County Judge Clay Jenkins says he was not aware that sexual orientation didn’t include transgender people.
A while back we filed a request, under the Texas Public Information Act, seeking any and all records related to the Dallas County Commissioners Court’s decision to add sexual orientation — but not gender identity/expression — to the county’s nondiscrimination policy.
County Judge Clay Jenkins and Commissioner Dr. Elba Garcia, who spearheaded the amendment, have said they thought sexual orientation included gender identity/expression, based on advice they received from the county’s Human Resources department. But frankly we’re a little skeptical of this claim. Since Jenkins and Garcia told us this, one critical fact has emerged: They are one vote short of the majority needed to add gender identity/expression to the policy, which leads us to wonder whether that’s why it was left out in the first place.
After all, gay District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons has said he shared his department’s nondiscrimination policy, which includes transgender employees, with Jenkins prior to the court’s vote to add sexual orientation but not gender identity/expression to the countywide policy. And during Jenkins’ campaign last year, he told us how as a civil rights attorney in private practice, he once represented a transgender person who won a lawsuit against a popular restaurant chain. As the plaintiff’s attorney in that case, wouldn’t Jenkins have become familiar with the distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity/expression? And as for Garcia, she was on the Dallas City Council in 2002 when the council passed a nondiscrimination ordinance that includes “gender identity” — albeit under the definition of sexual orientation.
To be sure, this can be a confusing distinction, especially to those who aren’t members of the LGBT community, and even to many who are. So if Jenkins and Garcia truly thought sexual orientation included gender identity/expression, it would be forgivable. What would be less forgivable, in that case, is their failure to consult with stakeholders, and namely people in the LGBT community, prior to voting on the sexual orientation-only amendment.
In light of all this, we filed our records request, but unfortunately it doesn’t look like we’ll be getting answers anytime soon, if ever. In a letter to Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office dated today, Assistant Dallas County District Attorney Michele Tapia maintains that the county shouldn’t be required to release the records we requested. Tapia argues that the county can legally withhold the records because they “constitute inter- or intra-agency communications that consist of advice, recommendations, and opinions reflecting the policymaking processes of a governmental body” that “would not be available by law to a party in litigation with the agency.” To download a copy of Tapia’s letter, click here.
“The disclosure of these documents would chill and discourage candid discussion on improvements from staff at all levels. Further, disclosure would serve to dampen open discussion and actions to improve processes and necessary corrective actions or improvement measures,” Tapia writes. “It would be impossible to have any frank discussion of legal or policy matters in writing if all such writings were to be subjected to public scrutiny. … It has been argued, and with merit, that the efficiency of a government agency would be greatly hampered if, with respect to legal and policy matters, all government agencies were forced to operate in a fish bowl.”
Abbott’s office now has 45 days to render a decision on the county’s request about whether it can withhold the records. Of course, in the meantime, this whole thing would probably just go away if the Commissioners Court simply went back and added “gender identity/expression” to the policy.
This is a situation of “danged if you do, danged if you don’t.” Garcia and Jenkins honored their campaign promise, and I’m surprised that their effort would be characterized as a “failure” because they didn’t consult with stakeholders. It seems like they are being chastised for moving too fast to add protections for gay and lesbian employees. Employees in other counties should be so lucky to have such a problem 😉
It amazes me that anyone expects these folks to do ANYTHING for the GLBT community at this point. From the moment they voted (unanimously) to add sexual orientation, The Voice has harped on their “failure” not to add gender identity. Speakers who, from previous reports, didn’t reach out to these people after their election but before the vote, now speak at every meeting basically saying, “thanks, but it’s not quite good enough.” Maureen Dickey is called ignorant and is demonized for her position on the matter, and Clay Jenkins’ experience representing a transgender client is used against him to question whether he’s lying about what he understood sexual orientation to include. Meanwhile, John Wiley Price gets a free pass while he pretends to consider the matter. Let’s face it… he’s the third vote. Price, a Democrat, should be the one getting the brunt of the attention for not following the party platform and making this thing happen (or “go away” as stated above) – not Jenkins or Garcia.
The general public considers these issues to be that of nomenclature. For example, Dallas includes gender identity in the definition of sexual orientation. District Clerk Fitzsimmons uses the term “transgender” and not “gender identity/expression” in his policy. I’ve read comments from other writers, including letters from Stonewall Democrats’ president, using the term “sexual identity and expression.” There is no consistent terminology coming from anywhere – including the GLBT community.
From a purely political standpoint, this is no way to make friend and allies out of elected officials. Jenkins are Garcia are going to be around for at least four years – probably much longer. Dickey will likely be replaced by a Republican. And Price, speaking of going away, won’t be any time soon. We have to learn to work with these people, and not call them names and try to find ways to catch them in technical fibs – especially when they keep promises to the LGBT community without any pushing from us.
If memory serves me correctly – at least since 2006 – Dallas County (the employer) hasn’t been accused of employment discrimination against on LGBT grounds, and I wouldn’t guess there will be one anytime soon. Besides, the county’s two largest employers – the sheriff’s office and district clerk, already protect transgender employees. That doesn’t mean we should wait for something bad to happen, but it also doesn’t mean there is an imminent threat of trans discrimination in Dallas County. I recommend letting the political process work its way out. John Wiley Price will either make or break this deal, and we shouldn’t be alienating everyone else in the mean time while Price pretends to make up his mind.
You’re right, Justin, these folks only get paid six figures by the taxpayers, plus benefits that aren’t offered to gay county employees, to represent us. Why in God’s name would we insist that they do their jobs?