- 315- 167518 February 26, 2013

The Phoenix City Council convened in policy session on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in the Orpheum Theatre, 203 West Adams Street, Phoenix, Arizona.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Members Sal DiCiccio, Michael Johnson, *Michael Nowakowski, Tom Simplot, Daniel Valenzuela, Jim Waring, Thelda Williams, Vice Mayor Bill Gates, and Mayor Greg Stanton Absent: None Also Present: City Manager David Cavazos, City Attorney Gary Verburg, and City Clerk Cris Meyer, Deputy City Manager Lisa Takata, Equal Opportunity Department Director Lionel Lyons, and Assistant City Attorney IV Heidi Gilbert

*Mr. Nowakowski participated in the voting body via telephone. He left the voting body during Council member discussion of Item 2.

MINUTES OF MEETINGS

The minutes of this meeting were submitted to Mr. Johnson for review.

MOTION was made by Mr. Gates, SECONDED by Mrs. Williams, that the Consent Agenda Items be approved. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mayor Stanton acknowledged Mr. Nowakowski who was participating in the voting body via telephone.

An affidavit was presented to the Council by the City Clerk stating that 24 hours prior to the Council meeting, copy of the title of Ordinance G-5780 was available in the office of the City Clerk and therefore, the ordinance could be read by title or agenda item only, pursuant to the 1969 Code as amended.

ITEM 2 ORDINANCE G-5780- HUMAN RELATIONS ORDINANCE

The Council heard request to amend Chapter 18, Sections 18-1 to 18-20, of the Phoenix City Code to add "sexual orientation," "gender identity or expression," and "disability" as three additional categories protected from discrimination. - 316-

February 26, 2013

Mayor Stanton welcomed everyone to the February 26, 2013 Policy Session of the Phoenix City Council. The meeting was being held in the Orpheum Theatre due to the expectation of a large crowd to ensure everyone would be comfortable. He understood there were still people trying to go through the security and explained everyone would have a fair opportunity to testify. He thought the majority of those present were interested in hearing the item relative to the Human Relations Ordinance.

Mayor Stanton advised there were a significant number of people in attendance to give testimony on the proposed Human Relations Ordinance. He would allow staff 20 minutes for their presentation followed by a motion. Questions and discussion would not be entertained during staff's presentation, and comments from the public would be limited to one minute in order to finish at a reasonable time. He noted the Council would then be given ten minutes for their statements and questions.

Deputy City Manager Lisa Takata introduced Equal Opportunity Director Lionel Lyons and said he would explain the details of the proposed ordinance changes. Assistant City Attorney IV Heidi Gilbert was present to answer technical questions; as was Jennifer Langdon, Chair of the Mayor's Commission on Disability Issues; and Mario Bayne, Chair of the Human Relations Commission. Their commissions had been engaged in public outreach, reviewed the proposed changes, and provided feedback.

Mr. DiCiccio questioned whether there were people waiting to get into the theatre who were interested in this item.

Mayor Stanton explained those who were still waiting to get into the Orpheum Theatre would have an opportunity to comment on this proposal; however, the meeting time was 2:30 p.m. and he noted the meeting would continue.

Mr. DiCiccio thought the reason some people were late was due to the City's procedures and those still waiting should also have the opportunity to hear staff's testimony.

Mayor Stanton appreciated Mr. DiCiccio's concerns; however, he assured that everyone waiting would have an opportunity to comment on the proposed ordinance, and he would not count time against for any questions they might have. - 317-

February 26, 2013

Mr. DiCiccio felt the presentation was important. In response to Mr. DiCiccio, Mayor Stanton reiterated his appreciation for Mr. DiCiccio's comments.

Mr. Waring echoed Mr. DiCiccio's concerns and noted there had been a long line to get into the Orpheum when he arrived. He understood those who were still waiting to come in would be allowed to make comments; however, he felt the Council should wait another ten minutes to hear the item.

Mr. DiCiccio blamed the City for rushing both the citizens and the item.

Mayor Stanton appreciated comments of Council members and reiterated he would give every member of the public an opportunity to make comments on this item and would not count the time used for questions.

Equal Opportunity Director Lionel Lyons presented the changes to the Human Relations Ordinance. The Human Relations Ordinance declared the civil rights of the people of the City of Phoenix, Arizona to be free from discrimination in public accommodation and employment, and that it would be contrary to the policy of the City and unlawful to discriminate against any person. All employers with 15 or more employees were covered by the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Arizona Civil Rights Act. It was unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability for those employers. Sexual orientation had been a protected category for city employees since 1991; and since 1992; it was unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for employers who had 35 or more employees. This ordinance would add gender identity and expression. The categories being expanded were: sexual orientation, disability, and protection for gender identity and expression. This would affect four areas: employment, public accommodation, fair housing, and contracting.

Mr. Lyons advised staff had looked at existing ordinances in the four areas. Employment would be expanded as it related to public accommodation and gender identity or expression would be added to both employment and public accommodation. Fair housing and contracts concerned family status, the handicapped, pregnancy, and the domicile of a minor. The proposal also added sexual orientation and gender identity and/or expression to contracts and fair housing.

Religious organizations would keep exemptions related to employment, public accommodations, and fair housing. Exemptions for small private landlords, senior housing, public clubs, and other occupational groups would also be maintained. In addition, the City had maintained religious exemptions since - 318-

February 26, 2013

1992; and Mr. Lyons thought this was an opportunity to add or modify definitions and technical corrections.

There had been a lot of innuendo and discussion concerning the changes to the Human Rights Ordinance which had been labeled "The Bathroom Bill"; and Mr. Lyons thought it important to clarify the City was not in the business of legislating restrooms except as it related to disability accommodations. Concerns had been expressed with regard to possible illegal activity taking place in the restroom; however, as the Equal Opportunity Director, he had never received a complaint concerning restrooms. He believed this was about equal access and equal opportunity and pointed out the ordinance was not changing structurally and the majority of the protections were already in place. The clarifications included language regarding complaints. In the past, a complaint would be filed with the Equal Opportunity Department; however, after business hours, the ordinance allowed for a complaint to be filed with the Police Department. He thought the language regarding the filing of complaints should be amended to only allow the filing of complaints with the Equal Opportunity Department. The way the Equal Opportunity Department investigated and regulated complaints would not change. Approximately 1 ,200 calls of concern had been received since January of 2012, which resulted in six ordinance complaints, four of which were closed with no evidence of discrimination and two which were found to be justified. The Equal Opportunity Department was a solution-based not a litigation-based organization, and they tried to utilize conciliation to bring the parties together and resolve any issues and concerns.

Sexual orientation had been a protected category for City of Phoenix employees since 1991 and in 1992 it became unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for employers who had 35-plus employees. Mr. Lyons reiterated the ordinance before the Council would add gender identity and expression.

The Human Relations Commission and the Mayor's Commission on Disability Issues held a joint public hearing and offered their support of the ordinance changes. A nationwide survey had been conducted and Mr. Lyons noted it was found that 166 cities currently provided protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.

Ms. Jennifer Langdon, Chair of the Mayor's Commission on Disability Issues, spoke in support. She advised this item went before the Mayor's Commission on Disability Issues and the vote was unanimous to recommend approval. She took issue with the nickname given to the ordinance of "Bathroom Bill" or "Bathroom Issue." She had experienced bathroom issues as a child due to discrimination as a young adult, and later as a woman with a disability. She found it difficult to get in and out of public restrooms in order to safely use the - 319-

February 26, 2013 accommodations due to her disability and thought this was about human dignity and fairness. She asked everyone to have compassion and respect human dignity.

In response to the audience applause, Mayor Stanton admonished the audience to maintain the decorum due to the importance of this decision. He thanked Ms. Longden for her service to the City of Phoenix.

Mr. Mario Bayne represented the Human Relations Commission and spoke in favor. He noted the Human Relations Commission had also voted unanimously to approve the ordinance. He expressed his appreciation for having been a part of this and he also expressed his support.

Mayor Stanton thanked Mr. Bayne for his services to the City. He questioned whether City Attorney Gary Verburg wished to add anything from a legal standpoint or if he was comfortable with the information provided.

City Attorney Gary Verburg stated he was comfortable with the information as provided and would be happy to answer any questions.

MOTION was made by Mr. Simplot, SECONDED by Mr. Valenzuela that Item 2 be adopted per staff's recommendation.

Mayor Stanton noted Mrs. Williams wished to make a substitute motion to clarify the concerns regarding the religious exemption.

Mrs. Williams stated she had been approached by law enforcement and religious organizations who requested clarification that religious sponsored charitable and educational programs were exempt.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION, was made by Mrs. Williams, SECONDED by Mr. Johnson to adopt the proposed language with the following changes:

Section 18-4(A)(9), Religious exemptions, governing employment practices, to add gender identity or expression to the current exemptions for marital status and sexual orientation; and

Section 18-4(B)(4) Exemptions, Subsection A, governing public accommodations to add gender identity or expression to the current exemption for marital status and the proposed exemption for sexual orientation for religious organizations. - 320-

February 26, 2013

Mayor Stanton advised the substitute motion added language on the issue of religious exemption to clarify the ordinance would not affect any religious affiliated organization.

Mr. DiCiccio questioned whether he could place a motion on the floor for a continuance. He thought the substitute motion could preclude his ability to make another motion.

Mayor Stanton stated he would hear public comments on the substitute motion.

Mr. Verburg explained the motion to continue was a procedural motion and could be considered.

Mr. DiCiccio thought additional time was needed to vet the amendment and address issues which should not be rushed. He also felt there were some who should have been given an opportunity to have input.

MOTION was made by Mr. DiCiccio, SECONDED by Mr. Waring that Item 2 be continued to allow formation of a committee of religious organizations, the business community, and the transgender community, to find a reasonable proposal.

In response to audience applause, Mayor Stanton again admonished the audience to maintain the decorum, noting this was important business which had to be taken care of.

Mr. Simplot thought the substitute motion would take precedence before other motions could be entertained and requested clarification.

Mr. Verburg advised that was true for any substantive motion being made, but a procedural motion, in the nature of a motion to continue, took precedence and should be acted upon prior to the substantive motion.

Mayor Stanton noted the motion on the floor was to continue and there was a second.

Mr. DiCiccio questioned whether discussion would involve testimony on the substantive motion or a continuance.

Mayor Stanton thought the motion to continue should be voted on as there were people present to testify on the substantive motion. . - 321 -

February 26, 2013

Mr. DiCiccio objected and pointed out there were people who had been prevented from getting into the meeting and he felt the public had a right to make comments on the motion to continue. He felt it was not right to allow those with a different opinion to be excluded.

Mayor Stanton stated he did not want to limit the discussion to the continuance for all those who came to speak on the item.

Mr. Verburg advised Mayor Stanton it was his right to conduct the meeting as he saw fit and could call for the question or direct someone else to do so.

Mayor Stanton suggested acting on the continuance immediately as he thought it would be inappropriate to waste everyone's time if the item were to be continued. If the motion failed, he would allow public comment and if their preference was to continue the item, he would allow that to be part of their testimony. He thought that would allow everyone the opportunity to have their voice heard.

