[Unidentified]: All right.
[Osborne]: You're on.
[Kelly Cunha]: You did not meet us. So don't worry. Well, I don't know about Rob, but you didn't meet me.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, same here. I was just going to start off by saying the same thing. I unfortunately had to miss last week because I was traveling with work, but my name is Rob Klein. I'm pretty new to the group here. last week or the last meeting was actually only my second meeting as a confirmed member. So I'm happy to jump in and yeah, contribute wherever I can.
[Kelly Cunha]: Thank you, Rob. Very nice to meet you. And yeah, I've been on the commission since about February of 2020, I believe. And I, my day job is I'm a school social worker. And as you can see, a mom.
[Frances Nwajei]: Oh, wonderful. Thank you so much. And I don't recall seeing Eunice's name from the last meeting.
[Eunice Browne]: Hi, I'm just a resident that tunes in somewhat regularly to this meeting and quite a lot of other city meetings just to keep tabs on what's going on. So and welcome to you.
[Frances Nwajei]: I'm on mute. Thank you so much. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Nice to meet you. You as well. Everybody.
[Steve Schnapp]: Yes, Steve, you've got your hand up. Yes, thank you. I was just wondering if Eunice would share her last name for the minutes.
[Eunice Browne]: Sure. Brown, B-R-O-W-N-E. I think I may see you at a meeting in an hour or so.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you, Eunice. Yep.
[Frances Nwajei]: Well, I since everybody else knows each other, and I just want to share that I am speaking for Shelley today as well, who is having a pause your voice. So not that I'm taking over the meeting. If everybody knows each other, and we don't need any further introductions, we can move to the next agenda item, which is approving your past meeting minutes. Go ahead, Munir.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Do we have a copy of the minutes? I'm not sure. I don't recall
[Frances Nwajei]: seeing them i want to say that i believe that mr schnapp had sent them out by email
[Steve Schnapp]: Actually, I send them now to Judy Kaplan, who's the secretary. So I take the rough notes and send them to Judy to polish and to formally save them. So I don't know what happened after I sent them to her.
[Frances Nwajei]: OK, thank you for that. And Eunice asked via the chat, do we have a quorum to do that? Yes, Eunice, there is a quorum. Chief Buckley is here. Well, since we don't everybody did not receive the meeting minutes, what I'll do is I will follow up on that just to make sure they're there in everyone's hands, because it wouldn't be fair for me to pull them up and say, have a quick read. People need time to digest and process the information. But I thought I saw something that with the meeting minutes, so I will follow up on that.
[Steve Schnapp]: And again, Eunice, just to let you know, the minutes of February 9th as well as March 9th need to need approval.
[Eunice Browne]: OK, thank you. Appreciate it.
[Frances Nwajei]: All right, so the next order of business was that We were going to have Jennifer Yanko from Safe Medford come in and do a presentation. But since Safe Medford is not here right now, I would like to engage in the commissioner discussion. about prospective human rights commissioner applicants. So I'm speaking for both Shelly and myself because we had a conversation with her being the chair and me being the receiver of applications as to what the process should be, how can we streamline this to make it as effective as possible and get to a consensus on how we review applicants, welcome prospective applicants and decide on the recommendations to be presented to the mayor. So I know that I put together a whole bunch that came in for Kelly to send out, I mean, for Shelly to send out to you as commissioners. so that you could see. My thought that I shared with Shelly was in my other life, you had to attend at least three meetings. You were invited to attend because that shows your willingness to engage. These meetings are monthly and they are voluntary. So it sort of, that sort of helped, you know, folks think about whether or not this was something that they really wanted to commit to. And it was, you know, gave them, you know, so like to give them a month's notice, like say, thank you for your application. We've reviewed it. We'd like to invite you. But then you as commissioners would observe and, you know, amongst yourself at a different time. you know, you would have conversations and who you felt were the best candidates based on, you know, their demonstrated participation. And then we would make that recommendation or those recommendations to the mayor. just, you know, that's just a suggestion. There was also a question, Muneer, there was a bunch of questions that you had sent me that I answered. And one of those questions I thought would be brilliant, which is I think the first one, what is your experience with human rights commissions? if you wanted to throw that in there. I mean, I don't know, but these were just ideas that Shelly and I had discussed. And so I'm speaking for her because she would be doing this part of the presentation.
