[Chelli Keshavan]: All right, great. Hi, guys. Thanks for being here. Thanks for your time. I think for the record, we'll move through introductions. And then maybe we can get started with Rob's commentary, if that works. Cool. So I'll just call out names from left to right. So Diane, if you wouldn't mind.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: Sure, Diane McDonald, resident of West Medford, and I've been on the commission for a few months now, so excited to be here.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thank you, thank you. Hi guys, I'm Chelly, current chair, mom of two, long time Medford, product of Medford, glad to be here. Munir, go for it.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Hi, I'm Munir Jumanis. I'm a longtime resident of Medford, retired physicist, full-time grandparenting, and glad to be here.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thank you. Mr. Rob Klein, go for it.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: I think I'm probably the shortest term Medford resident on the call. I've been in town here since 2014, so coming up on 10 years. I've been on the commission now for, I think, about three of those years. very happy to be here.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thank you, Rob. Steve, go for it.
[Steve Schnapp]: Steve Knapp. I am a resident of Medford since 2011, retired, and I'm actually a volunteer taking notes.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thank you, Steve. Chief, if you wouldn't mind.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, you need to unmute chief.
[Jack Buckley]: I thought I got used to that. Uh, so chief Jack Buckley, Medford police department. I've been on the commission for four and a half years. Same length of time that I have been chief police, uh, been in the city as a police officer, 25 plus years. Great Kelly. All you.
[Kelly Cunha]: Hi, I'm Kelly Cunha. I am a Medford mom of two, social worker, and I've been on the commission since before COVID. I don't know how long it's been. And I first moved to Medford when I was five and then did a little traveling and I'm back. And I'm the vice chair. I love it. This is Vera. She joins us every meeting.
[Chelli Keshavan]: And last but never least, Eileen, if you want to introduce yourself.
[Ilene Lerner]: Hi, I'm Eileen Lerner, and I've just always been interested in what's going on in the Human Rights Commission. I moved to Medford in 2015, and I'm a retired ESL teacher.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thank you, Eileen. Judy, excellent timing. We are running through introductions. Do you want to jump in?
[SPEAKER_08]: Hi, everybody. Judy Kaplan, former commissioner, community member.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thank you. So before we get moving, maybe we can just approve the minutes. Do folks have a chance to review what you put together for March? Yeah, great. Does someone wanna make a motion?
[Steve Schnapp]: Before that, I think the date might be wrong.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Yeah.
[Steve Schnapp]: I hope it was corrected to, I think I had put in February, but it was the March meeting.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Yeah, I think Frances indicated she was able to edit or update, so.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Motion to approve?
[Chelli Keshavan]: Second.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Second.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Great, thank you. Awesome. So I think maybe Rob and maybe Rob and Diane can take the floor and share with us all that came up over questions and thoughts.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, yeah, happy to. So Diane, if you're all right, I have the doc here, I think probably easiest to share it out and run through that together. Just for some context, the remit out of the last call was to actually go through the ordinances that the city of Medford put in place to govern the Human Rights Commission. We've been all, you know, coming together, meeting regularly for some time now. And there was a desire to get a firm understanding of what the expectations and responsibilities were, and what the obligations are from a legal standpoint, to put a fine point on it. These are the governing ordinances that establish the commission and detail what is expected from and of the commission. So what I'm going to share now is a Word doc, and it includes a link at the top here to the codes themselves. And there's a lot of redundancy. So you'll see, you might not be seeing if I'm only sharing the Word version, but The way that I've broken this out mirrors exactly how the ordinance itself is broken out. What I've tried to do is distill some of the language that is most pertinent, and then highlight those items that are tactical and strategic. So by tactical, I'll just give a quick example. The ordinance says there should be nine members, right? That's specific, it's actionable, it's something that can be measured against. There's other aspects that are a little bit more open to interpretation in terms of how best to act upon them. So that's some of the way that you'll see the cascade organized here. Working through it from top to bottom, and I can share this with the group as well after the call, really the items that you see with asterisks are points at which I think we can include in our strategy or approach going forward. And then also there are some pretty specific calls to action that I think we need to implement right away, simply for the fact that they're prescriptive in the ordinance. So for fear of making everyone dizzy, I'll stop scrolling so quickly and just kind of run through things as they appear here. So the first section establishes the grounds under which the ordinance for the HRC rests. And I should offer the caveat that I am in no way a legal expert, not an attorney. I don't even play one on TV. So this was simply my interpretation as a lay person, which since we're all lay people on the commission, I expect will be at least marginally helpful. First and foremost, the commission is established to ensure the free exercise and enjoyment of all rights and privileges enumerated in the Commonwealth and federal constitutions. So key points there are that the be all end all the governing documents are the constitution in Massachusetts and the federal constitution. So that's kind of the final backstop for any questions that we may have. It articulates the relevant parties, all persons in the city of Medford, which I think is an important distinction to make. You don't need to be a resident. You don't need to be in any way employed by the city or in the city. It's anyone in the city. And then of course, regardless of any type of contextual information or contextual biographical information on the relevant parties. And these ordinances are enforceable anywhere. There's unlawful discrimination. This phrasing is repeated a couple of times. I'm going to read through it once here, because I think it is important for the context. It says, anywhere that discrimination exists in housing, employment, education, public accommodations, housing accommodations, and within the meaning of, and it refers to the Massachusetts General Laws, gives the chapter around anti-discrimination. So my expectation is that this is meant to be as all-encompassing as possible. But there needs to, of course, be some sort of gate around the enforceable jurisdiction, for lack of a better term. If you dig into chapter 151B of the MGL, it's quite expansive. So I don't expect that we would ever run into a situation where we would be coming up against a limitation on our jurisdiction. This last point I think here is, strong and operative. It refers to the obligations that the city has to take reasonable affirmative action. And, you know, affirmative action is somewhat of a loaded term. Folks describe different meanings. I took it here to be literal, right? Affirmative action, taking action that is affirming the rights that are enumerated here rather than being reactive. And those actions should be aimed towards removing or empowering folks to overcome the consequences of any prior discriminatory practice. And even go so far to articulate that in the absence of any prior discrimination, that if in administering previous programs, the outcome, the effect has been something that's been discriminatory, that that also falls under the ordinance here and the guidelines. I'll pause there before I get into my specific key takeaways, but anything to add, Diane or anyone else or any questions from the group?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I think you've covered it pretty well.