total time: 12.66 minutes
total words: 1460
total time: 29.46 minutes
total words: 4207
total time: 7.27 minutes
total words: 1271
total time: 8.97 minutes
total words: 1319
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mic one two, check mic one two.
[Leming]: Check this. So I don't have to call for. All right. Kevin, we ready? All right, let's start. There will be a meeting of the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. The first item that we're going to discuss is a resolution to discuss modernization of the Human Rights Commission. And With that, I will hand it off to Councilor Tseng, who has a presentation on this topic. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Yeah, sorry. The mic is not powered on.
[Leming]: It's not? There's a little button on. Councilor Tseng's mic is not powered on. There's a little button. I only know this because I turned them all off last night, so I know where the power button is sort of hidden. And to think we just, we just approved the funding for Medford Community Media. Very recently and I don't know if you like. Okay. Okay, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Tseng]: Um, so, um, The HRC update ordinance, just to reorient everyone, this is meant to expand and empower the Human Rights Commission in Medford to do more work as an advisory body in our city. I think we see the need for it so much with what's going on in the world around us. and especially in the pressure that municipal and state governments are facing to disinvest from diversity, from equity and inclusive initiatives. And so, you know, having a resident-led body like this, I think, is something that is paramount. Now, what I've done over the last month is I've talked with the mayor about some recommendations or feedback that she had for this ordinance draft. And then I also liaised with community members who have been former HRC members and community leaders who have been working on this draft with me together. So in an email, I had a clerk heard a piece forward earlier today. I attached the document which has the mayor's feedback. And I think what my goal would be for this meeting is to walk through the feedback. Point by point, I highlighted everything that would be a change. And then I think we should just talk about it as a committee and then either vote to accept or not make a change. So, pulling up that document, the first question that came up was the size of the Human Rights Commission, the proposed size. So the original draft of the ordinance said a minimum of nine and up to 15. And the mayor's kind of feedback here was that she thought that it would be hard to keep track of variable numbers. And so she would want us to adopt a solid, a clear number here. And her recommendation was nine. She felt that nine was plenty and a lot of, would be a lot of people. A lot of the community members I've been talking to are a little concerned that nine is a lower number. then, you know, especially when the HRC has so many different topics and realms to cover. And so they would prefer to see a larger number in terms of just to get more life experience. And so The question is what number do we go with? There's one path that is keeping the kind of multiples of three because we have mayor, council and HRC appointments. Right now it's like spread a third, a third, a third. So I think we should discuss if we think nine is appropriate number, 12, 15. The drawback behind 12 is that it's an even number, but I think some community members have also said that in that case, if it's a 6-6 vote, then naturally the resolution shouldn't pass and that such votes would be pretty rare. The kind of drawback with 15 is that I think there is more consensus that it feels like a very large number. And so that's kind of the back and forth with it. There's been some kind of suggestions, maybe we don't split appointments a third, a third, a third, maybe do three from the council, three from the mayor, and then four from the HRC's kind of like appointment list. So appointing from other city commissions and like nonprofit groups. But I wanted to open the floor to councillors to see what people thought.
[Leming]: Councilor Calhan, turning on your mic.
[Callahan]: Thank you. I just have a super quick question, which is, do I recall you saying correctly that you said before that there was some concern about being able to fill 15? Can you just talk a little bit about the balance and what people on the commission have said in an administration about filling 15 spots?
[Tseng]: I think there's a diversity of views, to be honest about this. I've heard community members say that Some members think that we really could fill 15. Some are a little bit more skeptical. The administration's kind of views that 15 would be hard to fill, but nine wouldn't. They think that we could get to nine, maybe 12, but they're a little hesitant to say that we would be able to fill 15. And yeah.
[Leming]: So I feel like giving my personal thoughts, 10 still runs into the even number issue. Is there any possibility of doing a 443 setup with four city council, four mayor, three from the appointment list?
[Tseng]: I think my personal reaction to that would be that I think there might be some pushback from community members that we would give kind of the appointment list, like a smaller slot because like there's so much to possibly a point from, for example, like the Medford Housing Authority and the why and just like the different commissions that we have, like Council on Aging, Disabilities and stuff like that. I think there's such a list out there of potential voices to be included. 335 then maybe? Honestly, I'm open to possibilities and we should hear from the public if there are members who have thoughts about it too.
[Leming]: Do we have any members of the public Council is our answer. Oh, yeah, sorry. I was saying, Councils are.
[Lazzaro]: I'm just looking at other neighboring cities, human rights commissions. Somerville has seven members. Cambridge, I can't find how many members on their website. Not everybody has them, right. What I like about nine is that it's the three through three is kind of nice and evenly split. It's not an even number already. Um, so I guess I'm not, uh, I don't have a concrete opinion, which makes me not want to argue one way or another. So that feels difficult. I would agree if we have strongly held opinions from the public, I would be curious to hear them. Um, but thank you for bringing this up.
[Tseng]: Oh, Cambridge is 11, by the way.
[Leming]: Do we have any members of the public who'd like to speak about this? I see one member of the public on Zoom and one in the chambers in person. How do we put this? Name and address for the record.