[Kelly Cunha]: I think that that's a great idea about having people come to the meetings. I think that helps us, like you said, see who's committed. And also I think what we're looking for, what we've in the past, what we've spoken about is making sure different perspectives are heard. And I think by being at the meetings, you kind of get an idea of what people's different lenses are. So I think that's an awesome idea.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Munir? So I was about to add that, indeed, in the past, when somebody had expressed interest in becoming a member, I believe Neil would invite them to attend one or two meetings again, exactly with the same idea of seeing what the Human Rights Commission is all about, what we do, and to show their interest. So that's great. Yes, that's absolutely a good idea. One question I Is Chelly offline now or is she still, because I don't see her name.
[Frances Nwajei]: She could have dropped offline. So this part of the conversation, she was meant to leave, but I did say that I would be her speaking voice today since she's barely got one. And we had engaged in this together with her being the chair to present to you.
[Munir Jirmanus]: No, the only reason I ask is that in case we want to vote on something, if she's not there, we don't have a quorum.
[Frances Nwajei]: Oh, that's right. That's right. Okay. I'll keep an eye on that. She might pop back in. That's something that would actually affect the meeting minutes, but we can't vote on the meeting minutes because nobody got them. So I'll follow up on that. Well, I mean, it seems as though those of you that are here in agreement that we should take that process. I also feel that it lends more towards transparency. you know, and really your commitment, because you're all committed and you're here for 5.30 on this Wednesday. If you're getting the email a month ahead of time, it is your responsibility. This is how I see it. You applied to one or beyond. It's your responsibility to fix your schedule, you know.
[Osborne]: So go, go, go. I have a comment. An important part about inviting folks to attend meetings who have interest in being a commissioner is to see if they're willing to do some of the work outside of a meeting, even if they aren't selected as a commissioner. It's about building that bench of folks who are doing the work in the community so that when someone rolls off, there's already someone that's a willing participant for over a period of time. It is easy to make that recommendation to the mayor, like, hey, here's someone who spent the last nine months working, and we think there'd be a great voting person on the commission. So it's part of how you build that bench of folks who are committed to doing the work.
[Frances Nwajei]: Certainly agreed, agreed. Commissioners, Shelly wrote a draft invitational letter that she was going to share with the, I would say, invited applicants, for lack of a better word. Have you had a chance to review it yet?
[Munir Jirmanus]: Did she send it out to us? I don't believe I saw it.
[Jack Buckley]: I did not see it, yeah.
[Frances Nwajei]: Okay, so now that you didn't see that, I'm wondering if that's on me, because that was last Friday before the meeting minutes. So what I will do, if you don't mind, is I will share that with you, because this is Frances speaking now, I think you all need to feel comfortable with the language as being what's going out to the prospective people. So I will share that with all of you to make sure that you had it. I thought that had happened behind the scenes.
[Frances Nwajei]: I would love to speak on the Juneteenth update, but unfortunately, it was a conversation that took place between Shelley and Stephen Douglas, and she had just wanted to provide you with an update. So, I guess we're waiting for safe Medford and Medford Bites. Could we jump to old business? There's nothing in that category. Anything, any old business that anybody wants to discuss?
[Munir Jirmanus]: So I have a question about the Safe Medford presentation. My understanding was that Safe Medford, or representative of Safe Medford, had sent a letter proposal to Shelley and to yourself, Francis, proposing some changes in the subcommittee that is operating to, you know, to study the, to get input from various folks about the Human Rights Commission. And I don't know if that letter was shared with anybody else. I mean, I know that what's in the, what the content of that letter, only because I also happen to be a member of Safe Medford, but I thought perhaps that, if that letter were shared with the entire Human Rights Commission, then we could make a decision, perhaps even today, as to how to proceed.
[Frances Nwajei]: So I feel that we're talking about two different things. I am not familiar with that letter, but I am familiar with the conversation from the first HRC meeting that I attended. where it was mentioned briefly. What I was presenting today or speaking about today was Jennifer Yanko was actually going to be present to do a presentation from Safe Method. Shelley is on now. I don't know if Shelley could type in further, you know, information with regards to the letter that you're referencing but I actually don't have that letter. Oh, yeah, what I have from safe method is something completely different. It was a letter to me. Steve has his hand up. Yes.
[Steve Schnapp]: Yes, I want to concur with Munir. I'm also a member of Safe Medford and working on the committee that's trying to support sort of a strategic planning effort that the HRC launched, but because of complications due to the open meeting regulations, we wanted to propose to the HRC sort of a solution or a way forward. I do think that's what Jennifer wanted to present. I don't know for sure, but I actually have the letter in front of me. It's short, it's to Shelley from Jennifer on behalf of Safe Medford. And I can read it quickly. It's not complex, if that would help.
