HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 9012
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9012)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/27/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Human Relations Commission Response to Council
Resolution # 9653
Title: Recommendations From the Human Relations Commission in Response
to Council Resolution Number 9653 Reaffirming Palo Alto’s Commitment to a
Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive and Protective Community
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
As requested by Council, the Human Relations Commission (HRC) carefully considered
Council Resolution #9653 Reaffirming Palo Alto’s Commitment to a Diverse, Supportive,
Inclusive and Protective Community and prepared recommendations to support and
extend the Council resolution, focusing in particular on immigration and gender equity
issues. The HRC prepared a letter explaining their work and recommendations, attached
as Attachment A to this report. Guided by the HRC’s proposals, City staff recommends
that Council consider one or more of the following actions to further the HRC’s
proposals, providing direction to staff regarding timing and prioritization in light of
overall City goals and priorities:
1) California State Senate Bill 54 (SB54) – Sanctuary State – Direct the City
Manager to review the City’s policies, procedures and programs, make any
adjustments that may be appropriate, and report to Council on the City’s
alignment with SB54.
2) California State Senate Bill 31 (SB31) - California Religious Freedom Act – Direct
the City Manager to review the City’s policies, procedures and programs, make
any adjustments that may be appropriate, and report to Council on the City’s
alignment with SB31.
3) Send a letter of endorsement to California State Senator Kevin de Leon in
recognition of the City’s commitment to the values expressed in SB54.
4) Send a letter of endorsement to California State Senator Ricardo Lara in
recognition of City’s commitment to the values expressed in the SB31.
5) Adopt Amnesty International’s resolution in support of Refugee Resettlement in
Santa Clara County.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
6) Direct staff to study and return to Policy & Services with options for a City
ordinance endorsing the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of all
forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Staff’s work should include:
a. Affirming the City’s commitment to the principals of the United Nations
convention of the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women,
and
b. A discussion of the potential for a gender analysis, including potential
focus, scope, and phasing of an analysis, and roles of City staff, the HRC,
and Council.
Executive Summary
The recommendations included in this report follow from the work of the HRC in
response to Council Resolution #9653, Reaffirming Palo Alto’s Commitment to a
Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive and Protective Community (Colleagues Memo from
Council Members Holman, Kniss, Wolbach & Burt, passed on December 12, 2016). The
HRC designated an ad hoc subcommittee of the Commission tasked with reviewing the
Council resolution, planning an approach to address its main areas of emphasis, and
drafting a response back to Council. After conducting a baseline assessment of the
areas included in the resolution and testing the results against a list of established
criteria, the HRC discussed and deliberated the suggested recommendations over a
series of several meetings before bringing a final slate of recommendations to the HRC
at its February 8, 2018 meeting. The recommendations being brought to the Council for
their consideration highlight two key areas of focus of the Resolution; immigration and
gender equality. As the subject matter of the Council’s resolution squarely aligns with
the charge of the HRC, the Commission will continue to focus its ongoing efforts in
support of a supportive and inclusive community and, when appropriate, bring forward
other policies for Council consideration. Staff has added additional comments and
suggestions to the HRC’s recommendations, to harmonize the HRC’s work with the
City’s governance structure and in light of Council’s and the City Manager’s overall work
plan and goals.
Background
On December 12, 2016, the Council passed Resolution #9653, Reaffirming Palo Alto’s
Commitment to a Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive and Protective Community. As part of
the approval motion, Council moved to refer the subject matter to the HRC, for
“recommendation of implementation measures and additional elements that should be
considered by the Council in the future.” ( Resolution #9653 -
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55179. Council Action
Minutes 12/12/16 - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55464).
The subject matter of the Council’s resolution aligns with the charge of the HRC as the
Commission has long addressed diversity and inclusion issues in the community. During
the spring of 2017, HRC Chair Valerie Stinger led a community committee to plan a
series of four well-attended forums on implicit bias called Being Different Together –
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Taking the conversation deeper. This was a follow up to an initial forum on the topic
the previous year. The HRC has also lead successful forums on Veterans Homelessness,
Domestic Violence, and Senior Issues and takes seriously its role as a leader on human
relations issues in the community.
