HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-08 Bd Comm minutesAd Hoc Diversity Committee, December 10, 2012
MINUTES APPROVED
AD HOC DIVERSITY COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012
HARVAT HALL IN CITY HALL, 4:05 P.M.
Members Present: Cindy Roberts, Joe Dan Coulter, Orville Townsend, Sr., Kingsley
Botchway II, Joan Vanden Berg
Members Absent: LaTasha Massey, Bakhit Bakhit
Staff Present: Karr, Markus (4:10)
Others Present: Charlie Eastham
REVIEW MEETING MINUTES:
Chairperson Botchway began the meeting with the December 3, 2012, meeting minutes.
Coulter moved to approve the December 3, 2012, meeting minutes as submitted.
Townsend seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4 -0; Roberts, Massey and Bakhit absent.
INFORMATION GATHERING SESSION DISCUSSION and GENERAL BOARD
DISCUSSION:
Page 1
3b(1)
Botchway began the conversation by speaking about the various locations throughout the
community where they would like to hold other public forums in. Karr noted that she did not
check availability at any of these locations as she did not have specific dates. Coulter stated that
he believes they should pick the top four from this list and then go forward with setting up public
forums. Botchway agreed, asking which schools they should include in this list. Members
agreed that City and West High Schools would probably have the largest turnouts. The
discussion centered on the types of input each audience would likely contribute, with Townsend
stating that he believes having too much input is better than not having enough. Townsend also
spoke to having a forum at The Spot. Others agreed that this is a crucial meeting place for their
forum. Members continued to talk about the various locations, trying to determine the other top
locations. Townsend stated that with the feedback given at the previous forum, they should
definitely hold a public forum at Pheasant Ridge noting this would help the Committee gather
even more detailed information from this neighborhood. (Roberts arrived) Roberts added her
opinion at this point, stating that high schoolers are one of the populations they were missing at
the previous forum and that both high schools are needed in this input process. Members
continued to discuss locations, coming to the agreement to add the Waterfront HyVee to the top
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, December 10, 2012 Page 2
four list. Townsend again suggested the Pheasant Ridge area. Karr stated that they could contact
the Immigrant Voices Project as they did a lot of the interpreting at the previous forum and see
what they think about a community location. Members spoke to this briefly, with Karr
reminding them that as they approach the holiday season they need to be aware of when school is
in session. Vanden Berg suggested they tie in their public input with an event that is already
taking place, such as family night at Twain. She and Karr offered to work together on seeing
who has such upcoming events. Karr stated that she could contact IVP to see if they have
suggestions for locations.
The discussion continued, with Members talking about how they would like to handle the public
input sessions in these four locations. Karr reminded Members there should be no more than
three Members present at any one location so a quorum was not present. The discussion turned
back to Pheasant Ridge and the population this would touch. It was agreed that they would add
this location to their top five list (City High, West High, The Spot, Hy -Vee Waterfront, Pheasant
Ridge Center). Karr will check availability of these locations and will have something to share
by next week's meeting. Vanden Berg said she would contact the schools and relay the
information to Karr for distribution. Coulter then spoke to how they plan to handle these
upcoming sessions. He believes they should be fairly informal. Members continued to discuss
the specifics of these upcoming forums, with the goal being to host them in the first few weeks
of January.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE:
Botchway noted that he has been looking at the tentative schedule. Karr stated the tentative
schedule now is to meet again on December 17 and then take two weeks off. After some
discussion, members agreed to meet on January 3 prior to the input sessions. Members
continued to discuss the days and times for holding the public input sessions, agreeing that the
week of January 7 -11 would be ideal. January meetings continued to be discussed, with
Members agreeing to meet on January 14 and 24, with the 28 being held open in case they need
it, but realizing there may be a conflict in the meeting room and with City staff due to a Council
meeting. February meetings were reviewed briefly, as well. Botchway noted that he will be
unavailable for the February 4 meeting. Karr noted that she will work on an education pitch for
the upcoming forums and try to have it in the next meeting packet so Members can review it.
Townsend asked if they could return to the meeting minutes, on page 2. He reiterated what he
said about the complaint being sent notice through the Human Rights and then basically they
would contact the complainant and extend an invitation to work with them on their complaint.
He wanted to make sure that it is clear that the complaint is going to stay with the PCRB with a
courtesy note send to the Human Rights department. Karr stated that she believes this was
clarified further on in the conversation, and that the recommendations could clarify that as well.
Roberts then asked about the recommendation list and how the wording appears for that item.
Members reviewed some of this, noting that they will be reviewing these in greater depth later.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, December 10, 2012 Page 3
Charlie Eastham spoke with Members. He stated that in looking at the recommendations and
having listened to the information session that was previously conducted, both from this group
and others within the city, he is not seeing anything about changes to police conduct, behavior,
or practices. In his personal opinion these would be well - warranted changes. Coulter interacted
with Eastham, stating that they are involving the police, especially in training and culture
diversity. Eastham stated that he believes it's not clear in the recommendation list `who' is being
educated. Members spoke to this issue, making some adjustments to the recommendation list.
Coulter also spoke about community policing and how they plan to have this as part of their
recommendations. Townsend stated that his concern is how this education will be used and
whether it will create the desired changes.
ADJOURNMENT:
Vanden Berg moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:15 P.M.
Townsend seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5 -0; Massey and Bakhit absent.
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, December 10, 2012 Page 4
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2012
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member
TERM
o
W
N
O
NAME
EXP.
