HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.3 Informational Report on the Human Rights Campaign Municipal Equality IndexSTAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of 4
Agenda Item 4.3
DATE:June 15, 2021
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:Informational Report on the Human Rights Campaign Municipal Equality
Index
Prepared by: John Stefanski, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a report on the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Municipal Equality
Index (MEI). The HRC MEI “helps residents learn how inclusive their city’s laws and policies are of
LGBTQ people” by conducting a nationwide evaluation and compilation of laws and policies
enacted by cities, counties, and states. This information is then scored out of 100 points, which
quantifies the level to which a City maintains LGBTQ inclusive laws and policies. The City received
a score of 84 out of 100 in the 2020 MEI.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Under Item 9 of its June 1, 2021, meeting, the City Council made a request for information on the
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Municipal Equality Index (MEI).
Background
The HRC is a national lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer civil rights organization with
the goal of ensuring that all LGBTQ people, particularly those who are trans, people of color and
HIV+ are treated as full and equal citizens across the country and around the world.
The HRC MEI “helps residents learn how inclusive their city’s laws and policies are of LGBTQ
people” by conducting a nationwide evaluation and compilation of laws and policies enacted by
cities, counties, and states. This information is then scored out of 100 points, which quantifies the
60
Page 2 of 4
level to which a City maintains LGBTQ inclusive laws and policies. The evaluation includes five
sections covering:
1. Non-Discrimination Laws
2. Employment Practices
3. Municipal Services
4. Law Enforcement
5. Leadership on LGBTQ Equality
The HRC MEI rates the 50 state capitals, 200 largest cities, five largest municipalities in each state,
the cities home to each state’s two largest public universities, 75 municipalities with high
proportions of same-sex couples, and 98 cities selected by the HRC and Equality Federation state
groups members and supporters. Cities which are not included in those categories may “self-
submit” for evaluation in the MEI.
In October 2019, the City Manager asked staff to evaluate and complete a self-submittal to the
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Municipal Equality Index (MEI). On December 3, 2019, Staff
submitted all supporting documentation for the MEI Self Submittal. On November 21, 2020, the
City received the outcome of the Self Submittal process, a City Scorecard (Attachment 1) which
details the City’s score of 84 out of 100 total points. A copy of the full MEI report can be found at
this link: MEI-2020-Final-2020.pdf (hrc-prod-requests.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com).
For context, five cities in Alameda County, including Dublin, were evaluated in the 2020 MEI. The
cities and their respective MEI Scores are:
-Berkeley (100)
-Dublin (84)
-Fremont (90)
-Hayward (79)
-Oakland (100)
59 cities in California were evaluated in the 2020 MEI, with scores ranging from a low of 52
(Ontario) to a high of 100, which 15 cities scored. Within California, only the City of Dublin and the
City of Laguna Beach completed Self-Submittals. Only four other cities in the Country completed
self-submittals.
Discussion
Cities evaluated for the HRC MEI are scored based on set criteria within five categories. There are
100 standard points and 22 “flex” or bonus points available, and scores cannot exceed 100 points.
Part 1: Non-Discrimination Laws (34/30 points)
This category evaluates whether discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is
prohibited by the city, county, or state in areas of employment, housing and public
accommodations.
61
Page 3 of 4
The City received full credit for this section as the State has enacted non-discrimination laws for
employment, housing, and public accommodations. The City also received four bonus points for
State laws regarding all-gender single occupancy facilities and prohibitions on youth conversation
therapy.
Part 2: Municipality as an Employer (26/28 points)
This category evaluates the extent to which the City offers equivalent benefits and protections to
LGBTQ employees, awards contracts to fair-minded businesses, and takes steps to ensure an
inclusive workplace.
The City received 26 out of 28 points for this section, receiving full credit for Non-Discrimination
in City Employment, Transgender-Inclusive Healthcare Benefits and Contractor Non-
Discrimination. The City did not receive two points under Inclusive Workplace because the City
did not provide supporting documentation for targeted LGBTQ applicant recruitment efforts or
LGBTQ-inclusive diversity training.