In response to Council Resolution #9653, the Commission created an ad hoc
subcommittee (subcommittee) in the spring of 2017 to review the resolution, plan its
approach to develop recommendations, and draft a response back to Council with
assistance from Office of Human Services staff.
As the Council’s resolution covered a broad area, the subcommittee’s first task was to
identify the key areas that the Resolution reaffirmed including the:
• City’s spirit of diversity and inclusion
• Rights of vulnerable populations
• Rejection of any forms of hate and bias
• City’s commitment to lead by example
To provide a sound response to Council that would include implementation measures,
the subcommittee conducted a baseline assessment of the key focus areas of the
resolution by interviewing key leaders in different sectors of the community,
researching best practice programs and services locally, regionally and nationally, then
“testing” all suggested recommendations for action against the following list of criteria
which they established:
• Serves vulnerable populations
• Provides opportunity to make a difference
• Informed by best practices of successful programs elsewhere
• Leverages collaboration with local and county partners
• Is achievable and scalable
• Lies within the City’s sphere of influence
• Reasonably serves populations featured in Council Resolution
The subcommittee thoughtfully considered a series of options and initially developed a
list of recommendations in seven areas:
• Immigration
• Gender Identity
• Hate Crimes
• Inclusive Public Engagement
• Citywide Diversity Learning
• Implicit Bias
• Gender
City of Palo Alto Page 4
From there, the subcommittee worked through a process of refining the draft action
plan to craft a package of recommendations for the coming year, which they hoped
would be meaningful, achievable and reach multiple vulnerable populations in the city,
while acknowledging that there are additional programs and policies of merit that they
hope to recommend or phase-in in the future. The subcommittee submitted a list of
draft recommendations centered on immigration and gender equality for the full HRC’s
consideration at their August, October, and December 2017 meetings, before the final
recommendations included in this report were approved at their February 8, 2018
meeting. (link to February 8,2018 HRC minutes -
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63879).
There were two items identified by the subcommittee that, with the assistance of city
staff, have been resolved. The two items are gender neutral bathrooms and the City’s
graffiti removal policy. California Assembly Bill - AB1732 states that starting March 1,
2017, all single-user toilet facilities in any business establishment, place of public
accommodation or government agency must be identified as “all-gender” toilet facilities.
City Facilities staff have been working to change signage on all affected bathroom
facilities. While our Public Works Department had an operational practice of removing
hate related graffiti within 24 hours, they solidified their commitment by adding
language to that affect to their graffiti removal policy.
Discussion
As mentioned previously, the HRC subcommittee considered a wide range of responses
in their draft action plan and brought several options for the full HRC’s consideration.
At the February 8, 2018 HRC meeting, the Commission voted to forward the following
recommendations for the Council’s consideration. (5-0-1)
Below you will find the listing of these recommendations forwarded by the HRC followed
by staff analysis. HRC Chair Stinger has also provided a memorandum outlining the
Commission’s decision making process for Council consideration (Attachment A –
HRC Recommendations).
Immigration:
1) SB54 – Direct the City Manager to review the City’s policies, procedures and
programs, make any adjustments that may be appropriate, and report to Council
on the City’s alignment with SB54.
California State Senate Bill 54,
(https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54)
known as the “Sanctuary State” bill, would limit state and local law enforcement
communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from
questioning and holding people on immigration violations.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
2) SB31 – Direct the City Manager to review the City’s policies, procedures and
programs, make any adjustments that may be appropriate, and report to Council on
the City’s alignment with SB31.
California State Senate Bill 31,
(https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB31)
known as the “California Religious Freedom Act,” prohibits a state or local agency from
providing or disclosing to federal authorities personally identifying information regarding
a person’s religious affiliation when the information is sought for compiling a database
of individuals based on religious affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity. SB31 also
prohibits state and local law enforcement from collecting information about an
individual’s religious beliefs or affiliations except under certain circumstances.
3) Send a letter of endorsement to California State Senator Kevin de Leon in
recognition of the City’s commitment to the values expressed in SB54.
4) Send a letter of endorsement to California State Senator Ricardo Lara in
recognition of the City’s commitment to the values expressed in SB31.
The preceding was suggested to HRC Chair Stinger by Santa Clara County Supervisor
Joe Simitian, based on his experience in the California State Senate. The HRC believes
these letters of thank you would publicly convey the City’s recognition of the sentiment
included in both laws and Staff believes that these letters would allow the City to
express their endorsement of the concepts included in the legislation.
