COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
MINUTES: August 23, 2004, 2:00 PM
IN ATTENDANCE:
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Legislators José Alvarado, Chair, Lois Bronz
Staff: Barbara Arrington Dodds, Andrea Ettere
CEO: Andrew Neuman; Others: Patricia McDow, Council Member, City of Yonkers; Allison Greene, Executive Director, Westchester County Human Rights Commission; Peter Rob, Rye City Human Rights Commission.
ITEM DISCUSSED:
Proposed amendment to Westchester Human Rights Law
With a quorum present, Legislator Alvarado opened the meeting at 2:30 pm.
Discussion continued on possible referrals from local human rights commissions to County commission. (See previous minutes 5/24/04 and 7/19/04)
Ms. Greene said that fiscal impacts of changing the legislation are unknown. Costs depend on how many cases go to a hearing.
Legislator Bronz pointed out that we remain at the information gathering stage and need to continue before asking for legislation. Legislator Alvarado noted that some important players were missing from the table—Leg. Latimer who introduced the proposed changes and Leg. Stewart-Cousins who wants to be a part of the discussions. Both of them were primary players in developing and passing the original law. This leaves a lot in the air but for the first time in a long time the City of Yonkers is represented here.
Council Member McDow: We have many cases in Yonkers that we review, so we want to maintain the department and also have the opportunity to use the county if need be. Sometimes it’s appropriate to use the city and sometimes to send it to the county. We’d like to have that flexibility, she said.
Leg. Alvarado said the issue at hand is that the way the law is now the County cannot take any cases from a municipality that has a commission.
Peter Rob said in the case of Rye, there are relatively few cases. They have always been successful at mediating but do not have enforcement authority. When the day comes and there is a real violation without enforcement capability—that person won’t have an opportunity to get redressed. The other alternative is to send it to the state and that’s like sending it to a black hole. The Rye Commission agrees with the letter from Mamaroneck supporting legitimate enforcement capabilities. They want to keep sovereignty at the local level, have the enforcement capability and the ability to refer to the County.
Greene: In reference to the suggested limitation of 5 cases per local commission, Greene said there are serious due process issues by denying one person over another the ability to come to the County to pursue their case. The complainant or the plaintive always has the choice of venue as a basic part of American juris prudence and due process. It leaves the County and the municipalities open for a legal action because they are deciding who can come to us—where is the standard?
Rob: If the complaint originates in Rye, one of three things happens: a) there is no basis for a complaint, b) there is a basis for a complaint and an understanding is facilitated, or c) there is an impasse and there has been a civil rights violation. We need to have the ability to send cases that need enforcement to the County. It was always assumed, before this flaw in the law was discovered, that the individual always had the right to go to the next level of the government. I agree with Allison that you can’t preclude somebody from doing that so that’s one of the things changing the law with this amendment would do. Some advocates were very surprised that we were limited.
Greene: One of the problems is that we can’t do a blanket countywide outreach and education because we will get calls from these communities and will have to tell them we can’t help them. That’s not user-friendly government. Most of our cases come from White Plains and we have to turn them away--there are a quarter million people working here everyday and we can’t take employment discrimination cases because there is a human rights commission here.
From a due process perspective there should be no limitations at all. The local commissions are very important for community dialogue, for coalition building and community action. However, we’ve got a budgetary situation that is a lot different than in 1999. A hearing can cost anywhere from 0 to $100 to $5000. Last year 280 claims came in to the County Commission and this year over 300 are expected. We also don’t know how many people will come to us from the locals. One indication would be how many cases they send to the state.
Greene: In 2001 when the New Rochelle City Council asked if they could abolish the commission and call it something else could we take their cases, the legal opinion was yes—our attorneys thought “Human Rights Advisory Committee” would work.
Alvarado: We are at the point where we have to ask the law department what options the local commissions have. Would there have to be a state law change? They operate under the General Municipal Law.
To develop statistics we need feedback from the local commissions. Council Member McDow suggested a survey of the local commissions. Leg. Bronze said we could ask municipalities to give us specific kinds of information with a survey, such as number of complaints, the number of cases referred, and number of staff. A short, focused and simple survey will be sent out.
Ms. Greene said the law department should be asked for an opinion about a sunset provision to change the law for a year—a good way to get a cost estimate.
Leg. Alvarado said the main concern is to open the commission to everyone in the county. We have to ask the law department for an opinion right away. The meeting was adjourned.
Text: 
Print:
