Common Council Passes CEDAW Resolution; 4 Alderpersons Oppose

On 05/05/2021 the Common Council took up Resolution #4-R-21 regarding the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

This was one of two resolutions they took up that night, and the Council ended up discussing it much more extensively than they did the Resolution Condemning Xenophobia, Racism, and Violence Against The Asian Pacific Islander Desiamerican (APIDA) Community.

The Council listened to over an hour of public comment that was made on both the resolutions. The main theme of the public comment for the CEDAW resolution specifically was that trans-women are women and that the wording of the resolution should not be altered to replace the term “gender” with “sex” as Alderperson Matt Reed (District 8) had tried to do during the committee meeting.

Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6), the main sponsor of the resolution gave some background. She said that the resolution came from a first year student at Lawrence who had heard about CEDAW during a summer internship at World Without Genocide. She decided that she wanted the community she was going to be spending the next 3-4 years of her life in to be a city that supported CEDAW. She reached out to the League of Women Voters and to other women’s organizations and eventually some County Board of Supervisor members and to Alderperson Fenton. Alderperson Fenton then introduced the resolution. CEDAW was passed by the UN in 1979 and terminology changes over time. The language in CEDAW uses the word “sex” twice and the word “sexes” once. When Alderperson Fenton wrote her resolution she used some models from communities around the country that have passed the resolution. She used the word “gender” because that’s the term she uses to recognize it. She said her main focus was in getting her colleagues to accept the last “Therefore be it resolved” which asks our senators to ratify CEDAW. She never thought about the use of the word “women” because to her transwomen are women and the CEDAW convention supports the rights of all women. However, due to a climate where there is so much anti-trans legislation and anti-trans activity (here she referenced Arkansas House Bill 1570, that created the Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act), she deliberately added the trans-inclusive phraseology to her resolution in order to make it clear that transwomen are women and they are speaking of all women in this resolution. She said it caused a firestorm she didn’t expect, but it was good because we need to, as a community, recognize the intersectionality of feminism and gender and all of these ways that people are discriminated against.

She also said that they have to support the last clause of this resolution “because we do a lot of great things in Appleton but the United States–we are called upon to advocate to other governments for measures that support and help and prevent discrimination, violence, and other hurt against our citizens, and that’s why I’m calling on my colleagues to please pass this resolution with the final clause that asks for ratification by the US Senate.”

Alderperson Joe Martin (District 4) took this opportunity to reveal some hitherto unknown personal family information. “This really gives me an opportunity. I had to ask my brother if I could do this, and he said ‘Go ahead. She’s ready.’ So I have the privilege of my brother having born a daughter and a son. And the daughter was competitive in volleyball and so was his son. And so the young man went on to play very good high school ball right here in the city of Appleton and was looked at by major recruiters throughout the United States. Well, he really decided that he just couldn’t go to school, that it was just too much because my brother who had a son is proud to say–and I am too–that he had both a son and now he has two daughters….I just wanted to say please support this. I think some of you are shocked to hear this from me that it’s in our family. I have a beautiful two nieces. So I’d like to just say, for all my friends out there, Helen for one, remember I know exactly what you’re talking about. Thank you.”

Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) said that much of what she wanted to say was an echo of what she said at the 04/28/2021 Community and Economic Development Committee meeting. She believed it was honorable to put forth a resolution in an attempt to eliminate discrimination against women in the city of Appleton. She noted that she personally has not felt discriminated against as a former woman business owner, a woman manager of numerous businesses, and now as a woman member of the Common Council, but, she acknowledged that that didn’t mean discrimination has not occurred in Appleton.

She was concerned about the final clause of the resolution. She thought the ideas put forth by CEDAW could benefit the city of Appleton and the implementation of those ideas in Appleton could be accomplished through the second to last clause of the resolution. Beyond that, she and many of her constituents did not believe that it was the place of Appleton’s local government, through the final clause of the resolution, to push the Wisconsin Congressional delegation to ratify CEDAW. She thought that was the place of individual citizens and private groups of like-minded citizens such as the League of Women Voters but not the place of a city government.

