Human Rights Commission Special Meeting   11/7/2024

I hear audio.

OK, let me try that again.

I'm going to call this meeting to order at 6.33 p.m. on November 7, 2024.

This is a United Nation work session.

Who do we have with us?

It's a hot call.

It's a hot call.

I believe that.

You're anticipating hardness?

Mary, not here, and Kathryn?

Here.

Suzanne?

I am here.

Jason is not here.

Heather?

Here.

And Elizabeth?

Here.

So poor, thank you.

Great, thanks all for joining.

We will then recite our mission.

Have their agendas in front of them or the other side of your name tag.

Our mission is to act as a strong advocate to justice and equal opportunity by providing city-wide leadership and guidance to the area of civil rights.

I lead my workplace's LGBTQ plus employee resource group, and I've taken to doing the same thing with that group.

I also make them cite our mission statement.

We're like, why are we here?

What are we doing?

I know a way.

We can all get on the same page.

It's a little weird at first, but you're going to like it.

We're going to open up to matters by the public.

Note that this is for in-person attendees only.

Do not believe we have anyone physically present who would like to make a public comment.

For anyone who is participating virtually, if you are experiencing technical difficulties, you may call the number 434-970-3115 and a staff person will be able to assist you.

Again, that's 434-970-3115.

I'm going to roll it into our work session today.

I'm going to switch some things around because Ernest is unable to join us until later in the meeting.

So instead of leading with our public hearing vote, I'm gonna say let's first deal with our city local policy recommendations, discussion and letter, which is at the very end of your packet.

Grab that page.

I think it's attachment five.

Yeah.

Page 363 of your packet.

I don't know why I'll find that today.

Sorry, nothing is downloading for me right now.

But when I when I was looking, when I was looking at it earlier today, I think there's a question about how much of it is still fully relevant, and what we need to change in terms of there's both the suggestion and about low barrier housing that is starting to be addressed.

as well as the outreach positions that is also being addressed.

The first and third.

Yes.

At least in public sessions.

So yeah, with the letter, um, but actually both letters, I feel like

I guess it's worth asking is there a kind of time constraint like I know we want to get them to them in time for budget season consideration but as this information is kind of coming in I think we kind of now know what we don't know and how to know it so it's like you know could we kind of pause this while we wait for input to come in from members of the community and various organizations

you know, around that funding for the outreach position.

That's very well put, Wolfgang.

Yeah.

And then for the effective right to counsel, you know, as we saw that email

Albemarle is continuing to fund counsel for tenants facing eviction, but Charlottesville has stopped.

Wait, what?

Not to interrupt that email chain.

But so at the meeting where it came up, I will just, you know, I talked to Emily

about kind of looping in, and Todd, you were there too, and looping in- Sorry, it was Emily.

Emily Dreyfus from LAJC was there about kind of looping in a conversation with LAJC about what is possible from their end, and then almost just wondering if we should ask them for guidance about what would be useful for us to ask for, what's like reasonable

So a thought to, you know, LAJC's focus, I think primarily for evictions is in

Those were people with vouchers or living in subsidized housing.

That's correct.

I'm curious about, should we attempt to re-engage with Central Virginia Legal Aid Society who does the work around other types of residences?

That's an interesting point.

I mean, you know, I've said this before, but my issue with that is just that because you have to be below the poverty line to receive or to work with them for market rate.

There's just very few people who are paying market rate rent and don't make more than the poverty line.

You know, it's just an incredibly low threshold.

So even if they did have the funds, it's almost like,

I guess without the input, I'm not really sure what the more curated ask would be that you could... And maybe to your question of sort of what is the timeline that we need to push this out?

I'll give you a little bit more of a sense of where... How fast we have to make that ask.

Yeah.

So there's kind of a budget calendar that I can talk to you about a little bit.

So there's a bunch of work sessions and public hearings and forums about the budget.

There's lots of meetings leading up to it.

They did the kickoff in September and I'm just kind of looking at, so the city manager's budget forum is December 12th, but I believe that is like the public, as I recall last time, this was city manager hosted a public event for members of the public to ask questions about the budget.

And that was at Carver.

The first

Council work session.

There's two planning commission things that happened earlier, but the first council work session on the budget here is on January 30th.

So that might be a time to present.

I don't know how that works in terms of like

being able to interact with council, but I can find that out in that moment.

Yeah, well, I think kind of timelines have shifted.

Probably and priorities are shifting in the process of shifting right now.

But, you know, I would guess that they'll probably get back to me, let's say within the week.

Let's maybe say, you know, and then we could always make a more like a less specific ask and then kind of do both.

Right.

Like kind of keep the ass that we have in place if we can't get more information.

and then maybe add in the information about the funding in Albemarle County.

And then as we get closer to budget season, like maybe right now say we're flagging this, we want this to be a priority.

And then as we get closer to budget season kind of say, okay, here's the specifics that we're looking for.

because the things that we're asking for at this point, based on major technical difficulties, oh, but I am in the correct document.

Yeah, so the things that we're asking for, at this point, what we're saying is we support the low barrier shelter and the supports for homelessness.

But the ask is really about the effect of the right to counsel piece.

So then it makes me think, I guess is there a, is there a quick letter?

I mean, we were saying this, like, do we just send like a quick note from HRC that says thumbs up on, we very much appreciate that you're moving forward with X, Y, and Z.