[Frances Nwajei]: Is it, are you able to read and share it at the same time?
[Steve Schnapp]: I can, that would take me a couple of minutes. I'm actually working on two computers. I take notes on one computer. Okay, no problem. Zoom on another.
[Frances Nwajei]: No problem. If you're comfortable, are you comfortable emailing it to me and then I could share it whilst you read it?
[Steve Schnapp]: OK, I'll do that.
[Frances Nwajei]: OK, thank you.
[Steve Schnapp]: It'll just take a couple of minutes.
[Frances Nwajei]: All right. No worries. And then Shelly says, OK, she's concerned as to whether or not Jen did not, that the link for the meeting got lost in her communication with Jen. She shared this in the chat and she's asking Mania or Steve, if you could speak to the general approach that was discussed by Safe Medford. So what I'll do is once I get the letter, I will share it up on the screen and Steve will help us read it and then I'll hand it over to both of you.
[Munir Jirmanus]: I mean, if Steve could start reading it right now, I think maybe that would be helpful. And then you could, when you get it, you can share it with the rest. But I believe I mean, we can speak to the letter because we are a part of the group in St. Medford who sort of agreed on that letter. And that's probably what Jennifer was going to speak to in her presentation. So do you mind if Steve reads it right away?
[Frances Nwajei]: No, not at all. Not at all.
[Munir Jirmanus]: OK.
[Steve Schnapp]: Oh, just give me a second, and I'll have it right up. Okay, here it goes. It was dated March 14 it's to jelly. Do you show them out. I write on behalf of safe Medford an organization dedicated to ensuring the safety of all residents of our city. Given the alignment of our mission with that of the metric Human Rights Commission. and our desire to see a strong and effective HRC, we offer to take on the task of conducting a needs assessment of the HRC in order to determine how it can best move forward to promote and defend human rights in our city. This task entails interviewing past and current members, current HRC members, as well as those who have been closely involved with the commission. In this process, it's critical that people be able to talk freely, sharing the various perspectives on the HRC and knowing that their remarks will be held in confidence as an independent. non-official body, we are able to do this. We can then analyze the data and offer some observations regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the commission and suggestions for how to capitalize on the strengths as you reframe your mission. We've already begun the process of interviewing. We've established questions, drawn up a list of stakeholders to interview and spoken with a number of them. Should you accept our offer, we will continue with this process, then analyze the data, review the Medford's HRC ordinance and the practices and ordinances of other HRCs, and finally make recommendations. We envision completing the process this summer. We're offering to do this pro bono as a service to the city. So sincerely signed by Jennifer on behalf of safety. And I'm now going to email it to you, Francis.
[Frances Nwajei]: Thank you, Steve. Go ahead, Muneer.
[Munir Jirmanus]: OK, so so so as as as Kelly suggested, now, Kelly, and you know, in our last meeting, we had a discussion about the subcommittee and and how and whether it is conforming to the open meeting law. And the general feeling of most members, we did not have a quorum, but the general feeling was that, oh, it's nice, it would be preferable for the subcommittee to be actually a subcommittee of the Human Rights Commission and not a subcommittee outside the realm of the Human Rights Commission. Now, having said that, we had other discussions, and as the letter that Steve mentioned, we saw that it's almost, I mean, we were almost required to have open meetings for the subcommittee, regardless of the number of participants from the Human Rights Commission. There were three participants on that subcommittee. but somehow it was difficult reading the open meeting law and interpreting it. But I think eventually we pretty much agreed that it had to, all these subcommittee meetings had to be subject to the open meeting law. And as the letter that Steve just read mentioned, this became a little difficult, shall we say, because sometimes the, interviewers or the interviewees and the interviews may felt like a little uncomfortable speaking freely in an open meeting law, knowing that it'd be just, you know, be all over the place. So after some discussion, we thought it would be advisable if we could have a subcommittee that is not subject to the open meeting law, And that eventually was the primary reason for the letter from Jennifer and the offer from Safe Medford to form the subcommittee themselves. And then anybody from the Human Rights Commission, any member, any commissioner would be welcome to attend because they're not attending a public meeting of the Human Rights Commission. so they could participate and that would resolve that issue. So that was the primary reason behind that letter and the proposal. So the hope was that we could discuss this and then come to an agreement in this Human Rights Commission to disband our subcommittee that we had formed and then take up Safe Medford's offer. So that's the gist of it.
[Unidentified]: Please go ahead, Neil.
[Osborne]: I just threw up my hand, but I'm not a commissioner. So if Kelly wants to go first, I have no problem with that.