Late last year and earlier this year, the City held mandatory unconscious bias training for all
employees. This training will add two points to the City’s score for Inclusive Workplace, increasing
the City’s score to 28 out of 28 points for this section.
Furthermore, the City did not receive a bonus point for City Employee Domestic Partner Benefits.
The City does extend all benefits to same- and different-sex domestic partners in accordance with
all applicable laws and will resubmit appropriate documentation in the 2021 self-submittal to
secure this additional point.
Part 3: Municipal Services (5/12 points)
This category assesses the efforts of the City to ensure LGBTQ constituents are included in city
services and programs.
The City received 5 out of 12 points for this section, receiving full credit for the State’s Human
Rights Commission. Other Cities in Alameda County which were evaluated, with the exception of
Oakland, received an additional two points for the Alameda County Human Relations Commission
and its associated duties and powers pursuant to Alameda County Administrative Code 2.32.090.
Staff believes the reason Oakland did not receive the points was due to Oakland not submitting the
correct evidence. The City will submit this for credit during the 2021 evaluation.
As a result of the 2020 MEI, the City Manager established the new LGBTQ Liaison role and
responsibilities. This staff member is responsible for looking at City policies and services through
and LGBTQ lens and to serve as a point of contact for LGBTQ related issues for residents.
Information on this position can be found on the City’s website. This will increase the City’s score
by 5 total points.
Earlier this year, the LGBTQ Liaison and Parks and Recreation Department staff drafted a new
Youth Bullying Prevention Policy (Attachment 2). This policy is based off language provide by the
HRC as well as other materials Parks and Recreation Staff have utilized in the past.
62
Page 4 of 4
Part 4: Law Enforcement (12/22 points)
This category assesses the extent to which Dublin Police Services reports hate crime data to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and as well as engages with the LGBTQ community respectfully.
The City received 12 out of 22 points for this section, receiving full credit for Dublin Police
Services reporting Hate Crime Statistics to the FBI each year. As a result of the 2020 MEI, Dublin
Police Services established a designated LGBTQ Police Liaison. This Liaison can address
community concerns, provide enhanced communication, and foster a healthy relationship
between law enforcement and the LGBTQ community. The Liaison also has the responsibility of
providing ongoing, updated training for DPS employees.
Information on this newly created role is available on the Dublin Police Services website and will
be included in the upcoming DPS Annual Report. This role will increase the City’s score for this
section to 22 out of 22 points.
Part 5: Leadership on LGBTQ Equality (5/8 points)
This category evaluates the City Leadership’s commitment to fully include the LGBTQ community
and to advocate for full equality.
The City received credit for the City Council’s public position on LGBTQ equality as a part of the
Council’s LGBTQ Pride Month and United Against Hate Proclamations. The City did not receive
credit for pro-equality legislative or policy efforts but did receive credit for having an openly
LGBTQ Elected Municipal Leader.
The City Council adopted 2021 Legislative Program includes the addition of the Public Policy
Position of supporting “Legislation that assures every person the right to equal treatment in and
access to all government-sponsored benefits or funded programs.” This addition to the Legislative
Program will satisfy the pro-equality legislative and policy efforts component of this section,
increasing the City’s score by three points.
Next Steps
Self-Submittals for the 2021 HRC MEI are due on July 30, 2021. Following Council discussion on
this item, staff will prepare the self-submittal package to submit in advance of the deadline date.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) 2020 City of Dublin MEI Scorecard
2)Youth Bullying Prevention Policy
63
DUBLIN,* CALIFORNIA 1/2
2020 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
I. Non-Discrimination Laws**
II. Municipality as Employer
This category evaluates whether
discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation and gender identity is
prohibited by the city, county, or state in
areas of employment, housing, and
public accommodations.
By offering equivalent benefits and
protections to LGBTQ employees, awarding
contracts to fair-minded businesses, and
taking steps to ensure an inclusive workplace,
municipalities commit themselves to treating
LGBTQ employees equally.
