• I declare this Steger Mukluks Appreciation Day, http://mukluks.com/ : heavy snows, long cold bus stop wait — warm dry feet. #
• Per @adndotcom: Snow, snow & more snow in store for Anchorage. 2-4 inches today, more tonight, more Wed. http://bit.ly/6gAMUA #fb #
• _Another_ damn leak in my ceiling…in completely new area. No room to move stuff b/c of having moved stuff from the _other_ damn leak. #fb #
• & I’d like to take out damn garbage but damn dumpster is brimming over b/c somebody’s dumping stuff here & garbageman won’t pick up. #fb #
• RT: @shannynmoore: Anchorage Assembly ‘REORGANIZING LEADERSHIP’ proposal. Howdy! Debbie Ossiander may be losing her seat tonight! / PLEASE! #
• RT: @Mudflats: Assembly voting to change leadership passes 6-4 // Ossiander down! Who’ll be chair now? #
• RT: @shannynmoore: PAT FLYNN NEW CHAIRMAN OF THE ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY… // Yeaaaaaaah! #fb #
• RT: @shannynmoore: MIKE GUITIERREZ vice chair of the Anchorage Assembly…suck it Eddie Burke… // You go Mike! #
• Just heard via @shannynmoore tweets: Pat Flynn new chair of Anchorage Assembly, Mike Gutierrez new vice-chair. Congrats Pat & Mike! #fb #
• From @shannynmoore : report on Anchorage Assembly FLIP of power. Thanks Shannyn for the quick report! http://bit.ly/5GYfTa #fb #
• Time to get something to eat. Then back to trying to clear room for maintenance guy to fix the new leak. Drip drip drip drip drip. #fb #

Related posts:

1. A real post, for once, because I need to rant
2. The Daily Tweets, 2010-02-11: Another leak in my ceiling, more gnashing of teeth
3. The Daily Tweets, 2010-03-11: Sullygate on KUDO 1080 FM

Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander

Anchorage Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander made extensive  comments on August 11 explaining why she would not support passage of the Anchorage equal rights ordinance, AO 2009-64. [Ref #1] Included in her comments was her opinion about Title VII f the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352), as follows (tip o’ the nib to John Aronno of Alaska Commons for transcription):

I also discovered that, though what we are proposing as protection at the municipal level, through the Equal Rights Commission, there are some federal regulations and laws that could pertain here. I particularly looked at Title VII, what was covered in Title VII, I read some court cases, I read some court cases about Title VII, it’s basically the civil rights law of the United States, and it basically covers, in my mind, employee discrimination, including same sex employee discrimination, for businesses with over fifteen employees.

Pamela Kelley (right) talking with Jean Craciun during a break at the July 21 Anchorage Assembly meeting

This was in spite of testimony before the Assembly on July 21 by Anchorage attorney and UAA Justice professor Pamela Kelley to the effect that, no, in fact existing law does not protect LGBT people from discrimination [Ref #2] and a followup letter Prof. Kelly sent the following day to Ossiander and to Assembly Member Jennifer Johnston about a U.S. Supreme Court case arising out of Title VII, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998). [Ref #3] As discussed in my post about Prof. Kelley’s letter, Oncale is one case which demonstrates  how narrowly the Supreme Court interprets Title VII’s provisions regarding sex discrimination — which does not extend to sexual orientation. [Ref #4]

Now comes a case decided last Friday in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Prowel v. Wise Business Forms. This case involved a self-described effeminate gay man who claimed his employer discriminated against him because he failed to conform in his mannerisms, style of dress, and interests to masculine gender role stereotypes, in violation of Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination. [Ref #5] The 3rd Circuit based its decision in Prowel on another Title VII case, the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which ruled in favor of a woman who had been discriminated against because she did not conform to traditional norms of femininity. [Ref #6] As summarized by Marquette law professor Paul Secunda,

That’s called sex-stereotype discrimination… when an employer says to someone “you’re not acting ‘female enough’ or ‘male enough,’ therefore we’re firing you.” [Ref #7]

In other words, Price-Waterhouse v. Hopkins clarified that by making sex discrimination in employment illegal, Title VII also made  sex-stereotype discrimination illegal.  But it did not make sexual orientation discrimination illegal, as demonstrated by numerous references in Prowel. For example:

• “a claim for sexual orientation discrimination — which is not cognizable under Title VII” [Ref #5, p. 10]
• quoting from a prior 3rd Circuit decision in Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co. [Ref #8], “Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would have extended Title VII to cover sexual orientation” [Ref #5, p. 10]
• again, in reference to the Bibby decision, “Despite acknowledging that harassment based on sexual orientation has no place in a just society, we explained that Congress chose not to include sexual orientation harassment in Title VII” [Ref #5, p. 12]

Emmett Honeycutt (portrayed by Peter Paige) in Showtime's "Queer As Folk" — like Brian D. Prowel, a Pennsylvanian with "pizzazz". (Showtime promotional image)

The question in Prowel was whether Brian D. Prowel, the plaintiff, had been discriminated against for being homosexual — in which case he had no recourse for a complaint under Title VII — or for not conforming to gender stereotypes — in which case he did.  The court was clear in any case that,

There is no basis in the statutory or case law to support the notion that an effeminate heterosexual man can bring a gender stereotyping claim while an effeminate homosexual man may not. [Ref #5, p. 17; emphasis in original]

and hence concluded,

As long as the employee — regardless of his or her sexual orientation — marshals sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could conclude that harassment or discrimination occurred “because of sex,” the case is not appropriate for summary judgment. For the reasons we have articulated, Prowel has adduced sufficient evidence [of sex-stereotyping discrimination] to submit this claim to a jury. [Ref #5, p. 17]

What this means in essence is that within the 3rd Circuit’s jurisdiction at least — which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands [Ref #9]:

• An effeminate gay man fired from his job might have recourse under Title VII, but only if he can prove he was discriminated against based on gender stereotypes, rather than sexual orientation.  A gay man who’s butch?  SOL.
• Likewise, a lesbian with a mannish or butch presentation (like me!) might have recourse — but again, only if she can prove she was canned for being butch, not for being a lesbian.  But a femme lesbian?  Too bad so sad.

The 3rd Circuit’s decision is not precedential for Alaska, which is covered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  But there is no reason to suspect that the judges of the 9th Circuit have any different understanding than the judges of the 3rd Circuit when it comes to the relevance of Title VII to sexual orientation discrimination.  Let me repeat: SOL.  Let me repeat: Too bad, so sad.

So display your gender stereotype noncomformity freely. But keep your sexual orientation firmly in the closet. At least, that’s what the case law on Title VII has to say about it. And that will remain the case until, if and when, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Title VII’s sex discrimination provision includes sexual orientation discrimination, or until Congress amends Title VII to add sexual orienation through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), as has been proposed in both houses of Congress recently. [Ref #7] Until then, as Paul Secunda explained to the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog,

…while certain states and cities have laws prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the Supreme Court has never ruled that sexual orientation is covered by Title VII. [Ref #7]

It may all the same be true what Debbie Ossiander said of Title VII, that “it basically covers, in my mind,. employee discrimination, including same sex employee discrimination.”

But what counts with Title VII isn’t what’s in Debbie Ossiander’s mind — but in what the courts have ruled. So while she may have partially salved her own conscience with her mistaken notions about Title VII, reality is that thanks to her “no” vote on AO 2009-64, and what seems likely to be her refusal to override Mayor Sullivan’s veto of it, LGBT people in Anchorage have no more protection from the unfair job discrimination than they they do in housing, public accommodations, financial practices, and municipal practices.

In the meantime, Brian D. Prowel: I wish you the very best. What your coworkers and employer subjected you to was inexcusable.  Readers of this blog can read the full court decision to see just how nasty they were.  And rest assured that some Anchorage employers and coworkers are every bit as nasty.  Too bad. So sad. No recourse here.

