HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
NORMAL CITY HALL
Chairperson Young called the executive session to order at
6:45 p.m.
Present were Chairperson Young and Commissioners Bergner, Brown,
Harshbarger, and Pullin.
Chairperson Young stated that she was concerned about setting a precedent that it was okay for a complainant or respondent to ignore the requirements of the code. She felt that the Respondent had been given all of the information he needed to properly respond and should be held accountable.
Commissioner Harshbarger asked whether there were circumstances that showed good cause to allow the Respondent to be permitted to continue with his defense.
Commissioner Pullin said that the Respondent had the information and did not act upon the information.
Commissioner Bergner stated that the Respondent showed his intention to pursue his defense by calling staff about a conciliation meeting.
Chairperson Young suggested that the Commission look at the September 28, 2007 letter.
Commissioner Pullin stated that the Respondent did not rebut or refute the Complainant’s Attorney’s statements about the telephone call in June yet did not appear to make the effort to obtain legal counsel.
Chairperson Young stated that the Respondent should be held accountable for his failure to act.
Commissioner Harshbarger agreed that the Respondent used poor judgment but otherwise appeared willing to participate in the process so that should be taken into consideration.
Commissioner Bergner said that it is the spirit of the law that is most important, not the letter of the law; and that the letter of the law is not the real intention of the law. She said that was the case here.
Chairperson Young asked if a consensus on this issue was required.
Commissioner Harshbarger stated that it was up to the Chairperson to rule on the motion. He added that although the Respondent committed an error it was not with willful intent.
Commissioner Brown said that the Respondent could be denied the right to defend himself.
Commissioner Bergner agreed with Commissioner Brown.
Commissioner Harshbarger agreed that the Respondent had been
careless and missed deadlines but stated that the law was the
law.
Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Harshbarger.
Commissioner Bergner pointed out that the Normal City Attorney told the Commission that we were not obligated to deny the motion, that the 21-day deadline was not hard and fast, so the Commission would not be overruling the law if we did not deny the motion.
Chairperson Young stated that she agreed with Commissioners Brown and Pullin and would deny the motion.
Commissioners Brown and Pullin moved and seconded, respectively, to return to the hearing on the first motion in complaint 07E1YTD3. The motion passed with a unanimous voice vote at 7:15 p.m.
Chairperson Young called the executive session to order at
7:25 p.m.
Present were Chairperson Young and Commissioners Bergner, Brown,
Harshbarger, and Pullin.
Chairperson Young asked for a quick vote to see where the Commission stood on the motion of whether the Respondent was personally liable in complaint 07E1YTD3.
Commissioners Harshbarger, Pullin and Brown expressed their support for not making the Respondent personally liable; rather it would be his company.
Commissioner Bergner stated that the Respondent should be held liable.
Chairperson Young stated that she would rule that the Respondent would not be held liable, that it would only be his company.
Commissioners Harshbarger and Bergner moved and seconded, respectively, to return to the hearing on the second motion to 07E1YTD3. The motion passed with a unanimous voice vote at 7:35 p.m.