N
cc
W
Cn
cc
o
v
Donna
03/10/13
O/
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Henry
E
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Cindy
03/10/13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Roberts
Joan
03/10/13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
Vanden
E
E
Berg
Bakhit
03/10/13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
O/
Bakhit
/E
E
Kingsley
03/10113
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
X
X
O
X
X
Botchway
E
E
/E
Orville
03/10/13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Townsend
Joe Dan
03/10/13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coulter
LaTasha
N
N
N
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
X
X
O/
Massey
M
M
M
E
E
E
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member
Spouses and relatives of City Council Members and members of comparable
County Boards and Commissions are not eligible for appointment to City Boards
and Co issions. This includes: spouse, child, mother, father, mother- in- law,
father- in- w, brother, sister, brother- in- law, sister- in- law, step- father, step-
mother, ste - child, aunt, or uncle. (Resolution 85 -354)
Council Announcement ate: September 18, 2012;
Application Deadline: We esday, 5:OOp.m., Decen
Council Appointment Date: ecember 18, 2012
After 12/17/2012 (3 mo from the nouncement date)
applicant without regard to gender.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
One vacancy — Five -Year Term
January 1, 2013 — January 1, 2018
Term expires for Caroline Sheerin
Gender Balance Requirement: 1/Female
Males: 4
Females: 1
pfSber 13, 2012
2, 2012
may appoint any qualified
No applications as of Wddnesday, 5:OOp.m., December 12, 2012
El Denotes applicant completed the Confidential page of the application.
"Mr-f —
3n• bi�■i
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOVEMBER14, 2012 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, T. Gene Crischilles, Will Jennings, Caroline
Sheerin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brock Grenis
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: None.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by the Sheerin outlining the role and purpose of the Board
and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 10, 2012 MEETING MINUTES:
Baker moved to approve the minutes with minor corrections
Jennings seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM
EXC12- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Dudley Brothers Co for a reduction in
the front setback requirement to allow the expansion of the front porch for property located in
the Low - Density Single- family (RS -5) zone at 1613 Spruce Court.
Walz showed the Board pictures of the Mark Twain neighborhood, where all the houses are of
traditional style with uniform setbacks, which is approximately 20 feet. She said a number of the
houses have a front deck that extends into the setback. She said she thinks that it's good to
have the front decks and porches as they indicate friendly, neighborly owners, and they also
add some articulation to these houses. She said it's a fully developed neighborhood so there is
Board of Adjustment
November 14, 2012
Page 2 of 4
nothing a setback reduction would get in the way of or infringe upon. She said the applicants
had already started to build deck, 4 -17 feet, and then they decided they wanted to make this
overhang into a porch. She said this will make a setback that is different from others on the
street, but it is a pretty modest request. She said the most important specific criteria staff
considers is if it is contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations, which deal with safety,
privacy, impingement on neighbors. She said in this case, it's a modest request which will add
value and character to the house. Staff is recommending approval of the request with two
conditions: the applicant needs to secure a building permit, which the applicants are doing, and
the structure must be constructed and maintained as an open air porch.
Jennings said this is one of the standard points made by staff about porches, that they never be
considered a sideways way to build an addition. Walz said the condition is added to make that
clear. She said when property changes hands, this special exception would come up in an
abstract search and someone would be aware that the porch was granted through a special
exception. She said it would also become apparent if someone applied for a building permit.
Sheerin opened public hearing.
Sheerin closed public hearing.
Jennings said this is a pretty uniform neighborhood and in the staff report it addressed the
desirability of these sorts of structures. He said this might be something to encourage as noted
in the staff comments that this might inspire others to do the same, and that comment suggests
that porches on the front of houses makes the neighborhood more friendly, inviting more eyes
on the street and more community feeling.
Walz stated that in general, Planning encourages this kind of accessory use.
Jennings said he thinks that is something different in this proposal than the other proposals he's
seen about porches or decks in front of houses that have dealt with setback exceptions. He said
he thinks this is a positive move.
Jennings moved to approve EXC12 -00012 to reduce the front principle building setback
from 20 feet to 16 feet in order to allow the applicant to construct an open air front porch
requirement for property located at 1613 Spruce Court subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant must secure a building permit.
2. The structure must be constructed and maintained as an open air porch.
Crichilles seconded the motion.
Baker said regarding item EXC12 -00012 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report
of November 14, 2012, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless
amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommends that the Board adopt the
findings in the staff report as Board findings for the acceptance of this proposal.
All the other Board members concurred with Baker's statement in support of the findings listed
in the staff report.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
Board of Adjustment
November 14, 2012
Page 3 of 4
Sheerin declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz said she will be sending out updated Board procedure next month's packet.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jenning moved to adjourn.
Baker seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 4 -0 vote.
H
W
�
L)
V) W
0 W
Q Z N
LL
Op
0
W
o
Q �
m Q
E
O
O
Z
U p�
WE E
C N
C N
O N E (�
Q) Z O
d Q II II Z
II II W II
XOOZ
W
Y
xxxox
o
xxxox
oXxxx
xxxox
M
xxxox
o�
x
x
x
x
x
r
w
XX
i
N
X
X
i
X
X
M
co
w
CD
x
x
i
x
N
r
x
i
0 --X
N
w
fl-
CD
19T
to
CM
W
�
00000
T-
r-
T-
�-
N
N
CV
Q
N
F- x
W
�
O
O
-
O
-
O
�
O
Q)
�_
'L
N
C
L
CU
a)
a)
W
m
�c
c
a)
a)
•�
U
Ur
_
O
Z
-1
2 0o1
-§U
E
O
O
Z
U p�
WE E
C N
C N
O N E (�
Q) Z O
d Q II II Z
II II W II
XOOZ
W
Y
Page 1 of 13
3b(3)
Minutes
Human Rights Commission
November 20, 2012 — 6 P.M.
