City Council Letter

THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD
1445 NORTH BOONVILLE AVENUE  SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI 65802-1894
GEORGE O. WOOD PHONE (417) 862-2781
GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT FAX (417) 866-5486

October 10, 2014


Mr. Dan Wichmer
Office of the City Attorney
City of Springfield
840 Boonville Avenue, Fourth Floor
Springfield, MO 65802

Dear Mr. Wichmer:

I am writing to respond to comments attributed to you by local media regarding the concerns I and
Bishop James Johnston, Jr., of the Springfield-Cape Girardeau Diocese of the Catholic Church
expressed regarding Council Bill 2014-189. Both of us are concerned that the bill does not adequately
protect the religious freedom rights of religious organizations and individuals. Indeed, I am concerned
that Council Bill No. 2014-189 imposes more restrictions on religious organizations and individuals than
federal and state law, even as it provides fewer protections for religious freedom than federal and state
law. (A useful comparison here is the religious exemption provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.)
Unfortunately, your remarks do not include a substantive response to the concerns either I or Bishop
Johnston raised. You are quoted as saying, “we are not trying to tell a religious organization how to
conduct themselves.” I appreciate your and the City Council’s statement of good will, but I need an on-
the-record statement from you saying that the bill does not permit the kinds of abuses of religious
organizations and individuals that I and Bishop Johnston identified in our respective public statements.

In one local media report, you are quoted as saying, “If it’s not clear, it needs to be cleared up.” I agree.
So, with the purpose of clearing things up, permit me to ask you a few questions:

First, what is the final text of the bill or bills the City Council will vote on at its October 13, 2014,
meeting? Is it Council Bill No. 2014-189 as posted on the City of Springfield website? Council Bill No.
2014-189 as amended by the City Council at its September 8, 2014, meeting, the minutes of which are
posted on the city’s website? And/or Council Bill No. 2014-189, Substitute 1, as posted on the city’s
website? I am concerned that as of 1:30 p.m. today, a clean copy of the bill as amended by the City
Council was not readily available on the City of Springfield website. The residents of Springfield
deserve to have a clean copy of the bill readily available for their review in accordance with the best
practices of democratic governance.

Second, as amended at the September 8, 2014, City Council meeting, the religious exemption provided
for by Section 62-44 seems to have narrowed. As posted on the website, Council Bill No. 2014-189
stated:

Nothing in this article shall be taken to prohibit a religious organization, association or society,
or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in
conjunction with a religious organization, association or society and whose purpose and
character are primarily religious, from giving employment preference to members of its own
religion

As amended by the September 8, 2014, City Council meeting, however, that section has been replaced.
Permit me to quote the minutes as length:

Councilwoman Rushefsky moved to amend Council Bill 2014-189, section 62-44, 137,
subsection 7 by deleting subsection 7 in its entirety and replacing it with a new subsection 7 to
read as follows: Exemption, “A” in general, this article shall not apply to any of the employing
practices of religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its
primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or
belief. “B” certain employees of any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or
society that is not currently exempt under subsection A. This article shall not apply to the
employment of individual whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading religious
doctrine or beliefs, religious governance, supervision of a religious order, supervision of persons
teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, or supervision or participation in religious
ritual or worship (pp. 7–8).

The exemption has changed from “giving employment preference to members of its own religion” to the
more narrow construction of an “individual whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading
religious doctrine or beliefs, religious governance, supervision of a religious order, supervision of
persons teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, or supervision or participation in religious
ritual or worship.” The narrowing of this provision actually increases my concerns about the bill, rather
than alleviating them. Can you please clarify whether Council Bill No. 2014-189, applies to the hiring of
all employees at a religious organization, or only those whose “primary duties” are religious in nature?

Third, Council Bill No. 2014-189, Substitute 1, appears to contain no religious exemptions whatsoever.
If it does, could you please point these out to me?

Fourth, on the matter of public accommodations, can you please confirm that religious organizations—
e.g., Assemblies of God schools and local churches—will retain their ability to rent out their facilities at
their discretion, without running afoul of Council Bill No. 2014-189’s public accommodations
provisions?

Fifth, I do not see any religious freedom protections for religious individuals in any version of Council
Bill No. 2014-189. Can you confirm that this is the case? If it is not the case, can you point me to the
specific language where religious freedom protections for religious individuals are enumerated?

As I noted above, the remarks attributed to you by local media did not substantively address the
concerns I expressed in my public statement on this matter, nor the concerns raised by Bishop Johnston
in his. Instead, your remarks simply raised further questions. On behalf of the Assemblies of God, I urge
you and the City Council to “clear up” these concerns of fundamental importance to the Assemblies of
God and to incorporate into the text of the ordinance the assurances implied by your public remarks that
the various iterations of Council Bill No. 2014-189 adequately protect the religious freedom of religious
organizations and individuals.

Sincerely,

Dr. George O. Wood
General Superintendent

cc: members of the City Council

Documents cited in the letter:

 “Church Leaders Raise SOGI Concerns; City Responds”
(http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/story/church-leaders-raise-sogi-concerns-city-
responds/19418/A-WWUitwbk6nUlF7y6EiNw)
 “Assemblies of God General Superintendent Outlines Concerns with Council Bill
(http://agchurches.org/Sitefiles/Default/RSS/AG.org%20TOP/Gen%20Supt/Wood_Statement_bi
ll_2014-189.pdf)
 “Protecting Human Dignity and Religious Freedom” (http://dioscg.org/?p=13430)
 Council Bill No. 2014-189 (http://www.springfieldmo.gov/documentcenter/view/12069)
 September 8, 2014, Minutes of the Springfield, Missouri, City Council
(http://www.springfieldmo.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/09082014-530)
 Council Bill No. 2014-189, Substitute 1
(http://www.springfieldmo.gov/documentcenter/view/12070)