5) Adopt Amnesty International’s resolution in support of Refugee Resettlement in
Santa Clara County.
Representatives from the local chapter of the human rights organization Amnesty
International approached the HRC for their consideration of forwarding a resolution to
Council in support of refugee resettlement in Santa Clara County
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63329). The resolution gives
voice to plight of refugees worldwide.
There was discussion and concern at the HRC level that this resolution was only
symbolic in nature, but there was also mention of the importance of symbolic gestures
at times, especially when communities act together. Amnesty International
representatives informed the HRC that they have been approaching other cities in Santa
Clara County as well. To add possible “action” to this symbolic gesture, the HRC also
passed a recommendation to consider adding refugee resettlement as a priority of need
during the next Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) funding cycle.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
6) Direct staff to study and return to Policy & Services with options for a City
ordinance endorsing the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of all
forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
CEDAW is an international human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations (UN) in
1979. (http://citiesforcedaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CEDAW_2-Pager_15-
March-2018.pdf). To date, 187 of the 193 UN member states have ratified CEDAW.
Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Palau, United States (U.S.), and Tonga have not ratified the
treaty. It should be noted that several of the countries who are signatories to CEDAW
do not offer the rights and/or protections for women already included in U.S. Law. In
2002, the Palo Alto City Council passed Resolution #8217 in support of an effort for
United States ratification or accession to CEDAW
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63324). The Council has not
acted further on any matter related to CEDAW.
In the absence of a U.S. signature on CEDAW and stalled efforts in the U.S. Senate,
there is a country-wide grassroots campaign called Cities for CEDAW (with the
assistance of the Women’s InterCultural Network, a nongovernmental organization)
whose aim is to encourage local cities and counties to pass local legislation establishing
the principles of CEDAW (http://citiesforcedaw.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/CEDAW-USFact-Sheet-01-2018-1.pdf). According to Cities for
CEDAW, the “principles embodied in CEDAW are fully in accord with American laws,
principles and values. The U.S. Constitution already protects women’s rights to due
process and equality under the law, and numerous laws on both the federal and state
level also protect women, prohibiting sex discrimination in employment, education,
housing and credit; providing for family and medical leave and child care; and
combating domestic violence and human trafficking….” However, they state that
“American women enjoy opportunities and status not available to most of the world’s
women, yet few would dispute that more progress is needed. CEDAW provides an
opportunity for dialogue on how to address persistent gaps in women’s full equality,
particularly regarding closing the pay gap, reducing domestic violence, and stopping
trafficking.”
According to the Cities for CEDAW website, at present, nine cities or counties in the
U.S. have passed local ordinances to become “CEDAW cities” (or counties); San
Francisco, Berkeley, Cincinnati, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Miami-Dade County, Pittsburgh,
San Jose and Santa Clara County. The City of Berkeley (population approximately
120,000) is the city closest in population to Palo Alto (population approximately 64,000)
which has passed a CEDAW ordinance. It should be noted that the City of Berkeley
already had a Commission on the Status of Women, which was designated to serve as
the CEDAW oversight body. Its CEDAW ordinance does not include specific outcome
goals, but reiterates city policy and commitments with respect to core CEDAW
principles. Around 25-30 cities/counties nationwide have passed local CEDAW
resolutions.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
CEDAW ordinances vary in their scope and approach. Smaller cities have tended to
focus on broad goals and statements of support for principles of equity and human
rights. Some of the larger cities and the counties, most of which already had staff
dedicated to equity programs, have adopted more defined programs, including some or
all of the following elements:
• Commitment to conducting a gender analysis of City operations (e.g., workforce,
programs, budget)
• Establishment of an oversight body (task force) to monitor the implementation of
a local CEDAW ordinance
• Provide funding to support the implementation of CEDAW principles
Consideration of forwarding a recommendation to Council on a CEDAW ordinance was
discussed at the February 8, 2018 HRC agenda (CEDAW Packet – Staff Report -
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63326, Subcommittee report
- https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63325,
Public Letters to the HRC -
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63804
While Human Services staff strongly supports gender equality and the sentiment driving
the request for a CEDAW ordinance, Human Services staff communicated the following
observations, concerns and questions to the HRC during their deliberations:
• Gender Equity Goals
o What are the community’s goals for gender equity and what actions would
be most impactful for them?
o What are the HRC’s goals for gender equality and is CEDAW the right
mechanism to reach these goals?
o Would the City’s efforts be best directed outward at areas of community
concern, rather than focusing on internal operations of City government?
