Even though there was not an agenda item concerning a proposed anti-discrimination policy, it still proved to be an item at last week’s Town Council meeting.

Opponents of the council taking action regarding an anti-discrimination policy or ordinance took their turn during a Nov. 20 call to the public.

A proposal had been placed on the meeting agenda but was removed earlier in the week to allow staff more time to review the issue, according to Town Manager Ken Buchanan.

Last week’s meeting turned into a tense discussion in which Town Attorney Andrew McGuire had to remind Mayor Linda Kavanagh three times not to stray too far from the posted agenda and invite an open meeting law violation.

Fountain Hills resident Neville Verster opened his comments by commending Kavanagh and Vice Mayor Cecil Yates for voting against a proposal at the Nov. 6 council meeting to move an anti-discrimination measure forward.

“This is not anti-discrimination, it is anti-freedom,” Verster said.

He said what appears to be benign language is significant in bringing lawsuits.

“There is a plethora of lawsuits destroying good mom and pop businesses,” Verster said.

“We as believers cannot subordinate, subjugate our religious conscious, our freedom, our liberty before God and sacrifice it at the altar of the homosexual community.”

Justin Erickson, pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel in Fountain Hills, told the council its job is to “restrain evil” and promote what is good.

“I support you in your effort to do your job,” Erickson said.

In her regular report on mayor’s activities, Kavanagh noted that she had fielded a number of phone calls from residents and churches concerned about the effort to bring to the council an anti-discrimination measure that would specifically mention the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

She also clarified that the vote to bring the item back to a future meeting discussion was 5-2, with her and Yates casting the dissenting votes.

At this point McGuire reminded the mayor that the agenda confines her comments to “events attended relating to economic development.”

“I was just giving my report on activities over the past week,” Kavanagh said.

Councilman Tait Elkie asked if he might respond to the criticism leveled in call to the public. The open meeting law does allow council members to respond to criticism from the public.

“I urge anyone who has not seen the last council meeting to watch and listen to what the council said,” Elkie said.

“We voted in favor of having a discussion on the issue. There was no desire on the part of the council to pass an ordinance.

“Unfortunately this was very overblown and I believe co-opted for political purposes. In my opinion there was never, ever going to be an ordinance.”

Councilwoman Ginny Dickey, who raised the issue originally, asked that the approval of the minutes from the Nov. 6 meeting be removed from the consent agenda, which allowed for further discussion.

“I want to be sure people understand what is in (the minutes),” Dickey said. “There would be ample opportunity for public input before any approval.

“We don’t know what will be presented until we have an opportunity to look at it.

“I agree that the minutes show there is no intention to present an ordinance.”

Kavanagh also attempted to challenge Dickey on her position stated in The Times that she did not want an ordinance or further discussion on the issue to come back this soon.

She was once again stopped by McGuire.

“You are already on the edge of straying from the agenda, I don’t want an open meeting law violation,” he said.

Kavanagh sent an email to The Times questioning the comment by Dickey in a Nov. 19 article in which Dickey said she did not believe Nov. 20 was enough time to vet the issue properly.

“Staff was working hard to prepare for it quickly and I was working all weekend to make sure that the churches were aware that this was happening,” Kavanagh told The Times.

An email written by Dickey and forwarded to The Times by Kavanagh indicates that Dickey earlier this fall was having problems getting a discussion of the anti-discrimination ordinance on the agenda and outlined the approach of having citizens express their support during call to the public with Dickey asking for discussion to be placed on a future agenda.

There is a routine agenda item designed for such purposes.

“It will appear in this section of the agenda on 11/6/14 in order to request that it be included on the 11/20/14 agenda,” Dickey wrote.

When Dickey was asked about the item being placed on the Nov. 20 agenda she responded in an email to The Times.

“A discussion about the best way to show that Fountain Hills is a welcoming community and ‘open for business’ should be a positive one, with all the options, knowledge and facts available before making a commitment,” Dickey said.

“It was never my intention for this to be considered so soon, but after adequate time for thorough preparation and input.”