City of Eugene Human Rights Commission

City of Eugene Human Rights Commission Human Rights Commission Meeting 2/16/15 Packet Contents Draft Agenda Page 1 Minutes from 1/19/15 Page 3 Funding Requests Updated Budget Page 13 Youth Summit: Courageous Conversations Page 14 Indigenous People’s Day Resolution Page 17 S. Willamette Special Area Zone (SW-SAZ) and Envision Eugene Memo Page 19 Housing First Resolution Draft Resolution Page 21 Homelessness Work Group Feedback Page 23 Commission reports and supporting documents Page 26 Civilian Review Board Work Group Updates and Supporting Document Anti-Discrimination Work Group Update Page 28 Anti-Discrimination Work Group Budget Memo Page 29 Translation Estimate Page 30 Staff Updates Page 31 Commission Outreach Flyer Page 32 Office of Human Rights & Neighborhood Involvement | City of Eugene | 99 W 10th Ave | Eugene OR 97401 | (541) 682-5272  City of Eugene Human Rights Commission The mission of the Human Rights Commission is to promote implementation of universal human rights values and principles in all City of Eugene programs and throughout the wider community. To carry out this mission the commission shall affirm, encourage and initiate programs and services within the City of Eugene and in the wider community designed to place priority upon protecting, respecting, and fulfilling the full range of universal human rights as enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To support and promote human rights, the commission will: provide human rights education, be proactive in human rights efforts, address human rights violations, ensure active public participation, be transparent and open, and be publicly accountable for human rights progress. Human Rights Commissioners: Andrew Thomson Chair, Chris Nunes Vice Chair, Ken Neubeck, Jennifer Frenzer, Edward Goehring, Philip Carrasco, Edward McGlone, Arun Toke, Debra Merskin, Bonnie Souza, Councilor Chris Pryor Staff: Michael Kinnison, Jennifer Lleras Van Der Haeghen, Lt. Jennifer Bills The Human Rights Commission typically meets on the third Tuesday of each month. Tuesday, February 16th, 2016 5:30 – 7:30 PM Meeting Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 W. 10th Avenue, Eugene Contact: Jennifer Lleras Van Der Haeghen, 541-682-5619, jennifer.e.vanderhaeghen@ci.eugene.or.us ITEM _______________ACTION______ TIME 1. Agenda/Minutes Review and Approval (Chair) Discuss/Vote 5:30 - 5:35 (5 min) 2. Public Comment (Chair) 5:35 - 5:45 (10 min) 3. Support Request (Chair) Discuss/Vote 5:45 – 5:50 (5 min) - Youth Summit, Courageous Conversations 4. Indigenous People’s Day Resolution Discuss/Vote 5:50 – 6:00 (10 min) 5. S. Willamette Special Area Zone (SW-SAZ) Presentation/Disc 6:00 – 6: 20 (20 min) 6. Update on Paid Sick Leave Presentation 6:20 – 6:35 (15 min) 7. HRC Applicant Review Committee Discussion 6:350 – 6:40 (5 min) 8. Housing First Resolution Discussion 6:40 – 6:50 (10 min) 9. City Council Update 6:50 – 6:55 (5 min) 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 |ehroffice@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 1  10. EPD Update (Lt. Bills) 6:55 – 7:00 (5 min) 11. Commission Liaison Updates 7:00 – 7:05 (5 min) 12. Work Group Lead Updates 7: 05 – 7:20 (15 min) - Budget Discussion 13. Staff Update 7:20 – 7:25 (5 min) 14. Announcements 7:25 – 7:30 (5 min) Upcoming events, activities or meetings the HRC needs to be aware of: February 18th, Racial Categories and Statistics: Can We Achieve Justice without Them? Featuring Kim Williams of Portland State University, 6:30pm, Room 110 Knight Law Center February 20th and 21st, Asian Celebration, 2/20 10:00am – 7:00pm and 2/21 10:00am – 6:00pm, Lane County Fair Grounds February 21st, Town Hall; Growing Eugene’s LGBTQ+ Community, 12:00 – 2:00pm, The Wayward Lamb February 26th NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner, 6:00 – 9:00 pm, Valley River Inn February 26th, “Gender Violence and Mam Indigenous Refugees” hosted by Center for Latino/a and American Studies (CLAS) March 3rd, Current Immigration Reforms Workshop hosted by Centro Latino Americano, 5:30 - 7:30pm, Centro de Fe (540 Adams St. Eugene) April 2nd, Current Immigration Reforms; Application Process Workshop hosted by Centro Latino Americano, 5:30 - 7:30pm, Centro de Fe (540 Adams St. Eugene) The Eugene Human Rights Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting location is wheelchair accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM-assistive listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours’ notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours’ notice. To arrange for these services, contact staff at (541) 682-5177. La Comisión de Derechos Humanos agradece su interés por participar en los asuntos de esta agenda. El local de la reunión tiene acceso para personas en silla de ruedas. Para las personas con dificultades auditivas ofrecemos sistemas FM para ayudarlo a escuchar, o intérpretes de lenguaje de señas. También ofrecemos intérpretes de español. Si necesita cualquiera de estos servicios por favor solicítelos con 48 horas de anticipación, llamando al (541) 682-5177. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 2  City of Eugene Human Rights Commission MINUTES Tuesday, January 19, 2016 5:30 – 7:30 PM Meeting Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 W. 10th Avenue, Eugene Present: Human Rights Commissioners: Andrew Thomson, Ken Neubeck, Jennifer Frenzer, Edward Goehring, Chris Nunes, Bonnie Souza, Arun Toke, Edward McGlone Staff: Michael Kinnison and Jennifer Lleras Van Der Haeghen EPD Liaison: Chief Pete Kerns and Lt. Jennifer Bills Planning Commission: Bill Randal 1. Agenda/Minutes Review and Approval Motion: Move to approve the agenda with edit to correct name of the Civilian Review Board. Made by: A. Thomson Second: E. Goehring Vote: unanimous Motion: Move to approve the minutes from November 17th, 2015. Made by: A. Thomson Second: E. McGlone Vote: Unanimous 2. Public Comment Mariah Leung – I have three main points of what I’d like to cover. 1 – At last city council meeting I urged the city council to draft a resolution to support our Muslim Community. I provided them statements that have been made in other places and materials. Councilor Syrett stated a commitment to draft this statement. I am asking for HRC support with this. 2 – I have not heard from the commission about the requirement of endorsing the UDHR for sponsorship. 3 – I see that Showing Up for Racial Justice has again requested funding. I ask that you postpone granting this request. They do not allow for the intersectionality of national and international connections. I have included a copy of a Eugene Weekly Letter re: first SURJ event. 3. Support Requests Carter McKenzie and Sabena Stark – We’re here with Showing Up For Racial Justice and were grateful for film event in November. We are here today requesting the co-sponsorship of space for Hilyard Community Center and $250. The co-sponsorship will allow for the showing of Cracking the Code and in the following month, Southern Patriot. Both events are free and open to the public. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 |ehroffice@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 3  M. Kinnison – Were any HRC Members present? Ok it doesn’t look like anyone here was. Jen can you tell us what your experience was? J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen – My experience was that it was a positive movie showing with over 50 people present. There was excitement to continue the conversation from the event with Tim Wise. There were about 8 small groups and mine had a very productive conversation about what we heard. Of course I was not in every small group but all around I heard positive feedback. E. McGlone – I don’t see an itemized Budget here? Carter McKenzie – Film purchase fee, $50 for public use of Cracking the Code, $40 for Southern Patriot, $24 for snacks each time and funding for publicity. E. Goehring – Are you asking for $250 to cover both events? Carter – Yes. E. Goehring – Don’t we have a $200 request limit. M. Kinnison – You have used your own discretion in the amount. Technically a commissioner should participate in the planning process for full co-sponsorship. J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen – That’s true and you have also used your discretion on whether or not someone participates. K. Neubeck – How does the space work? Lleras Van Der Haeghen – They’re requesting your co-sponsorship of space as well. This means that if you co-sponsor our office will call to make the reservation and the cost will be eliminated or nominal depending on if we are able to have staff present or need to pay a community center staff person to be there. If that is the case the cost is $15 an hour. E. McGlone – Do you have a way to pay for that extra fee and will we be the sole financial sponsors of the event if we co-sponsor this event? Sabena Stark – We have in the past covered costs out of our pockets. Yes for this event it is true that the HRC would be the sole financial sponsor. We hope the community will offer donations so that we can continue the educations process. B. Souza – I support this. I think that these films being showed will be beneficial for the community and will help build on existing conversations. Motion: I move to support this funding request at $250. Made by: J. Frenzer Second: B. Souza Vote: Unanimous A. Thomson – who can participate in helping to plan these events? K. Neubeck – I will participate. 