Agenda Item 28
May 26,2011
Action
MEMORANDUM
May 24,2011
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
Robert
H.
Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
Action: Expedited Bill 5-11, Office of Human Rights - Human Rights
Commission - Reorganization
D
fbu
"7
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy CommitteelHealth and Human Services
recommendation: disapprove the Bill.
Expedited Bill 5-11, Office of Human Rights - Human Rights Commission ­
Reorganization, sponsored by the Council President at the request of the County Executive, was
introduced on March 8, 2011. A public hearing was held on March 29. Joint Government
Operations and Fiscal Policy and Health and Human Services Committee worksessions were
held on April 27 and May 5.
Expedited Bill 5-11 would reduce the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission and
provide for the disposition of certain cases currently pending before the Office of Human Rights
and the Human Rights Commission.
Background
In its report to the Council dated January 31, 2011, the Organizational Reform
Commission (ORC), in
Recommendation
#4, recommended the County reorganize the Human
Rights Commission and eliminate the Office of Human Rights.
The full text of the recommendation is below.
~~------------------------------~
a) Human Rights Commission (HRC) Current Budget - $1,738,400 -- The work of
the HRC in striving to eliminate discrimination, prejudice, intolerance and bigotry
serves a vital function. A broad cross-section of federal, state and County laws
protect human rights, and County citizens have access to federal and state channels to
specifically address those rights covered under federal and state laws. Recent
analysis indicates only a few complaints of human rights violations have been filed
regarding rights protected only at the County level.
);>
~~
The ORC recommends that the Council and Executive move the adjudicatory role
of the Human Rights Commission to the state and federal governments, with the
creation of a Human Rights Ombudsman in the office of the County Attorney to
guide citizens to the appropriate authority and provide advice on options available
.
i
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive's Response
In a memorandum to the Council President dated February 21, 2011, the Executive
responded to each of the 28 recommendations in the ORC report (©8-9). The Executive
supported this recommendation with conditions as follows:
4. Reorganize the Human Rights Commission and eliminate the office.
County Executive's Position: Support with Conditions
I support the ORC recommendations regarding the reorganization of the Human
Rights Commission. My FY12 Recommended Operating Budget will address this
reorganization, but in order to retain the unique and vital work that this Commission
provides,
it
will be necessary to retain some staffing for the Commission. This
recommendation requires implementing legislation which I will forward to the
CounciL
On March 1, 2011, the Executive forwarded a Bill to the Council, for its consideration,
reorganizing the Human Rights Commission. See © 10-11. The Bill submitted by the Executive
differs from the ORC recommendation because it does not eliminate the Office of Human
Rights. The Bill would reduce the caseload for the Office by requiring the Office to investigate,
conciliate, and adjudicate before the Commission a case alleging only discriminatory acts that do
not violate State or Federal law. If a complainant alleges a discriminatory act that also violates
State or Federal law, the Office would advise the complainant of the right to file the complaint
with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, the Federal Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, or the appropriate Maryland Circuit Court.
Discriminatory acts that violate County law only include discrimination on the basis of
presence of children, family responsibilities, source of income, ancestry, and gender identity. In
addition, State and Federal employment discrimination laws cover employers with 15 or more
employees. The County Human Rights Law covers all employers in the County without regard
to number of employees. A chart showing the various groups protected under Federal, State, and
County anti-discrimination laws is at ©15.
The ORC recommendation would transfer the investigation and adjudication of all cases
to the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, or the appropriate Maryland Circuit Court and eliminate the Office of Human
Rights. Under the ORC recommendation, the Commission on Human Rights would remain as an
advisory body with limited staff support.
Public Hearing
There were 18 speakers at the public hearing on March 29, 2011. Assistant CAO Fariba
Kassiri testified in support of the Bill on behalf of the Executive (©16-17). The 17 other
speakers opposed the Bill, including representatives of the Commission on Human Rights (©18),
the Montgomery County Committee on HateNiolence (©19-21), NAACP (©22-23), Alpha Phi
Alpha Fraternity (©24-26). National Association of Human Rights Workers
(~27),
Montgomery
County Muslim Council (©28-29), and the Maryland Commission on Human Relations (©30­
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
31). Odessa Shannon (©32-33), Ruby Rubens (©34-35), Former Delegate Saqib Ali (©36),
Gwen D'Souza (©37-38), Terry Vann (©39), Richard Allen (©40-41), Henry Montes (©42-44),
and Alan Banov (©45-47) testified as individuals and submitted written testimony.
Many of the speakers argued that the extra caseload on the Maryland Commission on
Human Relations (MCHR) and the EEOC would further increase the time these agencies take to
handle discrimination complaints. Surprisingly, the Chair of the MCHR asked the Council to
reject the Bill because the State of Maryland could not afford to provide sufficient staffing for his
agency to handle additional cases from Montgomery County residents. Another common theme
was the difficulty some residents might have traveling to Baltimore to file a claim with the
MCHR or the EEOC. Many of the speakers argued that the Bill would be a step back from the
County's long history of promoting civil rights. None of the speakers suggested areas in the
Executive's FY12 Recommended Budget that could be reduced to make up for the loss of the
projected $1.27 million savings from the Bill.
Worksessions
The joint Government Operations and Fiscal Policy and Health and Human Services
Committee reviewed this Bill at worksessions on April 27 and May 5. The joint Committee
recommended (5-0) to disapprove the Bill and keep the HRC jurisdiction to enforce
discrimination claims alleging a violation of State or Federal law in addition to the County
Human Rights Law. The joint Committee also recommended keeping the HRC as a separate
office with a separate appropriation, but approved the Executive's plan to reduce staffing.
Issues
1. What is the fiscal and economic impact of the Bill?
The OMB Fiscal Impact Statement projects $1.27 million savings in FY12 from the Bill.
Projected savings in FY13 and beyond would increase to $1.4 million. See ©12-14. All of the
savings would come from eliminating all positions in the Office of Human Rights except the
Director,4 investigators, and a Manager III in FY12. The Office currently has 17 positions. As
the current caseload is eliminated, the Manager III and 2 of the investigators would be eliminated
during FY12 or FY13. The reduction in staff is directly attributed to reducing the agency's
enforcement jurisdiction and eliminating responsibility for testing of housing providers.
The Joint Committee recommended (5-0) to keep the HRC as a separate office with
a separate appropriation,
but
approved the Executive's alternative plan to reduce staffing.
The Joint Committee placed $362,640 on the reconciliation list to pay for additional
enforcement staff to handle cases alleging violations of State and Federal laws.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2.
Would the
Bill leave
Montgomery County residents without a reasonable remedy for
a
discrimination claim?
As of March 15,2011, HRC reported a pending caseload of 428 cases.
l
See ©48. HRC
reported that 173 of these cases are within the exclusive jurisdiction ofHRC and would continue
to be enforced by HRC under the Bill. The remaining 60% of pending cases are subject to the
jurisdiction of State and Federal agencies. Employment discrimination cases make up 78% of
the current caseload. HRC reports that they receive, on average, 200 new cases each year. HRC
was unable to report the average number of cases closed each year.
HRC investigates cases, offers mediation services, and provides an adjudicatory hearing
for cases where it finds probable cause after investigation. HRC was unable to provide actual
statistics for the percentage of cases where they found no probable cause. However, HRC
estimated that approximately 5% of the complaints investigated result in a finding of probable
cause based upon the statistics published by the EEOC. See answer 7 of the OCE follow-up
questions at ©52. Hearings may be conducted by one of the hearing examiners in the Council's
Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings or by a Case Review Board made up of 3 Human
Rights Commissioners. The Commission can award damages and attorney's fees to a prevailing
party. The final administrative decision is subject to judicial review on the record in the Circuit
Court.
Many of the witnesses at the public hearing pointed out that the MCHR and EEOC
offices are in Baltimore. Although a trip to Baltimore is ultimately necessary to file with
MCHR, a complaint can be started online. A complaint filed with the MCHR must be
investigated by the Executive Director. If the Executive Director fmds probable cause to believe
the law was violated and conciliation is unsuccessful, the parties can elect to have an
administrative hearing before a hearing examiner to determine liability and, if necessary, award
damages and attorney's fees. Either party can elect to have the case tried in the Circuit Court
instead of an administrative hearing. The MCHR General Counsel will prosecute the case before
either the agency or the circuit court on behalf of the complainant. A complaint filed with the
EEOC is investigated by the agency. The EEOC will make a finding of probable cause or no
probable cause. The EEOC offers mediation. Although the EEOC can file suit on behalf of a
complainant, this is unusual. Regardless of the result of the EEOC investigation, the agency
will
issue the complainant a right to sue letter authorizing a suit in State or Federal Court.
Md. State Gov't Article §20-1202 authorizes a person subjected to a discriminatory act
prohibited by the Montgomery County Human Rights Law to file an original action in the
Montgomery County Circuit Court in Rockville. The plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial and the
Circuit Court can award damages and attorney's fees. A complainant may file suit in the Circuit
Court no sooner than 45 days after filing a complaint with HRC and no later than 2 years after
the alleged discriminatory act took place. A complainant may file suit within this timeline even
if the HRC is in the process of investigating the claim. A Circuit Court suit will stop the HRC
investigation.
2
HRC includes cases where the agency's decision is on appeal in the Courts as "pending" cases even though the
agency has completed its work. See answer 6 to OCE follow-up questions at©52.
2
HRC was unable to provide statistics on how many cases went to hearing over the last 5 years, but estimated that
approximately 12 cases are heard each year. See answer 8 to OCE follow-up questions at ©52.
I
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
A prevailing plaintiff under any of these options is entitled to attorney's fees and costs.
A plaintiff is automatically entitled to attorney's fees and costs if he or she prevails in court or
obtains a settlement from the defendant. The Court will award attorney's fees based upon an
hourly rate and the time worked by the attorney. If the parties are unable to settle on the
appropriate amount of attorney's fees, the court will make the final decision after a hearing. A
plaintiff is entitled to additional attorney's fees for the attorney's time spent litigating over the
amount of attorney's fees. Attorney's fees can often be more than the judgment or settlement
obtained by the plaintiff. Costs include filing fees and deposition costs. The statutory right to
attorney's fees makes it possible for a plaintiff with a good case to obtain an attorney to
investigate and prosecute the case without paying for all of the attorney's time on an hourly basis
as the case progresses. Attorneys who specialize in handling plaintiff discrimination cases judge
the potential merits of a case before accepting the work because the likelihood of getting paid is
significantly diminished if the case has no merit. Although there are always exceptions in
practice, a plaintiff with a meritorious case can find a competent attorney. In fact, the most
likely reason for a plaintiff having difficulty finding an attorney under this system is a lack of
merit in the case.
Filing a case in State or Federal Court has two advantages for a plaintiff over an
administrative hearing before the HRC. First, the plaintiff is entitled to extensive discovery in
court through interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and depositions. This
discovery significantly enhances the ability to obtain sufficient evidence at trial. Second, the
case can be tried before a jury. Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title VII cases in Federal
Court were tried before a jUdge. Since Congress authorized jury trials and compensatory
damages in discrimination cases, the number of cases filed and the verdicts awarded has
exploded.
The Bill would limit HRC enforcement jurisdiction to cases alleging discrimination in
violation of County law that is not covered by State or Federal law. HRC provides a significant
public service through its enforcement of State and Federal law. However, a complainant would
continue to have several reasonable alternative remedies for these cases if the Bill is enacted.
3. Should the Council enact the Bill?
The HRC investigation, mediation, and adjudicatory functions are valuable services to
County residents. However, the continuation of this service must be balanced against the
County's need to provide other important services that are not duplicated by the State or Federal
Government.
The Organizational Reform Commission recommended eliminating the Office of Human
Rights and directing all discrimination complaints to the MCHR, the EEOC, or to the Circuit
Court. Complaints alleging a violation unique to County law would have to be filed in the
Circuit Court. The Bill makes a reasonable compromise by retaining HRC jurisdiction over
cases alleging a violation unique to County law and eliminating jurisdiction over claims that also
violate State or Federal law. OMB estimates that this Bill would save $1.27 million each year.
This would be a structural change that can help reduce the County's structural budget deficit.
Although HRC does not have accurate statistics on the number of cases where the Director found
probable cause each year, HRC estimated that they found probable cause in 5% of the 200
complaints received each year, or 10. Based upon HRC's estimate that 60% of its pending cases
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
allege State or Federal claims, the Bill would force approximately 6 of these 10 complainants to
use an alternative State or Federal remedy each year.
The testimony in opposition to the Bill at the public hearing was impressive. Many
community and civil rights leaders made strong arguments for retaining HRC jurisdiction over
complaints alleging discrimination in violation of State or Federal law. However, none of the
speakers pointed to another area of the Executive's Recommended FY12 Budget that should be
reduced to make up for the $1.27 million savings lost by not enacting the BilL The testimony
from the Chair of the MCHR opposing the Bill because the State of Maryland could not afford to.
handle additional discrimination complaints from Montgomery County was especially
frustrating.
Joint Committee recommendation (5-0): providing enforcement of claims
alleging a violation of State or Federal laws is important enough to provide funding. The
joint Committee recommended disapproval of the Bill. The Committee did recommend
eliminating staffing for non-enforcement functions and thereby realized most of the savings
that the Bill would create.
4. Should the Office of Human Rights be combined into the Office of Community
Engagement?
The Executive proposed creating a single appropriation in the budget for the Office of
Human Rights, the Office of the Commission for Women, the Office of Community
Partnerships, and the Regional Service Centers.
Joint Committee recommendation (5-0): do
not place the HRC into the single appropriation for the Community Engagement Cluster
because their function is unique.
