Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, September 30, 2021 Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Allison Wright, Chair Commissioner Jesse Houle Commissioner Carol Myers Commissioner Mariah Parker Commissioner Ovita Thornton Staff: Niki Jones, Assistant Manager Krystle Cobran, Inclusion Officer Sherrie Hines, Chief Assistant Attorney Selah Gardiner, Community Education Analyst Lisa Pappas, Assistant Attorney Sarah George, Recorder Commissioner Wright called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Thornton made a motion to approve the September 23, 2021 minutes. Commissioner Houle seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Commission Identified Items of Interest: B. Determine ideal composition and mission for a local civil rights/human rights commission, situated to provide support to the Inclusion Office. (Mayor Girtz assigned to LRC on August 3, 2021) Niki Jones summarized the scope of the topic and discussion regarding the topic to date. He shared that we would also post the summaries of the fourth and fifth meetings on the website as well. Krystle Cobran explained that the key objective for the meeting is to finalize the recommendations and ordinance that will be sent to the full Mayor and Commission. Lisa Pappas and Sherrie Hines shared the draft ordinance to establish the Human Relations Commission (HRC). The Committee reviewed the draft ordinance. Lisa Pappas explained that the first portion establishes the HRC. She noted that both Commissioner Myers and Commissioner Houle had some comments and suggestions for this section. She explained that Commissioner Myers had suggested using the wording “communication bridge” between Mayor and Commission to the community. Commissioner Myers explained that most of her comments were minor and just suggestions for consideration. Commissioner Houle explained that most of their comments were also minor. For this section, Commissioner Houle noted that the way it is written seems like communication is going from the Commission to the HRC, so, if they want it to be two-way communication, they suggest using the word “between” when describing the communication bridge. Commissioner Wright agreed and noted this would reflect the double- sided arrow discussed in the last meeting. The Committee agreed. Lisa Pappas also noted that Commissioner Houle recommended adding “research and review of policies in Georgia and throughout the United States“ in the section regarding developing and providing policy recommendations to the Mayor and Commission. Commissioner Parker explained that she really appreciates that change, as a lot of times we may forget that we do not  have to reinvent the wheel; there is a lot of innovation coming out of other communities that could be adapted here. The Committee agreed. Commissioner Myers inquired as to whether or not the work plan would also include the work and some of the goals the HRC would like to work on in their first year, in addition to the examination of scope that is described in the draft. Krystle Cobran agreed it would. Commissioner Wright agreed with Commissioner Myers recommendations but suggested removing the qualifications. Commissioner Myers agreed and noted it was just a typing error. Commissioner Parker inquired as to whether or not the HRC is empowered or provided flexibility to revisit the question of whether or not they should have a quasi-judicial function in future years as a policy recommendation to the Mayor and Commission at a later date. Commissioner Wright explained that they wanted it to be a two-way street; the Mayor and Commission may assign in a work plan for the HRC to review broadening their scope into a hybrid quasi-judicial focus, or the HRC may also recommend a shift based on what they have learned in their work. She noted that, if this is not clear in the language, it can be modified. Commissioner Parker shared that it did seem clear to her, but she wanted to confirm. Commissioner Myers explained that the language may need to be clarified, because, as written, it could potentially be confusing and lead the HRC to an immediate reaction of wanting to start out quasi-judicial. Commissioner Thornton explained that they had discussed what Commissioner Parker shared. She noted that she believes that they need to be as broad as possible coming out of the gate. She also expressed concern based on her experience with quasi-judicial entities that we have had in the past. She shared that she is supportive of the way it is currently worded, and it would be disconcerting to write something in now, as it may send a message that may have some unexpected consequences. Commissioner Wright requested clarification on the language that describes that the HRC shall submit a work plan that “assesses the starting mission and scope of the HRC”. From her perspective, she shared that this wording assumes that the M&C would assign for the new HRC to assess what their mission and scope is versus over time presenting to the M&C a work plan that includes a study of what it would be like if the HRC were quasi-judicial. Commissioner Houle shared that, as an overarching note, it would be helpful for the document to have Roman numerals added for the sections to help in navigating sections. They also noted that they believe it would make sense to add language to capture this idea in the purpose and scope rather than explicitly stating that it would