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: All right, great. Well, pressing on then, I mentioned that I included in here some of my key takeaways intermittently throughout the report. I've touched on some of these already, so I won't belabor the point. But basically, the commission is in place to support all persons in the city. The remit is very, very broad. All of those different ways in which the city government touches the lives of folks that live, work, or are in the city. And that there is a recognized obligation to take that affirmative action. By the commission and through these ordinances. The next couple sections are pretty specific. So I have distilled them down quite a bit. Again, the link is available at the top of this document to go to the full text version, but basically. The way that the board or the commission is built. described quite liberally. There's a lot of room for interpretation so far as however the commission is constructed is aimed at accomplishing the purposes that we just went through. In fact, the language in the ordinance itself stipulates that it is liberal in effect. So it's intentional that that is the case. It's not an inference there. And that if there's any ordinances that are inconsistent with accomplishing the purposes of the HRC, they don't apply. So basically, if there's something that exists somewhere else in code that we come up against, it's not applicable if it's in contradiction to the above. And there's nothing that the HRC can do would contravene the laws of the Commonwealth. So again, we come back to this point that the governing document, the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is that final backstop. These next four points are specific and direct. We need to have nine members, folks should, members need to live or work in the city, The appointment process runs through the mayor. I think we've all been through that. I know I experienced that. And that membership in the board should reflect a diverse representations of persons active in the efforts of human rights and civil rights activities in the city. So I think some folks get hung up on the idea of diverse representation. I think the further qualifier here is that individuals should be active in the efforts of human rights and civil rights activities within the city. I do want to pause there because I think this can be a little bit cyclical, right? If you're sitting here on the board, you're surely invested in efforts around human rights and civil rights activities in the city. So I don't know if that is a prerequisite or something that's inherent in participation, possibly something we can clarify later. In terms of the organizational structure within the commission, there is to be a chair, a vice chair, and a clerk. I want to put a fine point on that, that this is not like general guidance or nice to have. This is what appears in the ordinance that establishes the ASRC. So we did well to have those elections recently. They should be every other year in June. And that goes hand in glove with the idea that those terms are for two years. you can run two consecutive terms. So you can be in an elected position for up to four years is how I took that. There were also specific guidelines around participation and the fact that anyone who is missing more than two meetings in a fiscal year, other than for excused absences, I'll call them, the commission should take it unto itself to review that individual's commitment. That's left open to interpretation, but something that I think should be highlighted here. And that additional terms can be served as long as there is a one-year gap between serving those terms. So this was a little bit confusing because of how it was laid out in the initial document, but I took it to be pertinent to the elected positions. So thinking here that there could be a situation where maybe taking a step back, the one year off from serving is a little bit confusing because they're saying that the elected position should be two year terms. I think that this is in the instance where somebody removes themselves, where they step back partway through a new elected position is filled and there is a one-year vacancy there between the previous elected official. They can then fill that role as long as there's been a full year in between the two seedings, as it were. I highlight here that the language was a little bit confusing and it doesn't delineate. I took it as fair to assume that it refers to the officers. It could be something that we want to get specific direction on. Then I'll circle back to something I put in the In the doc a little bit later on as well. This isn't so relevant. It speaks to the initial appointment of members to the commission when it was established. So basically those initial appointments were to follow a staggered schedule and basically sink out on three year terms after that initial group was put in place. And if there is a situation where somebody leaves, Those seats need to be filled by appointment as well. You can't circumvent that appointment by the mayor. I've gone through quite a bit and I've talked at you for about 15 minutes now without reprieve.
[Unidentified]: So I'll pause again and ask if there's any questions or thoughts. All right. Must mean I'm doing an excellent job explaining.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: That's how I'll take that anyway. More prescriptive guidance here. meetings and quorums. So 10 meetings a year, that's a cadence that we've kept up with. We interpret that to mean a break in the summer months. That's not prescribed anywhere. That's open to interpretation. It just indicates that they need to be in regular intervals. So if we wanted to move, say, to meeting every six weeks, it's not a recommendation, just an example. That can be another way to get 10 meetings in a year. I guess it would have to be every 5.2 weeks, but we'll get into that later. five members constitute a quorum. I highlight this below, but that five member quorum is static. And of course it's predicated on the idea that there are nine members on the commission. So that is certainly a point that I think we need to address given the level of engagement and the number of commissioners we have now, because technically speaking, as I read it as a non-legal professional, We've never had a quorum, then, because we've never had a nine-member, fully seated, filled commission, and five of those nine members present.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Excuse me, Rob. I think your statement says we've never had a quorum?
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Under these guidelines, if nine members are required to meet the five-member quorum, and the five-member quorum is required to have a quorum, as long as I've been in panel, we've never had nine members, which I think to your point, Muneer, it's a little bit of like chicken and egg, legal hopscotch here, simply highlighting it because I think it is something that we should address.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Okay, yeah, no, I mean, I sort of interpreted that as, okay, there should be nine members, okay, but a quorum is separate from that. A quorum is, they're specifying that you need five members to have a quorum. And we've met that, of course, problem last year several times, but, and indeed, it should be reviewed. But I think to say that we've never had a quorum is a little confusing in the sense that, okay, we have right now six members, I guess, but we're still restricted by the fact that if we don't have five members, then we don't have a quorum and then we can't vote on anything. Sorry for the interruption.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: No, no. Thank you. That was unclear the way that I laid it out. I appreciate the clarification. And another good point that was brought up here is around the structures and rules for subcommittees considering this requirement for a quorum and what we might be able to do to have something like a standing approval for subcommittees so that work can take place within subcommittees without requiring a five-member quorum always be present for any definitive action to be taken or any discussion to be had. This is something I think that bears certainly further conversation amongst the group. And I'll leave it at that. Anything else on those points? Diana, I want to give you a chance to add your thoughts as well, if you'd like.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. I think, you know, the idea of, I think we have great opportunities to make you know, simple amendments to this that would just make sense. And I know that, you know, Kelly and I are thinking through roles and responsibilities. So she and I are working on, I started a spreadsheet by researching other human rights commissions in the greater Boston area. And, and, you know, I read an ordinance where working groups and subcommittees were baked into the ordinance so that people could get work done. And then I'm trying to remember it was either Boston or Malden, they had, instead of using quorum, you know, for their quorum, They must have had the same challenge that we're experiencing because instead of having a finite number of what constitutes a quorum, they just have the word majority. So I know that next meeting, I would love to have Kelly and I present our research because I think it will really help, but I don't wanna get off topic, Rob, but you're doing a great job, so thank you.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Thank you. Yeah, I think that's a great point. You shouldn't use the language as an excuse not to interpret it in the way that most effectively empowers the commission to act. I think that circles back to the initial point that was laid out about the regulations being liberal in nature. The intent is that these are enabling rather than constricting.
