[Human Relations Commission on July 18, 2024.]
[00:00:02]
UH, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE JULY MEETING OF THE DECATUR HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION TO ORDER.
IS SHERRY GONNA BE WITH US TODAY? NO.
UM, NOW FOR SURE, WE HAVE A QUORUM.
UM, WHY DON'T WE GIVE MARK A, A MOMENT TO GET IN PLACE, BUT, UM, WE COULD TAKE THE ROLL CALL, I SUPPOSE.
WELL, I'VE GOTTA HAND OUT ALL THE STUFF.
YEAH, I WALKING IN JERRY'S DOWN THERE.
YOU COULD TAKE A MOMENT MAYBE TO LOOK OVER THE MINUTES FROM THE, UH, PAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS.
YOU COULD SIT ON THE END THERE.
SO I'LL ASK PENNY, UH, TO TAKE THE, UH, ROLL CALL FOR THE MEETING.
COMMISSIONER MCREYNOLDS? HERE.
WE HAVE EIGHT PRESENT AND ONE ABSENT.
THANK YOU ALL FOR, UH, UH, DONATING YOUR TIME FOR OUR CAUSES.
UH, NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS APPEARANCE OF CITIZENS AND I DON'T SEE ANY APPEARANCE.
SO, UH, I MOVE AHEAD TO 0.3, APPROVAL OF THE MAY 16TH MEETING MINUTES.
THERE'S A LOT OF PAPERWORK IN FRONT OF YOU.
SO, UH, I JUST SOON SPEND A COUPLE OF MINUTES, UH, HAVING YOU GO OVER IT SO THAT WE, UH, WE HAVE IT RIGHT.
I MOVE APPROVAL OF MAY 16TH MINUTES.
[00:05:07]
CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER SLEETER? AYE.SO WE NEED SEPARATE VOTES FOR THE MAY 23RD AND THE JUNE 4TH MINUTES.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I IT WOULD NEED TO BE SOMEBODY WHO WAS AT THAT MEETING.
AND THEN ANYONE ELSE? UM, AS FAR AS VOTING WOULD NEED TO ABSTAIN.
SO THAT WOULD BE SULTAN, JOYCE OR SANDY? WILL I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? SECOND.
COMMISSIONER PELLS? DID I UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN'T VOTE ON THIS.
WELL, YOU WEREN'T AT THAT MEETING, SO YOU HAVE TO ABSTAIN AND I'LL ABSTAIN.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE, UH, FOUR EYES AND FOUR ABSTENTIONS.
WHERE DOES THAT PUT US THEN AS FAR AS CLEARING THIS? AMY WAX, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF DECATUR.
AN ABSTENTION IS AS COUNTED AS IF YOU'RE VOTING.
SO THEN CAN WE MOVE TO THE JUNE 4TH, UH, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES.
SO IT LOOKS TO ME AS THOUGH, UH, DONNA, TINA, AND SANDY ARE THE ELIGIBLE ONES TO MAKE THE MOTION.
DO ANY OF THE THREE THAT ATTENDED THAT, UM, MEETING WANNA MAKE THE MOTION? I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 4TH.
[00:10:12]
UM, COMMISSIONER MCREYNOLDS, DID YOU, DID YOU WANNA SECOND? I WILL DO THE ROLL CALL.YOU WERE AT THAT MEETING ON WHAT DAY? JUNE 4TH? YEAH, I WASN'T THERE.
I YOU DIDN'T GO TO ORIENTATION ON JUNE 4TH.
SO YOU, YOU NEED NEED AN AYE YES.
COMMISSIONER MC REYNOLDS CHAIRPERSON.
COMMISSIONER SCHLATER ABSTAIN.
AND COMMISSIONER PELLS ABSTAIN.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE THREE AYES AND FIVE ABSTENTIONS.
UH, NOW THAT WE HAVE THE HOUSEKEEPING OUT OF THE WAY, UM, COULD WE HAVE THE MONTHLY REPORT OF, UH, CASE THANK YOU, UH, FRED SPAN, UH, IN HUMAN RIGHTS INVESTIGATOR FOR THE COMMISSION.
UH, YOU HAVE THE, UH, MONTHLY REPORT IN FRONT OF YOU.
I'LL SUMMARIZE THAT AND I'LL ADD TWO MORE ITEMS TO IT THAT HAVE COME IN SINCE I SUBMITTED THIS.
WELL, ONE I FORGOT TO PUT ON AND ONE CAME IN SINCE.
SO THIS IS THE DOCUMENT YOU NEED IN FRONT OF YOU.
UH, AND THIS COVERS JUNE AND JULY BECAUSE WE, WE DID NOT MEET IN JUNE.
SO THE FIRST ONE, UH, 2 3 0 8 3 1.
AND THAT'S THE CASE IDENTIFIED BY NAME BECAUSE IT'S A CASE THAT YOU'VE ALREADY PROCESSED LECHE LEAVE VERSUS GARDEN MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS.
THIS IS THE CASE THAT IN MAY, UH, YOU ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING OFFICERS TO FIND IN FAVOR OF THE COMPLAINANT AND ASSESSED A JUDGMENT AGAINST GARDEN MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS.
SINCE THAT TIME, AN ATTORNEY FOR GUARDANT HAS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH MS. WACK SEVERAL TIMES, UH, AND, UH, MAKING SEVERAL ARGUMENTS AS TO WHY, UH, THEY SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE JUDGMENT.
UH, THE, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY PROVIDED WAS A CONTRACT THAT GARDEN MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS HAS WITH EAGLE RIDGE OF DECATUR NOW TO, TO REVIEW.
AND THE NEW COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS WITH EVERYONE, BUT MAYBE NOT THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY FILED AGAINST EAGLE RIDGE.
EAGLE RIDGE IS A, UM, A CARE FACILITY LOCATED INDICATOR, UH, AND EAGLE RIDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE ORIGINAL FILING OF THE CHARGE.
SO WHEN YOU DON'T RE, WHEN, WHEN A RESPONDENT DOES NOT RESPOND TO THE CHARGE, THEN WE MOVE TO THE COMPLAINT STAGE AND SCHEDULE A HEARING.
UH, BUT THEN AT THAT POINT WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD CHECK AND MAKE SURE THAT EAGLE RIDGE WAS THE EMPLOYER OF RECORD.