Mr. DiCiccio thought there might be comments about the continuance itself.

Mayor Stanton explained that if the public testified to a continuance, a motion to continue could be made later in the meeting if the motion to continue failed at this point. Mayor Stanton called for the vote on the motion to continue Item 2.

MOTION FAILED.

Mayor Stanton stated substantive testimony on the substitute motion would be heard; however, if someone had a preference to continue the item, they could include that as part of their testimony. He noted they would hear former Mayor Paul Johnson first.

Former Mayor Paul Johnson appreciated being first and thanked the Mayor and Council for hearing this item. He pointed out the same issue had been heard when he was Mayor. He did not believe they had a preference for the gay community or the religious community; instead the nonpartisan nature of the Council caused them to listen to both sides.

Mr. Johnson believed business was overregulated, though there were regulations which had done a lot of good in terms of the economy such as women's right to vote and minorities in the workplace. He believed that God and human rights were not mutually exclusive and felt they should be able to have both. Human rights could be supported which recognized what you did for your neighbor was just as important as what you would have done for yourself. - 322-

February 26, 2013

Mayor Stanton thanked former Mayor Johnson for his comments and service to the public.

Mr. Bill MacDonald spoke in favor. He described himself as a resident of District 6 and hoped to celebrate recognition of the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Transgender (LGBT) and the disabled communities. Twenty-one years ago, the LGBT community appeared before the City Council to be included in the City. The LGBT community organized and founded the Arizona Human Rights Fund which was now called Equality Arizona. They also became involved in boards and commissions and he had served and chaired several community groups. He felt they had come a long way; however, he also felt that discrimination still existed.

Mr. MacDonald hoped no one would be taken in by believing this had anything to do with restrooms or that religious shields could be used to discriminate against other people. He thought the business community would find themselves exposed to a rich and diverse employee group and hoped Phoenix would become the next city to make these changes.

Ms. Michelle Iddings spoke in opposition. She thought a dignified community should keep sex a private issue and did not think demanding rights based on sex should be discussed. She did not believe in sharing sexual issues, and felt others should do the same and not make it public.

Ms. Iddings expressed concern with a rule which allowed men in a restroom with her daughter or granddaughters and thought this had to do with the rights of the innocent and their protection and not the rights of those who were standing up for what they did in private. She did not think men should be in a place where women were uncovering their nakedness and pointed out that men were stronger than women, men harmed women, and women should be protected. She was also uncomfortable with knowing the police would not being able to address a man who entered a woman's restroom.

Mr. Per Klype spoke in opposition. He looked at things from a financial perspective and thought this would hurt businesses in Phoenix. He pointed to the example of a man entering a woman's locker room to use the restroom and thought this would cause women to choose a gym elsewhere. He felt this was a bad idea and would affect the City's revenues.

Reverend Brad Wilson, Chair of One Voice Community Center, spoke in favor. In his pastoral ministry he witnessed the pain and courage of many who wrestled with issues of gender and sexual orientation and had seen the burden created by discrimination against LGBT individuals and their families. -323-

February 26, 2013

Reverend Wilson noted he was the guardian and primary caregiver for his sister who was deaf, blind, and developmentally disabled. As a result he was aware of how discrimination based on perceptions of ability and appropriateness affected people with disabilities. This was also true of those with different orientations and gender expressions and he felt Christians were commanded to care for those who were the least among them. He quoted an openly gay African American architect of the 1963 march on Washington who said: 'To be afraid is to behave as if the truth is not true." He felt every Phoenician had the right to be treated equally and fairly under the law.

Mr. George Iddings spoke in opposition. He thought it wrong to leave a woman in a restroom unprotected when there were many instances of men harassing women, children, and young girls in locker rooms.

Reverend Dr. Theodore Elsenheimer, Pastor of the United Church of Christ, spoke in favor. He and his wife worked with the LGBT community and performed holy unions. He noted one of his daughters was gay and had experienced times in her life where she had been rejected due to her sexuality. As a parent and a pastor he expressed his support.

Mr. Chet Kite spoke in opposition. He could not support attempts to make everything perfect; however, he was in support of the ordinance.

Ms. Kim Pearson spoke in favor. She wanted to make the following three points: 1) children were affected; 2) discrimination was real and profound; and 3) the consequences of discrimination could be deadly. She explained the current statistical analysis suggested as many as 1 in 500 children were transgender. Transgender children faced discrimination at school, in their neighborhoods, in social settings, and places of worship. In addition transgender children and youth had the highest suicide rate of any population with estimates as low as 34 percent and as high as 53 percent. She was the mother of one of those children and she supported the ordinance.

Mr. Mark French spoke in opposition. He was an educator who had been entrusted by parents to care for their children for the past 29 years either as a teacher or a school administrator. He expressed concern with the issues which could arise if a teacher decided to change their gender identity and questioned what would happen if a male physical education teacher decided to change identities and wished to begin changing in the woman's locker room. He thought this could affect the operation of a stable, safe learning environment with the law giving special rights to someone who considered themselves a male one day and a female the next. - 324-

February 26, 2013

Mr. Ira Bohm-Sanchez spoke in favor. He explained this directly affected his life and noted he had been disowned by his family. He had moved forward with his life having recently won a scholarship and also worked for a company which understood he worked hard and gave back to the community. He faced discrimination and bullying in the workplace because of his gender identity and was confident women would not want to see him in their restroom. He expressed his support and thought everyone had a right to feel safe.

Ms. Cathy Schwanke spoke in opposition. She pointed out there were laws against discrimination and this ordinance would do more harm than good. Some said this measure was not about bathrooms; however, she thought this could result in males exposing themselves in women's restrooms where privacy was expected. She also thought this could cause a needless increase in litigation and she did not intend to patronize Phoenix businesses, educational institutions, and entertainment complexes if passed.

Ms. Angela Hughey spoke in favor as cofounder and president of One Community which was an interactive web site and an events community for LGBT and allied individuals and businesses. Of the 1 ,200 public complaints filed last year, the EOD found six employment claims and one public accommodations claim that potentially had merit and were investigated. The Human Relations Ordinance had not proven to be a burden on business and she thought the proposed amendments to the ordinance would also prove not to be a burden on business.

Phoenix was a diverse city with an estimated 6.4 percent of the population being LGBT and another 18 percent disabled and there had been a concerted effort by Arizona businesses to advance workplace equality and equal treatment in housing and hospitality for lesbian, gay, and bisexual transgender individuals.

Mr. DiCiccio questioned the necessity of the ordinance with such a small number of complaints found to have merit. He questioned why the change, if there was not a problem.

Ms. Hughey explained LGBT business and consumer travelers were being sought after and Phoenix had become a top 20 destination for LGBT business and consumers who presently could be denied access to an inn or restaurant.

In response to Ms. Hughey, Mr. DiCiccio noted his disagreement the LGBT community was denied access.

Ms. Huey felt they did not have equal protections under the law, could be fired from their jobs, denied access to public accommodations, and discriminated against in public housing. -325-

February 26, 2013

Mr. Simplot requested a point of order, and thought Council Members not challenge the validity of a speaker's comments and personal views through the rest of this proceeding. He knew this was a passionate issue but disagreed with challenging a speaker's point of view and thought it important to hear everyone's comments.

Mr. DiCiccio denied challenging Ms. Huey's point of view and thought he had been respectful with his question.

Mayor Stanton agreed with Mr. Simplot's request.

Mr. DiCiccio expressed his dissatisfaction with not being able to ask questions. He felt this meeting had been rushed while people were still waiting outside and the proposal was also being rushed. He considered his question to have been polite and felt the meeting was out of control. He asked for civility and noted he had a right to ask questions as a councilman.

Mayor Stanton thanked Mr. DiCiccio.

Mr. George Iddings spoke in opposition. He did not know all of the legalities of the ordinance but he was worried for his children and grandchildren and noted his concern that this could open a door for predators and sexual predators.

Senior Pastor Wallace Kuroiwa spoke in favor. He was Senior Pastor of United Church of Christ in downtown Phoenix. His congregation welcomed all persons regardless of age, physical or mental disabilities, race, or sexual orientation; and he believed God extended welcome to all. Presently, close to half of his congregation were gays, lesbians, and transgender; and he felt they were blessed for having them. He was a Japanese American whose forbearers were removed from their homes and placed in relocation camps under the pretense that they were a threat to the national security of the United States which was based on how they looked. He thought this ordinance would help shape protections to ensure this was not done to the LGBT community.

Mr. Russell Allen spoke in opposition. He disagreed with any pretense this bill concerned disabled people having their rights violated and with trying to pose this bill as something other than a bathroom bill. He expressed the concern that a pedophile could go into a bathroom with his grandchildren while pretending to be a transgender and thought common sense was needed before something bad happened.

Reverend Dr. John Dorhauer spoke in favor, as an ordained member of the United Church of Christ. The United Church of Christ began openly ordaining - 326-

February 26, 2013

members of the LGBT community in 1972, and in 2005 was the first religious organization to affirm gay marriage. He thought it was the responsibility of elected leaders and sworn leaders of the community to ensure the dignity, respect, and equality of its citizens was guaranteed.

Ms. Cathi Herrod spoke in opposition. The current ordinance applied to city employees and contractors and she felt the amendments were a significant expansion which deserved more study and input from all of the citizens and concerned community organizations. She thought this item should be continued due to the many questions which had not been answered concerning the language in the ordinance and thought concerns were legitimate and went beyond the bathroom issue. She pointed to similar legislation in the state which stipulated that transgender women could use both the women's restrooms and their showers. The question which had not been answered concerned discrimination in public accommodation language which said no person would be denied use of facilities on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression and she asked how that did not concern bathroom issues.

Mayor Stanton requested the audience allow everyone to have a full and fair opportunity to testify. He apologized to the speakers for any negative reaction from the audience.

Mr. DiCiccio thought booing was mean and people could have a difference of opinion. He asked staff if they would address Ms. Herrod's question.

In response to Mr. DiCiccio, Mayor Stanton noted there would be an opportunity at the end of the testimony for questions. Mr. DiCiccio requested clarification the speakers were not allowed questions.

Mayor Stanton reiterated there would be an opportunity for questions at the end of the public testimony.

Mr. David Horowitz spoke in favor. He resided in District 6 and agreed with Mr. DiCiccio that questions were appropriate. He was an attorney and small business owner in Phoenix and hoped his firm would attract the best and the brightest people throughout the country. He thought discrimination was wrong and remembered his mother's fears when he had stood up at a similar Council meeting 20 years before and admitted he was gay. His mother now was elderly and disabled and hoped her children and grandchildren would be free from discrimination.

Mr. Michael Iddings spoke in opposition. He thought this was clearly a bathroom bill. He was uncomfortable with his wife going into a restroom alone when a transgender male or female could go into the same restroom. -327-

February 26, 2013

Ms. Erica Keppler spoke in favor. She worked for Honeywell as a software engineer and had a degree from Arizona State University. She was also a transgender woman who was fortunate to have a secure source of income as unemployment was high for transgender people. She thought fear of transgender people was unreasonable and pointed out that discrimination wasted talent and education. She felt a vibrant economy needed people working and productive.

