City and County of HUMANRIGHTSCOMMISSION

Theresa Sparks Executive Director

COMMISSIONERS Edwin M. Lee Mayor Susan Belinda Christian APPROVED Chair

Mark Kelleher Vice Chair Lesbian Gay Bisexual Advisory Committee October 21, 2014 Meeting Minutes Sheryl Evans Davis Michael Pappas Richard Pio Roda Michael Sweet

Committee Members Present: Commissioner Pappas, Amos Lim, Alex Lazar, Bonnie Miluso, Diane Alcalá, Frank Lester, Jackson Bowman, Joseph Frislid, Fayaz Rajani, Larry Saxxon, Mitch Mayne, Mark Snyder, Monica Davis, Patrick Pablo, Stephen Downey, Tracy Garza and Vaughn Villaverde.

Committee Members Absent:

Joshua Jacobs, Mauro Sifuentes, Megan Rohrer and Scott Milagro-Fotré

Staff Present:

David Miree

Guest/Community Members Present:

Amy Whelan, Senior Staff Attorney, NCLR

Order of Business

1. Meeting was called to order at 5:32pm. Roll was called; a quorum was established accordingly

2. Public Comments for Items not on the Agenda

There was no public comment.

3. Approval of September 16 , 2014 Meeting Minutes – Action Item

The minutes were unanimously approved.

Regular Business

4. 7x7 Guest Presenter- Amy Whelan, Senior Staff Attorney, NCLR – Whelan will brief the “AC” Body on NCLR’s leadership and advocacy related to advancing Equality in

25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 800, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 • TELEPHONE 415.252.2500 • FAX 415.431.5764 WEBSITE: www.sf-hrc.org the United States and will discuss the impact of recent court action fueling the potential ratification of this law by all 50 States

Commissioner Pappas introduced Amy Whelan as an attorney with NCLR and former member of the LGBTAC. “AC” Chair Pappas noted that upon hearing about the on-going development of marriage equity cases across the nation in the media, he asked HRC staff (Miree) to reach out to Kate Kendall at NCLR and invite her to present on this topic before the “AC.” Due to a scheduling conflict Kate was not able to participate but she (Kate) did send another equally appropriate staff attorney in her stead, Amy Whelan to address the LGBTAC on NCLR’s leadership and advocacy related to advancing Marriage Equality in the United States and the impact of recent court action fueling the potential ratification of this law by all 50 States.

Although as a former LGBTAC member Whelan was already quite familiar with a number of “AC” members, Pappas asked that members introduce themselves and to tell a little bit about their professional affiliations and work in the community. After the introduction Whelan provided the “AC” members with a map that highlights the current status of marriage equality in all 50 States as of the time of her presentation before the “AC” body .

25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 800, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 • TELEPHONE 415.252.2500 • FAX 415.431.5764 WEBSITE: www.sf-hrc.org {Scriber’s note} In lieu of the “unkeyed” map that was provided in association to Whelan’s presentation, HRC staff has re-printed a map above that highlights the current status of marriage equality across the U.S. along with the associated key ( according to CNN as of updated 3:00 PM ET, Tue Oct 21, 2014)

Whelan pointed out that the status of marriage equality across the nation has the potential of changing every day. However Whelan noted that is what the Supreme Court’s ruling(s) in the “Windsor” Case that served as the impetus for the change in same sex marriage laws in the U.S. Whelan explained that the “Windsor” ruling basically struck down the “Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and declared that the federal government could not refuse to recognize same sex that were deemed legal on the State level. Whelan noted that “a reading” of Windsor ( as a rationale for states challenges) also indicated that States cannot refuse to recognize or marry same sex couples within their (State) borders.

Whelan again spoke to the “ever-changing” status of marriage equality across the country and highlighted Wyoming as an example of one of the NCLR cases of which a court ruling came down as recent as the morning of this presentation now were allowing same sex couples to marry.

Whelan then turned her attention to the States were the status of marriage equality was pending and talked about what might be their timeline toward the potential for allowing same sex marriage.

Whelan spoke to the pride she has as a staff attorney for NCLR and the role the firm has played in the fight for marriage equity. However she wanted to emphasize that the firm’s main objective is that “nobody is left behind” in this challenge toward establishing marriage equality in all 50 States so that people in those states presently “banning” same sex marriage will have “access to this right..” NCLR is committed to fighting the fight until every individual may experience the benefit of marriage equality laws

Attorney Whelan cited that the cluster of states still banning same sex marriage such as Florida, Georgia and Alabama, etc. were a part of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals where NCLR currently has a case on appeal in Florida. Whelan noted that she anticipates a ruling from the 11th Circuit in the next 6-8 months.

