ju st o u t ▼ aprii 1 8 . 1 0 9 7 ▼ 13
cal news
s it a clash of philosophies or something
else? As with so much in life, it depends on
one’s perspective.
"This isn’t about money, because we’ve
presented a proposal that would save the
same amount while retaining our advocacy role,”
says Lowen Berman, chair of the Metropolitan
Human Rights Commission, which has been tar
geted for an overhaul that includes the
discontinuation of its human rights advocacy and
policy review functions.
MHRC, which is funded by both the city and
Multnomah County, works to embrace the dignity
of all people. It comprises 15 citizen volunteers,
and sponsors anti-bigotry trainings and race-rela
tion dialogues, as well as handling disability is
sues. The duties of the agency also include gather
ing information about civil and human rights
issues, however, MHRC does not have the author
ity to investigate claims of possible civil rights
violations, nor does it have enforcement powers.
In mid-March Portland City Commissioner
Jim Francesconi, who oversees MHRC, unveiled
a plan to slash the commission’s budget and scope
of responsibilities. Under the proposal MHRC
would no longer be an independent bureau but
rather a program of the Office of Neighborhood
Associations. Its human rights advocacy role
would be abolished, though it would still provide
services to citizens and community groups. And
MHRC’s executive director position would be
extinguished come next April, when Helen Cheek,
the current executive director, retires.
Kevin Jeans-Gail, Francesconi’s executive
assistant, says the passage last November of Mea
sure 47, a property tax limitation initiative, has
forced local government to strip and streamline.
“We’re doing this with all the bureaus, not just
MHRC,” he says. “We also have a city-county
consolidation discussion going on. This is a time
when people are re-examining what the role of
government should be.”
MHRC’s budget this year is $389,000. Forty
percent of that comes from Multnomah County
and the remaining 60 percent from the City of
Portland. Francesconi has reportedly estimated
the plan would result in a savings of $80,000.
Jeans-Gail describes the MHRC plan as a
“joint proposal” crafted by Francesconi and Com
missioner Gretchen Miller Kafoury.
Kafoury, who says she has been a commission
“supporter for many years,” sent a March 9 letter
to MHRC arguing, among other points, that nu
merous civil rights organizations now exist that
can monitor and advocate for their respective
communities. She further maintains, given cur
rent fiscal constraints, that a “small stand-alone
bureau is not justifiable from either an adminis
trative or program perspective.”
Jeans-Gail estimates that 80 percent of MHRC’s
work will continue if the plan becomes reality.
It’s the loss of that other 20 percent that upsets
commission members.
Mission: Unpopular
MHRC members say the planned curtailment
of their agency is not about saving money
T
by Inga Sorensen
>
CD
o
o
Ï
Gretchen Kafoury
“We firmly believe government has a respon
sibility to advocate for human rights issues,” says
Berman. “There are many disenfranchised groups
who don’t have anyone advocating for them,
which means they have no voice in public policy.
Having a voice within government is a lot differ
ent than having one outside of government.”
Since its establishment in 1992, MHRC has
advocated for the poor, immigrants, farm workers
and other groups that traditionally have had little
political clout or say in government.
Among MHRC’s more recent projects is the
release of its “Report on Sexual Minority Youth,”
which in a nutshell found that gay, lesbian, bi
sexual and trans youth often experience harass
ment, violence and discrimination in their schools,
homes, churches, employment and use of social
services.
MHRC created a task force designed to ad
dress the needs of sexual minority youth follow
ing a Sept. 10 commission meeting where Lanny
Swerdlow, then owner of the now defunct City
Nightclub, claimed Portland police and city and
county officials were harassing and “illegally
discriminating” against him and his club, which
catered to sexual minority youth.
At the same time, the Governor’s Task Force
on Teen Suicide, Multnomah County and Mayor
Vera Katz were seeking information on the status
of sexual minority youth.
MHRC voted unanimously to create the task
force, and its members met with sexual minority
youth from the metropolitan area via youth sup
port groups, homeless shelters and schools.