4. Parks and Open Spaces Needs Assessment Findings Carolyn Burke, Principle Planner for Parks and Open Spaces and Sandy Shaffer, Youth-Family Section Manager for Recreation Division, participated in the HRC meeting to share the Parks and Open Needs Assessment findings and beginnings of the plan. C. Burke – We’re building a plan for next 10 years of Parks and Recreation. I’m going to share the process, what we’ve learned and where we think we’re going. I’m giving you very brief highlights you can read more online. a. Community engagement a. Pop up events at parks and in parking lots. Qualitative conversations 1:1 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 4  b. Stakeholder listening session c. Surveys – phone and online d. Latino Community Outreach – Worked with HRNI to develop e. Equity mapping – Community Centers, Pools and Parks to see what areas of the city have access and which do not. 1. Build draft plan 2. Bring it back to the public 3. Refine the plan 4. Bring to City Council for Adoption Findings – Strengths • People love Parks and Recreation in Eugene. • 90% of survey respondents say that Parks and Rec is important to their quality of life • Natural Areas provide beauty and connectivity • Provides many services Challenges • Park Safety and Security – people generally feel safe. People do not feel safe along the river particularly along the river front corridor o 87% of survey respondents are concerned about the impacts of illegal camping and vandalism in Eugene parks. People are looking for a compassionate solution to this. • Equity and Inclusion – We found a special importance to address cultural inclusion so that people feel welcome in these places and Peterson Barn was seen as a highlight. There is an importance of informality with movable picnic tables, shelters, BBQs etc. Need to look at access for lower income families. Heard that cost of services is a barrier for engagement. SW and Santa Clara are underserved by community centers and pools. In benchmarking Eugene against other cities we have the fewest number of public pools per capita. Opportunities • Basic amenities – places to sit, get out of the sun, more trails, restrooms. • Safe access to the river and pools. • More programming. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 5  Guiding themes: • Serve the entire community • Care for what we have • Grow responsibly • Integrate with other systems • Invest in partnerships Next steps: • Six public workshops planned with free child care and free food at each. C. Nunes – Question on the illegal camping issues. Is it too early in the process to have you all thinking about strategies? We’d be interested in discussing enforcement v. working with the HRC to find more resources for homeless people and ideas to work with them. C. Burke - We do not have recommendations yet. We wanted to bring this to you early so that you can be thinking about them. This will take solutions from multiple sectors. Parks does have some ideas about what they can do that could be a good starting point. C. Nunes – In the past we’ve weighed in on things like the downtown smoking ban proposal. We struggled with not having things to respond to as a strategy. If you could bring us strategies to respond to that will help narrow down our conversation. C. Burke – We definitely need to keep the conversation open so that when we have recommendations we can bring them back to you. J. Frenzer – It’s definitely a good idea to keep communication open. Is there a way for us to give you ideas? E. Goehring – I realize that you were just hitting high points in your presentation. I am concerned about the list of stake holders and input. I saw nothing that captured input from seniors and people with disabilities. S. Shaffer - Through pop ups we did have 2,000 points of contact. In those moments we spoke with people from those communities. Within recreation we have 150 different partnerships and drew on many organizations and groups. We did intentional outreach to multiple communities. M. Kinnison – I’d like to say that from our perspective this project has been setting the bar on setting an Equity lens to the process and working in collaboration. 5. EPD Update: Professional Stops Chief Kerns – In 2014 the Police Commission provided feedback on a Professional Stops Policy and Collecting Data. A policy of this nature was recommended by a number of community members. The LECC considered it as a potential model to be used throughout the state. When HB 2002 was passed there was a new definition of Profiling in the bill and a process for centralized complaints of profiling to be collected. As an organization we hoped that Sun Guard would be up to capturing the data that we wanted to collect and they have not been able to deliver on this. IT in public works developed an app for data collection that we’re using now. We provided training for 12 officers to collect stops data that complies with the policy as a pilot project. We purchased iphones with apps on each for those 12 officers. Now we plan to exercise the collections of stops data. This will not be a full report because it’s only 12 officers. For 120 patrol officers to collect stops data is a huge capacity issue for us. This is a process for us to understand how much capacity this takes to collect this data so that we can see what the officer’s experience is in reporting, how we can store the data and analyze it each year. After the first 6 months we’ll stop to get input and make modifications to the process. In the second 6 months we will use this modified process. We will take one year of 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 6  data and do analysis of pilot project. Hopefully we will have an idea of whether or not it’s feasible to roll it out to the full department and an idea of how to do that. One discrepancy in the new statute and the trade standard for the definition of Profiling is the use of “solely”. What we really want to know is if there are biases in an officer that will show a bias in policing. The State’s definition doesn’t really help us get to understanding bias trends. We have adopted the states definition for now. This is not as restrictive as a good department should be. I know that the reporting form has been finalized for the statewide process. When I spoke with LECC staff last month she had received 15 reports statewide. None from Eugene, we know this because we would have received them by now. J. Frenzer – Could you give me one more explanation of the reason for keeping the definition for profiling with the word solely in it? Chief Kerns – Until this new statute is interpreted a little bit we want to be sure we used the language exactly. It will be no trouble at all to expand it to be more inclusive and I think the definition of Bias Based Policing covers it. My preference is that we will expand the definition later. I’m pretty confident that we’ve covered what I think is important as a standard. B. Souza – My understanding is that there may be some changes in the law as the year goes on. Are you prepared or willing to change the definition? Chief Kerns – I think that solely should be changed, perhaps to inappropriately. B. Souza – Is that something that you would recommend? Chief Kerns – As Police Chief I can make changes to policies. I plan to update this definition. I first want to be sure that broadening the language is