Helling Conference Room
APPROVED
Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Orville Townsend Sr., Connie Goeb, Kim Hanrahan,
Diane Finnerty, Shams Ghoneim.
Members Excused: Dan Tallon, Jessie Harper, Howard Cowen.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Human Rights Commission meeting of
November 20, 2012.
Recommendations to Council: None.
Call to Order:
Chair Olmstead called the meeting to order at 18:00.
Consideration of the Minutes of the October 1618.2012 Meeting:
Hanrahan moved to approve minutes, seconded by Townsend.
Motion passed. 5 -0. (Finnerty not present)
New Business:
Youth Awards (May 15, 2013)
SB: The Englert is booking up quickly and so they actually contacted me maybe two or three weeks
ago, and so that's why the date is being selected this far in advance. So actually from an
advertising standpoint I think having a date this early is probably not a bad thing. This is a
Wednesday and the ceremony would be at 7 p.m. and more details to come.
Old Business:
World Human Rights Day Proclamation
SB: I submitted this to the city clerk for a review by the mayor, and as it stands now it's too many
words for what he would even consider at this point. So what we can do or what the Commission
can decide to do is to cut it down to 200 -250 words, that's basically the choice that you have.
Then it will be considered, but it's still not necessarily going to be accepted, but even for
consideration it has to be cut down. I believe that word number would approximately be about
one page. I did not bring copies for everyone just because I thought if anybody wanted to assist
on this matter I didn't need nine copies, but probably just those Commissioners who wanted to
assist with trying to get this down to one page. Another thing to consider is that it has to be
completed by Wednesday the 28"' to be considered for the December 4r'' city council meeting,
which would be the only city council meeting that would be near or around the December 10"'
date of International Human Rights Day. The council does meet, I believe, on the 18I' also of
December, and certainly it could be considered for that date too, but if you wanted it before the
I Oth then we would be looking at the 280' to submit it.
Page 2 of 13
SG: December 28`h is the deadline or November?
SB: November 28th.
KH: Is it three pages long or how many?
SB: Its two pages.
KH: Is that standard protocol for submissions?
SB: Correct. It surpasses the words allowed.
SG: I can help again and if anybody else would like to chip in.
SB: I can certainly do it, but the concern on my part is how I would determine what to leave in and
what to take out and as staff that would not be my role. So if somebody wanted to go through and
mark it up that's fine and then I can go from there.
SG: So do you think we can just do it via email and then send it?
HO: Can you send copies of that?
SB: I certainly can. So who is?
HO: Shams and I, anybody else want to work on it?
SB: Let me give you these two hard copies. I'll electronically send it tomorrow also.
SG: If anybody has suggestions please let us know.
SB: I should say the whereas is something that is standard protocol for proclamations.
HO: Any other further discussion on that? Okay update on reports and Human Rights Breakfast.
Updates/Reports:
Human Rights Breakfast
SB: I want to thank everyone for all your help. It's always a stressful event until about 8:29. It had a
good turnout and great honorees.
CG: The article in the Press Citizen was very complimentary I thought.
HO: Did you hand out the surveys yet?
SB: I have not yet. Basically what's going to happen this year is it's going to be a postcard where the
Commission thanks participants for their support of the breakfast, and asking for their continued
support. Basically we can't do it without you, and for further information about the Commission
or for upcoming events, please visit and I'll give the website. I think just to streamline things try
to make the survey more internet based than sending out standard mail.
Page 3 of 13
HO: Don't forget to add to reserve your ticket for next year check here.
CG: What is the survey? Do we usually have one?
SB: It's just how they liked the space that is used and how they felt the sound was, the quality of the
program and the food.
CG: Did we use to hand it out at the breakfast?
SB: No, last year they were sent an actual letter in an envelope and the card was pre - stamped and they
could send it back. We had a really good response, but it's just not as easy to do that anymore.
SG: One suggestion that just came to me is nametags. Maybe we should have some nametag blanks
because at certain times it would be nice to know who is there.
SB: Sure that makes sense. This is just kind of to think about, and I don't think we need to get into it
until early spring. The next breakfast would actually be the 30'h anniversary of the Human Rights
Breakfast, and next year is also the 50t" anniversary of when the city started the Commission. We
might want to make it a little more spectacular. I'm not sure how to do that. It would be nice to
invite back all past honorees, however funding doesn't allow to give complimentary tickets.
SG: Maybe a discount, like a special guest rather than the $25, maybe $10 or $12 or whatever.
OT: How expensive is it to create a little booklet?
SB: I don't think it would be terribly expensive.
OT: We know it'd be expensive to give honorary tickets. We could have a little booklet that had all
the information about the history of the program, and then have pictures or inserts on all of the
past recipients.
SB: I'll check with communications, which used to be document services to see how much
information they have from before I started with the city because that is something I could get
working on early.
CG: Stefanie do you send out invitations to past honorees or any particular targeted marketing on past
honorees?
SB: If I have an address and I mean it depends, but there are a lot of past honorees that do get
postcards. I don't know if it's an invitation. I would call it more of a solicitation to attend the
Human Rights Breakfast. Past honorees the chances of them returning to the breakfast are
usually within I would say a three to four year margin of when they actually were recognized. I
do see that, but yes.
HO: Any other discussion?
SG: No, just the thought and please forgive me if I didn't notice. Do the honorees themselves have
nametags?
SB: No.
Page 4 of 13
SG: I mean I knew some of them, but they should have a nametag, and write honoree even on it.
