San Jose Bans Travel to NC, MS

San Jose has joined the list of cities and states banning taxpayer funded travel to North Carolina and Mississippi due to the enactment of anti-LGBT laws in those states.

At its meeting Tuesday, May 17 the San Jose City Council adopted a resolution banning non-essential city travel within the two Southern states. It specified that the city would no longer cover the costs for employees traveling to either state to attend conventions, meetings, or other events.

The decision comes as a California bill that would enact a ban on taxpayer funded travel by state employees to any state that has passed an anti-LGBT law since June 25, 2015 heads to the state Senate. Assembly Bill 1887, authored by gay Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), passed out of the full Assembly last Monday, May 9 on a bipartisan vote of 54-21.

"AB 1887 sends a clear message that we do not tolerate discrimination in California or anywhere beyond our borders," stated Low following last week's vote.

In March San Francisco was the first city to ban taxpayer-funded travel to North Carolina due to the passage of House Bill 2 in the Tar Heel state. The measure not only rescinded anti-discrimination ordinances passed at the city level, it also required transgender people to use public restrooms that corresponded with the gender they were assigned at birth.

At the time, the Bay Area Reporter had inquired with San Jose officials if they would follow San Francisco's lead in adopting a similar travel ban. Mayor Sam Liccardo's office said it would look into the issue.

Unlike Mayor Ed Lee in San Francisco, who issued an executive order to restrict travel by city employees, Liccardo must work with the San Jose City Council, on which he has a voting seat, to enact such a policy in the South Bay city. Joining him in introducing the resolution were City Council Members Ash Kalra, Magdalena Carrasco, Tarn Nguyen, and Rose Herrera, who serves as vice mayor.

The measure passed Tuesday on a 9-1 vote, with one council member absent and Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio the lone vote against, as his policy is to vote against measures that are not directly related to city business.

While he voted with the majority, Councilman Johnny Khamis questioned why the city was focusing on just states with anti-LGBT laws.

"I am happy to ban nonessential travel anywhere. If it is not essential then we should not be paying for people's traveling," he said, later adding, "there are many countries that violate human rights, but we don't ban travel to those countries."

Herrera countered that the issue was "something we need to take a stand on. It is a violation of civil rights."

Mississippi was included due to its passing a law that allows people to cite their religious beliefs to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

"These legislative actions undermine the values of equality and diversity that we embrace in the city of San Jose. A ban on non-essential city travel to these two states clearly communicates that San Jose does not support discriminatory policies," the San Jose leaders wrote in a May 13 memo announcing their intention to enact a travel ban.

Under a travel ban policy it adopted last year, Santa Clara County currently restricts employees from traveling to North Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf last month banned city-funded travel to North Carolina and Mississippi. In late April the Berkeley City Council adopted its own travel ban to so called hate states with anti-LGBT laws.

Leaders of the East Bay city also instructed the city manager to no longer do business with companies headquartered in North Carolina or Mississippi and look at discontinuing existing contracts with businesses in those states. San Francisco's Board of Supervisors is expected to take up a similar policy in the coming weeks.

The issue came up at Tuesday's board hearing when gay District 9 Supervisor David Campos asked that a five-year lease with Bank of America for ATMs at San Francisco International Airport be postponed for a week since the financial company is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

"I would like to know what this company has done relative to the anti-LGBT law that that state has passed," said Campos.

San Jose leaders this week stopped short of outright banning city agencies and departments from purchasing goods and services from companies headquartered in either North Carolina or Mississippi. In their memo, the co-sponsors of the resolution noted the difficulty city staff would have in determining which businesses to avoid as many industries have "extensive supply chains."

The memo added, "Moreover, there appears a high likelihood that even diligent efforts by city staff to comply will result in violations of this policy, creating unrealistic expectations and unnecessary episodes of 'gotcha' politics."

Instead, the resolution advises city agencies "to the extent practicable, and in instances where there is no conflict with law, to refrain from entering into any new or amended city contracts to purchase goods or services from any company that is headquartered in North Carolina and Mississippi."

In a phone interview this week, Kalra told the B.A.R. "the challenge the mayor laid out in the committee meeting is, with a lot of companies, it is difficult to identify where the companies are located."

He added that "the fact the city council is making this statement plays into the judgment of" city agencies' procurement decisions.

In his own memo to the council, San Jose City Manager Norberto L. Due�as cited two examples for why a ban on doing business with companies headquartered in North Carolina "would create a significant and immediate challenge" for managing the city's financial affairs.

He pointed out that Bank of America has purchased several bonds issued by the city and finding a new purchaser would be "time consuming and potentially more expensive."

Due�as also noted how the city buys materials from Lowes, which is based in Mooresville, North Carolina, through a procurement cards program and is unable to block using specific vendors in the p-card system.

Both companies are on record in opposing HB 2.