After hearing more than two dozen passionate pleas about acceptance, diversity and integrity, Rochester Hills leaders approved on Monday night a resolution that strengthens the city's commitment to civil rights.
In doing so, city councilmembers opted not to , that would specifically oppose pending legislation that could adversely affect those civil rights.
More than 100 people attended the City Council meeting. Among those in attendance were teachers and recent graduates of , the executive director of Equality Michigan and a former Democratic state representative.
The man responsible for bringing the issue to council, Rochester Hills resident Tim Maurer, said after the meeting that he was going to "keep moving forward" with his opposition to Rep. Tom McMillin's proposed House Bill 5039.
"We're not giving up," Maurer said.
McMillin did not attend the meeting.
Public comment
McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, introduced HB 5039 in October. If approved it would prohibit municipalities from extending special rights to those not covered by the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976.
The Elliott-Larsen Act protects people on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, weight, height, familial or marital status. But it does not offer protection on the basis of sexual orientation.
Some municipalities — not Rochester Hills — have approved their own ordinances that extend the act's protections to gays and lesbians. This House bill says municipalities could "not adopt" such ordinances.
to oppose the bill through a resolution that he drafted. On Monday night, more than 20 people spoke out in support of the Maurer resolution and in opposition to HB 5039.
Alice Tomboulian of Oakland Township was a Democratic state representative for Rochester Hills from 1979-80. She said her son is gay and that his rights are not protected under Elliott-Larsen, so she is opposed to McMillin's bill.
Amanda Crowell Itliong of Rochester Hills urged city leaders to be a model for the city's youth and show young people that discrimination is not tolerated.
Brian Kirksey of Rochester Hills said the issue should not be one of partisanship but one of human rights. "Which side of history do you want to be on?" he asked councilmembers.
Two people voiced their opposition to the Maurer resolution.
"There are so many other issues that are so much more important," resident Jim Tokarski said. "Representative McMillin is the most approachable representative there is in Lansing. I oppose the rhetoric surrounding this. He's been called a racist and a homophobic — the language over this has gone off the deep end."
'We do not discriminate'
Council President Greg Hooper summarized the city's stance on civil rights, discrimination and acceptance.
"We do not discriminate in Rochester Hills or tolerate discrimination in Rochester Hills, period," Hooper said. "People need to know that."
However, Hooper explained, Rochester Hills does not have an ordinance that some other communities have that create an additional protected class. That's what HB 5039 refers to, he said.
Hooper said he received about 150 emails since the Maurer resolution was offered last month. "Most were form letters," he said. "Forty were from Rochester Hills residents; 110 lived outside of Rochester Hills — New York, Ferndale ..."
Among the 40 notes from residents, Hooper said, the opinions were split, with about half of the residents urging him to support the resolution and the other half urging him to not support it.
Last Friday, Hooper said, a group in support of McMillin sent a "robo call" alleging that members of City Council had taken a formal position on HB 5039 — a claim that was unfounded, he said.
"That was a flat-out lie, and I called Mr. McMillin and told him about that," Hooper said.
In summary, Hooper said, city councilmembers had no place formally voicing their opinion on the House bill. "It's not a local issue," he said.
Council's resolution
Most of the city councilmembers agreed with Hooper. They instead offered a second resolution in which they reaffirmed their support for human rights and civil liberties in the city.
The resolution, as stated, "does not take a formal position supporting or opposing House Bill 5039 but does recognize the ability of individual citizens to make a difference regarding the passage or failure of state legislation and encourages their continued involvement at the state level."
Councilmember Ravi Yalamanchi was the lone vote in opposition to the new resolution. He instead urged his colleagues to consider the original Maurer resolution, which more firmly stated an opposition to HB 5039.
"It's about respect and tolerance," Yalamanchi said. "This bill may never see the light of day, but it is also true that it could become part of some bill and be enacted."
The mayor's view
Mayor Bryan Barnett agreed with Hooper and the councilmembers who said the city has no place formally opposing the state House bill. He urged those in attendance at the meeting to speak out at the state level, where the discussion is more appropriate.
"From my position as the mayor of the city, one of the roles I'm very concerned about is that our reputation is being tarnished," Barnett said. "That's where my concern is. I'm not sure if it's a tarnish that's legitimate or if it's been amplified by powerful voices on both sides."
After the meeting, Maurer said he was concerned that the issue became all about partisanship and not about integrity, as he had urged Barnett to consider in his remarks earlier in the night.
"There is a great speech that has been running lately on our community television station. This speech was given by perhaps our best local leader to date," Maurer said, referring to Barnett. "This man will be the next Oakland County executive and perhaps governor of our state one day.
"In the speech that was given to a new group of OU students who just earned master's and doctorate degrees, the speaker tells the grads to be flexible, choose integrity over strategy and act upon opportunities when they are presented."
After the meeting, Maurer expressed his disappointment. "We've now seen this is all about partisanship," he said.