STATE COUNTY MUNICIPAL AVAILABLE
Employment 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5
Housing 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5
Public Accommodations 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5
SCORE 30 out of 30
FLEX Single-Occupancy All-Gender
Facilities +2 +0 +0 +2
FLEX Protects Youth from Conversion
Therapy +2 +0 +0 +2
COUNTY MUNICIPAL AVAILABLE
Non-Discrimination in City Employment 7 7 7 7
Transgender-Inclusive Healthcare Benefits 6 6
City Contractor Non-Discrimination Ordinance 3 3 3 3
Inclusive Workplace 0 2
SCORE 26 out of 28
FLEX City Employee Domestic Partner
Benefits +0 +1
III. Municipal Services
This section assesses the efforts of the city
to ensure LGBTQ constituents are included
in city services and programs.
COUNTY CITY AVAILABLE
Human Rights Commission 5 0 5
NDO Enforcement by Human Rights
Commission 0 0 2
LGBTQ Liaison in City Executive’s Office 0 5
SCORE 5 out of 12
FLEX Youth Bullying Prevention Policy for
City Services
FLEX City Provides Services to LGBTQ Youth +0 +2
FLEX City Provides Services to LGBTQ
People Experiencing Homelessness +0 +2
FLEX City Provides Services to LGBTQ Older
Adults +0 +2
FLEX City Provides Services to People Living
with HIV or AIDS +0 +2
FLEX City Provides Services to the
Transgender Community +0 +2
+1 +1+0 +0+0 +0
*SELF-SUBMIT
Attachment 1
64
hrc.org/mei
PTS FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION PTS FOR GENDER IDENTITY
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CITY SELECTION, CRITERIA OR THE MEI SCORING SYSTEM, PLEASE VISIT HRC.ORG/MEI.
All cities rated were provided their scorecard in advance of publication and given the opportunity to submit revisions. For feedback regarding a particular
city’s scorecard, please email mei@hrc.org.
** On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are
prohibited under federal sex-based employment protections. Nevertheless, it is imperative that localities continue enacting explicitly LGBTQ-inclusive
comprehensive non-discrimination laws since it will likely take additional litigation for Bostock to be fully applied to all sex-based protections under existing
federal civil rights law. Moreover, federal law currently lacks sex-based protections in numerous key areas of life, including public spaces and services.
Lastly, there are many invaluable benefits to localizing inclusive protections even when they exist on higher levels of government. For these reasons,
the MEI will continue to only award credit in Part I for state, county, or municipal non-discrimination laws that expressly include sexual
orientation and gender identity.
FLEX PTS for criteria not accessible to all cities at this time.
DUBLIN,* CALIFORNIA 2/2
2020 MUNICIPAL EQUALITY INDEX SCORECARD
V. Leadership on LGBTQ Equality
This category measures the city leadership’s
commitment to fully include the LGBTQ
community and to advocate for full equality.
COUNTY MUNICIPAL AVAILABLE
Leadership’s Public Position on LGBTQ Equality 0 5 5
Leadership’s Pro-Equality Legislative or
Policy Efforts 0 0 3
SCORE 5 out of 8
FLEX Openly LGBTQ Elected or Appointed
Leaders +0 +2 +2
FLEX City Tests Limits of Restrictive State
Law +0 +0 +3
IV. Law Enforcement
Fair enforcement of the law includes
responsible reporting of hate crimes and
engaging with the LGBTQ community in a
thoughtful and respectful way.
COUNTY MUNICIPAL AVAILABLE
LGBTQ Liaison/Task Force in Police
Department 0 0 10
Reported 2018 Hate Crimes Statistics
to the FBI 0 12 12
SCORE 12 out of 22
TOTAL SCORE 78 + TOTAL FLEX 6 =Final Score 84
CANNOT EXCEED 100
*SELF-SUBMIT
65
Administrative Policies
Youth Bullying Prevention
Policy No.: 47-2021 Approved By: Linda Smith, CM Revision #: N/A
Effective: 06/02/2021 Supersedes: N/A Revised: N/A
Page 1 of 2
I.PURPOSE
The City of Dublin in committed to providing services, activities, programs, and facilities that are open,
accessible, and inclusive of all members of the Dublin Community, including Dublin youths. To protect the
dignity, safety and enjoyment of youth served by the City of Dublin, this policy is established to expressly
prohibits any bullying, harassment, and intimidation in all youth-serving City services, activities, programs, and
facilities.
