When a Social Worker Becomes a Voluntary Commissioner and Calls on the Code of Ethics

When practicing in a new arena, where does social worker turn for guidance? In October 2000, Governor Parris Glendening appointed me to chair the Special Commission to Study Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Maryland. A search of the Social Work Abstracts Plus database (SWAB+) found no social work literature on the social worker as commissioner of an appointed, ad hoc commission. Articles have been written about a paid commissioner of a department of recreation (Perlmutter & Cnaan, 1999) and by a commissioner of human resources administration (Sabol, 1993). My role was unpaid, short-term (eight months), and a "political appointee" with the task of generating a report with the assistance of 22 other commissioners and the staff of the Human Relations Commission and the governor's office. I referred to the NASW Code of Ethics and to the broader social work literature to guide my work. The Code of Ethics states that social workers "strive to end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice. These activities may be in the form of direct practice, community organizing, supervision, consultation, administration, advocacy, social and political action, policy development and implementation, education, and research and evaluation" (NASW, 2000, p. 1). This special commission was charged with a number of tasks, including holding public hearings to gather information about sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations; gathering background information on the number of complaints filed alleging discrimination under current laws in local jurisdictions; soliciting input from business and religious groups; and developing recommendations to eliminate discrimination (see State of Maryland Executive Order 01.01.2000.22, 2000.) In my role as chair of the commission, I not only explored ways to end discrimination, but also engaged in community organizing, advocacy, social and political action, policy development and implementation, education, and research and evaluation. Sexual Orientation Discrimination and the Work of the Commission In 2000, eleven states and the District of Columbia had laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. No federal law prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. Four counties in Maryland prohibited this form of discrimination. Thus, there was protection for only some Marylanders. In Maryland, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, or physical and emotional handicap. In 1999 the Maryland House of Delegates approved a bill to add sexual orientation (specifically for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals) to the article. This narrowly defined bill never made it to the floor of the Senate because senators opposed to the bill held it in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. Governor Glendening hoped that the commission's work would add weight to the push to pass legislation. The governor appointed a 23-member commission that included department secretaries (for example, Housing), elected officials, and private citizens. The private citizens were gay rights activists and business and religious leaders. Five hearings were held throughout Maryland in five weeks. Witnesses were given four minutes to present their oral testimony and were then questioned by the commissioners. Written testimony could also be submitted to the chair by mail. As a number of potential witnesses had not publicly acknowledged their homosexuality, anonymous testimony was also accepted. By the conclusion of the hearings, 87 witnesses had testified in favor of and 26 in opposition to legislation prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. Those in favor of the bill included large and small employers and religious organizations. Those in opposition included religious organizations, small business owners, and landlords of rooming houses. …