[Jennifer Yanko]: Jennifer Yaiko, 16 Monument Street. I would urge the committee to think about a number higher than nine. And it seems that there are lots of possibilities, but I think we want to have, I think it's important to have members from different groups in the community, like Councilor Tseng was just saying, the Medford Housing, the Elder Council, the various disability. I mean, there are various groups that could, feed into the HRC. So, I mean, there's 335 which gives you 11, 445 which gives you 13. I mean, I think there there are various possibilities that bump it up a bit. I think nine is sort of small because there's potentially a lot of work for a human rights council at this moment in time. So I would argue for like three, three, five, which doesn't bring it up that much higher. than what the mayor has proposed. But it does give a bigger chunk to the community. Thank you.
[Leming]: Thank you. Seeing Barry Ingber on Zoom, I'm gonna ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Barry Ingber]: Barry Ingber, 9 Draper Street. Sorry, I can't be there in person this evening. That was my plan. Um, I want to encourage I'm sure that Councilors have looked at the work that's been delineated for the HRC and it's a lot. It's 1 of the main reasons that we felt. That there needed to be a larger commission that 9 was not adequate to do the work. And the 2nd reason is the 1 that's been alluded to by Jennifer and and by a Councilor Tseng about. getting the diversity of representation that the HRC needs. In addition to city bodies, we're also thinking about nonprofit and community bodies like the mosque, like the temple, like the West Medford Community Center, organizations that might have a lot to contribute to a human rights commission. In terms of numbers, I want to say, as a member of an official city committee, we have right now 14 members. So and there's no problem with the size. And there's no problem recruiting people. And we don't have stipends, which hopefully will make recruiting easier for the HRC. And we don't have any problem with it being an even number because unlike the city council, there are frequent absences, there are frequent openings. Having a body that officially has 12 people or any other even number of people doesn't mean that there's going to be an even number at the table. And as Councilor Tseng pointed out, even if there is an even number, so if there were 12 at the table, so you have a seven to five vote instead of a six to five vote or a seven to six vote. It really doesn't matter. I guess that's all that I have to say. Thank you for the opportunity to chime in.
[Leming]: All right, well, I, I personally could, what? Whoopsie daisy. Sorry about that. I unmuted myself on Zoom while I have the microphone going. So that's a little bit of feedback there. Old habit. I personally, personally could support the 335 model that I'm interested to hear. what my colleagues, what my colleagues thoughts are. Councilor, sorry. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thank you. I have to say I don't I don't really have much of an opinion. I'm happy to go with what other people think is right. I'm happy to go with what folks who have been on the commission feel is right. I think, you know, 335 would be fine 444 would be fine like I don't have much of an opinion so I hope people can offer some stronger opinions in mind.
[Leming]: Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Yeah, I think I'd be open to opting for 335. I think my only concern about it is the idea that an ultimately unlocked body is doing a lot of the appointments. It's still not over half. And I think that could be a question with the mayor's office. I mean, I would be open to it. But I do think it's a logical solution. Like I think if we actually think about it from a policy standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. I think 444 also makes a lot of sense. And if we're very worried about a tie break, we can ask the, we can make it so that the ex-officio member, like the staff liaison or the community city council liaison has a vote to break ties. But it's not necessarily my preferred outcome. I think 12 would be fine. But, um, yeah, I don't know what you think trail living or, I guess.
[Leming]: Okay, I'll Councilor Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Yeah, just from looking at other cities websites, Melrose has six members, Somerville has seven, Cambridge has 11, Arlington has 13, which is surprising, Revere has eight and Malden has nine. So again, I don't, I would never served on the commission, I would defer to people who have as far as like strongly held opinions about, you know, reasons why one's better than another, I don't have a strong opinion about it. So I do, again, like Councilor Callahan, I think it's probably best for us to defer to those folks. Thanks.
[Leming]: Councilor Stein, can you clarify what the appointing bodies for the five would where they would come from. You said various institutions around the city, who would decide what those institutions are? And because we are adding an extra two, so I assume that that decision also need to be made at some point.
[Tseng]: Yeah, so essentially the the groups that essentially reading through the point A under membership. The second half of that is basically saying that the MHRC will appoint a resident from the Medford Housing Authority, and then it should appoint the rest of the members. from or from, from like city commissions, community based organizations, or upon recommendations of those organizations. So essentially, it's, you know, a broad definition, it's meant to capture, for example, when the city council maybe creates another ordinance, like establishing like a gender equity commission, or youth commission or something like that. Allowing flexibility there. Well, okay, okay. But it's not a list. It's not it's not a list of these are the organizations that the MHRC has to appoint from. it's saying that these are the types of organizations that they have to like appoint from. Sure.