This packet contains:
Circle
#
. Expedited Bill 5-11
1
Legislative Request Report
7
Executive's ORC Recommendations Memo - February 21, 2011
8
Executive's March 1 Bill Memo
10
Fiscal Impact Statement
12
Anti-Discrimination Laws Chart
15
Public Hearing Testimony
County Executive
16
Montgomery County Human Rights Commission
18
Montgomery County Committee on HateNiolence
19
NAACP
22
24
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity
National Association of Human Rights Workers
27
Montgomery County Muslim Council
28
Maryland Commission on Human Relations
30
32
Odessa Shannon
34
Ruby Rubens
Former Delegate Saqib Ali
36
Gwen D'Souza
37
Terry Vann
39
40
Richard Allen
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Henry Montes
Alan Banov
Montgomery County Office of Human Rights
Combined Case Status Report
aCE Follow-up Questions and Answers
42
45
48
49
F:\LAW\BILLS\1105 Office Of Human Rights\Action Memo.Doc
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill No.
~5-....!.1..!...1
_ _ _ __
Concerning: Office of Human Rights ­
Human
Rights
Commission
Reorganization
Revised: March 7, 2011 Draft No.
..L
Introduced:
March 8, 2011
Expires:
September 8, 2012
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
AN EXPEDITED ACT
to:
(l)
(2)
(3)
revise the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission;
provide for the disposition of certain cases currently pending before the Office of
Human Rights and the Human Rights Commission; and
generally amend County law related to the Human Rights Commission and the
County's Human Rights law.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 27, Human Rights and Civil Liberties
Sections 27-2,27-4,27-5,27-7, and 27-26A
By adding
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 27, Human Rights and Civil Liberties
Section 27-4A
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
Heading or a defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deleted from existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
***
The County Council for l\lontgomery County, }v1aryland. approves the following act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill 5-11
1
Sec.
1.
Sections 27-2, 27-4, 27-5, 27-7, and 27-26A are amended and
Section 27-4A is added as follows:
27-2. Commission membership and case review boards.
2
3
4
5
*
*
*
(b)
Commission case review boards.
6
7
8
(1) The Commission must appoint a case reVIew board of 3
individuals to consider and decide each complaint that is within
its jurisdiction and that the director certifies to the Commission.
The director promptly must certify a complaint to the
Commission after the director determines under Section 27-7(f)
whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
respondent violated this Chapter, if:
9
10
11
12
13
14
*
27-4. Office of Human Rights.
*
*
*
*
15
16
17
*
(b)
(1)
The County Executive may assign additional staff to assist the
Commission in carrying out this article. The Commission may,
with the approval of the County Executive, engage the services
of volunteer workers and volunteer consultants, who, subject to
appropriations, may be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses
incurred in performing volunteer services. Services of an
individual as a volunteer worker or consultant must not be
considered as service of employment in any merit system of the
county or state.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*
*
*
26
27
(4) Before a complaint is certified to the Commission under
Sections 27-7(f)(2) or (g)( 4), the director may investigate,
F:\LAw\BILLS\II05 Office Of Human Rights\Bi1l3.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill 5-11
28
29
resolve, or conciliate the complaint if the complaint alleges
~
violation of this article that is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commission under Section 27-4A(b).
30
31
32
33
34
35
*
27-4A. Commission jurisdiction.
*
*
The Commission must handle any complaint for violation of the County's
human rights laws under this Chapter as follows:
ill
For
~
complaint that alleges
£!
discriminatory act that is also prohibited
under State or Federal law, the Commission must:
36
37
38
39
40
ill
advise the complainant of the right to file, after 45 days,
£!
legal
action in the appropriate State court under Section 20-1202 of
the State Government Article ofthe Maryland Code;
ill
ill
ill
{hl
advise the complainant of the right to file the complaint with
the applicable State or Federal agency;
notify the complainant that the Commission will take no further
action with respect to the resolution of the complaint; and
provide the complainant with any other appropriate information
concerning
£!
potential resolution of the complaint.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
For
~
complaint that only alleges discriminatory acts that are not
~
prohibited
Qy
State or Federal law, the Commission must:
ill
advise the complainant of the right to file, after 45 days,
legal
action in the appropriate State court under Section 20-1202 of
the State Government Article of the Maryland Code; and
50
51
52
53
ill
(a)
process the complaint to resolution under this article.
27-5. Duties generally.
The Commission must:
54
*
*
*
F:\LAW\BILLS\1105 Office Of Human Rights\BilI 3.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill 5-11
55
56
57
58
(9)
Subject to Section 27-4A, [Initiate] handle, initiate, and receive
complaints of discrimination, prejudice, intolerance, and
bigotry from any person or group because of race, color, sex,
age, marital status, religious creed, ancestry, national origin,
disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic status,
presence of children, family responsibilities or source of
income, that deprives that person or group of equal rights,
protection, or opportunity in employment, real estate, and
public accommodation. The Commission must:
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
*
(a)
*
*
27-7. Administration and enforcement.
66
67
68
Filing complaints.
Any person subjected to a discriminatory act or
practice in violation of this Article or any group or person seeking to
enforce this Article may file with the Director a written complaint,
sworn to or affirmed under the penalties of perjury, that must state:
(1)
(2)
the particulars of the alleged violation;
the name and address of the person alleged to have committed
the violation; and
(3)
any other information required by law or regulation.
~
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
A complaint must allege facts under oath to state
Article.
violation of this
76
77
78
79
*
*
*
~
27-26A. Coordination
of fair
housing activities.
The [director] County Executive must assign
person or department to
coordinate the activities of all County departments, offices, and agencies to prevent
discrimination in housing and test compliance with housing discrimination laws.
The [director] assigned person or department must designate a staff member at an
F:\LAW\BILLS\ll 05 Office Of Human Rights\BiII3.Doc
80
81
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill 5-11
82
appropriate managerial level as the County's fair housing coordinator. After
consulting appropriate County officials and private citizens, the [Commission1
assigned person or department must:
83
84
85
86
*
Sec. 2. Transition
*
*
87
88
89
90
91
This Act does not invalidate any action taken by the Office of Human Rights
before this Act takes effect. This Act takes precedence over any provision in
existing regulations that is in conflict with this Act.
Any case pending before the Commission at the time this Act takes effect
must be adjudicated by the Commission under the provisions of Chapter 27 in
effect on June 30, 2011.
Any case pending before the Office of Human Rights for investigation and
conciliation at the time this Act takes effect must be handled as follows:
(a)
For a case that alleges a discriminatory act that is also prohibited by
State or Federal law:
(1)
if the applicable statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit will
not have expired as of January 1, 2012, the Director must
advise the complainant to transfer the matter to the appropriate
State or Federal agency or to file a legal action in a court of
competent jurisdiction;
(2)
if the applicable statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit will
expire before January 1, 2012, the Director must complete the
processing of the complaint in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 27 in effect before the amendments made by this Act
and the Commission must adjudicate the complaint.
(b)
Except for a case provided for under subsection (a), a case that the
Commission retains jurisdiction over under Section 27-4A(b) must be
F:\LAW\BILLS\1105 Office Of Human Rights\BiIl 3,Doc
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill 5-11
109
110
111
112
113
processed under the provisions of this Act.
Sec. 3.
Expedited Effective Date.
The Council declares that this legislation is necessary for the immediate
protection of the public interest. This Act takes effect on July 1, 2011.
Approved:
114
115
116
117
118
119
Valerie Ervin, President, County Council
Approved:
Date
120
121
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
Date
122
123
124
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
F:\LA W\BILLS\II 05 Office Of Human Rights\Bill 3.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Expedited Bill 5-11
Office of Human Rights - Human Rights Commission - Reorganization
DESCRIPTION:
The Bill would amend the Human Rights Law to modify the
jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission. The Commission
would retain the authority to hear and decide matters involving areas
of discrimination that are not within the jurisdiction of State and
Federal agencies. The Office of Human Rights would continue to
investigate and conciliate complaints over which the Commission
would retain jurisdiction. The Commission would handle all
complaints so that a person would retain the right to file a legal action
in state court under state law. The Commission would refer those
complaints over which the Commission would not retain jurisdiction
to federal or State agencies or advise that suit be filed.
The County Human Rights law covers a number of areas that are
duplicative of State and Federal authority.
Performing these
duplicate functions leads to a significant expense on the part of the
County. The current budget shortfall requires significant reductions,
and eliminating this duplication of effort will aid in that effort.
Modify the authority of the Human Rights Commission to preserve
the Commission's jurisdiction over matters that are unique to County
law, while reducing the overall budget for the operation of the
Commission.
Human Rights Commission and Office of the County Attorney.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
Not applicable.
Fariba Kassiri, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Erin
J.
Ashbarry, Office of the County Attorney
Not applicable.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Not Applicable.
F\LAW\BILLSIII 05 Office Of Human RighlslLRRDOC
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
lsiah Leggett
County Executive
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND ZOS5ll
MEMORANDUM
February 21, 2011
TO:
FROM:
V
~lerie
Ervin, President,
co~ty counc~ ~
!slab Leggett, County ExecutlV"--P
~
..
SUBJECT: Organizational Reform Commission Recommendations
This memorandum provides the County Council with my recommendations
regarding the final report of the Organizational Reform Commission (ORC) which was
released on January 31, 2011. I am deeply grateful to all of the ORC members, who were
very generous in volunteering their time andexpertise.and spent hundreds of hours in.
developing the report. As the attached materials indicate, I am supportive ofmost of the
ORC recommendations and urge
the
Council
to
approve the recommendations as outlined
in my attached response.
The Commission
has
acknowledged that implementing its recommendations
will be difficult, time consuming and complex. However, this is not a sufficient
justification for failing to undertake the implementation effort. In addition, the
controversy and opposition that some of these recommendations have engendered are
also not alone a basis for rejecting the recommendations. Challenging the status quo will
always provoke opposition from entrenched interests and those not willing to undertake
necessary changes. At a time when we have requested that our residents shoulder
increases in taxes (i.e. the energy, telephone and property taxes) and we have reduced
several important public safety and safety net services,
and
reduced funding for
education, we owe it to the taxpayers of this County to undertake the arduous task of
further restructuring our government in order
to
achieve every possible efficiency and
savings. Furthermore, my Fiscal Year 2012 Recommended Operating Budget is very
likely to include additional reductions
to
many vital programs and services. To ignore
possible long-term savings at this critical time would be a disservice to our taxpayers.
I realize that a majority of the County Council
has
already indicated that at
this time they do not support State legislation that would enable the Council to merge
Park Police and County Police if it later chose to do so. This legislation is a necessary
first step in implementing one of the most prominent recommendations of the ORC -- i.e.,
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Valerie Ervin, President, County Council
Page 2
February 21,2011
a merger of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC)
Park Police with the County Police Department.
I
The Council's recent action was not
taken in the context of the broader ORC report, this recommendation and the upcoming
March 15
th
budget recommendations. Unfortunately, the Council will have
to
make
extremely difficult decisions in the FY12 budget deliberations, including reductions to
services and programs, cuts in staffmg levels, and possibly significant changes
to
pay and
benefits for County employees. As I stated at the time that the Council discussed the
proposed State legislation, I do not believe it was prudent for the Council to reject that
potential merger, and the savings and efficiencies that would arise from that merger,
before it fully evaluates all of the implications ofthat decision in the context of all ofthe
issues that relate to the FY12 operating budget.
I respectfully urge you to comprehensively evaluate the ORC
recommendations along with my recommendations and the implications for the FY 12
budget and beyond. My staff and I stand ready to work with you to ensure that the
efficiency and effectiveness of County Government is maximized.
Attachments
'.
copies:
Organizational Refonn Commission Members
Stephen B. Farber, County Council Staff Director
Christopher S. Barclay, President, Board of Education
Dr. Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent, Montgomery County Public School
Jerry Robinson, Acting Executive Director, Housing Opportunities Commission
Francoise Carrier, Chair, Montgomery County Planning Board
DeRionne P. Pollard, Ph.D., President, Montgomery College
Jerry N. Johnson, General Manager/CEO, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
Executive Branch Department and Office Directors
Fariba Kassiri, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Jennifer Hughes, Special Assistant to the County Executive
MCIPG
1/2-11 -
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission-County Police Authority,
Metropolitan District Tax, and Transfer ofProperty
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTfVE
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20850
MEMORANDUM
March 1,2011
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Human Rights Commission - Reorganization
I am forwarding to the Council, for its consideration, legislation that re-orients the
focus of the County's Human Rights law by eliminating the duplication of effort that currently
exists between the enforcement functions of the County's Office of Human Rights
and
the
Commission on Human Rights and comparable enforcement functions of Maryland and federal
human rights agencies. I have reached the difficult decision to recommend this legislation only
because ofthe urgent need to reduce County expenditures to help close the projected $300
million gap for the FY12 budget.
The Montgomery County Organizational Reform Commission (ORC)
recommended that the adjudicatory role ofthe Human Rights Commission be moved to the state
and federal governments. I have concluded that the ORC recommendation goes too far, and have
recommended legislation that I believe strikes an appropriate balance in preserving the nghts of
County residents under the County's Human Rights law with the need to reduce County
expenditures.
The attached legislation changes the authority of the Human Rights Commission
to adjudicate only those cases that allege a violation of the County's Human Rights law that are
unique
to
Montgomery County. The Office of Human Rights will investigate and attempt to
conciliate those cases that assert an act of discrimination that is unique to Montgomery County
under the County's Human Rights law. Since the number of cases that will be handled by the
Office of Human Rights will be greatly reduced, the size of the office may be reduced, which
should provide the County with a reduction in expenditures.
For complaints that allege a discriminatory act that is also prohibited under state
or federal law , the Commission must handle the complaint by advising the complainant of the
right to file a legal action in state court under the state human rights law or to file a complaint
with the applicable state or federal enforcement agency_ A complainant will retain the right to
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Valerie Ervin, President
March 1,2011
Page
2
enforce all aspects ofthe County's Human Rights law, including provisions that prohibit acts of
discrimination that are not unique to the County, through the state court system.
I
have long been, and continue to be, in full support ofthe County's Human
Rights law. Nevertheless, the urgent need to reduce County expenditures has led me to conclude
that it is necessary to make these painful revisions to the mission ofthe HUman Rights
Commission.
I
believe this legislation strikes the appropriate balance in preserving the rights of
County residents under the County's HUman Rights law with the need to reduce County
expenditures.
