City Council

September 8, 2017 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Fairmont was held at 3:30 p.m. on the 8th day of September, 2017, at the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street in Fairmont, West Virginia. Mayor Mainella called the meeting to order. Councilmembers present were: First District Marianne Moran Third District Robert (Rob) Linger Fourth District Kenneth (Brad) Merrifield Fifth District Fran Warner Sixth District Dora Kay Grubb Seventh District Philip R. (Phil) Mason Eighth District Thomas (Tom) Mainella Ninth District Ronald J. (Ron) Straight, Sr. Absent: Second District Frank G. Yann Also present were: City Manager Robin I. Gomez City Clerk Janet L. Keller City Attorney Kevin V. Sansalone Police Chief Steve Shine Fire Chief Ed Simmons IN RE: EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER YANN Councilmember Moran moved to excuse Councilmember Yann from this meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Linger. The Mayor declared Councilmember Yann excused from this meeting by voice vote of Council. IN RE: PURPOSE OF MEETING Mayor Mainella explained that this meeting, unlike our other meetings, Council will discuss two items on the agenda. He noted there will be no venue for anyone else to say anything. He then gave a background about 1 why he called this Special Meeting. He said that he came into City Hall on Tuesday afternoon and ended up being in a meeting that he was not invited to but in that meeting there were police officers, Chief Shine, Officers McGlone, Yost, and Murphy, City Attorney Kevin Sansalone, City Clerk Janet Keller, and City Manager Robin Gomez. He went on to say that in the conversation that took place, the police officers were concerned that having the meeting here in Council Chambers would not be a good place to have it as far as safety was concerned because of the number of people we expect to be here for the September 12 th meeting. He said this was discussed and he thought the best thing to do was to give Council a chance to delay the vote on this ordinance and the public hearing until we can find a suitable venue to have a safe meeting. He noted that was why he called this Special Meeting of Council. Mayor Mainella said that we have two items on the agenda and are both resolutions. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL BUSINESS IN RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF FAIRMONT, MARION COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA, REMOVING AN ITEM FROM THE FAIRMONT CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2017, MORE PARTICULARLY ITEM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, SECTION A. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ITEM NUMBER 3 THEREOF: AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF FAIRMONT REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 482, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS CODIFIED AS PART ONE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CHAPTER SEVEN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND AUTHORITIES, ARTICLE 175 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, OF THE FAIRMONT CITY CODE, AND RE- ENACTING SAID ARTICLE 175 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. AND, REMOVING FROM SAID AGENDA, THE CORRESPONDING ITEM VIII. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL BUSINESS, ITEM 3 THEREOF: ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF FAIRMONT REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 482, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS CODIFIED AS PART ONE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CHAPTER SEVEN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND AUTHORITIES, ARTICLE 175 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, OF THE FAIRMONT CITY CODE, AND RE-ENACTING SAID ARTICLE 175 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 2 Mayor Mainella entertained a motion for the adoption of a resolution removing an item from the Public Hearing portion of the September 12, 2017 regular meeting agenda and also removing the same item from the Consideration of Council Business portion of the same agenda. Motion: Councilmember Straight moved for the adoption of the proposed resolution and the reading of a synopsis in lieu of the entire resolution. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Warner. The Clerk read the proposed resolution by synopsis for the first time. Discussion: Councilmember Mason stated that he has received a number of telephone calls, for and against, and he has to say that, almost without exception, every person has been kind, has been courteous, respectful, and behaving the way we would expect Fairmont people to behave. He then read a number of excerpts from emails and messages that he has received, both in favor and against. After reading lengthy excerpts, Councilmember Mason closed by saying this is a Human Rights Commission and today he will vote, and he hoped other Councilmembers will join him, to vote down both resolutions. Councilmember Grubb said that when this controversy first started, she started doing a study on this amendment and looking at how this is going to affect our employment and what goes on in this City. She said that it has been portrayed by the people that have contacted her that this is mainly a proposal for sexual approval of things that we are not approving. There is one sentence in this proposal that has gone completely out of all things that the Commission is trying to do. She then read from the proposed ordinance: “The denial