legal. B. Souza – I mean for statewide language. Chief Kerns – The bill required the establishment of a committee that will need to make recommendations to the legislature regarding reducing profiling. One thing they’re thinking about requiring is that each department in Oregon is required to collect stops data. I was included in one of these conversations. We’re all trying to figure out how to affordably do this. E. McGlone - When will we start seeing data from stops? Chief Kerns – It’s public information so if someone made a request we’d comply. My plan is to finish the pilot and roll out a complete report in March 2017. C. Nunes – I really appreciate your work on this it means a lot to me. Is this policy on Professional Stops and Bias Based Policing posted online? Chief Kerns – Yes, it’s on our website. C. Nunes – As a HRC we want to promote the good things that the City of Eugene is doing so I would like to use this document to share your work. The wording for biased base policing here is a little unclear to me. How will analytics happen on this information? The language implies intention whereas the statistics seem most relevant to me in seeing disproportionate trends. Cheif Kerns – I talked to the Brookline Chief who has received the award for being the most transparent department in the US. They have a Bias Based Policing Program and use the same training program for perspectives and ethics in profiling that we do. They also teach implicit bias for their officers and collect data. When they see a change in officers stops data then they call the officer in to meet with a trainer to understand what is causing the shift. I like this approach that Brookline has taken. It’s a conversation and officers in my experience want to do the right thing and even the best intended officers will develop habits they’re not aware of. E. Goehring – I really appreciate the policy that directs officers to help all people regardless of circumstance. In my experience in other cities people were not always cared for. 6. International Human Rights Day Debrief A. Thomson – Thank you all for planning IHRD and showing up. We were a little short on time but it went very well. C. Nunes and I discussed that there are parts that can be dealt with earlier in the year. In the future we should try to do things like securing a venue and other details sooner. Jen from HRNI and I are going to work on 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 7  putting together a planning guide. C. Nunes- I want to acknowledge that Jen Frenzer did such a great job with the program. J. Frenzer – As soon as we know our theme that is the triggering moment to figuring out the location. Certain themes may work better in different venues. C. Nunes – That is the opposite of what we were thinking. Want to situate venue and catering in advance. We have been waiting to start the planning to involve new commissioners in the process. Should we continue to wait to engage new commissioners until after the work plan is approved? J. Frenzer – I think it’s more important to have the process underway earlier. Pick theme in spring or early summer. A. Thomson – I appreciate the need to have theme before planning the venue. E. Goehring – In the event business we look for a location the week after the event is over. One way cost can go up is the publicity when we don’t start the buzz early. M. Kinnison – I think it’s good to keep it in your strategic planning. C. Nunes - Propose we assign a planning committee at our meeting in February. 7. Elections for Chair and Vice Chair A. Thomson – We need to solicit nomination for the Chair and Vice Chair seats. As you read in the email I sent you I am not eligible to be chair again because I have served two terms. E. Goehring – Nominate Chris as chair and Andrew as co-chair. C. Nunes – We’ve talked about this and I think it could work out well. Vice Chair requirements are much less and you still get time with the Mayor and City Manager. A. Thomson – I agree, I will do the vice chair role but encourage other people to consider the role as well. E. McGlone – I would agree that the Vice Chair is a great opportunity for people to learn and grow into the Chair position. K. Neubeck – I nominate J. Frenzer for Vice Chair, there should be a woman in leadership and a lot of education will need to be done with the new Mayor and continued work with the City Manager. J. Frenzer – I accept the nomination. C. Nunes – Nominate Ken for Chair K. Neubeck – I am honored but decline. Homelessness is such a big issues and it’s an opportunity to establish a relationship with new Mayor, City Manager and educate them on issues. E. McGlone – Jen would do a great job but I have heard feedback that we’ve been a little one track minded on homelessness. I would encourage that we don’t get zeroed in on one issue only and look at the big picture as well. A. Thomson – I know that Jen you’re very involved and I want to make sure that you’re not stretched too thin because the things you’re currently involved with are so important. J. Frenzer – From what I understand there are not as many responsibilities of the Vice Chair. Chris can you tell me more about that? C. Nunes – Both attend quarterly City Manager and Mayor meetings and there are agenda planning meetings once a month. Writing letters was Andrew’s job, I know that it’s a lot of labor. Andrew did a lot of extra work and analysis to make those letters effective and the Chair is the spokesperson. M. Kinnison – You have a work plan item are there any things there? C. Nunes – Relationship building and check-ins with each other were important. A. Thomson – Think you’d be a great Vice Chair Jen. Just wanted to help you think about capacity. J. Frenzer – I am very interested in keeping the work group functional which is a lot of work. Motion: Move that we close nominations Made By: A. Thomson Second: K. Nuebeck Vote: Unanimous 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 8  Motion: All in favor of Chris being chair – Made By: A Thomson Vote: Unanimous A. Thomson – Now for vice chair, all in favor of Jen as vice chair? I see 5 votes for Jen. All in favor of Andrew? I see 2 votes. We now have a new Chair and Vice Chair – Chris Nunes and Jen Frenzer 8. Joint Work Session Debrief and Next Steps M. Kinnison – If you look in your packet pages 23 and 24. Outreach has begun to people who have a great deal of experience in homelessness. Page 23 is the message that just went out to the stake holders and the stakeholder list is 24. The list was first populated with people that Ken and Jen had recommended. We added to the list for local people who could offer information. K. Neubeck – Is your office the main conduit for information? M. Kinnison – Yes we will package and hand it off to the City Manager. B. Souza – Not clear about how we will engage Eric Tars in this model. M. Kinnison – He has been reached out to directly with an email. B. Souza – I was imagining him coming here and sitting down with staff to discuss what needed to be done. M. Kinnison – We’re anticipating that based on the information we get there may be more follow up. B. Souza – Have you had direct contact with Eric, Jen or Ken? J. Frenzer – Before we got started we had talked with Eric. He let us know that he had received the email today. We had connected with him about the process of what the National Law center could offer in consultation. One of the things they were going to offer was to help with the orchestration for the consultation cost and expenses. He realizes that for some communities who have a lot of changes to make a city could incur a sizeable consultation cost. They also have pro-bono attorneys that we would have access to. I like the letter and think it’s very exploratory. M. Kinnison – The HRC is listed as a stakeholder and we invite you to draft your own responses to be captured with the feedback. J. Frenzer - I am excited about the person from California and her expertise on criminalization in particular. K. Neubeck – K. McCullough is very much keyed into the rights of people who are homeless and has worked on the Right to Rest bill. J. Frenzer – This is a model of a way that this process can be duplicated in other communities. The other people on the list are excited to see this process. M. Kinnison – Another update is that The Housing First Resolution is being drafted and will be sent to you all for input. Will go to council in the coming months. (ADDITION: Date of potential Council meeting on this topic are 2/22 and 3/14) K. Neubeck – We obviously made an impact and there are actionable items that have been started on. I think we should stay right on top of this so that so that we can be sure they move forward in the way that we want them to, particularly around criminalization. J. Frenzer – I would like to have one of you come to the Homelessness Work Group to give an update. J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen – I can plan to be there. 