KH: Could we include in that booklet perhaps key accomplishments of the past like four years or ten
years?
SB: Sure.
HO: Okay Immigration Subcommittee, Kim?
Immigration Subcommittee
KH: Stefanie put together a rough draft and Gloria and I got together and reviewed that. We're
meeting again next week and this is on the signage for the city offices to edit that or add additions
or deletions. The overriding recommendation would be all signs in Spanish quite frankly, but the
draft was maybe three or four pages long that included pictures of some of the key areas. Then at
the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee I don't know if you notice it in the back there was the idea
information, and that's what I was referring to.
SG: So would you say Kim that of course the majority are Spanish speaking, were there other
languages spoken from the groups that came?
KH: Not on our tour. We just really focused on the Latino population. There were some suggestions
for translation services though, and some of the departments that we went into the little sign was
either hidden or just not very visible. Folks aren't really aware that that's available perhaps.
That's such a huge thing to tackle because there are so many languages.
DF: It seems like it's a great project that the city could get also some goodwill about. Like was it
documented of you guys walking around the buildings and looking at stuff or? It seems like it'd
be a great photo op for the Press Citizen too.
SB: I mean Kim did a really good job of introducing folks to the staff.
HO: Anything else?
KH: Then just on the ID's, the universal ID's. That's one of the things that had come up on the tour
because it's already implemented in a number of other cities. There was some more information
on that that was in the handout. I'm not sure if we can move on that or how.
SB: I can check with the city clerk and I'll put a copy of it in the packet. I can mail it out email
sooner, but I will put a copy in the December packet. I'm not sure why it was included in that
packet, so I have to check myself because I'm not sure.
OT: When you say ID's what are you referring to?
KH: Well one universal ID that could be used throughout the county that would be accepted at the
library and at the rec center and at some of the other entities that What they asked for
then also would be consistent because documents.
SG: And that is for undocumented only or?
KH: No it would be citywide ID's for anyone to use.
Page 5of13
HO: At the Ad Hoc Committee forum they had a three page article about the ID system.
SB: I think maybe that was an Ad Hoc because that doesn't sound familiar to me.
KH: That might be why it was included
SB: Right.
OT: _ came in and at the public input _ support of it and gave a talk on ID's.
DF: I don't know the timing of it, but if it's relevant I'd propose that we take it up as a Commission
for our December meeting and make a vote and support a nod or has that already happened?
SB: No.
DF: That we could vote in support of the city moving forward on it.
HO: That's a good idea.
SB: I think that's what Kim is working on. I think she's working on a document that she can bring to
the Commission, so if you should get a call from The Gazette or the Press Citizen, any
Commissioner would be able to speak about the recommendation versus just the subcommittee.
KH: _ up to this point because we really were focusing on just the signage, but it came up through
the tours and then this additional information from the Ad Hoc Committee kind of brought it a
little closer too.
DF: So I guess I'd propose if it's not part of the recommendations that the Immigration Subcommittee
is bringing forward in December, that the Commission take up the issue of understanding the
issue and then voting on it in December?
OT: I had mentioned that there were several cities that had already used it.
KH: That's how it came up. There were several folks on the tour that had lived in communities where
they had universal ID's so. Do we have enough information to share?
SB: I'm going to guess that that was submitted by the person who came to speak to the Ad Hoc
Committee, so it wasn't really an endorsement by the Ad Hoc Committee, but more an
opportunity for the public to submit documentation or articles. So that's what I'm guessing,
that's why that was in that particular packet. I can certainly follow up with the city clerk, and I
can still electronically mail you that information that Connie is looking at tomorrow. I mean I
have that so it's not a problem.
DF: I might have some other stuff too from Sanctuary City Committee.
KH: Could you send it out to all of us then?
SB: Yes.
DF: Do I need to propose it for the December agenda or?
Page 6of13
OT: One of the things that I mentioned to the guy when he brought it up at the meeting, you know me
I'm always looking at the big picture. Right off the bat I could see some positives, but I was
wondering about what are the negatives that could have a negative impact on individuals if you
DF: That would be a good question to ask the cities that are doing
CG: Would this kind of ID be one that would be used you know somebody would have one ID that
they could take to different places like _ where normally you would have to take like a utility
bill or something. So if you had to get this card you probably would bring in a utility bill or some
proof of residence or something of that nature. You're thinking about proposing not just city
wide but county wide?
KH: No city wide. It'd be great if it could be county wide.
CG: Well if the city would consider it maybe then the county would too.
DF: My proposal isn't that we vote on it tonight, but that we put in on the agenda for December. I
think these questions may or may not be addressed in the materials. I think these are good
questions, but put it on our December agenda.
HO: I think one of the things that I think about will be cost. Who is going to bear the cost, be it the
city_ cost for the ID's or personal
CG: This note says that Richmond, California, which is in Northern California. The program is
administered by a third party vendor at no cost to the city, but I would think that that would be
right for. I mean ... yeah that would just seem to be...
OT: I think basically you know I'm not sure but my first thought was that would be ideal, it would be
excellent for undocumented individuals because that's one of the big hurdles they have. If it
comes down that it's going to improve the situation then we can start looking for ways to make it
accessible to them.
KH: I actually think that it's convenient for people who speak all languages because documented or
undocumented because struggling with understanding our system to begin with. This way it just
eliminates some of the barriers to at least getting that ID card.
SG: What about people that come for say a fellowship at the University. They are here for like one or
two years and they leave. Would that also be available for them?
HO: I would think so. If they have residency here in the city I would think that would be the only
stipulation.
OT: They would have a University ID wouldn't they?
SG: I don't know.