IL:tjs
Attachment
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
Joseph F. Beach
Director
MEMORANDUM
March 29,2011
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Valerie Ervin, preSidef[oun Council
Joseph F. Beach, Direc
Bill 04-11. Commission
r
Women - Reorganization
Bill 05-11, Office of Human Rights - Human Rights Commission
Reorganization
The purpose ofthis memorandum is to transmit a fiscal and economic impact statement
to the Council on the subject legislation.
LEGISLATION SUMMARY
Bill 04-11 would eliminate the Office of the Commission for Women. reallocate certain
functions of the Office and provide staffsupport for the Commission for Women, and generany amend
the
law
concerning the Commission for Women.
Bill 05-11 changes the authority of the Human Rights Commission to adjudicate only
those cases that allege a violation of the County's Human Rights law that are unique to Montgomery
County. The Office of Human Rights will investigate and attempt to conciliate iliose cases that assert an
act of discrimination that is unique to Montgomery County under the County's Human Rights law. Since
ilie number of cases that will be handled by the Office ofHuman Rights will be greatly reduced, the size
of the office may be reduced, which should provide the County with a reduction in expenditures.
For complaints
that
allege a discriminatory act that is also prohibited under state or federal law, the
Commission must handle the complaint by advising the complainant of the right
to
me a legal action in
state court under the state human rights law or to file a complaint with the applicable state or federal
enforcement agency. A complainant will retain the right to enforce aU aspects of the County's Human
Rights law, including provisions that prohibit acts ofdiscrimination that are not unique to the County,
through the state court system
FISCAL SUMMARY
The fiscal impact of the subject legislation is shown below for both the Office ofthe
Commission for Women and the Office of Human Rights.
Bill
4-11
would eliminate ilie Office ofthe Commission for Women, but would require iliat
the ChiefAdministrative Officer (CAO) designate appropriate staff to support the Commission. The
chart be10w shows the savings from the elimination of the Office, but shows the resources that may be
required to continue to support the Commission. Continued support for the Commission could be at
"
.,
----------------------------------------
101 Monroe Street, 14th Floor • Rockville, Maryland 20850
www,ruontgomerycountyrud.goY
Office of the Director
• 240-777-2800
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Valerie Ervin, President, County Council
March
29, 2011
Page 2
varying 1evels based on the needs of the Commission, the judgment of the CAO as to the level of support
that was appropriate, and available resources. The analysis below assumes that ongoing support would be
provided through a Manager I position and an Administrative Specialist I (grade 18).
FYI:!
FY13
FY14
FYIS
FY16
FYI7
Total
EHmDiDate
omee
of
Commisioo for
Womell
P';l'lj(lnn.;1
C;l$\$
Operating
Expense
($787,73(1)
($81,880)
($869,610)
($869,fiIO)
($869,610)
(5869,610)
(5869,610)
(5869,610)
($5,217,660)
iRlItaioSupport.for.lheCommlssion (as ffiillil!ed.Quder.proposed
MCC
27-28(e)
Manager
I (1.0 WY)
$203,840
$203,840
$203,840
$203,840
Administrative Specialist
(1.0
WY)
$68,890
$68,890
$68,890
$68,890
..., • . Exp0tliiCii
c$lO,250
'$'11),250
$1'0,250
11O;2S0
Total
528l,980
$%82,980
5282,980
$:182,980
Net
Fiscal Impaet
(S586,6JO)
($S86.631)
$203,840
$68,890
11"'0,250
S:!81,980
(S586,fi30)
$203,840
568,890
$10;250
5282,980
(Ssm;,630)
$1,223,040
$413,340
~1j500
SI,fi97,880
($3,519,780)
($586.,638)
(Ssm;,63O)
BillS-II
would not eliminate the Office of Human Rights, but would reduce the case10ad
for the Office by requiring the Office to investigate, conciliate, and adjudicate before the Commission a
case alleging only discriminatory acts that do not violate State or Federal law. The fISCal impact shown
below replicates the recommendation in the County Executive's Recommended Budget in that all
positions in the Office of
Human
Rights are eliminated with the exception ofthe Director, a Manager
m,
and four investigators. Ofthe four investigators retained, two will serve for 12 months and continue with
the Office for FY13-17 and two will serve for six months. The Manager
m
will serve for four months and
will be abolished on 1111/11.
Office
or
Humall Rigbts"
FY12
($1,271,480)
FY13**
($1,486,360)
FYI4
($1,486,360)
FYl5
($1,406,360)
FY16
(51,406,360)
FYI?
($1,406,360)
Total
($8,303,280)
PersoOllei Costs
O~ratillg
ExjleJISil
(51,143,250)
($),28,230)
'" Reduction in personnel aod relaa.d resources
if
focus of
Office
was shifted
to
only
investigate,
conciliate,
and
adjudicate
before the Commissif)ll a case alleging
only
discriminatory
acts
that
do
not
violate State
or Federal
law.
..... Savings
increase in FY13-17 because two investigator positions and
ft
Manager
m
position
are
retained
fO£
part
of FY12, but
abolished
during the fiscal year. The
additif)llaJ
savillp
are reflected in FY13-17.
The subject legislation would support the County Executive's proposal to consolidate the
Office of the Commission for Women and the Office ofHuman Rights with the five Regional Services
Center, the Office of Community Partnerships (currently
in
the Offices of the County Executive), and the
Recreation Department's Gilchrist Center and create the Office ofCommunity Engagement. This multi­
department reorganization will streamline operations ofthe affected departments and provide greater
coordination in the County's efforts to reach out and engage the 10cal community in solving public
problems. As the chart below indicates, this reorganization will result in ongoing savings estimated at
$2.8 million annually and cumulative savings of nearly $17.5 million over six years.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Valerie Ervin, President, County Council
March 29, 2011
Page 3
RegIou.l Servifes Center
Personnel Costs
FYn
($815,398)
($696,060)
FYI3
(S815,390)
FYI4
($815,390)
~l'f\I15
-
~-
FV16
($815.,390)
(5815,390)
FY17
($815,398)
Totili
(S4,892,:J40)
Operating Ellpense
OR'ke orHllmaa Rigb"·
Personnel Costs
(SI19,330)
(51,271,480)
(51,143,250)
($
128.2-30)
($1,406,360)
(51,486,360)
(SI,406,JfjO)
($1,406,360)
(51,406,360)
($8,303,288)
:Operating Expense
Office ofCommisioB for
Women
-Personnel
eosts
Operating
Expense
Omce of Commuuily
(S586,ti30)
($63,(50)
($522,980)
($586,630)
(S586,630)
(5586,630)
(SSlUi,6JO)
($586,630)
(Sj,S19,780)
Partnerilsip
(S119,070)
($84,070)
($35,000)
(SlJ9,070)
(S119,870)
(SI19,070)
($119,070)
($U9,870)
($714,420)
Personnel
Costs
Operating Expense
GraBdTotal
Personael Cosu
Operating Expenae
($2,792,570)
(51,987,838)
(51,917,450)
($2,9l7,450)
($1,917,450)
($2,927,450)
($2,927,450)
(SI7,419,82t)
(S80S,548)
Note:
Projections assllme
no
growth
in salaries or benefit costs FY13·17 and
that
abolished positions are not reinstated
*
Savings increase in FY13·11 because investigator positions and
8
Manager III position are retained
fur
part
ofPYl2,
but
abolished during
the
iillClll
year.
The additional
savings
are reflecled
in
FYiJ-17,
The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: Beryl Feinberg
and
Philip
Weeda of the Office of Management and Budget and Fariba
Kassin
of the Offices of the County
Executive.
JFB:pw
c: Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administtative Officer
Fariba
Kassin,
Assistant ChiefAdministtative Officer
Lisa Austin. Offices of the
Coun~
Executive
Beryl Feinberg, Office of Management and Budget
Brady Goldsmith, Office of Management and Budget
John Cuff, Office ofManagement and Budget
PhiJip
We~
Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Anti-Discrimination Provisions in Federal, State, and Montgomery
County Law
Protected Group
Age
Disability
. Genetic Infonnation
National Origin
I
Race
Color
. Religion
Sex
I
Marital Status
I
Sexual Orientation
Presence of Children
I
Family Responsibilities
Source of Income
Gender Identity
Ancestry
i
Federal
l
I State
2
Count?
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers employers with 15 or more employees.
2
The Maryland employment discrimination law covers employees with 15 or more employees.
3
The County Human Rights law covers all County employers with any number of employees.
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
,V\
Expedited Bill 5-11
Office of Human Rights, Human Rights Commission - Reorganization
Public Hearing
March 29,2011
Good evening. My name is Fariba Kassiri. I am an Assistant Chief Administrative Officer with
the Office of the County Executive and I am testifYing tonight on behalf of the County Executive
in support of Bill 5-11.
This bill re-orients the focus of the County's human rights law by eliminating the duplication of
effort that currently exists between the enforcement functions of the County's Office of Human
Rights and the Commission on Human Rights and comparable enforcement functions of
Maryland and federal human rights agencies. The County Executive made the difficult decision
to recommend this legislation only because of the urgent need to reduce County expenditures to
hetp close the projected $300 million gap for the FY12 budget.
As background for this bill, it is important to note that the current functions of the Office of
Human Rights include:
(I)
receipt, investigation, and conciliation of complaints that allege
intimidation or discrimination in housing, commercial real estate, employment, and public
accommodation in violation of County, State, or federal law; (2) public relations, outreach and
education; and (3) monitoring the County's Fair Housing law.
The Organizational Reform Commission (ORC) recommended that the adjudicatory role of the
Human Rights Commission be moved to the State and federal governments. The County
Executive concluded that the ORC recommendation went too far, and recommended the bill
before you because he wanted to strike an appropriate balance between preserving the rights of
County residents under the County's human rights law and the need to reduce County
expenditures.
Bill 5-11 narrows the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission to those cases that allege the
types of discrimination that are unique to the County's human rights law, as opposed to the
Commission's current jurisdiction, which includes cases alleging .discrimination prohibited by
County, State or Federal law. For clarity, the following is a list of discriminatory acts whose
prohibition is unique to the County:
(1) discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities in employment, housing or
commercial real estate;
(2) discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment, housing, commercial
real estate or public accommodations;
(3) discrimination on the basis of source of income in housing or commercial real estate;
(4) discrimination on the basis of age where the complainant is less than 40 years old in
employment, housing, commercial real estate, or public accommodation;
(5) discrimination in employment by employers with less than 15 employees (on the basis
ofrace, color, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, marital status, sexual
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
orientation, gender identity, family responsibilities, or genetic status);
(6) discrimination in commercial real estate on the basis of race, color, religious creed,
ancestry, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, presence of children, family
responsibilities, sexual orientation, gender identity, or age; and
(7) alleged acts of intimidation against any person on the basis of race, religion, national
origin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
The Office of Human Rights (at the direction of the Human Rights Commission) will continue to
investigate and attempt to conciliate these types ofcases.
For complaints that allege a discriminatory act that is also prohibited under State or federal law,
the Commission will handle the complaint by advising the complainant of the right to file a legal
action in State Circuit Court under the State human rights law or to file a complaint with the
applicable State or federal enforcement agency. A complainant will retain the right to enforce all
aspects of the County's human rights law, including provisions that prohibit acts of
discrimination that are not unique to the County, through the State court system.
Under the bill, the Office of Human Rights will continue to have public relations, outreach and
education functions. However, under the County Executive's FY12 recommended budget, the
office will have access to a larger pool of resources within the Office of Community Engagement
for the efficient handling of these functions.
The bill transfers responsibility for monitoring the County's fair housing law to DHCA, which
would continue to forward the Fair Housing Testing Report to the Human Rights Commission
for action. If appropriate, the Commission would file a formal complaint with the Office of
Human Rights based of the testing report.
Because the Office of Human Rights will handle significantly fewer cases under this bill and its
outreach, education, and
back~office
functions will be collaboratively handled by staff in the
Office of Community Engagement, the size of the office has been reduced in the County
Executive's recommended FY12 budget. This reduction results in a savings of $1.2 million,
which is part of the total $2.8 million savings that is achieved by creation of the Office of
Community Engagement.
The Office of Human Right would continue to report to the Office of County Executive.
The County Executive has been, and continues to be, in full support of the County's human
rights law. Nevertheless, the urgent need to reduce County expenditures led him to conclude that
it is necessary to make these painful revisions to the mission of the Human Rights Commission.
He believes that this legislation strikes the appropriate balance between preserving the rights of
County residents and reducing County expenditures.
I look forward to working with the Council as it considers this legislation.
Thank you.
2
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
15
Montgomery County Council Public Hearing - Bill 5-11, March 29, 2011
Oral Testimony of Betsy Jett, representing
t~e
Montgomery County Human Rights Commission
As the largest County in the State of Maryland and the most diverse, Montgomery County serves as a leader and
role model on issues of both local and national importance. We believe the County's continued commitment to
human rights should be clear and unequivocal.
The Commission urges the Council to:
• reject proposed amendments to the County Code that would narrow its jurisdiction, and
• commit to an organizational structure and budget that enables the Commission and the Office of
Human Rights to effectively carry out all of their duties as described in Chapter 27.
m
the interest of time, I will refer you .to our written testimony for an expanded discussion that clarifies important
points relevant to tonight's topic. I hope you will read it; it is critical to understanding the adverse consequences
that will most certainly result from the proposed legislation.
The Commission is very concerned about the likely negative impact of narrowing its jurisdiction.
While it is true that, legally, many of our cases could be handled by State or Federal government, practically, the
barriers to filing will make it extremely difficult for residents to exercise their rights.
• Travel to Baltimore will be a hardship each time a complainant has to appear. The round trip is 2 or more
hours by car and up to
5
or 6 hours by public transportation.
• Then there is the very long wait before their case is even processed. The State tells us their systems could
be crippled by the addition of Montgomery County's workload.
• Some complainants mistrust big government and will chose not to exercise their rights.