Mr. George Hudleson spoke in opposition. He thought this pertained to the issue of morality not human rights. The United States had been founded on morality and was behind what had made the nation great. The choice to forsake morality was before them and they should not pretend it was otherwise.

Ms. Kay Young spoke in favor. She and her partner had two children and security for their family was vital. She felt lucky that her family was secure because she lived in the City of Phoenix. In addition, her employer recognized a domestic partnership, had protections in place, and provided benefits such as health insurance. She had a son who was deaf in one ear and she needed those protections for her family as did other LGBT with families.

Dr. Rebecca Allison spoke in favor. She was a practicing physician in Phoenix and had worked with the Council for many years. She practiced as a cardiology consultant for the City of Phoenix executive physical program; served on the American Medical Association as Chair of the Advisory Committee on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues; and worked with the American Medical Association to adopt ordinances stating the necessity of transition for transgender people as opposed to other forms of therapy and the providing of insurance to cover such issues.

Dr. Allison heard similar ordinances had been adopted in approximately 166 cities across the country, including five entire states. She had not heard of any widespread issues or legal problems after the City of Tucson passed a similar ordinance in 1999; and she confessed to having used the woman's restroom throughout all the years she had worked at the City and asked Council to accept the ordinance and make her legal.

Mr. Dennis Naughton spoke in opposition. He addressed the Council on behalf of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix. The Catholic Diocese of Phoenix released a statement confirming the Catholic Church taught everyone to treat others with compassion and respect. The church was a leading advocate for all those who suffered from unjust discrimination and condemned all forms of hostility, scorn, and malice directed towards any individual. The diocese applauded and supported any sincere efforts to protect the human dignity of all - 328-

February 26, 2013

people; however, they asked Council to take the time to acknowledge and protect the rights of all people to live and act according to their faith and values. The Diocese asked this item be continued until fundamental constitutional rights could be assured and would welcome the opportunity to participate in this process and the chance to assure the rights and dignity of all people. He agreed these were important issues which should not be rushed or fast-tracked and felt that an ordinance worth passing could survive public analysis and debate.

Ms. Kristin Gwinn spoke in favor, and explained she had been a family therapist for many years. She knew a 14 year old who had been tormented by others because she was different and she felt this was an opportunity for change to stop that type of behavior.

Mr. Paul Hendricks spoke in opposition. He served on the Village Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Commission, and had been elected to the Central Arizona Project (C.A.P.) Water Board. He thought it appropriate for the City to determine controls for their employment and what it managed, but he was overreaching itself with this ordinance. In addition, he felt the Council report had misrepresented the item with regards to minimizing the changes and did not believe this ordinance addressed the issues in an appropriate manner.

Mr. Nathaniel Rhoton spoke in favor. He was a businessman and graduate of Arizona State University. The Mormon Church supported the passing of the antidiscrimination ordinance in Salt Lake City in 201 0 and had moved past hateful religious rhetoric. He felt the Mormon Church saw this as a matter of civil rights and doing what was right for citizens and businesses in Salt Lake City.

Mr. Rhoton explained the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah had not noticed an increase in business related complaints or lawsuits and thought discrimination did not encourage business or productivity. He asked Council to support this ordinance to protect citizens against further discrimination.

Mr. Thomas McCabe spoke in opposition. He disagreed with the identifying disability and gender identity together and thought addressing disability was very much needed. He believed everyone had a right to work and dignity; however, he did not see the need for self identification as a male or female.

Ms. Nina Robinson spoke in favor. She thought this was an issue of social justice and human rights and not about who was allowed into a restroom. She felt it was time to stand up for people and noted in God's eyes everyone was equal and all should be loved.

Ms. Patty McCabe spoke in opposition. She agreed everybody was entitled to certain rights, but she asked for a no vote on the ordinance before the Council. -329-

February 26, 2013

She asked the Council to think of the danger they would be placing children in if someone used a false argument they were transgender to gain easy access to children. This had happened in other places and she asked the Council to make a decision which would protect children.

Ms. Rebecca Wininger spoke in favor. The ordinance had been reviewed and recommended by two city commissions and the agenda had been published. She thought it misleading to insinuate there had been no notice and the ordinance was being rammed through. She found comments which equated the gay community to sexual predators to be offensive and pointed out everyone wanted their children to be safe. She asked the Council to bring the City into the 21st Century with equal protection under the law for all.

Ms. Patricia Kerr spoke in opposition. She expressed her confusion with the ordinance and had questions. She felt this was not a "Bathroom Bill"; however, she was concerned with its effect on the small business person whose religious convictions were in opposition to this. She thought the City was trading one kind of discrimination for another and expressed concern the ordinance did not allow for a business who was sued, the right to get recompense for legal attorney fees, which she thought would create a financial hardship.

Mr. DiCiccio did not understand why the speakers could not ask questions and asked why legitimate questions could not be addressed.

Mayor Stanton explained he thought Mr. DiCicico had been asking whether a Council person could ask questions. He would allow the Council to ask questions after they heard the public testimony; however, a citizen could have questions answered and he apologized for the misunderstanding.

Mr. DiCiccio asked if they could have Ms. Cathi Herrod again come before the Council. He thought those who had questions had a right to come back and ask those questions and not be denied the right to ask their public officials questions.

Mayor Stanton appreciated the questions and assured they would take note of the questions and they would be answered.

Mr. Waring pointed out this was being conducted in a fair manner, with staff having given a presentation and everyone being given an equal amount of time to speak. He questioned whether there would be time given for questions from those with an alternate point of view. - 330-

February 26, 2013

Mayor Stanton confirmed for Mr. Waring, he would have 10 minutes to speak as would all the members of the Council and he could use his time to ask questions.

Mr. William Hardin spoke in favor. It had been 22 years since he last went before the Council concerning this issue and passionate arguments had been made on both sides. The present legislation had already been adopted by approximately 166 cities, and he felt that rather than speculation there should have been concrete examples to cite against this measure. He thought the City should catch up with democracy and the 21st Century.

Mayor Stanton thanked Mr. Hardin and noted he and the other members of the Council were thinking about him and his partners after the tragedy involving one of his partners a few weeks back.

Mr. David T. Maddox spoke in opposition. He had prepared legislation in the past and thought there were problems with this ordinance as written. The ordinance included an individual's appearance which could present a problem as a business had the right to demand professional attire. All parts of the business were included and if something were to happen in a restroom and someone hurt, he expressed concern his business would be open to being sued and if the accusations were not found to be valid, a criminal complaint could still be filed. He did not think this was about civil rights, instead he though it about special rights.

Mr. Steve May spoke in favor. He felt a no vote or a continuation of this ordinance would be saying he was not equal under the law and a better message would be to offer protections for using restrooms.

Mr. DiCiccio wished to speak with Mr. May as they were friends. He pointed out there were more reasonable ordinances in place and he thought this ordinance trampled people's rights. This ordinance was created by a few individuals involved in the process which meant the other side had not been heard.

Mr. Simplot stated point of order. He thought all the Council members would have the same amount of time to speak and asked other Council members not violate the Mayor's time limit and in addition, noted there had not been any question involved; just comments.

Mr. DiCiccio explained this had been rushed; however, he would speak with Mr. May at a later time. - 331 -

February 26, 2013

Mayor Stanton thought Mr. DiCiccio had made a statement; not asked a question.

Mr. DiCiccio questioned whether Mr. May had read the ordinance and noted there were many who had not gone through everything.

Mr. May pointed out Mr. DiCiccio had many years on the Council to work on this issue.

Mr. Glen Lavy, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, spoke in opposition. He wished to address three constitutional problems with this item and believed the Council should continue this item to give it further thought. The first constitutional problem concerned the religious issues addressed by Mrs. Williams, second was freedom of speech where it concerned something implied was unacceptable based on someone's feelings, and the third issue concerned the uncertain liability for businesses and the rights of conscience. He pointed out a prior speaker had indicated concrete issues had not been cited, however he knew of issues concerning a Photography business in New Mexico impacted by a similar bill.

Ms. Briana Westbrook spoke in favor. She described herself as a transitioning male to female. She was also a father and had a degree and a career. She was not a felon and wanted to be able to use the bathroom she associated with. She explained it tough to face criticism from society on a daily basis. This was not a choice and she dared those who were in opposition to live her life for one day and asked everyone to educate themselves on this issue.

Pastor John Kelly spoke in opposition. He felt the turnout for this meeting was a clear indication more time was needed to make an educated, rational, and responsible decision. He explained the approximate 160 cities who passed the measure would be half of 1 percent of the number of cities in the United States. He failed to see how that was concrete evidence of something to be proud of in using it to pass this. The ordinance used vague language and he thought it unnecessary. He stated his concern for the social and economic stress this would cause for cities, business owners, and consumers. He asked Council to allow their voices to also be heard and asked this ordinance be further investigated. Pastor Kelly thought discrimination was deplorable along with political agendas which addressed one point of view at the expense, safety, privacy, and freedom of the majority.

Dr. Susan Shaffer-Nahmias spoke in favor. She thought this was an opportunity to take a forward step on behalf of equality, civil rights, and justice. This was a logical, respectful set of improvements to the City Code which extended prohibitions against discrimination to include sexual orientation, gender - 332-

February 26, 2013

identity, gender expression, and disability. She thanked the Mayor and Mr. Simplot for initiating the change and urged those present to stand up for the rights of vulnerable members of their community. Her son was a gay man who had graduated with awards from high school and college yet he felt there was nothing for him in Phoenix. She asked Council support this and to enable all who were like her son to feel optimism about working and living in the City of Phoenix.

Ms. Magdalena Schwartz spoke in opposition. She thought more time was needed to clarify the language used in the ordinance. She cited her ethnic background and culture as a Hispanic as the reason for needing additional time.

Pastor Dottie Escobedo Frank, Pastor at Crossroads United Methodist Church, spoke in favor. She thought there was a standard in the community to love and care for everyone. She followed the rules and laws of God, and believed there should not be discrimination.

Mr. Joseph La Rue spoke in opposition. He brought written testimony to submit for the record. Mayor Stanton accepted the written testimony and asked the Clerk to accept the documentation.

Mr. La Rue submitted the following:

The Honorable Greg Stanton, Mayor, City of Phoenix and the Phoenix City Council Members

City of Phoenix 200 W Washington St. Phoenix, Arizona 85003

R.E. Testimony concerning the proposed "Human Relations Ordinance"

Dear Mayor Stanton and Members of the Phoenix City Council:

I am an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom. We provide pro bono advice and legal representation for the defense of religious liberty, life, and marriage, and family. Presently we are involved in some 200 cases across the nation defending rights of conscience and religious freedom in both state and federal courts.

I come to express concern about the proposed "Human Relations Ordinance." We have seen other bills, similar to this one, enacted in other cities and states. -333-

February 26, 2013

They almost always have a negative impact on people who merely want to exercise their religious faith. They also sometimes hurt religious organizations. And they cause concern for women and especially children. I will briefly offer a few examples of these problems.

