HRC minutes 061217 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

as suggestions. Ms. Moore reminded members that the HRC is the advisory board, not the Hate Free Schools Coalition, so the conclusions are coming from the Human Relations Commission. Scott Goldsmith expressed his concern with presenting the report on behalf of both the HRC and the Hate Free Schools Coalition, given that the HRC is the advisory board. After discussion, the members agreed that the report should be given on behalf of the HRC rather than both groups that sponsored the meeting. Ms. Richard questioned the ability of the BOCC to enforce the HRC's suggestions, and Ms. Moore stated that the recommendations from the report are really more for the Board of Education and less for the BOCC as the BOCC does not have the authority to make a decision on their behalf. Marc Xavier clarified that the HRC is advising the BOCC and that the board will consider the HRC's insights. Mr. Xavier also questioned the HRC's stance as a neutral party on the topic of the flag in schools. Mr. Goldsmith stated that the HRC can have a position and draw a conclusion, but its duty is to facilitate conversation and convey the outcomes from the meeting to the BOCC. Mr. Xavier stated that the HRC's recommendation should be on the side of justice. Ms. Moore stated that there is a difference between coming up with a non - neutral conclusion than starting out from a position of being open to all sides of the argument in order to assess and then coming up with a decision based on what is known. Ms. Moore reiterated that the four conclusions are geared more toward the Board of Education than the BOCC, as the former is independent of the latter. Ms. Richard stated that as long as the report touches on each aspect of the charge, it's in good shape to present at the BOCC meeting. Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Russell also discussed the first and fourth takeaways and discussed the legal complications of banning the Confederate Flag in the dress code while allowing other symbols. Ms. Richard reiterated that the legal suggestion in takeaway four was based on the legal precedents provided by the panelists at the meeting. Mr. Xavier disagreed, stating that schools have the right to decide. Mr. Russell pointed out that the criteria suggested in the fourth conclusion was that the flag has historical and emotional ties for particular minorities, which justifies it being banned while still allowing symbols like the rainbow flag which does not present historic and emotional offense. Joy Preslar again questioned presenting the report to the BOCC considering they cannot make a decision on behalf of the school board. Mr. Russell clarified that this report will serve to notify the BOCC of the HRC's conclusions from the meeting, not to ask them to enforce them. Ms. Moore pointed out that the legal discussion happening is the same the school board is having. She stated that the wording of the fourth takeaway is what should be addressed, stressing that the symbol can also be offensive or distracting to people who are not minorities. However, given the historical