Crowd speaks for and against proposed Luzerne County anti-discrimination ordinance

A crowd appeared at Thursday’s Luzerne County Council public hearing to passionately speak for or against a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance.

In total, 43 residents weighed in, some prompted by advance social media and text pushes urging them to “pack the room.” The breakdown: 24 for the ordinance, and 19 against it.

Comments were submitted in person, remotely, or in writing.

More than 50 residents attended in person, requiring half to watch the session on a screen in an overflow seating area in the courthouse rotunda. Those opting to speak usually received applause from others sharing their point of view.

The proposal would create a county human relations commission to rule on discrimination complaints extending beyond county government to include employment, housing, healthcare, education, and establishments that sell goods and services to the general public.

Council will vote on the ordinance Tuesday, council Chairman Jimmy Sabatino said after the public comment session. If a majority of the 11 members approve it, separate discussion and voting would be necessary at future meetings to establish the commission makeup.

Supporters say the county ordinance would expand protection to classes currently not covered in state and federal laws and more quickly address complaints due to a state processing backlog.

Critics argue the county should stick to mandatory responsibilities and not get involved in such matters, with concerns raised about potential liability and legal expenses.

The public hearing was required before adoption, and Sabatino scheduled it as a standalone session in anticipation of many wanting to comment.

Lisa Napersky, of Fairview Township, was among those urging support of the ordinance. While critics say laws already are in place, Napersky said there is no express law protecting LGBTQ+ residents.

Napersky said the ordinance would have a huge “deterrent factor” by educating the public about discrimination. The act of going on record in support of fairness and equality also will “attract talented people to our area,” she said.

Emily Singh, of Fairmount Township, said in a written comment she has LGBTQ+ friends who have chosen to move from the county to places with similar protections because “they wanted to live in communities where they felt more welcome, respected, and secure.”

“I have also considered leaving this area because of the racism and bigotry I experienced and continue to experience here,” Singh wrote, citing her encounters with medical professionals, school staff, local elected officials, and others.

“Too often, prejudice in our area is normalized, overlooked, or excused,” she wrote.

In another written comment, Shea Hughes, executive director of the nonprofit Rainbow Alliance in the county, expressed strong support for the ordinance to establish a local process for addressing discrimination complaints.

“For many individuals, pursuing a discrimination complaint through other channels can be costly, time-consuming, and emotionally difficult,” it said.

Angelia Petrillo, of Forty Fort, a community organizer, educator, and queer artist, said the ordinance would have protected her in a past discrimination situation at a workplace if it had been in effect.

Petrillo stressed the ordinance is not just focused on LGBTQ+ residents and also would help people with disabilities, veterans, independent contractors, and others.

Sandra DeBias, of Hazle Township, raised concerns about a “tribunal” with the power to decide such claims. She asserted the ordinance is “redundant” and “nothing more than grandstanding.”

Robyn and Walter Kochan, of Dallas Township, said in their written comment that the county does not need “another level of bureaucracy” and that county officials should petition the state to beef up enforcement of complaints if that is a concern.

“Writing punitive laws against residents and businesses is not your job, but solving county issues requiring immediate attention, like infrastructure and the pathetic condition of our roads and bridges, is,” the couple wrote.

Hanover Township resident Mary Ann Potsko told council the creation of a commission will lead to litigation.

“It will cause chaos in this community that we have not seen ever,” Potsko said.

State Rep. Jamie Walsh, R-Ross Township, said the ordinance could have some good intentions, but it will have “unintended consequences” and “cause major problems” in the county.

Duryea resident Ben Herring said he is confident the ordinance itself will be challenged in court over certain provisions.

Among several points, Herring questioned the inclusion of weight as a protected class, saying a large portion of county residents are technically obese.