[Frances Nwajei]: All right, Kelly, do you want to go first? You could go ahead.
[Kelly Cunha]: Sure. I wasn't here last month, so I apologize for not being a part of that conversation. My thoughts are, I personally, I wanted to be on the subcommittee and couldn't. And I would love the opportunity to be able to participate and and this might this way would allow anybody who wants to participate that's part one. The other part of this is I think that so much of what we need done for the Human Rights Commission. We don't quite right now have the bandwidth to do for lots of reasons. So if we can have someone else take that on and then help us. Basically what I'm trying to say is I think I'm happy to hand this over. if and be a part of it also because I think that we don't I don't think we have the capacity to do it and I mean just even reading this letter it's like they've already done so much. And I think it would be really helpful and I also feel like we as commissioners are, I don't want to say revolving door because we're not necessarily revolving door but we are, we're always ever changing. So having, you know, our opinions in this moment, don't necessarily reflect commissioners for the, you know, next year or the year after that. So having kind of an independent establishment that's going to look at it long term. long after we are gone. I think, I don't know, to me, it sounds like a win-win, but I'm totally open to things I might be missing. Thanks.
[Osborne]: So I guess the comment or suggestion that I want to share is I want... Neil, hold on, please.
[Frances Nwajei]: Hold on. I'm sorry, Rob. You started the trend, Neil. You let the commissioners go first. Rob, go ahead, please.
[Unidentified]: You're on mute.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I'll be quick, Neil. I just want to echo everything that Kelly said. I think it's a great idea. I think it's going to provide great value. The only thing I would add to it is that I think the opportunity to partner in a substantive way with another similarly aligned organization and have a formal outcome derived from it is also something that would benefit both organizations.
[Osborne]: I can follow rules too sometime. That's okay. Thank you. My next suggestion is I want the commission and commissioners to be tight with their language. So when I hear subcommittee, I'm thinking that's a part of you. A nonprofit entity or even a private profit entity could say we're going to do this task and we're going to deliver a report to you. And you could do nothing with it or do something with it, so I just want you to be clear with the language that you will create because you have to decide that this is a route, you want to take but. stay away from the language that says you are farming off a subcommittee task. It's a offer from a separate entity to do something that you may see value to. It may be delivered to you and you see no value to it, which is your right as commissioners to take it in and vote on it or do something with it or do nothing with it.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Neil.
[Frances Nwajei]: And I'll just throw in my piece. And this is where you'll notice the difference of me coming from a different entity to a municipality. Where I came from, subcommittees were actually not subject to open meeting law. They were committees from the greater committee that was taking on a specific task and doing the work and reporting back. So I had to quickly grab the ordinance because I did not recall reading that subcommittees were subject to open meeting laws. And I just wanna make sure that for my own understanding that we are actually using the terminology that means the right thing.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Go ahead, Muneer, please. OK, so let me comment on that. The ordinance for the Human Rights Commission in Medford does not really mention anything about subcommittees. It was how we had been pretty much going under the interpretation of our person who was guiding us, who was Neil. over that period of at least a few years that I've been on the Human Rights Commission. And, and, but after that, I believe that Judy, who is not here today, who was a member of the Human Rights Commission, went into, you know, started searching online for rules of the open meeting law by the state of Massachusetts. And as a result of her findings and then discussions back and forth, it was, I'm not a lawyer, but it sort of became reasonably clear that even a subcommittee that is formed as a group from the Human Rights Commission and outsiders even that depending on the number of people attending would be subject to the open meeting law. So it wasn't, it's not a hundred percent certain, but it was sort of an interpretation.
[Frances Nwajei]: I would like to look at that. I'm so sorry to interrupt you. I would like to look at that because it is, it is duplicative and it actually is a barrier to progress because the subcommittees, right? are people who take on and say, yes, we're going to investigate this further. But you have to bring it back to the full team. Some committees, in my understanding, do not make decisions. It has to always come back to the forum at large. So I'm trying to figure out how the open meeting law would work. If I was a commissioner, and let's say I was on the subcommittee to meet with the schools to pull the schools in on certain tasks. I just don't understand how I would be able to get that meeting scheduled with the superintendent if I've got to always wait that. So, yeah. So maybe it's my, it could be my interpretation. So don't take my word for it.