of these rights to properly qualified persons by reason of face, religion, color, national original, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, blindness or handicapped is contrary to the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity and is destructive to a free and democratic society.” She went on to say that we are not proposing any laws to be made and are not enforcing any laws and not writing any laws that is not the purpose of what this Commission is to do. She then said that the new ordinance is taking away the punitive and taking away the negative aspects and moving forward to becoming positive not by methods that have been used before but in a way of education, referrals for needs, positive 3 things, special programs downtown, having meetings for education, etc. It is not a sexual proposition that is being passed. Councilmember Merrifield stated the he received multiple calls over the last couple of weeks. He said that one of the things that he found most interesting that whether you were for it or against the ordinance, not a single person wanted anybody to be discriminated against. He said if that was the objective of the ordinance, how far apart can the two sides really be. Then he listened to other concerns no matter whether they came from out of the area or what and they have what they consider to be legitimate concerns. In trying to be unbiased or neutral, the City is owned by everybody and not just one group with one set of ideas, after looking at the ordinance he thought the document is a great ordinance and great work put into it. He said they took the teeth out of the existing ordinance which was a give back to soften it and he thought the one thing they didn’t complete was they didn’t get it out to the public to where it answered people’s concerns. He said that if he votes to take it off the agenda, it is not to say no to it 100%, it’s just to say not quite yet and to think with some of the different groups that were involved in being against this, the committee or any of us couldn’t sit down and answer these questions for people and yet end up with a stronger coalition to where both sides now were supporting it. He noted that he didn’t hear any objections that he didn’t think that couldn’t be worked out but they were definitely real in the mind of the person that was calling and regardless of personal feelings on everything, it is significant and he thought people could sit down and actually work through something and bring it back, improved and better. He closed by saying that he thought it was a great thing but there is information that needs to be worked out and once people have enough information, they will do the right thing. Councilmember Straight said that after two weeks of phone calls, he would like to see more dialogue between the parties. He’s not saying that we have a divided party but he would like to see everybody get together and get on to the same page. He stated that someone made the statement to him this morning and was asked “what you think God would do?” Discrimination is some of the worst things that we can have and do we have to tolerate it, no. Councilmember Mason stated that he was all for having people have dialogue and the proposal is that we get the two parties, in this case the two parties from outside of town, and have expressed exaggerated views, how do you propose that we get these people together to work on this ordinance. The Mayor replied that you have two parties from out of the City who are paid professional people to represent both sides of this. He said that it was his opinion that he did not think it was their objective to find common 4 ground. He said that we would be wasting resources and time if we tried to allow that to happen. He did not think it was going to happen. Councilmember Merrifield said that he was talking about the local churches that have the groups that have been calling them, that’s who you talk to. He did not think people from outside the area should have a voice in anything pertaining to the City of Fairmont. Councilmember Moran said that many of them are members of and support the Family Policy Council. Mayor Mainella stated that for Family Policy Council, the opposition to this ordinance, has been facilitated through several churches. He said that he knows that for a fact because he met with the State Director of Family Policy Council in one of the churches and that is who is fueling these fires, both of the paid professional people from out of this city. He said that he did not think it was their objective to mediate this situation and to find a common ground. The Mayor asked the City Clerk to call the roll on the first resolution which is to remove the item from the September 12th agenda. Roll call was taken by the Clerk and the following votes were recorded: Councilmember Linger No Councilmember Merrifield Yes Councilmember Grubb No Councilmember Mason No Councilmember Warner No Councilmember Moran No Councilmember Straight Yes Mayor Mainella No The Mayor declared the resolution failed by a majority vote of Council. IN RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF FAIRMONT POSTPONING INDEFINITELY AN ITEM ON THE FAIRMONT CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2017, MORE PARTICULARLY ITEM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, SECTION A. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ITEM NUMBER 3 THEREOF: AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF FAIRMONT REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 482, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS CODIFIED AS PART ONE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CHAPTER SEVEN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND AUTHORITIES, ARTICLE 175 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, OF THE FAIRMONT CITY CODE, AND RE- ENACTING SAID ARTICLE 175 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, 5 UNTIL AN APPROPRIATE VENUE CAN BE LOCATED AND SCHEDULED TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH PUBLIC HEARING, AND REMOVING FROM SAID AGENDA THE CORRESPONDING ITEM, BEING ITEM VIII. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL BUSINESS, ITEM 3 THEREOF: ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF FAIRMONT REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 482, AS AMENDED, WHICH IS CODIFIED AS PART ONE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CHAPTER SEVEN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND AUTHORITIES, ARTICLE 175 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, OF THE FAIRMONT CITY CODE, AND RE-ENACTING SAID ARTICLE 175 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Mayor Mainella entertained a motion for the adoption of a resolution to postpone indefinitely this item from the Public Hearing portion of the September 12, 2017 regular meeting agenda and also to postpone the same item from the Consideration of Council Business portion of the same agenda until an appropriate venue can be located and scheduled to accommodate such public hearing. Motion: Councilmember Linger moved for the adoption of the proposed resolution and the reading of a synopsis in lieu of the entire resolution. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Warner. The Clerk read the proposed resolution by synopsis for the first time. Discussion: Councilmember Mason said that for the reasons he stated earlier and with his experience in postponement when something is postponed there is always the great possibility that it just simply doesn’t come back and for that reason based on experience and based on the statements he made earlier, he encouraged Council to vote no on this resolution. Mayor Mainella said that his understanding of this resolution is that as soon as we pass this, if we do, someone of your staff (directing his comment to the City Manager) will find us a suitable space to have a meeting that will accommodate the number of people that we anticipate will be there for this. He said unless he is misinformed, he thought that was the route that Council will take. 6 Councilmember Straight noted that he has been at this for 24 years, he thought this is one ordinance that needs to be looked at a little bit more and he did not think that however it turns out, his plans are not to let it die. It is a need that needs to be dealt with. The Mayor said that if this resolution is not adopted, the public hearing will go on Tuesday, September 12th, as scheduled at this location. He then noted that if this resolution is enacted, there is not going to be any re- working of this ordinance in the interim. This is the ordinance. We will be looking to have a place for the meeting that is safe and can accommodate everybody that wants to come. This is just a delay of maybe two weeks and if we find a place, we can do this on September 26th. Councilmember Moran stated that she feels a little safer in this room with the police department being here and the fire department and only 49 people being able to be in the room. She noted it was common sense. Councilmember Grubb said that Council is now starting to get quasi threats at home and on their phones and on their emails. She said derogatory things have been published all over Facebook that were not true and she feels that the more times that we go with this, there are going to be more formal statements and things done and she resents being threatened personally. The Mayor asked the City Clerk to call the roll on the second resolution which is to postpone the item until an appropriate venue can be located. Roll call was taken by the Clerk and the following votes were recorded: Councilmember Mason No Councilmember Moran No Councilmember Linger No Councilmember Grubb No Councilmember Straight Yes Councilmember Merrifield Yes Councilmember Warner Yes Mayor Mainella Yes The City Attorney stated that the resolution has to pass by a minimum of five (5) votes. The Mayor declared the votes tied and the resolution failed by a majority vote of Council. He noted the meeting will be held here Tuesday, September 12th at 7:00 p.m. The Mayor thanked everyone for attending the meeting. He said that when Tuesday’s meeting comes, we will have the same demeanor and good behavior like we had at this meeting. 7  ADJOURNMENT The Mayor entertained a motion for adjournment. Motion: Councilmember Grubb moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mason. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned by voice vote of Council at 4:20 p.m. Before everyone left the Chambers, Chief Shine explained that it was his meeting that he called on Tuesday that we were two hours into, whenever Mayor Mainella came to the meeting. He added that it was the Mayor’s decision to have this meeting because this building has a capacity of 92 people. He explained that 92 people are going to be able to come in and speak their mind and that’s it. He said the only thing he was hoping to accomplish is to provide a safe forum where everybody could express their opinion, have time to talk, and be relative of this conversation. He said his goal was people’s safety and an able to express their first amendment rights. 8