References

1. 8/13/09. “Third time in 35 years: Anchorage’s equal rights ordinance” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
2. 7/23/09. “Kelley testimony 1: Contrary to prior Assembly testimony, existing law does not protect LGBT people from discrimination” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
3. 7/23/09. “Kelley testimony 2: Oncale Supreme Court decision on workplace sexual harassment does not protect LGBTs from discrimination” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
4. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998).
5. 8/28/09. Prowel v. Wise Business Forms. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Opinion written by Judge Thomas M. Hardiman.
6. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
7. 9/1/09. “On Sexual-Orientation and Title VII: Are Changes Afoot?” by Ashby Jones (WSJ.com Law Blog).
8. Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2001); cited in Prowel v. Wise Business Forms.
9. 8/29/09. “Appeals court allows gender stereotype case” by Paula Reed Ward (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).

[Crossposted at Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis]

Related posts:

1. Kelley testimony 2: Oncale Supreme Court decision on workplace sexual harassment does not protect LGBTs from discrimination
2. Against discrimination in Anchorage
3. "There's no sign of discrimination" — uh, yes there is

Dan Sullivan at his first Assembly meeting as Mayor of Anchorage on July 7

Let’s hope that our newly minted mayor, Dan Sullivan, can also do the prior ordinances one better: by allowing this one to stand. The first ordinance, passed by a unanimous Assembly in 1976 shortly after the Municipality of Anchorage was formed (from the various governments located within the Greater Anchorage Area Borough), was vetoed by the Municipality’s first mayor, George Sullivan — our present mayor’s father — and after a pitched battle featuring many of the same pressure tactics employed by the followers of the same antigay leader we’ve seen in action this year, namely Anchorage Baptist Temple pastor Jerry Prevo, the then-Assembly was unable to override the veto.  In 1992-1993, a stripped down version of an antidiscrimination ordinance was passed by a liberal Assembly, but most them lost their seats in the April 1993 municipal elections and the ordinance was promptly reversed by the conservatives who replaced them.

I’ve been present at all the six Assembly meetings this summer that have been devoted to public testimony on this ordinance — at least three of them all the way until their adjournment at 11:00 PM (or, later, in the case of the 6th and final night on July 21).  This Tuesday’s meeting differed from all of them in that we finally got to hear from the Assembly members themselves, beyond whatever we might have gathered of their opinion on the ordinance from the questions or comments they made during public hearings.

Dan Coffey at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted no on AO 64

There was little to surprise anyone in the votes of three of the Assembly members who ultimately voted against the ordinance — Dan Coffey, Chris Birch, and Bill Starr.  Dan Coffey was, of course, behind resolution AR 2009-186, which called for a task force to study the issue for another year (or more) [Ref #1] — an idea which a number of people, including me last week [Ref #2], called a delay tactic.  Coffey’s resolution was originally an early item on last night’s agenda, but early in the meeting was rescheduled to be discussed just before AO 64, which was a later agenda item.  When it at length was discussed, Coffey stated (as quoted during my livetweeting last night) that he had written the resolution “not with an intent to delay or defer” – my ironic comment on that was “no, only by a year.” [Ref #3] But Coffey agreed that everyone seemed to prefer a vote on the question now, and seemed little put out when the Assembly not only refused to postpone consideration of it until after discussion of AO 64, but completely voted it down by a vote of 7 to 4.  I could be wrong, but I don’t recall Coffey making any comments on AO 64 itself during the course of the evening, except ultimately to register his vote against it.  None of which surprised me: I hadn’t particularly noticed Coffey’s behavior during the long evenings of public testimony, but my blogging pals John Aronno and Heather Aronno both have observed his inattention, and have at various times speculated that maybe he was playing World of Warcraft [Ref #4] or solitaire on his iPhone [Ref#5] or reading magazines or books [Ref#6], instead of listening.  I might live in Coffey’s district, but I’ve never had any sense that he in any way has ever “respresented” me on this or any other issue.  Assembly members were far kinder in their assessment of what Coffey had attempted with the resolution; how much of that was sincere and how much of it the give and take of political etiquette is best left to judges other than me.

Patrick Flynn at the July 7 Assembly meeting. Flynn drafted the successful S-2 version of the ordinance, and was a yes vote on AO 64

Although four versions of ordinance AO 64 have been drafted over the summer (see my post of yesterday comparing them [Ref #7]), the one which immediately was moved for discussion Tuesday night — no doubt after plenty of discussion between Assembly members over the past couple of weeks — was the S-2 substitution drafted most recently by Assemblyman Patrick Flynn. [Ref#8] Flynn explained how he had tried to clarify the language of the ordinance, including in the area of religious exemptions to protect religious organizations’ right to hire employees compatible with their religious values.