[Munir Jirmanus]: I can possibly help by sending you I believe I had sent it last month to Neil. I could send you that email which included those various statements that made us suspect whether we were subject as a subcommittee to the open meeting law, but even discusses the quorum of the smaller subcommittee, which might be a smaller quorum. It's, as I say, it's not 100% clear, but I'll gladly send you at least whatever Judy had found out. So, but it looks like, okay, so it looks like it may be premature to make those motions or to, I don't know, unless people want to take up safe methods proposal right now, I don't know how to proceed from here on.
[Frances Nwajei]: Kelly has her hand up, and Chief, I saw your box light up, so I think you had something to say. And Shelly is not here, and I will hush now so that you can get on with your meeting.
[Kelly Cunha]: So I was just going to say, I, regardless of our interpretation of what, I still feel happy and confident to accept this offer from Safe Bedford. And when Shelly comes back and we have a quorum, I'm happy to do a motion for that if people, because for me, it doesn't really matter whatever our interpretation, I still think that handing it off is probably the best for us. That's my thought. So I'm happy to hear any other opinions.
[Steve Schnapp]: Go on, Steve. Yeah, just to be clear, Safe Medford is absolutely clear. We're not making any decisions. No matter what happens, whether we take on this task or continue this task, this committee, which welcomes anyone to participate, we all recognize and completely support the notion that whatever recommendations we make, whatever data we gather, the decision on how to use that information rests with the HRC.
[Frances Nwajei]: Go ahead, Chief.
[Jack Buckley]: That's how I figured out how to raise my hand, just do it physically. So, I mean, we've talked for a while now, a number of weeks, that we do have to find our way as a Human Rights Commission. We have to do something to sort of figure out what our role is and what direction we want to move. So I think that we're all clear of. I have a concern still with the open meeting law. If Safe Medford conducts a meeting or holds, you know, just has a gathering and four commissioners show up to discuss the Human Rights Commission, potentially in violation of the open meeting law. Even though it's not our meeting, we have four commissions, or five commissions. I don't know that, I think Neil tried to address this, or did address this, at least to some degree, that I don't know if we're just sliding the responsibility of who's doing the job, but if the commissioners still show up and participate, we're teetering on that violation of the open meeting law. And so I know there must be someone we can legally talk to right I mean isn't this someone who could give us expert advice on this on where what the fine line is because we're stuck in a rut here, and we have to move forward.
[Frances Nwajei]: That's why I made mention of how are you using the term subcommittee. because a subcommittee where five commissioners show up, to me, that's not a subcommittee. That is using a loophole in the system to get something passed. That's how I would, you know.
[Jack Buckley]: And I think even if we just say, okay, hey, we're not gonna call it a subcommittee, but if we still meet, I'm not even sure we can legally, as a matter of fact, I should know this, we can't legally even email each other and discuss a topic, right? Five commissioners. So it's sort of a fine line that I think we should be very careful of, thinking that this is going to solve our problems, that we can all go discuss things at one time. I don't think it's going to work that way. It might still restrict the commissioner's abilities to attend.
[Osborne]: And Chief, I think that's an important point. So making the assumption that you like the proposal from Safe Medford, Four commissioners shouldn't be showing up at those meetings to deliberate. What would be done, it's an additional safeguard that you should be watching out for that that doesn't become an issue. And according to the ordinance, the city solicitor is your legal counsel.
[Frances Nwajei]: Well, I very well might have to consult on all of our behalves, because I get that we all want to do the right thing. And we also recognize the opportunity for another entity to assist us. But as with a lot of these regulations, they're written so vaguely that you don't know you've done something wrong until you've fallen down the rabbit hole.
[Munir Jirmanus]: So a very minor point. The charter says that we need five members of the Human Rights Commission to form a quorum. So if four members participate in the meetings, that's still not, I believe, a violation of the open meeting law. But if five members do it, then it could be. my non-professional opinion.
[Frances Nwajei]: And I will make the statement by starting off saying I am not requesting any gifts from you, but it is one of those things where if you give me a gift card or if you give me a gift of $49, it's not a problem. If you give me a gift of $49.01, I am in violation, you know? So I think we have to just iron out these nuances. I feel that we all want to do the right thing. It's that language issue, you know? The way these things are written, they're never clear. All right, well, Medford Bites, Danielle. but Loka was supposed to come on. So we can continue to converse until Danielle comes on. Well, maybe somebody can sing since we're recording. Everyone is silent. All right. So I will consult with Kim And I will simply ask for simpler, more direct language that I can share with everyone. I don't want to be the interpreter of the information. I want to know. We've got a question about subcommittees and open meeting room. Condense it for us into a manner that we can interpret easily so that I can send it out, I can forward it out, period. I don't want to be the interpreter.