And then we keep that separated and then use that, get more information and use the right to counsel

later.

Letter and then maybe questions afterwards or letter and then like silence.

We're only making one ask, right?

We're only making one ask.

But sending a good job, keep it up, and a separate ask seems... Because a separate ask will be, it sounds like it will be a little while down the road, right?

That's a good point.

Maybe we just kind of keep the vague part about right to counsel in this letter and we hold off on this separate letter.

and flush that out as time comes.

We actually have that already in there.

We could be following up with a letter that further underscores our support.

And then we can add that that's where the support for providing universal counsel to tenants and eviction proceedings, as well as like, I don't know, regional examples of where this has been done effectively.

That's good.

Yeah.

We're right exactly.

Bumping it would be really great.

And the state's recommendation on the support was actually two outreach coordinators, is that right?

Is the ask in this document then sufficient when funds seem to have been allocated but people have not been hired?

that seemed to be the barrier.

Now they're moving forward.

So that position's been there and they didn't do anything.

Now they have a plan and they're going to execute it.

Yes.

So that's what I'm writing.

Number three is reaffirm the city's recommendation to include in the budget.

Sorry, Lily, what were the specific to put in the budget to

Yeah.

Got you.

That's a good point, right?

It wasn't for you.

Although the money is already there, right?

Yeah.

I think the money for that is there.

The outreach piece is new, I believe.

It was previously just a homeless services coordinator, so I think it's fine the way that it worked.

Do you also want to advocate or support the rest of the recommendations, including the shelter?

Do you want to articulate that here?

Yeah.

Okay.

Oh, sorry.

I got you.

The city council meeting, what date was it?

The other one I haven't listened to yet.

Yeah.

November 4th.

It was Monday.

Okay.

Yep.

I don't think it was November 4th that Sam presented that.

It was the one you emailed out.

And that was a long time ago because I feel like there were like extra weeks in October.

Yeah, it just feels so long now.

So long ago.

Every two weeks, the 21st.

What were some of the other policy recommendations?

Oh, and city, Sam Sanders?

Yeah.

It's the low barrier shelter.

We got that already, yeah.

Kind of like tiny homes.

Little tiny homes.

Pallet was the brand name.

He calls them pallet homes.

It also included annual funding, annual recurring funding for the Continuum of Care

It was bigger than they continue to care, Corneer, right?

Yes, for BRAC, for the organization.

And I believe there was also operational funding for the shelter included.

Before, like, can we like agree that yes, are there in the bowl and have somebody look at the video and make sure like, maybe it should just be like the suggestions made, the recommendations made by

Yeah, like we'll vote in print.

Do we have minutes?

I did just watch it, but I'll be able to watch it again.

Oh yeah, yeah.

I can watch it tomorrow.

Yeah.

I meant to do it, but I prioritized reading that.

That was the page back that we had today.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

It was only.

Yeah, I was, that's why I was late.

Yeah, we further want to find your LLC recommendations.

Yeah, I think it's I think that's why it's here.

So let's check twice.

I think all things we suggested are great, even if they didn't occur in that meeting.

We missed.

And we salute your prioritization.

Is it just continued annual funding for BRAC?

Do we need to say specifically?

Because it's more than one role.

Just bracken that mention?

I think so, yeah.

Have you got it already?

Pending.

So if you want to come in tomorrow and just...

We like it.

We love it.

I feel good about it.

My understanding is, and maybe I don't know if we've talked about this, but my understanding is this doesn't go on.

does not go into the letter, but connected to the low barrier shelter, is as we know, Salvation Army is very much involved in that process and is looking for, as my understanding, is looking for another organization to actually ultimately run the shelter.

So, yep, I think this is good.

Okay, Elizabeth's gonna be our final check.

Do you want to vote on it?

Are we ready to vote on it?

Yes.

So conditional on who's going to watch the video?

We're going to watch it tomorrow.

We'll watch the video.

Definitely watch.

We'll communicate.

We'll watch, communicate, and edit as needed.

Great.

Building touch.

OK, hold on.

Conditional on that, we want to take it to a vote.

Yes.

Great.

I vote yes.

We vote yes to voting.

Which we'll approve.

Yes.

Wasn't it?

Okay.

Thanks y'all.

And then we'll just have the goal of kind of holding off on that more detailed right to council letter until details emerge.

Yep.

Put in our agenda for like our, our monthly meeting this month.

Great.

The other things on our work session is a work plan check-in.

That does seem

Someone dependent on if we want to hear, do have a public hearing.

I think we need to go there.

So the other thing is new business.

Do we have any new business?

Any events we want to share?

Tomorrow I'll be at Madison Avenue for the Far Fall Festival if anyone wants to join.

I think that's the only coverage for this weekend next week.

Oh, not true.

One stop is on Thursday the 14th from 12 to 3.

Everybody would like to have the day.

Maybe.

You don't have to tell me right now.

I'm thinking, I know we're trying to wait for our own effort, but I also think it might be helpful for us to, I don't know if you've thought about this, I haven't, but like, what is the best way to discuss this?

