V. DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION:

A. Direct Evidence Which Is Suggested in the Complaint Was Never Introduced in the Record.

58A. One of the allegations made in the complaint is that Jessie Taken, at the time of discussing security for the hall, "began naming individuals who had caused damage while renting the hall. All individuals named were black Americans." (Notice of hearing-Complaint). The next paragraph of the complaint alleges that Ms. Taken made "blatant discriminatory remarks . . . regarding black Americans renting the hall." (Notice of hearing-Complaint). The combination of these events or of "blatant discriminatory remarks" alone might well constitute direct evidence of discrimination. There is no evidence, however, of Ms. Taken naming any Black individual, except George Leach, as being responsible for damaging the hall. See Finding of Fact No. 22. There is also no evidence of Ms. Taken making "blatant discriminatory remarks" regarding Blacks.

B. Andrea Arneson's Testimony Relied on As Direct Evidence of Discrimination:

59. On brief, the Commission cites the testimony of Andrea Arneson as direct evidence of discrimination. (Commission's Brief at 13-14). This testimony is that, after Complainant Davis returned from the hall, Ms. Arneson placed one telephone call to the hall utilizing one of the telephone numbers associated with the Respondent which was in the possession of Complainant Davis; that the exact number is unknown; that she talked to an unidentified male; that she had to wait three to five minutes while this unidentified male consulted an appointment book; that the male informed her that the hall was available, and that he also informed her, when she inquired about security requirements for a back to school party, that security was not required, but she could hire someone from in town, and that "the only problem they had was with Blacks." (Tr. at 73-81).

60. There are three problems with Ms. Arneson's testimony. These include: (1) based on the evidence in the record, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty how many calls Ms. Arneson made and who she talked to; (2) it cannot be established under the present record that the male was an agent of the respondent with either apparent or actual authority to represent the respondent in regard to what the security arrangements were for rental of the hall; and (3) the accuracy of Ms. Arneson's testimony is questionable in light of the discrepancies between her testimony and other evidence in the record.

C. Under the Present Record, It Cannot Be Established How Many Telephone Calls Andrea Arneson Made and to Whom They Were Made:

61. On this record, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty how many calls Ms. Arneson made or who she spoke with. Suppose that Ms. Arneson is correct and she made one call to the hall and spoke to an unidentified male. (Tr. at 73, 77, 80). This means the hall telephone would have been answered by this male prior to the answering machine being activated. (Tr. at 108). This male could have been any man who remained at the hall after bingo that day. It could have been any male who was at the hall, but who was not familiar with the appropriate procedures for renting the hall. (Tr. at 80). See Finding of Fact No. 8. This male may have erroneously believed, based on the fact that there was a calendar there, that all he needed to do was write in the date and name on the calendar in order to reserve a time. (Tr. at 108-09). This same individual could have made the remarks attributed to him by Ms. Arneson. (Tr. at 75).

62. Although Ms. Arneson testified that she had made only one call to the hall, the Commission suggests that her memory is flawed and she actually made several telephone calls to a variety of locations, but recollects only the one. (Tr. at 74, 81; Commission's Brief at 13). The Commission reaches this conclusion by resolving certain differences in the testimonies of Jesse Taken and Ms. Arneson. (Commission Brief at 13). The brief correctly notes that "Jesse Taken . . . testified that she spoke with a[n unidentified] woman on that same day and that she could hear Chris Davis talking in the background. Jesse further testified that she was told by Dale Bevill and Ron Sevening that they had spoken to a[n unidentified] woman about rental. Tran. at p. 150. Andrea testified that she called the number Chris had been calling which was Jesse Taken's [residence] number, but that she spoke with a man. Tran. at p. 81, 74." (Commission Brief at 13). Apparently, the Commission credits Ms. Taken's testimony over that of Ms. Arneson's on this matter, because Taken's testimony raises the possibility that Ms. Arneson may have talked to Dale Bevill or Ron Sevening, although they both deny talking to Ms. Arneson. (Commission Brief at 13; Tr. at 105, 111).