The report subsequently recommended the
establishment of school policies protecting sexual
minority youth, and implored state and local
governments to pass legislation extending civil
rights protections to all sexual minorities.
Furthermore, the report called upon the City
of Portland and Multnomah County work to
gether with the private sector to provide a safe
place for sexual minority youth.
In other related actions, MHRC voted to be
come a co-requester of Oregon ENDA, a state
wide nondiscrimination employment bill, and
last October it urged the inclusion of “transsexu
als and other sexual minorities” in Portland’s
human rights ordinance.
That recommendation followed fact-finding
hearings held last spring which were designed to
assess the level of discrimination against those
populations in Portland. The recommendation,
which was forwarded to Kafoury, was rejected.
(Kafoury did not respond to our inquiry for this
story.) As for the queer youth report, MHRC
member Nyla McCarthy, an out lesbian, says
although 600 copies of the document have been
distributed, there has been nary an acknowledg
ment from the mayor.
“She doesn’t return our calls. We can’t get
meetings,” she says. “She gave us a virtually
impossible deadline to get the report done, but we
still managed to pull it together.”
MHRC has also questioned the practice of
police intelligence gathering on political activ
ists; reiterated to city officials its call for a civilian
police review board; and took testimony “regard
ing unilateral abrogation by police, without no
tice, of community policing agreements,” when it
discovered there are no standards or oversight
regarding such agreements.
“They want us to go away because we’re nee
dling them,” says Greg Asher, an openly gay college
professor who has served on MHRC for five years.
“We got somewhat involved in the City Night
club controversy. While we didn’t go to bat for
Lanny, we did question whether the city was
doing enough to assist sexual minority youth and
whether the police partnership agreement had
been violated,” he says.
Cheek says she feels “caught in the middle” of
the controversy. As a paid staffer who reports to a
city commissioner while working closely with
MHRC’scitizen members, she blames the “inherent
conflict” of the commission’s structure and purpose.
After all, MHRC is a public agency charged
with promoting and defending human rights. Yet
if the commission criticizes local government for
not doing enough toward that end, it is in essence
biting the hand that feeds it.
According to Berman, MHRC has presented
an alternative budget plan to city commissioners.
It includes the same savings budgetwise, calls for
the abolishment of the executive director post and
supports sharing resources with ONA.
MHRC’s counter measure states, in part: “Our
proposal recognizes that sharing resources with
ONA can be mutually beneficial. As citizens
providing the requested leadership through these
post-Measure 47 budget dilemmas, we also see
our proposal [as] a ‘win-win’ situation for all
parties. Service consolidation and enhancement
can occur at a reduced cost—and citizens advo
cacy will continue to provide government with
needed guidance and perspective.”
It adds, “Conservative estimates of the value
of citizen in-kind contributions to MHRC for the
city and county for [fiscal year] 1996-97 place the
dollar amount at $66,000.”
Under the plan, MHRC would maintain its
status as an independent citizen-led entity and
retain its advocacy and policy review/recommen-
dation functions. Furthermore, it would set priori
ties and direct staff in the provision of services in
partnership with ONA, the city commissioner in
charge and the county chair.
Berman says he and some commission mem
bers recently met with representatives from
Kafoury’s and Francesconi’s offices and ONA to
ponder the proposal.
“We met their concerns as far as money and
government efficiencies go,” he says.
Jeans-Gail says his office’s review of the pro
posal did not come to the same conclusion.
“We don’t think the savings could possibly be
the same,” he says.
lT.fTABOR PLORI57
COMMON CONCERNS
Long Distance
Classic Value, Uncommon Vision
L o n g D i S lan ce F o r Onl^ r 1 2 ^ /m in .
24 hrs a daj5 , a n y w h e r^ in th e U.S,
ed! C a lfljET< "ards available.
<.;i\ owned and
5 r/ t ofever\ call dWN ed to A II ^ S-related charities!
2 -S A V E
W, Y
.% ,* 9
*
<r
Serving Portland and
its suburban areas
with unsurpassed
quality and service
4848 SE Division St.
Portland, OR 97206
7819 SE Stark St.
Portland, OR 97215
236-4119
256-2920
o