UH, THE COMPLAINANT TOLD US THAT THE CHECKS WERE, UH, ACTUALLY FROM GUARDANT.
UH, AND SO THEN WE STARTED THE PROCESS OVER AGAIN WITH GARDEN.
GARDEN IS A COMPANY LOCATED, UH, IN BRADLEY, ILLINOIS, I BELIEVE, WHICH IS UP BY KAKI.
UH, GUARD ALSO DID NOT RESPOND.
AND SO THEN WE WENT TO A HEARING.
UH, COMMISSIONER KER AND COMMISSIONER, UH, GOODMAN SERVED AS HEARING OFFICERS.
UH, GUARDANT STILL DID NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING, AND THAT LED TO THE, BASICALLY A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, IF YOU WILL.
SO NOW GUARDANT COMES FORWARD WITH A, UH, CONTRACT THAT THEY HAVE WITH EAGLE RIDGE STATING THAT EAGLE RIDGE IS IN FACT THE EMPLOYER.
UH, AND WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS THIS CASE IN SOME, SOME MORE DETAIL, UH, STARTING ABOUT 20 MINUTES TILL TILL FIVE, UH, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA BE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO, TO TAKE SOME ACTION, AND AMY
[00:15:01]
WILL COME UP AND HELP YOU THROUGH THAT PROCESS.UH, BUT, BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE ASKING YOU TO DO IS TO, UH, MOVE TO SETTING A HEARING DATE AND, UH, FILING A COMPLAINT AGAINST NOW AGAINST EAGLE RIDGE, UH, AND THERE.
SO THAT'S A PRO THAT'S WITH THAT CASE.
AND, AND I'LL ASK YOU TO HOLD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT CASE TILL LATER IN THE MEETING, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
WHEN, WHEN AMY IS HERE TO HELP FIELD THEM.
UH, THE NEXT ONE, UH, NUMBER 2 4 0 3 2 6 FILED MARCH 26TH.
AGE DISCRIMINATION AND EMPLOYMENT.
UH, SO THE, THE RESPONDENT, THE CHARGE WAS SENT TO THE RESPONDENT IN APRIL.
THE RESPONDENT REQUESTED A SHORT EXTENSION.
THEY NORMALLY HAVE 30 DAYS, AND OFTEN THEY REQUEST ANOTHER WEEK OR SO.
AND THEY DID THAT, UH, FILED THEIR RESPONSE IN A TIMELY MANNER.
AFTER THE EXTENSION ON MAY 31ST, A COUPLE DAYS LATER, I, UH, GAVE THE RESPONSE BOTH ELECTRONICALLY AND HARD COPY TO THE, TO THE COMPLAINANT AND TOLD THE COMPLAINANT, LET ME KNOW WHEN, WHEN YOU'VE READ THIS AND YOU'RE READY TO MEET.
BECAUSE NOW THE INVESTIGATION STARTS.
TWO WEEKS WENT BY, I DIDN'T HEAR FROM THE COMPLAINANT.
I THEN EMAILED THEM AND SAID, ARE YOU READY TO MEET OR DO YOU, DO YOU STILL WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS? DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE.
TWO DAYS LATER, I TEXTED THEM AND THEY SAID, YEAH, WE WANNA MEET.
SO LET'S, WE AGREED TO MEET JUNE 25TH.
UH, THEY DID NOT APPEAR AT THAT MEETING.
SO, SO THEN I RECONTACTED THEM AND SAID, UH, LISTEN, IF I DON'T HEAR FROM YOU BY THIS FRIDAY, I WILL DISMISS THE CASE FOR NON-PARTICIPATION.
UH, BUT IF YOU DO WANT TO CONTINUE THE CASE, LET ME KNOW BY FRIDAY THAT YOU DO, AND WE'LL SET A MEETING FOR, I THINK IT WAS JULY 9TH OR SOMETHING.
SO I DISMISSED THE CASE JULY 9TH.
THEY SHOW UP ANYWAY, BUT, UH, BUT THE CASE HAD ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED.
SO, UH, I DID, I DIDN'T PUT THIS ON THERE.
I DID TALK WITH THE COMPLAINANT AFTERWARDS AND TOLD THEM THAT, THAT THEIR OPTIONS AT THIS POINT ARE TO APPEAL THE DISMISSAL, AND THEY HAVE 40 DAYS TO DO THAT FROM JULY 2ND, OR TO FILE THE CASE WITH THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
SO, SO THAT'S WHERE THAT ONE SITS RIGHT NOW.
THEN FLIPPING TO THE NEXT PAGE, WE HAVE, UH, 2 4 0 6 2 0 RACE DISCRIMINATION AND EMPLOYMENT LEADING TO TERMINATION.
UH, THAT CAME IN ON JUNE 20TH.
I REVIEWED THE FORM AND REALIZED THAT THE, THE EMPLOYER AND THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT WAS LOCATED IN FORSYTH.
UH, WE CAN'T TOUCH ANY CASE THAT OCCURRED OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF DECATUR.
SO, UM, I, I, I CALLED THIS COMPLAINANT AND, AND EXPLAINED THE SITUATION AND, UH, SUGGESTED THEY FILE THE CASE WITH THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
AND, UH, I BELIEVE THEY DID PICK UP THE, THE HUMAN, THE IDHR FORM IN THE OFFICE.
I HAD MADE SURE THAT THE FORM WAS WAITING FOR THEM AT THE FRONT DESK IN THE HR OFFICE.
SO THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF OUR JURISDICTION.
WE DO GET A NUMBER OF CASES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION.
AND THE LAST ONE IS, IS ALSO OUTSIDE OUR JURISDICTION.
NUMBER 2 4 0 6 2 6, RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION AND EMPLOYMENT, UH, AGAIN, ALSO LEADING TO TERMINATION, FILED ON JUNE 26TH.
UH, CONDUCTED THAT INTERVIEW ON JULY 9TH.
UH, AND THE COMPLAINANT, UH, BASICALLY THE CASE WAS THE COMPLAINANT SAID, I HAD REPORTED SOME SEVERE SAFETY VIOLATIONS AT THIS PLACE OF, OF WORK, AND I'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR FOUR YEARS.
THE SAFETY VIOLATION IS CONTINUING, AND THEY GOT TIRED OF LISTENING TO ME AND FIRED ME.
DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT, BUT INITIAL INTERVIEW, I ALWAYS ASSUME THEY'RE TELLING ME THE TRUTH.
I SAID, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THAT'S TRUE, WE CAN'T HANDLE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT RE THAT'S NOT RETALIATION UNDER OUR CODE, UNDER OUR CODE, RETALIATION HAS TO BE, UH, RETALIATION FOR A PERSON MAKING A GOOD FAITH REPORT OF DISCRIMINATION OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
[00:20:01]
IN THE WORKPLACE.SO, RETALIATION FOR OTHER CAUSES IS NOT RETALIATION UNDER THIS CODE.
YOU FOLLOW WHAT I'M SAYING? THEY HAVE TO BE REPORTING AN ALLEGED, YOU KNOW, VIOLATION.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE NOT HAPPY, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S TOO BAD WE CAN'T TOUCH THOSE CASES.
I, I DID SUGGEST THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, FIND A LAWYER WHO'S SKILLED IN WORKPLACE SAFETY ISSUES AND LAWS AND, UH, TAKE IT THERE BECAUSE WE, WE WEREN'T THE PLACE FOR IT, UH, SINCE THEN.
ANOTHER CASE CAME IN AND IT CAME IN JULY 11TH, AND IT'S A GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN EMPLOYMENT, UH, ALSO LEADING TO TERMINATION.
I'M GOING TO INTERVIEW THAT PERSON TOMORROW.
SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY, ANYTHING TO TELL YOU.
I HAVEN'T YET MADE A DETERMINATION OF, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A VIOLATION ON THAT ONE.
SO I WILL TALK TO THEM TOMORROW MORNING OR TOMORROW AFTERNOON RATHER.
THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANT TO ADD THAT I SHOULD HAVE PUT ON HERE IS THAT, UH, AS YOU KNOW, I DID, UH, PROVIDE ORIENTATION FOR THE FOUR NEW COMMISSIONERS, THREE OF THEM ON JUNE 4TH AND ONE ON JUNE 5TH.
UH, I WANNA THANK COMMISSIONER SCHLATER FOR ATTENDING THE ONE ON ON JUNE 4TH.
UH, AND SO THEY'RE ALL UP TO SPEED.
AND WE ALSO, AS PART OF THAT ORIENTATION, UH, RAN THROUGH ALL THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT THE COMMISSION IS MAKING OR WANTS TO MAKE TO THE TWO CHAPTER 28, SO THAT THEY'RE ALSO CAUGHT UP ON ALL THAT.
SO WITH THAT, THAT'S, UH, MY ACTIVITY REPORT, SUMMARY OF CASES.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? APPRECIATE THAT YOU DID YOUR JOB SO WELL THAT THEY'RE STILL WANTING TO BE COMMISSIONERS.
I THINK
AND THE FIRST SUBTOPIC WOULD BE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND, UH, DISMISSAL.
IS THAT ARTICLE FIVE? UH, SEE, YEAH, I DO YOU HAVE, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S THIS DOCUMENT HERE.
DO YOU HAVE THAT IN COLOR ON YOURS? OKAY, GOOD.
UH, YEAH, THE, UH, IF YOU SKIP TO THE THIRD PAGE, UH, EVERYTHING ABOVE THAT REFLECTS CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN, UH, ARTICLES FOUR AND FIVE TO DATE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, WE STILL NEED THE LANGUAGE ON CONFIDENTIALITY, WHICH I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE YET.
SO WE'LL PICK THAT UP AT OUR, AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
UH, SO IF YOU FLIP TO PAGE THREE, THERE, ACTUALLY, THERE'S A FOOTNOTE RELATING TO THE VERY TOP OF PAGE THREE.
UH, AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT DISMISSALS OF CASES, WHEN I DISMISS A CASE, UH, UH, WHETHER AT ANY STAGE BEFORE IT GETS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE INDIVIDUAL HAS TIME TO REQUEST A REVIEW, WE, WE USE THE WORD APPEALABLE, BUT REALLY IT'S TECHNICALLY, IT'S REQUESTING A REVIEW OF THE DISMISSAL.
AND THAT COMES TO, REMEMBER BEFORE THE ENTIRE COMMISSION.
AND CURRENTLY THAT'S AT 40 DAYS, WE WANNA MOVE THAT TO 14 DAYS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE 14 DAYS TO FILE FOR A REVIEW CURRENT, LET ME BACK UP.
THEY CURRENTLY HAVE 40 DAYS FROM THE DATE THEY'RE NOTIFIED THAT I'VE DISMISSED A CASE TO REQUEST A REVIEW.
AND THEN THAT REVIEW WOULD COME BEFORE THE ENTIRE COMMISSION UNDER THE CHANGE THAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED, THAT WOULD CHANGE TO 14 DAYS.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED WHAT THIS, UH, REQUEST IS.
AND, AND ACTUALLY IT CAME FROM PENNY, SO YOU MIGHT WANNA SPEAK TO THIS, UH, WONDERING WHETHER, IF A CASE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PARTICIPATION, IN OTHER WORDS, BECAUSE THE PERSON BLEW OFF THEIR APPOINTMENTS AND WE'VE HAD TWO OF THOSE IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, UH, YOU KNOW, AND HAS NOT RESPONDED, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
WHETHER YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT SO THAT THEY CANNOT REQUEST A REVIEW FOR THAT, AND YOU MIGHT ADDRESS THAT AS TO WHY YOU BROUGHT THAT
[00:25:01]
UP.SO, AS FRED SAID, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF THESE CASES IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, AND I, I BELIEVE ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS, UH, HAD MADE THREE APPOINTMENTS WITH YOU, FRED, AND DID NOT, AND MISSED ALL THREE APPOINTMENTS.
AND THAT'S A WASTE OF YOUR TIME.
AND, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S, EVERYBODY ELSE'S TIME AND, AND THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY 'CAUSE EXACTLY.
'CAUSE Y'ALL HAVE TO PAY ME TO SIT THERE AND, AND, AND WAIT.
SO I FEEL LIKE WHEN PEOPLE COME TO, UM, APPEAL THEIR, THEIR DISMISSALS, UM, OR THEY WANNA REVIEW, I, I FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE FOR MORE LEGITIMATE REASONS THAN THEM JUST MISSING APPOINTMENTS.
