLSON: Bob Fletcher, yes.

SPEAKER 1 (ON PHONE): Right. One comment was, is that he stated the income figures for gay people being higher as if that proves that they don't need protection because they're doing all right. But what those figures don't show is the amount of fear that those people are living under in order to hold those jobs.

And the second point is he seems to base a great deal of his argument on his assumption that homosexuality is merely a behavior. I would only point out that heterosexuality is both a condition and behaviors patterned because of that condition. And it's long been an assumption and a way to argue against the rights of gays to say it is merely a chosen behavior, but the state does protect both the condition and the behaviors connected with heterosexuality.

DAN OLSON: A response from Bob Fletcher.

BOB FLETCHER: Well, I never used the word chosen. There's wide debate on whether or not it's a chosen behavior or not, but it is a behavior. One cannot dispute that there is a difference in this homosexual behavior versus a class or condition.

On the issue of whether or not it's a chosen or learned behavior versus something a person is born with, we've not debated that issue. We're prepared to and there are most-- a majority of psychologists in the field will state that they believe it is a learned behavior, but it's not necessary for our particular point of view to debate whether it is or not. We draw the distinction between behavior and class and condition.

DAN OLSON: But I have a feeling a lot of voters are probably basing perhaps a ballot decision on what they think about learned behavior. Deb Schlick.

DEB SCHLICK: I think it's important for voters to know about the human rights ordinance, that the human rights ordinance forbids discrimination in many areas we probably all assume-- race, gender, religion. But it also goes on to forbid discrimination on the basis of marital status. And I think that often protects single mothers. It protects divorced adults.

Religion itself can be called a behavior. When people base their prejudices on religion, they often point to the actions of another religion. Do people kneel or not kneel? Do they have statues or not in their church? And that to say that sexual orientation should not be part of our human rights code begins to set the basis for eliminating many other types of protection against discrimination in the ordinance.

DAN OLSON: Other callers on the line with questions for our guest Deb Schlick and Bob Fletcher. And Tracy Elftmann standing by to add a note perhaps now and again about her position as deputy commissioner on the state human rights-- from the state human rights department. We'll take the next caller with your question. Go ahead, please. Thanks for listening.

SPEAKER 2 (ON PHONE): Hi, I'm calling from Hudson, Wisconsin. And I guess I don't quite understand. I feel like the majority of people should be protected.

And when this happened in Riverside Park in Minneapolis, I guess I was feeling that the park was supposed to be closed in the evening. And from what I've understood from the news reports, there was a lot of-- there's was normally a lot of carrying on at the park. I'm wondering about the rights of the people that lived by the park and are the police enforcing the park rules? I guess I was under the idea that it shouldn't have even-- people should not have even been there, let alone carrying on like that.

DAN OLSON: You're talking about the shooting incidents on the Mississippi River Beach?

SPEAKER 2 (ON PHONE): Right. And then also, I wanted to know, I didn't realize, is our tax money going in support of people that are filing charges against the Boy Scouts, and the Girl Scouts, and the Catholic church, or is tax money going to support--

BOB FLETCHER: I'll answer that one. The answer is yes to the second one. And then Deborah might prefer to answer the other one. But yes, your tax dollars are used by the city's human rights department and Minneapolis and in San Francisco by the San Francisco Human Rights Department to sue the Boy Scouts, to sue churches and other employers. And the answer is yes.

TRACY ELFTMANN: If I can interject.

DAN OLSON: Tracy Elftmann.

TRACY ELFTMANN: At least at the state level, before anything is sued out, the department conducts an impartial investigation. And that requires gathering evidence and information from both sides, from the charging party, from the person who's claiming discrimination and from the person who is being accused of discriminating. It's only after a finding of probable cause or discrimination occurred that we then go to court with that.

BOB FLETCHER: Yeah, you're completely correct, Tracy, except that the attorney's fees for conducting the investigation are paid for with tax dollars. And then in Minneapolis, about one third of the complaints are issuing a probable cause finding. So about one third of the complaints go on to some form of litigation.