[Kelly Cunha]: I guess I also, I'm curious to, I apologize if you wanted music, we've got music in my house. I don't know if you can hear the background here. It's all good. We got an eight month old screaming in a four year old playing over there. Sorry. Are they doing it in rhythm? They they're doing something. Um, so my question is in terms of like outsourcing it, I I'm, I'm looking at it more of like, they're going to get it done. Um, I love us we're great, but we don't always get a lot done because we're all busy, we meet once a month. And I think that's part of the reason we want this needs assessment right is we want to know how can we get better what can we do. I guess the other stuff aside the language and figuring out how many people can be in any safe one safe Medford meeting or not whatever whatever. I still think we should let them do needs is I mean couldn't they technically just do it on their own anyways couldn't safe Medford say hey we want to just do a needs assessment so we're going to do one. help. We're gonna then we'll send our information to the Human Rights Commission, let them know what we found out. So if I'm I might be misinterpreting that, but my thought is like, couldn't they just do it anyways? And even better if we give them the here you go.
[Frances Nwajei]: Thank you, Kelly, Steve, you had your I saw your hand button go up. I don't know if it's in response to Kelly. Either way, please go ahead.
[Steve Schnapp]: It absolutely is. We are doing Kelly's right. We're we're doing the work. We're conducting the interviews. There's a spreadsheet where we summarize what we've heard. I'll make sure to include that in the notes so that the commissioners have access to that. And we're just going to move forward. So I don't want to say it's a fait accompli, but we're doing the work.
[Frances Nwajei]: So this question is for all of you to hear, but I'm going to, I was, oh Neil, you switched your location on my screen suddenly. So I'm going to have this conversation directly with Neil as I would if we were in person together. To me, it sounds like there is a community organization that is doing this under the umbrella of their work. They would do it regardless of whether or not there was an HRC. So I'm seeing this as two different things. The organization is already doing it. And they're going to do it regardless. So the organization is not the subcommittee. Or is it? This is where I need the clarification.
[Osborne]: So if I was to provide an interpretation, and I'm not the legal counsel, Safe Method absolutely has the right to go ahead and do the needs assessment. It's up to the commission to decide what it will do once they receive the report. Great.
[Munir Jirmanus]: So the only other question is that we agreed to form, we voted to form a subcommittee of the Human Rights Commission. My recommendation at this point would be to disband that subcommittee, okay? And then let Safe Medford do whatever they wanna do. So that all I'm saying is that the subcommittee that we formed we may have violated the open meeting law already. So I'm saying it's, it's probably not a bad idea to officially disband that subcommittee and then proceed with whatever way you see fit.
[Frances Nwajei]: Okay. And I just want to understand the subcommittee was formed because HRC recognized that it wanted something like this done. And that is the link and the connection. to safe method, I see. So using the term subcommittee is what created the, all right.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Right, right, right, right, right, right. So again, Shelley is not here, so I cannot say, make a formal motion, but if she does appear, I will be glad to make a formal motion to disband the subcommittee of the Human Rights Commission.
[Frances Nwajei]: And I will still, and if that happens, I will still move forward and find out from council if Council can provide, you know, language that we can actually all interpret and take in so that, you know, you have that and we have that for the future when we do want to form subcommittees. That was all. I was going down that rabbit hole that I told you about. regulations were floating through my mind and I was trying to bat them away because they didn't make sense. Okay.
[Munir Jirmanus]: I was tempted to say very good Alice, sorry. You were tempted to say what? Very good Alice.
[Frances Nwajei]: All right. So I will throw it out to you commissioners as as me Francis now what typically occurs in a situation like this, where you have moved ahead with the items on your agenda. And you still have leftover time.
[Munir Jirmanus]: So I would like to discuss something else. I will bring just the following thought to the Human Rights Commission. I believe that the environment is something that is of concern to the Human Rights Commission and that we owe it to our children and grandchildren to support policies that support our environment and do not lead us into catastrophe in the future. So with that in mind, I had the thought that perhaps we could make a statement to the city of Medford to be specific to actually act on what I had in mind was the purchase of cars for the city, whether it would be for city officials or for the police department with the chief being here. I don't know if he's busy or not listening, but so I would want to have them think or to recommend the purchase of cars that are better for our environment, like hybrid vehicles instead of regular gas guzzling cars. So I don't know how other people think about this, but this is to me a concern that I would like to raise to the Human Rights Commission and see what they think.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Munia. Rob, I see your hand up. Can't hear you, Rob. You're muted.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Gets me every time. As we wade into topics relating to the environment, I simply want to offer that I've recently changed jobs and I now work for a company that sells software that is related to climate intelligence. So not pertinent here to the purchase of vehicles, But maybe a situation in the future where I would need to recuse myself or step back if any types of those recommendations or discussions came to pass. But again, what we do has nothing to do with internal combustion engines versus electric vehicles. So I feel comfortable to simply offer my support for the idea as well. I think that that's a good standard to set that any future purchases should be made with the idea of climate resiliency in mind. And maybe even we go a step further and offer that any new budgetary line items need to consider the environmental ramifications of any future purchases that are made.
