2012 HRC MEI Scorecards

7/30/2019 2012 HRC MEI Scorecards

1/277

2O12 MunicipalEquality IndexA Nationwide Evaluation o Municipal Law and Policy


2/277

www.hrc.org/mei

1 Montgomery, Alabama3 Juneau, Alaska5 Mesa, Arizona7 Phoenix, Arizona9 Tucson, Arizona11 Little Rock, Arkansas13 Berkeley, Cali ornia15 Brisbane, Cali ornia17 Cathedral City, Cali ornia19 Concord, Cali ornia21 Fresno, Cali ornia23 Guerneville (Sonoma County),

Cali ornia25 Long Beach, Cali ornia27 Los Angeles, Cali ornia29 Oakland, Cali ornia

31 Palm Springs, Cali ornia33 Pasadena, Cali ornia35 Rancho Mirage, Cali ornia37 Richmond, Cali ornia39 Sacramento, Cali ornia41 San Diego, Cali ornia43 San Francisco, Cali ornia45 San Jose, Cali ornia47 Santa Rosa, Cali ornia49 Signal Hill, Cali ornia51 Vallejo, Cali ornia53 West Hollywood, Cali ornia

55 Colorado Springs, Colorado57 Denver, Colorado59 Hart ord, Connecticut61 Dover, Delaware63 Rehoboth Beach, Delaware65 Fort Lauderdale, Florida67 Hollywood, Florida69 Jacksonville, Florida71 Miami Shores, Florida73 Miami, Florida75 Oakland Park, Florida77 Orlando, Florida79 St. Petersburg, Florida81 Tallahassee, Florida83 Tampa, Florida85 Wilton Manors, Florida87 Atlanta, Georgia89 Avondale Estates, Georgia91 Decatur, Georgia93 North Druid Hills (unincorporated,

rated DeKalb County), Georgia

95 Honolulu, Hawaii97 Boise, Idaho99 Chicago, Illinois101 Springfeld, Illinois103 Indianapolis, Indiana105 Des Moines, Iowa107 Topeka, Kansas109 Wichita, Kansas111 Frank ort, Kentucky113 Louisville, Kentucky115 Baton Rouge, Louisiana117 New Orleans, Louisiana119 Augusta, Maine121 Annapolis, Maryland123 Baltimore, Maryland125 Boston, Massachusetts

127 Cambridge, Massachusetts129 Northampton, Massachusetts131 Provincetown, Massachusetts133 Ann Arbor, Michigan135 Detroit, Michigan137 Ferndale, Michigan139 Lansing, Michigan141 Pleasant Ridge, Michigan143 Minneapolis, Minnesota145 Saint Paul, Minnesota147 Jackson, Mississippi149 Je erson City, Missouri

151 Kansas City, Missouri153 St. Louis, Missouri155 Helena, Montana157 Lincoln, Nebraska159 Omaha, Nebraska161 Carson City, Nevada163 Enterprise (unincorporated,

rated Clark County), Nevada165 Las Vegas, Nevada167 Paradise (unincorporated,

rated Clark County), Nevada169 Concord, New Hampshire171 Asbury Park, New Jersey173 Jersey City, New Jersey175 Lambertville, New Jersey177 Ocean Grove, New Jersey179 Trenton, New Jersey181 Albuquerque, New Mexico183 Eldorado at Santa Fe (unincorporated,

rated Santa Fe County), New Mexico185 Santa Fe, New Mexico

187 Albany, New York 189 New York, New York 191 Northwest Harbor (Town o East

Hampton), New York 193 Rochester, New York 195 Charlotte, North Carolina197 Durham, North Carolina199 Raleigh, North Carolina201 Bismarck, North Dakota203 Cincinnati, Ohio205 Cleveland, Ohio207 Columbus, Ohio209 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma211 Tulsa, Oklahoma213 Eugene, Oregon215 Portland, Oregon

217 Salem, Oregon219 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania221 New Hope, Pennsylvania223 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania225 Providence, Rhode Island227 Columbia, South Carolina229 Pierre, South Dakota231 Memphis, Tennessee233 Nashville, Tennessee235 Arlington, Texas237 Austin, Texas239 Dallas, Texas

241 El Paso, Texas243 Fort Worth, Texas245 Houston, Texas247 San Antonio, Texas249 Salt Lake City, Utah251 Montpelier, Vermont253 Alexandria, Virginia255 Arlington, Virginia257 Richmond, Virginia259 Virginia Beach, Virginia261 Olympia, Washington263 Seattle, Washington

265 Vashon (unincorporated,rated King County), Washington267 Charleston, West Virginia269 Madison, Wisconsin271 Milwaukee, Wisconsin273 Cheyenne, Wyoming

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardTable o Contents


3/277

# ## Points for Sexual Orientation= # Points for Gender Identity

Available State County City

Part I. Non-Discrimination Laws

This category evaluates whether discrimination onthe basis of sexual orientation and gender identityis prohibited in areas of employment, housing, andpublic accommodations.