DAN OLSON: So you're saying that even without gay and lesbian language in the Saint Paul ordinance, you also have a broader concern about the amount of money being spent, taxpayer dollars on investigation.

BOB FLETCHER: No, I think the dollars that are spent regarding protecting minority individuals, and women and the other protected class are well spent. Let me be perfectly clear, when I was on the city council in '83, I authored the first successful affirmative action plan for women, minorities and handicapped, the first one that's been able to stand the test of time. I also supported human rights legislation that gave the Human Rights Department strength and teeth so that their findings would be upheld and appealed directly to the district court. I think all of those deserve merit and are worthwhile. So the cost there, I think, is justified because of 200 years of discrimination against minorities and women that we have evidence of adverse economic impact.

DAN OLSON: Tracy Elftmann, how often do complaints actually reach the lawsuit level?

TRACY ELFTMANN: Not very often. I don't have the figures or the breakdowns, but there are not that many. Oftentimes, these cases will settle.

DAN OLSON: Deb Schlick, did you want to offer a comment before we go back to the phone line?

DEB SCHLICK: Yeah, it again comes down to what Citizens Alert is proposing is special discrimination. That Mr. Fletcher and I have access to the Human Rights Department to have our rights enforced in this community and he would like to take that access away from gay citizens.

DAN OLSON: We'll go back to the telephone.

BOB FLETCHER: Well, we should probably answer the woman's first question about whether or not anyone should be in a situation where they're putting themselves at danger.

DAN OLSON: This is about the enforcement question regarding.

BOB FLETCHER: The parks.

DEB SCHLICK: I don't know a lot about the Minneapolis Police Department or the enforcement of their laws. But I know that as a woman in this community, I often leave my house after dark. And there may be some time when I am assaulted, raped or shot. I will refuse to accept the charge that I was to blame for that incident. And that my being out of my home after dark allows a criminal an excuse.

BOB FLETCHER: But that's not the issue the woman was raising. She's not talking about going out in a public street. She's talking about whether or not people should be going into closed parks late at night.

And let me just say, I think that issue probably should not take on significance here. Because regardless if a person is in a park that's closed, certainly they should not be subject to abuse or be shot. The issue is one of reasonable care and caution and what we should be taking. And yes, you could raise that with a number of victims, whether or not they should be taking a reasonable amount of care.

DAN OLSON: About 15 minutes remain in our conversation with Deb Schlick and Bob Fletcher from Saint Paul, one on either side of the issue as to whether or not language in the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance pertaining to sexual affection should be repealed. And we're taking telephone calls. Also with us is Tracy Elftmann, the deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human rights.

Back to the telephone for another listener question. Thanks for waiting. Go ahead.

MIKE: Hi, my name is Mike Tisser. I'll just say, Mike. I'm a concerned voter from Saint Paul and a taxpayer who is happy that his taxes could be used to support human rights. And I'd like to return the conversation back to the ordinance away from general urban fear about parks.

I have a two-point question. One is to the gentleman from Citizens Alert. I forgot his name.

DAN OLSON: Bob Fletcher.

MIKE: To Bob Fletcher. I'm wondering if, given Ronald Clark's scathing editorial in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press on Sunday about half truths in his organization's literature, especially concerning the Father Buchanan's case and concerning the issue of continuing mentioning the fact that suits are being filed without acknowledging that anybody can file a suit. The question at the court, is upholding religious rights, in addition to hopefully gay rights, whether or not he regrets, that his Bob Fletcher regrets-- whether he regrets using that pamphlet and whether or not he sees--

DAN OLSON: Let's get a response.

BOB FLETCHER: Well, it's a fair question. Mr. Clark's editorial only referred to one of our points, in fact, just accused us of using half truths. But on the other three points of the Boy Scouts and Big Brothers on the issue there, he failed to address that issue whatsoever. On the issue of affirmative action, in Section 5, he failed to address that. And on the issue of homeowners, and duplexes and what the ordinance impact there, he failed to address that.