I mean, so I think there are a couple of things, like one, and you know, one could be, every time the door opens, I keep looking, it could be interesting, and I want to state for the public listening to this, that this is not the recommendation that I would say we would just do this and be done, but I think it could be interesting and helpful to get a pulse check on where everybody's head is,

at first and any outstanding questions that people may have that we collect that first and then determine from there, here comes Ernest, and then determine from there what makes the most sense rather than

Can I just make a small observation, which is that is literally how Martha's Rules are supposed to work and we never do it.

You're right, it totally is.

That is exactly how it's supposed to go.

You're absolutely right.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's funny.

I've used that another.

We've used this in other meetings.

It's never been called Martha's.

Like I just see, you know, it's just like a great way to get a sense of.

So the point is to make it efficient if everybody agrees in one way or another.

Right.

Yeah.

And we're going to go into this.

I think maybe we all are grassroots because we're both on uncharted territory for this.

So Martha's rules of order.

So to continue Suzanne's thought, which is that we

Take this time to see how everyone is, I guess, feeling, initial thoughts about how to approach the public hearing and then also address any outstanding questions that people may have regarding this.

We want to do questions first, or just maybe we do the quick pulse check first.

So what are, I'll defer to Todd with this.

Todd, what are our options, our concrete options for moving forward with the public hearing?

Either move forward with the public hearing or we do not.

And is there a third or fourth option with this?

It is one of the others.

It is a yes or no.

There's no more back and forth.

There's no more reaching out to.

No, at this stage,

Both parties are just awaiting a vote from the commission as to whether or not there will be a public hearing.

So both of them are aware that's where we are?

No.

One of them wants the hearing, and the other one, I believe, doesn't really want the hearing, does she?

Yeah.

She doesn't want to do mediation.

She doesn't want to, well, okay.

And she, okay.

Maybe you could walk us through the consequences, the implications of one course of action versus another.

That would be helpful to me.

Okay.

Two things.

Okay.

Hearing this, hearing what this hearing, what does one part mean?

Yes.

The respondent in a letter was clear that they want

It doesn't really matter, to be honest, because that is the process.

It's your decision whether or not either party

Once said or not, as opposed to an appeal in which that is that is elective of the complainant.

If they send you notice within 10 days of the dismissal, they say, hey, I want an appeal by or want a review by the commission of the finding.

Yeah.

Well, based on what you just said, that is the process.

You said that is the process.

The next step is it comes to us, regardless of they.

But

It's because somebody has said that they are not pleading.

It would have stopped at the final letter from you if nobody had said anything.

No.

OK.

Sorry.

Too many consequences.

I know it's coming.

That's fine.

I'm here all night.

I'm kind of like processing here.

So the process was there was a, OK, the investigation happened.

It went to mediation.

Mediation reached impasse.

At which point we say, okay, we're going to render a finding.

We outsourced that finding.

It came back with a finding of no reasonable cause on housing discrimination on the basis of race.

So at that point, that part of the complaint is dismissed.

Complainant did not appeal that finding.

But there's an additional finding of retaliation.

And so the retaliation finding is that is the piece that is up for public hearing because there was a finding of reasonable cause for that.

Which they did not.

The next step is for it to be reviewed by the commission for whether you want to hold a public hearing.

Consequences of holding a public hearing was the question, correct?

OK.

So if you vote to hold a public hearing, we go through the process as is outlined in the version of the Human Rights Ordinance that was passed in 2013.

I have a draft agenda for how that could get laid out.

So just expanding your definition of consequence, one of the consequences is that you will need to prepare for that.

City Attorney's Office has agreed to be with us at our work session on the 5th of December to go over that agenda.

I will be needing to participate remotely for that, but I think it's still possible.

So you get the training, you hold the public hearings.

Consequences also could include the fact that both parties may be present in the room and any interactions that happen there.

We have to think about how to facilitate and manage those for everyone's well-being.

Just a thought.

If you hear everything and uphold the finding,

The most you can do is say we uphold the finding, you should go back to mediation, or we uphold the finding, we recommend that the city attorney consider civil action on behalf of the complainant they're not obligated to.

There are under the current ordinance they'd be obligated to for a housing complaint where there's a finding of reasonable cause.

That's a change in the ordinance, but not under that ordinance.

And that's how we've been operating.

Like when the complaint is filed, what ordinance was in effect when the complaint was filed.

So you can't impose a fine.

You can't issue an injunctive order.

You can't award damages.

You can't do those things.

Only the courts can do that.

So that's really all you can do is uphold the finding and say you should either go to court or we recommend the city attorney's office take it to court on your behalf.

They say, man, we can't right now.

then you're back to you ought to take it to court if there's a finding if you just vote not to hold a public hearing then the case stands as it is with the finding of no probable cause on the initial issue but probable cause sorry I'm going back and forth because probable cause in that version of the ordinance on the retaliation finding

The case closes at a certain date at which point the tolling on the clock for the statute of limitations for the complainant to file begins again.

So they would need to seek independent legal counsel or file pro se, which I don't probably think is a good idea, to seek any further remuneration or whatever they want as a result of that.

Thank you.

Thank you for giving me.

I realize I asked questions before we did the poll.

It's actually helpful though.

Yes.

Clarifying questions.

Are we ready to do the quick poll?

Can I ask a quick question, a clarifying question?

And I don't know if I am allowed to say, like, it seems like the motivation for wanting to, seems like one party really wants to have the public hearing and the other party doesn't really.

