No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-25Clarington If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the IDEA Officer at 905- 623-3379 ext. 2563. Clarington Anti -Black Racism Task Force Special Meeting Wednesday, November 25, 2024, 7:30 p.m. Present: Dione Valentine Rochelle Thomas Hawa Mire Lauren Reyes -Grange Nadia Nembhard-Hunt Angela Anderson Jodie Glean Absent: Joseph Adesanya Also Present - Tenzin Shomar (Chair Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee) and Pinder DaSilva (Municipality of Clarington) 1. Land Acknowledgement Land Acknowledgement read by D. Valentine 2. Review and Approval of agenda Moved by L. Reyes -Grange; seconded by N. Nembhard-Hunt That the agenda for November 25t", 2024, be moved. Carried 3. Declaration of Interest No declaration of interest by Task Force members. Carried 4. Review and approval of previous meeting minutes Members asked if it is normal procedure to post minutes prior to the sub -committee approving the minutes at the following monthly meeting. R DaSilva explained the public posting of the minutes for committees aligns with deadlines for Council meetings and any changes or edits to the previous meeting minutes would be captured in the next meeting minutes. Moved by L. Reyes -Grange; seconded by A. Anderson That the minutes from November 6, 2024, be approved. Carried Page 1 of 6 Clarftwn 5. Terms of Reference Discussion L. Reyes -Grange opened the meeting by stating a hope that everyone will receive the conversation regarding the request for the changes to the Terms of Reference (TOR) with an open mind in order to have a positive impact on the Black residents of Clarington. The CABRTF members requested that everyone go through each section of the TOR and provide feedback on any specific changes they wanted to see. Purpose and Mandate Members discussed the purpose and mandate of the Task Force which includes education and awareness on anti -black racism and making recommendations and guidance to CDAC on issues affecting anti -Black racism in Clarington. Some members raised concerns that they were not fulfilling their full purpose and mandate, based for the following reasons: • They have not been given an opportunity to provide feedback and support to Clarington staff. • That the advice they are providing is not being taken seriously and is more of a "checkbox exercise" rather than engaging with staff and ABRTF members. • There was resistance, from municipal staff, to engage with them. Members stated that, to have a bigger impact, it would be better to move away from having smaller working groups and have the Task Force work as a whole Task Force. P. DaSilva shared that if they prefer to action their work plan as a group/full Task Force rather than smaller working groups that is well within their ability to make that decision. Arising from questions about the role of the Staff Liaison, P. DaSilva shared that the Staff Liaison role is to provide information to the Task Force and to request engagement with applicable departments. R DaSilva added that, when departments/divisions, like HR and Communications, want to collect feedback on initiatives and strategies, they will bring it to the whole CABRTF (along with other relevant committees such as AAC, CDAC), and not just the small working group that they met with. Some members requested further clarification about what constitutes a meeting in reference to a cautionary email that they had received from P. DaSilva explained the importance of making sure the Task Force members were not having any conversations with quorum (through email or in person) about specific ABR related topics that could be moved to future agenda items. R DaSilva explained this could be considered an "illegal closed meeting" under the definition of the Municipal Act. Page 2 of 6 Clarftwn Some members expressed that using the word illegal in the email was really upsetting as it insinuated an illegal criminal activity. P. DaSilva explained the intent was to provide information quickly to ensure that no other online or offline conversations continued with quorum that could be defined as a meeting. P. DaSilva apologized for the impact of the email on some of the members, explaining the intent was to provide details, not upset individuals. 6. Scope of Activity Some members felt that their scope of activity had shifted in the last year —that in the past it was more meaningful consultation, but now more focused on attending events like festivals, photo shorts, etc., rather than their original scope of terms of reference. P. DaSilva explained that emails regarding these activities are sent out for information and engagement for those members who are interested in participating in community events. Many of these communications are not just sent to CABRTF but to other committees also. There is no obligation for them to attend. Some members spoke specifically about wanting to engage with the Communications Division regarding their moderation strategy/process on responding to online racist and discriminatory comments. They stated that they felt they provided advice that is being ignored and their expertise is being underutilized. Some members commented that in the past they used to receive updates whenever there were incidents of anti -Black racism in the community, but they are no longer receiving that. Some members stated they did not just join the Task Force for their lived experience but also their professional experience and expertise that should be taken into consideration and the Municipality should engage with them as a consultative body. They stated they want to have an impact on changing policies and mindsets. They would like their scope of activity in the Terms of Reference to allow them to collaborate more, focusing on: • Engagement, consultations, and updates from departments — specifically referring to the HR and Communication' strategies. • Implementing CABRTF feedback to Anti -racism strategies and activities into actions and strategies. Some members stated that other members had made recommendations through a (social media audit) that could be utilized by Communications, but their suggestions were not acted upon. P. DaSilva reminded the CABRTF that the social media audit they recommended was out of their scope of activity as it looked at everything from accessibility to inclusive language. P. DaSilva