----

**WhoIs Enforcing Civil Rights in Arkansas: Is There a Need for a State Civil RightsAgency?**

----

**Chapter2**

**Review ofthe Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993**

----

According to an article in the *ArkansasLaw Review**and Bar AssociationJournal, Inc.*, the Arkansas Legislature, after almost 30 years of avoidingissues that the rest of the country had already addressed, enacted its firstmodern civil rights act.[1] The law covereddiscrimination based on race, religion, national origin, gender, and disability.[2]

The Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 states in part:

> 
(a)      The right of an otherwise qualified person to be free fromdiscrimination because of race, religion, ancestry or national origin, gender,or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability is recognized asand declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limitedto:
-   The right to obtain and hold employment withoutdiscrimination;The right to the full enjoyment of any of the          accommodations,advantages, facilities, or privileges or any place of public resort,accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;The right toengage in property transactions without discrimination;The right to engage incredit and other contractual transactions without discrimination; andThe right to vote and participate fully in the politicalprocess.
(b) Any person who is injured by an intentional act of discrimination inviolation of subdivisions (a)(2)�(5) of this section shall have a civil actionin a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, to recovercompensatory and punitive damages, and, in the discretion of the court, torecover the cost of litigation and reasonable attorneys� fees. . . . Theopportunity to obtain housing and other real estate without discriminationbecause of religion, race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or familialstatus, as prohibited by this chapter, is recognized and declared to be a civilright. . . .[3]

During the 1995 legislative session, a new section coveringhousing discrimination was added to the law.[4]Yet, five years after the statute was enacted, litigants have filed very fewcases under the new law. However, it does not mean that it is always preferableto file under state law because the state act also leaves several significantareas uncovered.[5]

The Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 provides some civil rightsprotections, but the law is not substantially equivalent to federal civil rightslaws, and procedures, remedies, and judicial review of actions are notequivalent to those under federal guidelines.[6]Major areas of civil rights protections not covered include age discriminationin employment and housing. The act also lacks an enforcement mechanism.[7]

According to officials of the U.S. Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (EEOC), Little Rock Area Office, the Arkansas Act does not conform tothe age discrimination under EEOC�s jurisdiction because it does not prohibitage discrimination.[8]The Arkansas Act that defines �disability� does not cover alcoholism. Theact exempts religious entities from the employment aspects of the law, and thesection of the Arkansas law that defines �employee� does not conform toEEOC�s standards because it excludes individuals employed by their parents,spouses, or children, and individuals employed under a special license in anonprofit sheltered workshop or rehabilitation facility.[9]

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administersfederal housing programs. HUD�s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunityadministers fair housing laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination inpublic and private housing and in HUD-assisted housing and community developmentprograms on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap,or familial status. The governing law is the Civil Rights Act of 1968, asamended by the Fair Housing Amendments of 1988. The Arkansas Act also does notmeet the requirements set forth under the laws and regulations enforced by HUDprohibiting age discrimination in housing, and it fails to have an enforcementmechanism.[10]

According to Judge Wendell L. Griffen of the Arkansas Courtof Appeals, the Arkansas Act is not enforced by any state agency with civilrights responsibilities.[11]

Claude Rogers said effective civil rights legislation should at a minimumdo the following:
-  provide rights and remedies substantially equivalent tofederal guidelines such as prohibiting discrimination based on race or color,national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, and familialstatus;prohibit discrimination in the areas of employment,housing, and public accommodations;provide enforcement powers and judicial review of theagency�s actions;provide outreach and education services to the generalpublic;provide specific authority to localities to investigate andenforce civil rights protection locally; and allow state agencies to acceptgrants and enter into cooperative agreements with other state, local, andfederal agencies.[12]
Mr. Rogers said some states have been progressive in theirlawmaking by including discriminatory practices based on income, height andweight, and sexual orientation.[13]

In its review of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, concerns were expressedto the Advisory Committee that the act is not substantially equivalent tofederal laws. The Committee also heard of other areas of concern that limitedaggrieved citizens� ability to pursue their rights, such as costs for legalcounsel, which adversely affect low-income persons, and the lack of availableattorneys who will accept civil rights cases.[14]

**Summary of Views Regarding an ArkansasCivil Rights Enforcement Agency**

Most persons interviewed and participants who spoke orsubmitted written information for the fact-finding meeting either supportedstate civil rights legislation and a state enforcement agency or opposed them.There was not much gray area on this point.[15]Some agreed, however, that based on the current political climate, attempts toincrease civil rights protections in Arkansas most likely would be unsuccessful.This is evident by the defeat of comprehensive state hate crime laws proposed in1999 by the Legislature and the defeat of other efforts to safeguard the humanrights of citizens. For example, state employers came together and effectivelyweakened workers� compensation laws; the state failed to establish landlordand tenant rights laws; an administrative law judge was removed because herrulings appeared to be favorable toward plaintiffs� interests; a law creatingthe Arkansas Women�s Commission was repealed, which would have helped improvethe education and economic status of women; a bill failed to pass theLegislature that would have repealed part of a law that allows the state tocheck for citizenship before issuing a driver�s license, thereby potentiallysubjecting immigrants with noticeable accents or Spanish-sounding names todiscriminatory treatment; and the city of Little Rock failed to get statelegislation passed allowing local municipalities the authority to adopt theirown fair housing ordinances.[16]

Although Governor Mike Huckabee has publicly renounced the practice ofdiscrimination and said his administration is inclusive, a number of persons andrepresentatives of organizations such as ACORN, the state NAACP, and CatholicImmigration Services believe the current administration has been generallyinactive and dispassionate on civil rights issues.[17]They cited the controversy surrounding the upheaval at the state�s YouthServices Department that raised allegations of racial discrimination in thefiring of black administrators, the confrontation between ACORN and the governorat the Arkansas Civil Rights Conference in April 1998, and the lack ofaccessible state properties for mobility-impaired persons.[18]

In the minds of some community representatives, the administration hasnot gone beyond the acknowledgment that civil rights problems exist, and it hasfailed to implement the changes needed. The questions then become, What has theadministration done to make its vision of civil rights a reality? What are thedifferent views and pros and cons of establishing substantially equivalent civilrights legislation and a state human rights agency?