WHAT IF THERE ARE LEGITIMATE REASONS? WHAT IF THERE ARE LEGITIMATE REASONS WHY THEY WOULD'VE MISSED THE APPOINTMENTS? I DON'T BELIEVE IN THIS CASE THEY, THEY, THE PERSON HAD LEGITIMATE REASONS.
UM, UH, LIKE IF THEY WERE TO CALL LATER, MAYBE, OR, OR PREFERABLY THEY WOULD CALL BEFORE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING CAME UP.
UM, BUT AGAIN, LIKE I'M, I'M THINKING MORE ABOUT IS IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A KIND OF A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO JUST WAIT ON PEOPLE WHO ARE IRRESPONSIBLE.
I, I, I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.
I AGREE WITH THE PART ABOUT BEING IRRESPONSIBLE.
THE PART I WOULD WONDER IF SOMEBODY IS IN THE HOSPITAL OR SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, GOT IN A AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT ON THE WAY HERE, OR, YOU KNOW, UM, HAD A FAMILY MEMBER THAT HAD AN EMERGENCY THAT DAY OR SOMETHING, THAT WOULD BE, I, I, TO ME, WOULD SEEM TO BE LEGITIMATE.
AND THEN WOULD WE DO THAT ON THE, THE FIRST OR THE SECOND OR THE THIRD OR, OR ALL OF 'EM? UM, WOULD BE MY, MY QUESTION.
I, I, I GUESS I WOULD BE HESITANT TO MAYBE PUT IT ON TO FIRST.
UM, WE ALL, I'VE MISSED MEETINGS WHEN I'VE SAID I WANNA BE HERE.
SO
UH, THE, AND THE ISSUE ISN'T A PARTICULAR CASE.
THE ISSUE I THINK IS, DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT IN ALL CASES? BECAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT I SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED, YOU KNOW, PRIOR CASES.
IT'S DO YOU WANT TO SAY, IF I DISMISS A CASE, THERE IS NO ROUTE OF APPEAL, UH, IF I DISMISS FOR NON-PARTICIPATION? OR DO YOU WANT TO, UH, AND IF THEY, IF THEY DO REQUEST A REVIEW, I NEED TO USE THAT LANGUAGE.
IF THEY DO REQUEST A REVIEW, UH, I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY IF THEY'VE, IF THEY'VE BLOWN OFF ALL THE APPOINTMENTS, THE TIME'S ALREADY BEEN WASTED BY THE TIME I, I DISMISS.
BUT THE TIME THAT, OR WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TO MEET AND HEAR THEIR, THEIR CASE AND THEY MAY NOT SHOW UP FOR THAT, OR THEY MAY, YOU KNOW.
SO IT'S A MATTER OF REALLY MORE OF THE COMMISSION'S TIME AT THIS POINT.
WHILE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK THE BIGGER CONCERN WOULD BE HOW YOU'RE GONNA PUT THAT INTO WORDS.
UM, YOU CAN'T, TO YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER PELLS, YOU'RE NOT GONNA WANNA PUT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS, UM, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FOR REVIEW OR RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE FULL COMMISSION UNLESS GRANDMA DIED.
I MEAN, IT, IT'S THE DIFFICULTY, I'M SORRY, IT WE NEED TWO, MY, IF THE CASE I, THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE, IF THE CASE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PARTICIPATION ON THE PART OF THE COMPLAINANT, YOU THEN HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT NON-PARTICIPATION MEANS.
SO IS NON-PARTICIPATION, MEANING I DIDN'T SHOW UP BECAUSE I GAVE NO EXCUSE.
IS THE NON-PARTICIPATION DEFINED AS, YOU CAN'T SAY I DIDN'T SHOW UP FOR A NON-LEGITIMATE REASON.
'CAUSE THEN YOU GET TO DEFINE WHAT NON-LEGITIMATE MEANS.
SO I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY PRECISE AS TO WHAT THE, WHAT THE DECISION'S GOING TO BE.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO DETERMINE THAT, IF NON-PARTICIPATION IS GOING TO LEAD TO NO REVIEW, YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO BE VERY PRECISE IN THE LANGUAGE AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES NON-PARTICIPATION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
[00:30:03]
FRED? UM, HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU, I MEAN, LIKE, HOW MANY CHANCES DO YOU GET THEM BEFORE OR GIVE THEM BEFORE IT'S DETERMINED? THEY, I KNOW WERE NOT PARTICIPATING.I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE A RULE.
I MEAN, I CONSIDER HOW LONG IT TAKES THEM TO GET BACK TO ME.
YOU KNOW, AFTER I SAY SCHEDULE A MEETING, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY PEOPLE WILL GET BACK WITHIN LIKE TWO OR THREE DAYS BECAUSE THEY'RE ANXIOUS TO GET THINGS MOVING.
UH, AND HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO CONTACT THEM, YOU KNOW, UH, TO SCHEDULE A MEETING.
AND THEN, AND THEN HOW, SO THAT THERE'S NO HARD AND FAST RULE.
UH, WHAT ARE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THINKING? THIS IS A COMMISSION DECISION, NOT, NOT A FRED OR AN AMY OR A PENNY DECISION.
I'M KIND OF THINKING ABOUT A TWO STRIKE RULE.
THAT IF THERE'S A, A FAILURE TO SHOW UP, NOT THE FIRST TIME, NOT THE SECOND TIME, IF THAT AT THAT POINT THERE'S A CLEARER INDICATION THAT, UM, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH WITH IT.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT WE'D SAY, WELL, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT DOOR IS CLOSED.
MY, UH, JUST KIND OF INFORMATIONALLY NOT TRYING TO SWAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
'CAUSE I DON'T REALLY HAVE A DOG IN THIS HUNT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATION ON IT.
UH, WHEN IT'S HAPPENED, MY SPECULATION AS TO WHY IT'S HAPPENED IS THAT THEY HAVE SEEN THE CASE AGAINST THEM.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY COME AND TELL ME, YEAH, THIS HAPPENED AND THIS HAPPENED AND THIS HAPPENED, THAT I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG.
AND THEN FIND OUT, WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT THE ENTIRE STORY.
IN FACT, THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE STORY AT ALL.
