The Gillette City Council voted in favor of potentially implementing a hate crime ordinance on a narrow 4-3 vote for its second reading. Community members filled the council chamber to give comment on the proposed ordinance, which was introduced by councilman Billy Montgomery and passed a first reading on another 4-3 vote on May 2. It must pass a third reading before it can be adopted.
In what turned out to be at times a hotly opinionated hour and a half long public comment session, opinion was once again divided from those who believe an ordinance is necessary and those who question the need for one. People also questioned the constitutionality and motives of an ordinance. If passed, it would establish penalties for crimes committed based on bias, hate or discrimination.
City of Gillette public affairs director Jennifer Toscana said the council has received 111 messages submitted through the city clerk’s office or via the city’s website. Out of those 63 are in support with 48 in opposition. This doesn’t include messages sent directly to the mayor/council email addresses.
“The last couple weeks [and] I think the council would agree with me have been pretty difficult. We've received a lot of emails and texts and phone calls from both sides of the aisle so to speak and lost a lot of sleep, and I tried to return as many as I could. I haven't been able to go through the 44 emails I have on my phone today,” said councilwoman Tricia Simonson, who voted against the ordinance. “I want to reiterate that we have laws in place. The one thing that concerns me about the ordinance is when it says this prohibition includes the instances where a person's words, depictions, or conduct were intended likely to incite or produce [forms of] violence against a person because of whatever their [protected] class is.”
Mayor Shay Lundvall, who also voted against the ordinance last week and on second reading, expressed concern that a hate crime ordinance would conflict with existing laws.
“If something were to take place, there is no doubt in my mind that we would stand firm on that hate,” Lundvall said. “That is unacceptable. Nobody in this community wants that in our community, period. Whether it's from economic development, whatever it is. There's not a single one of us up here that don't want a good, healthy community. What I struggle with a lot is layering the law that's already existing. And so, for me, I'm struggling really hard with how this is worded. I think that there's still [some] inconsistencies in it.”
Support for the ordinance included concerns over how the community has been portrayed and that it wouldn’t impact free speech freedoms.
“At the end of the day, I still feel that this is the right thing to do. I feel like we need to be kinder to each other. And we need to show the world that we are a welcoming community,” said councilwoman Heidi Gross, who voted in favor of the ordinance. “Unless you're out committing a crime, this is not going to apply to you. And again, I think [how] the media, the way they have portrayed our community the last little while here, I'm hoping that this will do something positive, so when people are on the outside looking at our wonderful community, they're going to know that this is a wonderful place to be.”
Councilman Tim Carsrud said that he has received emails from residents stating that they themselves or those that they know had been the victims of harassment or had personal property damaged but didn’t report it to police because they felt police wouldn’t take their report seriously. Carsrud took the opportunity to ask the police chief a question.
“That really bothers me to hear that because I know our police department,” he said. “My question for [police chief Chuck Deaton] is, if somebody was standing on a corner, and let's just say they were pro-life, and they had they had pictures, and they were supporting pro-life, [causes]. If they were physically harassed or their posters were damaged, and they reported that would you guys take that serious?”
“Absolutely,” Deaton replied.
“If somebody was holding a, let's say they on the other side, [people] had a PFLAG, rainbow flag, whatever it is, and people did the same thing and they recorded it, would your officers do something about it?” Carsrud asked.
“Absolutely, officers would definitely respond and take a report and follow up on all the evidence related to that,” Deaton said.
Deaton then assured the Gillette police take reports of harassment and property destruction and those who are victims of such crimes seriously.
Another ordinance supporter brought up the controversy of books at the Campbell County Public Library Board for the past two years.
“What I'd like to say is I do hear the fear and I hear people being targeted, and that's all the reason I think we do need this [ordinance],” said Sheri England. “I find it really curious that when you're trying to censor books at a library, that we should just take that as okay and it won't go further, like if we're trying to do something to prohibit hate, that the fear is that we will go further].”
But for others, a hate crime ordinance is a sign of ominous things to come.
“I moved away from California because of a lot of things that are going on in California,” said Kim Mather, who has lived in Gillette for two years. “It is disturbing to see that we are in fact contemplating some of the same set of events that led me to make the decision to leave the place that I was all my life. But I want you to consider what's going on in our country. New York, California San Francisco Los Angeles…we're starting on a path that leads to those places.”
The third reading of the ordinance will take place at the council’s next regularly scheduled meeting on June 6.