Joe Franklin, who spoke on behalf of the governor, stated:

Last September Governor Mike Huckabee, along with PresidentClinton and Little Rock Mayor Jim Daly, participated in the 40th anniversary ofthe integration of Little Rock Central High School. That day the three of themsymbolically held open the doors for nine African American students who had beenshut out of that school 40 years earlier. Governor Huckabee said in his speechthat day: �Essentially, it is not just a skin problem; it is a sin problem,because we in Arkansas have wandered around in ambiguity with all kinds ofexplanations and justifications. I think today we come to say once and for allthat what happened 40 years ago was simply wrong. It was evil, and we renounceit.�[19]

**Phillip Kaplan, Kaplan, Brewer & Maxey**

Phillip Kaplan, an attorney with the law firm Kaplan, Brewer & Maxey,P.A., has served as legal counsel for plaintiffs in civil rights cases. Hestrongly opposes expanding current legislation to enforce the state�s civilrights laws.[20]According to Mr. Kaplan, in those states with deferral agencies to the EEOC,there has always been a coalition of political forces that enabled suchlegislation to pass. He said this environment does not exist in Arkansas.Usually there is a large labor constituency or women�s groups that have beenable to mobilize and garner the legislative impetus needed to pass civil rightslegislation. He believes there is enough legislation on the books to adequatelyaddress civil and human rights issues. He contended that more legislation willonly arouse hostility. Moreover, with the exceptionof employment discrimination, he said, there are very few housing or publicaccommodations discrimination complaints filed in Arkansas.[21]He told the Advisory Committee: 

There are very few lawsuits filed. Most of these things areeither mediated or handled at an administrative level at HUD. . . . The same istrue with public accommodations. For example, we know that Sears is not treatingsomebody who is a customer badly on account of race, sexual preference, orgender. That kind of thing with major department stores just doesn�t happen.[22]

Mr. Kaplan said that there are other legal and technical factors involvedin proving discrimination cases and that plaintiffs would be best served byusing federal civil rights laws rather than state laws. He noted that aplaintiff�s burden of proof in employment cases is rigorous. Therefore,attorneys are exceedingly selective about the employment civil rights cases theywill handle; and some do not take them at all. Relatively few cases are decidedfor the plaintiff at trial.[23]Moreover, Mr. Kaplan observed that bringing a claim of discrimination at thestate level provides no legal advantage or relevant precedent because statejudges look to federal law for guidance on civil rights cases.[24]Instead of new legislation, Mr. Kaplan said:

My feeling is, quite frankly, there�s enough law now. TheArkansas civil rights statute, while it is not self-effectuating, is a verybroad and comprehensive statute. And if only it were universally loved andadopted, it would make a difference, but I think that there are many placeswhere it could be, I suppose, more effectively enforced and where educationmight make a difference, where having some discussion in the nature of dialogueon race, that the President has tried to develop, might have some considerableimpact. I just don�t think that additional legislation is going to have thatmuch impact, because the laws as they exist now are sufficient, if enforced, orif adopted in one�s heart.

Litigating these things isn�t ultimately going to bewhatever is going to bring about the change. You can�t have enough lawsuits tochange what is in people�s hearts. You just have to change their minds andhearts in order to change the way they react toward people that are differentfrom them, and we�ve come a long way.[25]

**James W. Moore, Friday, Eldridge & Clark**

James W. Moore, an attorney in Little Rock, exclusivelyrepresents employers in their defense against employment discrimination charges.He serves on the board of directors of the Arkansas State Chamber ofCommerce and the United States Chamber of Commerce.[26]He opposes legislation for a state civil rights enforcement agency. A stateagency, he said, would be just another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy added toexisting federal and state enforcement procedures that are available to personsalleging discrimination.[27] Mr. Moore said if legalcosts are a concern, plaintiffs may also file an employment discriminationcomplaint in federal court for a state cause of action based on the Arkansas Actwithout delay.[28]Mr. Moore summed up the Arkansas Chamber of Commerce�s position:

In our view we do not feel that there is such a need. TheArkansas business community, which is comprised mostly of employers of less than100 employees, believes that we do not need another civil rights enforcementauthority to protect the employees from workplace discrimination.

Now, let me point out that such a state agency would be inaddition to the existing employee rights law enforcement authority of the EEOC,which we all know, the OFCCP, the NLRB, OSHA, HUD, the U.S. Department ofJustice, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993,the Arkansas Department of Labor, and a very skilled and sizable aggressiveCivil Rights Bar, which represents plaintiffs here in Arkansas, which is arelatively small state from a population standpoint. . . .

More agencies to complain to simply means more litigation,and more litigation creates the need for more attorneys and more litigationexpense. While lawyers have prospered overthe last 30 years with the expansion of civil rights legislation, this is hardlya rationale for another agency in an area of law which is alreadysaturated with legislation and regulatory agencies.[29]

Mr. Moore believes outreach and educational programs for employers arethe best approaches to preventing and reducing discrimination in the workplace.[30]

**Bill Lewellen, State Senator, Mariana, Arkansas**

Senator Bill Lewellen has been on the forefront calling for statewidecivil rights legislation. He provided significant leadership in movingArkansas� civil rights legislation to its passage in 1993.[31]The governor�s Task Force on Civil Rights, formed in 1991 by then-GovernorBill Clinton, was sponsored in the Senate by Senator Lewellen.[32]He described the political climate of the early 1990s as being one in which mostArkansans did not believe it was necessary to have a state civil rights bill.[33]He said a law was passed mainly for appearance only when state officials foundout Arkansas was one of several states without a statewide civil rights law.According to Senator Lewellen, the Legislature�s intent was to get a civilrights law passed, but one that was not enforceable.[34]

Consequently, a law was passed that was not substantially equivalent tofederal antidiscrimination laws and had many limitations in rights, remedies,and guarantees that should have been covered. Senator Lewellen said because ofthese limitations, it is still better to go to the federal courts than fileunder state law. The limitations in the monetary remedies in all employmentdiscrimination cases even under federal law are one of the reasons manyattorneys will not take on these cases. He said if an attorney represents aperson who is unable to pay attorney�s fees, the maximum amount ofreimbursement by the state is not enough to cover legal fees.[35]

Senator Lewellen also complained about state officials andthe media�s failure to adequately inform the public about Arkansas� civilrights laws. He said:

The overall intent was never to have a civil rights billthat was going to be enforceable or usable in this state, and I think as you cansee from the result of it, and when you hear people talk about how often theyuse the civil rights bill in court, or how often it�s brought up or what yousee, generally when you pass legislation that you hear Ms. Simmons say when theydo things, they�ve got brochures going out, they�ve got pamphlets out,they�ve got things noticed in county offices and what have you.

Many times we pass legislation that we�re proud of and wepass out brochures. We send things out. We do public service announcements, etc.No such occurrences have occurred to notify the public that Arkansas even has acivil rights bill. So at this point probably 99 percent of the citizens of thisstate are still not aware that the civil rights bill was ever passed or what thelaws are in regard to it.[36]

Senator Lewellen stressed that efforts must continue to getan effective statewide civil rights law that has all the rights, remedies, andguarantees that citizens of other states have. He contended that withoutenforcement there will never be compliance. Reconciliation will not work, hesaid, because if there is no fear or incentives to comply, people will continueto discriminate. Senator Lewellen believes a state enforcement agency could do abetter job of investigating than the EEOC.[37]He further pointed out:

Because poor people do not have the resources to provediscrimination and are the most vulnerable, they should also have a place inArkansas where they can go to help enforce their rights.[38]

Senator Lewellen alsonoted that if a human rights agency is established, it should be autonomousand independent from political influence, and provided appropriate resources.[39]

**Dan Pless, Director, Arkansas Fair Housing Council**

Dan Pless is the director of one of only two local agencies in the stateto receive federal grants to investigate complaints of housing discrimination.[40]With the exception of the central cities of Little Rock, Pine Bluff, and areasin Lake Village, his agency, the Arkansas Fair Housing Council, investigatescomplaints in all areas of the state, with only four investigators. Thecouncil�s funding comes from HUD and the U.S. Departments of Justice andAgriculture.[41]

