Olathe finally adds LGBT protections, will examine ethics complaint against official
After months of rancorous debate, the Olathe City Council passed a nondiscrimination ordinance Tuesday night, providing protections that LGBT activists have asked for at every meeting this year. The council then followed that late-night vote by agreeing to investigate an ethics complaint filed by a gay rights advocate.
Among the 250-plus people who packed the meeting, gay rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief, knowing Olathe is officially the last of Johnson County’s major cities to adopt such an ordinance.
At around 11 p.m. the City Council voted 4-3 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — something state law does not do.
“The first reason I’m voting ‘yes’ is because I don’t think anyone in Olathe should ever be discriminated against for any reason,” City Councilman Jim Randall said. “The second one is that this body is a secular body; it is not a church.”
Despite strong opposition from many residents who worry the statute will limit religious freedom, the Council agreed to protect the LGBT community from being denied housing, employment or services from businesses. The ordinance includes exemptions for educational, religious and political institutions.
More than a dozen Johnson County cities, along with many school districts, have similar protections.
Joining Randall in voting for the ordinance were Mayor Michael Copeland and council members Larry Campbell and Marge Vogt. Council members John Bacon, Wes McCoy and Karin Brownlee voted against it.
Olathe to investigate complaint
Later in the marathon meeting, the City Council agreed to investigate an ethics complaint filed against Brownlee.
Gay rights activist Brett Hoedl, local chairman of Equality Kansas, has been leading the fight to encourage the city to adopt a nondiscrimination ordinance. He accuses Brownlee of complaining to his employer about his activism, which he said “sent a chill down my spine.”
In the complaint, he argues Brownlee violated the code of ethics by trying to silence a citizen who has voiced opinions differing from her own.
Brownlee, a former state senator, admits to speaking to an associate at Hoedl’s work about his efforts, but said it was a casual conversation and she never intended to threaten his job.
At the meeting, Copeland said because of the nature of the complaint, he believes a full investigation is necessary.
“To me, this was pretty clear. What we need to provide is absolutely unbiased, fair due process,” Campbell said. “That’s the deal. Both parties deserve due process accurately and appropriately.”
On a 5-1 vote, the City Council agreed to hire an investigator to determine the facts of the case and provide a written report with recommendations. Bacon was the lone “no” vote.
Copeland suggested the report be reviewed by a retired judge. After receiving the report, the City Council could dismiss the complaint or take action. Hoedl is asking for Brownlee to resign, but she said she has no plans to do so.
In Brownlee’s response to the ethics complaint, she details talking to a member of the legislative affairs team at Hoedl’s work. She claims she mentioned Hoedl speaking at a June City Council meeting, becoming angry and storming out of the room.
“Merely reciting publicly available information is not an attack,” Brownlee wrote in her response. “The June 4th meeting was very memorable due to the inappropriate behavior displayed by Mr. Hoedl. The issue was not the content nor the topic but the conduct.”
Hoedl explained he became frustrated at the June meeting after officials said the Council would not vote on the nondiscrimination ordinance until after the November election. Others left the room at the same time.
Brownlee also said she mentioned to Hoedl’s associate that he named his employer at that meeting. According to the minutes, Hoedl accidentally started to name his employer, but quickly stopped. He said he never intentionally used his employer’s name and has kept his activism separate from his work.
He insists Brownlee did more than engage in a casual conversation.
“My employer was concerned enough about her comments to get me out of a meeting to discuss them,” Hoedl wrote in the ethics complaint. “My employer informed me that they were not instructing me to cease and desist my advocacy and that I have the right to continue to speak up. I am a lucky one to have a supportive employer. There is no doubt in my mind that others may not be so lucky.”
Hoedl argued Brownlee violated the First Amendment by using her office to silence a constituent. Brownlee argued that the City Council doing anything other than dismissing the complaint would violate her First Amendment right to free speech.
Copeland said the last time the city received an ethics complaint against a City Council member was in the early 1990s. Next, the city attorney will provide a list of investigators for the Council to choose from.