Relative to the Sixth Circuit which includes TN, OH, Mich, Kentucky, NCLR also has a case pending in TN. KY OH that have been fully briefed relative to striking down the current same sex marriage ban and if that decision to positive to marriage equality these states could experience marriage equality laws within weeks.to a couple of months ( also assuming its favorable.)

In terms of the 8th Circuit, including the “Midwest States” such as ND, SD, NE, MI, AK Whelan noted that this “Circuit” is rather far bit behind in its review of challenges although NCLR has a couple of cases in this jurisdiction currently on the docket. There is one State case out of Arkansas who case has been appeal to the Supreme Court so that ruling could be decisive in the next few weeks.

TX, LA, MI which are States in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The pending case in TX has been fully briefed and will be argued in November.

With the examination of the remaining states with cases pending, Whelan felt rather confident that a decision within all the Circuits is rather imminent but difficult to note if they will be favorable to the cause for marriage equality because these are historically some of the most “conservative” states in the country covered by the remaining Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Whelan suggested that what is happening with the Supreme Court not reviewing many of these cases that have struck down the ban is because they are basically waiting for a ruling from a Circuit Court that upholds the marriage ban or argues States Rights that gay people do not have the right to marry. Whelan noted that she will go “out on a limb” and say that she does not believe a Circuit Court of Appeals will ever hand down such a ruling which serve to preclude the Supreme Court from actually ever having to entertain/hear such a patent question of the legality of allowing marriage equality for all persons. Whelan feel that the question of marriage equality before the remaining Circuits is a “bipartisan issue” explain that many of these judges have been appointed by Republican Presidents such as Nixon, Bush 1

25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 800, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 • TELEPHONE 415.252.2500 • FAX 415.431.5764 WEBSITE: www.sf-hrc.org and 2 and that their ruling are reflective of siding on party lines. It seems to be quite evident that a higher number of Circuit Court Judges across the country realize that denying marriage equality for all people is an offense to their ( same-sex couples) constitutional rights.

Whelan concluded that her presentation reflects an overview of the status of Marriage Equality across the U.S. However things are changing on a day to day basis relative to this issue.

Whelan talked about the significance of the NCLR’s efforts in the 10th, 7th and 4th Circuits and how the firm felt good about their advocacy and hard work and was “prepared to aggressively argue for marriage equality before the Supreme Court but admittedly was also surprised when the Supreme Court choose not to hear any of those case in effect “staying” the Circuit Court’s rulings allowing marriage equality.

Whelan clarified a salient point as to why she believes that that the Supreme Court might not ever hear the issue of marriage equality. The Attorney noted that the Supreme Court ‘ “threshold/ standard’ in reviewing cases is usually centered on ruling on a question of law that might be the source of conflict between the circuit courts. Going back to Whelan’s earlier “pronouncement” she feels rather strongly that it is rather unlikely that a Circuit Court is going to rule that gay people don’t have the right to marry hence this alleviates any “conflict” amongst the Circuit Courts upon which the Supreme Court will have to review the legality of the ruling or rule against one court over another.

Attorney Whelan did voice the potential for a “backlash” effect if for an example the “liberal” Justices who are currently in the majority on the Supreme Court left and they seats were replaced by more “conservative” Justices who could in turn argue that “Windsor” did not apply or chose to interpreter the “Windsor Case” differently in support of a States Rights to uphold the ban in subsequent case review could certainly be a definitive “game changer.” Hence Whelan believes it’s more prudent on the Liberal Supreme Court to make a definitive ruling now to avoid the possibility of this happening in any subsequent case involving marriage equality or a State’s right to ban same sex marriage. Applause.

5. Update on status of LGBTAC Recruitment and Membership Selection for 2015 Term Year including follow-up status report on “Ad Hoc” Committee’s recommendations toward implementing new protocols for LGBTAC membership selection and eligibility requirements

The attached letter was drafted by Commissioner Pappas and re-printed here as summation as to the status of this agenda item.