We represent Jack Phillips, the owner of a small, 'mom and pop' bakery in Colorado. A same-sex couple asked him to make a cake with a congratulatory message for their commitment ceremony. The owner respectfully declined, explaining that his sincerely held religious views about marriage and sexual unions prevented him from making a cake with a message that celebrated their same-sex commitment. He offered to help them find another bakery that would take care of them, and also offered to make them cake for any other occasion they wanted. But because of a law similar to the proposed Human Rights Ordinance, he is now defending against a discrimination complaint at the Colorado Human Rights Commission.

Or. Take the example of Catholic charities in Boston. Because of a law similar to the one you are considering, they were forced to end their practice of placing children for adoption. The Massachusetts law prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and it violated their religious beliefs to place children with same-sex couples.

One final example: because of a law very similar to your proposed law, a man in Washington State was able to gain access to a women's locker room at a swimming facility, where he exposed himself on several occasions to teenagers and young girls. They were frightened, as were their parents. But the swimming facility could do nothing to stop this man, because he "claimed" he was a woman. Under their law, that was enough to grant him access. Your proposed law will do the same, making women and children vulnerable to sexual predators. The Phoenix City Council has a duty to protect women and children. It should not put their safety at risk.

Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further help in understanding the impact of your proposed law on people of faith, churches and church organizations, and women and children.

Sincerely,

Is/ Joseph E. La Rue Legal Counsel 480-444-0020 (Office) 480-444-0025 (Fax) jlarue@alliancedefending freedom.org www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org" - 334-

February 26, 2013

Mr. La Rue believed this matter should be continued for additional study. He welcomed questions from the Council and would be happy to give concrete examples of the problems created by similar laws in other jurisdictions.

Mr. La Rue pointed out that a pattern of discrimination had not been displayed to make this law necessary. In addition, this law could be found to be unconstitutional, in which case, the City would be libel for legal fees which he thought was a heavy burden for taxpayers. He also noted this law, as proposed, did not address bullying issues or children who were susceptible to committing suicide.

Mr. La Rue explained he was not concerned with members of the transgender community and did not feel they posed a risk to children; however, he felt this would allow heterosexual sexual predators into women's bathrooms and was surprised the gay and transgendered community was not concerned about the risk to their children.

In response to Mr. DiCiccio, Mr. La Rue outlined the problems with the ordinance and advised the law purported to make an act of discrimination, and therefore illegal, a statement that a business might make, and that someone might infer where transgender people were unwelcome; and he found that to be troublesome and a free speech issue. In addition, the law applied to business owners who had religious objections to either hiring homosexual persons or objections to participating in same sex commitment ceremonies.

Mr. La Rue explained his firm represented clients across the country who were being tried before Human Rights Commissions or in courts because they declined to photograph or bake a cake for a same sex commitment ceremony based on their faith.

In response to Mr. DiCiccio's request, Mr. La Rue outlined the issues that occurred, i.e. a photography issue in the state of New Mexico; a T-shirt issue in the state of Kentucky; and a cake issue in the states of Colorado and Oregon. There were also restroom issues, associated with a similar bill where voyeurs entered bathrooms in the states of Washington and Arkansas. He reiterated this was not about the transgender community; it was about heterosexual men who would use this as an opportunity to hurt women and children.

Reverend Stephen Gravett spoke in favor and described himself as a person of faith and represented Asbury United Methodist Church. He stood on the side of justice and equality and was against discrimination. -335-

February 26, 2013

Ms. Kathryn Kobor spoke in opposition. She believed the proposed ordinance would endanger children and did not want her granddaughter in a restroom with a male. She questioned how they would know the difference between a transgender person and someone looking for a good time. She thought a City Council should have input from its citizens and their decision should represent the entire city.

Mr. Jeffrey Brodin spoke in favor. He described himself as an employment lawyer with more than 25 years of experience. He worked for the labor and employment division at Arizona Public Service (APS) and noted protections for sexual orientation had been in place for approximately 20 years and protections for gender identity had been in place for approximately five years.

Protections had first been put in place by the state of New Mexico which included the APS Cholla power plant. Mr. Brodin explained the company decided at that time, they would then have those protections in place for all of their employees. There was never an issue with reference to what gender identity or expression meant and there had been no increase in claims. He thought APS was an employer of choice in the State of Arizona, and urged the Council to vote in favor.

Ms. Maureen Bayardi spoke in favor of a continuance. She urged the Council to take more time and thought more discussion was needed. She expressed concern for the safety and privacy of her grandchildren noting she was not worried about the gay community or a transgender; she worried about predators.

Mr. David Martinez spoke in favor. He thanked Mr. Valenzuela and Mr. Nowakowski for their leadership and support of the ordinance and echoed the sentiments of the crowd. Two commissions had heard public comment and had vetted the bill and he reiterated his support and urged the Council to vote in favor.

Ms. Jeanne Dacey spoke in opposition. She questioned who was responsible for the new unclassified definitions.

City Manager David Cavazos explained the ordinance had been prepared by the City's Law Department to reflect the policies and definitions.

Ms. Dacey felt people were born male and female and thought someone who changed their mind and decided to be feminine should not have a right to enter a woman's bathroom. She thought that to be morally wrong and disagreed with the proposed ordinance amendments. - 336-

February 26, 2013

Ms. Laurie Provost spoke in favor. She was a member of the Human Relations Commission and took her duties on the commission seriously. The Commission's mission statement made it her job to promote respect and understanding among all groups by eliminating discrimination throughout the City of Phoenix. She had been happy to have the proposed ban on discrimination against LGBT and disabled residents receive the Commission's approval. She expressed her support and implored the Council to join the Commission in eliminating discrimination throughout the City of Phoenix. She looked forward to a time where members of the LGBT community and those with disabilities would no longer face the threat of discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodation.

Mr. Jim Deacon spoke in opposition. He disagreed with the way the ordinance was written and thought that given a choice everyone would use the woman's restroom because they had couches and lotions and did not have the lack of privacy men had in their restrooms. He knew there was opposition to the reference "Bathroom Bill" and felt this was about public safety, not sexual orientation and business owners should not be exposed to litigation by this law. In addition, defense attorneys should not be given gender confusion as a defense for sexual predators. He also felt that attorneys using the law to protect offenders would not promote the LGBT position. In conclusion, he considered this issue to be about personal preference which should not be public policy.

Ms. Laurel Whitney spoke in favor. She described herself as a lesbian who lived with her partner and did not think anyone would condone pedophilia, rape, or child abuse. Approximately 90 percent of those crimes were committed by heterosexual males and she thought two social issues were being confused by trying to join them together and disagreed with that as a valid argument. She pointed out the passing of this ordinance would help the tourism industry and help attract businesses making Phoenix a world class city and she urged the Council to vote in favor.

Pastor Jose Gonzalez spoke in opposition and thought there should be separate restrooms for women and men. He worked with many Hispanic pastors in the Valley from different denominations and expressed his disappointment with Mr. Valenzuela and Mr. Nowakowski who had met on numerous occasions with Hispanic pastors, yet he and many others Hispanic pastors knew nothing of this bill. He explained the Hispanic pastors needed additional time to enable them to have more information or they would feel excluded; and he asked the Council not ignore their community. He believed God created men and women and he reiterated his opposition and the importance of this issue to the Hispanic community and their need to be informed. -337-

February 26, 2013

Mr. DiCiccio addressed the audience in Spanish and urged the Hispanic community to discuss everything they heard in this Council meeting with their families and their friends.

Mr. Nowakowski noted he was impressed with Mr. DiCiccio's Spanish speaking skill.

Ms. Karin Kellas spoke in favor. She supported the inclusion of all people in the City of Phoenix to have equal protection.

Mr. Frank Macias spoke in opposition. He thought the amendment to the ordinance would cause problems. He belonged to a Hispanic church whose parishioners included many business owners in the Phoenix metropolitan area and he felt additional time was necessary to review this law in order to have fair representation. In addition, he thought the description of a transgender identity confusing and others might take advantage of that confusion. He noted people were uncomfortable with having a man in the same restroom as women or little girls.

Ms. Jenny Huerta spoke in favor. She described herself as a male to female transsexual and was tired of being discriminated against. She disagreed this had been a choice and stated she had been born this way. She asked who would make a choice to be called names and discriminated against. She also asked to stop be referred to as a predator and noted she was not a predator and neither were her brother and sister transgender people.

Ms. Huerta understood what many had said about children and noted she was also the father of an 11 year old daughter. She felt however; this was about wanting to be treated equally and noted that when she went into a restroom it was to do her business and get out. She did not peek over stalls and she wanted her privacy too.

Mr. Nohl Rosen spoke in opposition. As a small business owner, he had served the LGBT community and every other member of the community. He disagreed with government involving themselves in his business and was concerned with the possibility of frivolous lawsuits from those citing discrimination. He thought this should be tabled as many business owners were unaware of these changes.

Mr. Weston Henry spoke in favor. He paraphrased a security expert who said laws were made to protect the few and the weak from the many and the powerful. He thought there was no better thing to do than to protect the LGBT brothers and sisters. - 338-

February 26, 2013

Mr. Bradley DeSandro spoke in opposition. He explained it was a Class 5 felony to knowingly invade the privacy of another person without their knowledge for the purpose of sexual stimulation. A person's privacy was invaded if the person had a reasonable expectation not to be viewed in a state of undress. This felony was found in the sexual offense laws of Arizona and was passed by the house and Senate and had been signed into law by the governor.

Mr. DeSandro advised the proposed ordinance tried to make Phoenix inclusive by balancing gender identity with the separation of men from women expecting privacy in places of public accommodation; however, he thought this left open the question of whether or not a city could nullify a state felony law. He wondered if the City was helping or hurting the cause of gender identity by giving a man the right to use a business owner's place of public accommodation when the state would prosecute that man for a Class 5 felony sex crime while the City would prosecute the business owner for a Class 1 misdemeanor for discrimination.

Ms. Beatrice Miranda spoke in favor. She resided in South Phoenix and belonged to a community based team whose purpose was to turn out voters so their voices could be heard. Last year her team knocked on 42,000 doors and made 100,000 phone calls encouraging their community to vote and as a direct result, they had 3,500 people who voted for the first time last November. She was an undocumented citizen and knew what discrimination felt like and she believed everyone deserved to be treated equal.

Ms. Molly Godzich spoke in opposition. She felt this was an important issue and thanked the Council for allowing them to speak to it. She had recently learned of this and thought adequate time had not been given and there were many people who were not aware of this ordinance. She disagreed those in opposition were pro bullies and did not think anyone condoned discrimination. She questioned why this was being rushed through.

Mayor Stanton appreciated the question and stated he planned to address the time line and how they had gotten to this point during his comments portion of the meeting.

Ms. Godzich thought there were issues to be addressed concerning the language used in the ordinance and also felt that to be the consensus of many who were present.