Sheila Selkregg at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64

Sheila Selkregg spoke in support of Flynn’s version. As reported in the Anchorage Daily News,

Selkregg said Flynn’s version of the ordinance was “an effort to respect the religious community” that packed the Assembly’s chambers to oppose the proposal. “It allows churches to choose who they hire” in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs, she said. [Ref #9]

Jennifer Johnston at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64

In an hour of discussion that became surprisingly emotional, I think it’s  the statement of Jennifer Johnston which moved me the most. Johnston began by discussing her unease that the ordinance had been brought from a national organization (an apparent reference to Alaska ACLU executive director Jeffrey Mittman’s role in helping shape the earliest version of the ordinance), then went on to describe a person close to her who had been influential in shaping her beliefs about public service — and who had, she believed, fit one of the personal characteristics contained in this ordinance.  As reported by KTUU Channel 2 News,

“That person did more for his community, for the state and country than I could do in 10 lifetimes, but that person’s life was short, it was cut by suicide, and I’ve often wondered if that person had been born 60 years later if the outcome would have been different,” Johnston said. [Ref #10]

Johnston also mentioned Dave Rose, chair of the first Anchorage Municipal Assembly, who had been one of the Municipality’s early champions of equal protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The ADN explains:

Because of Rose’s “memory and this other very special person, I am going to be voting in favor of this ordinance,” Johnston said. [Ref #9]

Chris Birch at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted no on AO 64

The next Assembly member to speak, Chris Birch, could hardly have been more different.  He “didn’t see invidious discrimination” in Anchorage, and said “we’re a tolerant community.” He would be voting against the ordinance, he said. My own thought was that Birch must have been asleep on June 16 when a male witness, recounted his history of having being approached by men who were attracted to him– each instance punctuated by the man’s assertion that “I was unavailable” — and concluding with the admission that the last time he was approached by a man, he put that man in the hospital.  I tweeted at the time, “What a coincidence, Ive been propositioned by men when I was unavailable too. I never beat any of them & sent them to the infirmary though.” [Ref #11] That was a point echoed in testimony I heard Herman Coen give the following night, June 17: the June 16 witness had violently assaulted, to the point of hospitalization, another person for nothing more than that person being sexually attracted to him — and when that witness had concluded his testimony, Coen observed, all the red-shirted ordinance opponents in the room had reacted as one: they applauded.  Nope, a completely tolerant and nondiscriminatory community here, Mr. Birch.  Not.

Mike Gutierrez at the August 11 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64

Mike Gutierrez spoke about the courage of people on both sides who testified during the six nights of public testimony.  He also believed Assembly members had been getting to know each other better through this process, but said he’d had no idea about the feelings Jennifer Johnston had expressed, and that he hould have known of her feelings. S-2 was a good compromise, he said, and discrimination in his opinion is immoral: he was in support of the ordinance.

Patrick Flynn then spoke again, describing the mail carrier, Glen,  who had delivered mail to his childhood home for years.  More recently, Flynn related, Glen wrote him a note thanking him for what he was trying to do, but telling him that Glen himself had decided to retire to Asheville, NC — “a progressive city.”  The implication seemed to be that in spite of efforts here in Anchorage, the prejudice here was too much for Glen to abide.

Matt Claman at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64

Matt Claman of course introduced the original version of AO 64 when he was Acting Mayor, and also introduced the first substitute version. His comments this night were brief: essentially, that he supported the ordinance, and hoped that Mayor Sullivan would as well.

Bill Starr at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted no on AO 64

Bill Starr sounded to me almost like a ringer for Chris Birch. He would not be supporting any version of AO 64. He saw no sign of sweeping discrimination, he said — no signs saying “No gays allowed” or “Lesbians to the back.” In any case, Starr said he felt things like this should be brought up by people, not the Assembly.  He expressed his belief in God and his faith, and claimed to listen intently; but sorry, as with Chris Birch, I thought: he must’ve been asleep, not only through the June 16 admission by one ordinance opponent of having violently assaulted someone to the point of hospitalization, but all the other expressions of prejudice — with loaded words like “perversion” for example — that were repeated innumerable times throughout the past few weeks.  But: it’s not like I was surprised.

