St. Joseph County Council adopts Bill 52-25 after rejecting amendments on minority references and EEOC language

At its Wednesday meeting, the St. Joseph County Council approved Bill 52-25 by a 5-4 roll-call vote after rejecting two amendments that would have changed the ordinance’s treatment of minority-related language and added an explicit equal-employment clause, the council’s clerk recorded.

The council first voted down an amendment by Councilman Catanzarite that would have removed phrases referencing “minority” from the bill and replaced them with a citation to federal civil-rights law. The amendment was defeated on a 5-4 roll call. Councilman Tanner seconded that amendment.

A second amendment, proposed by Councilman Rutten and placed as a draft addition to section 35.45 (a new point f), would have required petitioners to be “equal opportunity employers” and to “abide by all federal regulations as enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,” and stated that complaints should be filed with the Saint Joseph County Human Rights Commission and the EEOC. That amendment also failed on a 5-4 vote.

After those defeats, Councilman Tanner moved to defeat Bill 52-25; that motion failed 5-4. Councilwoman Drake then moved to pass Bill 52-25, a motion seconded by Councilman Figg, and the full bill passed by a 5-4 roll-call vote. The clerk announced the final tally as 5 in favor and 4 opposed.

Council debate during the amendment votes focused on whether the ordinance’s language should specifically reference federal nondiscrimination law or instead retain local terminology that mentions minority status. Councilman Rupp, who spoke during debate, said he preferred to keep the bill “as initially filed” while also acknowledging strong sentiments in the meeting room: “I would like to pass the bill as as initially filed, but I am aware that there is a lot of passion, there is a lot of heart in this room,” he said.

Members who supported Rutten’s draft equal-opportunity clause argued it would give petitioners and residents a clear, enforceable avenue to raise complaints with county and federal bodies. Opponents said they preferred the bill’s original language; the roll calls show the council was divided on that point in narrow margins during each vote.

Public comments during the meeting’s Privilege of the Floor included strongly worded remarks linking the council’s votes to broader civic concerns. Resident Mike McManus said the events at the meeting and elsewhere in the country had changed his feelings about national symbols: “I don't know now that I will ever... cry at the playing of our national anthem again. What is happening... is not American,” he told the council. An online commenter identified as Miss Goh said the ending of affirmative-action policies and the council’s stance on other issues were driving young people away: “This is a student who gets over 4 in the IB program at Adams, and they don't want to live in Indiana,” she said, describing a child who said they would not remain in the U.S.

Clerks recorded each vote by roll call; the meeting record shows the pattern of narrow margins in both amendment and final votes. The council did not adopt either amendment that would have (1) substituted references to federal civil-rights statutes for local minority-language, or (2) inserted the Rutten language requiring equal-opportunity-employer status and specifying complaint routes. The main ordinance, Bill 52-25, nevertheless passed.

The council announced its next committee meeting for July 22 at 5:30 p.m. and the next regular meeting for Aug. 12 at 6 p.m.