Ms. Michelle Henige spoke in opposition. She disagreed with combining the disabled into the same category as those who chose to have sex with the same sex or with both sexes. She also disagreed with allowing men pretending to be female to enter a restroom with teenage girls to possibly take advantage of the -339-

February 26, 2013

situation. She agreed with taking additional time to review this and also agreed something was needed but felt this would not take care of the problem. She questioned whether the law was saying a straight woman did not have as many rights as a transgender or gay individual and thought that not only unfair but also unsafe.

Ms. Alexus Tori Kasase spoke in favor. She dealt with questions concerning her gender at her place of employment and had been told not to use the woman's restroom. She had to decide whether to use the men's restroom or find another restroom in the building and had felt insecure and discriminated against. She believed it should have been none of their business and something should have been done to allow a transgender person to feel safe and comfortable.

Ms. Diana Alessi spoke in opposition. She believed everyone deserved to maintain their dignity and be treated humanely but thought it unnecessary to make laws to address a transgender dressing as a female and quietly using the restroom.

Ms. Karen Spencer, spoke in favor. She believed the opposition was due to intolerance and fear. She pointed out there was richness in diversity and noted inequality was not diversity.

Mr. Martin James spoke in opposition. He questioned what recourse a woman would have if she was made to feel uncomfortable with having a male in the restroom with her.

Mayor Stanton stated he would have staff address the questions from speakers when it was the Council's time for testimony.

Mr. Martin James thought he heard Equal Opportunity Director Lionel Lyons say in his entire time as director he had never heard a complaint regarding restrooms.

Mr. Lyons explained he had been the director of the City's Equal Opportunity Department 12 years and confirmed they had not received a complaint, in the past five years, relating to restrooms.

Mr. James stated there had been lewd behavior in a park bathroom in another city where children had witnessed it. He agreed with previous the speaker this was an attack on the innocence of society and would open the door for predators. He questioned who would be enforcing this law if passed. - 340-

February 26, 2013

Mayor Stanton stated a committee for enforcement would be included in the nondiscrimination ordinance and would be a function of city government.

Mr. DiCiccio asked if the questions from the speakers had been written down and noted the speaker had a right to this question and the question had not been answered.

Mr. James said his first question concerned recourse for a woman who felt imposed upon by an individual.

Mr. DiCiccio clarified the question concerned what recourse a woman would have due to a complaint concerning a male entering the woman's restroom.

Mr. James added if the male exposed himself in the presence of a child.

Mayor Stanton thought that was a fair question and thought it should be answered.

Mr. DiCiccio questioned whether all of Mr. James questions should be answered and reiterated he would like to know what the rules were. He felt this was being rushed and individuals had a right to question their government.

In response to jeers from the audience, Mayor Stanton asked for decorum.

Mr. DiCiccio asked the audience to be polite to those who had a different viewpoint.

Mr. Cavazos verified Assistant City Attorney Heidi Gilbert was keeping track of everyone's questions.

Mr. Cecilia Barajas, spoke in favor. He had been a victim of a hate-crime and was now disabled having had surgery on both knees and multiple injuries to his face and skull. He said it took him two years to recover from the injuries which resulted from being dragged by an SUV because he was different. He described himself as both a minority and a transgender and questioned how what had happened to him was fair to anyone. He asked if he was not important and questioned what the reaction would be if he walked into a woman's restroom. He pointed out there were some who were born a hermaphrodite and he questioned how they would be categorized. He asked how a transgender who had surgery to have female genitalia would be categorized. He urged the Council to vote in favor and noted progress could not be stopped.

Mr. Jeremy Schachter spoke in favor. He was originally from the state of New York and loved Phoenix. He lived in the downtown area and was proud - 341 -

February 26, 2013

Mr. Simplot was his councilman. He thought this ordinance had been a long time coming and Phoenix was catching up to other cities.

Pastor Rob Huddleson spoke in opposition. He knew the Council had two groups pressuring them to decide in favor of their beliefs and would not be able to please both. He believed in the authority of the Bible which said to have compassion; however, the Bible also said God created in the image of God, male and female. He thought this item sought to eliminate distinctions elevated by God and questioned who would be discriminated against. He asked if it would be discrimination against families with parents who sought to protect their children or the gay community. He urged Council to vote in favor of biblical order and timeless principles.

Ms. Donna Ellis spoke in favor. She and her husband were members of a group called PFLAG which stood for parents, family and friends of lesbians and gays. They were parents of an LGBTQ daughter and she said they wanted the same things for her child that straight parents wanted. She thought this ordinance would help LGBTQ children to be protected and valued members of society.

Mr. Jim Corzine spoke in favor. He expressed concern with the reputation of Phoenix and Arizona nationally. Damage had been done to the state through some of the legislation that has been passed, making it difficult to compete for compete economic dollars and research dollars. He felt Arizona did not need to be on the national news again for antidiscrimination. He asked the Council to do the right thing and put Arizona in the right light.

Mr. AI Ellis, the secretary of PFLAG Phoenix, spoke in favor. He asked the Council to not postpone their decision and equality.

Ms. Brenda Roberts spoke in opposition. She considered this a moral issue which would change the fiber of society to appease a small minority. She asked Council to search their conscience when making this decision.

Ms. Patricia Jones spoke in favor. She was described herself as a person with a disability and noted those with disabilities lived in poverty, had difficulty with transportation and getting a job above minimum wage. She felt the LGBT community and the disabled deserved a chance to realize the American dream.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record Ms. Jennifer Ferguson submitted a speaker comment card in opposition.

Ms. Kate Gallego, a City Council candidate, spoke in favor. She worked in economic development with companies, particularly in technology, who - 342-

February 26, 2013

considered this to be an issue which affected their location decisions. This was a jobs issue and those companies wanted to be located in a community that welcomed diversity and gave their employees support. She felt a vote in favor of this would be an investment in jobs for the City of Phoenix and help the City compete with other communities.

Ms. Nancy Zimmerman spoke in opposition. She believed there should be adequate time and consideration given to this issue with all parties invited for policy formation. There were many points made and valid issues raised which she thought proved the policy before the Council had not been fully vetted by the community. She thought this should be implemented to limit harm from existing businesses, institutions and the children in the community. She questioned the clarity for schools and libraries and thought the safety of all citizens should be considered. She thought this issue was too important to get it wrong.

Ms. Sherri Shimansky spoke in favor. She quit her job as a teacher when told by the principle not to come out as a lesbian when some of her student began to come out. She went back to school and currently seeking two masters degrees. She hoped the Council would vote in favor which would allow her to work in Arizona and not be discriminated against.

Mr. Jeff Johnson, spoke in opposition. He expressed concern this ordinance violated the first amendment rights of churches and businesses. The ordinance made it unlawful to discriminate in places of public accommodation by displaying any communication that stated or implied that any person because of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression would be unwelcome. He thought the language inappropriate and trampled on the constitutional rights of the vast majority of citizens.

Mr. Nicholas Love, spoke in favor. He thought all citizens should be protected in the city. He described himself as a gay female transsexual with a disability and noted he had been recognized for his advocacy and education on sexual gender minorities and psychiatric disabilities. He also was a parent and was against anything which would hurt children. He felt this could not be postponed and asked council to do what was right for all citizens of Phoenix.

Ms. Antonia Dorsay explained she was the leading expert on transgender lives in the state of Arizona, spoke in favor. She explained what was before the Council was exactly like those bills passed in seven of the top ten cities. The three cities left were Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix. She felt the competition for dollars made passing this ordinance important. She had been evicted from an apartment, told she could not use a restroom, and denied employment because she was a transgender. She asked if this was how people should be treated and urged the Council to vote in favor. -343-

February 26, 2013

Ms. Roberta Livesay explained she was an attorney who represented clients all over the state and was not in favor or opposition. She expressed concern about the drafting of the bill. She arrived late due to security measures, and thought she heard some of the definitions would be redrafted. She thought the definitions concerning the disabled to be clear; however, she thought the definition concerning gender identity unclear. There was another definition of gender identity which had not been chosen and she thought the definition used meant something else. She felt this invited litigation and she encouraged the Council to table this item and to give it further study.

Mr. Stephen Brittle spoke in favor. He had seen the desegregation battles growing up in the south and thought it evident laws need to be passed to protect people. He noted it was time for Phoenix to join the 21st century and requested Council vote in favor.

Mayor Stanton read the following statement from Mike and Dawn Mitchel, in opposition: "We opposed opening the women's restrooms to gender confused individuals. It only sends the message that homosexuality and gender confusion are healthy lifestyle choices. It imposes a lifestyle on everyone - regardless of personal moral beliefs. If imposed on the majority it will hurt businesses by forcing women customers to share a restroom with a man who may be dangerous to them or small children who may be present."

Ms. Susan Hurley spoke in favor. She found the proposal important and thought it a long delayed issue. She thought criminal actions and predation a separate issue from access to public accommodations, housing, and employment. All members of the community should be protected and have access redress from discrimination.

Mr. John Montalvo spoke in opposition. He owned a small cafe and wanted to know what would happen if he did not have three bathrooms. He presently had two bathrooms, one for men and one for women and questioned if he should put in gender bathroom. He did not have money to pay for a lawsuit and he thought he would gladly put in a third bathroom if the City helped pay for it.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record a speaker comment card was submitted in favor from Liz Houri can and family.

Mr. Ray Sweeney spoke in opposition. He had a 70 percent bilateral hearing loss and faced discrimination due to his disability. He did not expect government to intervene and level the playing field for him instead he learned to deal with his disability. He took exception to those who thought government -344-

February 26, 2013

should uphold the rights of those whose opinion did not fall within the majority and noted that government could not legislate how people felt.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record a speaker comment card was submitted in favor from Mr. Glenn Swain.

Ms. Linda Ring spoke in opposition. She opposed bigotry, bullying, and discrimination and also wanted to protect her grandchildren. She heard misinterpretations that transgender would be predators and noted that was not how she felt. She expressed concern pedophiles would use this bill as a cloak so they could dress as a woman for access to children and teenagers.

Ms. Ring thought a transgender should be able to us the restroom appropriate to how they looked and pointed out a previous speaker had admitted to using female restrooms for years with no problems. She asked the Council to reconsider and remove the reference to public accommodations.

Ms. Aeimee Diaz spoke in favor. She explained this was her anniversary with her partner and noted that one year ago they had been asked to leave an establishment because they shared a kiss and a hug. She found the experience embarrassing and felt it had turned her life upside down. In the past, she had also been harassed and asked to leave when she had entered a woman's restroom looking like a boy. She asked for the opportunity to feel safe and be treated as an equal.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record a speaker comment card was submitted in opposition from Ms. Vera Anderson.

Mr. Sean Michael Gettys spoke in favor. He and his wife moved to Arizona where he had gone before public officials and had to prove who he was and explain he was a disabled female to male transsexual. In addition, his wife had been denied jobs because she dressed in a masculine manner. He sometimes wondered what country he was living in and felt laws were needed to protect them.

Mr. Wes Harris spoke in opposition. He expressed surprise at the time spent discussing a subject which concerned approximately four tenths of one percent of the population of the City of Phoenix.

Mr. Edgar Villarreal spoke in favor. He focused on maximizing resources and felt this was progressive construction which would move the city forward.

