CONWAY -- Conway aldermen will consider a proposal tonight to expand the city's ban on discrimination against municipal-government employees to include sexual orientation and "gender identity or expression."
Unlike a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation in Eureka Springs that applies to residents and visitors, this proposal would apply only to the city government and not to local businesses.
Conway Mayor Tab Townsell said Monday that the city of Little Rock already has a law like the one he supports.
The measure advanced by Townsell is in the form of a proposed amendment to Conway's anti-discrimination ordinance approved in 2010 and is in response to state legislation that will prohibit cities and counties from passing anti-discrimination laws.
Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson has said he will let the state legislation become law but won't sign it because he is concerned about the loss of local control. Monday was the deadline for the governor to either sign or veto the measure.
"This was driven by those people who I think have ... an overreach of state law on this issue, and I think it's state law on the wrong side of history," Townsell said.
Because the state law won't take effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends, the Conway proposal, if approved, would become law beforehand with or without an emergency clause, Townsell said.
He said he believes his proposal has "some general support across our City Council -- not entirely, not unanimously by any means. ... Just knowing my council, I suspect it will have a strong chance." The mayor acknowledged that the state law, once in effect, could preclude such an ordinance.
"I don't know if standards for our own employees might fall in that category, but I would say it might. ... If the state's going to send this message ... I do want to make a statement contrary to what the state does," he said. "It's important for us to tell the business community and our citizens that we are going to be a fair and diverse place to live and work."
In a recent guest editorial in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and in Conway's Log Cabin Democrat, Townsell wrote that the state legislation destroys local control.
He also wrote: "Nondiscrimination standards help companies recruit and retain the best employees. Organizations that guarantee the right to self-expression allow their employees to realize their full potential, which leads to increased worker productivity and creativity. Companies do not expand or relocate where their employees cannot or will not live."
Speaking Monday, Townsell cited three reasons for a broader anti-discrimination ban: economic development, local control and fairness.
"I believe in treating people fairly and equitably," he said. "I want to be on the right side of history. I want to be on the Brooks Hays side and not the [Orval] Faubus side" -- referring to figures from the civil-rights era.
One alderman who opposes the measure is Mark Ledbetter, who said Monday that he will vote against it because he believes such discrimination already is banned under city law, which prohibits discrimination based on sex.
According to the Conway city government's website, the city does not discriminate "on the basis of race, sex, color, age, national origin, religion, or disability" in its employment practices.
"As I lay these policies down there next to each other, I don't see anything under this new proposal that is actually not [already] covered," Ledbetter said.
Townsell's proposal says in part, "The City of Conway is committed to adding equal opportunity employment opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status or status as a covered veteran in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws governing non-discrimination in employment."
It appears Townsell, who can cast tie-breaking votes, already has the support of at least half of the City Council.
In response to a Facebook post by Conway city employee Wes Craiglow, who urged the City Council to pass the proposal, three of the city's eight aldermen wrote that they plan to vote for the measure and a fourth made comments suggesting that was his position.
"I'm voting yes," Andy Hawkins wrote. He confirmed that position by phone, saying, "I think it's a civil-rights issue. ... I think everybody deserves ... equal and fair opportunities."
"I will be voting for this ordinance," Shelley Mehl wrote on Craiglow's Facebook page.
She did not return a phone message seeking comment Monday.
"It's got my vote," David Grimes wrote.
But when contacted Monday, Grimes did not want to declare a position publicly. Rather, he said, "Public comment will be taken at the meeting. We'll listen to what people have to say and try to make the best decision."
Wesley Pruitt did not say whether he would vote for the measure in his Facebook posts, but his comments defended it. "When another Facebook user wrote, 'Some of us look at sexual immorality as ... something that should not be encouraged by the government,'" Pruitt replied, "Well some of us don't think discrimination should be encouraged by the government either. It's not the [government's] job to judge someone on their religious beliefs. Their God will judge them when the time comes."
Aldermen Pruitt, Theodore Jones Jr. and Shelia Whitmore did not return phone messages seeking comment. The phone number listed on the city's website for Alderman Mary Smith is incorrect. She did not return an email seeking comment.
State Desk on 02/24/2015