be part of their starting mission; this would leave room for the discussion to happen after the HRC gets off the ground. Commissioner Thornton shared that she believes the language to provide flexibility for the HRC to review their scope should be somewhere, possibly in an appendix, but she does not believe it belongs in the draft ordinance. She asked Lisa Pappas if it would be possible to add an appendix. Lisa Pappas explained that there are no appendices to ordinances; however, the ordinance could be modified at a later date. Niki Jones acknowledged Commissioner Thornton’s point and suggested that this could possibly be added to the recommendations document. Additionally, he shared that the Mayor and Commissioner could consider whether or not that could be part of the work plan. Commissioner Parker shared her support for including the review of the scope in the recommendation document and agreed that they have the opportunity after the initial work plan comes forward to consider it. Commissioner Myers agreed with Niki’s suggestion to remove the language under 2(i), and it could be considered when presented in the work plan. She also noted that the section describing their scope outlines that the HRC “shall assess and make policy recommendations to the Mayor and Commission […] with respect to the scope of the Human Relations Commission”. She shared that she wanted to avoid setting up a place where there would be a long discussion and presentation to radically change the HRC initially; rather, she would like to encourage a process that has more time for deliberation and understanding of the whole process. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 093021  Commissioner Wright agreed and asked the Committee if they would be amenable to removing that language from the first section and leaving the language for the later scope. Commissioner Houle explained that they agree with striking the language from the first section. They also agree with including it somewhere, possibly in the recommendations document, to explicitly open the door for that assessment to happen later. Krystle Cobran provided an overview of the section with definitions. Commissioner Wright explained that she was good with this section as written. Commissioner Myers explained that she is fine with the section. Commissioner Parker shared that she has no comment on this section. Commissioner Thornton shared that she does not have any comment and noted that she believed this might be the section that Commissioner Houle noted concern about it captured youth. She explained that she personally believes that listing age covers everybody, but she would wait for Commissioner Houle to share their thoughts. Commissioner Houle explained that, for this section, they believe age is fine. They noted that they would like to add “relationship status” after “familial status” and before “marital status”. They also suggested modifying the phrase “without regard to” to “of any”, because they are trying to regard people’s differences of experience. Commissioner Wright explained that she is fine with those changes. The Committee agreed. Krystle Cobran provided an overview of the section discussing purpose and scope. Commissioner Wright shared that the language does align with what the Committee shared. She requested clarification on whether item #4 referred to the inaugural HRC or if it would be ongoing. Commissioner Thornton shared that she believed it would be ongoing. The Committee agreed. Commissioner Wright requested the word “inaugural” be removed to ensure it is ongoing. Commissioner Myers suggested adding language to refer to it reassessing or evaluating the HRC’s role. She also recommended switching the order of items #2 and #3 to make more logical sense. Commissioner Thornton shared that she believed it captured what the Committee discussed. Commissioner Parker noted she did not have any comments on this section. Commissioner Houle explained they were in agreement with Commissioner Myers’ suggestions. They also noted that they would like to leave item #6 as it is. In item #1, Commissioner Houle recommended having the language modified to match the change made in the first section of the document to reflect “research and review of policies” elsewhere. The Committee agreed with those changes. Krystle and Cobran provided an overview of the section describing the function and duties. Commissioner Wright shared the only change she had in her notes was that the inaugural group would be providing quarterly reports to the Mayor and Commission, but subsequent groups would provide annual reports. Commissioner Myers explained that the only change she had was a reply to Commissioner Houle’s comment and suggestion for item #3. Commissioner Parkers requested clarification on item #1 and whether or not this would apply to only the inaugural group or if it would be expected of subsequent groups. Commissioner Wright explained that they had discussed having more frequent updates from the inaugural HRC to provide additional opportunities for check-ins and dialogue. Commissioner Parker inquired as to what the HRC would prioritize community outreach and education in relation to or if it would be more appropriate to emphasize how its importance without saying it takes precedent over other work. Commissioner Parker suggested modifying this language to note that they “shall engage in active and consistent community outreach