Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-03 ad Hoc - Human Rights Committee Minutes orp Town of Reading RECEIVED Meeting Minutes TOWN CLERK 4l� READING, MA. e�• Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2111 AUG -6 AM 10: 00 Ad Hoc Human Rights Committee Date: 2019-06-03 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Conference Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Andrew Friedmann, Anne Landry, Bob LeLacheur, Sherllla Lestrade, Gina McCormick, John Doherty, Josh Goldlust, Andrew Grimes, Linda Snow Dockser, Kyung Yu Members- Not Present: David Clark, Lisa Egan, Russ Graham, Elaine Webb Others Present: Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew Friedmann Topics of Discussion: Landry chaired the meeting. She opened by reading the ad hoc committee's mission statement. [Insert statement]. Landry explained that the ad hoc will delay approval of the minutes for the 3/25/19 meeting until the next meeting pending a conversation with Town Counsel. Dockser presented an overview of different organizations in area towns and cities that promote diversity and human lights. She described that several towns have a governmental human rights organization and a non-governmental organization. Dockser Included RCASA In her overview because they might develop a structure that the ad hoc might be able to use in Its deliberations. The ad hoc discussed whether or not we should recommend creation of a Human Rights Board that would be part of Town government. Concern was expressed that If the Board was part of town government, the Board's hands could be tied. Lestrade reflected that a non-governmental group would have greater independence and flexibility. Dockser responded that we are moving towards a governmental organization. Friedmann reviewed the ad hoc mission statement and expressed his belief that the intent was to recommend a Human Rights Board that held an official position in town government. Goldlust brought up the concept of Identifying objective(s) for a future Human Rights Group. Landry replied that Identifying these objectives could be part of the ad hoc's work plan and that reviewing the operations of other human rights organization in area towns and cities should help the ad hoc in shaping the objectives. Dockser mentioned there is a complete list of human rights organizations in Massachusetts but that she put together a list of organizations that are nearby and for whom she has contact information. A number of members referred to the future organization as a Human Rights Commission because that Is the term used by most communities. Page I I Dockser proposed a number of questions that the ad hoc might want to ask of these organizations. Lestrade reflected that the ad hoc is not very diverse. The ad hoc discussed this issue. Lestrade noted that the ad hoc Is led by people who are members of the town government. McCormick responded that we could have both a government body and a nongovernmental. Yu described how HRAC had previously recommended a government entity based on the Arlington structure. Lestrade recommended that more diversity is needed on the ad hoc committee, particularly students. LaLacheur responded that the motion language was not restrictive; in other words, we can add more members. Landry said we could go back to the Select Board to ask for additional members. Discussion continued about advantages and disadvantages of having a human rights organization that was governmental or non-governmental. Several members mentioned that the agenda of this meeting was not what they expected based on the last meeting. They expected a discussion of ideas generated by the ad hoc that were written down on post-it notes and presented in the draft minutes for that meeting. There was further discussion for the need to add student diversity to ad hoc and the need to decide on mission of a Human Rights Board. Friedmann mentioned that he and Landry could work on adding student diversity whereas deciding on the mission could be worked on from post it notes or by looking at the mission of other human rights organizations in the area. McCormick noted that RED was currently restructuring. She made it clear that she cannot speak for RED at the ad hoc meetings. She described how RED was created because of previous treatment of HRAC by former Town leaders. Members of HRAC left because they did not want to work under that format. She feels strongly that there needs to be a non- governmental group and a governmental group. LeLacheur described that, after the second swastika was found in the schools, he encouraged the town clergy and others to meet to discuss the issue. He further explained that RED came out about as a result of this meeting. Lestrade explained that HRAC was stopped from doing what they needed to be doing, so they formed a nongovernmental group. Goldlust explained that HRAC was stopped by town leaders from responding to Incidents that fell under their mission. Dockser mentioned that a future Human Rights Board would be supported by different town leader groups so their mission is not affected by election results. LeLacheur explained that after the second swastika he and the Superintendent realized it was an issue and they mobilized, within the context of their jobs, to respond accordingly. Grimes asked if the superintendent and town manager could meet with a group for Input. LaLacheur responded that they could do that with a non-governmental group but would such a meeting would be slower with a government group. McCormick described that HRAC wanted to form a governmental group that would Improve upon the existing cooperation between schools and town. Landry reflected that the mission and operational structure for a future Human Rights Board were tied together. The ad hoc then reviewed questions that Dockser proposed we ask other area human rights organizations. Dockser, Grimes and Lestrade stated that our future Human Right Board should be educational and proactive. LeLacheur gave an example in Burlington of quick multi-denominational reaction to the Pittsburgh shooting. Graham noted that a majority of the Town do not know that HRAC and RED exist or the purpose of each group. Lestrade suggested that we use what other towns use to learn how government groups and non-governmental groups Interact. Several members noted that a future Human Rights Board would take over the mission of HRAC. Friedmann and LeLacheur discussed whether or not the Charter would allow a future Human Rights Board to be established by more than one elected body. LeLacheur noted that Town Counsel briefly reviewed the Issue and felt that multiple elected bodies could not establish a Board. Friedmann read a section of the Charter that discusses creation of Boards and Committees by elected bodies and explained that he felt the language did not restrict creation of a Board or Committee by multiple elected bodies. Page 1 2 Ad hoc members then agreed to research specific human rights organizations before our next meeting. Members will ask the questions proposed by Dockser as well as two additional questions: "What Is their mission?"and "What privacy protections are in place for complaints, including both the accuser and accused". The following members volunteered to research organizations in the following towns and cities. LeWcheur- Wakefield Lestrade - Belmont (governmental group and nongovernmental group) McCormick- Melrose (governmental group and nongovernmental group) Doherty - Arlington Goldlust - Medford Grimes - Winchester Dockser - Somerville Friedmann - Brookline Landry - Newton LeWcheur- RCASA future structure Members also agreed that they would select their top three missions that were presented on the post it notes and transferred to the draft meeting minutes. Landry asked about whether or not the Select Board should ask the Bylaw Committee to look Into language that would allow non-resident participation in a future Human Rights Board. Lestrade recommended having members of the community who are not residents to be able to vote. Graham described that having previous non-residents on Committees resulted in frustration among residents because non-residents were voting on what residents could, or could not, do. Graham and LeWcheur explained that previous attempts at allowing non-residents to be voting members on Boards failed miserably. Several members suggested that such a move might be more palatable if non-resident participation was limited to particular roles on a future Human Rights Board. Landry asked members what method they preferred for scheduling future meetings. There was widespread support for establishing a standing meeting time. The consensus of the ad hoc was to hold meetings on the first and third Monday of each month. Motion to adjourn at 9:35 PM. Page 1 3