SPECIAL MEETING

September 26, 2001

The Town Council of the Town of Easton met today at 6:35 P.M. in a special meeting. The meeting was called to order with the following members present: President of the Council Mr. Willey, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Reed, Mr. Ford and Ms. Jackson-Amis. Also present were Mayor C. Eugene Butler, Assistant Town Attorney Ms. Van Emburgh, and Ms. Glendora Hughes, Esq., General Counsel of the Maryland Commission on Human Relations.

Mr. Willey, the President of the Council started with a couple of comments. He informed those present that the meeting is being taped for future reference.

The President of the Council discussed the workshop format. He stated that Ms. Hughes would have an opportunity to make her presentation then the floor would be opened with comments and questions from the Council members.

Ms. Hughes apologized for her tardiness.

The President of the Council stated that the idea of a Human Relations Commission has been discussed to handle issues that may be related to employment, discrimination issues within the town of Easton or harassment issues. The President of the Council stated that they would like to know a structure of how a Human Relations Commission is set-up and how it works. He stated that he would also like to hear about her experience.

Ms. Hughes stated that there are a variety of different Human Relations Committees around the state. She stated that she would explain how the state, the federal and the local agencies work together so as to not duplicate efforts. Ms. Hughes stated that Cumberland is re-instituting their Human Relations agency.

Ms. Hughes stated that she would start out by explaining the state agency. She stated that they have jurisdiction for the entire state and cover employment, housing and public accommodations so it is not just employment discrimination that they deal with. Ms. Hughes stated that in order to serve the state, they try to have satellite offices in different areas, such as Cambridge and Salisbury. She stated that they also have an office in Hagerstown to serve Western Maryland and an office in southern Maryland, St. Mary’s County. She stated that there are several counties that have Human Relations Committees but they have various degrees of power. She stated that some counties have enforcement powers whereas they investigate and have subpoena power. Ms. Hughes stated subpoena power is acquired through amendment of their charter and submitting a bill in the state legislature, which authorized them to be able to get certain types of damages and to have certain types of powers.

Mr. Ford asked if the enabling legislation is specific to the counties that have it. Ms. Hughes replied that it is not state wide. She stated that it was put into Article 49B where you can see the counties enumerated and given the authority. She stated that it is specific to counties.

Mr. Ford asked if there were any municipalities that have the authority. Ms. Hughes stated that other than Baltimore City, there are none.

Mr. Jensen stated that subpoena power has been a real issue.

Ms. Hughes discussed seeking remedies for victims of discrimination through settlement or adversarial process of litigation, either through the Office of Administration Hearings or if a housing complaint, it could go to court where a judge would assess what a remedy would be. Ms. Hughes discussed the different types of subpoenas, the kind to gather information, which is what they exercise. Ms. Hughes stated that if the subpoena is ignored, they can file a petition in circuit court and request an enforcement order from the judge to provide an order to enforce the subpoena. She stated that there is another type of subpoena that is issued by the court when there is a trial to make sure parties show up. Ms. Hughes stated that you usually try to get voluntary cooperation and a subpoena is used as a last resort. She stated that it is only when you are basically ignored.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she understands that Annapolis has subpoena power as it relates to housing issues. Ms. Hughes stated that she is not sure that it could be under another statute.

Ms. Jackson-Amis questioned that for the fact finding, the initial stage, does the state have to have permission from the General Assembly to issue the subpoena. Ms. Hughes stated that it is written in their statute authorizing them to have subpoena power. She stated that they use their own discretion when to use the subpoena power. Ms. Hughes stated that this is not something you can give yourself but you have to submit legislation to legislature to obtain the authorization.

Ms. Jackson-Amis discussed the City of Rockville. Ms. Hughes stated that the state used to have a relationship with them but it is her understanding that they are not really functioning and there has not been much interaction with them. Ms. Hughes stated that a lot of their activity is coming from the County Commission. Ms. Hughes stated that the state agency relates to all the Human Relations Commissions. She stated that the state does not certify anyone to be a bona fide agency. Ms. Hughes stated that under the counties without enforcement powers, the ones that go to court, that can issue subpoenas, obtain relief damages, they attempt to do mediation, settlement, community education, they do community outreach and education and community intervention. Ms. Hughes stated that if they reach a matter that is not going to be resolved, they transfer that case to the state agency for enforcement.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked how they do the investigation if they do not have subpoena power. Ms. Hughes stated that through cooperation people provide them with the information. Ms. Hughes stated that she would check to see if those agencies have subpoena power and if they had to go to the General Assembly to get it. She stated that they do not have an administrative process, or a process where they can go into court so the only thing they can do is try to resolve the issues through mediation or settlement and if it is not settled, they will transfer the case to the state for enforcement.

Mr. Willey asked if she has found this process to work well in a rural area such as Easton. Ms. Hughes stated that contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of complaints are resolved through settlement, mediation, conciliation, where parties try to resolve short of litigation. She stated that it is her belief that the General Counsel’s Office which she heads, receives less than 10% of the total cases they take in for litigation which are usually complicated cases which are not black and white but a gray matter where the parties want their day in court.