reminded them that this operational Page 3 of 6 Clarftwn Communication activity is built into the 2025 budget and when a consultant is hired, they will engage with all the applicable committees for feedback. Members asked how the Communications Division decide whether, or not to respond to conversations in neighbourhood social media/Facebook groups. The example they shared was that Clarington staff responded to a complaint on a neighbourhood Facebook group about overflowing garbage on the streets but no response to racial or discriminatory comments. P. DaSilva requested that the member forward the screen shot of the specific example so she could forward it to Communications. Some members who met with the HR team provided updates to the rest of the CABRTF members about the conversation. They shared that, when they met with the HR team to talk about the HR strategy, the HR asked them for support with contacts/names of organizations where they could share the postings to increase the diversity of the candidates applying. They felt they had more to offer to the HR team with their expertise and skills. P. DaSilva shared that the HR strategy is in the very early stages and that HR is open to coming back to all three of the committees for additional conversations once they have determined the next steps of the strategy. J. Glean shared that everything the Task Force does should align with their TOR and according to the TOR, their role is to engage and provide recommendations and support to CDAC and not with the staff of Municipality and yet everything the Task Force members have discussed so far is about lack of access to and response from Municipal staff. J. Glean shared it's important to differentiate between what they should be doing vs. what they want to do vs. what they are doing. Members asked what is the role of staff liaison for this task force? They felt that P. DaSilva was blocking their access to staff and having meaningful engagement with staff. P. DaSilva explained that the role provides support to the Task Force and acts as a resource for the work they are doing, and she is not trying to block anyone from doing the work they want to do. T. Shomar spoke about CABRTF scope of work as a sub -committee of CDAC and he doesn't believe that there is anything hindering or inhibiting the work of CABRTF in the current governance structure. Members agreed that they did not feel their work was being hindered by C DAC. Page 4 of 6 Clarftwn Community Engagement Members shared that events like the Region's DEI symposium are a great opportunity to speak at these events and share what they are working on. It would be a great opportunity to come up with key messages that can be shared with everyone so that whoever is presenting shares the same message. H. Mire shared that she could work on such a document for CABRTF's review. Members spoke about one section of the TOR that focusses on fostering a greater understanding of issues of anti -Black racism in the community. Some members stated there was a time when they would hear directly about any racially related situation in the community and thought it was perhaps through the website or E. Mittag. P. DaSilva indicated she wasn't sure how the information was getting directly to the Task Force in the past as the Clarington DEI webpage has always had a direct link to the DRPS Anti -Hate page where community members can report any acts of racism. Members thought perhaps it was because they used to have a Council Member who came to their meetings and would bring information directly back to them. Members requested a process (perhaps on the website) for them to directly receive updates on racism/discrimination graffiti and events that occur in the community. Members asked if it is possible for a Council Member to join, and represent, the Task Force or the Task Force to invite other Council Members to present and participate in the Task Force. P. DaSilva indicated she was not sure of how this process given the sub -committee was not a committee of Council but could gather some information for them. Member Terms Members asked if it's possible to share a spreadsheet that outlines when all the terms are coming to an end. They were not sure if the staggered terms were working and felt they needed to strategize better for transition planning. P. DaSilva indicated she will look into whether she can share that spreadsheet. D. Valentine asked if we could have a more formal orientation of new members. P. DaSilva reminded Dionne that we implemented a more formal process already. We now use a PowerPoint presentation that outlines the CDAC and ABR structure when meeting new members, the TOR and the Work plans are shared. This was the process followed by P. DaSilva and D. Valentine when orientation was completed with J. Glean. Members asked if they could implement a more formal welcome and introduction of new members at the first meeting they attend, highlighting their expertise and passion. Everyone agreed this would be valuable. Page 5 of 6 Clarftwn A. Anderson raised concern regarding the Courtice Tree Lighting ceremony. A. Anderson asked why the Church choir was not permitted to perform at the ceremony. A. Anderson stated the reason provided was to with diversity. P. DaSilva requested that, since this is a new topic of discussion that was not on the agenda and P. DaSilva has not been part of any of the planning, that A. Anderson contact P. DaSilva to have a separate discussion so A. Anderson could provide more context to the situation. R. Thomas requested an update from P. DaSilva about creating a Microsoft (MS) List that everyone could track the progress of initiatives. P. DaSilva stated that a sample MS List was sent to R. Thomas to test whether it could be shared externally but P. DaSilva had not heard back from. R. Thomas. P. DaSilva will resend the link to R. Thomas' work email. Given the length of the meeting, and members still wanted to go through the remainder of the TOR (ended with section 5.2), it was decided to keep the meeting on Dec 4th. Moved byJ. Glean; seconded by L. Reyes -Grange That the December 4, 2025, meeting at 7:30 pm is reinstated and invite for meeting be sent by P. DaSilva to members. Carried Moved by L. Reyes -Grange; seconded by J. Glean That the meeting be adjourned at 9:58 pm. Carried Next Meeting December 4t" @ 7:30 pm Page 6 of 6