[Leming]: But would it be the HRC itself who decides what specifically? They would take a vote. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I gotcha. That clarifies it. Thank you. I'm going to recognize Munir Jermanas on Zoom asking you to unmute. Please state your name and address for the record, please.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Hi, Munir Jermanas, 3 Summit Road in Medford. I had served on the HRC for several years, four of which I was chair of the Human Rights Commission. And I do not have, you know, a very strong opinion about the total number of members, except that it would be very good if they're representative of the community. And as far as having an even or an odd number, I don't see any problem with that. I mean, throughout my tenure at the HRC, I have never seen a split vote where, you know, where we could not make a decision based on that vote. But what I feel strongly about are a couple of things. First of all, that there absolutely should be a stipend associated with serving on the HRC because I have seen many cases of folks who were not able to attend the meetings because they had children that they had to take care of. And so at least this would give them the option of having a babysitter or some childcare to help out. And the other thing that I feel strongly about is to try and make the voice of the HRC somewhat independent of the administration. I have seen instances in which the administration has, I hate to use the word, but has co-opted the HRC in meetings where to push a certain agenda. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with the administration having a strong voice, but it also is very critical that the HRC have an independent voice. And as far as somebody had mentioned that possibly that the liaison of the city should have a vote. I think that is not a very good thing to have. The liaison is not really a part of the HRC, should not be dictating the agenda or dictating what can be discussed or what cannot be discussed. So the liaison should be there to facilitate the process of communication of the HRC with various departments and the administration. Thank you. That's all I need to say.
[Leming]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Germanus.
[Tseng]: Councilor Tseng I think, um I think Councilors have articulated maybe wanting to defer to, um, former members that they trust you. So I think 335 is something that we should I would move to adopt. Um I would motion to adopt language to create, um, through 335 model where three members are appointed by the mayor, three are appointed by the city council, and then five are appointed by the city members of the HRC. And then if it becomes an issue with the mayor's administration, we can revisit it in a regular meeting or something.
[Leming]: So we have a motion from Councilor Tseng to adopt language to that motion. I move that we change the composition of the HR C. To three members adopt appointed by the mayor three by the City Council and three by the five by the community for a total of 11. Do I have a second on that motion? Second from Councilor Callahan. By the other members of the interest. Okay, well, you've got it. When you're ready, please call the role.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's Kelly.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's a little. Yes.
[Leming]: Yes. Chair Leming. Yes. Four yeses, one absent. Motion passes. I think we can just do voice votes. OK.
[Callahan]: I feel like it's more important when you do a roll call. What I might say is that they actually can't hear us anyway if you're on Zoom.
[Leming]: Yeah, that is a problem. That is a continuing problem with this new Mike system. In addition to, yeah, is the voice votes.
[Tseng]: I'm going to recognize Councilor Tseng, um, before I quickly move on to the next point of feedback. I something I had talked with community members about we settled on where we are now, but we do create a different standard for the Medford Housing Authority by saying the HRC will appoint a member of the Medford Housing Authority. I just wanted to see if councillors were comfortable with that or if we should just make it a recommended body. Okay, great. Moving on to the next kind of sticking point. This is maybe the biggest sticking point with the mayor's office. The mayor has urged us to not give members of the HRC stipends. The reasoning seems complex. I don't completely understand why to be frank with everyone. I think part of it, at least way back when, when I was talking to Francis, is that people kind of want to wait until the classification compensation study comes out and to kind of find a fairer amount for all boards and commissions, because some are paid, some are not paid. There's a kind of, I think there's a slight worry about that difference there, but the city council's policy, at least up until now, has been to put in stipends as we revise ordinances and to find a fair level given the work that they're doing and what paid commissions are currently paying. And what I find here that this seems, this is reasonable to me. I think there's a secondary concern as well that the mayor did actually raise that about budgeting and about worries that this would create a kind of big budget impact, but I kind of think those worries are a little unfounded, given the size of this commission and how, you know, how much the commission would be budgeted, at least in the first kind of first bit of time. In talking to community members, I've kind of, I think everyone is I think people are pretty unanimously supporting the idea of putting stipends in. I think there's a question of, do we not specify how much and then create like an empty budget line item for the mayor to fill in later? Do we lower this amount to maybe $1,000 instead of 1,250, or do we just keep it the same? I think I personally would rather us just keep it the same. I think lowering it to 1,000 maybe could be an option. I think creating the kind of empty budget item thing is a little bit too unstable. But I wanted to hear from Councilors. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thanks. Before I give my opinion, what is their current budget for the commission?
[Tseng]: So currently the way that the budget for the commission works is it goes through the DEI office. So Francis's salary is essentially, and Francis's office costs is essentially their budget. And this was a little bit of a kind of a sticking point as well, at least when the HRC was trying to do events and had to get approval from the DEI office for every single event. And I think a very concrete example of that was the Royal House invited the HRC to co-sponsor an event, and they were told no. They were rejected, and the DEI office did not give them funds to help co-sponsor the event, which was an event that I believe they had co-sponsored the year previous to that. So I think that's why there's a big push behind creating a budget item and at least stipends for HRC members.
[Callahan]: So, I'm sorry, can I just clarify? So it sounds like they don't have currently, they don't have an actual budget, but they have in the past used the DEI budget with permission.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Callahan]: Okay, thanks. And then I guess I would say as a general rule, happy to hear that the council has been like one commission at a time giving small stipends. I think that and I really love that the speaker brought up the idea of child care. I do think that if we want a true cross section of people to be able to participate in commissions, then I think it's smart to provide a small stipend and also to provide child care. I generally in terms of the budget, like I'm very aware that our budget is our whole entire city budget is minuscule and it's a miracle that we are able to run this city as well as we do on the tiny, tiny per capita budget that we have. However, I also think that we are not going to win that, you know, we're not, we're not helping ourselves when we battle over pennies. And I think what we're talking about here is something that's meaningful as an unbelievably small percentage of the budget. So I would like to leave something in and I'm, I don't really have an opinion between 1000 and 1250. I think 1000 would be fine. you know, maybe that will feel have the mayor feel slightly better if we, you know, put it at 1000. But I do think it's important that we're able to bring in a true cross section of the community. I think this does help. Thanks.