[Unidentified]: So I definitely agree. This next section is pretty much verbatim.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: It gets into some pretty specific legal language. So I didn't do a whole lot of editing here. I really just broke it out to make it a little bit more easy to digest. But what you see here are the functions and the powers that are given to the commission through these ordinances. And rather than read through them all, I think the items that I've highlighted are the specific action items, things like eliminating unlawful discrimination, cultivating atmospheres of mutual understanding. I'll move somewhat slowly here so folks can read those as we move down. But there are some thoughts that I had around How these are structured, again, reinforces the idea that there's quite a bit of self-governance provided to the commission. And it's stipulated here that there are certain things that we need to work for, work towards and support. But really how we do that is left up to the commission to decide and really to what scope and to what scale and to understand what is reasonable. I don't think anybody on the board expects that we can fully eliminate all unlawful discrimination. It would be outstanding, but that's a bit of a heavy lift for our group here. So thinking about what is being asked, what the functions and powers are, what is reasonable to be done, what is ideal, and how best to get those wheels moving and keep them moving so that Every time we come together and every action that we take is in furtherance of these functions and powers. And just to put a finer point on it, I've added down here that there is clearly a liberal amount of self-governance. And even going so far as this penultimate bullet, that the commission has the right to amend and rescind rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the commission itself. So it doesn't say who those rules and regulations would affect or how they would be put into effect, but vesting a commission with the ability to provide rules and regulations, I think speaks volumes to the amount of effect that the ordinances are meant to divest in the commission, to not speak completely in circles. The key takeaways that I had from that section are that there are firm deliverables in here. So things like submitting an annual review to the mayor, which includes a written summary of the commission's work and to keep the mayor, the city council and the school committee informed on the things that we're doing, right? Those are specific hard deliverables that must be under this ordinance provided by the commission. The fact that it's stipulated as annual I took that to be something we could use as a focal point to orient our calendar of events around that being internal events that the commission needs to manage, as well as external events, right? You want to have something to put on that annual report. And of course, our goal is not simply to fill out an annual report, but speaking, speaking tactically about having something to pass in once a year, The commission has done a great job to scale up our presence in the community over the last couple of years. And I think that it will do us justice to continue to do so in furtherance of expanding reach and scope within the city of Medford. This last point, I think, is something we should all certainly pay attention to, that the commission is also provided the remit to conduct research and provide information that may be helpful in seeking funding from the city. I know that's something that's come up multiple times and it's a little bit of the chicken and the egg, right? Asking a volunteer group to conduct research and provide, basically what this says is write a grant proposal, right? Use research, conduct research and write a grant proposal. Well, people do that for a living and they're paid for it. So it's a little bit of a chicken or the egg situation use the same phrase again, but something I think that we should consider is possibly, you know, maybe being something that we can do, we can implement as a group in furtherance of seeking that funding going forward so that we can start the snowball rolling down the hill. Any thoughts there? I know those are some topics that have come up before, so interested to pause and hear if there's any additional thoughts.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: These last few bits get into just simply definitions. The city solicitor, which I know is a bit of an issue right now for the city of Medford, but when we have a city solicitor, they are to act as counsel for the commission. And as far as the definitions go, I link back to the full text. I wasn't going to copy and paste. But a few items of note that I saw in the definitions were that The current illegal use of a controlled substance as defined by the Massachusetts general laws is listed as a disability. I don't have anything to add to that other than I thought that it was something that should be raised given the remit of the commission. The fact that again, the definition of discriminate does include outcomes that are both by design and by effect. So it doesn't need to be that something was clearly implemented with the intent to disenfranchise or discriminate that only in those cases, the HRC can take corrective action. It can be if there are policies and procedures or other items that have in effect discriminated against folks that the HRC can take action. And there was a specific definition provided as to human rights that I think is worth highlighting because again, what you see here is extremely broad, which I think for us is very helpful. We want to have the widest breadth and depth of effect that we can. The fact that this definition is so vast in scope is helpful. Again, it refers back to the Constitution of the US and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, reinforcing those as final backstops. The last few topics for discussion. And I don't want to monopolize all the time. Hopefully I've gone through this. In such a manner that is not too fast to understand and not too slow. So as to lose your attention, but the last few topics for discussion that I took out of this. We're potentially the content here can be used as a rubric for the commission to organize itself. evidence of the work that we're doing in the community. I already brought up the questions around the quorum regulations. And if we should use the requirement to provide hard deliverables as a case to receive funding from the city, we're not gonna hand in a handwritten report on, you know, lined paper ripped out of a notebook. I think the imperative to hand over something that looks professional could possibly be used as a reason get some funding from the city. That could be maybe the one-off grant that enables us to do the work that would enable us to seek further funding in the future, just a thought.
[Unidentified]: And if the council should be engaged on items, sorry, reading back my notes here.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Should we engage council to clarify any of the questions that we have here, especially those that are around the more tactical aspects, right? The idea of a specific number of commissioners quorum items. If there is an avenue to adjust those, the council, the solicitor would certainly be the one that can tell us those things. And then finally, Diane, I'll pass this over to you because I know this is one that you added as well. And it is something that has come up in the past. And personally, I do think it's important as well. So I'll hand things off to you.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: Sure. And then the ordinance makes it crystal clear that part of the role of the commission is to be available to listen to Medford residents if they have a grievance and it speaks to what Chief Buckley brought up, I think the last meeting, saying he thought it was baked in. And then when I started doing my research on human rights commissions, I think I looked at five or six communities. It is standard operating procedure that all of the commissioners on those missions listen to grievances if anyone in the city, you know, needs to file a formal complaint or whatever. So given that is standard operating procedure across many or if not all human rights commissions, and I did hear in past meetings, there was some concern about our capacity to be able to handle those and questioning whether we should do that. You know, my question is, can the city offer some sort of training on dispute resolution? And I know from the line of work that I do, community building, I rely heavily on like leaders and committees whenever an alum, I do alumni relations. If we're having a complication or a challenge or a complaint, I will usually have another alum help us in terms of being an empathetic listener and an active listener to be able to help us sort out. So I think that that's something we should also carefully think about.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thank you, Diane. Maybe we can open it up to questions. I see Judy has her hand raised. So Judy, if we can start with you.