Employment

Housing

Public Accommodations


Part II . Relationship Recognition

Because this is an evaluation of municipalities,not states, and marriage is a state-level policy,this section is weighted so that an equal numberof points are awarded for marriage (or other staterelationship recognition) and municipal domesticpartner registries.

Marriage Equality State: Civil Unions

Domestic Partnerships

County: Domestic Partner Registry

City: Domestic Partner Registry

BONUS POINTS:Municipality had relationship recognition that was

preempted by restrictive state law


Part III . Municipality as Employer

This section is the most heavily weighted becauseit is an area in which almost every municipality willhave extensive control and the power to do muchgood. It measures how cities treat their LGBTemployees, and the extent to which they requiretheir contractors to do the same.

Non-Discrimination in City Employment

City C ontractor Non-Discrimination Ordinance

City Contractor Equal Benefts Ordinance

Domestic Partner Health Benefts

Legal Dependent Benefts

Equivalent Family Leave

Bonus Points are awarded for criteria which arenot accessible to all cities at this time. For moreinformation about the MEI Scoring System, pleaserefer to page 11.

BONUS POINTS: Grossing Up o Employee Benefts

BONUS POINTS: Health Benefts are Transgender Inclusive

BONUS POINTS: Municipality is a Welcoming Place to Work

(Recruitment, Training, or Employee Pride Alliance)

www.hrc.org/mei 1

5 5 0 0

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 0

2 0

2 0

Total Part III: 0 out o 26 Points

+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

12 0

12 0

12 0

Total Part II: 0 out o 12 Points

+2 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Part I: 0 out o 18 Points

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardMontgomery, Alabama


4/277



Part V. Municipality asLaw En orcement

This section assesses the attentiveness of lawenforcement to LGBT issues.

LGBT Liaison or Task Force inthe Police Department

Reported 2010 Hates CrimesStatistics to the FBI


Part IV. Municipal Services

& ProgramsThis section measures how inclusive city servicesand programs are of LGBT people.

EEOC or Human Rights Commission

Mayoral LGBT Liaison or O fce o LGBT A airs

Schools Have Enumerated Anti-Bullying Polices

BONUS POINTS:Municipality o ers services to particularly vulnerable

populations o LGBT people (seniors, youth, homeless, andpeople living with HIV or AIDS).


Part VI. Municipalitys Relationshipwith the LGBT Community

City Leaderships Public PositionRegarding LGBT Equality

Local Pro-Equality Legislative or Policy E orts

BONUS POINTS: Municipality has openly LGBT city leadership

(elected or appointed)

BONUS POINTS: Municipality engages with LGBT community

(participates in Pride, partners with LGBT groups, or other)

BONUS POINTS: Municipality is success ul despite

restrictive state law

Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus

FINAL SCORE (cannot exceed 100 points)

www.hrc.org/mei 2BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

All cities rated were provided their scorecard in advance of publicationand given the opportunity to submit revisions. For feedback regardinga particular citys scorecard, please email [email protected]. For moreinformation about city se lection, the criteria, or how to use the MEI,please visit hrc.org/mei or refer to the remainder of this publication.

8 0

10 0

Total Part V: 0 out o 18 Points

7 0

5 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Part IV: 0 out o 18 Points

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardMontgomery, Alabama

0

0

0

Montgomery, Alabama has received arating o 0 points, including 0 points orpro-equality leadership by the mayor or citycouncil and 0 points or e ort to urther pro-equality legislation or policy. Our researchindicated that there is not much political willto enact pro-equality policies or legislationat this time.

5 0

3 0

Total Part VI : 0 out o 8 Points

+3 0

+2 0

+2 0
http://hrc.org/meihttp://hrc.org/meihttp://hrc.org/mei


5/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 3

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0


12 0

12 0

12 0


+2 0

5 5 0 0

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 0

2 0

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardJuneau, Alaska


6/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




8 0

10 0


14

0

14

7 7

5 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0


+2 0

Juneau has received a rating o 14 points,including 2 points based on pro-equalityleadership by the mayor, and 2 points basedon e orts to urther pro -equality legislationor policy. Our research indicated that theMayor has come out in support o marriageequality and that the city council has shown

suppor t or LGBT equality in the recent past .