He did address our fourth issue of the freedom of religion issue. And he pointed out, and rightly so, that most of the court decisions dealing with religion have come down ultimately after several appeals on the side of the church. What he didn't tell you is that the repeal in '79 of the Father Buchanan case was after that. The court decision of Judge Somers in '79 was after it was repealed in '78. And Deborah failed to mention that as well.

And second, that the archdiocese decision, as a case in point, well, they found in favor of the Human Rights Department first and then it was appealed to the appellate court level. And then after that, the Human Rights Department appealed to the Supreme Court and it refused to hear it. But there are ongoing-- there are ongoing court battles over this issue.

DEB SCHLICK: But we are clear, Mr. Fletcher, that in all cases, freedom of religion was found for in the courts.

BOB FLETCHER: In those particular cases, yes. What has not yet been addressed, Deborah, and you must admit this, those cases are dealing with teachers. And what we haven't yet addressed are those middle layer employees of the churches that the church may wish to hire.

DAN OLSON: Bob, is the feeling from Citizens Alert members who you are with in the repeal effort that one of their main concerns in the city of Saint Paul is that with language in the Human Rights Act, which would protect gay and lesbian people from discrimination, that the net effect is going to be to bring gay and lesbian people in contact with members of Boy Scout troops, or students at schools or things of that nature?

BOB FLETCHER: Well, that's really not an issue for us. We haven't really addressed that issue.

DAN OLSON: Tracy, is that the net effect of what happens in cases where protected groups-- I think you pointed out earlier, the main cause of complaint is job discrimination in housing.

TRACY ELFTMANN: That's correct.

DAN OLSON: And does it reach the level oftentimes in these cases of people being restored to their former job or people who are obviously hostile to them in work environments, having to put up with them, then coming back, if you will?

TRACY ELFTMANN: That's certainly a provision. Although my experience has been that the charging parties do not want to be reinstated. They'd rather pick up and move on.

BOB FLETCHER: Before we move on, just to the question of the court decision. Wouldn't it make more sense just to put in the ordinance an exemption, a straightforward exemption for churches and religious institutions? There is an exemption for clergy.

DAN OLSON: It wouldn't be covered, in other words by--

BOB FLETCHER: Right. There is an exemption for clergy and there is an exemption for teachers of religion where you can show a bona fide job qualification. But for other employees, it's still very neutral and the archdiocese case were sued. Because then we would remove all this possibility of a Human Rights Department proceeding against the church institution.

DAN OLSON: Deb Schlick.

DEB SCHLICK: Mr. Fletcher is right. There is an exemption in the current human rights ordinance, and that exemption actually dates back to when the human rights ordinance originally forbid discrimination based on religion. But realize that churches and religious institutions hire based on religion. A Baptist church isn't going to hire a Methodist minister or a Catholic school teacher. That's why the exemption is there.

Are custodians covered under this? I don't know. But I don't know that that's a horrible threat to freedom of religion if you have to hire a minimum wage custodian who may or may not be gay.

BOB FLETCHER: But I think that's the point, that the proponents of gay rights legislation really don't want it-- they don't want churches to be exempted. Because in some of these other job-related instances, they would like it to apply. And in the use of the archdiocese property, they would like that to apply as well. So that's why it really does not exempt the church. And if we acknowledge the concept of separation of church and state, I think we could build in some exemptions that would make a lot of the opponents of this legislation go away.

DAN OLSON: As we have noted at the beginning of this conversation, the Minnesota Human Rights Act does not have language regarding sexual affection or preference. So we can't talk about exemptions in that category. But Tracy Elftmann, what about exemptions for various groups for the protected classes? Are there any?

TRACY ELFTMANN: There are. In the current Human Rights Act, there is an exemption for religious organizations, again, using the bona fide occupational qualification defense. If you can use that to show that religion is necessary, then it's OK to use that as a basis for treating someone differently. I'm not that familiar with the Saint Paul ordinance or the exemptions. And maybe Deb can speak to that or Emma can speak about the Minneapolis ordinance, but there are room for exemptions.