Elvi Gray-Jackson at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64

Elvi Gray-Jackson is the other Assembly member in whose district I live.  Unlike with Coffey, I feel represented by her.  Unlike Coffey, she responded to the letter I sent her and Coffey on June 2 — not only reponded, but responded the very next day and with much warmth.  She told me that she had always been a believer in equal rights for everyone, and that it would be her honor to “do the right thing” by voting in favor of AO 64. Since then, I’ve seen no sign of her wavering in that belief and commitment; and Tuesday night I learned part of why.  She wouldn’t speak long, she said, because this was an emotional issue for her; her nephew is gay, and if I heard rightly, his mother — her sister? — died in her arms when he was still fairly young.  Her plea was for the Assembly “to simply do the right thing and allow all of us to live in this community without discrimination.” [Ref #9]

Harriet Drummond at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64

Assembly Vice-Chair Harriet Drummond recounted a several-year history of dealing with sexual orientation issues on the Anchorage School Board, beginning with an intiative by students at Dimond High School to form a gay/straight alliance.  Now there are gay/straight alliances in every Anchorage high school, and Anchorage School District has had a nondiscrimination policy with regard to sexual orientation since, I believe she said, about 2001.  ASD is obligated to serve every student who enters the schools, she declared, and can’t afford to discriminate; and she was unwilling to discrminate against those same students after they’d graduated from school.

Added 7/13/09: I just remembered that Drummond also stated that she had several cases of sexual orientation/gender identity discrimination that she could have brought to the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, if the ordinance were already in effect.

Debbie Ossiander at the June 9 Assembly meeting - voted no on AO 64

The last Assembly member then to explain her position was Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander. It was pretty quickly apparent to me that Ossiander, who had been calm, firm, and professional in her chairing of this meeting — as indeed all the other Assembly meetings I’ve attended — was feeling some distress.  She was coughing a lot to begin with, as though she’d swallowed something down the wrong way; but I had the feeling it was emotional as much as physical: that’s how much conflict this ordinance had brought up for her.  She gave a fairly lengthy account of the efforts she’d made to speak to people she respected on both sides of the issue, to read a lot, to learn what data is available on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, and to learn what other provisions other localities have with regard to discrimination.

She asserted her strong belief in protecting citizens, but found it troublesome that this version of the ordinance (none of them, actually) doesn’t stop people from being nasty (not the word she used, but certainly the sentiment) toward each other, of making them civil. I was confused by this complaint — she brought it up so strongly that it seemed almost to be what she considered its fatal flaw; and yet, I can’t think of any legislation that can require civility and mutual respect — nor indeed is that what we are asking for, in asking for equal protection from discrimination. I can only guess that this was how Ossiander was expressing her own unease with the unpleasantness and contentiousness of much of what she — and we — have heard these past few weeks. My guts have been twisted far too much by some of the ugliness I’ve heard — maybe she’s felt some of that too, especially since she, as both Assembly member and chair, has been getting a lot of pressure from both sides over what she, personally, should decide.

I found myself becoming increasingly annoyed by her continuing reference to transvestites. Especially after all the reading she’d said she done, did she not yet understand the fundamental difference between transvestites — not covered by this ordinance — and transsexual and transgender people — which the ordinance would protect.  But in the end, I think her incorrect use of the terminology might also have been a signal of her agitation in deciding what to do with this issue.

Ossiander went on to identify other things she regarded as troublesome things in this version of the ordinance.  For example, she was concerned that businesses might be forced to build new bathrooms.  (Here’s another area where she again used the term transvestites when the S-2 version of the ordinance cleary refers to pre and post-operative transsexuals and transgendered people.)