[Leming]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Um, yes, I would definitely be in support of Um, a small stipend. I know a few of our commissions have stipends attached them already. Um, and boards of the Community Development Board has a stipend that meets very frequently. But, um, and it's a really important, um, element of varsity government. But I mean, this would also be a lot of work. It would be very important. It would be critical to the healthy functioning of our city. Um, and it's also, you know, part of making sure that you have. Just like council. I don't need to repeat what Councilor Callahan said. But, um Yeah, I think the stipend portion is important. I think a budget line item is important again by the same token. We shouldn't have to argue about pennies because it is a very large budget, I do think that there is wiggle room here. And I think that we do have capacity in these small amounts to allow this commission to have some of its own authority that's what we're trying to give it. It doesn't make sense to have a cross section of our residents that are truly representative if we're not giving them the authority to do things with that knowledge that they bring, um, into our city government. So I would be in favor of it. Thank you.
[Leming]: Just offer. So 12 50 across 11 people is a total of 13,750 across nine people. It was 11,250. So if it were reduced to 1,000, it would be less than the amount that they would have gotten with nine people. I'm not sure if that sort of penny pinching would help with the conversations with the mayor, but that's just to offer some, just to offer some perspective. There, I agree with everybody that this is a, very small amount of money to be talking about. That being said, do we have any other motions or discussion points? Anybody from the public would like to speak, either come along to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Yeah, we actually do.
[Jennifer Yanko]: Jennifer Yanko, 16 Monument Street. I think, I mean, I certainly agree with Munir that it's really important that the commission have a budget. And for the reasons that he was suggesting, you know, childcare, there's also transportation. I mean, given how much it costs to hire a babysitter, you know, if somebody is going to attend eight meetings a year and they've got to have time to get to the meeting and get home and be at the meeting, you know, that's three hours or so possibly. You know, that stipend could make a big difference. I mean, it could make it possible for them to do it. One other way of thinking about it, but I think this is probably too bureaucratic and too complicated, is that the commission have a budget and the commission then reimburse people for babysitting costs and transportation. I mean, it does add a whole level of sort of clerical work to the commission, which may not be very welcome, but it's just another way of thinking about it.
[Leming]: Barry Ingber, I'll ask you to unmute, name and address for the record, please.
[Barry Ingber]: Barry Ingber, 9 Draper Street. I want to thank everybody for their, all the Councilors for your comments and support. I just want to, just for the record, make the point that this commission, more than most and possibly more than any, Not certainly. Since we want to bring in disenfranchised members of the community, those are the folks who are most in need of a stipend in order to participate. And so I think there's a different standard here than there would be for some other committees. I would also like to make the recommendation that if you go with the lower number of 1,000 that maybe you say 1,000 plus reimbursement for childcare and transportation costs.
[Leming]: Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Oh, hello. I didn't press my button, but that's fine. I will speak away. I think.
[Leming]: Well, it was green, sorry.
[Callahan]: that I must have accidentally pressed it. That's OK. I will speak anyway. I'm always prepared. Always prepared to talk. I'm going to try and move us along, because I know we have other things to cover in this meeting. We have another meeting after this. I'm going to say, let's go with $1,250. Great.
[Leming]: Cool. Well, in that case, no motions.
[Callahan]: Yeah, I think we can make a motion at the end, if that's all right.
[Leming]: Well, I mean, it's already $1,250 in there in the current draft.
[Callahan]: Yeah, let's keep it at $1,250 and move on.
[Leming]: Okay, anything else? Councilor? It says Scarpellion here. Councilor Tseng?
[Tseng]: I'm happy to move on to the next point. So the mayor also requested the ability to remove her own appointees. And so I drafted some language allowing for that. And I think if we choose to do that, it would only make sense for city council to be able to remove their own too. This has kind of become a very big point of discussion. I think the argument for adopting the mayor's amendment is, at least from her side, she just wants to be able to hold her own appointees accountable if they say something wildly off. off-color or do something that is wildly off-base. And she would want the ability to remove her own appointments and essentially use that in the backup in case the rest of HRC is unwilling to vote that person off. The kind of pushback against that is that I worry that this would endanger the political independence of the HRC, because then the question is, what does forecast mean? So how high of a bar is forecast for removal? So if the kind of, if her appointee to the HRC says something about a human rights crisis that is very different from what the mayor's views are, is that then a problem, right? And I think my understanding of for-cause, I think it would depend on the degree of what that statement would be. And I think for the most part, it would be protected, but I can see the worry.
[Leming]: Councilor, did you really press your button this time? Yeah, Councilor Calhan.
[Callahan]: Thank you. Are there other, is this common in commissions?
[Leming]: Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: The clerk might be able to help me refresh my memory on this. I think the mayor usually has power to remove her appointees.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't actually know the answer to that question, Councilor. I know that if there are, the mayor has the authority to remove her own department heads and things like that, but I don't know what it means for poison commissions.