DAN OLSON: We have caller. Yes, Deb.

DEB SCHLICK: Just one more statement. The clergy have spoken out on this issue, have generally spoken out in favor of no repeal. Bishop Anderson of the Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota explicitly says in a quote that he's used on behalf of this issue, "You should know that the current protection does not require churches to act against their basic beliefs."

DAN OLSON: The Episcopal Diocese is very small in Minnesota. What have other major church organizations said, if anything?

DEB SCHLICK: It's been individual clergymen more than church organizations, and it's been Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic.

DAN OLSON: But so far the major church organizations have basically stayed out of the debate?

BOB FLETCHER: And we have intentionally avoided trying to make this how many of our clergy versus how many of yours. I don't think that's a constructive debate. It becomes a very moral-based issue and those are really not our arguments. Suffice it to say, there are clergy on both sides of the issue, and we get literally dozens of calls from clergy who would like to know that they're in support. But it really doesn't help the public to make this a debate of how many pastors are lined up on either side.

DAN OLSON: Unless it happens to be their pastor, I suppose, which is calling on one side or the other. Let's go back to the telephone to see what another listener is asking about. Go ahead with your question, please.

SPEAKER 3 (ON PHONE): Yes, I'm calling from Saint Cloud And I'm glad that you switched to this aspect of the topic. Because when Mr. Meyer called in before from Saint cloud, he failed to bring out that after the majority, which he was part of, voted against it, the former city attorney of Saint Cloud, who's currently on the council, tried to get a compromise and put forth an amendment which would have exempted all churches and religious organizations from forcing to hire. And he still voted against it and the majority still did.

Furthermore, he mentioned Caritas. Caritas has his representative on the Human Rights Commission in Saint Cloud and he supported it along with the Human Rights Commission who recommended to the city council. What concerns me is it seems to be in Saint Cloud is probably-- in Saint Paul too-- that it becomes very much a question of politics.

In Saint Cloud, we have an election next week where two of the people in the majority are up for election. The chairman is up in two years. And this summer I spoke with the chairman and he felt very strongly that the city attorney who advocated the amendment could never win office in Saint Cloud again. With Mr. Fletcher's background, too, I must say that I'm concerned that political figures are using a human rights action or attempt to bring that equality to all people as a gut-level instinctual thing to further and protect their own political turf.

DAN OLSON: Let's hear a response from Bob Fletcher.

BOB FLETCHER: Well, let me just say, I think that the political environment in Saint Cloud and Saint Paul is a little bit different. Unfortunately, I might say it's a little different. But believe me, if this was a political plus, I'd be real surprised if it's a political plus for anyone to be involved with this issue.

This is the type of issue where you only lose friends. Because in politics you're on a bell-shaped curve and you alienate people as you get involved in issues. And the smart political thing to do on this issue is to run as far away from it as you can in Saint Paul. And most politicians have done just that.

There really aren't a lot of city council members out on either side of the issue. And frankly, I was not involved for a lengthy period of time as well until Paula Maccabee attempted to skew the wording on the ballot. And I was called by the people that were involved, Larry Putnam of Citizens Alert, and asked, please, will you help us in the public forum and address some of those issues?

So I have to disagree. At least in Saint Paul here, it's not a politically smart thing to do. But I think it goes beyond that. When you're asked in the public forum and you're a public figure how you believe or what your feelings are, you have a responsibility to speak.

DAN OLSON: Deborah Schlick, your analysis of the politics.

DEB SCHLICK: I think the caller made a really good point that there is a tragedy when rights become a political issue. And gay citizens in this country are the only citizens who have had to go to the majority of voters and ask for their rights to be approved and guaranteed. If in Mississippi in 1963, ending Jim Crow laws had depended on a majority vote of the citizens, I don't think we'd have made the progress we had.