Dear Chair Christian and Director Sparks,

In the past year, the SF HRC LGBT Advisory Committee lost valuable members who were forced to relocate outside of the City due to the current housing affordability crisis in San Francisco. They held key leadership roles in the LGBT's work groups and were important thought leaders from key local constituencies. Some of those individuals continue to work in San Francisco and have important ties to known and respected LGBT organizations and nonprofits. These losses prompted a constructive discussion on the current HRC Bylaws residency requirements for membership on the SF HRC LGBT AC. Although these particular losses were the initial impetus for the discussion, what evolved was a concern for future cases and insuring/maintaining the healthy integrity of the composition selected; as those individuals recommended to the Chair for approval are carefully vetted through a competitive selection process that occurs only once annually.

25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 800, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 • TELEPHONE 415.252.2500 • FAX 415.431.5764 WEBSITE: www.sf-hrc.org This conversation gave the LGBT AC the unique opportunity to become better familiar with the Commission's Bylaws and better understand their role, with respect to the Commission.

As the most recent HRC Bylaws residency requirement revision was enacted to respond to a concern and bolster a need of the Equity Advisory Committee, the LGBT Advisory Committee felt that it would be remiss if it did not bring to the Commission Chair's attention the growing concern that's led to this communication.

The culmination of that discussion led to a motion presented at the September 16, 2014 monthly meeting, which was passed by a majority of the quorum present. That motion was to recommend to the Commission, through the Chair, language that mirrors the most recent HRC Bylaws residency requirements revision for the Equity Advisory Committee:

"However, at the recommendation of the Commissioner(s) chairing the LGBT AC, the Commission Chair may, at his/her discretion, appoint to serve on the LGBTAC up to three (3) individuals who do not reside in San Francisco where those individuals have particular, knowledge, experience or skills unrepresented by other members of the LGBT AC and have demonstrated significant ties to San Francisco."

Not intended to be included in the text revision, but rather as context to the Commission to be presented, if given consideration, was the following background language:

"However, special considerations can be made for individuals with significant ties to San Francisco’s LGBT community at the discretion of the Commissioner chair. Significant ties include previously living in San Francisco, work experience in San Francisco, familial ties to San Francisco, and specific knowledge of the issues presented to the San Francisco LGBT community."

If it would be helpful, a small delegation from the SF HRC LGBT Advisory Committee has volunteered to meet with the Chair and Director to present the substance of the deliberations that led to this motion and to answer any questions.

Realizing that the Commission's days for this calendar year are numbered and that the LGBT AC has earnestly begun its recruiting/selection process, as the body's Chair, I wanted to communicate this request to you both.

Thanking you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of this recommendation, I remain, Respectfully, Michael G. Pappas, Chair SF HRC LGBT AC

Michael G. Pappas, M.Div Executive Director

6. Working Groups Report Back – The “AC” Body will be briefed on the recent LGBT “Affordable Housing” Panel Discussion; The upcoming LGBT and Tech Sector Roundtable; and status on programming related to Trans*Community Empowerment

Economic Wellness (Affordable and Inclusionary Housing for the LGBT Community

25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 800, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 • TELEPHONE 415.252.2500 • FAX 415.431.5764 WEBSITE: www.sf-hrc.org Alex Lazar serving as Chair of this working group along with his colleagues provided a brief overview of this event . By all accounts this was a very successful and productive program. For more information and for other salient points of interest please read the ’s coverage of this event which can be found here: http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=70124

LGBT and Tech Community

Speaking on behalf of this working group was Michelle Kim serving as Chair and Larry Saxxon who provided an update on this working group’s upcoming programming but also expressed their concerns and “frustrations” regarding the ( possible) attendance of HR Commissioners. The ensuing dialogue centered on the fact that the members had had gone to great lengths to “curate” the invitee list for this event. The purpose for doing so was to ensure a diverse representation of tech sector and non-profits leadership who whom come to the table to have an unrestricted and candid exchange about creating and maintaining a substantive collaborative intended to mutually benefit the LGBT Community in San Francisco including stakeholder non-profits and other marginalized communities.

With the potential “unsolicited” inclusion of the full HR Commission at this event, working group members strongly believe that their attending would be injurious to the anticipated process of unrestricted and unhampered dialogue amongst the invited participates.