[Callahan]: So if we don't, I'll state my opinion anyway, without that information, I do think that the Human Rights Commission is primarily a, well, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I should look through all of the work that they're going to do, but I think that they really are in a position to speak out And that is one of the primary things that they do is to ensure that the voices of people who are, you know, marginalized or you know, especially in today's world, under the Trump administration, there are a lot of people who are in precarious positions, and to ensure human rights, you know, violations, and to ensure that those people can be heard. And so I'm more reluctant to allow those people, someone with that primary role to be removed. that I am for people in a different role where their role is to protect trees or their role is to approve zoning advances or to do other things where they're sort of have a different role aside from speaking. So I'm leaning against it. That's kind of where I'm sitting right now.
[Lazzaro]: Quick Google says that a mayor does generally have the power to both, if they have appointed somebody, they have the power to remove them for good cause. So with that being, I think we should maybe add the words for good cause and then have an understanding of what that would mean. I don't think it would mean expressing an opinion contrary to the opinion of the mayor. This is not about our current mayor. This would be about, any mayor that we would have in the future. So not to assume anything about, it's like a differing opinion, I don't think would be considered good cause. I think it would be something egregious, would be a good cause. It does say sometimes it would be with approval of the council, maybe with the rest of the commission's approval, but I don't, I think it would be fine if we added for good cause as part of that language is that in there. For cause it just says for cause. I think that is the understanding of that is not a differing opinion. And I know that the way the federal government is operating right now is not really standard. practice in governments. So that's another thing that in my mind, I'm kind of like, we're not really, we're trying to be good. We're trying to do good governance when we're writing these. So I'm thinking about like how, how we would interpret this in the future, how somebody else would interpret it in the future, I think. Maybe we could add the word good. Is that, Justin, what are Councilors saying? Is that like a thing that you would, is that standard legal language?
[Tseng]: Um, I don't think it would be that different from for cause make a difference.
[Tseng]: I think your assessment of the situation is how I kind of remember it as well. Like usually, interestingly enough, huge constitutional question that like, what is very relevant? Um, because it's, you know, or what is cause, but also like, what is removal? Like what is appointment and removal? Cause like, does the power to appoint also include the power to remove? huge constitutional question. Lawyers have been going at it for 150 years. The answer seems to be yes. So, yeah.
[Lazzaro]: I do think that we, yeah, I don't think we can, I think we should allow it in here for the mayor's appointments the same way it applies to City Hall employees, I think it would apply to those appointees to the commission. The same way that the City Council appointees would apply that the City Council would, by a majority vote, probably have permissible authority.
[Tseng]: I can also quickly look at the case law right now. We can move on to the next point and then come back.
[Leming]: So how many other points are there?
[Tseng]: The other ones are smaller. So, for example, the next one, the next changes in officers in point a just clarifying like. when the elections of officers happen, so annually at the start of a new term.
[Leming]: Okay. How about we take this one up because it does seem kind of important, and then you just go through the rest of them. Yeah, let's go through the rest of them. In one block. I could see two folks with their hands up. I'm just going to quickly say that personally, I'm very in favor of adding that, mainly because I think I have a feeling that where the mayor was coming from is the fact that one person on a committee that she appointed put out a death threat against an elected official, and I feel like in those situations, you would want the ability to withdraw a person that you yourself appointed, and I could sympathize with that particularly. That's just how I'm personally viewing that, but it does depend on the definition of good cause. I'm going to very quickly go to Um, Munir Germanis on Zoom. I just ask folks to try to keep their comments as brief as possible because we're trying to, yeah, we're trying to, we have two other items for this meeting. I'm going to ask you to unmute.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Okay, yeah, Muneer Jamaris, I've already identified my address. So very briefly, at least historically, in the past approximately seven or eight years, there never has been a situation where the mayor or anybody else has removed a member of the HRC. Second, I would just want to make a point that to my understanding, when we say appoint, Generally, the approach has been that people who are interested in being members of the HRC would send an application and then, at least in previous ordinances, the mayor would choose some of those folks to be appointed. And the final point is that if there is a good cause, I think the HRC itself can ask for a member to be removed. That's part of the agreement, I think, in this ordinance, referring to other things like missing several meetings or things like that. So to me, I don't think that's necessary, but that's a personal opinion. Thank you.
[Leming]: Barry Ingber. Name and address for the record, please.
[Barry Ingber]: Barry Inger, 9 Draper. When we put together the initial draft for this ordinance, one of the major touchstones, maybe the major touchstone, was the independence of the HRC. That was the key item that we felt needed to be addressed. And I feel that the ability of the mayor to remove appointees inserts politics into ongoing activities and compromises the HRC's independence. Good cause is tainted. For instance, just looking at current events, Right now, speaking up in favor of Palestinian rights is often portrayed as anti-Semitism. Imagine a pressure on whoever a mayor is to remove somebody who has stood up for Palestinian rights and under the guise of removing somebody who's anti-Semitic from the HRC. That's really problematic. I think that we need to avoid that. If a mayor feels that they have made an error and appointed somebody who has done or said something truly egregious, I think that the mayor should be empowered to ask the HRC to remove that person. And the HRC could itself make that decision. The mayor could avoid the embarrassment of somebody who's made death threats against the city councilor by making that request public. I think that that would be perfectly okay, but I think that the HRC's independence needs to be secured. Thank you.