[MCM00001270_SPEAKER_03]: Okay, so having stared at this ordinance on and off for more than 10 years, and having done two, at least two or three edit, complete thorough edits of it, I wanna point out that, and this is something that the Safe Medford Committee, it became abundantly clear to us. It's starting with section 50-69, This is a housing discrimination ordinance, but there are two entirely different documents here. I'm just going to throw, I have some points, I wrote some little notes to myself. So I wanted to clarify that, that this basically starting at that point is completely and totally specific to housing discrimination. It can be generalized, and I think that's what Rob has done here, and it could be rewritten. But if the ordinance is going to be rewritten, someone outside of the commission has to take on the responsibility for replacing this fair housing content in its own or of separate ordinance or attached to some other ordinance. So I wanted to clarify that. The other thing is, if you look at the document closely, that every list, for example, as we see here, a list of the reasons why someone might be discriminated against, every list in the document differs. So that's something else to be kept in mind. But basically they're almost all in the housing discrimination section, but they're not all, because there's one right at the beginning. So it would be good for the commission to really thoughtfully decide what is the entire range of reasons why people might be discriminated against. You know, put that at the beginning of the, of the ordinance. So I just want to clarify a couple other points. One in terms of subcommittees, subcommittees are generally speaking subject to the open meeting law and Munir is an expert on that. So he will undoubtedly add clarity on that issue at when the time comes. So they have their own quorum requirements. Okay. I just want to point that out. And the other thing, most important, I guess, is that in terms of grievances, this clearly, this is spelled out as a role of the HRC in this document, but it has been preempted by the city. The city developed a process that specifically puts that responsibility within the, the HR department of the city, or maybe it's actually maybe Francis has that responsibility but Neil Osborne had that responsibility and reporting directly to the mayor on grievances. And then it has this very weird thing where it suggests to the person at the end of the process that they can go to the HRC. But it doesn't give the HRC any powers, and it specifically doesn't give the HRC the powers that are spelled out in the ordinance. So I think you need to, if I may, be so bold as to suggest that keep these things in mind. And also, I do want to offer I am more than happy to send you my latest edit of this document of the actual ordinance because it points out a lot of grammatical issues and inconsistencies and lack of logic from an editor's standpoint. So I'm going to shut up now. I'm going to go on mute and stay on mute. Thank you, Judy.
[Chelli Keshavan]: And when you're I see your hand. Oh, sorry.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, just one thing that I wanted to raise Judy I also noticed how the federal housing laws were moved in here and I, again, not a legal expert, don't even play one on TV, though, the way that I interpreted that was. These ordinances and laws in general are based upon precedent, right? So if the federal housing regulations are the strongest precedent for establishing what discrimination might be, it could be the case that that's why they're referred to here. I don't know that to be fact. That can be a great question for the solicitor. But I did also notice that I found it odd at first glance that it was specific to housing. And then when I sat with it for a moment I got to that place, that it could just be the most expansive definition possible. But simply to your point, Judy, wanted to put that out there. I do think there's folks who are much more well-informed than I to make that statement declaratively.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thanks, Rob. Munir, do you want to jump in?
[Munir Jirmanus]: OK. Yeah, first, I really want to thank Rob and Diane for this job. and it would be good if you could email that document to all members, then we can look at it more carefully and so on and so forth. But I think you did an amazing job. Now, just speaking in general, there is an ordinance and there is a practical way that the Human Rights Commission has been operating. So in some cases, we don't follow the ordinance. And in some cases, there are certain things like, for instance, as far as I know, it's always been the case that we have somebody at some point designated that the chief of police should always be on the commission. Now nowhere, nowhere in the ordinance does it say this, but people found that helpful. So in practice we've done it and we don't require the chief of police to go off for a year after three years and then show up again or something like that. So, I mean, there are certain things that we have traditionally done that are not quite part of this ordinance. So that's just a general observation.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thank you, Munir. Thoughts, questions, comments?
[Kelly Cunha]: So what this ordinance tasks us with and what we have been doing, at least since I've been on, which is now I think going on my third year, are wildly different. So I guess that, open please, sure. So I guess the question only on the whiteboard, not on the walls, please. I guess the question is, three things, three options and maybe there's more. One is like the ordinance changes and we adapted to what we want and feel we are capable of doing. We are trained and uplifted to do the things that the ordinance asks us to do or we continue to operate out of help please out of the like, without actually following the ordinance, like basically illegally or whatever. Right? Or am I because I mean, this is just wildly different than what we've done the last three years. We have never once had a since I've been on a case of discrimination that we've had to hear. So it's just and some of the other things as well.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: I I wanna thank you, Judy, for bringing your institutional knowledge from the last 10 years and just clarifying some of this. I thought what was interesting is you sharing how the grievances work and that it goes through HR and our city administrators broadly. And this little bit of research that I've done, and I know Kelly and I will be continuing to work on it and we'll present something next month, What's really interesting is my key takeaway is fair housing was the biggest part of the Human Rights Commission sites. And I was looking at Somerville, Cambridge, Malden, Arlington and Boston. So fair housing was like the biggest part of that. But all of these human rights, they also had like a link you could click right there to file your grievance or your concern. And there was this communication mechanism where if you wanted to reach out to someone on the Human Rights Commission, there was an email presented. So then I looked at our website and it just, you know, it's a little bit on the flat side. So it seems there's a lot more communication and transparency going on with the other Human Rights Commission websites. And I think that As we come together and we get further staffed up with more commissioners and build out our membership, maybe we can also look at what our web presence is and what the communications are. Because when I was just looking at the presence with these other communities, it was just very crystal clear what the pathway was for residents going to that site and knowing what to do.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Diane, random question. Was there also a discussion of any potential training or expectations or requirements rather of commissioners amongst the sort of teams that could provide that version of communication or support or complaint hearing?