II.DEFINITION
a.“Bullying” shall be defined as any severe, pervasive, or persistent act or conduct whether physical,
electronic, or verbal that:
i.May be based on a youth’s actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sex,
age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression,
intellectual ability, familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, genetic
information, disability, source of income, or any other distinguishing characteristic, or on a
youth’s association with a person or group with any of the actual or perceived
foregoing characteristics; and
ii.Can reasonably be predicted to:
1.Place the youth in reasonable fear of physical harm to their person or property;
2.Cause a substantial detrimental effect on the youth’s physical or mental health;
3.Substantially interfere with the youth’s academic performance or attendance of the City
activity; or
4.Substantially interfere with the youth’s ability to participate in or benefit from the
services, activities, programs, facilities, or privileges provided by an agency or contractor
or agent thereof.
III.IDENTIFYING TYPES OF BULLYING
The following are different types of bullying that can be experienced by children and adults alike; some are
obvious to spot while others can be more subtle.
•Physical bullying includes hitting, kicking, tripping, pinching and pushing or damaging property.
•Verbal bullying includes name calling, insults, teasing, intimidation, homophobic or racist
remarks, or verbal abuse.
•Social bullying, sometimes referred to as covert bullying, is often harder to recognize and can be
carried out behind the bullied person's back. Social bullying includes:
o Lying and spreading rumors
o Negative facial or physical gestures, menacing or contemptuous looks
o Playing nasty jokes to embarrass and humiliate
o Encouraging others to socially exclude someone
•Cyber bullying can be overt or covert using computers and smartphones through social media,
instant messaging, texts, websites and other online platforms. Cyber bullying can include:
o Abusive or hurtful texts emails or posts, images or videos
o Deliberately excluding others online
o Nasty gossip or rumors
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3D377317-DF2E-4B7A-A03D-291161CEEF72 Attachment 2
66
Administrative Policies
Youth Bullying Prevention
Policy No.: AP 47-2021 Effective: 06/02/2021 Supersedes: N/A
Page 2 of 2
IV. PROHIBITION AGAINST BULLYING
Acts of bullying, including cyberbullying, whether by youth, volunteers, or staff are prohibited in all youth-serving
city services, activities, programs, and facilities. Retaliation against a youth, volunteer, or staff member who
reports bullying, provides information about an act of bullying, or witnesses an act of bullying is also prohibited.
All agencies and departments that provide services, activities, programs, and facilities for youth and third-party
organizations that receive city funding for services and programs that include youth shall establish a clear policy
for reporting, addressing, and preventing bullying as defined above.
This policy shall include a requirement for annual training for all relevant staff on said policy and on best bullying
prevention practices.
V. GENERAL GUIDELINES
When City staff observe and recognize bullying behavior, they will address it immediately. The incidents will be
documented and shared with parents. Those instigating bullying behaviors will be counselled by staff. They will
be given a verbal warning and parents will be notified. If the behavior continues, staff will prepare a written
warning for parents. A third and final verbal/written warning may constitute a suspension from the program.
Concerns regarding bullying by a parent should be directed to the relevant site staff as soon as possible. Issues
may also be directed to the City’s Recreation Coordinator at 925-556-4507.
VI. DISSEMINATION OF POLICY
All City employees responsible for youth-serving City services, activities, programs, and facilities shall be sent
copies of this Policy. Copies of this policy shall be shared with the parents or guardians of participants in youth-
serving City services, activities, programs, and facilities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3D377317-DF2E-4B7A-A03D-291161CEEF72
67