[Leming]: Would you, do you think, what do you think of the amendment of a proposition to change it to the mayor may request the HRC?
[Tseng]: I would be open to that. I did actually think about that before this meeting. I think an alternative path is to say that policy differences or disagreements do not constitute good cause. I mean, I think that would be awesome. It's difficult. I did actually look at the case law. The case law is that a good cause is broad. It's anything that's not arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of the person's duties or discretion. Um, but it also depends on the context of the, um, the context of the, the thing itself. So, um, like it would in this context depend on like hinge on the fact that this is an HRC ordinance. So if, if the kind of argument is, I think the argument is that, you know, like supporting Palestine is supporting human rights, then there's a case there to be had. Um, I, to be quite honest, I think no matter what we do, it will always be gray. I think even if we don't have something like that, I think then the gray area kind of shifts to whether the mayor has the power to remove in the first place. I think it's safer not to make the amendment.
[Leming]: Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thanks. After hearing from folks, I feel I think even more strongly that I don't I'm not in favor of the amendment, so I'm perfectly happy if we say that the City Council may request the agency remove any of their own appointees and the mayor may request that the agency remove any of their appointees, but not that they have the ability to do so.
[Tseng]: Is that a motion?
[Callahan]: Yep.
[Leming]: Okay. I'd second that motion. Okay. The motion from, I actually do feel like, well, we it might be better to take a roll call because I. On this. Okay, well, on the on the motion from remove the their own appointees.
[Callahan]: City Council may request removal of their own appointees. Mayor may request removal of their appointees.
[Leming]: Okay. Um, on the motion from Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. And thank you. For the rest of them, just please go through them in one list, and then hopefully we can vote as a package.
[Tseng]: Okay, so, um, I went through the clerk more clerical thing and a under officers and see under officers, basically just wherever it says assigned to the staff person that Mary suggested adding City Council liaison because right now, she can't find a city staff person to liaise with HRC, the director does not wish to continue the job so this is just to give us more flexibility in case. You know, we do need someone to do it. Maybe one of us from the city council does it in the meantime. Okay, the next thing is under independence resources and council. This is on the third page.
[Callahan]: The red is stuff that we accepted last time.
[Tseng]: And then the blue is new edits. So essentially last time we talked about access to council, the mayor was okay with letting them have some independence with regards to accessing council, but as long as it's done through the liaison. So letting the liaison kind of make that final call. But I think she's okay with that. The next substantive change is in D of that section, basically saying that, so instead of the HRC itself submitting the proposed budget to the mayor, having the liaison do it, just to kind of make it the same as other commissions and other departments, it's more of a procedural thing, and it would still be upon the recommendation of HRC. And then the last, okay, there are two more kind of sticking points. The kind of the second to last one is the mayor feels that the HRC should not be able to speak on behalf of the city when it comes to state or federal legislation or state or federal international matters. she's okay if she thinks it's okay if the HRC sends a resolution for us to pass or for her office to sign. And so she's very happy to do it that way. But she's afraid that an unelected body would be making a policy statement on behalf of the city then that then the mayor and the city council would have to kind of kind of simmer down, she's kind of worried that that would impact relationships on Beacon Hill too. And then the last kind of sticking point, oh, and obviously the kind of pushback against that is whether that kind of limits the powers of the HRC from something, especially from something that they currently have, the power that they have. And the last kind of feedback point is just, The original last sentence read that the HRC would evaluate allegations of discrimination and then refer them to NCAT and the AG's office or other appropriate bodies. think the mayor's fear is that that reads a little too legal, like giving them a role in the legal process of like adjudicating disputes and determining which disputes are valid or not. She's not necessarily against them having a certain power like that, but she just doesn't want to create a very explicitly legal role for them. And so she would prefer the broader language that I have put in that document saying that the HRC can review as discretion discrimination allegations brought to its attention and consult with council to review. Great.
[Leming]: Councilor Calham.
[Callahan]: Thanks. I think I'm in favor of all of them, except I just want to ask a little bit of a clarifying question about the second to last. So they're empowered to advocate for laws, policies and practices that support human rights. I don't quite understand the difference between what they can do now and what she is suggesting. Can you go a little bit more into detail? What can they do now that they can't?
[Tseng]: Well, right now it's a question mark, because technically the HRC, I think it really depends on how you read the HRC ordinance right now. If you read it super strictly, they don't have any, they wouldn't have any of these powers, period. If you read it broader, then they do have quite flexible powers with regards to this.
[Callahan]: But the power is to do what exactly?
[Tseng]: Oh, to basically pass a resolution saying if the state house is debating a housing stability law and saying the HRC maybe would want to pass a resolution saying we support this bill.
[Callahan]: So she's saying that they can't pass their own resolution saying the HRC of Medford supports X, Y, or Z.
[Tseng]: she's worried that they would pass a statement saying the city of Medford supports it.
[Callahan]: Right. Well, I feel completely comfortable with them saying the Human Rights Commission of Medford supports X, Y, Z. But I don't feel comfortable with them saying the city of Medford supports X, Y, Z. They're not elected body. They already have elected bodies to do that. So to me, this is a very clear thing. And I just want to, like, I would be in support of it saying that. But that isn't what I read here.