DF: So does anybody have any opposition to doing it in December?
SG: No that sounds good.
Page 7of13
HO: Any further discussion? Okay Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, Orville.
Ad Hoc Diversity Committee
OT: We had a public input meeting Thursday. It was very well attending, you know cross section of
individual, non - speaking English and had interpreters there for the Latinos. I was disappointed
that there weren't that many individuals for the African American community there, but there
were a couple. I think we kind of missed out on that segment so we had our Ad Hoc meeting
yesterday. We're thinking that in order to be more user friendly we're going to try and get out
into the community places like the schools and we're looking at our options. We requested some
kind of ruling on the legality of kids in the schools because I know I'd be really upset if I found
out that somebody had met with my kid you know a situation like that without my permission.
So we got to check and see where we go with that, but we are definitely going to be getting out
into the community, and trying to get the information and the feedback that we need. Another
thing we talked about, well yesterday in our meeting the representatives from the Police Citizen's
Review Board were there, we met with them and it was a very good meeting, very productive.
We just kind of laid it out on the tables things like public distrust from certain communities. The
fact that we really need to work at doing a better job of educating our community about the law
and the police force. We talked about the review process and one thing that really kept coming
up was the fact that all appearance that the police department is policing itself because if you
make a complaint the police chief basically that's the first round. You meet with the individual
and then the officer and then he gives his recommendation to the Police Review Board. Then
they can do whatever they feel they need to do to get what they need. One of the things that we
came up with was in order to counter or eliminate that appearance of self you know patrolling is
that, well let me back up. One of the problems that we run into is with the union police when it
comes down to the individual who makes a complaint, the Police Review Board can meet with
that individual. But when it comes to _ officer, only persons have the right of the authority to
request that that person participate is the police chief or the person's superior. So supervising an
officer or...
DF: Is our force unionized here?
OT: Yes, or the city manager. Those are the only two people that have the authority to require that the
police officer participate. So the suggestion was made that maybe the city manager could sit in
on that session, and that kind of starts that _ that appearance of the police force totally you
know investigating itself. Another thing we came up with is maybe the process could be changed
so that a member of the Citizen Review Board would sit in on the meeting with the police chief
and the complainant. Again that's kind of getting in there you know.
SG: Would they accept do you think?
OT: Well you know this is, we have to make recommendations to the city council, so these were just
some things that we were kind of throwing out there. It's like we, I personally thought it was a
very good meeting. Everybody just kind of laid it on the table to kind of get a picture of what
we're dealing with. Of course not everybody agreed on what we're dealing with, but we
discussed it anyway.
DF: Was Kathy P_ there, the legal counsel?
Page 8of13
OT: Yes I think her name was Kathy. It was a young lady and then the guy who chairs it. That's kind
of where we are there. So in the future we will be trying to set up meetings so that we can get out
into the community and see if we can get some individuals from the community be engaged and
share the concerns that they have.
KH: There was also the suggestion of focus groups.
SG: To do what?
KH: To get some information to the Ad Hoc Committee, so like the schools having small focus groups
and the neighborhood center having small focus groups so that it was less intimidating. Also
listening posts came up which I thought was kind of a neat idea. I know a few of the county
supervisors have listening posts. I thought it would be nice if we It's a way to get out
into the community and help them understand the work that we do.
HO: Stefanie you also appeared before the Ad Hoc Committee. Do you want to say anything about
that?
SB: I was invited to speak. They wanted to know about the process as far as the Human Rights
Commission, and then what the process is if there would be a complaint filed against the city. So
that's basically what I spoke on. I think that the reason I was asked to go there so that they had a
better understanding of how our office, you know I think at one time they thought maybe there
was more of a relationship there. But generally speaking if somebody wants to file a complaint
against a city department .... I try to be careful in my wording here so I'm going to slow down,
but because I want people to understand and realize that they have the ability to come to the
Human Rights Office here in Iowa City. What we would tell somebody is that we can help intake
this, but to avoid the appearance of impropriety, we would transfer the complaint out, but we
certainly are available to get people that information and to answer questions that someone may
have and things of that nature.
SG: So say party A had a complaint against party B, which is a department within the city. They can
come to the Human Rights Office, but wouldn't that be a conflict of interest at some point?
SB: Well we would just intake the complaint. We would not investigate the complaint. We would
transfer it out. Generally it would be the State, but it depends because sometimes it depends, but
generally speaking it would be the State. I don't think it's a conflict because all we're doing is
either giving somebody something or we take the complaint and then we transfer it.
OT: I was surprised that they seemed to have so much difficulty comprehending what you were saying
when you said that if someone comes to you and they have an issue with a landlord or a job
discrimination, then your department will deal with it. But if someone came to you and wanted to
file a complaint against the city that you know you wouldn't deal with that. You would basically
pass that on because of the impropriety. That seemed very simple to me, but it just kept coming
UP.
CG: Stefanie I'm not sure what your tenure has been here, but have you can you estimate have you,
how many you might have had like that?
SB: That's not something I could answer whether a complaint has been filed or not. That's not
something I would, that's part of the ordinance. Whether a complaint has been filed against a
business, educational facility, that's not something that I can disclose. Lots of times we receive
Page 9of13
calls like for example: my employer is doing this, have you had other complaints? That's not
something that I can disclose.
KH: I was surprised to find that there's really no tracking system for any officer complaint that would
have more than one complaint. Is that true?
OT: I don't know. I would hope that that's not true.
KH: I think that the last I had heard that that was the case and currently their system doesn't track
officer complaints because they have to put a number with that complaint right, and so they don't
have any way of tracking how many complaints one particular officer may have had. Is that so?