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, so I think what there, I think it was Arlington. They had a, you know, they had this flyer where they're trying to recruit commissioners. And it was very clear, expect to, and this is all pretty much gratis work. So it's expect to spend 10 hours a month doing work on the commission, no prior experience needed, just a willingness and passion for human rights. And so it seems like there's peer training taking place. you know, and obviously I need to dig in deeper, but I just, it was just really interesting across the board. And then, you know, the administration of a number of them are done by, you know, a town manager appoints an executive director, a number of them have executive directors, which I think are similar to Frances in her DEI role. And so even in the ordinance, it might even say, you know, this will be run by this position, which is also the DEI position. But I think we have an opportunity to update some of this language here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And I'd love to see your latest version and edits, Judy.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Can I add one thing about the discrimination? You know, I've only been, well, I've been on the board for about five years. And we had a, we actually, we had, when I first joined, we had a detailed discussion among the board members of other commissioners, I should say, of how to handle discrimination. And and we established a procedure and we more or less followed it. Of course, the city never specified a definite procedure on how to handle this. So the commission itself established this procedure and we used it, I would say on few occasions that there were a few occasions where we did receive complaints. I would say mostly the work was initially done by the DEI director, at that time it was Neil, and with some assistance from the chair. And we never actually resolved any of the complaints. Because, I mean, I guess even if we did have to resolve them one way or the other, there is no way in the state that the commission has the power to enforce such a resolution. So then what comes, so there are two things going on. There is the ordinance established certain things. There are discussions internally within the Human Rights Commission to decide how practically to do these things. And then as Judy pointed out, the new administration, newer administration four years ago, decided on its own procedure to handle complaints. And it kind of marginalized the Human Rights Commission. So this is the situation that we're in. So we have to decide on whether we wanna go on with this procedure, you know, that's dictated by the city, even though it's marginalized the HRC, or we can say, no, we don't want to handle complaints at all. Okay. I mean, again, that's, that's to me, it's an open discussion and, and we, we need to decide which way to go.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: I mean, I think that, I mean, we work in, We work in collaboration with the city. We're appointed by the mayor and Francis. I mean, we're appointed by the mayor. We work closely and keep Francis fully apprised. And I do know from my own line of work in community building that it is effective. I mean, obviously we wouldn't have the pat like a ton of power to really decide on full resolution, but it always makes a difference when community member, you know, Medford resident to Medford resident, we can sit like we're the Human Rights Commission, we're going to listen to you, we get you, we understand you, any one of us, you know, we're in it together. And even that can usually help, um, de-escalate stress and tension that whoever is issuing the grievance is experiencing. So I do think having this role is probably a good thing for our residents and community.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: I certainly want to voice support for the commission taking on that role. I think, not to belabor the point, but to reemphasize Diane, you're exactly right. And in many cases, the act of being heard is the most impactful piece of restorative justice for folks who feel as though they've been a victim of injustice. And I think that whatever we take out of this, we should certainly position ourselves to be helping that process within the city.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Go ahead, Aileen. Aileen, go for it. Well, I see your hand raised if you're still wanting to share thoughts.
[Ilene Lerner]: OK. So my reaction is, I know it's important for people to be heard. I agree. But when people are heard, they have an expectation that there will be action. And if there is no enforcement power that the commission holds, then it will be a frustration to the people who come. I have seen that happen. I saw that happen on the disability commission. A woman came with a complaint about the post office. And then she was told, well, you know, the post office is under the federal government, so we can't do anything. And she went away very unhappy, even though that was a logical explanation. But I just think, in my opinion, if you don't have enforcement, if there's nothing you can do, people are going to see it as a farce. And I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thank you, Aileen. I think I also, oh, sorry, Kelly. No, you go ahead, Shelly. No, no, I was just going to say, I think I wanna, I'm wanting to feel cognizant of the difference between a communication mechanism feeling like a peer support slash mentorship kind of piece where like, yes, I think we are all moving from a place of compassion. I think we want to see Medford pursue conversations around restorative justice, et cetera, et cetera. But that doesn't feel like the same as being trained in empirical and sort of evidence-based conflict resolution techniques. And to Eileen's point, none of us, even collectively, may or may not have the capacity to sort of see conversations through and offer a deliverable or an outcome that is, I don't know, that is, you know, quality enough. I don't know how to say that, but that, you know, the person in question finds commensurate with their experience or whatever.
[Kelly Cunha]: Yeah, I was kind of going to say, sorry, Shelly. I was going to say, you know, I'm, I'm really big into restorative justice practices. I actually do them a lot in my elementary school. And I think that there, there is a piece where you do need the other parties involvement. So to, to, to really make it be a situation where people feel heard and valued and listened, that repair piece has to happen. And we don't have if we don't have the power or ability to, you know, help repairs happen and make amends and apology of actions and things of that nature just feels to me kind of fruitless. I understand that, and Diane, to your point, I do feel like being heard is huge and valid. And I also feel like that might not be the place for it here. I don't know. I don't know.
[Munir Jirmanus]: So can I add one thing? Of course. Okay. So, I mean, the ability to be heard is not as simple as that. So when I've been involved in like two or three complaints that were brought forward, the procedure that we established initially said that the two parties will communicate with the DEI director and with some involvement of a committee or a subcommittee of the human rights. In other words, the complaints were never publicly heard because there were some privacy issues. And only at the stage where both parties agree that, yes, you can come to a meeting of the HRC and it's a public meeting and both of you are heard, Okay, only then we decided that that would happen. Okay, but frankly, practically speaking, in none of the cases this ever happened. Okay, so it's not as in other words, it would be ideal if yes, the complaint can be heard and people know about it, but there are other restrictions as well. That's part of the problem.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thanks, Chief Chapman.