Mr. Pless told the Advisory Committee that during the years 1996�97,the council investigated 63 housing complaints. In 1997�98, the councilinvestigated 111 complaints. For these years, 134 (77 percent) of the complaintswere based on race and national origin; 17 (8 percent) were based on disabilitystatus; 14 (8.1 percent) on family status; and six (3.4 percent) wereunsubstantiated.[42]

In previous years, the council provided educational programs and outreachactivities through the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, but it had todiscontinue these services because of its heavy caseload.[43]

Mr. Pless said that the council does not even begin to �scratch thesurface� of what is needed to adequately assist citizens in seeking redressfor their housing complaints. He said:

My belief is that there�s a serious fair housing problemin Arkansas, and that there�s a tremendous amount of discrimination againstpeople�for all of the reasons�in the protected classes. We have the ratherodd distinction of being one of the few fair housing councils that has hadoccasion to file complaints on religious discrimination, which is fairly rare inthe world anymore�and it�s rare for the Arkansas Fair Housing Council�butwe still get complaints about people who are being discriminated against becauseof their religion.

We�re seeing a tremendous amount of complaints innorthwest Arkansas and in western Arkansas because of the increase in the numberof Hispanics. Western Arkansas, northwestern Arkansas, traditionally have beenpredominantly white areas of the state. And they didn�t particularly adjustwell to having African Americans there, and they�re doing even less well withadjusting to having Hispanics in the area.[44]

Mr. Pless told the Advisory Committee he supports efforts to establish astate civil rights enforcement agency. However, he noted that political forcesare quite strong in opposing such an agency. Mr. Pless said that if an agency iscreated, its level of effectiveness would depend upon its level of independence.[45]

**Jamie Jamison, director, U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development, Southwest Officeof Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity**

According to information provided by HUD, as of September 1998, theSouthwest office had 183 open investigations. Of these, 70 percent wereconsidered to be over age. There is a continuous backlog of over-age cases dueto shortage of resources, agency reorganization, and an introduction of newtechnology that requires staff retraining.[46]

From 1996 to August 1998 HUD accepted 188 complaints from Arkansas, withthe bulk coming from Pulaski County (59), Calhoun (31), Washington (10), Garland(9), and Jefferson (9).[47] The types of complaintsreceived most often concerned discrimination based on race or disability; andfamilial status involving discriminatory terms, conditions, services, privilegesand/or facilities related to the sale of residential property or rentalproperty. Of the 188 complaints filed, 79 (42 percent) were on the basis ofrace.[48]

HUD officials said they would support a state civil rights agency toassist in the enforcement of equal housing laws in Arkansas. This would help inreducing 70 percent of the over-age cases in the regional office.[49]

**Kay Klugh, Area Director, U.S. Equal Employment OpportunityCommission**

The Little Rock Area Office of the EEOC is responsible for investigatingemployment discrimination charges filed in Arkansas.[50]The district office, located in Memphis, Tennessee, has jurisdiction over thestates of Arkansas and Tennessee. The Little Rock Area Office has a staff of 31employees, including an area director, two supervisory investigators, one chargereceipt supervisor, one alternative dispute resolution coordinator, oneadministrative law judge, two attorneys, 15 investigators (one of whom is fluentin Spanish), one computer assistant, one personal assistant for the alternativedispute resolution coordinator, one investigative support assistant, one programassistant, one secretary, and three office automation clerks.[51]

As of October 1, 1999, the area office had 558 charges pending in itsinventory. The average age of these charges was 309 days.[52]

In 1995, EEOC adopted new national enforcement procedures to address thegrowing backlog of cases to include investigation and enforcement, conciliation,technical assistance, and public education.[53]According to Kay Klugh, there has been a 70.6 percent decrease in the pendinginventory of the office since the new charge procedures were established. Allemployment complaints are now classified into three categories. Category Acharges are charges that appear more likely that discrimination has occurredthan not and receive first priority. Category B arecharges where further evidence is required to determine whether it is morelikely than not that a violation has occurred and will be investigated asresources permit. Category C are charges subject to possible dismissal.[54]

Ms. Klugh said these new standards provide field personnel flexibleprocedures for processing charges and substantial decision-making authority inthe field offices, including discretion to decide the amount of resources to beused for each charge and permitting settlement in appropriate cases.[55]

An analysis of charges filed with the Little Rock Area Office startingOctober 1, 1996, through June 1998 indicates that 4,220 charges were filed, withapproximately 44 percent filed on the basis of race. Another 25.8 percent werefiled on the basis of sex, 21.3 percent were filed under the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA), and 16.6 percent contained retaliation charges.[56]

An analysis of cause findings determinations over the same period showsthat approximately 47 percent of these were issued on ADA charges, 35 percentwere issued on sex discrimination cases, 27 percent on sexual harassment cases,and 12 percent were on race cases.[57]

Ms. Klugh reported that some of the priority issues for investigation byEEOC are the hiring and advancement ofAfrican Americans and women by employers; discriminatory downsizing on the basisof race, sex, and age; sexual harassment; reasonable accommodations for peoplewith disabilities; discrimination against individuals with terminal illnesses;and retaliation cases.[58]

EEOC also established alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures inArkansas in January 1997, which are offered in about half of Category B cases.According to EEOC, ADR is a means for resolving disputes in the workplace freefrom the costs of investigation, extended litigation, and appeals. ADR providesthe following advantages:
-  mediation rather than arbitration;voluntary participation by all parties;neutral mediation by someone other than an EEOC employee;fairness of process;strict confidentiality regarding mediation process andcontent; andenforceable agreements.[59]
Because the district office did not receive a favorableresponse to ADR from some employers, the agency is reviewing its procedures andtalking to employers as to why they do not want to participate. When Ms. Klughwas asked why employers were reluctant to participate in ADR, she said:

[S]ome employers in the state have their own internal ADRprogram and if it didn�t work the first time, they�re not willing to go andtry it again. A lot of the employers do not believe that they havediscriminated, so they�re not willing to try to go through an ADR program towork out the problem. Some of the others have told us that ADR is just a way forEEOC to make them pay out money.[60]

An ADR program for Category B charges has now been established in thestate. The current coordinator of that program for Arkansas was hired inFebruary of 1999 and began to mediate cases in late May of 1999. From Junethrough September, he successfully mediated 22 of the 32 cases assigned to himfor mediation, for a successful mediation rate of 68.8 percent. The Arkansasprogram also provided 94 cases for mediation by outside mediators during thissame period.[61]

Ms. Klugh said the agency has targeted some outreachefforts in areas with large concentrations of Hispanics and will be hiring anemployee who is fluent in Spanish.[62]

In response to a concern as to what happens when acomplaint is filed with her office, Ms. Klugh described the process as follows:

Let me go into a little bit more detail then on how weprocess cases. A person comes into the office to be counseled or calls or writesa letter, somebody is going to speak with him initially.

