Speakers at hearing tout human rights law
KINGSTON, N.Y. » Members of the Ulster County Human Rights Commission and LGBTQ community say a proposed human rights law as would make Ulster County a safer and more inclusive community.
The county Legislature held a public hearing on the proposed local law Tuesday. All nine speakers supported adoption of the law, which would, among other things, give the county’s Human Rights Commission the power to mediate disputes.
David Clegg, an attorney and chairman of the county’s Human Rights Commission, said the proposed law has “a great deal of potential to make [Ulster County] a shining star in the state of New York for protecting human rights.”
Fred Mayo, a member of the Hudson Valley LGBTQ Community Center board of directors, said the law would make the county “a beacon for what it can be like.”
Jeff Rindler, executive director LGBTQ center and a member of the task force that developed the proposal, said the ability to have complaints adjudicated locally is a
key component of the measure.
Rindler said people who have faced discrimination now must travel to Albany to have their cases heard by the state Human Rights Commission, a process he said can be daunting.
The proposed law would give the county commission the ability to offer mediation and conciliation, potentially providing the ability to settle many disputes locally.
Unlike a prior proposal, however, the current proposal would not give the county Human Rights Commission the power to levy fines or damages against those found in violation of the law.
Instead, it would create a mechanism through which the aggrieved person, if not satisfied with the results of mediation, could request the case be heard by an impartial administrative law judge who would have the ability to assess damages if the claim is upheld.
The county law would not take away an individual’s
right to file a complaint with the state.
Last year, a local law that would have given the county Human Rights Commission the authority to hear complaints and levy fines become bogged down in partisan disagreement, with lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle accusing the other of using the proposal as a political football.
The measure now goes back to the Legislature’s Laws and Rules Committee for consideration. If passed there, it would go before the full Legislature for consideration.