[Unidentified]: Thank you for that, Rob.
[Jack Buckley]: So, just to put it in perspective at least for the police department and I believe the whole city total. We are looking we have been looking to move away from just the regular gas engine, so to say, we were doing some looking to, like, There's some conversation over an electric vehicle, an all electric vehicle, but it just would not fit a police department because we run each vehicle 24 hours a day. So there's no time to stop the vehicle and charge it and run it. Most police departments have been moving toward a hybrid version of a vehicle. And that is something that we are looking for. That all being said, we can't even find police cars, right? There's no vehicles out there. It's sort of a, you know, that's a side note to either the state of the economy or the state of who things are. So we hope to purchase vehicles and we hope to look at this in entirety. And I'm only speaking for the police department here. I don't have any knowledge of the rest of the city, but at a minimum, we're looking at hybrid vehicles and trying to get them out. Of course, you know, we know that it's, more expensive to buy the vehicles, but it saves in the long run and saves with the gas. So that is something that is constantly being debated and has been debated for a while. So that's just one perspective from the police department.
[Frances Nwajei]: Thank you, Chief. The only other thing I can contribute is that I know the parking department has some electric vehicles. but I can't tell you about their future plans or things of that nature. I'm not versing that conversation. Munir, Earth Day is next week. I'm all turned around with my calendar. Earth Day is next week. When you said put out a statement, were you talking in regards to that or you were just talking in general?
[Munir Jirmanus]: No, I was talking in general, actually. I didn't have Earth Day specifically in mind.
[Frances Nwajei]: um I just noticed that there was a message in the chat and it was actually from Shelly.
[Unidentified]: In regards to Juneteenth.
[Osborne]: Francis, FYI, while participants can read it, if someone's watching the video, they will be able to.
[Frances Nwajei]: Okay, hold on one second. Let me, I'm gonna go on mute for a minute, because I chat with myself when I'm doing little things. Let me turn it into a Word document. If they're watching the video and I screen share, they'll be able to see that Word document, correct? Okay, all right, give me a minute.
[Kelly Cunha]: This is another reason why I would love to have needs assessment because I feel like there's so many different opportunities for us as a commission you know there's Earth Day there's Juneteenth there's you know, World Human Rights Day there's, you know, the MLK so we have so many things and I feel like we human rights just touches upon everything so it feels almost like there's so much what you know and I feel like we need to decide where we're going to focus our attention because unfortunately we don't have unlimited time and resources, and like, you know, for example, Juneteenth, like, I'd love to support this, how can we support this. I'm not sure what our... Anyways, all of this goes back to the high need for needs assessment and for us to focus on our vision and what we wanna do and what we see ourselves doing and going behind. Are we supporting WMCC and other organizations like Safe Medford? Are we focusing on our own stuff? I'd love to put out something for Juneteenth from us as commissioners, even just like an info sheet or something, but it just feels like we don't quite have the full vision yet.
[Unidentified]: Thank you for that, Kelly.
[Frances Nwajei]: So does anybody want to read this?
[Unidentified]: Nope, everybody's got it. Stop chuckling you. They know me I'm a chocolate. All right.
[Munir Jirmanus]: So is this just for information or are we, are we, is there any suggestion that we do anything with this?
[Frances Nwajei]: This was, that was strictly information because it was on the agenda and Shelly was to have provided the update where you would have had an opportunity to ask questions. So I asked that it be sent because I can't present it on your behalf. I was not a part of the conversation. So I asked that it be sent and it came through the chat, which is why I shared it so that you would you would be aware, because it was on the agenda. Steve, what I did was I added that I just sort of, I wouldn't lose it. I copied and pasted that chat onto the end of the agenda. Do you want me to copy and paste it into an email for you for your meeting minutes? Or are you all set?
[Unidentified]: No. Okay. I'm all set. Thank you.
[Steve Schnapp]: I do have a question. I'm just wondering if Shelly is wanting the HRC to support or co sponsor or in some way, join the effort that West Medford Community Center is doing and in terms of Juneteenth. Is that the Am I reading this correctly?