UH, ONE EXAMPLE, AND I THINK I GAVE THIS AT ORIENTATION I TO THE PEOPLE, IS, UH, THE GUY WAS FIRED.
HE CLAIMED IT WAS DIS THE PERSON CLAIMED IT WAS DISCRIMINATION.
THEY DIDN'T TELL ME THAT THEY HAD ACTUALLY THREATENED ANOTHER, THREATENED TO KILL ANOTHER EMPLOYEE.
WHICH, UH, IT'S KIND OF A LEGITIMATE REASON.
YOU, YOU THINK NOT, YOU THINK IT SHOULD
IT JUST, IT, THAT BROUGHT UP SOMETHING I THOUGHT WAS THINKING ABOUT.
SO IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PARTICIPATING WITH THE COMPLAINT THAT THEY FILED, OR THEY'RE THEY'RE CHARGED, THAT THEY'VE FILED, ARE THEY THE ONES THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ASKING FOR A REVIEW? I MEAN, IS, IS THERE WHAT, WHAT IS THE CONCERN THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PREVENT? YEAH.
BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT WANTING TO PARTICIPATE ANYMORE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA ASK FOR REVIEW.
SO TRYING TO COME UP WITH LANGUAGE TO PREVENT SOMETHING FROM HAPPENING THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN YEAH.
WELL, I CAN'T SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
UH, IT HASN'T HAPPENED SO FAR.
UH, BUT YEAH, NOT TO SAY IT, IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN, BUT IT HASN'T HAPPENED SO FAR.
UH, I LIKE THE SUGGESTION OF THE TWO STRIKE RULE.
WHEN YOU CONTACT HIM TO MAKE A SECOND APPOINTMENT, DID THEY GIVE AN EXCUSE FOR THE FIRST I OH, NO.
IF THEY GIVE AN EXCUSE, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT YEAH.
NO, IF THEY, IF THEY GIVE A YEAH, BUT YOU HAVE TO CONTACT THEM TO MAKE A SECOND MEETING, AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE AN EXCUSE YEAH.
NORMALLY, LIKE IN BOTH CASES, THEY JUST DIDN'T GET BACK TO ME.
YOU KNOW, I SAID, LET YOU NEED TO CONTACT ME BY A CERTAIN DATE.
YOU KNOW, AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT.
SO THAT, SO THAT'S, SO I, SO NO, THEY DIDN'T OFFER AN EXCUSE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET BACK TO ME.
AND I, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT ABOUT, UH, SIX MINUTES HERE.
DO I UNDERSTAND THIS? IF WE DID SET A RULE WITH A TOOTH STRIKE, AND THEN WE SAY THAT IT, IT IS NOT MICROPHONE, A REVIEW IS NOT OH, PRESS BUTTON.
IF, IF WE SET UP A TOOTH STRIKE RULE AND STATE THAT THEY CANNOT APPEAL IT, THEY STILL COULD PRESENT THEIR CASE TO THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RELATIONS, RIGHT? UH, YES, THEY COULD.
SO, SO THEY WOULDN'T BE TOTALLY UP A CREEK.
THEY DO HAVE ANOTHER ACTION AVAILABLE.
IF, IF WE DISMISS A CASE, THEY CAN ALWAYS TAKE IT TO, TO THE, TO THE STATE.
UH, REMEMBER THOUGH, IF YOU DO THE TWO STRIKE RULE, YOU STILL HAVE THE ISSUE THAT AMY BROUGHT UP TO YOU.
YOU HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT'S, WHAT'S A LEGITIMATE
[00:35:01]
EXCUSE.UH, BUT IF THEY DON'T OFFER ANY EXCUSE, UH, ANY ANY EITHER CASE, YEAH.
AND THAT TAKES US OUT OF THE JUDGING BUSINESS ABOUT, UH, WELL, LET'S SEE.
IT WAS A BROTHER-IN-LAW WHO WAS HIT BY A TRAIN.
UH, AND IS THAT VALID? UH, THEN, YEAH, THE OTHER THING IS AT WHAT POINT IS THE EXCUSE JUST A EXCUSE A LIE,
I GUESS THE POINT THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS YOU'RE TRYING TO CURE AN ILLNESS THAT DOESN'T EXIST OR HASN'T EXISTED.
IT MAY EXIST IN THE FUTURE, BUT AS OF NOW, TRYING TO COME UP WITH LANGUAGE, AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE FAIRLY PRECISE LANGUAGE FOR AN ISSUE THAT ISN'T AN ISSUE, MAYBE NOT WORTH THE TIME AND EFFORT IT'S TAKING TO CURE THE ILLNESS THAT DOESN'T EXIST, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
SO BASICALLY TRYING TO DEFINE HOW MANY EXCUSES, WHAT IS A GOOD EXCUSE.
IF IT'S NO EXCUSE, THEN WE, WE DON'T CARE.
I MEAN, YOU, YOU HAVE TO CRAFT THE LANGUAGE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT'S GOING TO COVER EVERY SITUATION YOU CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF.
IT'S GOING TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY COUNCIL'S GONNA HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, AND WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
AND IF IT DOES HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THE PERSON, LIKE THE SITUATION THAT FRED HAS TALKED ABOUT, BASICALLY BLEW OFF MULTIPLE APPOINTMENTS, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE A, AN APPEAL TO YOU GUYS AND SAY, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE DISMISSED MY CASE WHEN I BLEW OFF 18 APPOINTMENTS.
ARE YOU GUYS, I MEAN, IN ALL HONESTY, THE COMMISSION WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE THE ONES TO DECIDE SHOULD FRED HAVE DISMISSED IT OR NOT? MM-HMM.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'D BE ASKING.
NOT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S DISCRIMINATION AT THAT POINT, BUT WHETHER OR NOT THEIR LACK OF PARTICIPATION SHOULD LEAD TO WHAT FRED DECIDED TO DO.
I MEAN, I, I THINK THAT COULD HAPPEN AND WOULD PROBABLY MOST LIKELY HAPPEN IN THE COURSE OF A REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING.
IT WOULD NOT NEED TO BE A SPECIAL MEETING.
SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU, UH, SO IT'S NOT LIKE ASKING YOU TO COME IN FOR A SPECIAL MEETING.
I'M COMING AROUND TO THAT POINT OF VIEW, AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU, UH, ELUCIDATED IT, UH, UH, TO MY SATISFACTION.