63. If it is reasonable to credit this testimony of Ms. Taken, it is also reasonable to credit her testimony that she told the female that security would be required. However, Ms. Taken was aware that the Complainant was with this woman. (Tr. at 150-51). Since it is not known whether that influenced her response to the female's inquiry about security, this conversation is not a reliable indicator of whether or not the Respondent's security policies were race neutral.

64. In addition to Mr. Bevill, Mr. Sevening, or a male at the Respondent's hall, it is possible that Ms. Arneson may have spoken to Ms. Taken's son. It has already been noted that Ms. Arneson called Ms. Taken. See Finding of Fact Nos. 62-63. Ms. Taken also testified that, after she received about the fifth call from Complainant Davis, she told her son to tell him that she was out of town. She left the house after that call. (Tr. at 152).

65. Complainant Davis' testimony is similar in some respects to that of Ms. Taken's. He testified about at least four calls to Ms. Taken. (Tr. at 25-26). On the second call, he accused Taken of discrimination. (Tr. at 26). After she hung up, he made a third call. (Tr. at 26). According to him, Ms. Arneson then called Ms. Taken. (Tr. at 27). Immediately after that, he called back and was told by somebody that Jessie Taken was out of town. (Tr. at 27). After that, according to Complainant Davis, Ms. Arneson again called the same number and spoke to a man. (Tr. at 28). However, the conclusion that Arneson's conversation was with Jesse Taken's son (or, for that matter Mr. Sevening or Mr. Bevill) conflicts with Ms. Arneson's testimony that she called the hall. See Finding of Fact No. 61. Also, Complainant Davis was not sure which number Ms. Arneson called when she talked to a man. (Tr. at 27-28).

D. Under the Present Record It Cannot Be Established That the Male With Whom Ms. Arneson Spoke Was An Agent of Respondent Local P-3 Retirees, Inc. With Actual or Apparent Authority to Speak on Behalf of the Respondent With Respect to Security Arrangements for Hall Rentals:

66. Under this record, there are only three persons established as having the authority to represent the Respondent with regard to hall rentals: Jesse Taken, Ron Sevening and Dale Bevill. See Finding of Fact No. 8. The male that Ms. Arneson may have talked to could have been either Jesse Taken's son, an unidentified male at the hall, Mr. Sevening or Mr. Bevill. All of these individuals had access to calendars which were or may have been used to record reservations for the hall. See Finding of Fact No. 8. Of these it seems more likely that she talked to Ms. Taken's son (based on Davis and Taken's testimony) or an unidentified male at the hall (based on Arneson's testimony). See Finding of Fact No. 65. Since it cannot be established which of these persons actually talked to Ms. Arneson, it is the Commission's burden to demonstrate that all four of these persons were agents of the Respondent, in order for the Respondent to be held liable for the statement alleged by Ms. Arneson. See Conclusion of Law No. 20. There is, however, no evidence in the record indicating that either an unidentified male at the Respondent's hall or Jesse Taken's son were either decisionmakers for or agents of the Respondent. There is (a) no evidence of a manifestation by the Respondent that Ms. Taken's son or the unidentified male at the Respondent's hall would act for the Respondent, (b) no evidence of any acceptance of such undertaking by these persons; and (c) no evidence that these persons were subject to the control of the Respondent. Nor is there any evidence they had actual or apparent authority to act for the Respondent. See Conclusions of Law Nos.19-20.

67. Given that the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that the statements alleged to have been given to Ms. Arneson were made by agents of the Respondent, the statements do not establish discriminatory intent by the Respondent.