[Frances Nwajei]: I'm not in a position to know either way. I mean, it says Juneteenth update. So when I see update that says to me somewhere along the line, some conversation must have been had. And I think she was coming back to the group with. An update, I we can always. put it back on the agenda for the next meeting, where there'll be an opportunity to ask, you know, questions directly. I would not, I would not want to say either way. I'm already down the rabbit hole.
[Osborne]: So in the past, the West Method Community Center has asked City Hall to participate in the raising of the flag at City Hall. And Mayor Longo Kerr has graciously accepted that. I don't know if they would be willing to do that again, but I think the City Hall might be receptive to that being included in that sort of way, that there is a recognition from City Hall that this is an important cultural holiday for our community.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Given attendance, we're not able to make a motion to have that request made, correct? Yeah.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Well, I guess I'm going to say if Shelly joins us before the end of the meeting, we may have two or three quick motions to pass. But at this point, We're not.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: If we enter into the minutes. Tentative motions, is that something we could effectively rubber stamping the approving of the minutes in the next meeting? Or are we stuck here until the next meeting because we can't motion to end the meeting?
[Frances Nwajei]: I don't know about you, but I have a lovely home to go to, food in the refrigerator to go and eat. I am not staying on Zoom with you until next month. As much as I'm enjoying all of your company and we have great work that we're doing, I'm not doing it. But maybe Rob, you can be our representative and stay on.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Keep the line open.
[Frances Nwajei]: Yeah, I do feel that in this situation. So you're talking about a motion to adjourn the meeting.
[MCM00001269_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, my understanding is that, formally speaking, that's what we need in order to conclude the discussions. Not that I was advocating to adjourn the meeting now, but just saying that if we can't pass a motion to request that City Hall acknowledge the raising of the flag on Juneteenth, can we even technically in fact, you know, motion to end the meeting at any point.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Well, we can do it effectively by just disconnecting from the Zoom meeting.
[Kelly Cunha]: Rob's getting all technical over here.
[Frances Nwajei]: Come on. Yeah. And just so you know, I do believe that City Juneteenth is an important day at City Hall. And I do believe that City Hall has talks about doing something like raising of the flag. In fact, I've been in conversation about logistics because June is also Pride Month as well. and trying to ensure that the visibility and the awareness is there for all the variety of events and commemorative things that have occurred for the month of June. And also ensuring that it doesn't come off as, okay, you go up, okay, now you go down, you're no longer important. Okay, you go up, now you go down, you're no longer important. I would like to, avoid that to the extent possible. But I know for a fact that Juneteenth is recognized by City Hall. Oh, Kelly, you're on mute if you're speaking.
[Kelly Cunha]: Oh, I was just yelling at my four-year-old not to pick up the baby. Sorry.
[Frances Nwajei]: You were yelling?
[Kelly Cunha]: Just calmly telling her, put the baby down.
[Frances Nwajei]: Chief better be lucky. telling you, leave me to my own devices, we'll all go down that rabbit hole. But no, in actuality, I do feel that we should be able to end the meeting by a simple phrase that says, the meeting is hereby postponed to the first five, 10, 15 minutes, however it will take to run the other, run through the motions for the next meeting. We can't be expected to sit here. There has to be something that's, yeah. And my dinner just got here, so.
[Kelly Cunha]: Is that everything on our agenda that we can't really do anything else?
[Frances Nwajei]: That was it, because the two presenters were not here. And the other two things were Juneteenth and the commissioner's discussion. Muneer put forward the motion about disbanding the subcommittees for now, but we can't, you know, can't really do anything about that. Steve, you've got your hand raised.
[Steve Schnapp]: Yes, I think it's, you know, absolutely OK to adjourn this meeting. Anyway, you all see fit. I do think this really speaks to the fact that we you need to recruit more members to the agency. And I know that's not just a simple process. But that should be a priority. But, you know, we shouldn't stay in a meeting where we can't actually do work.
[Osborne]: And if I was to call it, I'd say once the motion for adjourn is on the floor, it can pass by a simple majority who was present at the meeting. How about that?
[Munir Jirmanus]: Motion to adjourn.
[Frances Nwajei]: Seconded. OK. I thank all of you very much. And I will see you next month. It was nice to meet you. Nice to meet you, Kelly and Rob and Eunice. Take care.
[Unidentified]: See you soon.
[Frances Nwajei]: Okay. Bye bye.
[Unidentified]: Bye bye.