5 2

3 2


+3 0

+2 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardJuneau, Alaska


7/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 5

5 5 0 0

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 0

2 0

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

12 0

12 0

12 0


+2 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0


2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardMesa, Arizona


8/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




26

2

28

Mesa has received a rating o 28 points,including 0 points based on pro-equalityleadership by the mayor or city council,and 1 point based on e orts to urther pro-equality legislation or policy. Our researchindicated that Mesa has not expendedconsiderable e ort to extend equality in citypolicy to LGBT residents and employees.

5 0

3 1


+3 0

+2 2

+2 0

8 0

10 10


7 7

5 5

3 3 3 0 0 0 3 0


+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardMesa, Arizona


9/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 7

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0


5 5 5 0

2 2 2 0

4 0

4 4

2 0

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 2

12 0

12 0

12 12


+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardPhoenix, Arizona


10/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




61

9

70

Phoenix has received a rating o 70 points,including 5 points based on pro-equalityleadership by the mayor or city council, and3 points based on e orts to urther pro-equality legislation or policy. Our researchindicated that the Mayor is an ally and thatPhoenix is taking substantial steps to a ordLGBT citizens equality in city policy.

5 5

3 3


+3 3

+2 2

+2 0

8 8

10 10


7 7

5 5

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0


+2 2

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardPhoenix, Arizona


11/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 9

5 5 5 5

2 2 2 0

4 0

4 4

2 2

2 0

Total Part III : 18 out o 26 Points

+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

12 0

12 0

12 12


+2 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3

3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3

3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3


2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardTucson, Arizona


12/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




76

7

83

Tucson has received a rating o 83 points,including 4 points based on pro-equalityleadership by the mayor or city council, and2 points based on e orts to urther pro-equality legislation or policy. Our researchindicated that the mayor is an LGBT ally andthat previous administrations have valuedequality in city policy.

5 4

3 2


+3 3

+2 2

+2 0

8 0

10 10


7 7

5 5

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0


+2 2

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardTucson, Arizona


13/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 11

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0


12 0

12 0

12 0


+2 0

5 5 0 0

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 0

2 0

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardLittle Rock, Arkansas


14/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




8 0

10 0


14

3

17

7 7

5 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


+2 0

Little Rock has received a rating o 17points, including 1 point based on pro-equality leadership by the mayor or citycouncil, and 0 points based on e orts to

urther pro-equality legislation or policy. Ourresearch indicated that there have not been

substantive e orts to extend equality toLGBT employees and residents o Little Rock,but that the Mayor has shown some concern

or the di culties LGBT people ace.

5 1

3 0


+3 3

+2 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardLittle Rock, Arkansas


15/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 13

5 5 5 0

2 2 2 2

4 4

4 4

2 0

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 2

12 12

12 0

12 12


+2 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0


2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardBerkeley, Cali ornia


16/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




86

9

95

8 8

10 10


7 7

5 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


+2 2

Berkeley has received a rating o 95 points,including 5 points based on pro-equalityleadership by the mayor or city council, and3 points based on e orts to urther pro-equality legislation or policy. Our researchindicated that LGBT issues are o greatimportance to city leadership.

5 5

3 3


+3 3

+2 2

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardBerkeley, Cali ornia


17/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 15

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


12 12

12 0

12 0


+2 0

5 5 5 0

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 4

2 0

2 2


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardBrisbane, Cali ornia


18/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




57

0

57

7 0

5 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


+2 0

8 0

10 10


Brisbane has received a rating o 57 points,including 0 points based on pro-equalityleadership by the mayor or city council, and0 points based on e orts to urther pro-equality legislation or policy. Our researchindicated that issues o importance to theLGBT community have not been on theagenda o city leadership.

5 0

3 0


+3 0

+2 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardBrisbane, Cali ornia


19/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 17

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0


12 12

12 0

12 12


+2 0

5 5 5 5

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 4

2 0

2 2


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardCathedral City, Cali ornia


20/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




7 0

5 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


+2 0

8 0

10 10


Cathedral City has received a rating o 70points, including 4 points based on pro-equality leadership by the mayor or citycouncil, and 1 point based on e orts to

urther pro-equality legislation or policy.Our research indicated that city leadershipis interested in LGBT equality but has nottaken much legislative action as a result othat interest.