Pastor Jason Young spoke in opposition. He appreciated the gay and lesbian people however he felt this issue was in opposition to what was said in -345-

February 26, 2013

the Bible which stated that it was an abomination for man to put on the clothes of a woman or a woman to put on the clothes of a man.

Ms. Annie Loyd spoke in favor. She knew the decision made by the Council would please some and others would be not be pleased. The Council had a responsibility to increase the humanity of the city and she also pointed out the Bible she knew talked about people loving one another.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record speaker comment card's were submitted for Mr. Joe Bubar and Ms. Adriana Gruber in opposition.

Reverend Brian Kemp-Schlemmer, spoke in favor. He represented a group of religious people in downtown Phoenix who believed in the scripture and also thought God's work in the world was bigger than a handful of scriptures people used as weapons against each other and knew their community was adept at problem solving and had a vision for an inclusive and loving community.

Ms. Charlotte Vark spoke in favor. She thought it more disturbing to see a mother with her son in a restroom than to think a man who identified as a woman was in the restroom. She thought this was about doing what was right, not what was popular. She questioned why Mr. DiCiccio deserved his rights, if he would not give them their rights. She questioned who would protect them and when.

Mr. DiCiccio thought he had a right to address the previous mischaracterizations. He respected a different point of view and the issues faced.

Ms. Vark exclaimed Mr. DiCiccio should vote now.

Mr. DiCiccio intended to finish speaking and noted the proposal had been created by a select group of individuals with no organizations that would have been in opposition present to work out the issues.

Mr. DiCiccio asked the audience if this was how people treated others politely. He felt he had a right to respond.

Mayor Stanton asked Mr. DiCiccio to keep his statement brief.

Mr. DiCiccio questioned who in the audience was making the catcalls.

Mayor Stanton reiterated that Mr. DiCiccio make a brief comment. - 346-

February 26, 2013

Mr. DiCiccio asked the audience to quit doing the catcalls. He thought this was how their side did things; drowned out any opposition. He questioned whether Mayor Stanton intended to ask for order from the audience.

Mr. Simplot informed Mr. DiCiccio, he was taking up his time to speak and noted each Council member had been given 10 minutes to speak.

Mr. DiCiccio respected Mr. Simplot and knew he and Mayor Stanton had worked hard on this issue. He also knew they had the votes needed; however, he had questions which needed answers.

Ms. Nancy Walker spoke in opposition. She believed in the dignity and value of every human being, but strongly opposed allowing a transgender access to the women's restroom. She questioned why the majority of citizens had their rights to safety and privacy usurped by a minority who claimed their rights as a transgender had been violated. She expressed concern men could dress as a transgender to gain access to women and children in public restrooms. She believed passing this ordinance would encourage predators to find their prey in public places.

Mr. Dale Hewser, a member of the faculty at Paradise Valley Community College and President of Equality Maricopa, spoke in favor. Equality Maricopa, an employee constituent group added sexual orientation to their non­ discrimination policy in 1990 and added gender identity and expression in 2011. He thought passing this ordinance would bring people and tourism to the Valley and he urged the Council to vote in favor to show all individuals were valued and protected from discrimination.

Ms. Elizabeth Clouser expressed her opposition to the item based on her religious beliefs. She stated she had been violated in public restrooms at different establishments and she believed the individuals in favor were "thumbing their noses" at those who followed what she perceived to be correct and righteous. She stressed her opinion that this was an affront to the male and female images created by God.

Ms. Kay Young spoke in favor. She and her brother owned a small solar energy business and had a contract with the City. Her company completed the Burton Barr Library Solar Parking Canopy project and currently had 53 employees, and had generated over $123 million in revenue. The company embraced diversity and employed people of all backgrounds, which brought in an energetic and talented workforce. She stressed the importance of eliminating workplace and services discrimination. -347-

February 26, 2013

Mr. David Lucero spoke in opposition. He faced discrimination all his life as a Latino and as a farm worker's child and understood what it was like to be discriminated against. He thought this was something different and disagreed with placing the disabled community in the same ordinance as the gay and transgender community and thought those issues should be considered separately. He felt the communication had been poor regarding this ordinance and the LGBT community had received information while those in opposition did not.

Mr. Tim Eigo, spoke on behalf of Downtown Voices Coalition who supported the change to the ordinance. He felt this was about justice, not bathrooms and or small business. He pointed out approximately 166 cities had chosen to adopt a similar law and the sky had not fallen. Many who were present had been a target for legal discrimination due to their outward appearance and he thought it was time to allow them the liberty they were owed. He disagreed this would harm small business and the business people he knew opposed discrimination.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record speaker comment cards were submitted from Mr. Robert Levitt, Mr. John Turpin, Mr. Jim Pourchat, and Ms. Diane Burns in opposition.

Mr. Clark Norgaard spoke in opposition. He stated previous speakers had addressed the obviousness biological differences between men and women and he felt it was not unreasonable to discern those obvious differences. He did not find the fact that other cities had adopted a similar ordinance a compelling argument and thought this was the type of special interest measure politicians used to run for higher office.

Ms. Mille Carter Bloodworth spoke in favor. She described herself as a transgender trailblazer who had lived in society for more than 45 years. She taught special education and had worked in three school districts. She faced hurtful name calling in the past and found it difficult to understand.

Mr. AJ Edmondson spoke in opposition. He thought all of the stakeholders impacted by a final decision should be included with any change in law. He found out about the proposed changes last week and believed due diligence was needed to get this right the first time and to work out a plan agreeable to all of the parties involved. He agreed with Mr. DiCiccio panel discussions were needed and thought this should not be rushed as it would possibly invite civil litigation.

Mayor Stanton noted there were no more speaker comment cards in opposition although he still had cards in favor. The motion on the floor was to support the proposed ordinance adoption with the amendment offered by - 348-

February 26, 2013

Mrs. Williams regarding the religious exemption, and he asked the remaining speakers indicate whether or not their point had already been made.

Mr. George Hall spoke in favor. He wished to clarify this did not mean the sky was falling. He disagreed with the concerns regarding bathrooms and noted he had only entered a woman's restroom as a police officer and had never witnessed anyone naked outside of the stalls.

Mr. Hall pointed out there were approximately 10,000 hermaphrodites in the United States and thought there were things in nature which should be embraced as it was part of who they all were.

Mr. Dennis O'Hanlon spoke in favor. He worked at St. Joseph's Hospital, volunteered in historic preservation, participated in neighborhood revitalization, was Catholic, and a gay man. He believed there was hostility directed towards those who were different and frequently felt unsafe when he revealed he was gay. He felt the current laws were inadequate and a study had been conducted which concluded a strong gay community correlated to a City's prosperity. He pointed out that Senator Barry Goldwater had made the statement: "As long as it doesn't scare the horses, I really don't give a damn what they do."

Ms. Dana Kennedy spoke in favor. She was a board member of the Mayor's Commission on Disability Issues, and stated this had been an open process and open meeting law followed. She explained the process had not been rushed and Mr. DiCiccio had been invited to their meetings. She felt this was about the civil rights of the twenty-first century. There were people in wheelchairs that could not enter a restroom or public facility because there was no access for them. She noted that if businesses did not discriminate, they would not be penalized, and pointed out they had not heard much opposition from businesses. She urged the Council to vote in support and to stand up for civil rights.

Mr. Luther Holland spoke in favor on behalf of District 8 City Council candidate Dr. Warren Stewart. Dr. Stewart supported the equal rights of all people, including the LBGT community and his record of fighting for civil rights was at the core of his beliefs. He applauded Mayor Stanton, the City Council, and the City for their actions to amend the proposed city ordinance to exclude religious organizations which he thought affirmed the values and humanity of people on both sides of the issue.

Mayor Stanton asked Mr. Holland to give Pastor Stewart their best.

Ms. Monica Jones spoke in favor. She described herself as a transgender student who had attended Phoenix Community College and won an award for -349-

February 26, 2013

changing the way transgender students were treated. She thought transgender women had a right to use the women's restroom and needed to use the women's locker room. She thought the City should look at what Phoenix Community College had passed and urged the Council to vote in favor.

Sister Marie E'Phant spoke in favor. She thought the opposition to this ordinance was due to fear. She urged those in opposition to look into their hearts for what was right. She explained it was not right for people to not have access to a restroom for hours and noted when going into a restroom she was not interested in the person occupying the stall next to her; she just had to use the restroom. This was about equality for people who were different and who needed the same rights as everyone else.

Ms. Carrie Leary acknowledged the number of hours and the dedication of the members of the Disabilities Commission and the Human Relations Commission. She felt this had not been an exclusive process and open meeting law and good public procedures had been followed. She thought it important not to confuse issues of criminal behavior with human rights and as a member of a faith community, she believed it inappropriate to find ways to exclude others.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record Mr. Jimmy Munoz submitted a speaker comment card in favor.

Ms. Ann Roth spoke in favor. She described herself as a lesbian and found it difficult to believe this type of discussion was still taking place. She felt this was about equal rights and urged the Council to vote in favor.

Mr. Dan Carro spoke in favor. He thought Phoenix was standing at the cutting edge with other cities across the country. He thought the LGBT community deserved their rights along with everyone else and asked the Council to vote in favor and not wait to decide on this issue.

Ms. Diane Barker spoke in favor. She came from a family that had fought for religious freedom and freedom from discrimination and she supported the changes and looked forward to grievances and violations handled in an appropriate manner.

Ms. Rosie Lopez spoke in favor. She looked out for the rights of children and believed in equal protection under the law. She thought it silly to be speaking of bathrooms; however, she felt it was time for this issue to be addressed.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record speaker comment cards were submitted from Ms. Una Mustedanagi and Ms. Sarah Soaf, in favor. - 350-

February 26, 2013

Mr. Dale Hueser spoke in favor. He described himself as a married parent, grandparent, and small business owner who was also a transgender woman. He traveled throughout the United States as a vendor and advisor to transgender groups and individuals. He noted there were many who thought people in Arizona hated everyone and found himself explaining that the LGBT community in Phoenix was one of the best communities he had been associated with. He felt the entire state could not be judged by those who were uninformed or bigoted and noted this proposal was not about bathrooms and would be good for business.

Ms. Elizabeth Sweda spoke in favor. She spent the past year serving her country and was the cofounder of a nonprofit organization for volunteers in Phoenix and the LGBT community. The definition of discrimination was to make a difference in treatment or to favor on something other than individual merit. Her previous employer issued a survey to all employees and had asked employees to declare race and ethnicity and she questioned why that was important. She thought how a person looked or who they loved should not determine their morality and believed in an individual's right to represent themselves without fear or retribution.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record a speaker comment card was submitted from Mr. John Phebus, in favor.

Ms. Toby Stahl spoke in favor. She was present to testify against discrimination and asked if everyone had forgotten about separation of church and state.

