2022-10-19-LHRC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Onboarding of new members in the Fall is difficult. The pros and cons of expanding the committee were discussed. Including a comment by MS that if anything the SB was looking to reduce committees. MS assured the committee that the LHRC is not a risk of being dismantled and the Selectboard's evaluation of streamlining town committees and that this committee is a mandated by state law. One possible drawback with expanding the committee is that increased size can be harder to manage and has led to challenges with meeting the quorum requirements in the past. MS suggested workgroups to increase the bandwidth of the committee. However, our MLK Day, No Hate November, and Race Amity events are all managed by using work groups. In MS’s scenario, a member of the committee would be appointed by the Chair to lead a workgroup. Volunteers in the work group could be Lexington residents and/or LHRC committee member so long as the headcount of committee members remains below a quorum. A workgroup does not need selectboard approval. Subcommittees are a public entity and therefore its members must be LHRC members and approved by the Selectboard. Committee members felt organizing the 3 events was already near the capacity of the group. MI offered support with future events where the topics align with the Human Services Department. It may be possible, for instance, to collaborate jointly on No Hate November for 2023. The Chair was appreciative of the extended support and offer of collaboration from the Human Services Department. o Funding for the LHRC - Committee requests for funding was turned down last year and a discussion about the process followed. Previously, the committee chair has approached the Chair of the Select Board as well as the Town Offices. MS explained that funding requests for PIs have exceeded the budget allotment. Also, if the LHRC had a standing annual budget, it would put into question whether the other ~80 committees should also be funded - and MS this is not practical nor feasible. MS also pointed out that he would view funding requests for an event or project differently from funding for a committee. A committee asked about requesting funding for Training Active Bystanders as an example. This type of request may or may not be approved. MS gave an example of the $5000.00 Greenways Corridor request for printing brochures which was denied twice before being approved upon its third request. o Concern of public awareness of the presence of the LHRC - from MS perspective, the LHRC has greater visibility than many other committees and should be pleased with this achievement. Also - a suggestion to enable LHRC to share out newsletters that residents could opt to receive as a way to share out information from this committee. Additionally, with the new Chief Equity Officer (Hemali Shah), Sean Duggen will be releasing a 'welcome letter introducing Ms. Shah and perhaps the LHRC could piggyback on that announcement with info about our upcoming event. o Other ideas for LHRC work - The LHRC has received 3 complaints that are not related to incidents that occurred in Lexington. Greater clarity on qualifying conditions for our complaints form will be helpful as well as an annual audit of the website to ensure information is accurate and updated.