AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to the King County Charter, to more broadly prohibit discrimination on the basis of family caregiver, military or veteran status in county employment and in county contracting with nongovernmental entities; amending Section 840 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection at the next general election to be held in this county occurring more than forty-five days after the enactment of this ordinance.
Yes. So we will put forth the ordinance we just adopted to a floor and the previous one, two or three consent, and both are expedited to full council. That takes us to the last item in our agenda, proposed ordinance 2020 207 which replacement of member ballot a charter amendment to the anti-discrimination provisions of the charter. The proposal would seek to prohibit discrimination in county employment or contracting on the basis of being a family caregiver or on the basis of military or veteran status. Andrew Kim will give us a staff report on the proposed charter amendment and then we'll hear from Charter Review Commission member Marcos Martinez. Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you can with council essential staff. The staff report for this item begins on page 51 of your agenda packet. As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, the audience were pleased to file a proposal on the next general election to amend Section 840 of that. All right. I'm doing a zoom call or a Zoom hearing. Councilor, by working your mute, please. There we go. So this would place a ballot proposal to amend King County Charter to prohibit discrimination in employment or compensation of county officers or employees, and also prohibit the county from contracting with any parties that discriminate on the basis of family, caregiver and military status or status. As a veteran who was honorably discharged or who was discharged solely as a result of the person's sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. If I can direct members to page 52, I'm on top of page 52. So the last time the session 840 on Anti-Discrimination was amended was in 2008, where the council voted for adopting an ordinance to place a ballot proposal to add disability, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression as additional protected classes. And that ballot proposal was adopted with 71% of the vote on November 4th, 2008. I'm moving forward to page 54. The section called Protected Classes. Just for background, a protected class refers to a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic. The protected classes have been inconsistently applied throughout King County Code, and these and this include inconsistencies between the county charter and the county's nondiscrimination ordinances, which is throughout King County code. These inconsistencies have been a result of both council policy choices and from inconsistently updating the King County code when set, when legislation is taken up related related to protect the classes. Table one on the bottom of page 54 and beginning on page 55 provides a list of protected classes that are included in federal, state and county laws. I would direct you to the last I'm sorry, the row that the rightmost column to move to two rightmost columns of the table comparing the King County Charter and King County Code. So on page 54, the list of protected classes are fairly consistent together with King County, China and King County Code. But if you go to page 55, you'll see that some of the protected classes are included in King County Code, whereas some of those protected classes are not applied in King County Charter. Just wanted to provide that that comparison between the charter and the King County Code and to the members. Moving along to page 56 as as is similar to the other proposed ordinances. This is also one of the 11 charter amendments recommended by the Charter Review Commission and deferred to one of the members to provide their thoughts on that. On the bottom of page 36, we talk about the family caregiver protected class. So as shown in table one. State law includes families with children as a protected class, and familial status is a protected class under federal law. However, neither are protected classes in the county charter nor in King County Code. The county's nondiscrimination ordinance is related to fair housing, and public accommodations include parental status as a protected class. However, the term family caregiver is not an explicitly designated protected class under federal, state and county laws, according to an advocacy group that promotes equality for family caregivers. They state that a few states and over 60 local jurisdictions currently offer protection for caregivers under their employment discrimination laws. One example is New York City, which explicitly designates the family caregiver as a protected class under their human rights law. In addition, the EEOC issued guidance in 2007 explaining the circumstances under which discrimination against workers with caregiving responsibilities may constitute discrimination. Military and Veterans Status Protected Class. So, as also shown in Table one, honorably discharged veteran or military status is designated as a protected class under federal and state law. However, the protected class is only included in the county's nondiscrimination ordinance related to county employment discrimination. Under Chapter three, that 12 by way of background. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a federal policy between 1994 and 2011, which prohibited prohibited any LGBTQ person from disclosing their sexual orientation or from speaking about any relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes while serving in the United States Armed Forces. The policy stated that any LGBTQ service member disclose their sexual orientation conduct be other than honorably discharged. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. More than 13,000 service members were discharged under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. But as as members are aware, in 2011, this policy was repealed by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act in 2010 of 2010, and thus allowing LGBTQ persons to serve openly in the United States Armed Forces. The Military.com article, Military.com article in 2016 states that approximately 8% or about 1000 individuals of those discharged under the Don't Ask , Don't Tell policy have applied to upgrade their discharge status. Based on preliminary analysis by council staff, there is currently no US governmental jurisdiction that have explicitly designated veteran who was discharged solely as a result of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity or expression as a protected class. However, just recently, in November 2019, the State of New York adopted law to restore benefits for those LGBTQ veterans. And the state of Rhode Island recently adopted law to upgrade discharge status for those LGBTQ veterans that were other than honorably discharged to honorable to permit them from receiving veterans assistance. Similar to the other proposed ordinances that were spoken today, the ballot timeline is similar in that we've inquired executive staff on event, but due to the timing, we we didn't have time to incorporate their feedback into the staff report and they are here at the meeting. If members have any questions. And lastly, Mr. Chair, there is a striking amendment S1 entitling them to one which makes them technical corrections. And that concludes my remarks. Thank you, colleagues. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move! Move! Adoption of the ordinance. Thank you. However, I jumped the gun and I want to back up and invite Mr. Martinez to present. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the rest of the council members for including these proposed amendments on the agenda today. Thank you, Andrew Kim, for your presentation. Just to very briefly kind of underscore and share with you some of our thinking. You know, the family caregiver proposal is an idea that is very timely, especially now we are seeing so many demographic changes in our society. One of the advocacy groups, a group called Caring Across Generations, shares with us these very quick statistics. So every day, 10,000 people in our country turn 65 years old. It's estimated that 70% of people over 65 will require long term care for for an average of three years. And importantly, 80% of that care will be provided by family members. And so that's really kind of the key there, is that a lot of the care that our elders are receiving is provided by family members. And so that's really kind of the key point here that our families are providing care. And so it's important for for our families, this is really changing the nature of work. You know, and we're seeing this so much right now in the during this pandemic, you know, the blurring of work and home life. It's been it's been discussed in this very set, in this very meeting. And so, you know, this having this this this kind of antidiscrimination protection for people who are home caregivers is really important. And then the I think that the the protections for veterans is is something that, you know, we've seen these protections for years and years now. And so having this codified in the King County Charter makes perfect sense. There's been a great deal of progress made in this area. Unfortunately, under the current administration, we've actually seen some of the we've seen, for instance, transgender individuals. We've seen some steps backward, backwards in that against that community. And so one of the amendments that provides the protections for the transgender community. And so, you know, those are some of the important points, I think, with regard to these proposed amendments. So thank you for your attention. Thank you, colleagues. Councilmember Dombrowski. Okay. Thank you. And just for good measure, again, I'll move. Adoption of the ordinance. Thank you. Councilmember Dombrowski approved adoption of Ordinance 2020 207. Councilmember Dombrowski. Thank you very much. I think the staff has done a good job and the commissioner an excellent job and explaining what this would do and the reasons for it. And just speaking briefly on my behalf as the sponsor of it, you know, we talk often of the charter as being the Constitution for our government. And the Constitution is the right place to enshrine protections for individuals, including those often quite the subject of discrimination by society at large. We protect the rights of minorities in our foundational documents, and this charter amendment would do that in these two important areas. The first, the family caregiver classification. And I think that the articulation of the reasons, therefore, by the Commissioner are really compelling with a growing, aging population. You know, many, if not all of us on this council have dealt personally with those issues of aging parents and shared those experiences with each other. We do offer some the federal federal government offers some protection in the FMLA, right. For folks to take leave in a protected way from your job to take care of folks. This is along those lines. With respect to the veterans protection, the story of Gretta or Kamehameha comes to mind a colonel in the Washington National Guard who served very capably and heroically for many years now. She was after disclosing her status as gay, honorably discharged. But many who served like her were dishonorably discharged. And there has been over the decades of limit on receiving public benefits and assistance for veterans to those who are honorably discharged. I think it's widely acknowledged that that policy of excluding folks who want to serve this country because of their orientation or status or identity is wrong. And that we have made some positive strides in that direction, that correcting that this charter amendment would add protections in our veterans programs and elsewhere in the government for those who were discharged, perhaps even quote unquote, dishonorably because of their status, sexual orientation or identity. We at this county have a tremendous history, probably the best in the country of any county for supporting our veterans with our state mandated program. It's been around a long time, but also our local veterans, seniors and human services levy. And I think this is a sends a positive message, but also makes a real change to to eliminate, frankly, what is a discriminatory restriction? A discriminatory restriction when we denied benefits or rights to those who served our country honorably and ably and bravely, but may have been discharged because of a discriminatory reason that to a large degree, the U.S. military has eradicated. So I commend these changes for for your consideration and hope that we can advance them to the voters. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your council member. Would you remove adoption restriction amendment as such moved from striking amendment one has before us see no discussion of those in favor of Second Amendment S1 Please signify by saying I. I don't oppose. No, the ayes have it. Councilmember did ask you to one so moved. Councilmember DEMBOSKY has moved. Adoption of title amendment times wants those in favor. Please say I, i, i. I don't know. The ayes have it. However amendment is adopted. We have before US Ordinance 2020 207 as amended. Discussion. Further discussion, I shouldn't say. Seen no further discussion. Would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council member Belushi I Council member Belushi. Both I. Council Member Dombrowski. I. Council Member Dombrowski both I. Council Member Dunn. I council member done votes. I Council Member Coles. I Council Member Caldwell Spokes II Council Member Lambert. I Council Member Lambert. Voted Council member after girl. I Council member of the group. I council member upon my staff. I council member gone make the proposal. I council members online. I also members on high votes. I Mr. Chair. Hi Mr. Chair. Votes I The vote is 19 zero no's. Thank you. By your vote we have given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 207 as amended objection to including this on consent as well. No objection. Sharing them include this on consent as well. Madam Clerk, I believe all members were recorded as having voted on all items today. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Chair. Then we have no need of a reconsideration moment on the Council's agenda, and therefore I'd like to thank everyone who's here to participate in today's meeting. Most importantly, I'd like to thank the staff who made it all work so flawlessly and with no other business to come before us.