Thomas Gounley

TGOUNLEY@NEWS-LEADER.COM

More than two-and-a-half years after the idea was first proposed, Springfield City Council voted 6-3 Monday evening to approve the stronger of two bills expanding the city's nondiscrimination ordinance to include protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Council Bill 2014-189, which goes into effect immediately, adds the protections in the case of housing, employment and public accommodations. Council members Jan Fisk, Cindy Rushefsky, Craig Hosmer, Doug Burlison, Jeff Seifried and Mike Carroll voted to approve the bill. Council members Bob Stephens, Craig Fishel and Jerry Compton voted against it.

Springfield is the 15th municipality in the state to add the protections, according to LGBT advocacy group PROMO.

Stephens began discussion of the issue at Monday's meeting with a message of cohesiveness, saying it's "truly an honor to serve with every person on this council."

"I would like to stress that people on this council are engaged and are always looking for the best solution for Springfield," Stephens said. "They study and reflect, and they vote on the best information that they can find. No one on this council wakes up and thinks, 'How can I screw up Springfield today?'"

Fishel then moved to amend the agenda so that council would vote on the weaker bill before the stronger bill. The weaker bill — drawn up at the request of Stephens, and sponsored by he and Fishel — would have added the protections in the case of housing, and requested additional study of discrimination in the case of employment and public accommodations. But council voted 6-3 — only Stephens, Fishel and Compton in favor — against amending the agenda.

Among those who ultimately voted for the stronger bill, Burlison, Fisk and Rushefsky explained their reasoning before an overflow crowd. Carroll, Hosmer and Seifried did not directly comment.

"The amount of opposition to this bill ... is a clear indication of the need for this bill," Burlison said.

"I believe this issue is about respect, dignity and fairness to our fellow citizens that are members of the LGBT community," Fisk said, adding later: "We cannot build Springfield's future by holding on to discrimination from Springfield's past."

"It makes a simple statement of equality that should be a given for anyone who lives in a democracy," Rushefsky said. "It's a shame that we have had to struggle for so long to really establish that principle in our daily lives."

Compton, Fishel and Stephens all spoke before voting against the stronger bill.

"I believe there's insufficient evidence about a lack of existing remedy for these verifiable cases," Compton said. "Federal and state laws guard against abuse. I do believe there are inadequate safeguards to protect against wrongful use of the proposed ordinance."

Fishel said he "found no hard evidence that there is discrimination" and that all the major churches in his zone had expressed concerns. "I feel like I was elected to represent the people of Zone 4," he said.

"I'm in the awkward position of having sponsored the substitute bill, so I will vote against this one just in case the substitute bill is still there to be voted on," Stephens said.

In something of a surprise, no council members moved to amend the bill to prohibit it from applying to facilities such as bathrooms. The city had previously said Hosmer and Rushefsky would introduce such an amendment. Following the meeting, Rushefsky told the News-Leader that it would have been something of a concession to those voicing concerns about bathrooms, but that she had spoken to other council members who supported the stronger bill and decided that the planned amendment was unnecessary and would just have held things up.

Because the stronger bill passed, there was no vote on the weaker bill.

In the hallway outside council chambers after the vote, supporters of the expansion exchanged hugs, while an older gentleman held up a pocket-sized Bible and voiced concern for the state of their souls.

Stephanie Perkins, deputy director for PROMO, told reporters that she hopes the city's LGBT community will utilize the ordinance.

"It could have gone either way and we're just really, really happy that they saw the value in taking these full comprehensive protection steps," Perkins said.

Calvin Morrow, spokesman for the newly formed opposition group Springfield Citizens United, said that the group and other interested parties would immediately start gathering signatures for a referendum petition that, if successful, would put the issue to a public vote. Such an effort would need 1,200 valid signatures; Morrow said he expects to get 1,000 on the first day.

"I really believe this will be firmly defeated," he said.

Perkins applauded the six council members who voted to add the protections and expressed particular disappointment with the mayor's vote in opposition, saying he has been a "friend" of the LGBT community in the past. She said PROMO would determine how to fight a possible repeal if opponents' planned referendum petition is successful.

"We'll absolutely fight to keep this in Springfield," Perkins said. "We know how important this is to the residents and the workers and the visitors of Springfield, so we'll absolutely fight to continue to keep it and fight that repeal."

In other business

• Springfield City Council voted 5-4 to table a bill that would apply the blighted designation to a planned student housing development located along the north side of East Cherry Street in the Rountree neighborhood. Council members Bob Stephens, Jan Fisk, Jeff Seifried and Jerry Compton voted against tabling the bill.

• Council unanimously approved a bill rezoning approximately 5.86 acres in the 2700 block of East Pythian Street to allow for an affordable housing development.

• Council voted to amend a bill rezoning 92.74 acres generally located at 4833 South Campbell Avenue to no longer require connectivity in the Wellington Hills subdivision, and to place a fire gate on a planned road to the Quail Creek subdivision. Council also passed an amendment to remove the fire gate in the case of development. The public can comment on both amendments at council's Oct. 27 meeting.