and education”. Commissioner Thornton noted that she believes that more frequent updates should be ongoing, even if it is not quarterly. Commissioner Wright explained that she is amenable to updating item #1 to be ongoing. Commissioner Houle agreed with Commissioner Thornton’s suggestion regarding quarterly reports. They also shared that they would like to modify item #3 to state “and make policy recommendations related to the purpose and scope of the Human Relations Commission”. They also noted that they believe it is Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 093021  important that they ensure a website is part of the plan. Commissioner Houle shared that they believe this dovetails with the idea of having a budget. They inquired as to whether or not a budget will be included in the agenda item that will be considered by the full Mayor and Commission. Niki Jones explained that he is not sure if a budget will be associated with this, but there will certainly be recommendations on potential staffing and resource needs. He noted that staff would have to review the budget and identify needs, as the budget has already been set. There would not necessarily be a budget attached to the agenda item, but there would be a set of recommendations from staff pertaining to resources and staffing. The Committee agreed with the suggested changes to item #3. Krystle Cobran provided an overview of the section describing membership. Commissioner Wright explained that she believes it aligns with the LRC discussion. Commissioner Myers shared that the language does align but requested clarification on item #3 and the staggered initial term outlined, as it only reads as though it is staggered by 6 months. Commissioner Myers suggested modifying this to have two years separating each group. Commissioner Houle agreed that it made sense to have it be two years. Commissioner Parker agreed with Commissioner Myers’ suggestion on terms. Commissioner Thornton agreed. Commissioner Houle suggested adding language that “every effort should be made to, whenever possible, ensure members do not serve as the sole representative of a given characteristic or lived experience” in item #2. Sherrie Hines advised that she is always leery about quotas because of the potential legal ramifications but also because of difficulty in meeting the membership requirements, which may impact the ability to maintain a quorum. She shared that she does not have any concern with the intent of the language, but the problem is that it is slightly ambiguous as written. Because the interpretation is unclear, it gives her some pause; however, it can be modified to make it clearer. Commissioner Parker suggested modifying it to say “ensuring that there are multiple members of a given characteristic” as opposed to “no member is the sole representative”. Sherrie Hines agreed that this modification would clarify it. The Committee also discussed adding aspirational goals related to youth membership. The Committee discussed the section describing the organization. Commissioner Wright explained that she believes it was in alignment with what was discussed. Commissioner Houle noted that they recalled there being consensus on having a staff liaison to take notes rather than electing a secretary from the HRC. The Committee agreed with making this change. The Committee also discussed the section on compensation. Commissioner Thornton shared that she agreed with Commissioner Houle’s suggestion for $20 for each regular meeting. Commissioner Wright explained that she was fine with the suggestion for stipend. Commissioner Parker shared that she did not have any feedback for this section. Niki Jones advised the LRC that the Government Operations Committee (GOC) had settled on recommending $25 for each regular meeting for the Police Oversight Board. Commissioner Wright suggested modifying the stipend for the HRC to $25 for each regular meeting to be in alignment with the GOC’s suggestion for the Police Oversight Board. The Committee agreed. Krystle Cobran shared an overview on the section outlining meetings. Commissioner Wright explained that the 60 day goal is aspirational but may not be practical in the typical boards, authorities, and commission cycle. She noted that she was fine including it and learning if that needs to be adjusted from the Clerk’s purview. Commissioner Myers made a suggestion to modify the language to say “shall meet monthly at least 10 times a year”. The Committee agreed. Commissioner Wright requested staff update the recommendation document to reflect the changes and feedback from the LRC regarding the draft ordinance. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 093021  Commissioner Houle made a motion to approve the draft ordinance and recommendations and pass them out of Committee for consideration by the full Mayor and Commission with a recommendation to hold until the November meeting for a final vote to provide the LRC time to further review other accompanying documents and receive additional public input. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Niki Jones shared that staff will add staff recommendation related to the budget in the agenda item. C. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for October 7, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. and will be held remotely via WebEx. Commissioner Myers made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 093021