• Differences in our federal, state and local laws could lead to significantly different financial outcomes in
the awarding of damages, relief, and civil penalties.
• m
the end, many complainants will give up before they even try.
and unresolved.
Legitimate complaints will go unheard
• Montgomery County could become the place where those who violate the human rights of others know
they can get away with it.
In addition, we are concerned about the impact of eliminating the Office and shifting its responsibilities to
the new "Office of Community Engagement"
• The Commission appreciates the synergies that may be created by housing many offices under one roof.
However, we are concerned about losing the focus on human rights as an important responsibility of
government.
• And we are concerned about access to scarce resources in an organization with such a broad mandate.
• We are concerned about the perception that the Office has been demoted and devalued, and that the
County has less commitment to human rights than it used to.
• The term "community engagement" falls short in representing many ofthe activities that will be included
under the umbrella ofthis new entity. If the Council adopts this option, we strongly recommend that it be
named the "Office of Human Rights and Community Engagement".
It is not by accident that this County is such a great place to live for such a diverse popUlation. The Office of
Human Rights and the Commission have worked hard over the last
50
years to make that happen. Let us not
throw that away now, at a time when we desperately need to protect and preserve the human rights of our
residents. Look around you. These people are here for one reason - in hopes that they can live, work and do
business with dignity in Montgomery County and be treated fairly. They deserve it. This Council cannot afford
to let them down. The cost is too great, even in these economically challenging times.
Thank you.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Good evening and thank you for this opportunity to speak about an important piece of
legislation before the Council: Expedited Bill 5-11. My name is David Vignolo and I am the current chair
of the Montgomery County Committee on Hate/Violence. On behalf of the citizens who serve with me
on this Committee, and your constituents whom we serve, I am here to speak against passage of
Expedited Bill
5-11,
Reorganization of the Office of Human Rights - Human Rights Commission - as
recommended by the Organizational Reform Commission and, with certain modifications, the County
Executive.
Chapter
27
of the Montgomery County Code states that liThe County Council finds that
discrimination because of race, color, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, marital status,
disability, genetic status, presence of children, family responsibilities, source of income, sexual
orientation, or gender identity adversely affects the health, welfare, peace, and safety of the
community. Persons subject to discrimination suffer unemployment and under employment resulting in
low family income, overcrowded housing, poor health conditions, antisocial behavior, poverty, and lack
of hope, injuring the public welfare, placing a burden upon the public treasury to ameliorate the
conditions thus produced and creating conditions which endanger the public peace and order." Further,
the County Council was clear when it included these additional words in the County Code - liThe
prohibitions in this article are substantially similar, but not necessarily identical, to prohibitions in
federal and state law. The intent is to assure that a complaint filed under this article may proceed more
promptly than possible under either federal or state law."
Bill 5-11 would amend the Human Rights Law to modify the jurisdiction of the Human Rights
Commission. Under this bill, the Commission would refer those complaints over which the Commission
would not retain jurisdiction to federal or State agencies or advise that a suit be filed. If a complainant
alleged a discriminatory act that also violated State or Federal law, the Office of Human Rights
David
A.
Vignolo, Chair, Committee on Hate/Violence
Testimony -
Public
Hearing -
Bill
5-11- March
29,
2011
Page 1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
would have to advise the complainant of the right to file the complaint with the Maryland
Commission on Human Relations, the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or the
appropriate Maryland Circuit Court.
with this approach.
The mission of the Maryland Commission on Human Relations is to ensure equal opportunity to
all through the enforcement of Maryland's laws against discrimination in employment, housing, and
public accommodations; to provide educational and outreach services related to the provisions of this
law; and to promote and improve human relations in Maryland. The closest field office to Montgomery
County is the main office in Baltimore. We believe that requiring those who might seek redress under
the law -likely to also be the most vulnerable in our community and with limited resources - to possibly
have to travel to Baltimore is onerous and could be enough of a reason for some to decide to forego the
investigation and adjudication of their complaint.
In some cases, the complainant might be referred to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC).
Our Committee has a concern that because the EEOC's responsibilities and
The Committee on Hate/Violence has significant concerns
workload have generally been increasing over the years, your constituents might not be served well if
they are referred to this federal agency. In 1964, when the EEOC was established, it was responsible for
investigating employment discrimination charges relating to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Since that time, the EEOC has become responsible for administering additional laws such as the Equal
Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Equal Employment Act of 1972,
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1991. In addition to general concerns about EEOC's ability to fulfill its increased
responsibilities and greater workload, the U.S. Government Accountability Office -as well as many civil
rights organizations --have raised specific concerns about EEOC's operations. These concerns include
."gggs&sJ
David
A.
Vignolo, Chair, Committee on Hate/Violence
Testimony - Public Hearing BillS-11- March 29,2011
Page 2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
the increasing time it takes EEOC to investigate and process charges, the increasing inventory of charges
awaiting investigation, and the adequacy of investigations; the high proportion of "no cause" findings,
that is, determinations that the evidence does not sufficiently support the discrimination charge; and
the limited number of litigation actions and systemic investigations initiated by the EEOC.
The Committee on Hate/Violence, which is currently administratively supported by the
professional and dedicated staff of the Office of Human Rights, shares the County Executive's concern
with the projected $300 million gap for the FY12 budget. However, we fail to see how changing the
authority of the Human Rights Commission so that it may only adjudicate those cases that allege a
violation of the County's Human Rights law that are unique to Montgomery County will greatly reduce
the number of cases. We are concerned that an Office of Human Rights, reduced in size but yet still
required to continue to investigate and attempt to conciliate those cases that assert an act of
discrimination that is unique to Montgomery County under the County's Human Rights law, will be able
to sufficiently serve the citizens well, at a time when they are likely most in need of County resources.
Finally, we would advocate that rather than a reduction in personnel, significant cost savings could be
achieved through continued improvements in technologies and processes so that cases are more
efficiently investigated. We believe the OHR has made significant advances in these areas over the past
several years and is poised to do more. For these reasons, the Committee on Hate/Violence respectfully
urges the County Council to reject Expedited Bill 5-11 and continue to stand with those in our
community who are the most vulnerable of our neighbors and in the most need of our protection and
support during difficult times in their lives. Thank you.
PPM
§.jf;;C2££bJJ&......!0J2L
David
A.
Vignola, Chair, Committee on Hate/Violence
Testimony- Public Hearing -
BillS-11-
March
29, 2011
Page 3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2; ,
NAACP Testimony at County Council Public Hearing
On
Bill
5-111
Human Rights Commission
President Ervin and Council members, I am Paul
L.
Vance, President of
the Montgomery County Branch, I\IAACP. On behalf of the Executive
Committee and the 1200 branch members, I am here to publically
express our opposition
tO
and great disappointment in bill 5-11 which
I
proposes to dismantle the Human Rights Commission/ Office of Human
Rights.
As you know, the NAACP is a strong advocate of human rights and has
fought for more than 102 years to protect those rights. The
Montgomery County Branch for __ years has worked hand-in-hand
with the county to support and ensure compliance with civil and
human rights laws. We have worked to encourage equity in planning
and implementation of policies to avoid discrimination. Our officers and
members are committed to ensuring that no regression occurs in the
currently available human rights protections for the residents of
Montgomery County. The County and its public servants along with
community groups, help to maintain the county's reputation for
diversity and tolerance of different cultures and beliefs. The passage of
bill 5-11 would surely have a negative impact on the progress that our
county and its residents have made over several decades.
We recommend that the law enforcement function be retained in the
Office of Human Rights, to ensure compliance that is untainted by its
employer/employee relationship with another department.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
We add our concern for those victims of discrimination not covered by
state or federal laws. These residents would be deprived of their civil
rights by not having full legal redress of their complaints.
We fully understand the fiscal crisis the county is facing, however, we
cannot afford to sacrifice human rights for the sake of budget
constraints and organizational reform. Given the size and diversity of
this county, we urge you to protect the county's reputation for fairness
and strong civil rights policies. To actually do so, or appear to eliminate
local access to legal redress from discrimination in housing,
employment and public accommodations would truly be a travesty and
a miscarriage of justice. The state too is experiencing cut-backs and is
not equipped to handle Montgomery County cases. They are already
required to handle cases for other counties who do not have human
rights offices. County residents also deserve better than to be thrown
into the backlog at the federalleve!.
Thanks you for the opportunity to come before you on an issue so
important to the residents of Montgomery County.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Council President Valerie Ervin, ladies and gentlemen of the
Montgomery County Council, my name is Russell C. Campbell, Sr.,and
I am representing the 150 men of the Iota Upsilon Lambda Chapter of
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity in Montgomery County. We are here to
appeal to you to reject the County Executive's recommendations to
eliminate the Office of Human Right and reject the attempt to reduce the
effectiveness of the Human Rights Commission by legislation. We fully
recognize these are difficult budgetary times and feel that Montgomery
County must address these shortcomings. However, we vehemently
oppose the recommendations submitted by the County Executive's
Office pertaining to Human Rights. The Iota Upsilon Lambda Chapter
of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity feels that sacrificing the very office that
has enhanced the quality of life in Montgomery County, will-impact the
lives of our residence who have, for over 50 years, depended on the
protections the Commission and the Office of Human Rights have
provided.
Historically, the men of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity have been the
vanguard of Human Rights in our Country, State and County. Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr was an Alpha, Supreme Court Justice Thursgood
Marshall, was an Alpha, Whitney Young of the National Urban League
was an Alpha, W.E.B. Dubois, one of the Founders of the NAACP was
an Alpha. Here in Montgomery County three past Presidents of the
Montgomery County Chapter of the NAACP, George Sealy, Roscoe Nix
and Handley Norment were all Alphas as well as the current President
Paul Vance. Henry Williams, the President of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference is an Alpha. These men committed their lives to
be an unremitting advocate of human and civil rights making our County
a beacon, shining the light of fairness upon all residents of our county.
However, the struggle for Civil Rights and Human Rights in our County
did not come easily. Beginning with the demonstrations
in
the 1960s at
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Glen Echo Park, resulting in the creation of the Human Rights
Commission and the Office of Human Rights--- a symbiotic relationship
between the two was formed. This relationship enables both to function
effectively as watch dogs defending our residents from all forms of
prejudice, discrimination and disparaging treatment. .
Your sitting here before us tonight was made possible because of the
climate created by and the protection afforded by these entities. Fifty
years ago there were no African Americans on this council, there were
no Hispanic Americans, there were no Jewish Americans sitting on the
Council. This only evolved because of the foundation laid by those men
and women who fought to make this happen. Council members, we
look to you to be that unremitting advocate for those who cannot fend
for themselves.
Montgomery County Planning Director Rollin Stanley said, "Those
places in American that are attractive to new people are places that will
prosper". He was speaking of the growth in Montgomery reflected in
the 2010 US Census. We implore you to fmd the resources to invest in
our people, our seniors who seek our help, our young people who see
our vision, our rich diversity who have come from all over the globe for
the promise of a better life. This is a great place to live, but,
Montgomery County is great because of the greatness of our institutions.
Council members do not be the instrument that negates that force for the
promise of living with dignity.
In closing I am reminded of a song written by James Weldon Johnson
called "Lift every voice and sing". His enriching directive is assuredly
one of the mainstays of the song's mastery and endurance.
Notwithstanding, he tells us that we must persist-we must remain
vigilant " ... til victory is won." Council President Ervin, the victory is
not won;
Mr.
Leventhal, you must be that voice to protect those who
cannot protect themselves.
Mr
Riemer, you must provide hope to the
hopeless;
Mr.
Berliner, Ms Navarro,
Mr.
Andrews,
Mr.
EIrich, Ms
Floreen, we are looking to all of you, the great members of this
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
deliberative body, to provide that protection to those who live and work
in
Montgomery County. We ask you to reject the recommendation to
eliminate the Office of Human Right and rej ect the attempt to reduce the
effectiveness of the Human Rights Commission by legislation. .
Thank you for your consideration
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
z3
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS WORKERS
lRESIDENT
3arbara Shannon-Banister, Ph.D
:::ity of Aurora
:::hief of Community Relations
'\urora, CO 80012
103.739.7580
'\nthony W. Wade, PhD, APM, PHR
;>resident Elect
\lational Conference Planning Chair
}OO
West Washington, Street
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
336.285.6138
\ II
!
II'lllY.'vVJ1<l;;:(
(I
g r;;c n
BILL 5-1 IE ON THE REORGANlZAnON OF THE OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
My name is Michael Fordham Dennis and
I
am the Atlantic Region Vice President ofthe National
Association of Human Rights Workers. I deliver this statement opposing Bill 5-1 IE on behalf of the
National Association of Human Rights Workers, Barbara Shannon-Banister, Ph.D., President. The
National Association of Human Rights Workers is an organization founded in 1947 to provide education,
training, certification and professional development to its members.
This is the second time we have written to Montgomery County officials on the reorganization ofthe
Office of Human Rights. We wrote in February 2011 to oppose the recommendation of the ORC to
dismantle the Office and we appear now to oppose Bill 5-11 E which would significantly modify the
law enforcement duties of the Office of Human Rights.
The human rights enforcement effort in the United States of America stands on a tripod: federal enforce­
ment (EEOC,
HUD),
state enforcement (MCHR) and local enforcement (MCOHR). The principle here is
that each level of government will accept responsibility for the complaints that occur in its own jurisdic­
tion. Even the funding tor the federal and state civil rights law enforcement agencies is based on the
assumption that local civil rights law enforcement agencies will receive, process and resolve complaints in
their respective jurisdictions. If anyone ofthe legs of this tripod is removed the enforcement effort will
collapse. Bill 5-11 E proposes to refer most ofthe complaints received by the Office of Human Rights to
either federal or state agencies or to state court, three entities that are already over-burdened, under-funded
and ill-prepared to accept the additional work. Bill 5-] ] E is a declaration of war against people who have
experienced discrimination in Montgomery County because it will lengthen significantly the investigation
and resolution time for discrimination complaints. We ask why the human rights law enforcement effort
is selected for such differential treatment? Why is the enforcement of the basic rights to live, work and
find housing being compromised?
