HRC minutes 091117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D. Dr. Stroman announced that she was considering running for Chair, but stated that she would consider Vice -Chair upon Mr. Russell's suggestion. E. Ms. Hampton asked if Ms. Richard was really interested in serving as Chair for another year, as previous discussions had indicated she was no longer interested 1. Mr. Russell indicated that Ms. Richard did not hesitate to volunteer when asked. F. Mr. Goldsmith stated that Ms. Richard has done a good job as Chair this term and he would be happy to see her in the role again if she wanted it. G. A motion was made to approve the nominations for Ms. Richard as Chair, Dr. Stroman as Vice - Chair, and Ms. Podger as Secretary [Russell, Goldsmith]. 1. The motion was approved unanimously. VII. Review of Charge and Advisory Board Policies A. Ms. May stated that the BOCC Advisory Board Policy and the full Human Relation s Commission Policies and Procedures were attached for members' reference when questions about process and the HRC's abilities come up. B. Mr. Goldsmith stated that there was some concern about Section 1, C, 1, d. Monitor complaints involving discrimination. Dr. Stroman also expressed concern with the same item. Mr. Goldsmith stated that the HRC is not shown or updated or involved in discrimination complaints, yet the public is seemingly being told that they can seek relief from the HRC. Mr. Goldsmith continued that to his understanding, there was a decision that the HRC would no longer be involved in discrimination complaints, but that piece is still listed in the charge. He suggested that the HRC either be included in the complaints including appropriate trainings, etc. or that the piece be removed from the charge. 1. Ms. Hampton stated that she would work with the County Attorney to obtain clarity about what the HRC can be involved with and what they cannot. She stated that staff would follow -up with the HRC about the issue in October. 2. Joy Preslar echoed that she would like to receive proper training on how to assist if it is determined that the HRC should be taking a more active role in discrimination complaints. 3. Marc Xavier also stated the charge is not clear in what types of discrimination the HRC should be involved in monitoring. a. Ms. May restated details from a conversation at a previous meeting that the agency is no longer allowed to process or investigate employment discrimination complaints, and is solely focused on housing discrimination complaints under the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance and the Federal Fair Housing Act. C. Mr. Goldsmith also expressed concern with Section 2, A, 4 which states that a goal of the HRC is to "conduct inquiries and hear appeals as may reasonably appear necessary to find the facts with respect to allegations of discrimination ". There was also issue with Section 2, B, 4 which states that an objective of the HRC is to "receive allegations of discriminatory housing and public accommodation practices ". D. Dr. Stroman stated that she is concerned about all of Section 2 and the differences between the Goals and Objectives for the HRC. She also stated that some of the goals are very specific to discrimination while other parts of the charge are broader. 1. Ms. Hampton reiterated that staff would obtain clarity on these questions with the County Attorney.