9. February Events BIG and NAACP A. Thomson – In the past we’ve been having you decide who wants to be present M. Kinnison – It’s a question of interest and budget. Our office and EPD will be present. C. Nunes – I enjoy attending both events of these events. This is just like any other budget request we get and I think this aligns very well with our work. When we’re there it’s a great point to network with people. And it’s good to keep connections alive. How many people did we send before? M. Kinnison – 2 or 3 for past events. B. Souza - I am interested in the NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 9  E. McGlone – I will likely be at both events for my work duties. A. Toke – I’m interested in attending. C. Nunes – I am interested in both of those. A. Thomson – Ken and Chris are interested in the BIG Event. Motion: Move to approve that Chris and Ken attend BIG Event Made by: A Thomson Second: A. Toke Vote: Unanimous A. Thomson - Bonnie, Arun, Chris and Jen are interested in the NAACP Freedom Fund. Motion: Move to approve the attendance of Bonnie, Arun, Chris and Jen attend the NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner. Made by: A. Thomson Second: E. McGlone Vote: Unanimous E. McGlone – I have a few more announcements about events coming up: Feb 4-6 Is the Queer Film Festival. Feb 21st – LGBTQ + town hall hosted at the Den at the Way Ward Lamb from12-2pm 10. Police Commission Discussion A. Thomson – The Police Commission is interested in there being working agreements adopted for boards and commissions. You can go to page 29 to see the draft. They’re looking for us to co-sign this letter to send to City Council. E. Goehring – Just a little background. It recently came to the attention to the chair of the Police Commission that they have no standards to hold Commissioners to. We learned that most commissions have no standards of conduct with the exception of the HRC. There is no way for the any sitting commissioner be removed to my knowledge. Obviously you cannot remove someone who has been appointed without some just cause. There has to be some standard that has been violated by a person one or more times. This is about setting standards across the board so that everyone has an understanding of how people should be working together civilly. I encouraged the Police Commission to look to our model and they have voted to adopt our model. I would speak in favor of our signing on the letter. Motion: Move to approve the letter and sending it to city council with the Police Commission. Made by: A. Thomson Second: E. Goehring Vote: Unanimous 11. Commission Liaison Updates B. Souza – The only thing I’ll share is that there was discussion around resuming recording of the Civilian Review Board meetings. Since the meeting ran over they tabled it so that it should happen at the next meeting. E. Goehring – Police Commission is working on standards of appearance. Uniforms, haircuts etc. It’s extremely precise. There is a new vest that officers are using to relieve the weight of the belt. A lot of the gear will be up on a vest. I like the shift of having a Taser and gun more distinguishably in different places. The gun will still be on the hip and the Taser will now be on the front of the vest. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 10  Bill Randal – Nothing to report from the Planning Commission as we haven’t met since November. 12. Work Group Lead Updates J. Frenzer – Work group started off the new year with a lot of project ideas. It’s very likely that there are budget needs. I need to get a temperature check on what the budget is and which things you feel most strongly about these ideas. Events would be spread from February to June. May is when our videographer of the homeless would be available to do a first Friday film event. Venue proposed – Atrium or Library. Jana Thrift received a grant from Wayne Morse Center to document rest stops, policies etc. This is an opportunity to do some community education. A lot of the films are 3 or 10 min interviews. We also want to show the film “Under the Bridge” with THRIVE. There doing an ambassador training tomorrow. The movie is available 2/1/16. Youth homeless event is still being planned hoping to have this June. Wanting to have it outdoors with music, tabling and resources. I would also suggest that we write a letter of support for public shelter. The mayor has brought this up a number of times we need to support her on this. E. McGlone – It would be nice to have a presentation about value, cost and comparatives for other cities of a public shelter. I would need this information in order to be able to vote on a letter of support with full understanding. E. Goehring – I was the project manager for the first public shelter in San Francisco. There were some unexpected problems and expenses that came up with that. Should be taking it up in the letter to be sure it’s a good thing and within our means right now. J. Frenzer – One of our resource people for that could be Jacob Fox with HACSA. He created a shelter in Portland. He would be a good resource person because he knows what we have and don’t. I can offer to make contact with him and Poverty and Homelessness Board (PHB). Don’t know if you’ll ever get a precise number for the number of people who we have shelter for. A. Toke – The annual count is happening this month. K. Neubeck – We will have the info on the number of people who were captured in the count in May. E. McGlone – What council is going to expect from us is to make the case. It would be good to have this information. J. Frenzer – I doubt we will be precise in this letter. The Mayor is asking for a community wide collaboration. We would be endorsing the mayor’s comments. M. Kinnison – I would recommend you talk about this with the Mayor in your quarterly meeting. J. Frenzer – One last project to work on is a brochure with PHB it’s an area the work group could be editing. Need to know if there is any budget for these projects. M. Kinnison – Do you have ball parks for what these projects would cost? J. Frenzer – I think we could spend $400-500 hundred dollars on the Youth event, film could be expensive but could make due with $200. All of the events outside of the youth event will cost around $200. M. Kinnison – You have about $2,100 left. Need to keep in mind the cost of Human Rights Institute, additional costs from IHRD not yet reflected in budget, etc. when planning out how to use the rest of your budget. J. Frenzer – I don’t know whether or not PHB has a budget. C. Nunes – I think the Mayor has stated the Homelessness is one of their priorities so it seems like an important thing for us to find a way to fund. M. Kinnison – Is it too late to decide on some of these at the next meeting? J. Frenzer – No not for the things that are further out. For under the bridge it’s flexible. M. Kinnison – You have to vote to spend any money. We could have a complete budget updated with additional projected budget at the next meeting. Jen you could bring a more specific budget for the events. J. Frenzer – ok A. Thomson – I’m in favor of all of them so long as the budget provides. M. Kinnison – I wanted to let you all know that I saw your request for Right to Rest event. K. Neubeck – We would need a venue and potentially some finger foods. M. Kinnison – The recommendation of the city attorney is to not have the HRC participate in this type of event. K. Neubeck – We support education on issues all of the time. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 11  M. Kinnison – Yes you do, the concern here is about the fact that this was a legislative bill and will likely be one again. This bill is not part of City Council’s stated legislative priorities and as agents of the city HRC should avoid contradicting Council’s priorities. K. Neubeck – It’s a community power point presentation about the Right to Rest bill. This body voted to endorse the campaign. J. Frenzer – It sounds like he is basing his information is on testifying. Is he saying it because we’re not allowed to do testimony? M. Kinnison – No it’s based on advocating positions that do not support Council’s priorities. There are policies that specifically speak to the role of agents of the city in advocating on legislative matters. K. Nuebeck – I would like to see the communications that were sent about this. B. Souza – Can we have the City attorney come to the next meeting to offer clarification? M. Kinnison – We can request that but I can’t guarantee an audience will be granted. I will seek more clarification on the City Attorney’s position and let you know. C. Nunes – I would like that, it would help us understand the rule. J. Frenzer – Would we be hosting the event? K. Neubeck – CALC would be hosting the event we would be supporting it. M. Kinnison – Let me gain clarity about this and get back to you. 13. Announcements 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 12 Human Rights Commission Budget Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) DATE REQUESTING GROUP EVENT OR DESCRIPTION SPONSORSHIP OTHER TOTAL TOTAL BALANCE 7/1/15 CHARGES SPENT TD $4,500.00 10/13/15 TransJustice Eug/Spngf Transgender Day of Awareness $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $4,300.00 10/13/15 Network Charter School Youth Empowerment Symposium (YES!) $200.00 $200.00 $400.00 $4,100.00 10/13/15 SURJ Vocabularly of Change film and discussion $100.00 $100.00 $500.00 $4,000.00 11/23/15 THRIVEugene YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) $200.00 $200.00 $700.00 $3,800.00 11/23/15 IHRD Facility Rental $410.00 $410.00 $1,110.00 $3,390.00 1/18/16 HRC MLK Awards (2) $100.00 $100.00 $1,210.00 $3,290.00 1/18/16 BIG Blacks in Gov't Annual Banquet $150.00 $150.00 $1,360.00 $3,140.00 1/18/16 NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner $320.00 $320.00 $1,680.00 $2,820.00 1/18/16 SURJ Stand Up for Racial Justice Event $250.00 $250.00 $1,930.00 $2,570.00 12/10/15 IHRD Promotion $135.00 $135.00 $2,065.00 $2,435.00 12/10/15 IHRD Event Food & Supplies $308.95 $308.95 $2,373.95 $2,126.05 TOTALS $1,360.00 $1,013.95 $2,373.95 $2,373.95 $2,126.05 1/18/16 HRC Human Rights Institute Registration (estimate) $1,000.00 011-0730-####-612022 13 14 15 16 Resolution : Declare the Second Monday of October as Indigenous Peoples’ Day WHEREAS, the City of Eugene Human Rights Commission (CEHRC) recognizes that the Indigenous peoples of the lands that would later become known as the Americas have lived on these lands since time immemoria l; and WHEREAS, the CEHRC honors the fact that the City of Eugene is built upon the traditional homelands of the Kalapuya peoples and recognizes the inherent sovereignty of the nine federally recognized tribal nations in the State of Oregon and all Indigenous peoples everywhere; and WHEREAS, the CEHRC values the many contributions made to our community through Indigenous peoples’ knowledge, labor, technology, science, philosophy, arts and the deep cultural contribution that has substantially shaped the character of the City of Eugene ; and WHEREAS, the CEHRC has a responsibility to oppose the systematic racism towards Indigenous people in the United States, which perpetuates high rates of poverty and income inequality, exacerbating disproportionate health, education, and social crises ; and WHEREAS, Indigenous Peoples’ Day was first proposed in 1977 by a delegation of Native Nations to the United Nations sponsored International Conference on Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations in the Americas; and WHEREAS, the CEHRC is committed to protecting and advocating for justice, human rights, and the dignity of all people who live and work in Eugene and vows to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the “Declaration”) endorsed by the United States on December 16, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Declaration recognizes the right of Indigenous peoples “to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information,” and places an obligation on States to “take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among Indigenous peoples and all other segments of society”; and WHEREAS, the CEHRC understands colonization not as an historic event but as an ongoing structure predicated on the elimination of Indigenous life and land, and contends that the celebration of Christopher Columbus and his alleged “discovery” of Indigenous lands celebrates the colonization and dispossession of Indigenous peoples throughout the Americas; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CEHRC declares its support for the City of Eugene to recognize Indigenous Peoples’ Day on the second Monday in October; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Eugene strike from the calendars and websites all references to Columbus Day; and 17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Eugene utilize this day as an opportunity to reflect upon the ongoing struggles of Indigenous people of this land, to celebrate the thriving cultures and values of the Indigenous Peoples of our region, and to stand in solidarity with with Indigenous peoples elsewhere; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CEHRC strongly encourages the Eugene 4J and Bethel School Districts and Board members to comply with the Oregon American Indian/Alaska Native State Plan which mandates that the public schools of our City teach about the history, culture, contemporary lives, and governments of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, with special emphasis on those from Oregon and across the Pacific Northwest ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CEHRC encourages other businesses, organizations, and public institutions to recognize Indigenous Peoples’ Day on the second Monday in October; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CEHRC firmly commits to continue its efforts to promote the well-being and growth of Eugene’s Indigenous community . Adopted by the City of Eugene Human Rights Commission on __, 2016 . 18 MEMORANDUM Date: February 8, 2016 To: Human Rights Commission From: Terri Harding and Heather O’Donnell, Planning Division Subject: Project Updates on Envision Eugene and South Willamette Area Planning Background This work session is an opportunity for staff to provide the Human Rights Commission with an update on the status of the Envision Eugene and South Willamette planning projects. The goal of Envision Eugene is to implement our community’s vision for how and where to accommodate Eugene’s expected job and population growth over the next 20 years. State law requires all cities to plan for projected population growth and to ensure that their urban growth boundary (UGB) provides enough land to meet the projected need. Envision Eugene: Vision to Action For the past few years, staff has been working to develop a detailed UGB adoption package for formal approval by the City, County, and state of Oregon. The adoption package documents have been assembled into a four-part set entitled Envision Eugene: Vision to Action. The four components are the Community Vision, Comprehensive Plan (which includes a new Eugene-only UGB), Urban Form Plan, and Action Plan. These documents are in working draft form and are available on our website at www.envisioneugene.org. This spring, a period of public outreach will solicit community feedback on a preliminary draft of the Vision to Action documents, that will inform a second, revised draft to go before the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions. Areas of interest to Human Rights Commissioners may include the draft Comprehensive Plan policies on Public Involvement, Housing, Economic Development, and Compact Development, and overlay zoning proposed for the Clear Lake Expansion Area, which includes environmental justice standards for the first time in the City’s history. Staff will introduce the Envision Eugene topic at the Februrary 16th HRC meeting, answer questions about areas of Commissioner interest, and take feedback on how best to structure upcoming involvement opportunities. South Willamette Special Area Zone The draft South Willamette Special Area Zone seeks to implement the Concept Plan developed for the area by the community from 2010-2013. Although the South Willamette work is consistent with and 19 implements many Envision Eugene strategies, the process has been decoupled