[Jack Buckley]: So actually, Muneer, I'll start with Muneer's point because it was one of the ones I wanted to make. One of the problems I think we're always going to contend with is we have to meet as a public body, right? And then we want to try to bring two people together, whether it's for mediation or to be heard. That in and of itself is a barrier to some people and their compliance. And we have to kind of keep that in mind going forward. But going back to my original thought is, I think the ordinance is written in a certain way, and I do think it needs a lot of work. The question was raised by Rob earlier, should we reach out to the city council? I think most definitely you should have city councils involved in this process from the beginning, because they can start through their subcommittees and sort of get involved in the process. At least they're in the ground floor as the ordinance kind of changes and moves forward. We started this process, of what we're doing now in the review of the HRC because we kind of lost our way and we didn't know what our way was or our direction. And slowly but surely at every meeting, we're getting there, right? We're defining it. But I think the ordinance probably has to look at that in and of itself. I think there are expectations written into that ordinance that lead to disappointment. I can go to the HRC, I can express my grievance against XYZ and expect something to happen. And we talk about enforcement. We may not have authority to enforce certain things but we certainly have the authority to advocate, and maybe that should be clearly written in there that. If we can't do something, we can advocate on your behalf. And I think when we write this ordinance, if we think in terms of this and we're very clear about what we can do, more people will, at least from the outset, will kind of understand what is expected of their involvement with the HRC. So I just wanted to put those two cents in there. I mean, there can be other things that we can do other than enforcement and have positive outcomes, at least for those coming before us.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's helpful to hear Chief Buckley.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: And I think that, you know, again, in this, you know, light research that I've already done, it just seems to be standard operating procedure for the Human Rights Commissions across a number of these towns to be available to residents for, you know, in the context of human rights grievances, so.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Diane, are those rules also volunteer-based?
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: Are those roles also volunteer? The majority of them were so I'm in the middle of putting together a spreadsheet. Thank you. I'll continue to I'll have it further fleshed out for our next meeting and then and I'll share it with you Kelly and then we can present on it.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Sure. I just I also hear Rob's point that this is also potentially a platform to really overhaul what you know, Commissioner can or should or might or would mean.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Um, so I suppose coming out of all this, certainly we've had an inspired conversation here. It sounds to me as though there's at least some consensus that either the way that we operate or the ordinance itself needs to be overhauled. Personally, my thought is that looping in at this stage, council makes the most sense. I think that whether it be lay people trying to craft civil code or trying to interpret civil code, it is not often a recipe for success. So The question then is given the situation, as I understand it, with the city solicitor in Medford, that there is not one at current, or if that's changed, you know, all the better. But I'm curious to know from the group, what we think is the best next step given that situation, if there's an organization, I think I've heard of before, that's a retainer with the city, if their services are appropriate here, if it makes the most sense, However unfortunate it might be to wait for someone to fill that seat to endeavor after substantial changes here and to focus on the things that we can change in the meantime. But all of this being aimed towards eventually, I think, making some motion for some action so that we continue forward. I think those are kind of the options as I see them at this point and that's meant to be. an opening for conversation rather than a declarative statement.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thanks, Rob.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Okay, so I myself personally, I don't want to get hung up on waiting for a solicitor. And I think the role of the solicitor would only enter at the very end. when and if a new ordinance is written, then the solicitor has to say, yeah, this is legal, this is not legal, blah, blah, blah. Okay, so I think we do what we can. We study the ordinance. We decide, do we want to make some changes? Do we want to make certain recommendations? And then go forward with that. That's at least my two cents on this process.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thanks, Muneer. Judy, you have your hand raised.
[MCM00001270_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah. I'm going to send you my edit from last October. I just want to let you know that the underlying document, the underlying Word document may look different from the ordinance that you folks were looking at. Because at one point, Neil accepted a lot of edits that I had made of the document. So it is possible that this is actually a later version with some additional edits from last October. Is that clear? I mean, the original one was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. And at one point, somehow we got hold of a PDF and I converted it to Word and Neil did, except quite a few of my changes. So this is that document with some additional comments from me, some of which I just this moment updated. The other thing I want to ask is, you know, is that Safe Medford has a committee that has offered to be of assistance and just want to go back to the Safe Medford Committee with, you know, what this group's position is on that offer of assistance.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Sure. Do you want to speak to that? Or maybe Steve or Munir, do folks want to jump in?
[Munir Jirmanus]: I mean, Steve, were you about to say something? I yield to you. Don't yield that easily next time. OK, so I think this is going to be an ongoing process. We, I mean, I'm sort of on both both committees, I'm both a commissioner and on the Safe Medford Committee. I mean, the Safe Medford Committee basically was looking at the practical things that the HRC was doing or was not doing and decided, well, let's take a look at this and see how we can make the HRC more effective. And as a result of that, they came up with some recommendations. And these recommendations were made to the Human Rights Commission. So it is up to the commission to say, okay, we will look at these recommendations, okay, and totally ignore them. Or we will look at these recommendations and say, hmm, there are certain things that make sense for us to pursue. Uh, and, uh, and then we will do so. So, and I think in a sense, that's what we're doing right now. Uh, so, so, so, so that that's, that's, that's my, so, so, so I guess we as a commission have to decide on how to proceed, how to go forward. Do we want to spend a lot of time studying the ordinance, changing, tweaking, tweaking it, making it better? Or do we want to say, well, this is all good and dandy, but we also have some other work as a commission that we wanna do in this coming year and the next year and so on, and possibly unload some of the work on someone else. So this is, I think, and to my mind, this is what decision that we're faced with.
[Steve Schnapp]: The only thing I would add to that is if in fact commission decided to go with a ladder suggestion to unload that piece of work, that again, it would be only a recommendation and the final authority is the commission. Accept it totally, accept a few pieces, reject it totally. That would entirely be up to the commission.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thanks, Steve. Judy, were you going to jump in?
[SPEAKER_08]: No, I was not. I was going to mute myself.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: Well, I, I kind of think that it's, you know, I think Rob did an outstanding job and I think we definitely have opportunities to, um, to look at revising parts of the ordinance. And I, and I kind of feel like didn't Francis share, like in the absence of a solicitor, she had named like a place where she could probably get some resources for us. So I. You know, I think it'd be great to spend some time on revising the ordinance as a commission, you know, and also getting some legal support from the city, which perhaps is available between now and when the solicitor is hired. We'd love to see us as a commission create a calendar for the rest of the year since already April. We're already, you know, finished with the first quarter of the year. I mean, maybe next meeting, we can spend some time on that. And if anyone wants, you know, and I'm happy to even try to start putting something together for us to react to next meeting.
[MCM00001270_SPEAKER_03]: Thank you, Diane.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Gigi, you have your hand raised?