They will be given, first off, a fact sheet that explainswhat the process is. The person also will explain to them what is going tohappen. If the investigator at the initial stage of the investigation candetermine that there�s nothing we can do for this person, we try to tell themimmediately, and those are the cases we will dismiss within 10 days.

And each of these persons is still given their right to sueshould they choose to do that. All of the other cases, the cases where we thinkthat discrimination has occurred, these cases will be immediately assigned forinvestigation. That does not mean that they will get immediate investigation,because we have 10 people.

Okay. Right now we have nine. So we have nine people toserve the entire state of Arkansas. That includes taking that charge when itcomes in the door, so that really leaves about three days a week for theinvestigator to investigate charges.

Then Category A charges are fairly quickly investigated.Oftentimes in these cases where we think the statutes have been violated, wedon�t even ask for information from the employer. We will immediately schedulean on-site or we will ask that the employer give us the information within avery short time period, so that we can try to resolve the situation as quicklyas possible.

In those cases where we just don�t know whether or notdiscrimination has occurred, we ask the employer to respond within 30 days.Oftentimes they do, oftentimes they don�t, and that causes another problem.However, once that response comes into the office currently, me and my twosupervisors and the ADR coordinator will review that information. We review thatcase file again, and we reprioritize at that point.

At that point, there are very few of our charges that willremain in the holding tank. If the charge is to remain in the holding tank, wedo send the individual a letter telling them that. We also tell them in thatletter that they can provide any other information they may have that will helpus to recategorize that charge.

Only the charges that are going to be remaining in thatholding tank should be in a situation where the charging party won�t knowwhat�s happening, other than its being on hold. In the other situations wherethe charge is being actively investigated or being dismissed, that person isgoing to be contacted immediately, either by phone or by letter. I know that ourdistrict prefers that we contact people by phone. I prefer sending out thatinformation in writing, so there�s no misunderstanding of what our evidenceshows.

That person is at that point given time to recontact theinvestigator or provide any additional information that will change ourdecision, and that happens in every case. We don�t dismiss a case without thatperson being told either initially when he comes in or through writtencorrespondence or telephone contact before the charge goes out. And it mayinvolve a period of time simply because of the number of charges we�re gettingand the size of the staff we have.[63]

Ms. Klugh stated she could not officially say whether astate agency is needed to investigate employment discrimination complaints inArkansas, but she said any assistance to resolve such complaints would beuseful.[64]

**Bob Balhorn, Executive Vice President,Arkansas Realtors Association**

The Arkansas Realtors Association has a membership of more than 5,000people and approximately 38 local Realtors boards throughout Arkansas.[65]

The Realtors Association has actively supported fair housing initiativesand worked closely with HUD and the Real Estate Association to support fairhousing efforts. Bob Balhorn said the Realtors Association had subscribed tofair housing efforts for almost 20 years. It had also worked with othercommunity and government agencies involved in housing issues, such as the cityof Little Rock, the Arkansas Fair Housing Council, and ACORN.[66]

On November 5, 1997, HUD�s Program Operations andCompliance Center of the Fair Housing Division in Little Rock, the ArkansasRealtors Association, and the Mortgage Bankers Association of Arkansas signedthe Fair Lending Best Practices Agreement and the Fair Housing ResolutionPartnership Agreement. Both agreements addressed goals and objectives theRealtors Association would carry out to provide equal housing opportunity to allhome seekers.[67]

Bob Balhorn cited other efforts that the RealtorsAssociation has made to support fair housing initiatives such as ensuring thatall real estate contracts include a fair housing and equal opportunity statementaffirming the association�s policy. To help promote understanding betweenlandlords and tenants in Arkansas, the Realtors Association developed alandlord-tenant handbook. This handbook aids both tenants and landlords inunderstanding housing laws and their rights and responsibilities.[68]Other efforts have included seminars and extensive equal opportunity trainingfor staff and members. Each local Realtors board has in place an equalopportunity committee. Procedures have been developed to address housingcomplaints through the Professional Standards Committee, which has authority todiscipline members (fine, suspend, dismiss) who violate established Realtorstandards and fair housing mandates. Mr. Balhorn said the Realtors Associationis also willing to hear grievances from the public about fair housing.[69]

Mr. Balhorn said the Realtors Association supports the Arkansas CivilRights Act and initiatives to add enforcement authority to the law, but does notsupport efforts by the city of Little Rock to push legislation allowingmunicipalities to set up individual fair housing agencies. It believes astatewide agency would be more uniform, cost efficient, and effective thanindependent local governments.[70]

Since the Advisory Committee meeting, the Arkansas RealtorsAssociation has monitored the legislative actions regarding a municipal fairhousing bill that if passed would allow local governments in Arkansas theauthority to establish fair housing commissions. The Realtors Association hasbeen in the forefront in opposing the bill, which was defeated in 1999. However,the association supported legislation that called for a study of the usefulnessof a statewide fair housing agency. Mr. Balhorn said:

We wholeheartedly support S.R. 11 and plan to lead thecharge for an Arkansas Fair Housing Commission.[71]

Mr. Balhorn suggested that if such an agency wereestablished that its primary focus should be on education and outreach, and thatits policies and procedures should comply with federal regulations. He furthersaid complaints should be handled expeditiously and clear distinctions should bemade between investigative and adjudicating functions. The proposed agency mustprovide due process provisions; the right to appeal to the court system; andprovide an impartial hearing panel to adjudicate cases, rather than anadministrative judge.[72]

According to Mr. Balhorn, the Arkansas Fair Housing Task Force continuesto meet and is in the process of finalizingsome broad parameters for a fair housing law to be introduced in the 2001 sessionof the Arkansas General Assembly.[73]

**Wendell L. Griffen, Judge, Arkansas Court of Appeals**

Judge Griffen serves on the Arkansas Court of Appeals. He believes astate enforcement agency is needed, but questioned whether the state would becourageous enough to establish a creditable and effective program.[74]He said:

I speak because of my concern for the administration ofjustice. My views are I should say my own. They should not be considered as theviews of my court or necessarily the view of my congregation.

I first begin with what I consider a fundamental premise.Arkansas needs a civil rights agency, a civil rights enforcement agency. Despitethe appearance of a number of civil rights offices in a few state agencies,there . . . has never been in Arkansas a single state agency with statewideenforcement, investigatory, or compliance responsibilities and powers to handleallegations of discrimination in education, employment, public accommodation, orcommercial activity.

 Although there are agencies to regulate a number of thingsranging from economic development, education, health, cemeteries, water wellconstruction, and pollution, Arkansas has never seen fit to create, fund, staff,and concern itself with any governmental entity that addresses and enforces theage-old issue of inequality.

Intellectual honesty compels us to acknowledge that realityand to admit that it is at the very least remarkable. It is no accident thatArkansas lacks a civil rights enforcement agency. Like other jurisdictions, ourstate has historically viewed justice from the perspective of persons who arewhite and male.

Those are the very persons who are least likely to complainabout historical practices, traditions, and mores that are unjust, because theyhave been historically the beneficiaries rather than the victims ofdiscrimination.