SB: You mean the PCRB?
KH: Yes.
SB: It's possible, I don't oversee the PCRB.
OT: The PCRB may not have that information, the police department has it.
DF: That's the point you put it in the PCRB statements right. So it's not just a personnel matter, it's
a...
SG: If it's a police matter isn't that confidential?
OT: But I think basically my understanding of it is when the police chief, that's his investigation with
the individual and the officer. Then he passes it on to the PCRB, and then they can request what
they want, and I think if they wanted to know how many complaints were against that individual,
they could request that information from the chief. I would say most likely the board would have
the authority.
DF: Would you recommend it as a system change? Would they have it automatically? That seems
like its relevant information.
OT: I would say it should, you know, but obviously I agree that anytime there is a complaint against
an officer one of the first things that should be looked at is what is that individual's history. I
can't guarantee that they're doing it. I know the information has got to be available, but whether
or not it's being utilized, I don't know.
KH: Then I wonder what consequences there are for repeat offenders if any.
SG: The issue is because it's almost like a university issue; you know we're sort of in the middle of
something similar. What constitutes confidential information, which is personnel versus the right
of the individual that is issuing the complaint?
OT: The biggest thing about confidentiality in this situation is that it's a personnel matter. You know
so it's kind of, I would say that's a delicate area because I would think that yeah we really need to
know how many complaints this person has had against him, but at the same time that gets into
the personnel arena so you don't know what your rights would be to get it.
Page 10 of 13
DF: It could be depending on who gets to know it, like is it the PCRB gets it and the public doesn't.
The PCRB serves an investigatory role. They would be granted it seems like extension.
OT: A good question though, and in the next meeting I'll ask that question to the city attorney. You
know is that something that could be included automatically where there is a complaint, is that
the information that we looked at in terms of complaints that the person had.
SG: Here's another question. Say the board recommended a specific recommendation against a
specific officer. Does the police department, does it have the choice whether to do it or not, to
follow that recommendation or not? What's the final outcome? Okay they did the investigation
and found officer A there was just cause okay. So they go back to the chief and tell him or her
that, and then what?
OT: I would think that what happens is once the Police Review Board comes to its conclusion and
makes recommendations to the chief, and then the chief would probably follow that, except you
know if the officer doesn't agree. He or she can always appeal or if the chief chooses not to do it
he doesn't have to. The Review Board is just an advisory board.
SB: The annual report, which should be available online, would give an overview of the process and
that may answer some of these questions also.
HO: Any further discussion?
Building Communities
OT: We met this morning and where we are is we're trying to branch out to the community and
identify individuals that want to work with us. We want to form a group to actually look at issues
in the black community, and basically set some programming in place. One of the things that we
hope to do is get parent citizens involved. So that's kind of where we are, so we are in the
process of identifying individuals and we're planning to have a function in January where we'll
invite everybody and give our spiel and see how many people we can get to buy in on it. Then
once we get that established and then what we hope to be able to do is sit down with the group
and kind of discuss what we want to do. You know what issues we want to deal with and get a
commitment from the group. We've been talking about various things in our committee about
what we think needs to be done, but we decided that we would hold off until we actually get the
group formed because we don't want to set a direction that we're going to take, and then go on
with the people on board. It would be much more productive if we waited and let the people who
are going to be involved decide what the group is going to do as a whole.
HO: Any further discussion?
University of Iowa Center for Human Rights
HO: I can speak to that. As you all know the University Center for Human Rights is a target by the
Provost Office to be closed next year. Several things have occurred. The executive board has
met and formulated a sub - committee to save the Center for Human Rights, and I'll pass out the
fact sheet that we put together. There has also been a student organization that is recognized by
the University to save the Center for Human Rights. I want to point out that on December 5"' at
3:00; it's a Wednesday at the Pentacrest they are going to have a protest to save the center. They
also ask that you sign the petition online and the address is on the sheet. They are also sending an
Page 11 of 13
email to Sally Mason. They brought up the email that we sent. They were very pleased with that
and they want to see more letters to the editor. The Provost Office is taking a lot of heat on this I
understand from several areas, and the Provost has asked to meet with the executive board and we
are trying to set up a date for that.
SB: You were talking about the Provost Office and how they've been viewed.
HO: They want to meet with the executive board and we're working on setting up a date for that. As
of right now the School of Education has agreed to accept the Certification Program in Human
Rights that has been offered. The School of Law is going to take over the Camille Internship
Program. Burns Weston who is affiliated with the School of Law has got them to agree to keep
up the website that has a large hit on it daily, and they're going to keep that up. So this is just
moving right along and there are more ideas that are being generated and planned. They are
talking about having a 24 week movie night, a movie on human rights each week for the next 24
weeks till the target date of the center closing to get people more aware of human rights on the
campus. So there are a lot of things being generated. Any questions?
DF: I think the email address they are using at the bottom is incorrect.
HO: This is what was sent to me.
DF: Do you know who did it? What they've got is Provost Butler's hawk ID, but not his email
address. It should be patrick - butler @uiowa.edu.
HO: Okay thank you. Any other concerns or questions? I understand the Library Board is looking at
the One Community, One Book as a possibility to be picked up at the library, but right now we're
not calling it quits and rolling over just because Provost says that we have to.
OT: I thought that the award that was given to the center was very tasteful and very timely.
HO: The students are also talking about the possibility of a sit -in. I'm not sure exactly where. They're
talked about Sally Mason's office. They talked about the Provost Office so.