In the end, despite what appeared to be her strong-held belief “that there are some citizens that need more protection than we’re giving them,” Ossiander nonetheless concluded:

This is a hurtful thing to do and I’m trying not to look at certain people in the audience right now, but I’m not going to be supporting this. [Ref #13]

At this point, Sheila Selkregg moved an amendment which stated that nothing “in this chapter” (i.e., in the chapter of the Anchorage Muncipal Code where the ordinance, if passed, would be encoded) should be construed to force businesses to build new bathrooms to “accomodate sexual orientation or gender identity,” and moved another, similar amendment with nearly identical language at another point in the ordinance — I didn’t catch exactly where, but I’m sure I’ll find out when I take a look at the final version of the ordinance.  Both of these amendments were incorporated into the ordinance.  The question at that point was whether the amendments would be sufficient to satisfy Ossiander’s doubts enough to change her stand on support of the ordinance.

Just prior to the vote, Mike Gutierrez made a statement complimenting Ossiander on her handling  of the job of Assembly chair throughout this contentious debate, and all the Assembly members rose to applaud her, with the audience spontaneously rising to join in a standing ovation.  I was in the third row from the front, and never turned around, so I didn’t learn until later that the (predominately red-shirted) ordinance opponents either did not join in the ovation at all (by one account), or did so belatedly and grudgingly (by another).  John Aronno of Alaska Commons (who was sitting two seats away from me):

Tonight, Chairwoman Ossiander delivered a pained and thorough explanation of why she truly felt that she could not vote in support of this ordinance, which leaves a possible veto override one vote short. When Assemblyman Mike Gutierrez thanked her for her service to the assembly and for the way she handled these proceedings, she received applause and a standing ovation.

… By the group whom she was voting against.

Turning around in my chair, I saw, if not entirely, a clear majority of red-shirted attendees sitting with their arms crossed. [Ref #14]

Jeanette, writing at Celtic Diva’s Blue Oasis:

Just before the final vote was tallied, Assemblyman Guttierrez took a few moments to praise Assemblywoman Ossiander for her contributions as chair and moderator during the many hearings.  Though many have disagreed with her decision to allow non residents to testify at the hearings, Ms. Ossiander kept the peace and dealt fairly with each person who testified during those many, painful long hours.  The crowd stood up and rendered to her enthusiastic applause, and I must note that those wearing blue shirts stood up first with a good portion of those in red shirts reluctantly following suit.  Ms. Ossiander smiled very gratefully, and seemed genuinely surprised. [Ref #13]

But at the time, I only knew that I was joining in the ovation against my own disagreement with Ossiander over her having permitted non-Anchorage residents, bused or carpooled in from the Mat-Su, to testify (see my post on it [Ref #16]), but that other than that disagreement I did in fact respect the evenhanded way she’d handled some really difficult meetings.  And I saw that she was moved by the tribute, even as she was embarrassed by it, modestly gesturing with her hand for people to resume their seats.

And then the vote was taken.  Despite the amendments, Ossiander’s doubts had not apparently been answered. The final result: the S-2 version of ordinance AO 2009-64, as amended, passed by a vote of 7-4.  If Mayor Sullivan should decide to veto the ordinance, a supermajority of 8 members will need to vote to override.

Then we milled around for a few minutes, and then most people left, and the Assembly sat down in chambers to conduct more of the Municipality’s business.

Votes against the ordinance: Dan Coffey, Chris Birch, Bill Starr, Debbie Ossiander.

Votes in favor of the ordinance: Patrick Flynn, Sheila Selkregg, Jennifer Johnston, Mike Gutierrez, Matt Claman, Elvi Gray-Jackson, Harriet Drummond.  Thank you.  Thank all of you.

Thanks also to everyone who testified, wrote letters, made phone calls, and otherwise stood up for equal protection from discrimination for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, and transgenders.

Thank you to all of you who are continuing to do so now by calling or writing Mayor Dan Sullivan and asking him to do one better than with the prior two attempts: let this one stand.