In regards to your argument, it does not hold water when the bill author continues to say its about LGBT ordinances, he then specifically cite swhich ones, and says his 5039 bill is an attempt to stop that because of an assualt on Christians and Boy Scouts. You are right the bill does not say anything LGBT, but the bill author does say it every chance he gets a microphone near him. So Daryl how do you reconcile the author's intent with what the bill says, whom else might he be referring to?
This is just part of a long list of issues with our Representative who does not represent my area. I would like to see a recall campaign against McMillin, in that I question whom he is representing here? Rochester Hills, Oakland Twp, and Rochester do not have these ordinances in which he is trying to repeal. So if he represents these areas, and we do not have ordinances, who is he representing? His issue with Charter and Cyber Schools, he made sure the cap was lifted on Charter Schools and more cyber schools were allowed. Yet Rochester Schools is not a failing school district that needs to be rescued, in fact we are one of the strongest in the State. There are no charter schools in Rochester, Rochester Hills or Oakland Twp...again who is he representing? The answer I believe is special interest groups, special interest groups that I believe sabotage our State, and our local area. My primary goal is to get this bill defeated, my secondary goal is to make sure he does not see another term.
Thanks for reading the bill and recognizing it does not discriminate against the LGBT community. Who cares about the author of the bill! When the author of any bill is no longer around the bill still stands, I do not care who writes the bills, I do care if the bills make sense in the long run. Does the bill have a good reason to become law? I believe it will ensure the State will enforce the Elliott-Larsen Act in a consistent and fair way. It does not discriminate against any group including LGBTs. My point is to get this issue added to the Elliott-Larson Act and it will be for the good for all State of Michigan residents. If there is widespread support for this as many state then it should be an easy thing to accomplish. Why not make sure we protect all State of Michigan residents, not just Rochester Hills residents? My comment about being called a partisan issue is the statement from Tim Maurer at the end of the article. That was stated long before I made any posts on this article.
Next subject...I would agree this does not need to be political. We live in a strong fisical conservative area and those who think a "one issue" can unseat a Republican in this 45 district need...sorry again to be blunt...need to rethink. That's why I don't get my "underwear in a bunch" when I read the comments. Daryl what would be nice to see is a Rebublican primary race between a pro-choice / pro-LGBT rights candidate vs Tom McMillin. You stated your pro-LGBT rights do you know a Republican with the financing to challenge Tom's positions? Also please don't belittle my intelligence and try to BS me that Tom is pro-gay rights.
It's very clear something fishy smells here - it's not any "spin", it's Tim Maurer and Joanna VanRaaphorst's connection with a resolution that did nothing for LBGT residents and more for her campaign.
Smelly fish? Absolutely. Joanna and her campaign workers like Tim Maurer all smell fishy on this one.
Away, away from the issue...make sure you leave crumbs so you can find your way back Timmy.
Why do human rights differ from location to location? You're telling me that LBGT residents in Rochester Hills are victims... but why do LGBT residents in Grand Rapids or Flint have different "rights" than in Ann Arbor? Shouldn't these rights be universal, and apply to everyone equally? Either these are human rights that we all share, or they're local issues that make Michigan and America unique - in which case, it's okay if Rochester Hills has different ordinances than the others. Which is it?
Tim Maurer opposes the legislation in October. (Brian says Maurer talks to the Mayor in October) Tim Mauer meets and supports Joanna VanRaaphorst in December Tim Maurer introduces a resolution that doesn't help any LGBT residents, but helps Joanna's campaign in late January Tim Maurer endorsed, supports, and works for Joanna's campaign. I can understand why you wouldn't want any more light on Joanna and Tim, but I think there are some legitimate questions about Joanna's integrity that need to be addressed here.
Vision Statement: The Community of Choice for Families and Business Mission Statement: "Our mission is to sustain the City of Rochester Hills as the premier community of choice to live, work and raise a family by enhancing our vibrant residential character complemented by an attractive business community." So far so good...let's add a second paragraph. "Rochester Hills openly welcomes regardless of income, race, sexual preference, religion, nationality, physical, or mentally the opportunity to live and work in our community." This would be a major first step for our mayor and city council to prove to our community we believe in equal rights for all...they could do this at their next meeting and this so very important sentence would permanently be added to our mission statement.
At this point, I feel that there is nothing wrong with me wanting the town in which I raise my children to protect ALL people. There are special ordinances in every city regarding zoning, Green Space, pollution, safety, etc. and I feel that an ordinance to actual SHOW that our city stands for all of us is not an unreasonable request. There was a wonderful lady who spoke last night from "Equality Michigan" who said that she fields calls from all over the state (including Rochester Hills) from people who have lost jobs and housing over sexual orientation. That is an example that discrimination really is prevalent here in our wonderful town. I know many of you, your children, and your grandchildren who live here in Rochester Hills, and I feel that we owe it to these children to make sure they are protected. I start it in my own household, I feel that our community should support it next, then our state, and then our nation. This is not a political plea, this is a plea for humanity.
Bradley T. Barnes, M.D.
Will discuss more when I get a chance to address this issue more broadly.