Activists push for systemic human rights reforms

Is a fourth branch of state government needed to handle enforcement of the laws?

By Anna Pratt (January 23, 2008)

Originally published in The Spokesman-Recorder

A cutting-edge plan to ensure equality for all Minnesotans was unveiled at a public hearing that drew nearly 200 attendees to an auditorium at Concordia University in St. Paul on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day January 21.

A core group of about 30 community activists who have been meeting weekly in St. Paul over the past five months is spearheading the grassroots effort called the Equality Campaign to overhaul the state’s 50-year-old system for dealing with discrimination. They cite a longstanding trend of either ineffective or totally nonexistent enforcement of the state’s civil/human rights laws, including provisions that address all kinds of discrimination and require businesses to incorporate affirmative action into their hiring practices.

Although many of Minnesota’s relevant laws are more comprehensive than those of many other states, Equality Campaign organizers say many of the local offices charged with carrying them out fail to live up to their expectations.

That is the result of a variety of issues; for starters, ongoing budget cuts have left many offices without adequate staff or the means to perform basic functions. But, a big part of the problem isn’t centered on available resources or the lack thereof. Advocates of reform maintain that all too often politics get in the way of ensuring people’s rights.

To make enforcement more objective, the Equality Campaign is calling for a fourth branch of government in Minnesota; that scenario would play out through a network of regional offices, plus a kind of citizen oversight committee to replace the current system of city-located departments.

A self-sustaining, independent civil and human rights branch of state government would set in place the “necessary check-and-balance system to ensure accountability,” a statement about the proposal reads. It would keep civil/human rights issues at the forefront while also hopefully securing much-needed funding, proponents say.

Edward McDonald, a former human rights director in St. Paul who is helping to organize the campaign, said installing a new branch of government is a creative solution to an otherwise discouraging state of affairs. Right now, whenever someone has to file a complaint, they bump up against powerful forces such as major corporations and must prove its validity, which can sometimes be impossible.

This proposal, however, would hold everyone accountable. In Minnesota, “We tend to do things that are symbolic. This would make it more proactive and reactive… It would take the burden off the individual,” McDonald said.

Although the idea is to lift politics out of the process, restructuring the system would mean galvanizing enough political support to amend the state constitution — something that presents a huge challenge.

DFL Rep. Phyllis Kahn (59B), who attended the hearing on Monday, criticized the proposal as too far-fetched. Although she is supportive of the notion of regional offices, for example, as a good way to pool resources, at this early stage, “I’m pessimistic,” said Kahn, predicting a potentially “long, expensive process” to set it in motion.

But DFL Rep. Michael Paymar (64B), who also showed up at the hearing, said he agrees that the system needs to be improved and he admires the proposal’s ideals. Paymar has said he will lead some public hearings on the issue in the beginning weeks of this year’s legislative session.

Perhaps it is telling that “In 10 years, not one person has lobbied me on behalf of the Department [of Human Rights]… I think it’s good that there’s dialogue about the failure of the State to pay attention to human and civil rights,” said Paymar.

Ripe for change

Currently, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), which is housed in the executive branch, oversees the follow-up on civil/human rights laws. A governor-appointed commissioner leads the department.

MDHR’s purpose is to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services, education, credit and business on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability and marital status, according to Minnesota statute 363A.

As such, its primary duties are to investigate and resolve discrimination complaints; review and certify state contractor compliance with equal employment opportunity regulations; and provide educational and technical assistance, according to the agency’s profile that appeared as a part of its 2008 budget.

But as dollars to the department have ebbed and flowed through the years, its role has deteriorated. It is widely believed that MDHR takes far too long to investigate complaints, and in the end the vast majority of cases are dismissed, according to the department’s statistics.

Sculptor Frank Brown, who created a banner for the Equality Campaign event, is a St. Paul resident who testified to the need for reforms. He said that a complaint he filed with MDHR in 2006 hasn’t even been looked at yet, much less resolved.

“It’s very frustrating,” said Brown. “It’s like those individuals [in charge of carrying out civil/human rights] don’t feel like they have to do anything.”

This is a problem that goes beyond the state-level bureaucracy. Local civil and human rights departments are troubled by the same kinds of obstacles.

A recent audit and study of St. Paul and Minneapolis human and civil rights, respectively, exposed major enforcement snags. And, while the Minneapolis budget dedicated to its civil rights mandates allocates $2.8 million, MDHR’s budget for the whole state is $3.5 million.

Additionally, right now there’s no formal connection between the state department and the local human and civil rights offices, according to campaign information. The proposal would expand on its capabilities by enhancing training opportunities for businesses about relevant laws; conducting compliance audits and other studies; and prosecuting civil/human rights offenders, among others.

Checks and balances

Reactions to the proposal are mixed. House research staffer Matt Gehring said in a letter to the activists that it wasn’t clear how the three existing government branches would interact or be able to “check and balance” a new department.

“I might suggest that you also consider whether it would be preferable to maintain the department’s status as an executive branch agency, as many of the existing (and proposed) functions of the department are, fundamentally, executive branch tasks,” he said in the letter.

But attorney Francisco Gonzalez, who works for the State Department of Labor and Industry in employment law, believes there is plenty of precedent for the proposal to create a unique body. He pointed to the University of Minnesota, for instance, which, as a land grant university, resembles a fourth branch of government. In some states, such as Rhode Island, special branches or committees have been established to provide oversight of conflicts of interest and ethics.

All over, he found, “There’s a lot of interest in expanding the oversight of the three traditional branches,” he said. “As society becomes more diverse, it’s a good idea to have more people keeping an eye on a certain aspect of government.”

Boyd Morson, a participant in the campaign who also sits on the Brooklyn Park Human Rights Commission, is optimistic about the reform proposal as a good way to turn things around. “Moving forward, we’re looking to achieve accountability… There are lots of things we can do to improve it,” he said.

For more information on the Equality Campaign, contact Stacie Cormier at 612-600-0502 or via email to SDTAC1@aol.com.