[Tseng]: That's not what it says here. So what the mayor's draft says is that they can't say anything with regards to state or federal bills or things that are happening on those levels, but they can send us a resolution for us to pass.
[Callahan]: Technically, it does say they shall be empowered to advocate for laws, policies, and practices that support human rights and improve social equity in Medford. But what she is saying is they cannot advocate for laws, policies, practices that support human rights and improve social equity in Massachusetts or the country. Well, I'm sorry. I think to say that the Human Rights Commission cannot come up with their own opinions on human rights outside of our cities is going to rule out probably nine-tenths of everything they want to talk about. In my opinion, if you live in Medford, it doesn't mean you don't have a sister in some other state and a parent in another country or an entire community. And that's what human rights are about. So I definitely feel very uncomfortable if they cannot simply advocate for or put their own opinion and say that the Human Rights Commission itself. They're not saying the city does. They're saying the Human Rights Commission is, and that's what they're there to do. This is what I would like for the Human Rights Commission to be able to do. So that's my opinion.
[Tseng]: I would agree. And I think the best solution is maybe just I honestly this this the idea of submitting resolutions I think is a good idea. I think it should be additive in in addition to what was there before of saying like that broader power. And then the broader power, we can just say that we can create like a stipulation that they speak on behalf of the Medford Human Rights Commission, and not like the city of Medford. But that's Yeah, that's my view on it. Council is our
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. I would agree. I think I mean, I would assume it is a clear distinction to say the Medford Human Rights Commission has written this letter in support of a bill that's being proposed at the statehouse or at the federal level that is a bill in support of human rights in some way or, or is against a bill or whatever. I think it's absolutely fine for them to write that to sign it, the Medford Human Rights Commission, it has no implication beyond that. And that is one of the purposes of the Medford Human Rights Commission. So I think that what it should read as the MHRC shall be empowered to advocate for laws, policies, and practices that support human rights and improve social equity, period. Advocacy should address, I mean, I think you can cut that whole section because they, I mean, the other thing is they, I don't think you even, well, I'm not sure. Genuinely, I'm not sure that you need to say in this document one way or another. what the express allowances and limitations are. But my understanding of a body like this is that you can write a letter in support, just like any individual in a city can write a letter in support of a bill or proposal at a state or federal level in the country you live in. And also that you can advocate for things to be know, there's a lot of work that needs to be done in your city as well, and that the commission has a little bit more authority to do that because they are a specialized group of people with a certain knowledge base. Um so I'm not sure we need to limit their, um Authority there. So I would agree with Councilor Callahan.
[Tseng]: I think then in that case with this section, my strike the words after improve social equity and then maybe insert the words on behalf of the MHRC or in the name of the MHRC. Um, and yeah, okay. The, I did forget one edit. It's like also a kind of, uh, clerical edit, um, under roles, powers, duties under B and then three at the end of B3 about like employment diversity. Um, the mayor just wants us to put in the words based on data that's collected, like data collected just to clarify.
[Leming]: Um, Okay, great. So do we have a motion to accept the edits and pass them to the regular meeting? On the motion of Councilor Callahan. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Now we're gonna move past this. Thank you so much, everybody, for attending, for all your work on this. This will now go to the regular meeting of the Medford City Council. And I apologize to those folks in the room for the seven o'clock meeting, but we still have two very brief agenda items to get to, which we will do in the next five minutes. Just nobody from the public speak and none of my colleagues speak. And as I say that, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: I had one note about the... Are we on the... We're on the newsletter. Yeah. Beautiful newsletter, Chair Leming. But You only mentioned the gender-affirming care portion of the gender-affirming care and reproductive health care ordinance. Don't deep sigh. Nobody needs a deep sigh.
[Leming]: That is entirely my fault, and I apologize.
[Lazzaro]: That's okay.
[Leming]: One moment.
[SPEAKER_04]: That was my only note. Otherwise, so beautiful and perfect.
[Leming]: All right, sorry. I just want to type it in here. Gender-affirming care and gender affirming gender affirming care and reproductive health care. Yes. Ordinance for a first reading. And is that everything? Councilor Calderon?
[Callahan]: Thank you. Um so I would if I were reading this, I would think that Cindy Watson already appeared on 4 29 and she has only been invited on May 5 20. I would just remove the whole section because the meeting is going to happen on 5 20.
[Leming]: That's a very good point.
[Callahan]: All right. Aside from that, it's beautiful.
[Jennifer Yanko]: Thank you.
[Leming]: It saves so much time. It's already formatted. One moment. Um And of course, you can just remove the TBD because boom. And then I'll put the YouTube link in there later. OK. Oh. OK. Do we have any other corrections, edits, thoughts on the newsletter draft?
[Jennifer Yanko]: That's all.