[MCM00001270_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, the St. Medford committee may have access to some pro bono legal support, and also definitely has access to the city council, to a number of city council members. One of whom has already expressed interest in a revised ordinance. So just so you know.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: And I noticed on Francis's agenda, you know, the city charter commission review, is that also, you know, is commission work part of that review as well?
[Munir Jirmanus]: I don't think it is. No, that's a separate process. Yeah, yeah.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: So maybe then at this point, it makes sense to move for a motion to spend time during our next meeting to establish a calendar of events that the commission can follow for the remainder of 2023 and going forward to at least begin to organize our thoughts and efforts. I am happy to make that motion here and now, which is what I'm doing. That's the motion.
[Munir Jirmanus]: I'm happy to second that.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Love it. Thank you, Rob.
[Steve Schnapp]: Sounds great. Just hold on a second. Could you restate the motion for the minutes? The notes?
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Be a bit more concise for you, Steve. A motion to spend time during our next meeting building a calendar of events. for the remainder of 2023 and to be used going forward.
[Steve Schnapp]: Thank you.
[Chelli Keshavan]: That's great. Great. So we have 15-ish minutes.
[Steve Schnapp]: You need to take a vote.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Oh, vote? Didn't we vote?
[Steve Schnapp]: We have a motion. Not really.
[Kelly Cunha]: OK, sec. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right.
[Chelli Keshavan]: There we go. Thank you. Um, do folks have announcements slash new business comments? Go for it.
[Munir Jirmanus]: No, no, no. I, I, I was, I didn't know that you were going to seeking a new business. I, I wanted the, the, the document that Francis send us where It's a communication from the Mass Human Rights Commission group asking us if we are interested in endorsing that specific document. I don't know if people have had a chance to read it.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Do you wanna share a quick synopsis?
[Munir Jirmanus]: Yeah, hold on a moment, please. Okay, so essentially, oops. Okay, so this is basically, uh, asking for endorsement for the Massachusetts indigenous legislative agenda. And the four items I think are that are in there are an act prohibiting the use of Native American mascots by public schools of the Commonwealth. I'm not gonna go through the rest of the verbiage. The second one is an act establishing an Indigenous People's Day. The third one is an act relative to celebrating and teaching Native American culture and history. And then an act providing for the creation of a permanent commission relative to the education of American Indian and Alaska Native residents of the Commonwealth. And I'm sorry, there's actually one more. an act to protect Native American heritage. So I don't know if folks had a chance to go through this document and whether they're ready to discuss it or decide whether we want to include the endorsement of the Metro Human Rights Commission of these five issues.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: I'm on board with endorsing it.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Kelly Cunha]: It's an Indigenous-led organization, so I'm going to follow their lead, and I would be happy to endorse it.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: I think just two quick points to raise that are in the doc itself. Indigenous Peoples' Day would supplant Columbus Day, so I think that's something, given the history of Medford, it's worth at least saying out loud here. And the other item was that there are 25 public high schools currently in the Commonwealth that use Native American mascots. Putting that out there, that said, I fully endorse the commission to support the act as well.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Okay, so do we wanna take a quick vote on endorsing this? I'll put a motion that the National Human Rights Commission endorse these five resolutions and give me the authority to communicate this to the National Human Rights Commission who are actually meeting in a couple of days.
[Kelly Cunha]: I second that motion. All in favor? Aye.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Aye. All right. Thank you. That's basically it.
[Kelly Cunha]: Thanks, Muneer. Happy to get rid of Columbus Day, just saying I'm as Italian, I'm Italian, but bye. Say bye-bye Columbus.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Bye-bye. Okay, great. Do people have new business announcements, comments?
[Munir Jirmanus]: I have one thing to bring up to see if people are interested in this issue at all. As of, I think, the 11th of next month, I believe that the so-called state of emergency or whatever it is that the federal government has declared for COVID is going to end. Now part of this that may not have been advertised very much is that there has been some pressure and apparently decisions have been made to remove the mask requirements in all medical facilities and in, what's the word, in retirement homes communities. So they are going to remove the mask requirements in these retirement communities. And they're also going to remove the testing of folks who work there. And some people think, including myself, that, you know, a lot of people are going to be affected by this, especially folks who have, you know, specific conditions, older people. And this is a dangerous thing. So the question is, I'm bringing this up here to see if there is interest in this commission to consider this and to take some action opposing this universal removal of mask requirements in all medical facilities. I'm just interested in hearing people's thoughts on this.
[Kelly Cunha]: Sarah Silver, PB – David Ensign – He, Him, His): unpopular opinion, but i'm i wouldn't i wouldn't be in support of that personally i i i yeah that's not something that I would yeah.
[Unidentified]: PB, David Ensign – He, Him, His.: : yeah that's fine.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Okay, there are no other comments and no other interest. I will not pursue this within this commission.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thanks Munir. Guys, I have a much more micro announcement. I have earned myself a spot at Tufts University in the Urban Environmental Planning Department and a full ride. So I'm out. I'm going to school. So yay for Rob's June definition of timelines, because apparently I'll be here for May and June. And I would love to think that this role has a little bit helped Tufts to notice me. So I'm appreciating all of you. So I don't know what that means for organization after June. I know we don't usually meet in August, but I'm finally allowed to say out loud and publicly.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Congratulations.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Congratulations indeed. So Chelly, does this mean that you will still be part of this commission or are you implying that?
[Chelli Keshavan]: No, no, I'm throwing myself into graduate school and I've been matriculated full time.
[Munir Jirmanus]: OK, great. So so so the thing is that now this brings up the issue. I mean, I don't know what Frances's involvement is going to be. I mean, she has not attended the last three meetings, I guess. And I don't know whether the search or the effort to find new commissioners, I don't know where that is going. I mean, should we be expressing some concern about that or should we be taking an initiative to ourselves try and recruit new members.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Yeah, so just like a quick side note. So there are a bunch of dates listed on the agenda, Interfaith Iftar, Couple Flag Raisings, Haitian Month. But I know that last time, I think when we connected, we had wondered what it might look like for us to be wearing a button or a t-shirt that says, ask me about the HRC. And I might add West Medford Open Studios and Circle in the Square. the list shared is certainly not exhaustive. So I just, I would love to see us make use of spring and spring energy and folks feeling reconnected after winter for the first time. And it might be a place where we could pull, if we could pull two or three folks out of 10 events, that'd be awesome. So, and I imagine that we're all pretty involved people and we might be moving in those spaces anyways. Yeah.