• Time Commitment and Budget
o The commitment of staff time and the budget needed to implement the
initial and ongoing work connected to the ordinance could be significant,
which could draw attention and resources away from other core functions
and priorities. A comprehensive gender analysis of City operations is
beyond the scope and expertise of Human Services staff, and would
require considerable time and resources from the City Manager’s Office,
Human Resources, ASD, and many other departments. Council will need
City of Palo Alto Page 8
to consider the appropriate time that this work could be undertaken
without competing with other critical projects and priorities.
• Building on current approaches
o The City does not need an ordinance to conduct a gender equity study of
City operations. The City’s Human Resources Department already does
periodic checks into gender-based pay equity and makes
recommendations for increases when needed.
o Other meaningful avenues to impact gender equity exist and should be
explored.
The HRC discussed the proposed recommendations at great length. There was strong
support expressed for the concept of gender equity. Discussion centered on the
unknown and perceived amount of work involved in enacting and overseeing an
ordinance, setting up and managing a task force, conducting and analyzing a gender
equity study, and to whom this responsibility was going to fall. Several commissioners
felt that this could overwhelm the HRC and staff. Other discussion centered on the
options for forwarding a resolution vs. an ordinance for Council consideration. Still
other commissioners questioned whether the focus of the work of the task force should
be inward facing to City operations or outward facing to meet the needs of marginalized
women in the community, finally concluding that while the focus could be on the City of
Palo Alto as an employer and as a policy maker, there is broader focus on the City as an
influencer and community stakeholder. CEDAW framework allows Council to make a
determination as to what they would like to accomplish in regards to gender equity.
After much discussion, the HRC generally felt it had deliberated the matter to the level
of its ability, given the fact that it does not have the authority to analyze or authorize
the staff and/or financial resources needed to implement CEDAW, that the decision
should be made to forward a recommendation to Council for discussion and decision on
whether to pursue a CEDAW ordinance and where the focus should lie.
The HRC’s Council Liaison, Cory Wolbach, was present at the meeting and expressed
support and encouragement for forwarding a recommendation for the Council’s
consideration. The HRC passed a recommendation (6–0), so that Council could enter
into a discussion regarding CEDAW, and if affirmed, provide its counsel on the depth
and scope of the City’s commitment and resource allocation.
Staff continues to have concerns regarding the focus, time commitment and cost
involved in enacting a CEDAW ordinance. Staff highly recommends that if Council does
direct staff to study a CEDAW ordinance and return to Policy & Services, that it
considers recommending a flexible framework which includes the following:
City of Palo Alto Page 9
• Limited scope of work
• Pre-established length of time for completion, with the ability to revisit on an
annual basis to consider staff and financial resources for the coming year before
authorizing additional studies.
Resource Impact
Recommendations 3, 4 and possibly 5 can be pursued with existing staff and within
current budgets. Recommendations 1 and 2 will require more time and effort from the
City Manager’s Office and City departments that perform relevant work. Depending on
the Council’s direction and the nature and scope of any resulting ordinance,
Recommendation 6 could be manageable with current staffing and budgets or could
require new staff and additional budget allocations. Given these potential implications,
Council will need to consider the appropriate time that this work could be undertaken
without competing with other critical projects and priorities.
Policy Implications
The following elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan connect to the topic of this
staff report.
Policy S-1.6 Work with the PAPD to develop effective, transparent law enforcement
strategies that protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public and results in a safe
community for all people
GOAL C-1 Deliver community services effectively and efficiently.
Program C1.2.3 Identify barriers to participation in City programming and facilities
across gender, age, socioeconomic and ethnic groups and sexual identity and
orientation, as well as mental and physical abilities, and adopt strategies to remove
barriers to participation.
GOAL C-5 Sustain the health, well-being, recreation and safety of residents and visitors
and improve the quality, quantity and affordability of social services for all community
members, including children, youth, teens, seniors, the unhoused and people with
disabilities.