After having done extensive research on the potential ratification of CEDAW by the U.S. she found it impossible to see how that ratification would not fundamentally alter U.S. Constitutional law and perhaps greatly alter for the worse society and, indeed, the rights of women in the U.S. She pointed out that many issues CEDAW concerns itself with have already been addressed by U.S. legislation more extensively than the requirements laid out in CEDAW.

She was particularly concerned about international enforcement of the treaty and did not think it was appropriate for the UN and the CEDAW committee to be setting social policy in the United States when the members of the CEDAW committee have little to no knowledge or regard for U.S. law or for the cultural and social mores of the United States. She said that the CEDAW committee advocates quota systems to show equality which was incompatible with America’s system of offering equal opportunity. She did not think you could force the playing field to be level for all women through a quota system if American women choose, as is their constitutional right, to be wives and mothers rather than business owners. “When I took the oath of office two weeks ago, I swore to support the Constitution and I will not renege on that promise for the purposes of having our city government advocate on behalf of only some of it’s nearly 75,000 residents, for the ratification of a UN treaty which many believe could do more harm that good for women in our country.”

She said that Common Council members are charged with doing what they know is right for Appleton as a whole and she believed the resolution could do so without the inclusion of the final clause. She then made a resolution to strike the final clause of the resolution which states:

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Wisconsin’s U.S. Congressional Delegation expressing our support of the United States’ ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW”

Final clause of Resolution #4-R-21

The Council then discussed her motion.

Alderperson Michael Smith (District 10) wanted to know [and I am restating this in my own words to make it more clear than how he asked it] given that the language of the resolution was different than the CEDAW treaty, would this resolution be somehow asking for CEDAW to be amended to include the trans-inclusive language that Alderperson Fenton used in the resolution.

Mayor Woodford said that right now they were discussing the motion to strike the final paragraph.

Alderperson Smith responded that that was his whole point. If they strike it or if they leave it what will that do as they move forward with the resolution.

Mayor Woodford didn’t answer his question and just said “That is the discussion, Alderperson Smith.”

[I thought it was a good question that warranted a better answer. Appleton’s resolution seems to differ substantially from CEDAW in that CEDAW is concerned with ending sex based discrimination against women whereas Appleton’s resolution aims to end gender-based discrimination against women and those who identify as women. The supporters of the resolution were very explicit in specifically supporting that trans-inclusive language and not wanting it removed or altered. It seems like we have a resolution that, at a local level, is aimed at doing one thing but then is calling for action at a federal level that would result in something markedly different. Was there an expectation that, if that final clause was included, that Appleton would be asking the federal government to somehow amend CEDAW to include the gender-based language of our resolution or that ratification of CEDAW would already entail ending gender-based discrimination?]

Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) had started questioning if they were losing sight of the original resolution which was to support women’s rights. She wondered if adjusting the verbiage back to the original CEDAW treaty language would bring more alderpersons on board. She wondered if they were asking too much in Appleton by using more advanced terms if the nation wasn’t capable of accepting even the original treaty. But in the end she learned that the biggest obstacle to some of her colleagues was not the inclusion of trans language but instead even asking Wisconsin’s U.S. Congressional Delegation to ratify CEDAW. To her, that sealed the deal to support the resolution as initially presented. If they’re willing to pass the resolution locally with the trans verbiage but not stand by the recommendation at the state or national level then that was not truly supporting the resolution. “I strongly recommend that you look beyond your personal views, and instead of the majority of your constituents who clearly have shared with all of us their concern for equality for all races, sexes, and genders in our community. I stand firmly in the position of supporting the existing resolution without the amendment proposed.”

Alderperson Fenton said that she thought it was important that as elected officials they advocate with other entities for their constituents. They had heard many of those constituents ask that they advocate for them to the federal government for the United States with its great power to maintain its leadership role and take on its responsibilities like the Common Council takes on responsibilities for their constituents.

Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) said that, like his colleagues, he had spent many hours over the last couple weeks researching CEDAW and the United Nations involvement in it. He said the scope of local government is small and focused and he thought the final clause of the resolution took them off that course.