We should not be surprised, therefore, that a state thatmade it unlawful for teachers to hold membership in the NAACP, a state that paidwhite teachers a different and higher income from that paid African Americanteachers, and then that used the Arkansas State Police to investigate the NAACP,and persons suspected of involvement with it, has no state agency to investigatecivil rights complaints and reports of discrimination.[75]

Judge Griffen characterized Arkansas�s civil rights background as weak.He said:

This is a poignant example of the way that we seem to viewcivil rights in Arkansas. We prefer not to think about civil rights at all, butif we must, we don�t desire anything that is effective.

Yet Arkansas is certainly in need of a civil rights agency,after all federal lawsuits against the Arkansas State Police, the Arkansas StateHospital, the Arkansas Department of Corrections, and other state agencies havebeen won in federal court in Arkansas by Arkansans, who were treated unfairlybecause of their race, gender, age, disability, religion, or national origin.

Perhaps our state might have even been spared the expensesand the embarrassment that came from the ill-fated creation-science billlegislation in the 1980s had there been some state agency that served as aclearinghouse for information about the potential civil rights effect of a lawthat required the teaching of creation science in public schools.

I suspect that Arkansas will continue to resist creating acivil rights agency, will continue to resist funding one, and will continue toresist staffing one. Of course, there is the time-honored notion that we reallydon�t need such an agency, because we treat people fairly. If that notion weretrue, the Arkansas State Hospital would not still be defending a federal racediscrimination lawsuit that was first filed two decades ago.

There will always be those who insist that a civil rightsagency will simply encourage people to raise unwarranted allegations ofdiscrimination so that they can obtain leverage that they don�t deserve.

Then we can expect opposition from businesses and businessleaders who already consider the federal civil rights agencies to be unnecessaryand intrusive. And we must never forget that there still is in Arkansas andelsewhere a strain of political leadership and a block of citizens who areopposed to civil rights efforts because they reveal entrenched policies andpractices in our institutions that promote racism, sexism, and other unjusttreatment to people because of their age, disability, religion, or nationalorigin.

Nevertheless, I continue to maintain that Arkansas needs acivil rights enforcement agency. Just as our people need local help in the areasof health, education, criminal justice, pollution control, and economicdevelopment, we need local help in the area of civil rights monitoring,investigation, and enforcement. Just as the Arkansas Department of Laborregulates labor practices, investigates allegations of unsafe and unfair laborconditions, and enforces labor standards, Arkansas needs an office of civilrights that can investigate allegations of discrimination, regulate compliancewith state and federal civil rights laws and regulations, and enforce civilrights standards.

The issue and the question that I hope this body will putto the political leadership of this state, as well as the business leadership ofthis state and the people of this state, is whether we have the decency, thecourage, and the political will to create, fund, and staff an agency to do thisnecessary work.[76]

Judge Griffen said that in 1979, then-Governor Bill Clinton recommendedthat the state create a civil rights agency. Legislation was passed to set upthe agency, and a director was named. Although the office did not haveenforcement authority, it was authorized to receive complaints ofdiscrimination. The agency, however, never got off the ground because theLegislature did not appropriate operating funds. According to Judge Griffen, theprimary opposition to civil rights enforcement is from business leaders whoconsider the federal civil rights agencies to be unnecessaryand intrusive. Further, there is a strain of political leadership in Arkansasopposed to civil rights efforts.[77]Judge Griffen is pessimistic and believes institutions in Arkansas will continueto resist civil rights compliance.[78]

**Bill Cain, General Counsel, Disability Rights Center**

The Disability Rights Center, formally called Advocacy Services, is afederally funded agency authorized to advocate for and protect the civil rightsof persons with disabilities. The center�s main focus is advocacy, informationand referral, education, and training.[79]

According to the center�s annual report, each year it receives hundredsof complaints of discrimination. However, complaints are accepted based on asystem of priorities established each year. For 1997�98 the center�s civilrights priorities were employment, voting rights, physical and programaccessibility to state and local government services, and abuse/neglect ofpeople with disabilities.[80]

Officials of the center said they would support legislation to create anadministrative agency for civil rights enforcement. They noted, however, thatthey will not support legislation that is too wieldy and impractical.[81]Bill Cain advised that setting up a separate enforcement agency would be tooexpensive and it would not have a chance of passing in the Legislature because�it would scare people to death.� He stated:

This legislation is another layer. It�s going to fermentlitigation, and I don�t know why you want to take a civil rights case to astate court . . . As a lawyer I want a federal forum always . . . You have thelaws already in place.[82]

**Barry Vuletich, Consumer Affairs,Arkansas Rehabilitation Services**

Barry Vuletich serves as staff liaison to the governor�s Commission onPersons with Disabilities.[83] He believes that it wouldbe good to have a state-level agency responsible for addressing civil rightsproblems. He stressed, however, that his position does not necessarily reflectthe position of the governor�s office.[84]Although he does not keep records on the number of complaints he receives, heestimated that he receives at least 200 calls yearly from persons alleging someform of discrimination related to employment, fair housing, access to countyfacilities, denial of services, and questions about service animals for peoplewith disabilities.[85]He usually refers callers to a federal agency, the Disability Rights Center, oradvises them to seek an attorney.[86]Mr. Vuletich believes much discrimination goes unreported because people arediscouraged when they know their only option is to go to the federal governmentor when they do not have the financial resources to hire an attorney.[87]

Mr. Vuletich said the argument against creating a stateenforcement agency is always that there is too much government in the lives ofpeople, but he maintains that such an agency would provide a local presence andpossibly ensure speedy resolution of cases.[88]Mr. Vuletich summed up his position:

Seventy percent of persons with severe disabilities areunemployed in Arkansas or underemployed. Only 33 percent of persons withdisabilities go to restaurants at least once a week, compared to 60 percent ofnondisabled people. Only one of five adults, that�s 20 percent, adults withdisabilities 18 and over, have not graduated from high school, compared withonly one in 10 of those with disabilities. This indicates to me discriminationis going on. . . . I honestly believe that if we had an office of civil rightsat the state level, this would provide an opportunity for people to have a voiceand additional resources to turn to.[89]

**Oliver Dillingham,Program Manager, Equity Assistance Center, Arkansas Department of Education**

Oliver Dillingham, who provides technical assistance to school districtsto assist them in complying with civil rights laws, said that there is a greatneed for an Arkansas enforcement and compliance agency.[90]In his work with school districts, he hears about many overt acts ofdiscrimination, particularly as they relate to disabled students. In addition toenforcement, there is a need for members of the public to be aware of theircivil rights and understand the complaint process by which their grievances canbe heard.[91]

The U.S. Department of Education�s Office for CivilRights regional office in Dallas is swamped with complaints of discrimination.In 1996, he said there were 4,828 complaints alleging discrimination.[92]Mr. Dillingham is convinced that twice as many persons have not filed who shouldhave done so. He said that every day he receives phone calls from citizenscomplaining of acts of discrimination who do not know where to file theircomplaints.[93]

**Cathy Collins, Director, Little Rock Racial andCultural Diversity Commission**

The Racial and Cultural Diversity Commission is responsible for promotingracial and cultural harmony in Little Rock through outreach, education, andtraining. Members of the commission are also interested in civil rights issuesat the state and local levels.[94]

