More than 150 people turned out Tuesday night for a meeting of the Lancaster County commissioners to discuss the effort to expand the county’s nondiscrimination law to include LGBT protections.
Also addressed at the meeting, however, was the announcement made the previous day by the two Republican members on the three-member commission that the county’s human-relations commission, established 46 years ago to investigate and adjudicate discrimination cases, could be eliminated to cut costs.
Currently, the commission only accepts cases involving race, color, religion, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, age and disability, although the city of Lancaster’s human-relations commission does include sexual orientation as a protected class.
Stephen Glassman, chair of the state human-relations commission, explained that prior to 1991, the city and the county of Lancaster operated a joint human-relations commission, but when the city moved to incorporate sexual-orientation protections, the county split and formed its own commission that would not accept LGBT-discrimination cases.
Glassman noted that the commission’s longstanding resistance to enhancing LGBT protections stands in stark contrast to the current effort quickly progressing through the Doylestown Council in Bucks County, which would provide a host of LGBT protections, such as inclusion in the nondiscrimination ordinance and the establishment of a domestic-partner registry.
Glassman said the vast majority of those in attendance at the Lancaster County meeting were supportive of the LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance, with only a handful of guests speaking out against such a measure, mainly based on religious reasons.
“The room was completely filled, with standing-room only and there were people out in the lobby and in the parking lot, and virtually everyone except a very small group were either LGBTs or allies,” Glassman said.
Anyone wishing to offer testimony was permitted to do so, and about 50 people spoke at the meeting, which lasted until 11:30 p.m.
Even most of those who were against extending nondiscrimination protections to LGBT people were also opposed to abolishing the commission.
Glassman said that if the county’s human-relations commission, which last year handled 150 cases, were to be dissolved, the state agency would have a difficult time contending with the new batch of complaints from the county.
“The PHRC is overwhelmed with cases,” he said. “We’ve suffered significant staff cutbacks and budget reductions over the last two years. Our staff caseload is four times the national average, with 125 cases per investigator, which is simply unwieldy. We’re not in a position to accept other cases without letting Lancaster County know that we would be very delayed in the investigation, adjudication or settlement.”
Glassman also noted that local human-relations commissions also often have a better connection to the county’s residents than the state panel.
“We’ve always been supportive of local commissions, because they’re more familiar than the state commission at the local level with employment opportunities, business entities, public accommodations, educational institutions, landlords or housing. There is a sense of familiarity and comfort for residents at the local level that they don’t have with the state government,” Glassman said, noting that residents who file with the state commission would also have to travel to Harrisburg as the case progresses. “These 150 cases that were filed could have come to the state, but people chose to file in Lancaster County, which indicates that they want to stay close to home. Obviously there are greater remedies when you come to the state government, but when you forego that to stay local, that should tell you something.”
The commission scheduled a public hearing on the potential dissolution of the human-relations commission for 9:15 a.m. July 28 at 150 N. Queen St., Lancaster. The discussion on LGBT protections will continue once the future of the commission is decided.
Jen Colletta can be reached at [email protected].