As a husband and as a father of 4 girls he is deeply committed to ensuring that women have the same rights that men do, and is thankful that our state and our country believes the same and has laws in place to address any inequalities that may arise. There were a number of troubling elements he saw with CEDAW. He thought the language in CEDAW was ambiguous and open for interpretation which could result in the treaty running contrary to U.S. law. He was not a constitutional scholar, but the resources that he read made those same points again and again, which made him think they as council members were straying outside their elected duties. They’re 15 different individuals some of whom have different viewpoints on how to address issues, just like the 75,000 residents of Appleton have differing opinions. Sometimes they’ll agree and sometimes they won’t, but their job is to work on issues representing Appleton’s residents in all that they do. If they as an elected body want to ensure that women are treated fairly and equally here in Appleton, he thought that was something they would all support and they should be looking at working with organizations to partner with and further those ends. If they want to see that the city as an organization is ensuring that employees are treated fairly and equally then he would suggest they reach out to the HR Director to provide a report to the HR committee on what policies the city already has in place to protect the women who work for the City of Appleton. They can examine those policies and offer suggestions where warranted. Those are the types of resolutions that he could support and that he thought would be doing a good job of representing the residents of Appleton.

Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) said “There seems to be a lot of discussion right now about what is our purview, what is our jurisdiction, what is the scope of local government supposed to be? Well, we were elected to represent our constituents and they just spoke and told us what they want, so I think that we could have a philosophical debate about what type of speech it is okay for us to allow each other to engage in. I think that really the more important thing is what are our constituents trying to ask us to do? If they say ‘Make this statement to the congressional delegation’ then that is in our purview. If they say ‘we want a local policy’ then that’s in our jurisdiction. We will write appropriate resolutions for appropriate requests by the constituents that we represent, and when we are asked to bring a resolution that is–one of the components that was specifically was asked for is to forward the resolution to the congressional delegation then we shouldn’t be asking ourselves is that really what an alderperson is supposed to do? We’ve been doing this kind of thing for years, and if you want to take–if you want to amend that to remove it from the resolution–to echo what Alderperson Alfheim said–that really takes away a big part of what this statement is making. So I think if we’re gonna take seriously all the people who came out and spoke tonight and take seriously saying that we uspport ending discrimination then we need to leave that in this resolution. I encourage my colleagues to defeat this amendment.”

[That did leave me wondering, if alderpersons are supposed to essentially be empty vessels that simply spout the desires of their constituents then why have alderpersons at all? Why not revert to a pure democracy and have all the residents vote on everything? Surely one of the reasons, although not the only reason, one elects an alderperson is for their wisdom and time and dedication to not only listen to people but to research things and figure out how to manage the city and the desires of the people in a way that is appropriate, legal, and conducive to human flourishing. That doesn’t necessarily translate into them doing everything a group of residents asks for in exactly the way the residents ask for it.]

Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) thought that if the state and federal government could ask the city of Appleton to manage a pandemic response, then Appleton had the right to ask them to consider ways to address discrimination against women.

Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) said that he has expressed in the past that his least favorite type of resolution is the one where they send a letter to higher levels about something. He preferred to focus on things they can do locally because they are local officials. But sometimes they need to work with the other levels of government, and he appreciated that this resolution had both of those parts. It asked the City of Appleton to look at ways they could do things differently and it also communicated with higher levels of government.

As far as the final clause went, he said that America is a global leader and it shouldn’t be afraid to sit at the table just because some countries view women’s rights differently than some of the people in the US. He thought the concerns that some of the language in CEDAW is different than some of the U.S. laws were overblown because the U.S. wouldn’t be bound to follow every letter of this and would be allowed some flexibility. He saw nothing wrong with advocating for women’s rights at a global level.

Alderperson Alfheim said she appreciated that Alderperson Hartzheim had brought the amendment forward and that this conversation was being had. She thought they should be doing that and they should be able to talk out loud about important issues and opinions and work their way through them. She appreciated that the item had not been referred back to committee and that they were allowed to have this conversation.

Alderperson Hartzheim said that they had philosophical differences amongst them, but the most important point that has been brought up is that they should listen to their constituents and not just the constituents that came to the meeting and spoke but to all of their constituents. She believed that she had as many or more constituents who were very concerned about CEDAW and how its passage could negatively affect the country as she had constituents who were advocating for it.

The Council voted on the motion to remove the final clause and the motion failed with only Alderpersons Reed, Hartzheim, and Doran voting to remove it.

The Council then went back to discussing the unamended resolution.