E. The Accuracy of Ms. Arneson's Testimony Is Questionable in Light of the Discrepancies Between Her Testimony and Other More Credible Evidence in the Record:

68. The accuracy of Ms. Arneson's testimony is questionable because of the discrepancies between her testimony and the preponderance of the evidence in the record on various subjects. The most important of these matters have already been noted with respect to the security issue. Ms. Arneson's testimony was that she made one call to the Respondent hall. Other testimony in the record indicates she may have made more than one call to a variety of persons. See Findings of Fact Nos. 61-65.

69. It is interesting to note that Complainant Davis was present during the telephone calls made by Ms. Arneson, but was not listening in by an extension or similar means. He had to rely on what she told him in order to learn what was said by the person with whom Ms. Arneson was talking. (Tr. at 27-29). When asked if he had heard Ms. Arneson make any mention of security, he replied, "Yes. She asked will she need security, and they said they didn't think so, it was up to her if she wanted it or not." (Tr. at 29). He did not testify that she told him that the person she was talking to had indicated they only had trouble with Blacks. (Tr. at 29).

70. Finally, Ms. Arneson testified that, when Complainant Davis returned home from the Respondent hall, he had stated that the Respondent "had went into detail about things that weren't even pertaining to his party about blacks and a problem over on the southeast side with Wellington Heights." (Tr. at 72). Complainant Davis's testimony confirms that Jessie Taken had mentioned Wellington Heights and gang problems. When asked, however, "Did she ever make any mention of blacks?," he responded, "Not at this time." (Tr. at 21). There is no evidence in the record, including Davis's testimony, that Jessie Taken ever did mention Blacks as a group during her meetings with Complainant Davis and Mr. Ingram. As previously noted she did tell the Complainant about the problems she had with one individual Black person, George Leach. See Finding of Fact No. 22.

71. The overall impression left by Ms. Arneson is that her testimony was somewhat inflated in order to aid Mr. Davis. These problems with the accuracy of Ms. Arneson's testimony provide an additional reason for not relying on the alleged statements constituting direct evidence of discrimination which were given in her testimony.

72. The Commission has failed to establish race discrimination against the Complainant in the hall rental practices or policies of the Respondent through direct evidence.

VI. CREDIBILITY FINDINGS:

73. With the exception of Louise Lorenz and Glen Jones none of the witnesses' testimony was wholly credible. This appears to be largely due to the witnesses having difficulty remembering the exact order and nature of events. Joseph Ingram's comment that his memory of events was fuzzy could have been applied to many of the witnesses. (Tr. at 64). Although Ron Sevening and Dale Bevill's testimony seemed to be highly reliable, it should be noted they wouldn't necessarily remember the names of persons who called about renting the hall in 1992 when those persons took no further action to rent the hall. (Tr. at 108, 112).

74. Mr. Ingram's demeanor reflected the fuzziness and uncertainty of his memory. At times, he sat hunched over in his chair, hat on, with his hand sometimes covering his mouth. Mr. Ingram was the only witness whose demeanor reflected so poorly on his credibility.

75. The credibility of Cora Lee and Andrea Arneson has already been extensively discussed. See Findings of Fact Nos. 31-33, 39, 61-63, 68-71. In addition, there has been some discussion of the credibility of Complainant Davis, Jesse Taken and Joseph Ingram with regard to specific factual issues. See Findings of Fact Nos. 11, 27-28, 30, 38, 41-42, 45.

76. Discrepancies in the testimony were resolved by determining which version of events made the most sense in the light of the facts previously established and the whole evidentiary record. For example, in some instances where there was a discrepancy between the testimony of Complainant Davis and Jesse Taken, Ms. Taken's testimony was credited. In another instance, concerning the number of in person meetings held with Ms. Taken, the Complainant, and Mr. Ingram, Complainant Davis's testimony was credited over that of Ms. Taken. The difference occurred because, based on all the evidence in the record, it appeared that in some instances Ms. Taken's recollection was more accurate, while in one instance it was not. See Findings of Fact Nos. 11, 20, 28-29, 31, 33-34, 41-42, 45.