from Envision Eugene to allow the resolution of planning issues in the area without affecting the adoption of the UGB. Currently, staff work on the project is on-hold while Oregon Consensus is completing an assessment of the situation to learn more about remaining concerns discussed by the City Council in October and November 2015. The assessment process involves interviewing groups of stakeholders involved in the project, assessing the range of perspectives, and offering the City recommendations for next steps. The City’s Planning Commission is tasked with implementing statewide planning goal 1, Citizen Involvement, and they issued their recommendation on the special area zone in August 2015; that recommendation is on hold pending the completion of the Oregon Consensus assessment and any recommendations for future process that the City Council might choose to move forward. Meanwhile, to address ongoing questions about the proposed code, housing options, and design tools proposed for South Willamette, staff has continued to update and improve the project website and has recently developed a set of fact sheets that explain what each of the proposed South Willamette subdistrict zones and design tools are intended to achieve, and how they would work. More information is available at www.eugene-or.gov/sw. Staff will introduce the South Willamette topic at the Februrary 16th HRC meeting and answer questions about areas of Commissioner interest. FOR MORE INFORMATION - Terri Harding, Project Manager terri.l.harding@ci.eugene.or.us Heather O’Donnell, Public Engagement Team Leader, heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us www.envisioneugene.org www.eugene-or.gov/sw Envision Eugene Process Timeline South Willamette Fact Sheets 20  Resolution No. XXXX A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY OF EUGENE’S COMMITMENT TO THE HOUSING FIRST MODEL AS A KEY STRATEGY TO ADDRESSING THE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS CRISIS. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. The nation generally, and the City of Eugene and surrounding metro area specifically, are facing a housing crisis. According to a recent one night homeless census, Lane County’s homeless population exceeds 1,450 people on any given night; and B. Housing and Homelessness is not an isolated issue facing Eugene. With the recent passage of Resolution 5142 the City of Eugene asserts that we are indeed in a statewide crisis that requires immediate attention and action by the state; and C. The Poverty and Homelessness Board, of which the City of Eugene is a member, are working to create an interagency Housing First strategy for Lane County to address the growing crisis of homelessness in our community; and D. Many of the most effective outcomes of permanent supported housing studied utilize the Housing First approach which is generally distinguished by its emphasis on moving people into stable housing first and then working to provide robust wrap-around services that address the medical, mental, or behavioral conditions and other needs of residents; and E. Permanent supportive housing models that use a Housing First approach have been proven to be highly effective for people experiencing chronic homelessness who have higher service needs. Studies have shown that Housing First models result in long-term housing stability, improved physical and behavioral health outcomes, and achieve the greatest cost avoidance to taxpayers by reducing use of crisis services such as emergency departments, hospitals, and jails; and A. On June 22, 2010, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness released the nation’s first comprehensive strategy for ending chronic homelessness entitled Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness, which endorsed Housing First as a best practice; and B. On December 9, 2015, the City Council and the Human Rights Commission held a joint work session on homelessness that produced a motion directing the City Manager prepare for Council consideration a resolution declaring the City of Eugene’s commitment to a Housing First model. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon as follows: Section 1: The City of Eugene is committed to the Housing First Model as a strategy to address the housing crisis in Lane County. This model prioritizes the placement of homeless persons in permanent housing without preconditions in order to be housed and is widely recognized as the most effective means to end chronic homelessness; and Section 2: The City Council has supported a number of innovative, short-term, pilot strategies that have made positive contributions to address the need for legal, safe places to sleep for the unhoused (rest stops, Dusk to Dawn, car camping, etc.). However, this resolution acknowledges that sustainable, long-term solutions offered by a Housing First strategy are a better investment of limited public resources and higher policy priority; and Section 3: Implementation of Housing First requires the capital investment to build and operate housing units as well as ongoing supportive services that need to be provided by different partners or funded from a variety of sources; and Section 4: The City of Eugene is committed to working in partnership with other jurisdictions to identify the resources needed to implement Housing First. Continued partnerships will be necessary to secure resources needed from federal, state and local agencies as requested in Resolution 5142 and beyond; and Section 5: The City Council directs the City Manager to use this resolution as guidance in administering future work. 22 Feedback from the Poverty and Homelessness Work Group on the draft Housing First Resolution From Majeska (black font): Jen(s), I hope this comes in time for my feedback to be useful. Sorry I didn’t look at the draft much earlier. I am astounded and disturbed by one particular point hidden in the resolution. I’ll start with what is most disturbing, and go from there. • Section 2 of the resolution is unbelievably objectionable and certainly does not represent any discussion held by the Homelessness Work Group or the Human Rights Commission: “…mark[ing] a turning point to stop diverting resources for short term solutions in order to be able to prioritize long term strategies.” That sounds like the Council and the City of Eugene will halt all financial and staff support for the current approaches, including not extending the current ordinances that have allowed the various pilot projects, in order to only support finding or building permanent bricks-and-mortar Housing First housing — which we know is going to be slow coming (and most likely never enough). IS THIS WHAT THE CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE INTENDS TO PROPOSE? (Michael Carrigan made a handwritten note on his draft about Section 2 also raising the concern about what the impact would be on Egan, rest stops and other emergency shelter options. He verbally asked for these concerns to be addressed but, didn't give specific language yet.) (Ken Neubeck offered two comments on Section 2 and he stated in an email that he supports the edits Majeska has offered: first comment: "If it is not too late, can I suggest a wording change in the Housing First draft? I meant to do this yesterday but got overwhelmed with meetings. In one of the very last lines it says something like we will stop short term efforts in favor of long term solutions. I am concerned with how "stop" might be interpreted--stop the rest stops, dusk to dawn, sanctioned camps etc.? Couldn't we simply say "put more emphasis on long term solutions than has been the case to date" or something like that?" Ken's Second Comment is in response to Jen F comment about the need to maintain emergency shelter options at the same time as pursuing transition and permanent housing and alternatives to criminalization: "I agree. We should be pointing out that emergency and transitional shelter are imperative to keeping people alive and prepared to move into permanent housing as it becomes available. It is not an either/or situation.") (From Catherine Siskron: Section 2 of the resolution: "The part that I found confusing and potentially truly problematic is section two: I don't see why the meager resources that the city devotes to short term solutions should be diverted to long-term solutions. These should be two separate strategies, not either or. That section opens up the possibility of eliminating resources from short term solutions and long-term solutions always remaining in the planning stages".) · Finding C. misrepresents the Poverty and Homelessness Board’s work — aside from referring to the board in the plural rather than singular (“are” should be “is”). The PHB is certainly not supporting only a Housing First strategy, and the City should not either. In fact, in the PHB draft for a 5-year strategic plan, they refer to many strategies, including strategies to develop Housing First units. But they don’t refer to a “Housing First strategy” and certainly it is not the only strategy. 