Reports of Commission
SG: Nothing
CG: No
KH: Just one thing. I was really sad, I was watching a city council meeting and sad to hear that the
Grant Wood skating program is no longer in existence because they couldn't control what was
happening out on the playground. So this was every Friday or Saturday night they had open gym
and open skating at Grantwood Elementary. It was a community, I think it was or
something. It's been going on now for over a year and it just finally on the decided to close
it down because of the unruly behavior of the students outside of the gym and the many calls to
the police.
OT: No
DF: Nothing
HO: I don't have anything at this time.
Page 12 of 13
Reports of Staff
SB: The status of complaints should be the last page in the packet. I want to mention that our own
Harry Olmstead was recently recognized, and I hope I have this correct, by the Iowa Chapter of
the National Rehabilitation Association.
SB: Do you want to talk about getting the award?
HO: I was given the Craig Woods Award. Craig Woods was a vocational rehab counselor who is
blind I understand and did a lot of active work in the community. So they named an award after
him and they recognized someone with a disability that has been active in the community. It
hasn't been awarded for four years, that's what they told me, so I was quite honored to receive it
this year.
SB: So the Iowa Chapter of the National Rehabilitation Association. Then I want to mention that
there were vacancies on the Commission and those have been filled. One is by our own Harry
Olmstead, who was actually filling an unexpired term. So now he gets to come back and serve
again. Then the other is Joe Coulter, who I believe is a professor at the University. The third
appointment Katie Anthony who is the program director for the Iowa City Association of
Realtors. I worked with her before for fair housing conferences and stuff. I think that's all.
SG: When do they start?
SB: Technically January 1, 2013.
HO: Who is the second person, the woman?
SB: Katie Anthony.
HO: Our next regular meeting is scheduled for December 18, 2012.
Adjournment:
Motion to adjourn at 18:49.
Next Regular Meeting — December 18, 2012 at 18:00.
Page 13 of 13
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2012
(Meeting Date)
KEY:
X = Present O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting /No Quorum
R = Resigned - = Not a Member
TERM
NAME
EXP.
1/17
2/21
3/20
4/17
5/15
6119
7/17
8/21
9/18
10116
11/20
12/18
Dr. Howard
1/1/13
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
O/E
Cowen
Constance
1/1/13
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Goeb
Harry
1/1/13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Olmstead
(8 -1 -2010)
David B.
1/1/14
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Brown
Diane
1/1/14
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
Finnerty
Orville
111/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Townsend,
Sr.
Henri Harper
1/1/15
O/E
X
O/E
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Kim
1/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Hanrahan
Shams
1/1/15
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Ghoneim
Jessie
1/1/15
-
-
-
-
-
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
Harper
(Appointed
6-5-12)
Dan Tallon
1/1/14
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
O/E
(Appointed
7- 31 -12)
KEY:
X = Present O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting /No Quorum
R = Resigned - = Not a Member
"�r'r�
34=
IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26,2012--5:30 P.M.
APPROVED
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Bergus, Alexa Homewood, Matt Butler, Hans Hoerschelman,
Nicholas Kilburg
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Bob Hardy, Ty Coleman
OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Bond Drager
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
None at this time.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Hardy distributed and read through a list of questions that need to be addressed in planning for a joint
access facility. Homewood asked if there is a timeframe for determining the answers to these
questions and for moving into a joint facility. Hardy said there is no definitive timeframe but probably
not before six months. Hardy said any facility will need the approval of the City Council, as it would
involve incorporating it into PATV's contract. Butler asked if a larger facility than those of the City
Cable TV Office or PARV's facility is contemplated. Hardy said a larger facility might not be better.
A larger facility involves greater costs. The current amount of space at the City facility, for example,
may be adequate. Bergus asked if there has been any financial analysis of the actual costs and
potential savings in a joint facility. Hardy said there has not been such an analysis to this point. He
was instructed by the City administration to look into a joint facility. Bergus said the process seems
backwards. If the goal is to achieve greater efficiencies and reduce spending, all costs should be
analyzed and possible savings identified. Bergus said the Commission needs to consider all financial
possibilities and if a joint facility can not be shown to result in significant savings that needs to be
brought forward. It makes little sense to discuss a joint facility until ballpark financial information is
available. Hardy said his instructions from the city administration are to explore a joint facility.
Bergus said the job of the Commission is not to take any particular conclusion as the best option, but to
advocate for the best delivery of access services. Hardy said he would develop a financial analysis for
the Commission to review. Bergus said that the first step in the process should be to determine
approximately how much money will need to be saved over the long term given the reduced funding
level after 2018 and then look at how that might be reached. Regarding the broadband survey
Hoerschelman noted the document in the meeting packet outlining the remaining tasks before a survey
can be conducted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Hoerschelman moved and Bergus seconded a motion to approve the amended October 22, 2012
minutes. The motion passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS
Hoerschelman noted that the December meeting is scheduled to fall on December 24 and suggested
that the meeting be moved up a week to Dec. 17. The Commission agreed to change the meeting date.
SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSUMER ISSUES
Hardy noted that a complaint report was included in the meeting packet. The police department now
has the contact information for Mediacom for emergency situations. Kilburg asked if there was any
evidence to suggest that the outages on the Fox channel were deliberate. Hardy said there was not.
MEDIACOM REPORT
Hardy said that Grassley had a conflict and could not participate in the meeting. Hoerschelman noted
that Mediacom's retransmission consent agreement with Sinclair expires at the end of the year.
Hoerschelman asked about an inquiry he forwarded to Hardy regarding the lack information on the
Internet of Mediacom's rates. Hardy said he had not forwarded the question to Grassley but will do so.