Alderperson Smith said that he voted as he did on that because he didn’t think they had the right or the place to be dealing with this from the beginning. He didn’t think they had a full understanding of how CEDAW worked. He was curious to hear from Wisconsin’s two senators for their opinions on it. He was curious why this treaty has been around since 1979 and it’s stalled in the Senate every time it’s brought up, regardless of which party has had control of the House and Senate. He mentioned that there are Arab nations that have concerns about it–some that have signed onto it and some that have not. He wished that the resolution had been held at committee because the more they talk about it, the more they have questions, but it seemed that, as things were trending, they had to do committee business on the council floor. [I’m going to put a note here that that comment was in reference to the pushback over Resolution 6-R-21 being sent back to committee. Right now we all know what he’s talking about, but two years from now if somebody reads this, they won’t have a clue.]

The video glitched up a moment there, but it seemed like he was referencing some kind of article or other source. He said that source talked about certain things that the U.S would be bound to abide by if CEDAW were ratified. Under the US Constitution, treaties ratified by the United States become part of the supreme law of the land. Ratification of the convention could have consequences for pro-life laws in the US. Although the convention itself is neutral on abortion, the CEDAW committee has made it clear that it believes the convention imposes certain obligations on states to make abortion legal and accesible. Pro-life advocates in the U.S. have long been concerned that certain provisions of the convention could be interpreted as requiring states to legalize abortions. He said that the source he was reading from talked about how countries that approve CEDAW are allowed to state what parts they would and would not follow. “So if we’re gonna to vote on something we really ought to understand the ramifications inside and out of this because taking this on the face value is what we are doing right now and that’s the wrong thing to do.”

He said that as alderpersons they were elected to represent the neighbors who have issues with things such as sidewalks, streets, smoking ordinances. Yes, sometime they have some bigger things that they have to put to the state level, but he wanted to know where were the county, state, and national representatives on this. They had not heard, and the city hadn’t reached out far as he knew. [Note: state Assembly representative Lee Snodgrass did actually speak during the public comment portion in favor of passing this resolution.] He thought they should at least hold the resolution in order to get their feedback as they moved forward. Right now he didn’t feel smart enough because he didn’t have enough information on this.

Alderpreson Alfheim said this was her third meeting and the amount of research and reading that she had to do in the last 2 weeks was unbelievable. This is what they’ve been asked to do and she thought it was her job to do it well. She also understand the opinions of her colleagues there. For every point there is a counter on the other side and it’s been that way since CEDAW was written. “It is our opportunity as Appleton to say ‘We want better.'”

She thought that if they sent it back to committee they were just going to hear the exact same thing. The argument wouldn’t change. They had to make their decision. They either supported it or they did not.

Alderperson Meltzer pointed out that the resolution was submitted to the Common Council on March 17 [prior to the April election] and applauded the newly elected alderperson for all the research they had done. The item had been on everyone’s radar since March 17.

There was no further discussion and the Council voted 11-4 to approve the resolution with Alderpersons Reed, Smith, Harzheim, and Doran opposed.

[I thought the discussion about the appropriate purview of city government was interesting. There are pros and cons on either side. I suppose, ultimately, if the residents of the city of Appleton don’t want alderpersons making resolutions like this they would need to stop voting for people who like passing resolutions of this nature or they would have to start showing up at Common Council meetings and voicing their opposition to these types of resolutions. They have, thus far, chosen to not to do either of those two things, so I would expect we will continue to pass resolutions asking state and federal agencies to do things.

The discussion of CEDAW itself was also really interesting. I didn’t get the impression that a majority of the alderpersons appreciated the numerous complicating issues surrounding the ratification of CEDAW. At a local level, our city attorney asked for two months to research the legal issues surrounding potentially banning the display of political signs on property the city owns but leases to private parties, and that was for a local ordinance that was three sentences long. Compare that to a 6 part, 30 article international treaty and how that treaty would potentially interface or interfere with the Constitution and multiple established federal laws. At a minimum, I don’t think the alderpersons who felt it was outside their purview to ask for CEDAW’s ratification were being unreasonable.]

View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=853492&GUID=148AA3A4-D401-4581-9AE3-C7EF734F39B0&Options=info|&Search=