Eva Young wrote:
I think it's unfortunate that Bob Fine won reelection. His reluctance to
take John Erwin's amendment to explicitly state the agreement with De La
Salle must include a non-discrimination clause spoke volumes. I'm rather
surprised that Stonewall endorsed Fine. Bernstein in my view would be more
concerned about discrimination against gays and also church/state separation
with the deal with De La Salle.
Rick Kuhlmann wrote:
I listened and watched that whole board meeting on webcast. I was surprised
that what Liz W. had reported in her earlier post as CM Erwin's positive
stance on the non-discrimination amendment (NDA) was really just missed
timing. I did not hear any opposition to the addition of an NDA. What I
heard was that this was not the place to be adding that amendment. The board
was voting on whether or not to accept the CAC proposal. The time to add ant
NDA would be when the reciprocal use agreement is written.
We all probably hate to see legislators in the state and federal governments
propose amendments that have nothing to do with the original bill being
discussed or up for a vote. I think that CM Erwin should just make sure to
put a sticky note on his monitor to bring that up again when the time is
right.
As Commissioner Erwin himself suggested, he wanted to make sure it did not get
forgotten and that it was brought forward (along with his other concerns) soon
enough that there were no surprises. The "proper" place for the legal
language might be in the reciprocal use agreement, but bringing it up and
making it part of the process is proper in just about any place, and the
sooner the better.
Note also that the vote on the reciprocal use agreement may well not take
place until next year -- when Erwin will no longer be a commissioner. So a
sticky note on his monitor is not going to be of any help at all.
Lastly, if one has been watching the Park Board personalities long enough, one
will know that what might sound like disagreement about it not being the
"place" to add the amendment, what's really happening is that those arguing
against the place are actually arguing against the amendment. Park Board
majority commissioners repeatedly use procedural tricks like this one to
attempt to kill things they don't want. When they do pass anyway, usually on
voice votes (individual votes unrecorded), they can then stand behind the lack
of record to make their position sound anyway that seems convenient at the
moment, e.g. in a campaign. It's the whole accountability problem.
From my point of view, I heard lots of opposition to the NDA. The goal of
the commissioners who support the DeLaSalle project is to pave the way to make
it as easy and smooth for DeLaSalle to be given a multi-million dollar gift
from the taxpayers. An NDA is just another little bump in the road that needs
to be flattened or removed, if possible.
Incidentally, I note that Roman Catholic Archbishop Harry Flynn encouraged all
archdiocese priests to attend the anti-gay summit of pastors and ministers
being held at Grace Church in Eden Prairie:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/5720160.html
It seems hard to imagine that DeLaSalle, owned by the archdiocese, will be
respectful towards the GLBT community.
--
Chris Johnson
Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