According to Cathy Collins, Mayor Jim Dailey in his Stateof the City Address expressed his desire that the city of Little Rock adopt afair housing ordinance �substantially equivalent� to the Federal FairHousing Act. He charged the commission with the work of developing theordinance.[95]Although the commission spent considerable time collecting information and collaborating with HUD and other interestedpublic and private community organizations, several roadblocks impeded theprocess. Arkansas� statutory and constitutional arrangement became a barrierbecause a municipal ordinance cannot exceed the requirements of a statelaw. Since the fair housing section of the Arkansas Act lacks key elements of asubstantially equivalent law, Little Rock and other local municipalities areconstitutionally prohibited from enacting a stronger law. Further complicatingthings, Arkansas retains a bicameral court system in which circuit and chancerycourts split jurisdiction based upon the nature of the cases. This system formsa somewhat irregular fit with the requirements of substantial equivalency.[96]Despite these difficulties, Ms. Collins said the commission was able to findsolutions to overcome roadblocks by drafting language incorporating thebicameral court system into the requirements of substantial equivalency.[97]

Ms. Collins is convinced that the state�s failure to havesubstantially equivalent laws denies citizens of Arkansas benefits that wouldimprove housing conditions, provide speedy resolution of fair housingcomplaints, and provide meaningful partnerships between government and communityorganizations.[98]

Ms. Collins stressed that citizens of Arkansas need to beeducated and have access to information about civil rights issues. She believesthe presence of a state enforcement body may help in this effort. Ms. Collinssaid that from a symbolic standpoint it is important for the state to make astatement to the citizens of Arkansas and the rest of the nation that Arkansasis committed to furthering human rights and it will do this by establishing anagency to ensure these rights.[99]

In March 1999, legislation that would have enabled localgovernments to enact fair housing ordinances independent of the state failed inthe House. The Arkansas Realtors Association opposed the legislation because itbelieved a statewide agency rather than individual municipalities would simplifythe handling of housing discrimination complaints and provide more efficientadministration of such complaints. Ms. Collins said the city will continue itsefforts to obtain passage of this legislation.[100]

**Mitch Kline, Director, Arkansas Community Organization forReform (ACORN)**

ACORN is a not-for-profit community organization that advocates for andserves more than 3,000 disadvantaged low- to moderate-income families throughoutArkansas. ACORN receives funding from the Fair Housing Initiatives Program ofthe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to investigate fair housingcomplaints and provide education.[101]It also receives some funding from the city and the county to address housingissues in Little Rock.[102]

Mitch Kline believes there is a need for an enforcement agency; however,he said, the state should not be the body responsible for overseeing civilrights enforcement because state government has serious discrimination problemswithin many of its agencies.[103] He said some of themajor areas of discrimination in state and local governments are limitedemployment opportunities, underrepresentation of minorities in leadershippositions, and failure to ensure voting rights.[104]

**Rita Sklar, American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas**

The ACLU of Arkansas is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan agencycommitted to advocating for and defending the civil liberties of individuals inArkansas.[105]According to Rita Sklar, her agency receives thousands of complaints each yearfrom Arkansans who believe their civil rights have been violated. She identifieda full range of civil rights issues that people request assistance on, such asemployment, education, housing, police abuse, and religious discrimination. Shesaid ACLU is unable to handle the vast majority of these complaints because thecomplaints do not fall within its jurisdiction, nor does it have the staff orresources to handle the complaints.[106]

Ms. Sklar supports legislation for a state human rights agency:

An agency that receives and investigates complaints ofdiscrimination could do much to ameliorate the situation. We are a smallorganization with limited resources and cannot possibly handle all thecomplaints we receive. Furthermore, very often there is simply nostraightforward legal solution to the problem, since it has more to do withpeople�s intolerance and lack of exposure to different cultures andenvironments . . . A black man in a small town in the Delta feels he has nowhereto turn when he is continually harassed bythe local sheriff; nor does the father of racially mixed children in mostlywhite northwest Arkansas, or the mother of a gay boy beat up by classmates in ahigh school. The presence of a government body dedicated to these issues couldnot only help fix the problem, but symbolically say this behavior is nottolerated by our laws and government.[107]

Ms. Sklar pointed out that the lack of available attorneysto provide legal counsel is another reason why a state enforcement agency isneeded. In the area of employment discrimination, the ACLU refers most of thesecomplaints to private civil rights attorneys. Whether or not an individual getshelp will depend on whether he or she is able to find an attorney close by or anattorney with the time, ability, and inclination to litigate civil rights caseson a contingency basis. There are even fewer attorneys willing to investigateallegations of police abuse or jail conditions, and they are unequallydistributed throughout the state. In Arkansas access to justice depends not onlyon education and income level, but also on geography and ability to travel.[108]

**Judy Matsuoka, Director, Women�s Project**

The Women�s Project advocates on behalf of women�s rights in theareas of sexual harassment, sexual orientation, and domestic violence. Althoughit does not investigate complaints of discrimination, it does holdcommunity-organizing events and provide information and referral.[109]

According to Judy Matsuoka, despite the fact that the agency does notaccept complaints of discrimination, it still receives many inquiries forassistance. Calls for assistance most ofteninvolve sexual harassment, discrimination against lesbians and gay men,employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and housingdiscrimination against people with disabilities.[110]

Ms. Matsuoka says that her agency would support any effort to strengthenstate civil rights legislation. She does not believe citizens of Arkansas haveadequate means for seeking redress of grievances because it is difficult to findattorneys willing to take civil rights cases. Ms. Matsuoka believes that if ahuman rights agency is established, it must be neutral and untied to anypolitical or corporate interests.[111]

**Sheila Gomez, Director, Immigration Services,Catholic Social Services**

Immigration Services for Catholic Social Services is the only nonprofitagency recognized and accredited by the Immigration and Naturalization Serviceand the Board of Immigration Appeals.[112]It provides immigration assistance to immigrants at or near the poverty level inArkansas.[113] The agency also providessupport for families and individuals who are eligible for immigration benefitsbut cannot afford private assistance.[114]

Immigration Services receives a grant from the U.S. Department of Justiceto provide educational programs in Arkansas on immigration issues and unfairemployment practices. Sheila Gomez said because of the agency�s work with theimmigrant population, it is very aware of the extent of abuse in employment andthe vulnerability of the immigrant employee.[115]

According to Ms. Gomez, within the past eight years Arkansas hasexperienced a dramatic increase in its immigrant population, which is mostevident in northwest Arkansas.[116]Along with the rise in the immigrant population, there is similarly a rise inanti-immigrant sentiment, particularly against Hispanic immigrants. Ms. Gomezreported that the social climate is such, that it is not only acceptable todiscriminate against immigrants but in some circles it is also considered�patriotic.�[117]

Based on the nature and extent of civil rights abuse agency officialshave heard about or detected, she believes a state office to investigate civilrights abuses could be useful. She further noted the need for a state presencein civil rights enforcement:

Washington, D.C., is far away in another planet sometimes,and they have a lot of complaints from all over. And I think because of thenature of immigration in Arkansas, and the fact that it�s been so much sosoon, in a short period of time, the people who have lived here a long time areexperiencing something that is very different and unique for them. Immigrationin California, Texas, or New York is not like immigration in Arkansas. We needan office in Arkansas with people who understand where we are in ourimmigration.[118]

Ms. Gomez reported that this anti-immigrant sentiment against Hispanicshad contributed to instances of racial tensions, particularly in northwestArkansas.[119]Some of the discrimination complaints she receives most often concern abuse bylaw enforcement agencies, government agencies, and private employers.[120]Legal immigrants have complained about being refused identification, such associal security cards and marriage certificates. Throughout the state,immigrants have also complained about illegal police stops and being asked toshow documents to prove their legal status.[121]

In Pulaski County, Ms. Gomez alleged that some Hispanics were deniedhousing because they did not speak English. They were also charged higher rentand had to pay under different conditions than non-Hispanic renters.[122]

In Ashley County, Ms. Gomez alleged that a Hispanic person was asked toleave a store because of his national origin descent. In another situation, anemployee at an Ashley County store was told to follow Hispanics and blacks inthe stores because �they steal.�[123] Ms. Gomez also providedthe Advisory Committee information on alleged employment discrimination inTexarkana, Fort Smith, Springdale, Rogers, Hope, Warren, Siloam Springs, andGrannis. One of the major patterns of discrimination she has found is thatemployers will deny immigrants job applications until they can prove legalstatus. According to Ms. Gomez, employers must first interview a potentialapplicant, after which the applicant has three days to produce proof of legalstatus. Clients also reported incidents in which employers will intimidateimmigrant employees to prevent them from filing for workers� compensation.[124]

Ms. Gomez said when Immigration Services receives complaints, either oralor written, her agency will refer them to the U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof the Special Counsel. Ms. Gomez said that sometimes her agency refers clientsto Arkansas Legal Services but would also like to make referrals to pro bonoattorneys.[125]

**Robert Trevino, StateDirector, Arkansas League ofUnited Latin American Citizens (LULAC)**

LULAC is the oldest and largest Hispanic advocacy organization in theUnited States.[126]Robert Trevino said the state needs a commission to oversee civil rightscomplaints and an impartial body to decide these issues.[127]According to Mr. Trevino, there are problems in the Hispanic community that notonly can be attributed to discrimination and the lack of opportunities but alsoto exploitation by employers.[128]

Another major concern among Hispanics is affordablehousing. Many Hispanics, particularly those employed in agriculture, live insubstandard housing. When they complain, they are oftentimes threatened witheither losing their jobs or deportation.[129]There are concerns with employers who use immigrants to work but refuse to paythem.[130] Relations between thepolice and the Hispanic community are poor. Most police departments in Arkansasare ill-prepared or unwilling to deal with Spanish-speaking citizens.Translation services throughout the justice system are inadequate, denying manynon-English-speaking persons their due process rights.[131]

Mr. Trevino said that despite these problems some positive efforts havebeen made to address Hispanic concerns.[132]He reported that Governor Mike Huckabee met with representatives of LULACregarding some of these issues and that the Arkansas Minority Health Commissionhad been particularly supportive in addressing the effect of pesticides onworkers in agriculture. The governor also ordered the State Departments ofEducation, Health, and Human Services, and the state police to appoint staff toserve as a liaison to LULAC.[133]

[1]    Theresa M. Beiner, �An Overview of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of    1993,� *Arkansas Law Review and Bar Association Journal, Inc.*, 1997.

[2]    Ibid.

[3]    The Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (codified at ARK.    Code Ann. � 16-123-101 (Michie Supp. 1999)).

[4]    The Arkansas Fair Housing Act of 1995 (codified at ARK.    Code Ann. � 16-123-201 (Michie Supp. 1999)).

[5]Beiner, �An Overview of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act,� p. 1.

[6]    Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,    fact-finding meeting, Little Rock, AR, Sept. 23�24, 1998, transcript, vol.    2, pp. 330�31, and vol. 1, pp. 108�09 (hereafter cited as *Transcript*);    Wanda Milton, supervisory investigator, Little Rock Area Office, U.S. Equal    Employment Opportunity Commission, information submitted, July 23, 1998    (hereafter cited as Milton, EEOC Information); Cathy Collins, director,    Little Rock Racial and Cultural Diversity Commission, city of Little Rock,    information submitted, Feb. 1, 1999; Beiner, �An Overview of the Arkansas    Civil Rights Act.� 

[7]    Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3600�3620; � 7(d) and 42    U.S.C. 3535(d)). 

[8]    Milton, EEOC Information.

[9]    Ibid.

[10]    Dan Pless, *Transcript*, vol. 1, pp.    107�10; Cathy Collins, director, Little Rock Racial and Cultural Diversity    Commission, interview, July 24, 1998.

[11]    Wendell L. Griffen, *Transcript*,    vol. 2, pp. 349�50.

[12]    Claude Rogers, *Transcript*, vol. 1,    pp. 26�49.

[13]    Ibid., p. 39.

[14]    Phillip Kaplan, *Transcript*, vol.    1, pp. 58�59; vol. 2, pp. 360�61; Candance Odom, interview, Aug. 27,    1998.

[15]*Transcript,* vol. 1 and 2. 

[16]    Phillip Kaplan, *Transcript*, vol.    1, pp. 56�57; Dan Pless, *Transcript*,    vol. 1, pp. 113�14; Joe Stumpe, �Difference Over Agenda Helped End    Women�s Commission, *The**Arkansas Democrat-Gazette*, Feb. 28, 1999, p. 1B; Elizabeth McFarland,    �Hate Crime Bill Fails 12�14 in House Panel,� *The**Arkansas Democrat-Gazette*, Feb. 17, 1999, p. 1B; Cathy Collins,    director, Little Rock Racial and Cultural Diversity Commission, letter,    �Introduction to Substantially Equivalent Ordinances,� July 16, 1999.

[17]    Bill Lewellen, *Transcript*, vol. 2,    pp. 334, 340; Mitch Kline, director, ACORN, interview, June 14, 1998; Sheila    Gomez, director, Immigration Services, Catholic Social Services, interview,    July 13, 1998.

[18]    Ibid.

[19]    Joe Franklin, *Transcript*, vol. 1,    pp. 10�11.

[20]    Phillip Kaplan, *Transcript*, vol.    1, pp. 50�51, 55�56.

[21]    Ibid.

[22]    Ibid., pp. 52�53.

[23]    Ibid., pp. 54�55.

[24]    Ibid.

[25]    Ibid., pp. 55�56.

[26]    James Moore, *Transcript*, vol. 1,    p. 178.

[27]    Ibid., pp. 179�80.

[28]    Ibid., p. 187.

[29]    Ibid., pp. 180�82.

[30]    Ibid.

[31]    Rachel O�Neal, �Task Force Favors Senator�s Civil Rights Bill,� *The**Arkansas Democrat-Gazette*, Feb. 17, 1993, p. 9B; �For 2nd Day,    Senate, House Consider Civil Rights Bill,� *The**Arkansas Democrat-Gazette*, Feb. 27, 1993, p. 2B.