23 Feedback from the Poverty and Homelessness Work Group on the draft Housing First Resolution If C. is referring to the special HACSA-led project, it could say the board is “working to build an interagency Housing First **facility** for Lane County…” (facility rather than strategy). Other feedback, in order as found in the draft document: Section A Michael Carrigan suggested quoting the 2015 county prepared Point in Time count report in his handwritten comments on the draft: "This snapshot in time only paints part of the picture of homelessness locally,” said Wolfe. “Annual figures show that 11,668 individuals who sought services from local programs were homeless at some point during the year.” Jen F Also suggests adding the following data also from the 2015 county Point in Time Count Report showing the need for immediately accessible emergency shelter options · 948 unduplicated individuals were served at the Egan Warming Center during 10 nights of the winter season at 9 faith-based sites and the Lane County Wheeler Pavilion during the 2014-2015 winter seasons (St. Vincent DePaul). · 2,151 homeless students attended public school in Lane County during the 2013-14 school year (Oregon Dept. of Education). This number includes those doubled up with relatives or friends. • B. The first sentence is awkward as this is not the formal name of an issue. “Homelessness” should not be capitalized, the verb should be “are” rather than “is,” and “issue” should be plural. (This is not to say that the crisis can’t be named “the Housing and Homelessness Crisis” in other usage. It just doesn’t work in the first sentence of B.) • C. As above, “are” should be “is.” A “board are” is too awkward. • D. Not accurate that Eugene has “only one privately owned shelter,” because the Eugene Catholic Worker house falls under that category too. Perhaps insert the word “large” if referring to the one main one (the Eugene Mission). • E. first bullet point: rather than “including,” maybe better “through” the Human Service Commission. As it reads now, it sounds like we are spending millions on a commission. I doubt that any of Eugene’s financial support is for the expenses of the HSC’s functioning as a commission. It might be better to refer to the county’s Health and Human Services Division (not sure). • E. fourth bullet point: Did the winter strategies include funding for services for people “in jeopardy of becoming homeless”? If not, that phrase should be removed. • E. last bullet point: It would be nice if the list of partnering agencies and nonprofits would include some of the newer ones working at the grass-roots level, such as Occupy Medical, Nightingale Health Sanctuary, Community Supported Shelter, and SquareOne Villages (new name for Opportunity Village et al). • ShelterCare has a capital C. • F. I think “unhoused” does not need a hyphen, similar to “unemployed.” 24 Feedback from the Poverty and Homelessness Work Group on the draft Housing First Resolution • F. first bullet point, Housing First should be capitalized. I see this refers to the “preferred model” rather than “strategy.” • Section 1: Housing First (model or strategy) does not address the “housing” crisis, but rather the “homelessness” crisis, seems to me. It is not a strategy or approach to build or find more affordable housing, which is what it will take to address the housing crisis. Rather it is an approach that can get more homeless people off the streets. • Section 1: Model is not an effective means to “end” homelessness, but rather to “address” homelessness, I’d suggest. Last comment: It would be great if the Council and City of Eugene would also consider the Housing First model (or strategy, if you insist) for less-than-permanent bricks-and-mortar housing, i.e. for shelter, even saying Shelter First. We need that concept or approach to be interpolated and applied to our current efforts to addressing the crisis. Which gets us back to the horrendous situation of Section 2, which apparently would throw out all support for the current efforts. 25 Human Rights Commission Liaison Update Date: February 10, 2016 Board/Commission: Civilian Review Board Prepared By: Bonnie Souza Date of Last Board/Commission meeting: February 9, 2016 What were the main topics discussed in the last meeting? • Public comment from African American gentleman regarding the fact that there are no people of color on the CRB. He has been racially profiled by police multiple times. He is afraid of police. “What do I do? Who can I call?” Each CRB member responded to this community member, including recommendation that he report to the Independent Auditor’s office. • Training topic: Crisis Intervention Training for EPD • Case review: Allegation that supervisor failed to properly audit temporary evidence lockers, relevant Department Policy 804, Property Evidence Handling • Resumption of recording of CRB’s public meetings What decisions were made that are relevant to the HRC? Case Review: CRB agreed with adjudication that supervisor had violated policy #804. (Multiple CRB members expressed concern that other employees involved in improper evidence handling procedures were not also disciplined.) Recording CRB meetings: After the issue was discussed at three consecutive CRB meetings, CRB voted to not resume the recording of CRB’s public meetings. The vote was 3-3, with one abstention. Board member Heather Marek presented a strong case for recording the meetings: The issues of transparency and accountability being prominent in the ordinance, the CRB’s mission, and in the CRB’s Policies and Procedures Manual; the simplicity of the minutes taker bringing a recording device, turning it on at the beginning and off at the end of a meeting; and the fact that the CRB Policies and Procedures Manual states that “The meetings shall be recorded.” 26 There was extensive discussion. The following are a sampling of issues that were raised, mostly in opposition to recording, during the February 9 meeting, though a few are from one of the previous two CRB meetings where recording was also discussed: • Auditor said if the meetings were recorded, then there would no longer be any minutes prepared (his decision), that a transcript of the entire meeting would have to be prepared instead, and that transcribing the minutes would be expensive. • Wouldn’t want to listen to two hours of audio or read an entire transcript; prefer minutes. • One board member was offended that the Human Rights Commission had sent a letter to the CRB recommending that they resume recording of their meetings. • The minutes are already detailed. • How many people would want this? Would it be worth it? • How much would it cost? • Discussed definition of “transparency” as it relates to the CRB. • Recording could have a chilling effect on the CRB’s discussions. • One board member implied that a recent ACLU case against the City regarding release of public records had bearing on the issue of recording; another CRB member stated that the holding of the case clearly does not have anything to do with the CRB’s recording of its public meetings. • Liability considerations, in case an EPD employee is mistakenly identified in a public meeting. Identifying information would have to be redacted. • No one has been asking that the recordings resume, only a “few people”. • A lot of focus on how useful a recording would or would not be for the auditor and for CRB members, but virtually none about the value of having recordings available to the public. • One member suggested more than once, would possibly support recording of public interest cases. • The current CRB policies and procedures will need to be changed (since they currently state “The meetings shall be recorded”). Are there any issues you need the HRC’s feedback on during the next meeting? If yes, please provide any supporting documents to be included in the packet by the Thursday before the meeting. • No, unless Commissioners have any comments they would like me to share with the CRB at the meeting next month. 