Reverend Jared Maupin spoke in favor. His grandmother had been16 years old in 1941 when she sat in at a cafe on Adams Street and led the first documented sit-in against discrimination for public accommodations in the State of Arizona. He found it difficult to believe they continued to struggle over allowing restroom accommodation. He came from a church that would most likely not perform a same-sex union; however, he believed in their right to use the restroom. He agreed with the amendment for religious organizations and felt this should be supported. He saw both sides as an African American, and agreed with the rights of the LGBTQ community; however, he asked they keep in mind the rights of all minorities and not piggyback on the experiences of other groups to justify a legitimate issue. He felt this battle had been fought 70 years before in 1941, when a black teenager made bathrooms accessible for everyone.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record speaker comment cards were submitted from Ms. Laura Pastor and Ms. Katherine Halpin in favor. - 351 -

February 26, 2013

Ms. Dallas Bryson spoke in favor. She explained one in 12 transgender people would be murdered and forcing them to use restrooms incongruent with their gender identities put them in dangerous situations. The transgender community also worried about safety in bathrooms, and some of her transgender friends avoided using restrooms in public places due to safety issues or fear of causing a scene.

Ms. Erica Pederson spoke in favor and was the communications and membership coordinator for Local First Arizona. Local First Arizona was a nonprofit community organization with approximately 2,200 independent business members. She read into the record the following letter from Local First Arizona Director Kimber Lanning:

"Local First Arizona was the first organization to sign onto the unity pledge because we believe inequality. We are the largest local business coalition in North America. Our members are varied and diverse ranking from mom and pop businesses to large Arizona employers with as many as 3,500 workers. What we have in common is that Arizona is our home and we want to build a better life for all. So we encourage you to support this ordinance because we believe it will benefit the small businesses in Phoenix through the image of Phoenix and the economy of Arizona overall. Many studies have shown that tolerance is good for the economy. Conversely, intolerance kills communities."

Mr. Todd Bradford spoke in favor. He noted that Mr. DiCiccio had mentioned earlier this legislation was not needed. He could not imagine the discrimination experienced by a transgender individual and felt this had not come about quickly. He also thought this legislation would help small businesses compete.

Reverend Jose Olagues spoke in favor. He remembered speaking before a Council in another city where they were dealing with a similar issue which resulted in his receiving hate mail, threatening phone calls, and his children had been harassed at school. He expressed his pride in speaking out for the rights of the LGBT community; however, he was dismayed to find it still an issue 30 years later. He urged the Council to vote in favor and noted people were tired of Arizona's bad reputation.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record speaker comment cards were submitted from Mr. Nathaniel Burns and Ms. Zophia Rawner in favor.

Ms. Donna Kruck spoke in favor. She worked for the Arizona Bridge to Independent Living, located in the Disability Empowerment Center. She felt it took courage for change and agreed with a previous speaker who said you could not legislate a person's attitude. She lived with a disability since the age of 30 - 352-

February 26, 2013

and noted that since then the Americans with Disabilities Act most doors were accessible, there were ramps, and elevators with Braille. She pointed out that until recently, there were laws against people with disabilities getting married. She hoped the Council would take courage and not promote fear.

Ms. Kim Pearson explained Mr. John Warford had ceded his time to her. Mayor Stanton noted she had testified before the Council already and asked she keep it brief and speak to a new point.

Ms. Kim Pearson represented the families of those with transgender children and was also the mother of a transgender child. She stressed her child had not done anything wrong and was not a sexual predator. These were kids who lived next door and there were hundreds of families with transgender children in Arizona. Those children were more likely to be attacked than attack others. She felt this was about people and urged those who thought this was a bathroom issue to research this.

Sister Ora Leez spoke in favor. She agreed with previous speakers that transgender people had been attacked in the restrooms. She worked at a high school for two years and had a student who was attacked because the school forced him to use the men's restroom. The student looked female and she thought it ridiculous to force someone to use a restroom where there was a chance they would be assaulted by other students. She felt the situation could have been avoided and a transgender needed this protection. She urged the Council to vote in favor.

Mr. Stan Godfrey spoke in favor. He felt a transgender chose their identity and should be able to use their restroom of choice. They were not sitting behind stalls ready to attack anyone; they were people with an identity issue. He encouraged everyone to educate themselves on this issue and to stop making assumptions.

Mr. Justin Johnson spoke in favor. His father was former Mayor Paul Johnson and he thought this was the right thing to do to move Phoenix into the next century and ensure they were promoting equality which was something he worked hard to teach his children. His father had championed the original legislation to support this ordinance and he encouraged the Council to move forward and approve the ordinance.

Mr. Matthew Jewett spoke in favor and was a member of the Creighton Elementary School District Governing Board. A similar ordinance was passed by the board and since that time, there had not been any issues. He encouraged the Council to vote in favor. -353-

February 26, 2013

Mayor Stanton explained that Mr. Jewett was the last citizen speaker to be heard and each Council member would have 10 minutes to speak.

Mr. DiCiccio asked Mr. Joseph La Rue to come forward. He had questions of Mr. La Rue and wanted his answers to be on the record. He thought this item would be passed and congratulated Mayor Stanton, Mr. Simplot, and those who were in support. This had been a big issue for them; however, it was one he did not agree with.

Mr. DiCiccio addressed the comments made regarding the approval of similar legislation by approximately 166 cities and pointed out not all the legislation passed in those cities was similar. He found the Salt Lake City legislation to be reasonable while the ordinance before Council was radical. This ordinance could result in criminal penalties brought upon business owners and he did not know of similar legislation anywhere else in the country. He expressed concern with the way the ordinance had been put together and questioned whether the proposed motion, dealing with religious exemptions addressed those concerns adequately.

Mr. La Rue hesitated to opine a law he had briefly reviewed; however, he believed the ordinance would not address the concerns. He explained the ordinance would protect churches and religious organizations with the possible exception of a religious school's hiring decisions. The ordinance did not protect employers who possibly had religious objections or beliefs which opposed the hiring of a homosexual or a transgender person. He questioned the need for a law which trampled the religious freedom of the few.

Mr. DiCiccio asked Mr. La Rue to highlight the constitutional issues regarding freedom of speech.

Mr. La Rue advised there were five primary constitutional problems concerning the ordinance before the Council, the first of which was free speech. This not only criminalized speech, it also criminalized speech based on what another person thought was being implied. He cited the possibility of signs posted in a business which said "vote no" to gay marriage. The owner was entitled under the constitution to post the sign; however, the City's ordinance would criminalize the business owner's action because a gay person might feel unwelcome. He noted that to be a free speech problem. Second, religious schools were subject to the hiring provisions. A religious school could be charged with discrimination for refusing to hire a transgender or homosexual subject to the hiring provisions for educational institutions. There were no protections in place for an employer's rights, and he explained there were several businesses which were located in Hawaii, Kentucky, Oregon, Colorado, New York, and New Jersey charged with discrimination. The case in New Jersey - 354-

February 26, 2013

involved a church owned property which was charged with discrimination for refusing to rent their property to a same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony; there was a T -shirt case in Kentucky; two different cake shop cases in Oregon and Colorado; and a wedding barn case in the state of New York. The case in Hawaii concerned a woman charged with discrimination for not renting a room in her house based on her religious concerns. The case in New Mexico concerned a photographer who turned down photographing a same-sex couple commitment ceremony based on her religious views. He pointed out the case was now before the New Mexico Supreme Court. He felt it reprehensible to trample religious rights while protecting the rights of others and thought a better solution was needed.

Mr. DiCiccio thought an opposing viewpoint should be on the record which revealed the significant problems with the proposal and he thought the legislation passed in Salt Lake City would have been a good starting point for Phoenix. He questioned what issues Mr. La Rue thought to be vague and what he thought a business owner would find was problematic.

Mr. La Rue expressed concern regarding a law which criminalized anyone or any business for a message which could imply gay people or transgender people were unwelcome. He questioned how such a decision could be made and thought this ordinance would put all business owners at risk. He pointed out a sign hanging in a business which said "this business is dedicated to the glory of God," could be construed as implying homosexuals were unwelcome due to some people's beliefs that God was opposed to homosexual behavior.

Mr. DiCiccio clarified the section of the ordinance Mr. La Rue referred to made it a crime for a business owner put something up which could be found objectionable or make anyone feel unwelcome.

Mr. La Rue agreed the ordinance included any notice of communication which stated or implied any facility or service would be refused or restricted because of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or that persons with those characteristics would be unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, undesirable, or not solicited.

Mr. La Rue thought this law was the worst thing the City could enact for the protection of the LGBT community, and it would have people who thought like him trying to figure it out. He represented religious freedom and considered the Human Relations Commission to have only one viewpoint in terms of who was affected by discrimination. He opined all the viewpoints should be brought together. -355-

February 26, 2013

Mr. DiCiccio explained the Church of Later Day Saints (LOS) in Utah had been involved in drafting the Salt Lake City ordinance and it turned out to be something everyone touted as a great ordinance. He pointed out that did not happen in Phoenix.

Mayor Stanton noted Mr. Nowakowski had been waiting and listening throughout the testimony in an airport and he thanked him for his patience.

Mr. Nowakowski lost his telephone connection and temporarily left the voting body. Mayor Stanton turned the floor over to Mr. Valenzuela.

Mr. Valenzuela supported this item and wished to present background on the reasons behind his decision. He described himself as a man of faith, family, and community and belonged to an interfaith clergy. He received several phone calls and had Hispanic pastors call for a meeting. He accepted and noted two of the pastor's showed up for the meeting and he discussed the ordinance with them. He stood up for people and thought it his responsibility to ask questions and become involved. Watching over children was one of the greatest responsibilities; however, he did not believe this was about bathroom security and felt bathroom security could be addressed on a future agenda. He explained a Human Relations Ordinance was before the Council which addressed expanding protections for sexual orientation, disability, and adding protection for gender identity or expression. This concerned employment, fair housing, contracting and public accommodation and was about human rights and equal opportunity for all not the LGBT community versus the religious community. He thought this was a powerful message to bring everyone to an equal playing field and equal rights. He thanked Mayor Stanton and Mr. Simplot and also thanked Mr. Lyons whom he thought had an excellent presentation and was the right person for the job of Equal Opportunity Director. He also thought others had also done an excellent job and he thanked them all.

Mr. Nowakowski returned to the voting body via telephone.

Mr. Nowakowski thought it important to listen to all the testimony even though he had already missed two flights. He worked with Cesar Chavez for civil rights and championed equal rights for the multi-cultural youth of the diocese of Phoenix, and worked with Hispanic pastors. He was Executive Vice President of the Caesar Chavez Foundation and the head of the Hispanic language educational radio program Radio Campesina; and he championed equal rights as a City Council member for the past five years for people from poor and disadvantaged neighborhoods. He asked those in opposition how he could advocate for equality and rights for all and continue to tolerate discrimination against and other people because of what they were. He listened, prayed, and reflected and would be voting in support. - 356-

February 26, 2013

Mayor Stanton explained Mr. Nowakowski could not vote on this issue at this time; however, his support would be noted for the record.

Mr. Nowakowski left the voting body.

Mrs. Williams wished to reaffirm with the City Attorney the substitute motion with the exemptions did not cover religious employment. She explained her intent was to cover religious activities, organizations, churches or anywhere it would apply in the ordinance.

