Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A “think tank” representing current and past Human Rights Commissioners, current and past human <br />rights staff, key community stakeholders, and City staff reviewed findings. The group then shared ideas <br />about what opportunities or solutions might be considered by the commission and staff, with items <br />divided into three areas: 1) items that required City Council direction or ordinance changes; 2) items <br />that should be considered for Human Rights Commission work planning; and 3) items that should be <br />given to the City Manager and staff for consideration. Human Rights Commissioners and committee <br />members and staff refined the recommendations. These items are the focus of this work session. <br />They are: <br /> <br /> <br /> Updating Language in Chapter 2 of City Code <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />The current language is about 20 years old and needs to be updated to align with current <br />o <br />human rights City efforts moving from civil rights to human rights framing. <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioners and community members would like the council to consider updating the <br />o <br />overall introduction in Chapter 2 to reflect current human rights work and conditions. A <br />human rights orientation moves the ordinance from a civil rights only focus to an <br />inclusive broader framework. <br /> <br /> <br /> The size of the Human Rights Commission <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Feedback from commissioners and think tank members is that the current size of the <br />o <br />commission is too large and the City should consider reducing the size to increase <br />effectiveness. Case study research shows nationally there is an average of 9 - 11 members <br />for similar commissions in other communities. <br /> <br /> <br />The commission would like the council to consider reducing the commission to 10 <br />o <br />community members and one city councilor. <br /> <br /> <br /> The current commission has four standing subcommittees codified in City Code <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Feedback from commissioners and community members clearly asks for the commission <br />o <br />to be nimble and to tie task team and subcommittee work to the current work plan. <br /> <br /> <br />Maintaining the current structure is neither sustainable nor effective. <br />o <br /> <br /> <br />The commission would like the council to consider repealing provisions for the four <br />o <br />subcommittees. These groups would be established as needed, on a short-term basis, to <br />support adopted work plans. An accessibility committee would be created as a <br />department advisory committee to work directly with departments and City staff on the <br />broad range of accessibility challenges. <br /> <br /> <br /> Effective commission appointments <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Feedback from commissioners and community members is that more focus on the <br />o <br />recruitment and appointment process is critical to the commission’s success. <br /> S:\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M111121\S1111212.doc <br /> <br />