[Kelly Cunha]: And are they still doing pride? We did last, I spoke at pride for the flag raising ceremony in That might be an opportunity to also ask for people. Totally.
[Chelli Keshavan]: But yes, I hear you. Just all that to say, I hear you. We're in need of numbers.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: I love the idea of us trying to help recruit new members. I think it's great.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Yeah. I mean, as long as I've been part of this, we've been online. So it was really, it was like a special moment to just see folks in person at the Royal House. And so I wonder if it might mean something to be, to have the opportunity to introduce ourselves in person and talk a little bit about what we're hoping to become one-on-one with people in real time.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Speaking of, did we, has there been any continued communication or was there any interest expressed out of the,
[Chelli Keshavan]: We don't know who would have received that communication. Would that have been you, Diane, or?
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, so I did request copies of the sign-in logs, but not everybody signed in and shared, you know, the number of people who signed in with the city they were representing in their email was on the lighter side, but there were, you know, there are some people from Medford, but also including us who signed the law. But yeah, I didn't, we didn't get any, anyone reaching out about the Human Rights Commission specifically. Thanks. Eileen, go for it.
[Ilene Lerner]: Okay, so the first commission I ever served on was the Women's Commission. in Cambridge. And the way that I was recruited was the commissioners themselves went out in the community looking for activists. And one of the commissioners approached me and said, you're an activist, would you be interested in being on the Women's Commission? And I said, well, I don't know. I don't know anything about it because it had just formed. So I was invited along with other prospective candidates to a meet and greet in the city hall in the room where the commission meets. And they had wine and cheese and crackers. And it was just an opportunity to meet with everybody and hear about the commission and kind of get excited about it. And then as a result of that, a number of us said, yeah, we'll be interested in being on the commission. So then there was a ceremony. where we could bring relatives and we were sworn in publicly and our picture was taken and put in the Cambridge Chronicle, which now we don't have a paper, but you know, I don't know what we would do about that. But I think that was a very attractive process. And what I've experienced in Medford has been, you know, nothing. I mean, for example, when I was on the commission for disabled people, the clerk came up, swore me in. Then I walked into Neil's office and said, Neil, I just got sworn in. And the first thing he said to me was, well, you know, the mayor doesn't want any trouble. That was the process, which was really discouraging. But I am suggesting to you that if we had a more attractive process, we're inviting people to a little meet and greet, and we told what you're about, and you got people excited, and they got some recognition, I think it would be a lot more attractive proposal.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_04]: I love that idea, Eileen. And I wonder if in the same way that Francis was able to get some catering for the Belinda event in February, maybe we get, I don't even know, would it be the public library or where would the room be if we were to do that, you guys? And I mean, we'd have to act on it quick because June is almost here. So we really need to try to get people and get a date sooner rather than later.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, just thinking about the dates and the timing, I think there's also the fact that there does need to be. If I'm remembering correctly, the process that I went through and also what's articulated in the ordinances, Referrals need to be made to the mayor and then they appoint and that can take some time. So yeah, just to your point, Diane, I think that if we do want to have, I think what I'm envisioning now, just very quickly thinking about it is that we would have folks we could recommend by June and then they would be appointed by our next meeting if we are still going to take that flight hiatus in the summer. So that in mind, just to drive over your point, yeah, we would have to act quickly. I do know that there's tons of events coming up around the area. Chief, I think there's one at the station there in the next couple of weeks. That could be a great opportunity as well. And I think, you know, there's nine people on the call here. There's certainly plenty of platforms for amplification of messages, whether that be Facebook or the commission page or Patch sends out some, notifications you need to the neighborhood or next door. I think those are all great places to start. I don't know what the process is for formally getting involved to be at events like the one coming up at the police station, or if it is as simple as wearing something that says, ask me about the HRC and just physically being there. I'm just- Thanks, Travis.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Steve, go for it. Are we okay to stay for three or four additional minutes?
[Steve Schnapp]: Yeah, very quickly, I just wanna support Rob's comment. France is included in the agenda, several events that are coming up in the city that in the past, the HRC has been involved, but those might be great opportunities to do that. They're coming up soon, April 16th, April 29th, and then one in May. and a couple in June as well. And that might be good opportunities, and I love the button idea, but that would require making them and assembling at least a flyer or something that folks could walk away with about what the HRC is. So I think there are plenty of opportunities to do that. It just requires a little preparation.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Just one clarification. Well, we cannot recommend to the mayor. There is a procedure. They have to go to the website and fill in an application and indicate that they are interested in the Human Rights Commission. So that's a minor thing.
[Steve Schnapp]: And I'd like to, I know we're over time, but I'd like to say one last thing. It's a different event that was brought to my attention by someone from the Massachusetts Human Rights Coalition. In the past, Neil would attend and I think Munir has attended the statewide meetings. They hold an annual meeting every year. This year, the But they hadn't done that during COVID. But this year, they'll return. These are held at the State House. And this particular event will be around health equity. with keynote speaker Michael Curry, who's from the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers. They were hoping that someone from, or more than one person from this HRC would join that event on May 19th at the Statehouse, begins at 10 o'clock. It goes most of the day, but they're hoping that people would come for at least part of it. And something I learned from them is that Medford, the Medford HRC was the impetus for creating the statewide Massachusetts Human Rights Coalition. I hadn't known that, but I learned it.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Cool. Chief, close us out.
[Jack Buckley]: I thank you. I think I should make this real quick, but we should all be looking at the surrounding human rights commission, uh, and how their websites and other established, because if we're looking for memberships, I believe one or two of them had like real estate agents should be on the human rights commission. We're dealing with field housing. Um, they have, uh, realtors on there. It just might spur some ideas of what fields of, uh, employment and people that we may want to, uh, invite onto the commission. So it might just, it might bring our, uh, our outlook, but I'm done.
[Chelli Keshavan]: That's awesome.
[Jack Buckley]: Great.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Thank you, Rob. Amazing. Thank you so much for the work that you put into creating your document and presenting and sharing. I really, really appreciate it. I know we all do. And thanks to everybody for staying a little late and all your big energy.
[Unidentified]: Much appreciated.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Yes. It's time to go. Motion to adjourn.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Bye now.
[Chelli Keshavan]: Bye.