5 4

3 1


+3 3

+2 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardCathedral City, Cali ornia

67

3

70


21/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 19

5 5 0 0

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 4

2 2

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

12 12

12 0

12 0


+2 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardConcord, Cali ornia


22/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




59

5

64

8 0

10 10


7 7

5 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


+2 2

Concord has received a rating o 64 points ,including 0 points based on pro-equalityleadership by the mayor or city council, and0 points based on e orts to urther pro-equality legislation or policy. Our researchindicated that city leadership seems to haveminimal interest in addressing matters oLGBT equality.

5 0

3 0


+3 3

+2 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardConcord, Cali ornia


23/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 21

5 5 0 0

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 4

2 0

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

12 12

12 0

12 0


+2 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardFresno, Cali ornia


24/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




50

2

52

8 0

10 10


7 0

5 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


+2 2

Fresno has received a rating o 52 points,including 0 points based on pro-equalityleadership by the mayor or city council, and0 points based on e orts to urther pro-equality legislation or policy. Our researchindicated that city leaders have not beenpursuing equality in city laws or policies.

5 0

3 0


+3 0

+2 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardFresno, Cali ornia


25/277





Employment

Housing


















Legal Dependant Benefts







www.hrc.org/mei 23

3 3 3 3 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0


12 12

12 0

12


+2 0

5 5 0 0

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 4

2 2

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardGuerneville (Sonoma County), Cali ornia


26/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




8 0

10 10


63

5

68

7 7

5 0

3 3 3 3 0 0


+2 0

Guerneville (unincorporated, rated SonomaCounty) has received a rating o 68 points,including 2 points based on pro-equalityleadership by the county government,and 2 points based on e orts to urtherpro-equality legislation or policy. Ourresearch indicated that county governmentis interested in matters o importance tothe LGBT community and engages in pro-equality practices.

5 2

3 2


+3 3

+2 2

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardGuerneville (Sonoma County), Cali ornia


27/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 25

5 5 5 5

2 2 2 2

4 4

4 4

2 2

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 2

12 12

12 0

12 0


+2 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardLong Beach, Cali ornia


28/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




93

9

100

Long Beach has received a rating o 100points, including 5 points based on pro-equality leadership by the mayor or citycouncil, and 3 points based on e orts to

urther pro-equality legislation or policy.Our research indicated that LGBT issues areo great importance to city leadership.

5 5

3 3


+3 3

+2 2

+2 0

8 8

10 10


7 7

5 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


+2 2

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardLong Beach, Cali ornia


29/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 27

5 5 5 5

2 2 0 0

4 4

4 4

2 2

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

12 12

12 0

12 12


+2 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3


2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardLos Angeles, Cali ornia


30/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




94

7

100

8 8

10 10


7 7

5 5

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


+2 2

Los Angeles has received a rating o 100points, including 5 points based on pro-equality leadership by the mayor or citycouncil, and 3 points based on e orts to

urther pro-equality legislation or policy.Our research indicated that LGBT issues areo great importance to city leadership.

5 5

3 3


+3 3

+2 2

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardLos Angeles, Cali ornia


31/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 29

5 5 5 5

2 2 0 0

4 4

4 4

2 2

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

12 12

12 0

12 12


+2 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3


2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardOakland, Cali ornia


32/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




73

7

80

8 0

10 10


7 7

5 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


+2 2

Oakland has received a rating o 80 points,including 0 points based on pro-equalityleadership by the mayor or city council, and0 points based on e orts to urther pro-equality legislation or policy. Our researchindicated that city leadership hasnt recentlybeen active in pursuing pro-equalitypolicies.

5 0

3 0


+3 3

+2 2

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardOakland, Cali ornia


33/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 31

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0


12 12

12 0

12 12


+2 0

5 5 0 0

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 4

2 0

2 0


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardPalm Springs, Cali ornia


34/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




7 7

5 5

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


+2 0

8 8

10 10


72

5

77

Palm Springs has received a rating o 77points, including 2 points based on pro-equality leadership by the mayor or citycouncil, and 0 points based on e orts to

urther pro-equality legislation or policy.Our research indicated that city leadershipis engaged with matters o LGBT equalitybut that legislation and policy have notnecessarily ollowed.

5 2

3 0


+3 3

+2 2

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardPalm Springs, Cali ornia


35/277





Employment

Housing

























www.hrc.org/mei 33

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0


12 12

12 0

12 0


+2 0

5 5 5 0

2 2 0 0

4 0

4 4

2 0

2 2


+3 0

+4 0

+2 0

2O12 Municipal Equality Index // ScorecardPasadena, Cali ornia


36/277

























Total Parts I-VI

Total Bonus




2012 HRC MEI Scorecards

Documents

Transcript of 2012 HRC MEI Scorecards