That's not the impression that I got?

But one party requested a public hearing, right?

Right.

Right.

So that was the respondent that requested the hearing because they are contesting the judge's decision about retaliation.

Yes.

The other, the complainant hasn't

It comes to the commission for this vote regardless of what they want.

You're not getting it because someone requested it.

Why do we get it?

You get it because there was a finding of... Of retaliation.

So we would have gotten it even had he... A finding of probable cause in this case on an issue.

Okay.

That was brought to the office.

That was brought to the office.

So in any case, in any version of the ordinance, if there's a finding of probable cause or reasonable cause, which is in every other version of the ordinance,

Then, if the parties choose not to pursue alternative dispute resolution through informal dialogue mediation or conciliation in housing cases, and in housing cases, neither party elects to have the matter resolved in court, then it comes to you for a public hearing.

Just check with pulse.

It's a quick pulse check, not a final one.

Sorry, can I ask like, if we said no, that we don't think there should be a public hearing, like what would be reasons that we think like this needs to come to us because we need to render like a finding and like close the case, but what are reasons we might say no, I don't think we should have a public hearing?

But please.

Well, I was just going to say, I'm looking at Martha's Rules of Order again.

And actually, there's something before the pulse test, is what I'm realizing.

Well, there's also the, it says, you can have people who are in favor of, it says of the proposal, but people who you have, and then you give a time limit.

So it might be the, and then speakers who are in opposition.

So people who are like, who want to say yes,

would have one minute or two minutes.

I don't know.

I'm making this up.

And then people who want to say no would have one or two minutes.

And then it looks like we have any general discussion.

But also, it might be helpful for us to be able to say yes or no with some explanation that then allows us to pulse check.

Does that make sense?

Or do we just want to do a quick pulse check?

Let's do a quick pulse check.

Pulse check, pulse check.

All right.

So yes, public hearing or no, no public hearing.

You can just go down the line.

Okay.

So I guess thumbs up.

Yes.

Public hearing.

No.

Thumbs down.

No.

No public hearing.

Okay.

Okay.

I want to hear the no's.

And to capture like who was a half and who was yes, it was no.

So a couple of no's.

A couple of no's.

I'm going sideways.

Keep your thumb up, everyone.

All right.

It seems like we have no real consensus.

I'm not sleeping in the thing together out of that.

We might learn more as we, as I say why it seems like not the very best idea.

Yes.

So it is not a time for a debate.

Maybe we should set one minute for the people who are in favor of yes.

For each person.

I don't capture the vote.

Whoever voted yes or whoever would like to ever speak in favor if you if you were undecided and you would like to speak in favor of yes.

I think there was only one yes.

Is that right?

You got the timer?

Okay, let's roll.

I don't know.

I got you.

You don't have that dude trying to do it Martha's way.

I was just going to say I feel like having the hearing may just be a good thing just because it'll give the opportunity to kind of more clarity and it's also just get to the bottom.

I feel like, you know, because the other person feels like they've been wrong, just get that voice heard.

And maybe it won't get ordered if it's not a hearing.

So I just don't think that could be fair.

It's just kind of simple.

I forget this person with thoughts.

Well, I know, I mean, there's there's guidelines and all that, but

Sometimes, you know, probably especially what I work with, it's just a lot of things just get overlooked.

And I just think that sometimes it's just giving them that platform to speak up and just saying, this is what happened.

They might not even get the only shot.

Any other one else in favor of the guest?

We had two maybes.

We had some maybes if anyone would like to speak.

Yes, hearing.

I will turn it down.

Okay, I'll go maybe.

My maybe is I just, one wanted, one did not.

I'm worried about,

It seems like they've been through this process a while.

And a lot of lawyers, a lot of back and forth has happened.

Mediation has happened.

I'm just concerned also with them being in the place together and how do we mediate that.

And also the fact that if we come back with something, we have really no power.

other than for them to say, you know, say we do find something.

Then, you know, what power do we have to resend them, hey, go ask so-and-so to do this.

And they might say, nope, we don't want to.

And then they're back on the hook to try to find counsel and that type of thing.

I think Catherine was a maybe, weren't you, Catherine?

Yeah, I mean, I'm not feeling strongly like any force of justice would necessarily be served by this hearing.

The person who originally filed the complaint, I mean, there was a finding that there was some harm to the complainant.

They can choose to move forward if they wanted to.

Our hearing doesn't really

The most we could do is say, well, the landlord didn't.

We don't find probable cause for retaliation, right?

We can uphold it or not.

And the only thing we're gonna do is say we do or don't find, I don't know.

Has he ever been in trouble for retaliation for the same thing?

I don't know.

What I feel like I should say to Ernest, I don't really know that the

Original Complainant, doesn't want it.

I mean, because I mean, I stand corrected on that issue.

I guess I was reading through the materials.

And it seemed that way, like just from when I was reading that you might have privacy concerns, and that it would be difficult for us to protect privacy.

And also that it's sort of an

Asymmetrical legal situation where one side has lawyers and is like, you know, like it has many, many properties as it, at least according to the documents, it sounds like they have many properties.

And we'll, we'll do that for speakers in opposition.

We'll present their views next.

Okay.

Am I the only one?

No.

Oh, you said we were in opposition.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Mine was like, mine was sideways, but mine's a little, I'm leaning in the no.