Ms. Hughes stated that if parties do not cooperate, you will only be skimming the surface and not getting to the entire story. She stated that they explain to businesses and landlords that find themselves on the defensive, the more information you give us, the better it is because it substantiates your decision making and allows the committee to make a fair assessment of what happened. Ms. Hughes stated that when there is less information and less forthcoming, withholding relevant information could have resolved the problem before going to court. She stated that ten percent of the cases end of being no cause cases. Ms. Hughes stated that thirty percent go forth because you are dealing with complex issues. Ms. Hughes stated that the state is enhancing their mediation services. She discussed the staff receiving mediation training and enforcement of mediation versus adversarial contentions. She stated that they receive a lot of calls that do not necessarily end up being complaints. Ms. Hughes discussed their intake department, which is trained to screen the call. She discussed complaint options and determinations. Ms. Hughes stated that for employment, the time restriction to file a complaint is six months, for housing the time to file is one year.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if an Easton resident is required to file a complaint in Cambridge or a local office. Ms. Hughes stated that a complainant can file in any State Human Relations office. Ms. Hughes stated that the investigation would be conducted locally unless a specific request is made. She stated complaints filed with their agency are automatically filed with EEOC as well as complaints filed with EEOC are dually filed with the State’s Human Relations Committee, protecting the persons' state and federal rights. Ms. Hughes stated that with HUD, they are the only game in town because they have been certified as substantially equivalent so they are authorized to investigate complaints of fair housing violations in the state of Maryland.

Mr. Jensen asked what would happen if Eaton had a Human Relations Commission and someone did not want to go to Easton but preferred to go to the State, would they be referred to the local agency. Ms. Hughes stated that the complainant is free to file wherever they choose or may ask to have their file transferred although you only get one bite of the apple; you don’t get to go to one agency and not like the result and then go to another agency. She stated that you have to choose where you want it done and that is where it is done, whatever the result. If you do not like the result, you don’t get to try it somewhere else. She stated that this is aggressively policed to make sure a defendant is not in multiple forums.

Ms. Hughes discussed cooperative measures between agencies. Ms. Hughes discussed training and policy issues and various participants.

The President of the Council discussed clients that may not want to go to Cambridge and questioned if another level is actually needed. Ms. Hughes stated that they recently had this discussion in Cumberland and Kent County. She stated that having a local agency as opposed to an agency covering the entire Eastern Shore, would give the agency the benefit of having the issues more pertinent to Easton as well as have relationships that would have developed in that particular area.

Ms. Hughes discussed the history of their organization. She stated that they are coming into their 75^th anniversary. Ms. Hughes discussed the benefit of having a local entity and to have the presence and the option available for people to come and air their grievances. Ms. Hughes stated that they encourage local communities to have their own commissions, as it is helpful to the state’s commission.

Mr. Ford asked to what extent are the State Human Relations Committee’s abilities to investigate and/or mediate police agencies. Ms. Hughes stated that they do employment issues but they do not investigate police brutality. Ms. Hughes stated that they have had cases involving hiring practices disciplinary issues, promotion issues and they are investigated just like other complaints. She stated that the only difference is when you are dealing with one particular officer whom is protected by the Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights.

The Assistant Town Attorney, Ms. Van Emburgh, asked if most jurisdictions investigate police or turn them over to the State Human Relations Committee. Ms. Hughes stated that it is their own call. Ms. Hughes stated that sometimes they are called in or the matter is turned over to EEOC if they find it is much larger than their resources allow. She stated that it is a discretionary issue. Ms. Hughes stated that police are a touchy issue.

Mayor Butler asked if it would be in the best interest of the Town of Easton to approach Talbot County to see if they are interested in forming a Committee. Ms. Hughes stated that it is worth an inquiry to see if the County is interested in having a countywide agency. She stated that she does not see any plus or minuses in having the committee either way, town or countywide.

Mr. Jensen asked if people are more motivated to submit to mediation and to work issues out if they know there is subpoena power. Ms. Hughes stated that their mediation is usually at the very beginning, as soon as they walk in the door before they dig in their trenches. She stated that they immediately ask if they are interested in mediation and at that point, many do not even know what the process is. She stated that most of the time, the complainants are interested but the businesses are somewhat reluctant.

Mr. Reed asked if most Human Relations Commissions in areas like Easton are volunteers. Ms. Hughes stated that some are volunteers and some are paid staff. Ms. Hughes stated that Carroll County has a volunteer commission as well as Caroline County and St. Mary’s County. She stated that Frederick and other enforcement agencies have paid staff. Ms. Hughes stated that the Commission may start as a volunteer organization but as things evolve and people begin to use the Commission, it becomes more than a volunteer can do, more than a part-time person can do. She stated that volunteers may mean well but they may not have the technical ability to do the things that need to be done. Ms. Hughes stated that she wanted to caution regarding the number of commissioners who set policy but what happens sometimes is that there is a multitude of commissioners and only a handful of staff which becomes very complicated. She cautioned when setting the number of commissioners whom will be the policy makers. Ms. Hughes suggested considering a workable number so as not to have a staff that is spending time doing what the commissioners want instead of doing the work that needs to be done in terms of what the community is looking for.

Mr. Reed questioned if Ms. Hughes had any budget outlines to set up a Commission and operate efficiently. Ms. Hughes stated that she would look into that, as most of the agencies are very helpful. She stated that she would contact a small agency to see how it is broke down and what their costs are.

The President of the Council and Council members thanked Ms. Hughes for her time.

There being no further business, the President of the Council adjourned the workshop meeting at 7:30 P.M.

Robert F. Karge, Town Clerk