August 11, 2009 Assembly meeting: the slideshow

References

1. AR NO. 2009–186. “A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly authorizing a citizen task force to review the nature and extent of discrimination based on sexual orientation and the potential for conflict with constitutional rights.” Submitted by Assembly Member Dan Coffey for reading August 11, 2009.
2. 8/7/09. “Delay by “task force”: My testimony to the Anchorage Assembly” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa.com).
3. 8/11/09. “The Daily Tweets, 2009-08-11: Anchorage equal rights ordinance passes 7-4″ by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa.com).
4. 6/10/09. “Eleven Hours in a Library; the City Assembly Meeting on Equal Rights Ordinance” by John Aronno (Alaska Commons).
5. 8/9/09. “Looking back to the future” by Heather Aronno (SOSAnchorage.net).
6. 7/21/09. “Let the circus begin!” by Heather Aronno (SOSAnchorage.net).
7. 8/11/09. “What’s on the table: Anchorage equal rights ordinance” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa.com).
8. AO No. 2009-64 (S-2). Third substitution version submitted by Assembly Member Patrick Flynn, for reading August 11, 2009.
9. 8/11/09. “Assembly OKs gay rights ordinance 7-4 — COMPROMISE: Exemptions for religious organizations written into the ban on discrimination” by Don Hunter (Anchorage Daily News).
10. 8/11/09. “Anchorage Assembly passes anti-discrimination ordinance” by Jason Lamb (KTUU Channel 2 News).
11. 6/16/09. “Liveblogging Assembly meeting, June 16 (Assembly public hearing #2)” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa.com).
12. 6/2/09. “My letter to the Anchorage Assembly” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa.com).
13. 8/12/09. “The Anchorage Assembly Passes Ordinance 64, Version S-2 Amended” by Jeannette (Celtic Diva’s Blue Oasis).
14. 8/12/09. “AO 2009-64 (S2) Passes. Make It Stick!” by John Aronno (Alaska Commons).
15. 6/19/09. “Debbie Ossiander & the Christianist filibuster” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa.com).

Related posts:

1. What's on the table: Anchorage equal rights ordinance
2. The Daily Tweets, 2009-08-11: Anchorage equal rights ordinance passes 7-4
3. Delay by "task force": My testimony to the Anchorage Assembly

Into my email inbox about an hour ago came the following Anchorage Daily News breaking news item:

Breaking News

Gay-rights ordinance appears doomed

The prospect of a gay rights ordinance passing look dim as Anchorage Assembly Chairwoman Debbie Ossiander says she will continue to allow testimony from anyone who wants to speak on the issue, effectively preventing passage of the ordinance under the watch of a supportive city administration.

If you click through to the story now, you’ll find that it’s been retitled “Prospects dimming for gay-rights ordinance” — a renaming which occurred about 11:54 AM between me posting my first comment on the article (at 11:53:39 AM)  & my second (at 11:55:03 AM).

The story is by ADN reported Megan Holland — the same person whose earlier story, entitled “Residents demand to air views on gay-rights amendment”, prompted me earlier today to cancel my electronic subscription to the ADN.  Why? Because the story failed to make any mention whatsoever of the long-brewing issue of nonresidents from Mat-Su being permitted to testify — just more evidence that the ADN is falling down on the job when it comes to actually investigating news stories instead of acting as mere stenographers for whatever they’re being told by the people they talk with.

You might recall that I wrote a post about the Outside influence issue last week.  Fascinatingly, finally now in this doomsaying article, Megan Holland finally mentions the problem — the first time I’ve seen it mentioned in the ADN (unless I missed something — & I am willing to be corrected).  Holland writes:

Opponents of the measure have been organized, showing up by the hundreds, bringing in Christian youth groups, and busing in churchgoers from Mat-Su, some of whom work in Anchorage.

Wow, finally some acknowledgment from the city’s newspaper-of-record!

A few days ago a friend of mine wrote to the Assembly objecting to permitting the testimony of non-Anchorage residents.  He received a reply back from Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander, which he shared with me.  The pertinent parts (emphasis added):

The decisions on how best to conduct the hearings are made by the chair. I have taken into consideration the requests to limit testimony to residents of the municipality and have decided against that for several reasons. Many, many of the people who work and play in our town live in the Valley. Anchorage is a true regional city in the sense that its impact extends beyond its physical boundaries in many ways.

And so therefore those people who work & play in Anchorage but do not pay Anchorage taxes or vote in Anchorage elections should have the right to influence our elected representatives to permit discrimination against Anchorage citizens?

