Hot Springs board to weigh bias law

Mayor foresees pitfalls, questions need for ordinance, asks for defintions

HOT SPRINGS — Hot Springs Mayor Ruth Carney said last week at the Hot Springs Board of Directors’ agenda meeting that she wants to see evidence that a proposed ordinance prohibiting discrimination against the homosexual, bisexual and transgender community is needed.

The board will hear the proposed ordinance at its Tuesday meeting in City Hall at 133 Convention Blvd.

“I would like to have subjective evidence for the need for the ordinance included in the [board] packet, including a list of people who have been discriminated against and the reason for the ordinance. Is there a reason for it other than we’re just following what they did at the state Capitol? I don’t think we’ve ever discriminated against anyone in any of our services,” Carney said.

“There are people in the city who will be here to testify regarding that,” said District 3 Director Becca Clark, the sponsor of the proposed ordinance.

Act 137, passed by the state Legislature this year, will become effective July 22. It states that a “county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.”

It also states that “this section does not apply to a rule or policy that pertains only to the employees of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision.”

The city’s proposed ordinance mirrors an ordinance passed by the Little Rock Board of Directors on April 21 regarding city anti-discrimination policies.

The ordinance addresses the following three areas:

• The city of Hot Springs will not discriminate against vendors because of their race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, political opinions or affiliation. All city departments, divisions, commissions and offices that contract with vendors will adopt a written policy that reflects such nondiscrimination in contracting.

• Employees of the city, in providing city services to the public and public accommodations, will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, political opinions or affiliation. All city departments, divisions, commissions and offices will adopt a written policy that reflects such nondiscrimination in providing city services.

• All contracts providing goods and services to the city will contain a clause stating that the contracting party will not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. All bid and proposal requests for such contracts from the city will include notification of such a clause and the requirement that it be agreed to and followed.

Carney also said she wants included in the packet a list of all of the businesses the city has contracted with for the past three years and wants each of them to be notified of the proposed ordinance “so they will be informed about what this involves.”

As the agenda-meeting discussion continued, District 6 Director Randy Fale said the board should be making a decision only on whether to include the item on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting and should hold further discussion until then.

Carney said she has the right, as does any other director, to request that more information be furnished before the board meeting.

“That happens almost weekly. There is no rule everyone has to agree on the information to be in the packet, so I’m asking it be included so residents can see it,” she said.

She also said she wants a definition of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

“I would like to have that defined clearly. There is evidence of a lot of other places that have gone through the same thing, and we need to have it defined. According to some sources, there are 21 definitions of sexual orientation, so we need to know what we’re passing. We need to be clear on what we’re passing, so it doesn’t include things that maybe we don’t want,” she said.

“I think we could have consequences we’re not looking for if we’re not very clear on what we’re passing,” she said.

In addition, Carney said, “I wonder what that is going to do with our jail and where we’re going to put our prisoners or inmates if the county doesn’t agree. The county is a vendor, and they provide services to the city. I’m very sure the Quorum Court will have a lot to say about not contracting with the city. They contract with the city in a lot of areas, so it’s really a big deal. I think we could have unintended consequences of making a rash decision.”

“I disagree,” Clark stated.

Carney also said she would like to have the ordinance read three separate times, instead of suspending the rules and taking action on the first reading.

City Attorney Brian Albright said that is a board decision and if the rules are not suspended, the ordinance would be read in its entirety, but it would not be on the table for discussion at that reading.

Upcoming Events