[32]    Rachel O�Neal, �Task Force Favors Senator�s Civil Rights Bill,� *The**Arkansas Democrat-Gazette*, Feb. 17, 1993, p. 9B.

[33]    Bill Lewellen, *Transcript*, vol. 2,    p. 330.

[34]    Ibid., pp. 330�31.

[35]    Ibid., pp. 330�33.

[36]    Ibid., pp. 330�31.

[37]    Ibid., p. 338.

[38]    Ibid., p. 341.

[39]    Ibid.

[40]    Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, meeting    minutes, Apr. 30, 1998; Dan Pless, *Transcript*,    vol. 1, pp. 111�12; Dan Pless, director, Arkansas Fair Housing Council,    Response, Aug. 24 1998 (hereafter cited as Arkansas Fair Housing Council    Response).

[41]    Ibid.

[42]    Ibid.

[43]    Dan Pless, *Transcript*, vol. 1, pp.    117�18.

[44]    Ibid., p. 112.

[45]    Arkansas Fair Housing Council Response.

[46]    Jamie K. Jamison, director, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban    Development, Southwest Region, letter to Melvin L. Jenkins, director,    Central Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Sept. 1, 1998.

[47]    Ibid.

[48]    Ibid.

[49]    Ibid.

[50]    Kay Klugh, *Transcript*, vol. 2, p.    295.

[51]    Ibid.; Kay Klugh, area director, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity    Commission, letter to Melvin L. Jenkins, director, Central Regional Office,    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Nov. 4, 1999 (hereafter cited as Klugh    Letter).

[52]    Klugh Letter.

[53]    Kay Klugh, *Transcript*, vol. 2, pp.    295�96.

[54]    Ibid., pp. 296�98.

[55]    Ibid.

[56]    Ibid., p. 302.

[57]    Ibid.

[58]    Ibid.

[59]    U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Alternative Dispute Resolution    Policy Statement, 915.002, July 17, 1995; U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity    Commission, Early Alternative Dispute Resolution Brochure, A Program of the    St. Louis District Office, 1998.

[60]    Kay Klugh, *Transcript*, vol. 2, pp.    303, 310�11.

[61]    Klugh Letter.

[62]    Kay Klugh, *Transcript*, vol. 2, pp.    311�12.

[63]    Ibid., pp. 305�08.

[64]    Ibid., p. 314.

[65]    Bob Balhorn, *Transcript*, vol. 1,    p. 170.

[66]    Ibid., p. 172.

[67]    Ibid.; Bob Balhorn, executive vice president, Arkansas Realtors Association,    letter to Melvin L. Jenkins, director, Central Regional Office, U.S.    Commission on Civil Rights, Nov. 19, 1999 (hereafter cited as Balhorn    Letter).

[68]    Bob Balhorn, *Transcript*, vol. 1,    pp. 166�67.

[69]    Ibid., pp. 169, 171�72.

[70]    Balhorn Letter.

[71]    Ibid.

[72]    Bob Balhorn, *Transcript*, pp.    174�75.

[73]    Balhorn Letter.

[74]    Wendell L. Griffen, *Transcript*,    vol. 2, pp. 342�45.

[75]    Ibid., pp. 341�42.

[76]    Ibid., pp. 344�45.

[77]    Ibid., pp. 344�46.

[78]    Ibid., p. 345.

[79]    Bill Cain, *Transcript*, vol. 1, p.    100; Nan Ellen D. East, Disability Rights Center, information submitted,    Sept. 15, 1998.

[80]    Ibid.

[81]    Ibid.

[82]    Bill Cain, *Transcript*, vol. 1, p.    104.

[83]    Barry Vuletich, *Transcript*, vol.    2, pp. 366�67.

[84]    Ibid., pp. 367�68.

[85]    Ibid., p. 367.

[86]    Ibid.

[87]    Ibid., pp. 367�68.

[88]    Ibid., pp. 368�69.

[89]    Ibid., p. 368.

[90]    Oliver Dillingham, *Transcript*,    vol. 1, pp. 276�77.

[91]    Ibid., p. 278.

[92]    Ibid., pp. 277�78.

[93]    Ibid.

[94]    Cathy Collins, director, Little Rock Racial and Cultural Diversity    Commission, interview, July 14, 1998*.*

[95]    Cathy Collins, director, Little Rock Racial and Cultural Diversity    Commission, letter to Melvin L. Jenkins, director, Central Regional Office,    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Feb. 1, 1999 (hereafter cited as Collins    Letter).

[96]    Ibid.

[97]    Ibid.

[98]    Ibid.

[99]    Cathy Collins, *Transcript*, vol. 1,    pp. 209�12.

[100]    Collins Letter, Feb. 1, 1999; Cathy Collins, director, Little Rock Racial    and Cultural Diversity Commission, letter to Melvin L. Jenkins, director,    Central Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, July 19, 1999; Bob    Balhorn, Arkansas Realtors Association, memorandum to Farella Robinson,    civil rights analyst, Central Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil    Rights, �Arkansas Fair Housing Bills,� Mar. 17, 1999.

[101]    Mitch Kline, director, ACORN of Little Rock, Arkansas, interview, July 15,    1998 (hereafter cited as Kline Interview).

[102]    Mitch Kline, *Transcript*, vol. 1,    p. 137.

[103]    Ibid., p. 126; Kline Interview.

[104]    Mitch Kline, *Transcript*, pp.    128�38.

[105]    Rita Sklar, director, American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas,    information submitted, July 14, 1998.

[106]    Ibid.

[107]    Ibid.

[108]    Ibid.

[109]    Judy Matsuoka, director, Women�s Project, information submitted, Aug. 28,    1998.

[110]    Ibid.

[111]    Ibid.

[112]    Sheila Gomez, *Transcript*, vol. 1,    p. 87.

[113]    Ibid.

[114]    Ibid.

[115]    Ibid., p. 91.

[116]    Ibid., p. 87.

[117]    Ibid., p. 88.

[118]    Ibid., pp. 88�93.

[119]    Ibid., p. 88.

[120]    Ibid., pp. 88�89.

[121]    Ibid.

[122]    Ibid., p. 89.

[123]    Ibid., pp. 89�90.

[124]    Ibid.

[125]    Ibid., pp. 94, 96.

[126]    Robert Trevino, *Transcript*, vol.    1, pp. 231, 236.

[127]    Ibid., pp. 233�34.

[128]    Ibid., pp. 232�34; Doug Thompson, �Hispanics Find Allies in State�s    Black Leaders, *The**Arkansas    Democrat-Gazette*, Oct. 3, 1999, p. 1A.

[129]    Robert Trevino, *Transcript*, vol.    2, pp. 232�33.

[130]    Ibid.

[131]    Ibid., p. 232.

[132]    Ibid., pp. 234�35.

[133]    Ibid.; Doug Thompson, �Hispanics Allies in State�s Black Leaders,� *The**Arkansas Democrat-Gazette*, Oct. 3, 1999, p. 12A.