Policy C-5.3 Celebrate diversity in Palo Alto.
Policy C-5.7 Implement the Healthy Cities Healthy Community Resolution that supports
healthy social, cultural and physical environments that promote and support well-being
and creative expression for ourselves, our families and our community.
Attachments:
• ATTACHMENT A- HRC RECOMMENDATIONS-final.- 5-7-18
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM
March 7, 2018
To: City Council
From: Valerie Stinger, Chair
Human Relations Commission (HRC)
Subject: Policy Recommendations from the HRC in Response to the Council Resolution
Reaffirming Palo Alto’s Commitment to a Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive and Protective
Community (#9653)
Executive Summary
The HRC received direction to provide implementations responsive to Council Resolution
#9653. After consideration of the needs in the city and assessment of alternative
responses, a work plan, including policies and programs, was prepared. Policy
recommendations, focusing on (1) immigration and (2) gender equity are
recommended to Council in this memo.
1) Refer California State Senate Bill 54 (SB54) – Sanctuary State - to City Attorney
to confirm that City’s policies and procedures are consistent with SB54.
2) Refer California State Senate Bill 31 (SB31) - California Religious Freedom Act -
to City Attorney to confirm that City’s policies and procedures are consistent are
consistent with SB31.
3) Send a letter of endorsement to California State Senator Kevin de Leon in
recognition of the City’s commitment to the values expressed in SB54.
4) Send a letter of endorsement to California State Senator Ricardo Lara in
recognition of the City’s commitment to the values expressed in SB31.
5) Adopt Amnesty International’s resolution in support of Refugee Resettlement in
Santa Clara County.
6) Direct staff to draft a Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) ordinance, that,
a. Affirms the City’s commitment to the principles of the United Nations
Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against
Women, and
b. Authorizes a gender analysis and designates a body to conduct and
oversee the analysis and its powers, scope and responsibilities.
The HRC also acknowledges that to support the proposed programs and policies, we
are making extensive demands on staff. Their limitations could constrain our ability to
successfully achieve our goals for diversity and inclusion. The HRC relies on and works
with staff to carry out these programs, set additional priorities, initiate new work and
monitor outcomes. We believe that our ability to continue the work would be enhanced
by additional staff, consultant services or interns. We ask that Council recognize the
demands on staff to support diversity and inclusion, and we ask that staff and/or
consultant services be dedicated to Diversity and Inclusion.
Discussion of Recommendations
The HRC had responsibility to propose policies and institute programs to validate the
principles stated in Council Resolution #9653. The programs complement the policy
recommendations and are shown in Attachment 1. Discussion of the policies
recommended to Council follows.
The Commission would like Council to be aware of the full plan of programs that
support Resolution #9653 in the initial phase. Much of the program work in Attachment
1 is underway as the HRC has the capacity to bring forward these programs. It should
be noted that these programs represent a start. It is the intent of the HRC to continue
our efforts to support the Resolution. It should also be noted that the city measures
well on many scales of inclusion and the intent of most proposals is to be proactive and
community building, more than corrective. With consideration for your time and
priorities, we bring forward for your approval only the policy recommendations. (Full
report on subcommittee response on Resolution #9653 presented at 2/8/18 HRC
meeting -https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63327).
The following recommendations were discussed and voted on at the February 8, 2018
Human Relations Commission Meeting.
Recommendations concerning Immigration and Religious Affiliation
1) Refer California State Senate Bill 54 (SB54) – Sanctuary State - to City Attorney
to confirm that City’s policies and procedures are consistent with SB54.
California State Senate Bill 54, (Text – SB54 -
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54)
known as the “Sanctuary State” bill, would limit state and local law enforcement
communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from
questioning and holding people on immigration violations. SB54, (including Chpt.
17.25, California Values Act) curtails the use of resources to allow mass deportations
that separate families; keeps schools, hospitals, court houses safe and accessible, and
is aligned with the city’s legislative priority to oppose attempts to undermine rights of
any group, whether by federal government; or by coercing states or local government;
or by weakening existing laws and enforcement thereof against harassment,
discrimination, and hate crimes. The bill went into effect on Jan. 1, 2018.