Commissioner Pappas noted that he had previous “concerns” about this event being “closed to the public” and hence sought out advisement from HRC Executive Director Theresa Sparks who forwarded the following response:

25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 800, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 • TELEPHONE 415.252.2500 • FAX 415.431.5764 WEBSITE: www.sf-hrc.org Fri 10/17/2014 1:39 PM

Commissioner,

You asked me to comment on the issue of whether or not LGBTAC working group meetings are in fact open to the public. All meetings of the Human Rights Commission, the LGBTAC, the EAC and all work groups of any of the three are open to the public. The only legal way to “close” these meeting to the public is in the case of potential litigation or when discussing personnel matters. All advisory committees and work groups are sanctioned under the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission, a public body bound by the City’s open government laws. In addition, all Human Rights Commissioners are de facto members of all advisory committees and work groups therefore attend any meeting of either.

I hope this answers your questions. If I can be of further service, please feel free to contact me.

Theresa Sparks Executive Director

Working group members noted that they still felt “ disempowered” by the proposed action of the HR Commissioners attending this event in light of the fact that working group members had done their due diligence in facilitating this event as one that would allow an “open and unedited” dialog amongst the attendees without any fear of potential “censure”.

LGBTAC Member Bonnie Miluso expressed in short order that there seemed to be a “miscommunication” regarding “the legality of this working group hosting a “closed meeting” that it was important to remind the “AC” that the LGBTAC is not an independent body and that the Commissioners have “every right” to attend all meetings, functions, programming of the “AC” as members of the LGBTAC are “appointed by the Commission. Miluso suggested in an effort to address this matter in a more “congenial “ approach that perhaps the working group consider sending an e-mail to the HR Commissioners who had expressed an intent to attend that doing so may impede and/or be “counter- productive” to the promised of a “safe place” to speak freely about this subject matter.

LGBTAC Member Alex Lazar voiced the importance of the LGBTAC being “transparent” in every phase of its programming

Working group members and Chair Pappas viewed this suggestion as a workable solution toward addressing this seemingly contentious issue.

The full audio of this exchange can be found at: http://sf-hrc.org/lgbt-advisory-committee- lgbtac#MEETINGS SCHEDULE, AGENDAS & MINUTES

Trans Empowerment

Reporting out for this working group was Bonnie Miluso who noted that this group’s programming was still in the “work in progress” mode and further information will be provided to the “AC” as it becomes available.

7. Commissioners and Staff Report

25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 800, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 • TELEPHONE 415.252.2500 • FAX 415.431.5764 WEBSITE: www.sf-hrc.org LGBTAC Chair Commissioner Pappas spoke about the Anti-Muslim ads that were currently appearing on some of the City’s transit buses. Pappas referred the group to an “Op-Ed” piece he co-authored with Abby Michelson Porth Associate Executive Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council.. The full article can be found here: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Denounce-Muni- bus-ads-on-Islam-as-false-5827986.php

HRC Staff Miree extended an invitation to the LGBTAC from the Equity Advisory Committee (EAC) regarding the LGBTAC’s interest in participating in a joint holiday gathering

Member Activities in the Community/Announcements

NOTICE OF IMPORTANT CHANGE REGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM AS REFLECTED IN THE LGBTAC MEETING MINUTES

Due to the fact that many of the announcements and events appearing in this section may have already occurred by the time meeting minutes are distributed, moving forward and in an effort to ensure timely notice, any event announcement happening in the concurrent month of the LGBTAC Meeting should be forwarded to HRC Staff Miree for immediate distribution via e-mail. Any other event announcements happening subsequent to the distribution of these meeting minutes will continue to be reported in this section.

8. Items for Future Agendas (Proposed)

 City of Richmond California City Councilwoman LGBT battle against homophobia (7X7 Presentation)  LGBTAC presentations on International Human Rights Issues  Exploring the intersection between the LGBT and Faith Base Communities  Follow-up Discussion on LGBT  Update from the LGBT Senior Task Force  Follow-up presentation on the plight and life experience of homeless LGBT Youth as precipitated by the recent San Francisco Homeless Count.  Follow up on Case Report/Prop 35- specifically as it relates to homeless LGBT Youth  Speaker on efforts to address violence prevention and creating “safe spaces” related to the Trans*Latina Community. And Trans* Women of Color  A joint meeting with the LGBTAC and the Equality Advisory Committee (EAC)

9. Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm

25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 800, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 • TELEPHONE 415.252.2500 • FAX 415.431.5764 WEBSITE: www.sf-hrc.org