SO I UNDERSTOOD, I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY IS, BUT I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO SOME OF THE COURT CASES THAT CAME ABOUT, AND IT WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT ACTUALLY, UM, THEY DISMISSED IT BECAUSE THERE, UM, WAS NO ACTUAL HARM DONE TO THE PERSON WHO WAS MAKING THE COMPLAINT, UH, BECAUSE IT WAS ON THEORY OF POTENTIAL HARM IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEY, THAT WAS ALL DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THAT.
SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF DROPPING IT, AS WOULD I.
DO WE NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION THEN IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO NO, NO, WE NEVER VOTE ON THESE, YEAH.
SO CHAIR, IS THERE A CONSENSUS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACT ON THAT? THAT'S WHAT I'M FEELING.
IF ANYBODY DISAGREES AND WANT TO CONTINUE THIS FIGHT FURTHER, OR GO RIGHT AHEAD, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'VE, WE WE'RE, WE'RE TO THAT POINT.
SO, UH, LET'S CONTINUE AND I'LL, UH, THE, THE THINGS THAT WERE ALSO SCHEDULED FOR DISCUSSION TODAY, WE WILL MOVE THOSE TO OUR AUGUST MEETING.
UH, I'LL SAY ALSO, I WAS ALSO THINKING EARLIER TODAY THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD, UH, NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO DISMISS, TO ASK FOR A REVIEW IF IT'S DISMISSED ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS, YOU KNOW, BUT YEAH.
THIS HAPPENED IN FORSYTH, THAT'S CLEARLY NOT IN OUR JURISDICTION.
AND SO YEAH, MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO APPEAL IT, BUT I COULD SEE A SITUATION WHERE IT'S DISMISSED ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS, BUT THE PERSON MAKES AN ARGUMENT THAT YOU DIDN'T HEAR ME, YOU KNOW, YOU DIDN'T HEAR ME, FRED, BECAUSE I DID SAY THIS WAS ABOUT DISCRIMINATION, AND YOU GOT FOCUSED ON SOMETHING ELSE.
YOU KNOW? SO I COULD SEE WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO ALLOW A REVIEW ON THAT.
SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT GONNA SUGGEST THAT.
[00:40:01]
UH, MOVE, MOVE BACK TO CASE NUMBER 2 3 0 8 3 1 LASHA LEE.AND IF I CAN INTERRUPT YOU FOR JUST A SECOND, FOR PURPOSE OF OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH SECTIONS, UH, SHOULD THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, FOCUS ON? YOU SHOULD LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT HAS READ ON THIS ONE.
I'LL SEND YOU A NEW ONE, BUT, UH, WHERE, WHERE IT SAYS COMMISSION DISCUSSION IN JULY.
UH, I'LL CHANGE THAT TO AUGUST AND, UH, AND WE'LL PARTY AGAIN THEN.
I JUST WANTED TO GET PEOPLE FOCUSED ON THIS, UH, PART OF IT FOR THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY OF GOING.
THAT'S, AND, AND THAT'S, THAT THAT'LL PROBABLY TAKE UP ALL THAT MEETING.
SO WE NEED TO, THERE'S OTHER ACTIONS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE IN TERMS OF SCHEDULING AND APPOINTING HEARING OFFICERS.
YOU, YOU WANNA ADDRESS THIS ONE? YEAH.
SO THE NEW BUSINESS WOULD BE, UM, UH, MOTION TO APPROVE GARDEN MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS.
MOTION TO DISMISS AND VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED ON MAY 23RD, 2024.
AND THE LECHE LEE VERSUS GARDEN MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS CASE 2 3 0 8 3 1.
AND NOW WHAT HAPPENS?
WE WOULD NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CALL IT.
I'LL SECOND AGAIN, AMY WAX, UM, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE CITY OF DECATUR.
UM, AS YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH, UM, THE CASE REGARDING GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, UM, THAT LASHAY LEE HAD FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST, UM, MR. SPAN HAS ALREADY DISCUSSED THE ISSUES THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE FACT.
UM, I CAN GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL.
UM, RECEIVED A CALL FROM AN ATTORNEY FOR GUARDANT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS.
UM, MOST OF THE EXCUSES, UM, WERE FOR FAILING TO, UM, COME FORWARD PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND FAILING TO RESPOND, UH, DEALT WITH, UH, CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT.
UH, THE PERSON THAT HAD RECEIVED THE, THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SENT TO THEM FROM THE, UH, CITY OF DECATUR, HAD GONE TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS, WHO LEFT SHORTLY AFTER RECEIVING THE DOCUMENTS AND TOLD NO ONE ABOUT IT.
UM, SO GUARDANT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS WAS OTHER THAN THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL, AND I BELIEVE A RECEPTIONIST, UH, HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THIS GOING ON.
HOWEVER, UM, ONCE THEY WERE MADE AWARE OF IT, THEY DID, UH, FILE WITH THE CITY, WITH THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, UM, A DOCUMENT THAT IS ENTITLED RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND VACATE.
THE ORDER ENTERED ON MAY 23RD, 2024.
UM, IT IS, THE ACTUAL MOTION ITSELF IS FAIRLY LENGTHY.
A LOT OF IT DEALS WITH, UM, THE EMPLOYEE NOT BEING EMPLOYED, UM, THE, THEIR VICE PRESIDENT LEAVING THE COMPANY AND NOT NOTIFYING ANYBODY ELSE, AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
WHICH REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU GUYS.
IT'S JUST BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO RESPOND AND HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO RESPOND.
DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT.
WHAT THEY DID POINT OUT THAT, UH, MR. SPANA ADVISED EARLIER IS THEY PROVIDED SOME DOCUMENTS TO YOU GUYS, ONE OF WHICH WAS AN EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION FOR LASHAY LEE THAT ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY HAS EAGLE RIDGE ON THE EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION.
AND REMEMBER, WE'D ORIGINALLY HAD FILED AGAINST EAGLE RIDGE, HOWEVER, MS. LEE ADVISED THAT SHE WAS PAID BY GUARDANT.
SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT AHEAD AND REFILED AGAINST GUARDANT.
UM, THEY ALSO PROVIDED US IN EXHIBIT G, THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN, UM, GUARDANT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS INC.
AND THE EAGLE RIDGE OF DECATUR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.