2) Refer California State Senate Bill 31 (SB31) - California Religious Freedom Act -
to City Attorney to confirm that City’s policies and procedures are consistent with
SB31.
California State Senate Bill 31, (Text SB31 -
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB31)
known as the “California Religious Freedom Act,” prohibits a state or local agency from
providing or disclosing to federal authorities personally identifying information regarding
a person’s religious affiliation when the information is sought for compiling a database
of individuals based on religious affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity. SB 31 also
prohibits state and local law enforcement from collecting personal information about an
individual’s religious beliefs or affiliations except under certain circumstances. SB31,
California Religious Freedom Act, prohibits the use of state and local governments to
create a Muslim registry. This measure was approved by the Governor on October 15,
2017 and took immediate effect.
3) Send a letter of endorsement to California State Senator Kevin de Leon in
recognition of the City’s commitment to the values expressed in SB54.
4) Send a letter of endorsement to California State Senator Ricardo Lara in
recognition of the City’s commitment to the values expressed in SB31.
Council Resolution #9653 states, “The City of Palo Alto recognizes, values, and will
proactively work to ensure the rights and privileges of everyone in Palo Alto, regardless
of religion, ancestry, country of birth, immigration status, disability, gender, sexual
orientation, or gender identity.” The HRC is recommending that the Council direct the
City Attorney to review SB54 and SB31 to confirm that City policies and procedures are
consistent with this new law. The HRC acknowledged that City Attorney review is
typically standard operating procedure, but also felt that in this climate, with this
legislation it’s a profound statement to visibly confirm that indeed we are following
these state laws. Compliance with and endorsement of SB54 and SB31 confirm our
commitment to the legislation and to ‘everyone “living, working, and visiting” in Palo
Alto, regardless of religion …, immigration status’. Endorsement can communicate that
the legislation is consistent with our values and our commitment to actively carry out
the elements of the legislation.
It is worth noting that subsequent to the HRC vote the Trump administration sued
California over immigration laws.
("https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/us/politics/justice-department-california-
sanctuary-cities.html") Thus the HRC had no discussion of whether to follow state or
federal legislation and the consequences of the decision.
5) Adopt Amnesty International’s resolution in support of Refugee Resettlement in
Santa Clara County.
Representatives from the local chapter of the human rights organization Amnesty
International requested that the HRC forward to Council a resolution in support of
refugee resettlement in Santa Clara County. (Refugee Resolution -
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63329). The resolution gives
voice to plight of refugees worldwide, including such points as:
The world is facing the largest refugee crisis since World War II, with over 21
million refugees, 86% of whom are hosted by developing countries who do
not have the resources to adequately support such large numbers
51% of refugees are children
Refugees in most urgent need of resettlement are identified based on their
vulnerabilities and risk of further exposure to violence and exploitation -
including children traveling alone, female-headed households, victims of
torture, the physically disabled and members of the LGBT community
While the Commission did vote to forward the resolution, there were concerns over
what Palo Alto, alone, could realistically accomplish and the symbolic nature of the
resolution. These remain. The representatives expressed hope of building countywide
commitment for the support of refugee resettlement. Support across the county has
not yet been verified.
While the HRC generally does not support resolutions considered symbolic in nature, it
was acknowledged that symbolic gestures may be warranted at times, especially when
communities are motivated to act together. Attempting to address the symbolic nature
of the resolution, the HRC passed a recommendation to consider adding refugee
resettlement as a priority need during the next Human Services Resource Allocation
(HSRAP) funding cycle, if warranted at that funding cycle.
Gender Equity
6) Direct staff to draft a Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) ordinance, that
a. Affirms the City’s commitment to the principles of the United Nations
Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against
Women, and
b. Authorizes a gender analysis and designates a body to conduct and
oversee the analysis and its powers, scope and responsibilities.
CEDAW is an international human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations (UN) in
1979 and is considered a comprehensive international agreement on the basic human
rights of women. To date, 187 of the 193 UN member states have ratified CEDAW.
Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Palau, United States (U.S.), and Tonga have not ratified the
treaty.
Council Resolution #9653 states, “The City of Palo Alto recognizes, values, and will
proactively work to ensure the rights and privileges of everyone ’living, working, and
visiting‘ in Palo Alto, regardless of…, gender.” The recommendation to Council includes
a statement of values, grounded in a plan of action. Enthusiasm for the process and
what could be accomplished exists.