There are some people who believe the existence of federal, state and local human rights enforcement
agencies provides a duplicate process for injured persons to
file
multiple complaints and receive
multiple remedies. This is an unsubstantiated belief because the enforcement agencies have formal and
informal agreements to prevent duplicate processing. Complainants have the right to file multiple
complaints to protect their procedural rights but the human rights law enforcement agencies control the
investigations in order to protect their own scarce resources and
to
prevent harassment. If a complainant
files suit in court the human rights law enforcement agencies generally cease their administrative process.
We presume there will be a significant reduction of the staff of the Office of Human Rights ifBill5-1lE
becomes law. This reduction will probably eliminate any local human rights education and technical
assistance presence in Montgomery County. The closest state and federal human rights law
enforcement agencies (EEOC
&
MCHR) are located
in
Baltimore
MD.
The HUD regional office is
actually located in Philadelphia PA. If you believe, as we do, that an important part of human rights
law enforcement is public education, then you cannot
tail
to note that the deferral of complaints and the
reduction of staff will virtually eliminate any proactive human rights law education in Montgomery County
MD.
We ask you to vote against this bill and maintain the dedication to human rights law enforcement that has
been the trademark of Montgomery County
MD
for the last 50 years.
Respectfully submitted, Michael Fordham Dennis,
MP
A, PHRW
Vice President, Atlantic Region, National Association of Human Rights Workers
March 29, 2011.
sb
91:!l::!lc-,g(LY
Willie Ratchford
Immediate Past President
600 East Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
704.336.2195
Ledger Morrissette, Vice President
Southern Region
704.336.2426
IID.9J:1:L"'~C!i~i.cll_'!dQIl£·nc.lIs
Michael Dennis, Vice President
Atlantic Region
301.947.4303
Ron Church, Vice President
Midwest Region
765.983.7518
Veronica O. White, Vice President
Western Region
303. 249.0995
Elizabeth Mauck, Secretary
400
S.
Ft. Harrison Ave., 5th Fir.
Clearwater, Florida 33756
727.464.4803
1.
LaTerrie Ward, Treasurer
P.O. Box 283
Goldsboro, NC 27533
919.580.4359
Visit our Website at v.'ww.nahrw.org
The nation's
only professional Human Rights Association-Founded in
1947
Publisher ofthe JOUR1'lAL OF
INTERGROUP
RELATIONS
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery County Muslim Council
P. O. Box 83639, Gaithersburg,
MD
20883
mCr'!"cinfo@aol.com
I
www~_._m_c_m_co_u_n_c_i1_.o~rg=---
_ _ _ _ _ _
~
Bill 5-11, Office of Human Rights ­
Human Rights Commission Reorganization
Public Hearing March 29
th
Statement by Khalid Chaudhry
President Montgomery County Muslim Council
Board of Directors:
Chair
Aquilur Rahman
Madame Council President and Honorable Council Members
My name is Khalid Chaudhry and I am President of the Montgomery County
Muslim Council (MCMC) which is a grass-root organization promoting
involvement by all residents of Montgomery County in the political process. In
addition, our sister organization, the Montgomery County Muslim Foundation
(MCMF) does charitable and social work for the needy in our county.
I very much appreciate being given the opportunity to comment today on behalf
our members and of other Montgomery County residents on the
recommendations of the Organizational Reform Commission (ORC) to abolish
the Office of Human Rights and reorganize the human rights functions.
For the residents of Montgomery County, the Office of Human Rights provides
visible and tangible evidence that the Montgomery County Government is
committed to the protection of human rights. Due to widespread public fear and
misperceptions regarding Muslim culture, religion, and beliefs, the Muslim
population is vulnerable to discrimination. The recent Congressional hearing of
Representative Peter King and programs such as "Unwelcome: The Muslim
Next Door" which aired on Sunday on CNN highlight these concerns.
We are very fortunate to be living in Montgomery County which has a reputation
for diversity and tolerance of different cultures and beliefs. However, we believe
that this would be severely undermined if the ORC recommendation is approved
by you, the Montgomery County Council. Without the County Office of Human
Rights, Montgomery County residents would have nowhere else in the county to
confront actions of discrimination.
We are also concerned with the reform commission's recommendation to
combine the Committee on HateNiolence with the Office of Community
Partnerships. This action would send a signal not only to Muslim residents, but
to all minority groups that the Montgomery County Government does not actively
support vigilance and action against acts of hate violence within our county. We
think these recommendations of the reform commission show a lack of
appreciation and understanding for what some ethnic communities face.
I would like to use the remainder of my time to make three important points.
Vice Chair
Mumin Barre
Directors
Saqib Ali
Walid Hafiz
Mimi Hassenein
Dr. Naheed Khan
Shafiq Khan
Dr. Anwqr Masood
Executive Council:
President
Khalid Chaudhry
Vice-President
Syed Hafeez
Treasurer
Omar Dadi
1
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Cont. Bill
5-11,
presentation
by
KhaUd Chaudhry, page 2
Firstly, the County Office of Human Rights was established nearly 50 years ago
and was the first of its kind in the entire nation. This rich history and legacy and
the essential and excellent work of the Office over decades should be not lightly
dismantled. It will not be easy to rebuild this legacy and capability once it is lost.
Secondly, the assumption that the State office will be able to take up the work
done by the County Office of Human rights is na'ive in my humble opinion. The
State office is already overburdened and slows in its response. Further what
happens if the State Government decides to cut back and pass the buck to the
Federal office?
Thirdly, it is very difficult and daunting for residents of our county to'-nave to go to
Annapolis, Baltimore or Hagerstown to the state office. Those who need to use
the services of the County Human Rights office generally do not have the
transport, or the means or the time to do. Going to the County office is a much
more friendly and easy proposition for them.
In conclusion, on behalf of all Montgomery County Residents, I urge you the
Montgomery County Council, not to make any cuts to the Office of Human Rights
and keep intact with the current structure so that the important services provided
by this office to its residents can continue.
Thank You.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
16
Norman
1.
Gelman
7904 Tumcrest Drive, Potomac, Md. 20854
email:normangelman@verizon.net
Testimony Before Montgomery County Council. March 29, 2011
My name is Norman Gelman. I am here this evening as chainnan of the Maryland Commission
6n Human Relations to explain why changing the status and jurisdiction of the county's human
relations commission would damage residents of Montgomery County and every other
jurisdiction in the State.
The March 1 memo from the County Executive to Ms. Ervin cites the Organizational Refonn
Commission's recommendation that - and I quote - "the adjudicatory role of the Human Rights
Commission be moved to the state and federal governments."
I am sorry to have to tell you that the Organizational Refonn Commission failed to do its
homework. If they'd bothered to ask, we could have told them that we do not have the capacity
to absorb the cases that this legislation would offload onto our docket. Although I cannot speak
for the EEOC or any other federal agency, our staff believes that the federal government is also
overburdened.
You have on file a memorandum I sent you from Henry Ford, our executive director, addressed
to the County Executive. I urge you to read it He makes some points I do not have time to
cover.
You probably know it but let me emphasize what's involved here. Our Agency enforces the law
against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on race,
religion, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc., Discrimination is unlawful but it is
also ugly and it harms individual people. Your constituents. I assume there is not a single
member of this Council who wants to countenance discrimination. But that would be the effect
if this legislation is approved. Why? Because justice delayed is justice denied.
Montgomery County is not the only jurisdiction with budget problems. Our agency has suffered
substantial reductions in funds and staff over the past several years. As a result, it now takes us
about 18 months to complete an investigation of complaints of discrimination in employment,
housing or public accommodations and to make a decision on whether further action is warranted
by the evidence. Our staff is working as fast as it can and we keep falling further and further
behind. We've reported this fact to the Governor and to the State Legislature, and we deeply
regret the trend, but is only going to get worse ..
Our Agency took in 717 cases in FY 201
O.
You'll have to ask the Montgomery County group
exactly how many cases we'd inherit because we can't tell that for sure from the numbers shown
in their annual report. But, whatever the number is, we can't do their work. We believe that
with the addition of Montgomery County complaints to our existing workload the 18 months it
now takes to complete a case would likely become 24 months or more.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Two years to investigate a complaint and decide ifthere's enough evidence to go to trial? Is that
the right thing to do to your constituents? Is it the right thing to do to citizens of Easton and
Salisbury and Frederick and Cumberland and Hagerstown and St, Charles and Havre de Grace?
I don't think so. But that's what will happen if this legislation is approved.
I urge you to defeat this legislation for the sake of victims of discrimination in Montgomery
County and all over the state. They don't deserve to suffer the delays that will be caused if the
bill passes. Our Commission can't help solve Montgomery County's budget problem. But
Montgomery County can make our problems and the problems of people in Maryland suffering
discrimination significantly worse than they already are.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony
on
8itl 5-11
Human Rights Commission Reorganization
March
29, 2011
Odessa
M.
Shannon
Ms. Ervin, Members of the Council:
I
come before you with the
unique
experience of having served as the
Senior
Service
Executive National Program Director responsible for investigations and operations in
aU of the then 48 EEOC field offices
Kross
the country. l also had oversight of alt Fair
Employment Practices Agencies
with
which the
EEOC
had work-sharing agreements.
More
recentlv~
I
retired
as
the Director of the County's
Office of
Human
Riahts
J
which
was acknowledged one of the most outstanding In
the
country
because
of
its'"
high
standards
for
conducting investigations and
~emonstrated
high quality of work.
This background
is
offered in support of my personal knowledge that the premise
stated in the March
1
cover letter
justifying
Bill 5-11••
Quote. Hduplication of effort".
misstates the
facts
as
I
understand them.
"Duplication of effort" does
not
exist between the enforcement functions of the Office
of Human Rights and those of federal and state agencies. There
is
only duplication of
mission;
that
is,
to
protect
the
civil rights
of
Individuals.
The
EEOC enforces the following
laws;
Title VU
of the
Civil
Rights Act
of
1964
as
amended; Equal Pay
Act
of
1963;
Age Discrimination
in
Employment
Act
of
1967;
Title
I
of
the
Americans with Disabilities
Act
of
1990;
Sections
SOl.
and
505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of
2008.
Hun
enforc:es
the
following laws: The Federal Fair
Housing
Act
of
1968
as
amended; Section
504
of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973;
Title
Vi
of the
Civil
Rights Act
of
1975 and Title II of the Americans
with
Disabilities Act.
The
Maryfand Human
Rights
Commissjon enforces the
anti·discrimination
Jaws
in
Article 49B of the Maryland Code.
The Montgomery County Office of Human
m,hts
enforces the
anti~
discrimination Jaws embodied
in Chapter 27
of
the
Montpmery County
Code.
Each
of these entities has additions,
limitations
and restrictions not present
in
the
others.
The Montgomery County Office of Human Rights is welf positioned
to
carry out
its"
responsibilities
under
the current law.. The proposed legislation,
and the
current
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
budget recommendation that the Office of Human Rights be part of an "office of
Community Engagement", however, do not recognize that the Office of Human Rights
does not Nengage the community" in
the
sense of the Commission for Women, the
Gilchrist Center and the Regional Services Centers. Rather
it
is
the county's
civil
rights
law-enforcement office with powers
to
levy
fines, issue right to sue letters
and
mandate other remedies
l
including back pay and reinstatement in jobs. The proposed
recommendations nearly take us back to the time when the Human Rights Commission
consisted of volunteers who heard and sought to settle cases. There was only one
staff person, the Executive Director. There were no professional staff, no enforcement
powers, and no ability to levy fines or offer other forms of relief.
AU
settlements were
voluntary, with no penalties or follow-up.
(ptease note that settlement. conciliation
and med1ation are
stiU
a valued
part
of
the current Investilatlve process).
Even more disturbing, the proposed legislation woutd send
aU
charge
bases
covered
by
the federal
and state laws
back
to those entities and keep only bases unique to the
county. Thfs would mean that cases relating to race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, disability, age, familial status, and genetic information would not
be
investigated by the county. but
would
become
part
of
the
huee federal and state
bactdogs,
subjecting our residents to extraordinary waiting times for charge
resolution. While greater protections have been added to the county's
laws ,
the bases
covered
by
federaJ
law
are
the
CORE
of
eMl
rights
protection.. Under the current
proposal, the
OHR
becomes nothing more than a referral agency for these CORE
bases.
It
could only take charges related to ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation,
presence of children and source of income (housing only). This debilitating
change
to
the mission and operation of
OHR
would be comparable to sending.
the
automobile
away and keeping the tires.
f
am welt aware of the fiscal situation in the county. But for a county of nearly a
million
people
of diverse backgrounds to
&Ut
an agency
that
addresses
their rights
is
nothing short of a travesty.
As
to
the
very real and serious budgetary concerns,
t
have
previously
forwarded
suggestions to address this issue , including renaming OHR The
Office
of Civil
Rights
to
better describe
its'
legislative mandate, and moving some of the programs not directly
refated
to
faw enforcement efsewhere.
I
suggest this with great refuctance because
all have been nationally recognized. I would be happy to discuss these suggestions
further during Committee meetings. should you so desire.
Thank you for your attention.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2
0
March 29, 2011
Testimony to Montgomery County Council
On
Bill
#
5-11, Human Rights Commission
Good evening Council President Ervin and Council members
My name is Ruby A. Rubens, and I am here this evening as a county resident of
forty three years. I would like to quickly take you back to the fall of 1967. At that
time my husband and I were considering homeownership as we relocated to take
a federal appointment. As we looked around DC area jurisdictions, we were
surprised to encounter numerous racial barriers. Remember this was just prior
the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Although we did encounter some such obstacles in
Montgomery County, we were immediately referred to one of the watchdog
organizations in the county, Suburban Maryland fair Housing( SMFH) ... and were
told that Montgomery County already had laws on the books to protect victims of
discrimination and that this was a progressive county where we could feel
welcomed. We found that Montgomery County was among a short list of
jurisdictions that had strong public policy of civil and human rights in Chapter 27
of the county code. For me this created an atmosphere that permitted me to
become actively engaged as a housing tester with SMFH, enter the real estate
market to integrate the professional realtor pool, and later become the County's
first fair Housing Coordinator. In each of these endeavors I saw first-hand the
devastating impact that discrimination can have on families.