Try it this way:

Many, many of the people who work and play in our country live in Canada or Mexico, or hold green cards from other nations. The United States is a true regional power — in fact a world power — in the sense that its impact extends beyond its physical boundaries in many ways.

So let’s let Canadian, Mexican, & other foreign citizens come testify before Congress to influence U.S. lawmakers’ decisions about how to govern U.S. citizens!

I think not.

Then there’s the other issue the article mentions:

Some backers of the proposed law have accused opponents of filibustering — packing the hearing with opposition voices to stall the proposal until it falls in Sullivan’s term. Ossiander said she has suspected that at times but she has also heard very impassioned testimony that convinces her the issue is deeply important to people.

Jerry Prevo at Wednesday evening's Anchorage Baptist Temple picnic on the Loussac Library lawn. Prevo canceled ABT services that night in order that ABT members could attend the Assembly hearing.

Sure: the same impassioned testimony heard over & over from the same small subset of the Anchorage (& let’s not forget the Mat-Su) population, repeating the same talking points over & over again ad nauseum from the filibustering Christianists.  As John Aronno of Alaska Commons wrote in his account of Wednesday night’s testimony before the Assembly — the same night, you might recall, that Anchorage Baptist Temple pastor Jerry Prevo canceled evening services so that his congregation could head over to the Loussac to overwhelm the Assembly —

I was there from the beginning of the meeting at 4pm, and left shortly after nine-thirty. The “voices of the people” are not sending any new messages that need to be put on record. The “voices of the people” are now a loop.

And later,

I don’t know where we go from here. If there is an upside, it is in the clarity that the Assembly has offered us. They have made up their minds. They’re not telling us how they’ve made up their minds, but it is clear that the time for changing their minds has solidly run out. The first attempts to filibuster the discussion and subsequent vote on this ordinance continue. But, even more prevalent is the new tactic to literally strong arm the law. The anger. The bully mentality.

One should add that most of the people who testified Wednesday night were the last of the people who originally signed up to testify on the night of Tuesday, June 9 — & thus probably included at least some of those persons originally bused in or carpooled over from the Mat-Su.  Noncitizens that Debbie Ossiander persists in giving ear to.  Because the repetitive testimony, principally from congregants brought to the Assembly en masse from Anchorage Baptist Temple & other fundamentalist or evangelical churches, and some of whom are noncitizens of Anchorage, is — y’know — impassioned.  Well, filibusters usually do have something with group’s passion — including a passionate desire to run out the clock.

Debbie Ossiander is only cooperating in that, whether knowingly or unknowingly.  One rather suspects the former.  As a Facebook contact of mine wrote after the ADN doomsayer story came out,

I hate to say it, but I call it like I see it. It seems to me Ossiander is prolonging it so we can’t get it passed.

Yep, looks like it to me, too.  Assembly  Chair Ossiander has been uncertain in her own support or nonsupport of the ordinance, and by doing this “everybody should get heard even if they don’t live in Anchorage and even if they’re all repeating the same talking points over & over again,” she’s effectively also making it so that she perhaps won’t have to vote, and can escape unscathed from making a choice that will get her in trouble with either her conscience, or the conservative portions of her constituency.  It’s questionable, to say the least, if this is a responsibly neutral way to handle the chair’s responsibilities.

As Celtic Diva (Linda Kellen Biegel) wrote, the first of the reader comments on the Megan Holland’s doomsayer story:

If this doesn’t pass, I hope Alaskans will remember that Debbie Ossiander is the reason why:

1) She allowed all of the bussed in Valley people to sign up and testify. Gee, I wonder what would happen if I wanted to testify on and Ordinance in Wasilla or Palmer?

2) She continued to allow people to sign up for testimony every day they’ve had it. Since I was one of the last people to sign up on the first day and I testified Thursday, they’d be done by now and voting on Tuesday.

Darn betcha I’ll remember — and I’ll be doing my best to ensure other people remember as well.

(P.S. You must’ve been in a hurry, Linda: I think you mean Wednesday.  Though it was probably so late on Wednesday that it felt like Thursday!)

Related posts:

1. Outside influence
2. Assembly report 1
3. No, Debbie, Title VII does NOT prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment. Hello?