DAN OLSON: What's your political analysis, Deborah, of those people who support the current Saint Paul ordinance with the language for sexual preference inside of it?

DEB SCHLICK: We've had initiatives from many different pieces of the community. The arts community has come forward and said, we see this as important because of censorship issues. A number of religious communities have come forward unbidden, saying we see this important as a freedom of religion issue.

DAN OLSON: Right. The way I should have asked that question is, is there a political downside for people who support the current Saint Paul ordinance?

DEB SCHLICK: Those of us involved in the campaign don't have political careers or political ambitions. We're involved in this because we believe in it.

DAN OLSON: We just have a few minutes remaining for this discussion, and I just want to learn a little bit more about the two organizations from both of you. First, Bob, Citizens Alert, is it a large organization? About how many members?

BOB FLETCHER: Well, the person really behind the drive is a man named Larry Putnam, a very fine family man with an insurance company out on white Whitebear Avenue. And it's just something that he felt strongly about. He was involved in '88 when the council attempted to ask the voters, would you like to give up your right to vote on these in the future?

And then there's a group of about five or six people who were ultimately responsible for circulating the petition of 6,000 signatures and then probably a group of about 100 volunteers that went out and got the signatures. So it really is not an organization-driven group. It's an individual-driven group.

DAN OLSON: About how much money to work with, would you say?

BOB FLETCHER: I think it's been a very low key. Somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000.

DAN OLSON: And most of the money has come from where would you say?

BOB FLETCHER: I don't have the foggiest idea.

DAN OLSON: Pretty much the same questions for Deborah Schlick. Your group, No Repeal, about how many members?

DEB SCHLICK: There are about 12 active members. We've had maybe up to 300 or 400 people who volunteered on different pieces of it over the last few months.

DAN OLSON: And about how big a budget?

DEB SCHLICK: We're just turning in reports today and waiting to hear. I think we are over $20,000, but I don't know.

DAN OLSON: And most of the volunteers for Citizens Alert have come from where? The city of Saint Paul, would you say, Bob?

BOB FLETCHER: Yes.

DAN OLSON: And for No Repeal?

DEB SCHLICK: Oh, yeah, definitely.

DAN OLSON: For both of you, a final opportunity, call the vote. What do you think is going to happen a week from Tuesday? First of all, I'll give you a little breathing room here. A low turnout, do you predict, Bob Fletcher?

BOB FLETCHER: Yes. Deborah and I were talking about this before we came on. There's just no way to predict this election because of the turnout. And there really-- we haven't done any polling. We don't really have a sense as to where the bulk of the population is.

DEB SCHLICK: No, we haven't done any polling either. I spend all my free time working on the campaign. I spend time with people who feel the way I do. Have no idea what's going to happen on November 5. It will be a low turnout and it's going to be decided by who bothers to vote on that day.

DAN OLSON: And then once the vote has taken place, if the vote to repeal is successful, how long then until the reference is out of the ordinance and the new ordinance takes effect? Does anyone know?

DEB SCHLICK: I'm not sure. It'll take a city council resolution to make it official, I understand. And that usually takes a week or two weeks. But we'll assume that the ordinance is no longer in effect as of November 6 if that's what happens.

BOB FLETCHER: Let me just say that I've said several times that if we're successful in the repeal, that we would like to begin fashioning some form of compromise with the city council that addresses these concerns, these four concerns that we've tried to raise.

DAN OLSON: But if the repeal isn't successful, is Citizens Alert going to be right back at it with another petition drive or is that not allowed right away?

BOB FLETCHER: Well, I don't I don't think that'll be the case. I think this is probably the final battle, at least for this decade.

DAN OLSON: Thank you both for coming to the studio. Thank you, Tracy Elftmann from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights for stopping by.

TRACY ELFTMANN: Thank you.

DAN OLSON: Bob Fletcher--

BOB FLETCHER: Thanks, yeah.

DAN OLSON: --who is with the group Citizens Alert, and Deborah Schlick, who is with the group Campaign 90.