I want this same protection today for families who are victims of discrimination
in employment
I
housing and public accommodations. I am fully aware that we
are experiencing a serious budget shortfall and that the entire nation is
experiencing a severe economic downturn. Unfortunately, It is times like these
that we see an increase in discriminatory practices, especially in employment.
Jobs are at a premium and the competition is steep for the few jobs that are
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
available. Unfortunately this breeds an environment where personal bias can be
exhibited without much oversight. It is times like this that we need more, not less,
enforcement of human rights laws to ensure compliance. As we live and value the
diverse county we have become, we must invest in the future to preserve this
diversity in a manner that protects all of our citizens.
I strongly oppose this bill which would dismantle the Office of Human Rights. To
approve this bill would in effect revere all the progress that has been made over
the past fifty years. The message sent to the community and those seeking to
come here is that we do not value human rights. It is common knowledge that the
state is not equipped to handle additional cases and the federal agencies have
tremendous backlogs. Neither the state nor federal agencies has the authority
to process cases protected only at the county level. To state that these are only a
few cases indicates a total disregard for the rights of those "few" individuals and
families who are among the most vulnerable. We send a message that they don't
count.
I would urge the Council to keep in place the law enforcement arm of the Human
Rights Commission. This would continue with the Office having the responsibility
of investigating and resolving cases of discrimination and the Commission as the
review and appeals board. It should remain a stand-alone agency and especially
not merged with other county departments as it is charged with handling cases
involving county employees as well as others. The Fair Housing Coordinator
position and the Interagency Fair Housing Coordinating Group functions could and
should be returned to the DHCA, where it was originally placed.
The community relations and outreach functions of the Commission are the only
other functions that I could see being assigned to other county agencies.
I urge you to make every effort to find the funds to retain the office of Human
Rights. I appreciate the opportunity to address you on such an important issue.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony in Opposition to Bill 5-11,
Human Rights Commission Reorganization
Public Hearing March 29
th ,
2011
Saqib Ali
12504 Degas Court, North Potomac, MD 20878
Phone: 240-812-9671
Email: saqib.ali.75@gmail.com
Good Evening, Madame Council President and Honorable Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on the proposal to abolish the Office of Human
Rights and to reorganize its functions.
What the Office of Human Rights does:
The OHR was established by law to help avoid and conciliate intergroup friction and to enforce
human rights laws. Rights protected under the law cover employment, public accommodations,
housing, and commercial real estate.
The Commissioners of Human Rights are men and women who are broadly representative of the
diverse population of the County. Three members of the Commission serve on the Case Review
Board which handles appeals and hearings for discrimination complaints.
The OHR investigates incidents of hate/violence and complaints of discrimination. Victims of
hate/violence crimes can seek compensation for replacement of property through the County's
Partnership Fund, administered by the Office of Human Rights.
Why the Office of Human Rights is so vital:
The OHR provides a mechanism to help enforce laws that establish the principle of equal rights. By
definition, the people that are most in need of this type of enforcement are those that are most
vulnerable. Indigents, undocumented immigrants, the homeless, racial
&
religious minorities,
domestic servants, etc. To my knowledge, there is no other county organization that focuses
exclusively on these important and most needy populations.
Why I hope the Office of Human Rights is not eliminated/re-organized:
I am doubtful that are-organized OHR will be able to carry out its function to the same level it is
today. There is bound to be a drop-off in level of service no matter what anyone says.
I know the County Council is wrestling with a difficult budget challenge which will require very tough
decisions. I would respectfully submit that protecting the OHR should be one of our highest priorities.
I would respectfully urge members of the Council to do everything reasonable within your powers to
maintain the OHR in its current form.
Thank you for your consideration of my remarks.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
27
souza
Law Office, LLC
March 29, 2011
Re:
Expedited BillS-H,
Office of Human Rights - Human Rights Commission
Statement of Gwen W. D'Souza, Esq., Aspen Hill, owner of D'Souza Law Office, LLC,
Bethesda
Council members:
My name is Gwen D'Souza. I am a citizen of Montgomery County. I have been.
volunteer mediator at the Office of Human Rights since 2000. I subsequently began a practice as
an Employment Lawyer in Montgomery County.
Expedited Bill 5-11 as proposed limits the investigation activities of the Office of Human
Rights to those complaints, which are unique to Montgomery County.
The Bill provides --For Complaints that allege a discriminatory act that is also prohibited
under state or federal law, the Commission must handle the complaint by advising the
complainant of the right to file a legal action in state court under the state human rights law or to
file a complaint with the applicable state or federal enforcement agency.
I am glad to note that the legislation as proposed is much more limited than the broad
changes recommended by the Organizational Reform Commission. The legislations provide that
the Office of Human Rights will not be eliminated. More importantly, it provides that the Office
of Human Rights will continue to accept complaints. This is the minimum that the citizens of
Montgomery County deserve.
However, in reviewing the memorandum to the County Council, there appears to be a
misunderstanding about the duplication of efforts with state and federal agencies. As for the
EEOC, currently, there is a work sharing agreement between the EEOC and the Office of Human
Rights. Under this agreement, the Office of Human Rights has accepted cases, which are cross­
filed with the EEOC, but are investigated by the Office of Human Rights for itself and for the
EEOC. Therefore, while there may be a duplication of authority to investigate certain matters,
there is no duplication of efforts.
If this bill is enacted, the Office of Human Rights will only investigate cases, in which
the employer has less than 15 employees or the protected class is presence of children, family
responsibilities, source of income, gender identity, or ancestry. All other cases will not be
investigated by the County. Instead the County may advise the complainant of the right to file
the complaint with the EEOC or the State Commission of Human Relations.
Having practiced in the area of employment law extensively, however, for over ten years,
I expect that little to no investigation will be performed by these other agencies. While the
@
------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 1100, Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Telephone: 301-452-1888 • Email: gwdsouza@comcast.net
www.dsouzalaw.com
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
SOllza
Law Office, LLC
Maryland Commission on Human Relations enforces a similar statute, the Commission has
expressly stated repeatedly that it does not have the budget or the staff to investigate any portion
of new cases a year from Montgomery County. I have attached a copy of the Letter from the
Maryland Commission on Human Relations to the County Executive for your review. Similarly,
I expect the EEOC will likely not investigate these cases. I expect
it
will likely continue its
practice to issue right-to-sue letters, without any investigation, as it does in the majority of its
cases.
I am concerned that this legislation may not provide a sufficient remedy for the many
small employers or many of the unemployed citizens of Montgomery County. These entities
bringing or facing claims of age, disability, national origin, race, color, religion, sex, marital
status, sexual orientation, and genetic discrimination, will likely go to court with limited
intervention by any agency.
While I understand the need for long-term savings to the County, I urge you to consider
the importance of our community's long-term goal to promote a diverse society providing equal
opportunities for employment, real estate, and public accommodation as well. I urge you to vote
against this bill.
Thank you, Councilmembers.
7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 1100, Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Telephone: 301452-1888 • Email: gwdsouza@comcast.net
vi\v'W.dsouzalaw.com
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
County Council Remarks by Terry Vann
March 29, 2011
My name is Terry Vann.
In
my former life, I was an attorney specializing in employment law.
Now I volunteer with County Office of Human Rights (ORR), the Maryland Commission on Human
Relations and the EEOC as a mediator of cases involving all types of discrimination. You have a very
difficult task in making budget cuts and in determining priorities and consequences, but any decisions you
make should be informed decisions, based on correct factual information and you should be aware ofthe
conseqnences. Unfortunately, the information upon which the recommendations are based is insufficient,
confusing and misleading.
The basic premise of the recommendations is that most of what the County Office of Human
Rights does is unnecessary because
it
duplicates State and Federal jurisdiction and therefore, the
consequences of eliminating County efforts to fight discrimination in those cases would be minimaL
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Director of the Maryland Commission has informed you
that although there is overlapping jurisdiction, the state Commission and our county ORR and Human
Rights Commission have worked for many years in a cooperative arrangement whereby they carefully
monitor each others' caseloads to insure that they don't duplicate the efforts of the other. The same is true
with respect to the federal civil rights agencies. The Director of the State Commission adds that if the
recommendations are adopted, the results of the increased caseload on the state would be catastrophic
because the State is not in a position to take on any additional complaints from Montgomery County, and
to add any portion of the county's cases will increase the average completion time for an investigation
from 1 to 2 years or more. Additionally, the recommendation would impose a severe hardship on these
alleged victims of discrimination by requiring vulnerable and possibly disabled Montgomery County
claimants to travel to Baltimore to file complaints and to talk with State investigators. I fear that many
will not be able to pursue their remedies.
Aside from the impracticality of shifting the burden of dealing with discrimination to the State,
the recommendations call into question the core values of our county. If the recommendations are
adopted, here are some· examples of situations for which there would be no recourse in Montgomery
County.
• An African American woman is refused service at a restaurant and is told "we don't serve
your kind here."
• A salesman who uses a wheelchair is fired because the company wants a healthier image.
• Latinos in a construction company are subject to harassment because of their foreign
accent or skin color.
• A 50 year old man is fired because he is too old.
• A woman is refused employment because she might get pregnant.
There are of course more subtle forms of discrimination but I listed the obvious ones.
In
all of
those situations, the County would be powerless to enforce its antidiscrimination laws. We would say,
"You have to go to Baltimore. Maybe the State can help you." Or we could say that it's too bad that you
don't live or work in PG, Howard or Frederick County, where they do enforce antidiscrimination laws.
Does this reflect the values of Montgomery County? I sure hope not. Expressions that the County is
committed to eradicating discrimination ring hollow when the consequences of adopting the
recommendation would be (1) to make it easier to discriminate in the County and (2) to make
it
extremely
difficult for claimants to pursue their rights. I urge you to continue to protect the civil rights of our
residents and to continue to fund the Montgomery County Office of Human Rights, which is a model of
commitment and efficiency for State and the Nation. Thank you for your consideration.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
29
Statement of Richard W. Allen on Expedited Bill 5-11,
Office of Human Rights-Human Rights Commission-Reorganization
Richard W. Allen
9427 Gentle Circle
Montgomery Village, MD 20886
9301) 990-1548
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Montgomery County Council. My name is
Richard W. Allen and as a resident of Montgomery County, a equal opportunity
professional, and person concerned about maintaining civil rights services here within
Montgomery County, MD, I speak in opposition to BillS-II, Office of Human Rights­
Human Relations Commission-Reorganization.
First, I must acknowledge the reality of our current serious fiscal deficit and crisis, in the
cost of and operation of Montgomery County governmental units. However, the real
question facing us squarely is: Will half a loaf of Montgomery County Office of Human
Rights personnel, resources, and a volunteer Commission, provide our County's residents
with the necessary civil rights enforcement services, diversity educational/outreach
services, and fair housing services? From my perspective, the answer is clearly, No.
It
is good that County Executive Ike Leggett acknowledges the "unique and vital work"
and civil rights enforcement "staffing" personnel needs of the Montgomery County
Office of Human Rights and Commission. However, County Executive Ike Leggett's
proposal, to reorganize the Office of Human Rights staffing to "investigate, conciliate,
and adjudicate" before the Commission, Complaints whose alleged discriminatory acts
do not violate state or federal laws, is unfortunately, short-sighted. The County
Executive's legislation involves significant budgetary-paring down and eliminating of
Office of Human Rights personnel, in the provision of civil rights enforcement services
and community ethnic/religious educational outreach/uplift activities. In the words of my
only son, Mr. William Anthony Allen, "Dad, this is not good for the people".
If enacted as proposed within this legislation, the Office of Human Rights would docket,
investigate, and resolve, solely, Complaints based on the Montgomery
~County
"protected
classes" of discrimination based on presence of children (housing), family
responsibilities, source of income (housing), ancestry, and gender identity.
Recommendation #4 of the Montgomery County Organizational Reform Commission
(ORC), supported by and County Executive Ike Leggett, would "transfer" all civil rights
enforcement functions and responsibilities, involving the "protected classes" of race,
color, sex, age, marital status, religious creed, national origin, and disability, to the
Maryland Commission on Human Relations, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the U.S, Department of Housing and Urban Development, other federal
agencies, and the appropriate Maryland Circuit Court.
Cited as the "problem" within the Legislative Request Report of Expedited Bill 5-11, is
the
statelnent,
"t11e
COllnty
Humal1
Rights La\:v
co\'ers
a large number of areas that are
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(2.)
duplicative of state and federal law, leading to significant expense on the part of the
County".
My professional work experience in both equal housing opportunity, equal employment
opportunity, and in workforce diversity programs, has enabled me to see the
tangible
value
of local, state, and federal civil rights agencies,
working in tandem
through dual­
Complaint-filing systems, to fight the problems of housing discrimination and
employment discrimination.
Mr. Henry
B.
Ford, Executive Director, Maryland Commission on Human Relations,
within a March 2, 2011 letter to County Executive Ike Leggett, talked about the
significant cuts in civil rights personnel, fiscal budgets, and high Complaint levels that
his agency and the federal EEOC are currently going through. His letter also indicates
that "citizens of Montgomery County as well as the entire state would suffer".
Finally, how would the proposed legislative changes affect Montgomery County's receipt
ofHUD Community Develop Block Grants? Remember, there is a contractual duty on
the part of the recipient to "affirmatively further fair housing". Based on my work and
community group experiences, I have reason to believe that People with disabilities,
women, ethnic and religious minorities, older employees, and others, gain from a Office
of Human Rights and Commission, staffed with the necessary resources. As we approach
a population of almost one million people within Montgomery County, the most diverse
County in the state of Maryland, in this upcoming 51
st
year of this governmental entity,
we need this agency at full strength, more than ever.