Yes, sir.

I just want to make sure that you guys have the information that I have.

And so I was looking for, it was not an email that I got from the complainant.

It was a phone conversation that we had after she received the letter about the determination.

And she said she does not want to pursue mediation but would pursue a public hearing.

In opposition, I think we should not have a public hearing because I want to

I want to uphold the decision that was made and release the decision back to the complainant so that she can obtain justice as she sees fit.

I don't think that a public hearing would do much to pursue justice for her or the respondent beyond, I guess, drag out the process a little bit more, knowing this is a 2020

This case means that they've both been waiting a long time, and I would just like to petition that has been rendered, uphold it, and release them to take the next course of action.

If I am wrong about any additional authority that we have, I would be open to change my mind, but I don't think we can have anything.

That's it.

That's my time.

I'm off.

I'm ready.

So similar to what Wolfgang just said, I, especially having read all the documents, I feel like it has been litigated, if you will.

And I worry that it will just be another, that it would just be re-litigated.

And given the amount of work that has already been done,

It is hard for me to see that additional information would come forward at this point.

And Heather, you said this, but I am worried that the respondent will show up with lawyers.

The other folks will possibly feel forced to hire counsel, which makes it even more inequitable.

And to Wolfgang, to your point, we're talking about something that looks like it started in October 24.

So we're over four years in.

Any other notes?

I guess maybe I've spoken enough.

But I will just say, Todd, I think this is a really excellent investigation.

I mean, when I read through this, it was so clear what was happening.

And, you know, I have to say that were I the judge, I would have like everything that stood out to the judge was like what stood out to me too.

So

So anyway, I think it was really it's excellent.

And it's tempting to be like, well, we should talk about all these issues more because a lot of these have sort of implications for legislative recommendations and things like that.

But there are things in our ordinance that talk about protecting privacy.

And I worry about that.

I mean, they wouldn't keep us from holding a hearing.

But there is sort of an interest in not

Not revealing identities when people come to the Human Rights Office.

So I think that's important.

Thank you for sharing.

The next part of our process is general discussion or debate.

Now we debate each other.

We would like to set a time limit on the discussion portion.

What do we feel is a reasonable time limit for discussion?

Shall we say 15 minutes before the first vote is taken?

Oh, five.

Five.

I think we kind of have talked about this and I think we have listened to each other.

Okay, so five minutes.

Facilitator helps group identify key issues.

I don't think we need one.

Everybody just pile on, we'll see how that goes.

And then a motion to table or refer is in order and requires a three-fourth vote.

Okay, we haven't done that before.

I am firmly in the no camp at this point.

I have not heard.

I feel like I hear your point about the person having a say, but I feel like these documents, like there was a pretty thorough investigation.

And the only thing we can do is undo the finding that was in the complainant's favor.

So I do feel like the complainant's voice was heard and the, yeah, it was a thorough investigation.

It's gone on for a long time.

One idea that I had that sort of resembles the justice she was originally looking for is the complainant was originally looking for the leasing agency to reevaluate, to just have transparency in their policies and to, or to change their policies if their policies were discriminatory.

And I don't know if

If we uphold the judgment and release that to the decision is like if that justice happens.

So I was wondering, is there an opportunity for the Commission to look into leasing practices of individual leasing agencies and to evaluate or make recommendations so that they are more transparent and they are more equitable?

Can we, as like an individual body, just like call them up and be like, would you kind of have a discussion with us, like kind of offline about leasing practices?

Can we do that?

Like what's stopping me from going to the office and saying,

And we could say now we have seen as a commission that

The tenants really do need to know about their protections under the Fair Credit Reporting Act because that might have helped her in this case.

Well, maybe it would have helped her with the issue of retaliation, not that that was her complaint, but being made aware of this is why you're suddenly unqualified for this apartment and to say whether or not it had to do with

a credit report or some other financial issue but I mean in this case they basically admitted that they just decided that she was unqualified because she accused the leasing agent am I right about she accused the leasing agent of potential discrimination and he

Brindard, or he decided that she was unqualified within five minutes of her doing that.

So it's like retaliation.

Right.

So anyway, having a law like that, having a law like House Bill 996 or whatever it would be, would be good.

Sorry, you said that was House Bill 996.

OK, it's HB 996.

There are a few others, but HB 996 was so that landlords have to be clear on the criteria that could disqualify a tenant

from Renting and make them aware of protections under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

And so under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, there are these protections of, if there's an adverse action taken against a person in regards to housing or credit, that they should be made aware that that adverse action was connected to their,

It seems like we could go that direction.

What the justice that would be accomplished by upholding the finding and releasing the complainant and the respondent to take further action on their own.

And then the justice that we can enact by taking action as a commission to make sure that we advocate for policies that protect tenants rights.

Maybe I'm hoping there's space to do this on the very individual level so that this tenant feels heard.

I see your point of that, like, we're not really enabling that in this process, then I really wish we were able to do more of that.

Explore this individual leasing agency, individual tenant relationship, if it's possible for the commission to do that, like maybe we can explore that conversation.

But then also we work to advocate at the local state level.

with policies that protect tenants' rights.

So I guess I compartmentalize this into what we would do, the justice that would be upheld by the hearing or not the hearing, and then what can we do outside of this?