LOCAL ACCESS CHANNELS REPORTS
Drager reported that the library channel would be moving to the information technology department
within the library's organizational structure. Hal Penick will ultimately be responsible for the channel.
Goding reported that PATV's next board meeting will be held Dec. 13 at 7 p.m. A high - definition
camera workshop will be held Dec. 20. A printed newsletter will be available before the end of the
year.
CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Hardy said the only thing he had to report would be covered in the next agenda item.
JOINT ACCESS FACILITY
Hardy distributed and read through a list of questions that need to be addressed in planning for a joint
access facility. That list is pasted below.
1. what Idnd of merge is this? it must be limited to a, use ofloint facilities with a
2. Any merge must g !d s e: oowol of r 11# # production x;{ Public
production; to cusure the integrity of ist Arnendmentrights of community Producers.
3. BUF this does not s 1 there cannot be a common `# Y produce t#
programming. 1
4. We have to consider reso-urces at levels projected for operate ' now.
This is not {'lI for growth, but instead an oppor=ity to create and
workable "access" environment for the post City fimohise years.
need to define how t jointly • rs at minimum levels and,.
t . 4 it # efficiency.
where 6. Savings realized by using minimum resources now should save the ptupose of
building a lager reserve for the future?
7. Joint issues of concern to be determined must include:
what size of j oint facility is needed,
}r r such a facility be located,
office., storage, and production space needs,
joint day-to-day manag=ent strategi . of ,a
management Y a fi=cial reserve,
system of arbitration of differences.
OtTrITMU FR
Tea-
production possible with reducedTesources-
Homewood asked if there is a timeframe for determining the answers to these questions and for
moving into a joint facility. Hardy said there is no definitive timeframe but probably not before six
months. Hardy said any facility will need the approval of the City Council, as it would involve
incorporating it into PATV's contract. Butler asked if a larger facility than those of the City Cable TV
Office or PATV's facility is contemplated. Hardy said a larger facility might not be better. A larger
facility involves greater costs. The current amount of space at the City facility, for example, may be
adequate. Bergus asked if there has been any financial analysis of the actual costs and potential
savings in a joint facility. Hardy said there has not been such an analysis to this point. He was
instructed by the City administration to look into a joint facility. Bergus said the process seems to be
backwards. If the goal is to achieve greater efficiency and reduce spending, the costs should be
analyzed and possible savings identified. It has not been demonstrated at this point how much money,
if any, a joint facility will save, or if it is the best means to achieve greater efficiency. Hardy said
because the value of the City Cable Office has appreciated in value, Markus believes it may be best to
sell the facility or rent it out and use the proceeds to fund access operations. He did note that there are
also costs to creating a joint facility, such as potential remodeling, paying rent when the City Channel
doesn't currently have rent expenses, moving equipment, and moving a local origination point. Bergus
said the Commission needs to consider all financial possibilities and if a joint facility can not be shown
to result in savings that needs to be brought to the administration's attention. There are other
possibilities for saving money beyond a consolidation of facilities and all options need to be on the
table. It makes little sense to discuss a joint facility until ballpark financial information is
available. Hardy said his instructions from the city administration are to explore a joint
facility. Bergus said the job of the Commission is not to take any particular conclusion as the best
possible option, but to advocate for the best delivery of access services. Hardy said he would develop
a financial analysis for the Commission to review. Bergus said that the first step in the process should
be to determine approximately how much money will need to be saved over the long term given the
reduced funding level after 2018 and then look at how that might be achieved, rather than plan for a
joint facility and hope that it results in savings overall.
BROADBANDSURVEY
Hoerschelman noted the document in the meeting packet outlining the remaining tasks before a survey
can be conducted. That list included:
1. Bob will contact the City ITS department regarding any input on the survey instrument.
2. Mike will draft an email to be sent a select group of City employees to beta test the survey
instrument.
3. Hans will (has) draft(ed) language explaining the purpose and goals of the survey for use in
solicitation of respondents and to be included in the survey instrument itself.
4. Bob will inquire into sending a request to complete the survey to all City employees.
5. Hans will inquire into sending a request to complete the survey to all ICCSD and UI
employees.
6. Bob will inquire of the City ITS department the IP address(es) of city computers so respondents
are not using City computers to fill out the survey.
7. Hans will inquire into the ICCSD and UI IP address.
8. Mike will (has) gather info and costs to include water billing stuffer soliciting respondents.
9. Bob will inquire into Mediacom billing stuffer soliciting respondents.
10. Hans will inquire into companies /organizations that could conduct a phone survey and the
costs.
Hoerschelman said an additional question will be added to the survey asking where they found out
about the survey.
ADJOURNMENT
Bergus moved and Butler seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4�fo
Michael Brau
Cable TV Administrative Aide
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD
(X) = Present
(0) = Absent
(O /C) = Absent/Called (Excused)
Hoerschelman
Ber us
Homewood
5/28/11
X
X
X
X
Homewood x
6/27/11
x
o/c
x
x
X
8/27/11
x
x
x
o/c
X
9/24/11
X
X
X
X
X
10/24/11
X
X
X
X
X
11/26/11
X
X
vacant
X
X
Kilbur
2/25/12
X
X
x
x
X
Butler
3/26/12
o/c
x
o
x
X
4/23/12
X
X
X
X
X
5/21/12
X
X
X
X
X
6/25/12
X
X
X
X
X
7/23/12
x
X
X
X
X
8/27/12
x
x
x
x
X
9/24/12
X
X
X
X
X
10/22/12
X
X
X
X
X
11/26/12
X
X
X
X
X
12/17/12
X
X
X
X
x
(X) = Present
(0) = Absent
(O /C) = Absent/Called (Excused)