UM, EAGLE RIDGE HAS CONTRACTED WITH GUARDANT
[00:45:01]
TO MANAGE THEIR PROPERTY AS WELL AS THEIR EMPLOYEES.HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY STATES IN IT, LET ME FIND THE LANGUAGE.
UM, UNDER 3.2 EMPLOYEES OF THE FACILITY SHALL BE EMPLOYEES OF THE ENTITY OPERATING FACILITY, WHICH IS DEFINED AS EAGLE RIDGE.
SO WHILE MS. LEE BELIEVED THAT HER, SHE WAS GETTING PAID AND WAS EMPLOYED BY GUARDANT BASED UPON THIS CONTRACT, EAGLE RIDGE CONTINUED TO BE THE EMPLOYER OF HER AND OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES AT EAGLE RIDGE.
UM, BASED UPON THAT, I THINK THAT WAS BASICALLY THE SOLE REASON.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEIR AR OTHER ARGUMENTS WOULD HAVE RISEN TO THIS LEVEL.
UM, AND I THINK THAT IT IS OBVIOUSLY, UM, THE HEARING OFFICERS AND THE FULL COMMISSION'S DESIRE THAT THE PROPER PARTY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN AGAINST MS. LEE.
UM, I DID PREPARE WHAT IS ENTITLED AN ORDER OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, VACATING THE EARLIER ORDER THAT YOU GUYS ENTERED BACK ON MAY 23RD, 2024.
AND I AM, YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS IF THIS IS A LITTLE CONFUSING OR NOT.
DO WE HAVE ANY PRECEDENT EITHER IN OUR PROCEDURES OR IN IN ANY SIMILAR, UH, PROCESS AS FAR AS THE PERSON, UH, MAKING THE DECISIONS AS OPPOSED TO THE ACTUAL EMPLOYER? ANY PRECEDENT FOR, UH, FOR EITHER, UH, MAINTAINING GUARDANT AS THE, UH, COMPLAINT AS THE RESPONDENT, OR NEEDING TO GO TO EAGLE RIDGE? UM, BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, UM, BETWEEN GUARDANT AND EAGLE RIDGE, GUARDANT DOESN'T HAVE ANY ABILITY TO HAVE BE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY IN THIS, IN THIS TYPE OF MATTER.
IT WOULD BE STILL EAGLE RIDGE.
HAS EAGLE RIDGE CONFIRMED THAT NO.
EAGLE RIDGE HAS NEVER RESPONDED TO US.
UM, MR. SPAN HAD SENT THEM NOTIFICATION WHEN THE FIRST FI, UH, YOU MAY FILE CAME IN AND EAGLE RIDGE IGNORED IT.
SO WHEN WE WERE AT THE POINT WE WERE GETTING READY TO FILE, OR MR. SPAN WAS GETTING READY TO FILE AGAINST EAGLE RIDGE IS WHEN WE DISCUSSED, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY EAGLE RIDGE, BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES OTHER CORPORATIONS ARE INVOLVED.
AND THAT'S WHEN MS. LEE SAID, NOPE, NOPE, IT'S NOT EAGLE RIDGE, IT'S GUARDANT.
AND UNFORTUNATELY IT REALLY WAS EAGLE RIDGE.
SO, UM, I THINK AT THIS POINT, UM, IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION AS AN ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMISSION THAT AN ORDER VACATING, UM, THAT EARLIER ORDER BE ENTERED THAT MR. SPAN THEN GO FORWARD WITH THE FILING AGAINST EAGLE RIDGE.
UM, AND WE TAKE IT UP RIGHT THERE, BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY DID NOT RESPOND.
UM, AND IT'D BE A SIMILAR SITUATION TO WHAT HAPPENED WITH GUARDANT, BUT IT'D BE WITH EAGLE RIDGE.
DO WE HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH A HEARING PROCESS THAN THERE? IT, IT, THERE WOULD BE A HEARING PROCESS AS WELL? YES.
UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH PARTICIPATION WE WILL HAVE FROM EAGLE RIDGE SINCE WE'VE HAD NONE AT THIS POINT.
I'M GUESSING WE'LL HAVE PARTICIPATION THAT THAT WOULD BE MY GUESS, BUT I'M STILL SURPRISED THAT WE DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE TO BEGIN WITH.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE, OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SHALL WE CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER IBRAHIM? AYE.
WE HAVE EIGHT AYES AND NO NAYS.
[00:50:03]
AND THEN OUR NEXT MOTION WOULD BE TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION TO SIGN THE ORDER OF, UH, THE COMMISSION VACATING THE ORDER IN THIS CASE IS, SO, MOVE A SECOND.SHALL WE TAKE THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER IBRAHIM? AYE.
WE HAVE EIGHT A'S AND NO NAYS.
AND WHAT'S THAT DOCUMENT ASSIGNED? I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH THE ATTORNEY'S INFORMATION.
I, YEAH, NO, I DIDN'T GET THE HEARING SCHEDULED.
SO THE, THE NEXT STEP IN THIS CASE IS TO APPOINT HEARING OFFICER OR OFFICERS AND SCHEDULE A HEARING.
UH, NORMALLY WE DON'T DO THAT DURING A COMMISSION MEETING, BUT WE HAVE EVERYBODY HERE AND WE COULD SET IT RIGHT NOW IF WE, IF, IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
WELL, EVERYBODY EXCEPT THE, UH, THE OTHER HEARING OFFICER FROM THE FIRST HEARING.
UM, WOULD IT, WOULD IT BE, UH, IMPROPER TO SEEK OUT ANOTHER HEARING OFFICER? DO WE NEED TWO HEARING OFFICERS? YOU DON'T NEED, YOU NEED AT LEAST ONE
UH, THERE'S NO MAXIMUM NUMBER, BUT YOU KNOW, PRACTICAL, PRACTICALLY, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE NINE HEARING OFFICERS.
UH, YOU COULD, IF YOU WANTED TO KEEP THE SAME TWO, IF THAT'S YOUR DESIRE, YOU COULD APPOINT HER AND IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO, THEN SHE COULD REFUSE, THEN YOU COULD APPOINT SOMEBODY ELSE.
WHAT I THINK MIGHT BE PROPER IS TO, UH, SEEK A VOLUNTEER FROM THE COMMISSION.