I'm so curious what Todd thinks, because I feel like

This was like the most thorough investigation I could imagine.

I don't know.

Giving the community the opportunity to file in court seems logical.

It also presents its own challenges and barriers because that means finding legal counsel.

That's a whole other thing.

As the commission, after you've chosen not to hold a public hearing, reaching out to

A respondent in a closed case to ask to review their leasing policies.

Because the matters that you discuss, you see what I mean?

That's I think that's the conundrum I'm having in my head is that you basically decided to have a public hearing without the complaint having to be president.

So

Yeah.

No, no, it's not an error.

I like I had to think about it for a second.

I was like, creative, but why?

Why would that work or not work?

But if we wouldn't be able, in the context of public hearing, to require that the leasing agency changes anything in their policies, would we?

You can recommend.

Yeah.

And I guess that was a deficiency in my explanation of what you can do.

You can still make any sort of recommendation to the respondent that you wish.

If we don't hold a public hearing, are we in any way depriving the original complainant of an avenue?

Going back to what Dawn talked about, the only thing that you're

Depriving the complainant of is a moment in the public eye to sort of voice their position and how this impacted them.

But as you note, like that also comes at a potential cost, right?

But I mean, weighing that out, again, complainant said, yes, let's do a public hearing.

I don't want to mediate.

Respondent said, I want to mediate.

Who they bring with them to the public hearing is another matter.

Respondent's going to bring legal counsel for sure, because legal counsel has been the primary correspondent since the mediation started.

I don't know what the complainant will do.

They have legal counsel during mediation.

They could revisit that legal counsel or somebody else.

But they bring legal counsel.

There's not a whole lot, right?

Like our hands are tied and we can make recommendations, their voice is heard.

But if they want to take it to court, there's still like, there's like, us holding a hearing may add to their expenses.

Right?

Yeah, I don't know.

I sort of feel like we should not be substituting our judgment for what is good or desired.

Right?

We're making assumptions.

Yep.

Yeah.

I mean, I was under the impression that she...

Because when I was reading the documents, it was clearly the respondent that said, I would like a public hearing.

We disagree with this.

Yeah.

And so it seemed like it was one party that really wanted it.

I still remain in the camp that I'm worried that we're just going to re-litigate something that's already been

And not be able to deliver any more judgment than has already been given.

It goes back to that piece in the ordinance.

It's like it's at your discretion as to how the ordinance is best served.

And I think that's what you're getting to is like, what is the core of your responsibility here?

As a commission, what are you trying to do?

And it's like, you know, when I, when we take complaints and we're looking for how, what is the shortest path toward resolution and wholeness as best as we can provide it, right?

And maybe that's something that you're trying to think about as a commission as well.

What is, what is, what does resolution and wholeness for this look like?

And that it can take different forms.

It can take being heard.

It could take going to court to get what, what they want.

Weighing out the impacts, again, you can't judge exactly how either party feels.

You know how the respondent feels because they want to vehemently defend their position.

Complain said, I'm open.

But it's hard to judge there.

So it's more like what process would get

The resolution around the finding, unless you disagree with the finding, what process would get resolution on that finding more firmly than this?

And so if it's not this, then it might be court.

So that's a way to think about like, okay, are we delaying their ability to do the thing that might be most impactful and like fulfill the duty of the ordinance?

I don't know, that's just another way to kind of

Could I ask another question?

Would we also be finding on kind of the legitimacy of the process where the respondent seemed to have a problem with who the judge was and also had a problem with them obviously finding for retaliation when that wasn't part of the original complaint?

Would we be in a position to say,

We think that this judges, you know, a judge like this is, I mean, not that this is what we would have to rule.

You do have to do that.

I think that's a slippery slope as a commission to do that.

No.

I will be concerned in being involved in that.

That is more of them questioning the legitimacy of our interpretation of the ordinance.

And that's not really OK. Yeah.

For you to have to worry about.

Are we ready to take a first vote?

So the way that we phrased this then, in favor of the proposal, was in favor of public hearing.

And so we would vote either in favor of the proposal, in favor of the hearing, and live with the proposal, or opposed to the proposal.

Okay.

If the majority of people vote in favor, we proceed.

If the less majority,

Vote in favor.

The proposal dies.

Wait, how should we do this?

I need to change the word proposal.

The proposal is to do it or the proposal is to not?

The proposal originally was to do it here in favor of doing the public hearing.

I am biased because I.

Jen Lee said, I don't want the public hearing.

But I think we could maybe disagree.

Well, basically you make a motion.

Somebody should make a motion.

And so what is your motion?

I second it.

OK. OK. We take a vote.

This is just I think this is just the first vote.

We are now laying Robert's Rules over top of Martha's Rules.

So if we're doing Martha's Rules, this is the proposal, we vote, and then if a majority of people are in favor or can live with it, then we proceed to a second vote.

And people who are still in opposition are able to state their objections and their concerns after the first vote.

So, okay, let's try that.

I propose that we don't have a public hearing and people can vote in favor, can live with, or opposed.

In favor, can live with, or opposed.

I have to add a category to my things here.

I will do that.

We'll use C for can live with.

OK. Are we ready?

Yes.

OK.

Here we go.

Ernest.

OK. Got it.

Do I have his?

No.

Elizabeth.

Suzanne.

In favor.

Okay.

