New Chester County Human Relations Commission passes 2–1 amid heated debate

The Chester County Commissioners voted Wednesday to approve a new county-level human relations commission. The two-to-one vote went along party lines, with Democrats Josh Maxwell and Marian Moskowitz voting yes, and Republican Eric Roe voting no.

At the standing-room only Commissioner’s meeting, over a hundred people showed up for the vote on the ordinance with another 60 watching online, and approximately 35 people made public comments. While the comments slanted towards support for the ordinance, almost half of the commenters were against it.

All of the comments in support of the ordinance were focused on equal protections for LGBT residents. The majority of audience members wore shirts or in some way indicated their support for this community. Parents relayed emotional testimony about the bullying and discrimination against their LGBT children, and others spoke passionately about the need to support members of the community even if it means higher taxes.

Speakers against the ordinance asked about the cost of the commission and cited legal reasons why it was either unnecessary or unlawful. Some commenters accused the commissioners of causing division in the community by proposing the ordinance.

Despite the fact that the ordinance expanded protections against discrimination to a larger class of people, all the comments in support were about members of the LGBT community.

“Be it known to all that the County of Chester does hereby declare its intent to promote the rights and opportunities of all persons to participate in the social, cultural, recreational, and economic life of the County and to ensure equal opportunity for all persons concerning employment, housing, and use of public accommodations without regard to actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin or citizenship status, ancestry, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, physical or mental disability, source of income, age, veteran status, or use of guide or support animals and/or mechanical aids, or domestic or sexual violence victim status.”

The protected classes as defined by Chester County — now codified through the ordinance — are significantly expanded as compared to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commissions (PHRC). Plainly stated, Chester County offers protection to more classes of people than elsewhere in the state.

This particular brand of government overreach is consistent in Chester County and analogous to the Chester County Health Department — the same entity that shut down hot meals to the needy and kept schools closed longer and required masking longer than most counties in the state.

In addition to the government overreach, it is a duplication of services. Pennsylvania already has the PHRC, so there is no need for a county commission. Chester County residents pay for the PHRC through their state taxes and now they are getting hit twice for basically the same services. County Solicitor Colleen Frens could not state definitively if the county commission would replace the role of the state commission or whether there would simply be some type of notification of claims.

Perhaps even more concerning is the authority and power granted to this Chester County Human Relations Commission — which multiple people, including the county solicitor mistakenly referred to as the Human Rights Commission.

As a resident of Chester County, my public comments centered mostly on this issue. 

This commission “shall be composed of volunteers and shall consist of no fewer than seven and no more than thirteen members.” They cannot be paid a salary but can be reimbursed for expenses, despite the fact that the ordinance includes a $500 budget for the commission.

These volunteers are responsible to conduct discrimination allegation investigations, mediations, and hearings. They have the ability to issue subpoenas.

There are no qualifications for these volunteers and no mandated training.

So basically, the Democratic-majority County Commissioners have the power to appoint a group of progressive volunteers with no training or experience in conducting discrimination investigations. These potentially unqualified volunteers have the authority to make life-changing decisions for residents and businesses throughout the county.

Furthermore, if the complainant or the defendant disagrees with the outcome of the Commission, the ordinance allows them to file an appeal with Chester County Court of Common Pleas. When asked if the President Judge was notified of the new ordinance, County Solicitor Colleen Frens, replied, “no.”

The entire situation is absurd.

It takes years to learn how to competently conduct investigations, let alone conduct mediations and hearings. The county solicitor is unsure how much additional legal support the commission will need. Clearly, these potentially unqualified volunteers are going to need a lot of support and supervision. 

Another major concern about the ordinance and one that was raised by both supporters and those against it focused on public bathrooms.

My interpretation of the ordinance is that people may use the bathroom of their choice or the one that aligns with their gender identity in any public setting. For example, if a transgender woman wants to use the women’s bathroom, a business owner has no choice but to allow that to happen. And if a woman complains about a biological man in the women’s bathroom, she could be the subject of a discrimination complaint.

I raised this issue during my public comment, and stated the following for the record:

“Section 101C states that the intention of the ordinance is to treat all persons fairly and equally; however, it appears that people may use the restroom of their choice or the one that most closely aligns with their gender identity or expression. If a biological male enters a public women’s restroom, I do not feel that I am being treated fairly or equally. Nor do I want my children to be forced to use a bathroom with a member of the opposite sex. This is the antithesis of fair and equal.”

Another woman made a comment that as a rape victim she did not feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with a biological male. 

A third woman commented that during the meeting a biological man entered the women’s bathroom and the woman was so uncomfortable that she left.

Many in support of the ordinance commented that there is no risk to women in sharing a bathroom with transgender women. “All they want to do is pee,” said one commenter.

The issue of boys in girls sports was also raised, and Commissioner Roe asked the county solicitor if a recreational sports league was required to allow a transgender girl to play on a girls’ sports team. The solicitor responded in a vague manner and said that it depends on the circumstances.

This is now the state of affairs in Chester County. 

We do not value the safety and concern for women and girls.

Our county will appoint unelected, untrained, inexperienced volunteers to be our royal court and determine the fate of everyday citizens.

Here in Chester County we don’t want Kings, but we do want the Royal Court.

Beth Ann Rosica resides in West Chester, has a Ph.D. in Education, and has dedicated her career to advocating on behalf of at-risk children and families, including members of the LGBT community. She covers education issues for Broad + Liberty. Contact her at [email protected].