A.G. Gancarski
The first of three meetings of the Jacksonville City Council Committee of the Whole on two Human Rights Ordinance expansion bills had all the drama you could want. Those paying attention would have noted that the real drama, the procedural drama, was set up hours ahead of this meeting.
Even before the three hour meeting on Thursday afternoon, Council VP Lori Boyer was mulling over the idea of potentially calling for a vote on both the Tommy Hazouri and Bill Gulliford bills, based on deliberation over the last few days, including consideration of the Lenny Curry executive order.
Instead, she called for withdrawal, to give Mayor Curry’s directive time to be examined. And she almost got it.
Advocates on both sides of the issue did media events before hand. The Jacksonville Civic Council issued a statement saying that while they “commend Mayor Curry’s Executive Order prohibiting employment discrimination by the City and its vendors, for any reason including sexual orientation and gender identity… our community cannot stop there.
Gulliford, early on, extended the offer to Hazouri to withdraw his bill if Hazouri would withdraw his own. Hazouri’s response: “you go first and I’ll think about it.”
The two men, and their witnesses, made their cases. Then procedural drama took over.
Boyer soon thereafter spoke up, applauding Hazouri and Gulliford for their bills, and Anderson for the structure of the meetings, before pointing to a “third option,” calling the Mayor’s directive “no small step,” one worthy of deliberation.
“He expressly stated that no further legislation would be prudent,” and he asked for attention to the “violent crime epidemic.”
Boyer, saying she is not “personally comfortable” with the bill, noted the division among the body, potential “unintended conflicts,” and a potential citizen referendum, as well as “potential vetoes if our legislation is deemed imprudent.”
Anderson: “this is obviously different from the plan.”
Matt Schellenberg, the Rules Chair, immediately called the question. The motion to withdraw the Hazouri bill fell.
Hazouri then laid into Boyer, saying he was disappointed in her attempt to “kill the bills,” saying that the “violent crime issue will always be with us,” but “we don’t stop on issues” and “this is a copout.”
“I’d rather vote on this bill today then try to kill a bill that got so much input on both sides,” Hazouri said.
“It may go to a referendum… but where’s our backbone in addressing an issue that this city is so far behind in dealing with,” Hazouri added.
Gulliford then repeated his offer to withdraw his bill, before saying “this whole issue is in a state of flux” and that “the protection is so varied” from city to city.
“Are we to say that people of faith are to practice their religion within the context of their church, but when they step out of the walls they don’t?”
Gulliford, comparing opponents to “conscientious objectors,” said “let’s move on, let’s see how this thing evolves, and I support Boyer’s motion for withdrawal.”
Then, Reggie Brown: “Doing nothing is not an option,” saying that if nothing had been done in 1864 and 1964, he wouldn’t be sitting here.
“We had a process that we guaranteed the taxpayers,” Brown said.
Love, then Bowman, backed up Councilman Brown. Al Ferraro repeated his call, made at a meeting Friday, to pull the Hazouri bill. Danny Becton, noting that he didn’t have the “luxury of having Uncle Sam writing [him] a paycheck,” noted that he’d hired LGB people.
“We’ve heard a lot of stories from people whose parents didn’t love them, they were heckled,” Becton said, adding this bill wouldn’t do anything to help those situations.
“Let’s pass a resolution,” Becton thundered. “We’re very good at that.”
Joyce Morgan, meanwhile, called for a continuation of the process.
“This is not the only issue our city has been divided over,” Morgan said, adding “our word is our bond; this is all we have.”
She then laid into the “unintended consequences” trope, noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had them, but it was “the right thing to do.”
Reggie Gaffney referred to working with all populations in 22 years of social services work, saying “I want this process to move forward.”
“Some of my best friends is gay or lesbian,” Gaffney said, adding that a relative called to ask him what he would do on this bill.
“This city deserves a bill that’s going to protect everybody,” Gaffney added.
Doyle Carter, co-sponsor of the Gulliford bill, said that he would never discriminate against anyone, but unintended consequences “could happen.”
Gulliford attempted to steer the discourse back to withdrawal, saying that he’d held four community conversations on the subject as committee chair in 2012, that he had over 11,000 emails from then, and that in Atlantic Beach, the legislative proponents were ousted from office.
The banter continued.
Boyer, after some time, spoke up, expressing concern that Jacksonville “become a chessboard for players outside of this city,” and reiterated her question of whether or not, as the mayor said, such legislation is “prudent.”
Aaron Bowman then spoke up, saying companies look at Jacksonville, and say “this is not where we want to go,” advancing the prospect of a Jacksonville diminished in future years because of a lack of LGBT protections in law.
John Crescimbeni then referred to the Council President’s memo, saying that the mayor’s step was to be considered first according to that, and saying he’s concerned about “deviating from the process.”
He asked Council President Anderson his stand.
Anderson said the mayor’s directive was a “broad directive” with “a lot to unpack,” and then pointed to the “prudent thing to do” as “pressing the pause button,” and taking time over the next few months to study the issues.
Hazouri was asked, if the bill was withdrawn, if he’d file it again next week.
Hazouri’s response: “next week, next month, next year, and until it’s passed.”
The withdrawal motion, the second one on the Hazouri bill, fell 11-8.
During recess, Lori Boyer mentioned that she had told the mayor’s office that she was going to move toward withdrawal of the bill.
Boyer, saying that there may be conflicts with the departmental directive that people aren’t anticipating, noted that she wasn’t sure if the Hazouri bill had the necessary votes to pass, much less to override the veto.
The failure of the withdrawal motion does not mean that there couldn’t be another, even as soon as Tuesday’s Council meeting.
Lori Boyer is uniquely persuasive.
No matter what Council does, there are those who see this matter going to a ballot referendum anyway.
Bill Gulliford said that “even if we vote to withdraw,” there is a strong likelihood that the measure would make the ballot anyway, based on the petition drive that is underway by interested churches.
Meanwhile, Reggie Brown, who spoke memorably during the meeting about the intersection of civil rights for African-Americans and the push for LGBT protections, spoke about the difference in the process between 2012 and today.
“At least in 2012,” Brown said, “we were ready to make a decision.”
Brown’s concern: “I don’t want us to shirk our responsibility” to the public. Yet he has concerns, including a moral conflict between his spiritual beliefs and the public interest.
And, he said, he’s heard about this issue at town halls in his district.
But then he pointed toward the back of the chambers.
“You don’t see a lot of people here from my district because we have other issues,” Brown said, pointing out problems like insufficient running water and a need for vocational and technical training and jobs.
What is evident is that Council has divisions on this issue.
There are the social conservative types, like Danny Becton and Al Ferraro.
There are the pragmatists, who believe that Curry’s directive will have a meaningful impact, and that it will take time to figure out what that impact is before going forward.
And then there are those who believe that a primary function of law is to protect a minority without legal recourse from majority whim.
These divisions mirror the community at large. And it will be interesting to see how they manifest in the rest of the HRO debate of 2016.
Will there be other parliamentary moves? Will there be surprising votes?
For now, these are questions in search of answers.