Therefore, I urge the Montgomery County Council to reject the adaptation of Bill 5-11­
Office of Human Rights-Human Rights Commission-Reorganization. Thanks.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
3\
Testimony before the Montgomery County Council Concerning
Changes Noted in Bill 5-11 and the Report
of the
County
Organizational Reform Commission Affecting the County Human
Rights Commission and the County Office of Human Rights in FY 2012
lVIarch 29, 2011
Good evening, my name is Henry Montes and for this hearing I identify myself as a
County resident and advocate for the Latino community in the County. Let me start my
testimony by thanking the County Council for having these hearings and allowing me to
testify this evening. This evening I would like to share with the County Council
members why it is important to the quality of life in the County to maintain and support,
without new legislation, the ongoing work of the County Human Rights Commission and
its collaborator for social justice, the County Office of Human Rights.
My understanding of the recommendation of the County Organizational Reform
Commission in relation to these two County entities and the thrust of Bill 5-11 will be to
restrict their jurisdiction over human rights responsibilities to those areas that cannot be
dealt with by state or federal authorities. Ostensibly doing this change will allow for the
reduction of duplication of adjudication efforts for human rights complaints filed with the
County Office of Human Rights and somehow save the County money in the process.
Although I understand the logic of this approach, the reality of how individual complaints
are started, how they are processed and how they are eventually resolved, is not as clean-
cut a process as is being considered by the separation of responsibilities noted in the in
the ORC report nor in this Bill.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2
Please consider that the state and federal levels draw complaints and other actions from a
much larger universe of potential complainants and so, just getting our Montgomery
County residents' complaints considered becomes a much larger competitive process for
time and being a priority. Next those at the state and federal levels dealing with such
cases do not really know what is going on in the County in terms of nuances of
relationships among populations. Nor are they familiar with the public discourse of
societal issues that affect our County cases, e.g. immigrants and immigration issues. At
the federal level this is even more distant in terms of being responsive for focusing on our
County issues. Furthermore, resources are tight all over, and my understanding is that
the State of Maryland Human Rights operation would have a very difficult time being
responsive to the added cases that would come from the changes suggested in the Bill.
Not knowing for certain, but being a retired federal employee and from past knowledge
of the work of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, its case load is
.also over the top and getting its attention would be difficult.
It
makes sense, then, to ensure that our County residents get the benefit of all we can do
to ensure their human rights are protected by keeping our cases close to home. Let's not
change something that is not broken, namely, the dedicated service performed by
committed volunteers of the Human Rights Commission and the hard-working staff of
the Office of Human Rights who are watching out for our most vulnerable residents.
With the growth of our Latino populations and other populations of color in the County
and anti-immigrant sentiments that are few but seem to be growing, we must not abandon
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
3
the one mechanism we have to probe social injustices that unfortunately occur all too
often. As the Latino community grows larger and stronger, it will likely need the
services of the County Human Rights Commission and its operational arm, the County
Office of Human Rights even more. Changing the dynamic in the County from one of
vulnerable people having a place to go to address problems ofjob discrimination, social
intimidation, unfairness in housing and uncertainty of rights to having them needing to
go to a distant place to get these resolved, will create greater problems then the perceived
need of reducing a $1.5 million dollar budget in the County.
Therefore, I ask you to consider the present and future needs of vulnerable peoples in the
County who rely on a County home voice to support and protect their rights and that you
not make changes, through any Bill, to the authorities and jurisdictions covered by the
current County Human Rights Commission and its operational partner, the County Office
of Human Rights.
Thank you for your attention to my testimony_
Respectfully submitted,
1/1
)~(£~!nt~t=
I
J
.
Montgomery County Latino Community Advocate
301-762-1103
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
32­
ALAN
BANOV
AND
ASSOCIATES
ALAN
BANOV
t\dmmed
in
i\1ardand and the
District
of Columbia
f\1arch 28.
10
I I
RE: EXPEDlTED BILL
5-
J
J-
Office of Human Rights Human Rights Commission
S1atement of Abn BallO\. Esq .. Kensington. owner of Alell1 Bano\ and /\ssocJa!es. SihTr Spring
]
113\e
J small la\\ firm in Siher Spring 3nd han' heen a County resIdent since
J
974. I
hnw practiced employment la\\' for (ner
30
years and during that period I have represented many
employees and ex-employees in discrimination cnses betlwe the Montgomery County OfJlce of
Hum~1I1
Rights Jnd within the last couple of years litigated a
\er)
complex retaliation case before
the County Human Rights Commission
(Anissa Harris
)',
Hampden Lalle LLC
Case No. REH­
03982). Since
J
996 I h,1\e also sened as a \olunteer mediator for the MCOHR and 11a\e
medi ated dozens and dozens of discrimll1atioll C<lses. most of them successfully.
J
am also a member of the MJryland Employment Umyers Association and drafted its
l-prrespondcncl' opposing thl' ah()\ishment nf the Office of
Hum~m
rights and the Cnmmissiol1,
1 appreciate thnt the County Executive does not fully adopt the recommendations of the
Montgomery County Organizational Reform Commission (ORC) with respect to the
Commission and MCOHR. However. even
\11'.
Leggett's more limited approach will still
depriw County residents of important rights to seek remedies tl)r alleged discliminatiol1 in their
employmcnt. public accoml11mbtions. and real estate transactiPJ1s.
Here's why:
I.
The County Inw protects those who work 1l)r an employer with fewer than 15
employees (while neither EEOC nor the State Commission will imestigate charges against
employers 'vvith fewer than
J
5 employees). This enables many more complainants to obtain
administrative relief for illegal discrimination or reprisal.
2.
The local statute protects classes not covered by other federal or state laws,
specifically "marital status" (covered by state law, but not Title VlI), "sexual orientation-- (not
covered by Title VII), "genetic status" (similar to the Federal Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of
2008.
but not identical), "presence of children" (not covered by Title
VII or the state la\\'), and "source of income" (not covered by Title Vll or state law), As stated
by Russell Campbell. Sr., the current Chair of the Commission. in his Jetter to Mr. Leggett of
February
J
7.
• Unlike Montgomery County. the state and federal govemments do not afford
protection to persons who are fin;'lI1cially or legally responsible
f(:)f
the SUpp011 and
care of persons regardless of the number or age of any dependent person.
• Unlike Montgomery County. the state and federal go\ernments do not afford
protection against
diSCrimination
hased
Oil
a pcrson's actual or pncei\cd gender.
WWW.BANOVLAW.COM
840ICOLESVILLE
ROAP,.
grIT~
325
30I.5$?~Q6.9,~
. .
'30I:5g8~9698;FAx.
, .siLYERSP.RIl'IG;M:D 269ICr
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Banm
Slal\'Illl'Jll
tll
(\lUnl\
(-\HlIll'Ji
Re:
EXPEDITED 811
L
5~
11
March
28. 2011
Page 2
Cases do arise under these unique provisions_ Of the
~49
discrimination complaints filed \\ith
MCOHR in
FY2008. 2
alleged sexual orientation.
1
invohed marital status, 2 involved presence
of children. 24 iJ1\olved source of income. and 6 imohed family responsibilities. See
MCOHR"s
FY2008
Report_
3.
The fi]ing
tinlC
for
discrl]TI1nation
cases in !\,1ontgo1nery C()unty is one year. t\\'ice
the time allowed hy the state and 65 days longer than th(' imlilations period to file with EEOC.
This is important hecause It may lake complainants time to clJscO\er discrimination and then
to
file complaints. with or \Vilhout a lawyer.
4.
The Montgomery County law has broader
anti~reprisal
provisions than does its
federal counterpart. Thus, the Human Rights Law not only prohibits retaliation against persons
for opposing discrimination on the job and pal1icipating in administrative complaints before
MCOHR. The County law also makes it unlawful
to
engage in the follo\ving acts:
(2) assist in, compel. or coerce any discriminatory practice prohibited under this
diyision:
(~)
ohstrtlct or preyent enforcement or compliance \\ ith this di\T3lOn: or
(4) attempt directly or
jndjrectl~
to commit any discriminatory practice prohIbited
under this, division.
Montgomery County, Md. Code
§
J
9(c) (emphasis added), See also Section 27-9(a) ("Any
person subjected to an act of discrimination or intimidation under this article may pursue a civil
action under Maryland law.").
5.
Remedies under the statute (at least in court) may be broader than those in other
statutes (federal laws limit compensatory and punitive dnmages to
$50,000
to
S300,000,
depending on the size of the employer).
6.
OHR is physically accessible to many who
(J )
cannot trnvel to the federal or state
offices in Baltimore and (2) who, for various reasons (including lack ofliteracy and English
proficiency) are more likely to file at the OHR.
7.
Some victims of discrimination obtain relief at the administrative level through
the OHR who, for numerous reasons (including cost) would never be able to pursue a claim in
court, In fact, many cases settle in mediation at MCOHR, thereby eliminating the need for the
parties to engage in administrative or judicial litigation. (In
fY2008,
for example, MCOHR
referred
38
cases to mediation, and
16,
or 42%, settled in mediation.)
8.
The absence of a local administrative agency will increase the number of filings
in circuit court and thereby increase the costs not only for the parties, but also for the courts.
9.
Most complainants before the MCOHR simply cannot litigate cases in court
either because they cannot anord an attomey or because the case simply warrants some modest
consideration. which they could obtain in mediation.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Banm
Sl;llc!11c])1 10 Counl\ Cnunl'd
Re: EXPEDITED BILL 5-
J J
March 28. 20J
J
Page 3
Administrative proceedings before the Commission are less f01111a] than court
cases. \Vhjle representation by a discrimination lawyer will certainly enhance the complainant's
0pp0l1unity for success, Commission proceedings do not require legal representation as much as
court cases do.
In his Fehruary ] 7 leiter to
1\11'
Leggett. Mr. Campbell aptly expressed the need to retain
both MCOHR and the Commission for protecting human rights in the County
\\l1el1
he stated:
The Human Rights Commission and the Office of Human Rights han: a symbiotJc
relationship. The Office provides SUpp0l1 services for the Commission, \vhile the
Commission provides supp0l1 for the ohjectives of the Office, including Case Review
Board panels that review cases on appeal after they have been investigated through the
Office of Human Rights (Mont. County Code Sec.
27-2).
Mr. Leggett' s proposal would save a negligible amount of money -in fact, ] am not aware
of any estimate of how much money it would save.
It
would be a proverbial drop in the ocean of
a huge 54.35 hillion hudget!
Ho\\c\er. thc changes would render a considerable cost to those in the County who want
to complain of discrimination on the job. in public accommodations, or in real estate
transactions. Indeed,
1
wonder jf the abolition of MCOHR and/or the Commission will
encourage County employers generally to disregard Jegal impediments to discrimination.
We hope that you and your Council members will reject that position and oppose
abolition of either the Commission or MCOHR.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
J
O.
ctfuJlY~
an Banov
ZV:
/---,
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Attachment
#
9
SUMMARY OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
COMBINED CASE STATUS REPORT AS OF 03/15/2011
428
173
]22
133
Average Number of New Cases Filed:
200/year
Average Number of Cases Closed:
TBD
Total number of existing/pending cases
(200210311512011)
Total number of existing/pending cases that are within MC-OHR's jurisdiction, but not eligible to go to EEOC or MD­
HRC or cases for which complainant cannot file in Circuit Court after January 1,2012.
Total number of existing/pending cases that are within MC-OHR's jurisdiction after removing cases barred by statute of
limitations at EEOC and MD-HRC
(approx,
28%
ofthe total number ofpending cases.)
Total number of existing/pending cases that are within MC-OHR 's jurisdiction, and eligible to go to MC-OHR or EEOC
Case Status:
Intake pending receipt of signed complaint ­
(iflwhen signed, will be assigned to investigators)
Assigned to Investigation-currently in Mediation Process -
(work to be completed by mediators)
Investigation in Progress
~
(work to be completed by Investigators)
Cases in Management Review
~
(work to be completed by Compliance Manger)
In Management Post Determination Process
~~
(work to be completed by Compliance Director)
In Management Referral, Conciliation, Case Review Board, or Hearing (CCH) ­
(work to be completed by Director)
In Special Review
&
Analysis in connection with CCH
~~
(work to be completed by Director and/or Investigators)
Cases Type:
Employment (78%)
Housing (12%)
Total number of'pending cases filed by the Human Rights Commission on the basis ofhousing testing:
6 (1.4%)
Public Accommodation (5%)
Intimidation
(5~L
,_
_
,.-
...
. ..
...
19
23
]63
97
57
4]
28
334
53
21
20
..
...
...
MC-OHR Existing
Pending Cases
prior to
.=.C=Gsc=-e..:.t.e..
typle::.:..&=-=.Yl.::.:ea::.;..rL:.
iii:..;:.le.:.:.d_+
~~..
2002
Iloyment
8
4
Inti
111
idatio:..:n_ _ _ _ _ _+-_ _
-t
2003
. . . .
­
_.
1
..
2004
._
. . . . .
3
~
...
2005
_
-
..
2006
-------
7
4
2007
16
4
2008
54
2009
89
----
2010
129
20
8
2011
as of
3115111
19
2
I
Total
334
PlIblic Accommodation
Real":,,,~~~~
1
2
2
9
1
5
2
­
...
4
3
20
21
53
._.
----
Total
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- L .
8
$57,000
$337,500
3
Revenue from EEOC contracts
(for
FY12)
2
6
2
22
60
16
108
26
183
22
428
Proceeds to the complainants from Conciliations and Mediation Settlements
®
O(hes'
E\:lIlIIJlcs
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOLLOW-UP
Q1JESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. Functions of each office:
• The answers to the questions I sent earlier did not include a description ofthe functions of
the Office of Community Partnerships.
Please see
Attachment A.
• Clarify how the services provided
by
the 5 Regional Service Center differ.
Please see
Attachment B.
• What services are housing in each ofthe 5 Regional Service Centers that are not provided
by
RSC
staff?
BCC Regional Services Center (BCCRSC)
Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center is housed here.
Bethesda Urban District Manager is housed here.
Non-:profit
-
Senior Vital Living Center.
Non-profit
-
Wonders Child Care Center.