[Leming]: Wonderful, do we have a motion on the floor? On the motion by Councilor Lazzaro to approve. Yeah, approve. Second and keep paper in committee. Second by Councilor Calhoun. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. And the final agenda item we're going to hear from Councilor Tseng on the results of the budget survey that we've seen thus far. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be briefer about this because I did share the results of the survey with everyone on this committee through the clerk. We got 92 responses, which is a good number. It predictably skews a little bit above the median age of the city, a little bit higher income, but neighborhood-wise, it's pretty balanced. And it does skew towards those without children at home, compared to the census data, if I remember correctly. But with those factors in mind, we do hear quite a lot about a lot of core issues. education and streets being schools and streets being the top two issues that we see kind of throughout the whole the survey, but there is quite a lot of helpful information here, a lot of new ideas about how to leverage state laws, a few kind of worries about shortfalls from federal funding, ideas about climate resilience, about safer streets after school, which is I know an issue we all hear quite a lot about. kind of social programs, family supports, green spaces. So I encourage Councilors to just read through this on their own time as well. With regards to longer term needs, there's a lot of talk about longer term plans for infrastructure, roads, and also a new high school. kind of focus on, there's this focus on how like investing in health and human kind of impact things, climate change, accessibility issues, like especially with regards to language services, immigrant services, stuff like that. And of course, afterschool care, again, In the kind of like first page, which is the meat of the results, I think those are the results that are most helpful for Councilors to kind of just digest individually as well, instead of me giving a summary, because I don't want to treat this like a poll. We did hear that residents are there, there are a good number of residents who are reading the city's newsletter, obviously, those who got this survey are definitely going to be very skewed in favor of that. But to see that over 50 people are reading the newsletter is very helpful to know. And I think all in all, when it comes to participation and updates, like ways to give, to kind of do participation, there's, besides social media and the newsletter, there's kind of an even spread. There's a less preference for attending listening sessions or getting robocalls about the budget. But when it comes to like a town hall with the budget, people are interested in doing a specific town hall with regards to the budget. So I guess, in general, when it comes to general updates, people, the listening sessions, robo-call thing doesn't work as much, or at least with the people that did respond. But with regards to getting people to engage in the process and give feedback, they would like those options open to showing up. There's, there's a lot of great questions that people have in the kind of in that very last section there 28 responses for it. There are some suggestions for, you know, future surveys how to format them. I think some folks have suggested an increase-decrease metric. There's some just general feedback with regards to when in the process we do this survey and how people get information. But yeah.
[Leming]: Great. Thank you. When will we be collecting responses? So is there a deadline out there?
[Tseng]: So we did put a deadline on the survey or a soft deadline on the survey of this meeting. saying that we were going to be reviewing responses at this meeting. I think my hope is that we continue to keep this forum open and share this link with councillors to so people can see new responses that come in. We all have the kind of spreadsheet here. I would want this just to protect the privacy of those who did answer would want this to be relatively, you know, under control. But I think if we can do more work to engage folks that aren't very much represented or heard in this survey, that'd be good. So I know Councilor Callaghan has helped blast this across tons of different channels. I think we saw better results with that as well. So I think more outreach when it comes to like renters when it comes to lower income folks, people of color, organizations of color, maybe doing more kind of like bringing printed copies to community centers and libraries, too, would be helpful.
[Leming]: So do we have a motion to keep the survey open and adjourn?
[Tseng]: I don't know if there are any initial reactions from Councilors reading through the reading through this, the results, but Council Lazzaro.
[Lazzaro]: Um, I would motion to keep. Keep it in committee for now and, um. I would like to kind of percolate on it a little bit more. I feel if we could not close the survey if possible just because there are. There will continue to be Does that defeat the purpose of the survey to keep it open now?
[Tseng]: No, I don't think so. I think the survey is really just an open feedback form. So I don't think it defeats the purpose at all. And yeah, I guess I might add, I might suggest we add to the motion that I share access with everyone on the council, because right now I have it with members of this committee, but I know the budget discussions are committed to the whole. So just to get other councillors to have access to this data as well. And then in the meantime, maybe I could try to put together a summary of what we see here in some kind of like representative responses.
[SPEAKER_04]: One other question I had is, was it shared on Facebook groups?
[Tseng]: No, so this was not, well actually I don't, I know I posted to my personal Facebook, but I don't know if it was shared across Facebook groups.
[Lazzaro]: Um, there may be an opportunity to get some different feedback if we went that route or asked, um. Some of our state delegation if they would be willing to share it with their mailing lists. Also, um, just some thoughts that occurred to me. We may have a different More broad range of folks that would be interested in replying. Um that would, I think that would be worth looking at. Just as I was reviewing it, especially the household income brackets were pretty high on this one. So I would be interested in seeing if we could capture some of the more folks if we can, before we kind of like, you know, feel like we're really grasping our full range of constituents.
[Tseng]: Yeah, I think this is kind of difficult to just like sit down here and say, you know what people responded. I think it makes sense for people to percolate on it.
[Leming]: So is that a motion to keep the survey open? Uh, share it with everybody on Council continue to work on distribution and continue to continue to work on distribution.
[Tseng]: And I guess we could give myself the option of preparing a summary for councillors.
[Leming]: And preparing a summary period. To have councillors saying prepare a summary for the council. So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. On a motion to adjourn by Councilor Callahan. seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 12.66 minutes total words: 1460 |
total time: 29.46 minutes total words: 4207 |
total time: 7.27 minutes total words: 1271 |
total time: 8.97 minutes total words: 1319 |