×

Human Rights Commission would have been good step

In two recent issues of The Inter-Mountain, there were letters to the editor regarding a proposed Human Rights Commission ordinance for the city of Elkins. Unfortunately, they both had numerous inaccuracies. It is disappointing that legislation that would have reflected our city’s commitment to inclusion and support of human rights would have such a negative response in the editorial pages of this paper.

First, inclusion and diversity should not be seen as some evil attempt to give “special rights” to anyone, as the letter writers insinuated. It is about equal rights. The proposed city policy would have been based on “the recognition and vision that the diversity found in our city brings forth richness in our community, a greater understanding of our world, a multitude of talent to benefit collective needs, and an opportunity of enhanced living and learning for all … and to bring about equal opportunity, mutual understanding and respect for persons of all ages, abilities, ancestry, blindness, color, disability or handicap, ethnicities, familial status, national origins, sex, races, religion and other backgrounds.”

My reasoning for introducing the ordinance was simple. In the last year, there has been such divisiveness in our country that I believed an Elkins Human Rights Commission would be an asset. It is naive to think there are not those in our community who feel discriminated against, feel like second-class citizens or are concerned about their personal safety. A HRC would illustrate that Elkins, the town in which I live, respects the human rights of others. It would demonstrate that we are dedicated to using dialogue to solve problems. It also would indicate to those relocating to our town and attending our schools that we welcome diversity.

The author of one letter stated that the proposed HRC would be a duplication of efforts since there is a state HRC. However, every town has its own challenges and priorities. For example, while there is a State Board of Education, there are county-level boards to be more effective.

It was also argued that the HRC would use funds from the city’s budget. Not necessarily. The proposed ordinance stated “City Council may appropriate funds;” Council could also decide not to. However, the proposed HRC, with permission of Council, could have applied for grants, which may have been used for workshops or training for law enforcement, educators or businesses, thus providing a cost benefit to the city.

The claim that the HRC would adjudicate on discrimination complaints was false. The proposed ordinance clearly stated: “The Commission shall inform any individual claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful discriminatory practice under West Virginia Human Rights Act 5-11-9 that the Commission DOES NOT have the power to accept formal complaints of illegal practices. Any individual claiming to be so aggrieved shall be referred to the West Virginia Human Rights Commission for investigation and adjudication of the complaint.”

The claim that the establishment of the Commission would set up the city as a “sanctuary city” was also false and therefore would NOT have threatened federal funding. Sanctuary status relates to illegal immigration, not HRCs. Despite the fact there are several cities in the state with HRCs, none are sanctuary cities. Not only was that claim wrong, so too was the unsubstantiated statement that D&E is planning to become a “sanctuary college.” It is unfortunate this falsehood was printed without any fact-checking.

Here’s what the proposed HRC was actually designed to do, as per the ordinance itself:

(a) Work to make Elkins an inclusive city.

(b) Collaborate with other partners as appropriate to encourage leadership in helping attain inclusively in the city and its larger community.

(c) Assess needs and identify barriers towards becoming a more inclusive community, establish goals and objectives for sustaining welcoming environments, enhancing global awareness and promoting optimum opportunities for supporting safe housing and thriving people.

(d) Support as well as plan, publicize, implement and evaluate programs, services and activities that promote appreciation for all peoples and the personal worth of every individual.

(e) Enlist the cooperation of civic, community, corporate, educational, ethnic, health care, labor, racial, religious, social justice or other identifiable groups of the city in programs and services devoted to the advancement of tolerance, communication and understanding, and equal protection of the laws of all groups and people.

Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance was tabled in committee without explanation. As a City Council member, I had believed a HRC would have made our town even better and could have inspired more community members to get involved in civic activity. Instead, the proposed ordinance resulted in erroneous and mean-spirited letters to the editor.

As a citizen now and not a Council member, that saddens me. Ironically, the letters simply illustrate just how valuable a Human Rights Commission could have been. This I do know, however; there are many more voices in our community who do value inclusion and diversity. Those who may feel discriminated against or fearful need to know that.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

Starting at $3.92/week.

Subscribe Today