No one was opposed.

So we proceed to step 8, which the second vote is taken, as in step 6.

But because majority... To be honest, we already had the first vote.

Our first vote was our thumb vote.

Yeah, okay.

That's fair.

Yeah.

Does everyone, like any of us dissenting, can live with it voices like, yeah, I feel like the idea is to say like majority rule, but like,

You know, so.

My thing is like, even if there was like a little small test of like discrimination or it was like retaliation, maybe there is something there.

I don't know.

That's what I was just saying.

I don't know.

But yeah, I just think that should be explored more, but it seems like it's been investigated fully and it is what it is.

Can I just ask you a question because I'm not sure.

Since they found that there was retaliation, what would our hearing add?

just to put it on the public record, is that what?

I mean, I think, yeah, I mean, I think it's, that is something that she would feel like, yeah, she was retaliated against and it was wrong if that was something that was set out just for her, you know, if that's something like, hey, like I was retaliated against because of, hey, to me, that was, it wasn't because of this over here where he was supposed to be disqualified or whatever, or told no, it was because of this specific reason.

And if it's because of this specific reason, it doesn't qualify with the policies, to me, that's,

Especially if he admitted it, it's kind of going against what he's saying.

You know, it just doesn't seem ethical.

I should say it's more ethical than anything.

Something, yeah, I mean, you don't pop the record because if this happens again, at least it will be a pattern.

So that's what I'm just saying.

And she might need to be that voice to say, hey,

I started the ball rolling, and this is a pattern with this other landlord.

And then you get another pattern, hey, well, if he's Italian, gets me too in this area, in this area, in this area.

So I was just saying like, yeah, maybe she should.

Thanks.

It's a hard thing.

I hear you.

I'm just.

It's just four years going by.

And I don't know if you're going to really bring as much closure.

And especially if this individual has properties on top of properties, it's probably not the first or it won't be the last time that he's going to do this.

and you know what could be great is if she reached out to other people that he has rented to and they've been together to come up with something or you know an agency that could that you know

I can work on that.

Todd, to the question earlier about, or the idea, I'm forgetting, that you had about reaching out to them, and I know that's off the tip, but is there a work

that the, sorry, that the Office of Human Rights is, I'm not suggesting adding work, but is there work that the office is already doing?

I know there's some work I think that the office is already doing in terms of understanding some of the barriers that may be, I feel like Shiel, like, am I making, there was some work that you were doing related to like different,

different landlord, not landlords, but different apartment bill.

I'm sorry, what am I trying to remember?

It was the source of funds.

The source of funds.

Okay.

And that's not connected because it is interesting to what you're saying, Ernest.

It is interesting to think and on what you're saying too, that a little bit in my head was like, how, is there any place where the commission and our staff

is putting landlords on notice a little bit of like people are paying attention to this.

And it might not be us.

It might be another organization.

It may not be our staff.

It may not be our commission.

I'm not sure, but it is, you know, it is interesting to think like we are, people are paying attention to when you retaliate and or discriminate against folks in this community.

I don't know.

It's a sad part.

It's a bigger issue than, yeah, I know.

I guess it's what I do, like I work with people who feel like they've been discriminated, especially when we all see it.

So I think it's like sometimes like, oh, I just don't want to fight.

It was just fighting.

So, yeah.

And I'll be honest with you, we haven't perceived that too much more deeply after Shiles had more cases to investigate.

So we just shifted it.

We're going to work with someone on potentially picking up that research, but they weren't able to do it.

So if it ever comes off hold, maybe there's something between, like maybe these things are connected.

Not same issues.

Right.

Yeah.

I mean, in this case, money really wasn't the problem.

Right.

I mean, they didn't know.

They didn't, like, take stock of all of the funds that she had and the way that maybe they might have.

But they were going to rent to her based on my understanding based on what she had.

But she does it.

There's this thing where she says under remedy sought by complainant.

She stated that she believed that if a landlord is found to have discriminated against a prospective tenant, that landlord should be obligated to pay a fine to the city.

I'm assuming the city can't do that, but I actually don't know.

Is that possible?

Is there something the city, maybe it could be something

And we already have plenty of recommendations, but you know, maybe it's not a fine, but it's like the city will at least have a log that they're maintaining that says this has happened.

And they put it in some, you know, database or something.

I don't know, but the city isn't like, they can't just levy that fine.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Cause I mean, it would be a great idea, but.

I love that.

Yeah.

Yep.

Agree.

I was going to take a second vote, but Kathryn has put it out that we already... That was the second vote.

Are we good with that vote thing?

Okay, great.

Okay, so we voted to not, so to hold a public hearing, right, and to release the

That, correct me if I'm wrong, this then upholds the decision that legal, the outsourced legal counsel found, upholds the decision and releases the decision back to the complainant and the respondent to continue as they will.

Okay.

Do you have a question?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Were you at?

You have such expertise on this whole investment.

And I'm always learning, right?

This is uncharted territory for me as well, right?

Because I was still under Charlene's tutelage when I did that investigation, finished it,

after she left and then yeah and so this is a journey it's yeah it's a challenging one I think maybe the thing that I that I was thinking about as you're talking about not having

Not having the capacity to do more or the authority to do more, you know, that is part of the reason we're pursuing the FAP agreement.