AND IF THE HEARING DATE WORKS OUT FOR, UH, VIVIAN, THEN, THEN WE COULD HAVE THREE, UM, OFFICERS.
AND IF IT DOESN'T, THEN WE'LL STILL HAVE TWO.
THEREFORE, WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO BE A HEARING OFFICER AND WE'LL SCHEDULE THE DATE AT YOUR CONVENIENCE RIGHT NOW? I I WOULD VOLUNTEER TO DO THAT.
SO WHEN WOULD WE SET THIS? OKAY, SO THE CODE READS THAT THE HEARING MUST BE SENT MUST BE SET NO LESS THAN 45, NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT NEXT MEETING, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DAY IT'S GONNA BE RECEIVED.
SO IT'S KI WE'RE KIND OF LIKE IT'S A CATCH 22, BUT IF WE SET IT 60 DAYS OUT, WE'RE GONNA BE PRETTY SAFE.
UH, SO I'M GONNA SUGGEST THAT WE LOOK AT THE, THE LATTER PART OF SEPTEMBER.
UH, AND ONCE WE SET A DATE, I'LL HAVE THE, YOU DON'T NEED TO SIGN ANYTHING.
I'LL HAVE THE DOCUMENTS READY TO GO TOMORROW.
UH, AND, UH, WE'LL ARRANGE FOR A COURT REPORTER AND ALL THAT STUFF.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF SEPTEMBER 15TH, 20TH WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK? SEPTEMBER 15TH IS A SUNDAY.
UH, JERRY, DO YOU HAVE YOUR CALENDAR WITH YOU? NO.
NO, BUT I KNOW, OKAY, SO WHAT TIME OF DAY? THAT'S, IT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU.
UH, I GUESS FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON, HEARINGS ARE USUALLY SCHEDULED IN THE MORNING, LIKE NINE 30 OR 10 O'CLOCK.
AND I THINK THAT REASON IS IN CASE THEY EXTEND INTO THE AFTERNOON.
YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THE AFTERNOON, YOU DON'T HAVE TO NINE 30 ON THE 16TH.
IS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NORMALLY AVAILABLE ON MONDAY MORNING? YEAH.
UH, THEY DON'T HAVE, THEY COULD BE HELD IN THE HR CONFERENCE ROOM, BUT THIS IS PROBABLY PREFERABLE.
SO SEPTEMBER 16TH, IT'S BEGINNING AT NINE 30.
DOES THAT SEEM, UH, AMENABLE TO YOU? UH, COMMISSIONER PES? YES.
[00:55:01]
RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE, EAGLE RIDGE, UH, FILES A MOTION PRIOR TO THAT, AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, THEY CAN FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE.THEY COULD FILE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE HEARING DATE.
YOU KNOW, THEY CAN FILE WHATEVER MOTION THEY WANT TO.
THAT GOES TO THE HEARING OFFICERS.
MS. W WILL ADVISE YOU IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE IN RESPONDING TO THAT MOTION.
JUST, I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
IF EITHER SIDE REQUESTS TO SUBPOENA SOMEBODY, SUBPOENA, WITNESS SUBPOENA, WRITTEN MATERIALS, WHATEVER, THAT ALSO GOES TO THE HEARING OFFICERS.
AND AGAIN, MS. WAX IS AVAILABLE TO OUTLINE WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE.
SO JUST SO YOU KNOW HOW IT, SO THE RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUEST DISMISSAL, EVEN THOUGH THEIR STATUS IS AS A NON-RES RESPONDENT AT THIS CASE.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE THE RESPONDENT.
THEY JUST, THEY DID NOT RESPOND TO THE CHARGE.
SO THIS IS THE, THE FORMAL COMPLAINT THAT SETS THE HEARING DATE.
THEY MUST EITHER FILE A WRITTEN SWORN RESPONSE, WHICH MEANS, YOU KNOW, SWORN WHERE IT'S BEFORE, WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH SWORN STUFF, A SWORN RESPONSE OR FILE A MOTION OF SOME NATURE.
THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITHIN 30 DAYS.
IF YOU READ THE CODE, THE ORDINANCE, IT'LL KIND OF REVIEW OF THAT.
BUT, UH, BUT YES, THEY COULD FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS THE ENTIRE CASE.
THEY COULD SAY IT'S RIDICULOUS.
UH, WE DON'T EVEN, THIS DOESN'T EVEN DESERVE A HEARING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THE EMPLOYER.
I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE,
IF THEY HAD, IF THEY HAD FILED THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE, YOU AND, AND COMMISSIONER GOODMAN WOULD'VE ACTED ON THAT, YOU KNOW, WORKING, WORKING WITH AMY AND YOU PROBABLY WOULD'VE SAID, YEAH, WE NEED TO VACATE THIS CASE.
NOW THAT WE'VE SEEN THE EVIDENCE, BUT THEY DIDN'T
IS A MORE FORMAL RESPONSE REQUIRED THOUGH.
IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHARGE A COMPLAINT, YOU KNOW, THE CHARGE COMES ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.
THE COMPLAINT COMES ON A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE NON-RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE.
UM, SO WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CONTACT VIVIAN AND, UH, SEE IF THIS WORKS OUT FOR HER OR DO YOU WANT ME TO DO IT? UH, UH, I PREFER THAT YOU DO IT BECAUSE IT'S AT APPOINTMENT OF THE C THE COMMISSION BY GOLLY.
HOW, HOW WE WE GOT LIKE 30 SECONDS LEFT OR SOMETHING.
IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCED BY THE FBI.
CAN I BRING UP A, MY ITEM OF OTHER BUSINESS TO PUT ON THE AGENDA? UH, WELL FOR THIS CAN IT, CAN IT GO IN AUGUST? YES.
UH, LAST YEAR, UM, A TABLE WAS PROVIDED FOR THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION AT PRIDE FEST.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA TO SEE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, UH, UH, HAVE A TABLE TO DO THAT AT PRIDE FEST THIS YEAR ON SEPTEMBER 14TH.
SO MAY WE PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA FOR AUGUST? WE'LL CERTAINLY, WE'LL CERTAINLY TALK IT OVER THEN.
SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MO MOTION FOR DISMISSAL FOR DISMISSAL.
I'LL SECOND BE SAME TIME MARK AND EVERYTHING.