It is clear that gender equity is not yet realized, even in progressive Palo Alto. Gender
discrimination in Palo Alto, as well as the current political and social climate, highlight
longstanding, pervasive, and still unresolved gender equality issues that continue to
affect the women of our community, nation and the world. There is a continued need
for the City and community to proactively identify where there are opportunities for
improvement and to suggest policies and programs, which can be adopted to address
gender equality issues specific to the City of Palo Alto.
To clarify, the recommendation herein is asking Council to direct staff to draft an
ordinance, which first affirms the City of Palo Alto’s commitment to the principles of
CEDAW; and second, authorizes a gender analysis and designates who would conduct
that. That draft ordinance would return to Council. If approved, it would become law,
the CEDAW ordinance. The gender analysis would then be authorized and could
proceed. The body authorized to conduct the gender analysis would bring back
meaningful recommendations, based on their analysis.
With respect to composition of the body, it is recognized that City resources are limited.
To augment City resources, the body could be made up in different ways including: (1)
using existing staff and budgetary resources, (2) dedicating new staff and budgetary
resources, (3) hiring outside consultants, (4) leveraging support from local universities,
community groups, stakeholders and experts, or (5) some combination thereof. To
assist the body in conducting and/or overseeing the gender analysis, community
expertise might well be leveraged.
The body would be responsible for directing the study of specific, locally relevant
gender study priorities, establishing a work plan, conducting and/or overseeing the
gender analysis, and preparing recommendations for policies and programs.
The proposed recommendation was supported in public oral comments and discussed
at length by the HRC in their February 8, 2018 meeting. (CEDAW Packet – Staff Report
- https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63326, Subcommittee
report - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63325,
Public Letters to the HRC -
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63804
As noted there was strong support for the concept of gender equity and the CEDAW
process, particularly the opportunity for dialogue, flexibility in implementation, focus on
local gender issue concerns, and the value of a public commitment. There were also
questions about the amount of work, the budget for the work, the mechanism of a
binding ordinance, the leadership resources required, and the optimal framework. Staff
noted that the commitment of HRC and staff time needed to implement the initial and
ongoing work connected to the ordinance are not completely known and look to be
quite significant which could draw HRC and Human Services staff away from other core
functions and priorities.
The Commission’s deliberation centered on the goals and hoped for outcomes from a
commitment to the principles of CEDAW and from a gender analysis specific to Palo Alto
concerns. Those endpoints contrasted with concern that the resources were neither in
place nor available to get the job done efficiently. Taking into account all the elements
of the deliberation, the belief in gender equity was strong enough to go to the next step
of enquiry. That is, at its core, how would this City move forward on a gender analysis.
Balancing enthusiasm and outstanding questions, the HRC passed a recommendation
(6–0), so that Council could enter into a discussion regarding CEDAW, and if affirmed,
provide its counsel on the depth and scope of the City’s commitment and resource
allocation.
Attachment 1
Programs in Progress or Under Consideration to Support Council Resolution #9653
These represent the work of the HRC and the Office of Human Services
and are included here for information only.
GENDER IDENTITY
-Collaborate with the County of Santa Clara to conduct a Listening
Campaign to understand how to best support LGBTQ youth, the adult
and working community, and seniors and friends and family
HATE CRIMES
-Collaborate with County to ensure that city reporting needs are included
in proposed Hate Crime Reporting System
-Formalize operational policy for graffiti removal
INCLUSIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
-Expand Welcoming America Week programming, with local partners
-Investigate a collaboration to institute an Immigrant Leadership Training
Program
-Host a Community Dinner
-Be more strategic in inclusive outreach (investigate ILG models)
-Investigate the possibility of a language access policy
CITY WIDE DIVERSITY LEARNING
-Consider a City/School/Library/Public Art/Children’s Theatre
Consortium program focusing on a topic such as the history of Japanese
Internment or Holocaust or Racism or Bigotry
-Sponsor joint program, e.g. History of Racism or Historical ‘Otherness’
IMPLICIT BIAS
-Staff dialogue and training to strive for diversity and better
communications
GENDER
-Explore and consider recommending the strategy for becoming a
CEDAW city