Right now we have, if there's a finding of reasonable cause, the case is automatically, the civil charge is filed on behalf of the complainant.

So, and if they,

choose not to do ADR, then it goes there, ADR being alternative dispute resolution, then it goes to court.

So in that sense, it doesn't empower you all anymore, but, and I don't know how to change that piece of it yet, giving you the power that the courts have,

That's not, that's not happening in the state level.

It's not probably going to go high with City of Theresa.

Yeah, so.

I think the new procedures will be better.

Everything about it will be more streamlined.

It won't be four year long processes.

In the sense that you could review the record and then write a set of recommendations afterward, yes.

Yes.

And not necessarily subject anyone to a challenging confrontation.

Yeah, it's not just the two parties.

It's how we manage it.

Yeah.

Whether or not we actually make a, you know, accidentally make a mistake, reveal something we're not supposed to.

There's so many.

Yeah.

City Attorney would be present to like, help us out.

And I don't want us to shy away from that challenge because it's it's it's uncharted territory.

No, I know.

But I still see how it furs justice for either party.

I agree.

Well, sort of a uncomfortable moment to that.

I guess, yeah, in our work session, the work plan check-in is next.

It's like a bit of switching gears here.

I guess maybe to not wrap up the conversation, but thank you to Todd for

A few hundred pages of material for us, read it twice, trying to understand and hoping that our

the process, throughout the process that the complainant and the respondent feel like justice was upheld during the process and that they can find some resolution going forward and that we were a helpful part of the process.

Work plan, okay.

There's no Mr.

Resolution, I can't say.

There's no segue.

Brilliant.

Thank you.

So we are in November and we voted to hold a public hearing.

That was what we did today.

Looks like the next meeting we will take to amend rules and procedures to reflect a new election timeline.

I'm actually not sure what's involved with that.

The election of officers that we are starting, starting the election procedures and the electing election officers.

Put some changes into the rules and procedures regarding this.

I have to look at it to be honest with you.

And I dropped that into a previous agenda packet.

Which I will also have to go back and look at because I cannot remember when it was.

I believe it was the 17th.

So that we met the deadline while in advance of when you had to like have five days notice of whatever.

So it gave you like two months notice.

Those are the things.

I'm going to go back and look at them now because I don't remember.

But that's it.

And we wanted to also add, given that Elizabeth may have a conversation with Emily Dreyfus about Albemarle's effective right to counsel, Albemarle residents, we may use that information to update the letter that Mary drafted about effective right to counsel.

And so we would like to add that to the November's regular meeting.

And it's the follow-up that we're mentioning in the letter that we just put it on today.

So we would do that on 11-21.

We also no longer need to do public hearing.

Well, then to do public hearing preparation.

I'm assuming that public hearing preparation for December 5th was this old procedure, not new public hearing.

You're nodding, correct?

Yes.

So we would then have that space cleared for maybe other business or maybe nothing.

Okay.

And that seems to be update for work plan.

Also officer nominations are coming up December 19th, so.

Think of who you want to lead this group.

Is it you or somebody else?

Ernest?

You are.

You and Ernest, I think, are doing it.

I mean, Ernest.

The combination committee.

Yeah, that's right.

Someone should admire that.

I feel like you two will be amazing once you, you know.

Let's just ask our phone calls, please.

emails.

That's all.

That's the phone calls and emails.

And then also with two of us going off, we need to start a new recruit.

Hello public.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

I re-upped.

2018, kind of around when I started writing.

Before you started.

Before I started work with Charlene, I can't remember, before I started at the office.

So we will hold the 12-5.

We'll talk about that in the next group.

We're going to do public comment, but that's basically it.

Oh, that's right, because we used to do, do we do nominations then?

No, nominations are 12-19.

I don't know when we'll vote on

On officers?

We would just do it on 1-16?

Yeah.

We will talk about that process.

Great.

Work session.

New business.

Do we have any new business?

Okay.

Better than the public?

Too fast?

So, I did see your email about your letter.

I'm sorry, I just saw it.

But it was very well done, written up.

Yeah, it was Chai-Jin T. But it was definitely well done.

So I'll make sure we get that to city council.

And I want to give our city manager

Sanders.

Shout out if you watched the October 21st meeting, was that one you said?

And what he's proposing and what he's doing and what he wants to do, it is a hope that Council will

Let him have the money to do the things he wants to do, to put bathrooms on the downtown mall, to support Salvation Army.

And just kind of the way he's moving around money, finding money and using money in a proactive way.

We even add a little sentence in our local policy recommendations.

We affirm this list of things as discussed on the October 21st meeting.

I thank you for the email, by the way.

But yeah, it was very, it was like really helpful.

And I was like, oh, I'm going to respond to this right away.

So, so yeah, so very, very, yeah.

I'll listen to the November 4th meeting, but I just haven't had a chance to be one.

But yeah, that, that was really, really helpful.

So, so sorry.

We'll put some humanity on each street.

Matters by the public, in person and virtual attendees.

Do we have any one virtually?

If you would like to speak to

The Human Rights Commission for public comment, please raise your hand.

OK, well, thanks for joining us and thanks for listening.

We appreciate you.

Super chill.

Really nothing happened.

Great.

Okay, then I will propose us to all go to bed and rest.

Thank you for being here.

We appreciate you.

Thank you, you guys.

All right.