Non-profit Partnerships at BCCRSC (!'hese non-profits serve BCC residents at the
BCCRSC, but do not have dedicated office space): computer rehab and classesfor
seniors through volunteers, continuing education classes for seniors via partnership with
Washington Oasis, senior exercise classes via partnership with Suburban Hospital.
East County Regional Services Center (ECRSC)
East County Regional Services Center is housed here.
Health and Human Services (HHS)
-
People's Community Wellness Clinic -primary
health care for low-income uninsured residents.
HHS Contractor
-
Mobile Med
-
acute healthcare for low-income uninsured residents.
HllS
-
One Staffperson housed in RSC office space from the African American Health
Initiative.
Police
-
East County Police Substation.
Non-profit Partnerships at ECRSC (These non-profits serve East County residents
regularly at the ECRSC, but do not have dedicated offil!e space): AARP Free Tax
Preparation; Pro Bono legal Clinic; Montgomery College Spanish classes; Maryland
procurement Technical Assistance program for Small Businesses; HIV Prevention and
Counseling (GapBuster Learning Center); ESDL classes by the Literacy Council of
Montgomery County; Manna Food; and the Small Business Development Center for
small business counseling
1
I.:tJ/
;t;?;;)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Silver Spring Civic Center Building (SSCB)
Silver Spring Regional Services Center (SSRSC) and the Silver Spring Urban district
.
(SSUDJ are housed in the SSCB.
Community Use ofPublic Facilities (CUPF) scheduler is housed in the SSCB.
In FYJ2, a Building Manager and one additional building space related person will be
housed in the SSCB.
Department ofGeneral Services (DGS)
-
SSCB building maintenance staff
Office ofCommunity Partnerships (OCP) -An AmerlCorps intern shared
by
OCP and
theSSRSC.
Round House Theatre uses the basement level ofthe Silver Spring Civic Building (with a
separate entrance) for their consolidated administrative offices, some rehearsals, and
classes.
There are no direct service providers in the facility.
Mid-County Regional Services Center (MCRSC)
Mid-county Regional Services Center is housed here.
Wheaton Urban District is housed here.
DGS
-
Wheaton Redevelopment
HHS
-
Community Action Agency.
HHS
-
Women's Cancer Control Program.
HHS -Adult Behavioral Health.
Department ofRecreation (REC)
-
Gilchrist Center (FYJ2, part ofOCE).
HHS Contractor
-
Proyecto Salud
Non-:/»,ojit
-
Mid-County United Ministries.
Non-projit
-
Conflict Resolution Center.
Upcounty Regional Services Center (UCRSC)
Upcounty Regional Services Center is housed here.
Department ofEconomic Development (DED)
-
Montgomery Works.
DGSiFacilities Division
-
Area Property Manager.
OCP
-
Gilchrist Center.
Community Use ofPublic Facilitie$.
Health
&
Human Services
Services Eligibility Unit; Income Support Programs; Public Health; Housing
Stabilization Services; Emergency Services; Child Welfare; Dental program
Office ofHuman Resources
-
County Employees' training rooms.
Department ofHousing
and
Community Affairs (DHCA) contractor
-
Foreclosure
Assistance Counseling
(lllP
contract with DHCA).
Non-projit
-
Peppertree Childrens Center.
HHS Contractor
-
GUIDE Youth Services.
MCPS
-
Training and Organizational Development.
MCPS
-
Transportation Division.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2. I
am
still not sure how we will articulate in my staffmemo the benefits of OCE that could not
otherwise happen with the existing structure, particularly with regards to collaboration so it
would
be
helpful to have you put something in writing.
Please see Attachment Cfor the County Code definitions ofthe County's "Principal
Departments/Offices" and "Non-Principal Offices". The County Executive's main goal is to
achieve the following objectives without eliminating or creating a new Principal or Non­
Principal Office. The proposed Office ofCommunity Engagement folfills County Executive's
following policy, budgetary and operational objectives.
County Executive Objectives to Achieve:
1. Produce Long-Term Savings
~
$2.
8M
2. Increase collaboration and partnerships among County departments and offices.
3. Create a better organized community outreach approach in order to have a more effective
and efficient response to population and demographic changes.
4. Create a more unified and comprehensive approach for engaging the community in order to
maximize the use ofCounty and community resources to address communitylresidents' needs.
5. Reduce the budget impacts to community, byfocusing on community/residents' needs and
target resource reductions where it would have the least negative impact to County
residents, from both the "size" and "vulnerability" perspectives.
6. Maintain the stand-alone and non-principal office status of "Office ofHuman Rights. "
7. Maintain the stand-alone and non-principal office status of "Commission for Women."
8. Maintain and require the same level ofcompetency, knowledge, and skill-sets requiredfor
each ofthe lead positions in these impacted units.
3.
How could the Council be assured
that
resources would not be shifted among fimctions
in
a way
that would be inconsistent with the Council's priorities?
As in the past, we will work collaboratively with the County Council on all resource/budget
related matters/needs. Please note that the jUnctions provided by the OHR and CFW are in the
County Code, therefore reducing and/or shifting oftheir dedicated staffresources (as submitted
in
FYI2
budget)
away
from these offices will not be possible.
4.
What specific steps will you take to ensure the MOD is followed and to improve communication
between
aCE
and Council offices?
a) Add a Council specific "performance exception" goal to
FYI2
Performance Plan ofthe
follOWing directors: Ken Hartman, Joy Nurmi, Natalie Cantor, Reemberto Rodriguez,
Cathy Matthews, and Bruce Adams.
b)
By
June 30
th
ofeach year, prior to finalizing the past performance reviews and the next year's
.performance expectations, seek Council members' inputlcomments.for inclusion in./inal
ratings and next year's performance expectations.
c) Offor a quarterly update meeting ofall RSC directors and Bruce Adams with the Council
designees and/or with Council memb!!rs.
d) On
ayearly basis, the CAO, or on his behalf. a designatedACAO, will meet one-on-one with
Council Members and/or their designee to discuss issues and, ifneeded, amend/modify the MOU.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
5. Which events
will
the County offer or support
in
FY12 and which office will be responsible?
What is the cost of each event?
Please see Attachment D.
6.
Can you explain why ERC still has
47
pending cases that were filed before
2008,
including
6
cases filed before 2oo2?
Forty-one ofthese cases are cases where
(1)
the OHR's Director's determination is being
reviewed
by
the Human Rights Commission (which may involve an administrative hearing) or
(2)
the Human Rights Commission's decision is on appeal to Circuit Court. Until the
Commission issues its decision
and
any
appeals are concluded, the case is shown as "pending"
by OHR, even though OHR's work on the case is done.
The remaining
6
cases that are more than
3
years old are outside ofthe expected inventory life
span but can be explained by lack oftracking and transition during periods ofsignificant staff
turnover.
7. What
%
of cases over the
last
5 years has the Office of Human Rights investigation found no
reasonable cause? Please break this down by type of case.
Consistent with the numbers from EEOC, a significant percentage ofMCOHR cases are resolved
without finding a violation ofthe anti-discrimination laws.
As
indicated on EEOC website,
based on total number of73,058 cases received last year,
3,794
or
5%
resulted in aprobable
cause finding. Also 7,024 EEOC cases resulted in a settlement (amicable resolution where there
may or
may
not have been some exposure in litigation).
8. How many cases
has
the Human Rights Commission decided after a hearing each year for the
past 5 years? How many ofthese cases were heard by the Hearing Examiners? Please break
these statistics down by type of case.
Atpresent, there are
24
cases pending or in review
by
the HRC or through a public hearing. In
addition, 10 cases are in line for conciliation
-
the stage before the hearing
-
most ofwhich will
go to public hearing.
With respect to cases in the last
5
years, the OHR
's
case management system cannot provide the
precise statistical breakdown sought by this question. OHR could generate the information
through a case by casefile reviewfor the last
5
years, but the time required/or such a review
would be extensive. But it is safe to say that, in the past
5
years, approximately
12
cases have
been reviewed through the Commission and/or the hearing examiner.
4
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Attachment A
Office of Community Partnerships - Core Functions
The mission ofthe Office of Community Partnerships is to strengthen relationships
between government and the residents it serves, with special focus on underserved and emerging
communities and our neighbors in need. The OCP serves as a bridge builder between the County
government and community organizations serving the residents of Montgomery County, working
across the barriers of race, ethnicity, income, and religion that too often diminish communities.
OCP's mission is to carry out the County's commitment to build a larger policy table with
participation by a more diverse range and greater number ofresidents.
Mission~
Core Function #1:
Issue Coordination
Engage
&
Empower Ethnic Communities
Activities:
Inform, engage, and empower ethnic communities through e-communications and outreach.
Lead effort to strengthen network of welcoming services of Gilchrist Center
Lead County's language access program.
Support development of a more culturally competent County government.
Staff County Executive's ethnic advisory groups and Committee for Ethnic Affairs.
Support World of Montgomery Festival, Montgomery County Sister Cities program, and
County's ethnic heritage events and programs.
Outcome Measure:
• Broaden participation of ethnic communities in civic life ofthe County
Core Function #2:
Strengthen Capacity ofNonprofit Sector and Faith
Community
Activities:
• Partner with Nonprofit Montgomery to promote collaboration of County government with
nonprofit sector and to strengthen nonprofit sector
• Work with Community Foundation's Nonprofit Advancement Fund to strengthen the
capacity of ethnic serving nonprofits
• Work to strengthen capacity of faith community to serve our neighbors in need
• Promote volunteerism and community service
• Partner with Corporate Volunteer Council, Companies for Causes, and others to strengthen
nonprofit sector
Outcome Measures:
• Increase number of residents in need served by nonprofit and faith organizations
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Attachment A (page 2)
Core Function #3:
Strengthen County's Culture ofGiving and Serving
Activities:
Connect individuals and organizations to volunteer opportunities through 1-800
data
base.
Support Student Service Learning program for MCPS students.
RSVP program and Senior Fellow collaborate to promote civic engagement of Seniors.
Promote Days of Service (MLK Day, Earth Month, Community Service Day).
Partner
with
Community Foundation, Corporate Volunteer Council, Companies for Causes,
Nonprofit Montgomery, and others to strengthen culture of giving and serving.
• Lead County's annual Employee Giving Campaign.
Outcome Measure:
• Increase number of volunteers and measurable impact of community service.
,-----,
(§j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Attachment B
Regional Services. Centers - Core Functions
Core Function #1:
Issue Coordination
Manage communication with stakeholder groups/participate in internal policy making:
BCC
• Urban District Noise Bill
• Restaurant windows regulation
• White Flint development/public amenities plan
East County
• Bus shelter illumination coordination with DOT/Clear Channel
• Urban District Noise Bill
• Code Enforcement Bills
• Dances for Profit/Go Gos
Silver Spring
• Urban District Noise Bill
• Restaurant windows regulation
• Completion of Silver Spring Redevelopment Plan
• Development of Long Branch Sector Plan and the Langley Park Sector Plan
.. Various 'edge issues' with DC and Prince George County
Upcounty
• Noise bill
• Code enforcement legislation
• Restaurant windows regulation
• Great Seneca Science Corridor Plan
• Smart Growth Initiative Implementation Group (Webb Tract, County Service Park, etc.)
• Germantown Employment Sector Plan
• Shady Grove Sector Plan
• Clarksburg Infrastructure Working Group
• Airstrip in Ag Reserve
• Budget forums
• Independence Day celebration
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Attachment B (page 2)
Develop and manage strategic approaches to address community concerns (partnerships,
meetings, action plans, news releases, etc.) and monitor
issue
to resolution
Upcounty
• North County Depot project- Clarksburg community, DGS, DEP, DOT, 011B, Planning
• Clinic protests Police, Executive Terrace Business Assocation
• Zorastrian Temple - Boyds Civic Assocation
• JSS Hindu Temple - Laytonsville community, Planning, DEP, DPS
• Global Mission Church - Planning, Frederick County
• Black Hill Trail Renovation Project - Parks, Waters Landing Association
• Jack Schore Tennis Facility-DPS, SoccerPlex, Parks
• Clarksburg parking issues - community, FRS, Planning, CAO
• SouthlakelHorizon Run Community-building Project - CE, DHCA, Police, DOT
East County
• IDA Sector Meeting Partnership between ECRSC and Third District police - Bi-monthly
crime trends/prevention meetings with residents, apartment managers, and businesses.
• Burtonsville Revitalization - Giant leaselBurtonsville Crossing vacancies.
• Create non-profit partnerships at East County Regional Services Center to provide free
services to East County residents:
o Tax preparation.
o ESOL Classes.
o HIV Prevention, testing and counseling.
o Pro Bono Legal Clinic.
o Manna Food.
o Mobile Med.
o Small Business Development Center ­ free counseling for federal contracts.
o Spanish Classes.
o Street Outreach Network.
o We Green environmental education.
Design public relations efforts tailored to the type of event and the participants attending.
Mid-County
• E-mails, web and utilization of established networks.
• Identify and prepare issue areas for Advisory Board(s); do preliminary research and arrange
subject matter experts.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Attachment B (page 3)
Lead discussions/negotiations concerning future public amenities and programs:
BCC
• .Trillium - artist studio agreements
• White Flint Urban District
• Bethesda Metro arts project
East County
• Burtonsville GiantlBurtonsville Crossing
• Third District Police Station
• Station
37 -
new Calverton Fire Station
• Pedestrian Safety improvements in Fairland, Burtonsville, Cloverly
• Negotiate with Adventist re: free site for Fire Station in Calverton area
Silver Spring
• (Soon to be) old library site
• (Soon to
be)
old 3rd Police Precinct building
• Progress Place (homeless services) relocation
• Fillmore
• Transit Station
• New Library
Enhancelbuild partnerships by participating in local boards and committees
(participation may include, among other tasks, helping determine agenda and invitees,
manage new member recruitment process, and provide. policy guidance for decision
making process):
BCC
• WMCCAB
Bethesda Green - Board members
Glen Echo Partnership - Board Member
Woodmont Triangle Action Group
White Flint Steering Committee