27 Human Rights Commission Work Group Updates Date: February 11, 2016 Work Group: Anti-Discrimination Workgroup Prepared by: Bonnie Souza Date of last meeting: January 21, 2016 Summary of last meeting attached? Y/N The Anti-Discrimination Workgroup has scheduled its first two focus groups (out of seven total) on February 24 and March 14. We are being assisted by two Latino community members in putting together the final list of invitees and sending out the invites. The first group will meet at LCC from 5:30-7:30 p.m., with food from 5:30-6:00 and our discussion/listening session from 6:00-7:30 p.m. The workgroup members are gathering feedback on the process and questions we have developed for the focus groups by reaching out to two leaders from each of seven community groups (two Latino groups, including one of newer immigrants; African- American; Asian/Pacific Islander; indigenous; LGBQ; and Trans). The workgroup will meet again on February 17th to finalize our plan for scheduling and pulling together the rest of the focus groups between now and early June. While we originally planned to invite all of the focus group participants to a large meeting in late spring, it is likely that we will now plan to have two large meetings in the fall, one to include most all of the participants in our focus groups, and the other to include a large number of Latino families, to be hosted and facilitated by one of our Spanish-speaking community members who generously offered to do so. The purpose of the larger group meetings, as we understand it right now, will be to share the information we gathered in all of the focus groups, and to discuss possible ways different groups might work together as well as ways the Human Rights Commission can lend support to different communities, or to the Eugene community as a whole. We have also completed two documents for use in our focus groups: Our mission and examples of the work of the HRC, and what we are calling our “Is/Is Not” piece. We are in the process of having these documents translated from English to Spanish (which will be back-to-back on a two-sided piece of paper), especially for use in our focus group of newer immigrant families. These documents, both in English and Spanish, should be useful for all of the Commissioners to use in their HRC work and interactions in the community. 28 Memo TO: Eugene Human Rights Commission FM: Commissioners Bonnie Souza, Ken Neubeck and Edward McGlone Anti-Discrimination Workgroup RE: Request for funding DT: February 10, 2016 We would like to request funding to cover costs of the following items for our work on the HRC’s Anti-Discrimination Workgroup: Food for 5 focus groups, at $60 each $ 300.00 Translation costs, two documents, English-to-Spanish, “Questions for Latino Focus Group” and “IS/IS NOT and HRC Mission” Estimate from Crosscultural Now (attached) 132.00 _____________ TOTAL REQUEST $ 432.00 29 30 Staff Update Human Rights Commission February 16th, 2016 City Council Tentative Working Agenda February 16th, 2016 @ 7:30 pm – Public Hearing on Extension of Rest Stop and Dusk to Dawn Ordinances March 9th, 2016 @ 12pm – Work Session on $15 minimum wage for city staff and contractors. April 20th, 2016 @ 12pm – Moderate-Income Housing Community Conversations Human Rights and Neighborhood Involvement has been partnering with the NAACP and other agencies on a series of Community Conversations to build Unity in our Community. On February 11 over 100 people filled EWEB’s Community Room for a conversation titled, Oregon’s Cracked Foundations: Our History of Racial Exclusion. A number of HRC members have helped to facilitate small group conversations, participated in the conversations and supported outreach. If you’re interested in facilitating a small group in the future please email Jen V. directly. If you are interested in attending please be sure to sign up in advance, seats are going fast! Boards and Commission Recruitment Boards and Commissions are about half way through with recruitment. Please spread the word and reach out to people who you think would be interested in serving on one of the many boards and commissions with the City. All applications are due no later than March 31st. Members whose terms are expiring must reapply to be considered for reappointment. Equity and Human Rights Board The Equity and Human Rights Board is in the process of building the tools needed to support the City of Eugene’s departments build their next Diversity and Equity Strategic Plan. The timeline and final process are not complete at this time. When they are we will share that information with you. Human Rights and Neighborhood Involvement and Eugene Police Department Receive Awards from Blacks in Government On Feb. 5, the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and Human Rights and Neighborhood Involvement (HRNI) each received a Community Service Award at the Blacks in Government Black History Month Banquet for their efforts and support building healthy and equitable communities. Proposed Park Rule to Ban Use of Tobacco Products in Parks There is a proposed Parks rule being considered that bans the use of tobacco products in parks. There will be a 15 day public comment period on this issue after which the rules can be adjusted to address issues and concerns raised by the public. Lane County Human Rights, Equity and Access Planning The Lane County Commission passed a resolution in October of 2015 approving a proposal that addresses Human Rights, Equity and Access. Jen V. is serving on the Equity and Access Taskforce which is researching and proposing a model for the proposed Human Rights Advisory Board for Lane County. 31  City Seeks Volunteers to Serve on Advisory Boards Annual Recruitment for City Boards, Committees and Commissions Now Underway The City of Eugene is seeking motivated volunteers who reflect the diverse backgrounds and interests of the community to serve on a number of City advisory boards, commissions, and committees. The annual recruitment will conclude on March 31. Opportunities are available on a variety of groups including advisory committees to the City Council, departmental advisory committees and intergovernmental committees. Community members who serve on Eugene’s boards and commissions provide an invaluable service by assisting the City Council and City staff with a wide variety of subjects and developing recommendations on important policy matters. Participation on a City advisory body is an excellent way to get involved in local government, and is an interesting and challenging experience that can truly make a difference. The City is recruiting to fill the following vacancies. For some groups, current members whose terms are expiring may apply to be reappointed. • Budget Committee 2 vacancies • Civilian Review Board 2 vacancies • Cultural Services Advisory Committee 5 vacancies • Human Rights Commission 2 vacancies • Library Board 2 vacancies: 1 youth (25 or younger); 1 Bethel Library user • Metropolitan Wastewater 1 vacancy Management Commission • Planning Commission 1 vacancy • Police Commission 4 vacancies • Public Art Committee 1 vacancy •Sustainability Commission 4 vacancies (all four are councilor-appointees) • Toxics Board 2 vacancies: 1 advocacy; 1 industry • Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning 2 vacancies Committee Interested persons must submit a completed application including supplemental questions if required. Eligibility and representation requirements vary for each advisory group. For example, the Library Board is recruiting specifically for a youth representative and a Bethel Library user. Application Timeline All application materials must be received by Thursday, March 31. Applications should be submitted online at www.eugene-or.gov/bcc; however, paper applications and related materials are available, if necessary, at the City Manager’s Office, Public Service Building, 125 East 8th Avenue, 2nd floor. For most positions, interviews will take place on May 3, 4 and 5; the City Council will make the appointments in June, and terms officially begin on July 1. For Additional Information Additional information on boards, committees and commissions is available by calling the City Manager’s Office at 541-682-5010. 32