City Attorney Gary Verburg agreed that was accurate and noted the substitute motion included gender identity and expression within the exemption language, and he confirmed for Mrs. Williams it would apply to religious organizations.

Mr. Verburg stressed the ordinance had been reviewed and the work was based on similar laws adopted in other jurisdictions some of which had been challenged. In addition some of the language being discussed had been a part of the ordinance since the 1990s. The only difference was it now also applied to sexual orientation and gender identity and expression if adopted.

Mrs. Williams discussed the bathroom scenarios with her family and believed there were some people who had never peeked in a woman's restroom and were unaware there were individual stalls. Women were very careful and did not undress in front of one another and the stalls were shut tight. Women also stayed close to their children and she could not remember letting her children use a restroom without the supervision of either her or her husband and she noted this was also the case with her grandchildren.

She felt the passing of this ordinance would not change anything and noted there had been some "gorgeous looking ladies" who had come forward and she would not have questioned sharing the bathroom with them. In addition, she noted one of the speakers would have made her nervous to share a restroom with him.

Mr. Johnson spoke in favor and thanked staff, the Human Relations Commission, and the Mayor's Commission on Disability Issues for taking the time to listen to both sides. He thought the pledge of allegiance a good analogy noting that though modified four times the words indivisible which meant this country could not be split and with liberty and justice meant freedom and fairness for all. He noted that had been written in 1892 and he supported the ordinance. -357-

February 26, 2013

Mr. Gates thanked everyone for the time spent on this issue by the boards, commissions, staff, and his colleagues. He thought this had been a great exercise in democracy which was important. He believed every person who resided in Phoenix had a right to get a job, the right to have a place to live, and a right to bid on a City contract. He rejected discrimination; however, he was a lawyer and could not check his legal training and analysis in at the door. He kept coming back to the question: "Why should a small business person be charged with a crime because of an employment decision." He clarified this was an employment discrimination law which criminalized and he stressed this type of law was rare. In addition, he noted the federal discrimination laws did not have criminal sanctions.

Employment discrimination claims were often frivolous; however, the reality was that a small business would need to hire a lawyer and expend resources to defend a lawsuit and Mr. Gates believed this ordinance would result in increased litigation. He supported the protections for City employees which had been in place for a long time and would have supported an ordinance which addressed some of the questions he felt had been left unanswered. The possibility of speech being criminalized by this ordinance change troubled him and was the reason he would not be in a position to support this.

Mr. Waring questioned whether the legislative report would be heard and joked he had been looking forward to it. In response to Mr. Waring, Mayor Stanton thought he would check the temperature of his colleagues before making that decision.

Mr. Waring agreed with Mr. Gates and had some of the same concerns. He explained there were examples around the country where things had not worked out as planned by either the legislators or the Council people who had enacted similar legislation. He had concerns and asked if Mr. La Rue was still available.

Mr. Waring asked if the questions from speakers Ms. Heidi had kept track of would be addressed.

Mayor Stanton confirmed he would address the questions during his time to speak.

Mr. Waring assumed the examples given by Mr. La Rue had been designed to illicit a reaction. He pointed out staff was in support and he questioned whether Mr. La Rue had seen the language of the ordinance.

Mr. La Rue noted he stayed on top of legislative issues; however, he first heard about this issue and obtained a copy of the ordinance only two weeks prior - 358-

February 26, 2013

to this meeting. He assumed it had been an oversight to not remove gender identity with the church exception and did not mean to imply the amendment did not cover religious organizations and apologized if he gave that impression. He had meant to say the ordinance would cover churches and religious organizations while it did not cover employers with religious objections.

Mr. Waring heard the concerns with the language of the ordinance and pointed out one of the previous speakers was a female attorney who addressed issues with the language but did not take a pro or con position. She had also suggested a continuance. He questioned whether Mr. La Rue thought the ordinance addressed what it was meant to address and if it was similar to legislation in the other 166 cities.

Mr. La Rue had experience with bills of this type and explained evaluating this type of legislation and whether or not they were problematic for religious freedom was a big part of what he did professionally. He thought the biggest difference was how this ordinance criminalized speech and disagreed with those who felt Phoenix was not pushing the envelope. He took issue with the portion of the ordinance which said a person could not be denied the use of public facilities due to gender identity, with gender identity defined as whatever a person felt they were, and thought the language would allow restroom access to sexual predators. Previously, the police could stop a man who went into a woman's restroom however that could not happen under this ordinance. Mr. La Rue felt the City Council had a duty to protect women and children, not make them more vulnerable.

Mr. La Rue also disagreed with Mr. Verburg's comments and felt he had not answered the question asked regarding constitutional law. Instead Mr. Verburg stated the ordinance was based on other laws. Mr. La Rue pointed out there were many unconstitutional laws which were no longer followed and he felt if the City passed this they would be challenged and likely to lose.

Mr. Waring questioned whether there were other cities with something better.

Mr. La Rue noted Salt Lake City's legislation protected people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and included definite protections for religious freedom. Salt Lake City had accomplished this by bringing together a diverse group to discuss the best way to enact legislation and ensure everybody was protected.

Mr. Waring noted he previously thought the ordinance before the Council had been modeled after other cities and now wondered if Phoenix was breaking new and possibly dangerous ground legally. He found the examples cited -359-

February 26, 2013

troublesome and hoped the City would not be sued or that the Council's action this evening would not result in a business owner going out of business. He understood this was a personal issue for some and understood the concerns; however, though he took their comments to heart, he would be voting in opposition. He agreed with Mr. DiCiccio this would be adopted and added his congratulations.

Mr. Simplot thanked everyone who was present and knew it took courage to speak at the microphone and share differing opinions. He also thanked the Human Relations Commission and the Mayor's Commission on Disabilities and appreciated their hard work.

Mr. Simplot stated he was also a licensed attorney in Arizona and had not checked his license in at the door. He thought a lawsuit should be put into perspective, noting the City would go to court, if sued, and defend the ordinance. There were flaws in approximately every piece of law or legislation and he asked everyone to keep those issues in mind. He ran a small business, and supported the ordinance. In addition, he represented a trade association in the housing industry which endorsed this ordinance. He stood before everyone as a proud member of the gay community; and could not imagine a better way to cap the past 10 years, with advancements that included the LGBTQ community's tourism in Phoenix and the domestic partnership registry. The domestic partnership registry allowed gays to visit their partner in a hospital in Phoenix and he hoped it would not take as long for additional rights. City employees had additional benefits added for domestic partners such as healthcare options and parity for grief. He felt some of the arguments he heard were valid in 1977, but they were not valid anymore.

Phoenix was not a trail blazer when it came to these issues and Mr. Simplot pointed out it was corporate America who led the charge. Corporate America knew it was the best way to attract quality employees and good employees translated in to good business. The updates pertaining to the disabled community were needed and he thought it ironic those who were unable to walk to the podium tonight were unable to reach the podium.

Mr. Simplot noted for those who had commented they would no longer shop in Phoenix, this type of ordinance was now being enacted around the country and even Disneyland had fully accessible unisex bathrooms. He thanked Mayor Stanton and Mr. Cavazos for their leadership and hoped for an outcome which was good for the City of Phoenix, the State of Arizona, and everyone in the room. - 360-

February 26, 2013

Mayor Stanton explained he was the last speaker and had previously indicated questions would be answered. He asked Mr. Verburg to address the question regarding whether or not religious schools were included in the ordinance.

City Attorney Gary Verburg advised that religious schools were included in the exemptions provided for in the ordinance. Religious schools could employ anyone they desired to foster and propagate their religious beliefs. He was unsure whether the hiring of someone who was not important to the propagation of religious beliefs, such as a janitor position, would be included.

In response to Mayor Stanton, Mr. Verburg stated the ordinance would in no way circumvent or diminish the applicability of any criminal law that might otherwise apply to a fact pattern. He deferred to Assistant City Attorney Heidi Gilbert to answer the Mayor's question regarding whether or not this would apply to schools.

Assistant City Attorney Heidi Gilbert believed the question concerned clarity for schools and libraries. She noted exemptions for schools were as Mr. Verburg described to the extent the school was a religious institution. Any other employer which was a school or library offering public accommodations would be required to comply with the ordinance.

Ms. Gilbert clarified for Mayor Stanton the changes included extending this to city services and noted similar language had been adopted in other municipalities. The language used by organizations which were advocates of the LGBTQ community had been looked at along with language from the human rights campaign. She explained they were trying to go from homosexual and heterosexual towards same-sex and opposite-sex. DSM-IV was a gender identity disorder and in response to a previous speaker's question she explained that definition was not what they wished to accomplish and incorporate into the ordinance.

Mayor Stanton stated the City of Phoenix currently had an ordinance in place to protect individuals from discrimination. The ordinance went beyond federal laws in place to protect people and included discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and age. This proposed to add disabled as well as LGBT status to the City's nondiscrimination ordinance. He explained enforcement of possible discrimination would not change under this law as this was a proposed addition to the existing nondiscrimination ordinance. He pointed out his office had performed out-reach and the Mayor's Commission on Disabilities and the Human Relations Commission held multiple hearings. Various data bases had been utilized to reach out to the business community - 361 -

February 26, 2013

and see their input and reached directly out to 5,000 businesses to let them know about the possibility to seek input on this. He wanted to ensure Phoenix was competitive and thought Mr. Simplot correct when he said they were just catching up with other cities. Ninety percent of Fortune 500 companies had policies protecting LGBT employees because they knew it was good for business to attract and retain the very best employees. In addition, there were numerous cities which had similar legislation and he presented the following list of cities which had protections for their LGBT residents: Tucson, Arizona; Flagstaff, Arizona; San Diego, California; Denver, Colorado; Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; Louisville, Kentucky; Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota; the state of New Mexico; the state of Iowa; Buffalo, New York; Toledo, Ohio; Austin, Texas; Dallas, Texas; and Seattle, Washington. He stressed that was a partial list and he viewed those to be competitor cities to Phoenix. He did not want his city to be placed at a disadvantage with companies looking for tourism opportunities, business meetings, and conventions.

Mayor Stanton thought a message would be sent that the people of Phoenix supported all its residents and valued diversity. He believed that would be good for business and attract the right kind of jobs and people.

Mayor Stanton agreed with Mr. Gates this had been a good demonstration of democracy and everyone had an opportunity to get their point across. He thought it time to vote and called for the roll call vote.

Roll Call: Ayes: Johnson, Simplot, Valenzuela, Williams, and Mayor Stanton Nays: DiCiccio, Waring, and Vice Mayor Gates, Absent: Nowakowski

MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance adopted.

Mayor Stanton noted for the record Mr. Nowakowski's support of the ordinance. He also confirmed with Mr. Cavazos the items on the agenda which had not been heard would be addressed at a future meeting. -362-

February 26, 2013

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come b fore the Council, Mayor Stanton declared the meeting adjourned. ~

MAYOR

ATTEST: c. CITY~ 0226policymin.doc/em/CM

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the special session of the City Council of the City of Phoenix held on the 26th day of February, 2013. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.

Dated this 15th day of April, 2013. e__