HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2021AGENDA PACKETMay 27, 2021 Dublin Community Task Force on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Meeting Agenda 1
Regular Meeting of the
COMMUNITY TASK FORCE ON EQUITY,
DIVERSITY, AND INCLUSION
Thursday, May 27, 2021 Location: Electronic Methods
Meeting Procedure During Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak:
In keeping with the guidelines provided by the State of California and Alameda County Department of Public Health regarding gatherings during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, and recommendations to follow social distancing procedures, the following practices are adopted during the Community Task Force on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Meeting.
• The meeting will be held remotely via Zoom Video Communications: https://dublinca.zoom.us/j/85325083459?pwd=dWNpRnFTVFVXaFpXZEhhZjh2cnNOdz09 Passcode: 9hdQJ6CW For audio only, you can join the meeting by telephone: (669) 900-9128 Webinar ID: 853 2508 3459 Passcode: 56858499
• Individuals wanting to make public comment may email John.Stefanski@dublin.ca.gov starting at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 27, 2021. Please provide your name and the agenda item you would like to speak on.
• When the agenda item upon which the individual would like to comment is addressed, the speaker will be announced in the meeting when it is his/her time to speak to the Community Task Force on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The speaker will then be unmuted for comment.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public are encouraged to address the Task Force on any items of interest that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Task Force and not already included on the Agenda. Comments should not exceed three (3) minutes.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3.1 Approval of Minutes from April 22, 2021 Community Task Force Meeting The Task Force will consider the approval of the minutes from the April 22, 2021 Community Task Force meeting.
May 27, 2021 Dublin Community Task Force on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Meeting Agenda 2
3.2 Approval of Minutes from April 29, 2021, Special Community Task Force Meeting The Task Force will consider the approval of the minutes from the April 29, 2021 Community Task Force meeting.
4. REPORTS
4.1 Review of Draft Recommendations for Citywide DEI Initiatives Seed Collaborative will facilitate a review draft citywide DEI recommendation. Ad Hoc Groups will present their respective draft recommendations.
4.2 Review of Outstanding Draft Policing Recommendations Seed Collaborative will facilitate a review of the outstanding draft recommendations. Ad Hoc Groups will present their amended policing recommendations.
4.3 Review and Comment on the Proposed Agenda Planning Calendar The Task Force will review and comment on the Proposed Agenda Planning Calendar.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. ADJOURNMENT Next Regular Meeting: June 10, 2021, at 5:30pm
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a). If requested,
pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in
implementation thereof. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please
contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Mission The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment,
fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champions a culture of diversity
and inclusion.
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY TASK FORCE ON
EQUITY, DIVERSITY & INCLUSION
REGULAR MEETING – April 22, 2021
A regular meeting of the Community Task Force on Equity, Diversity & Inclusion was held on
April 22nd, 2021, via Zoom telecommunications. The meeting commenced at 5:3 6 PM.
Roll Call
PRESENT: Natasha Tripplett, Rameet Kohli, Isabella Helene David, Eman Tai, Clifford Brown
Jr., Matthew Aini, Beatriz Ballesteros-Kogan, Kathy Avanzino, Martha Orozco (alt.), Brittany
Jacobs (alt.), John Stefanski, Paul Hudson, Rodas Hailu,
ABSENT: Dyrell Foster
1. Call to Order
Assistant to the City Manager, John Stefanski called the meeting to order at 5:36 PM.
2. Public Comment
Mr. Stefanski called for Public Comments. No comments were made.
3. Action Items
3.1 Approval of Minutes from April 8, 2021, Community Task Force Meeting
Motioned by Member Tripplett and Seconded Member Aini. The Task Force Members
unanimously approved the minutes.
4. Reports
4.1 Presentation by Assistant to the City Manager Stefanski – Citywide DEI
Initiatives (Inclusive, Equitable, and Accessible Programming and Events, and
Community Agency Funding and Support)
Member Kohli asked about the City’s initial review of the Policing recommendations. Mr.
Stefanski reported that they would be on the agenda for the next meeting for review and
discussion by the Task Force.
Mr. Stefanski reported on Citywide DEI Initiatives beginning with Inclusive, Equitable,
and Accessible Programming and Events . The presentation provided an overview of the
City’s different types of programming, events and how the City manages programs and
events. The presentation included a discussion on the use of contract instructors to
provide recreational programming.
Member David asked about information regarding community events and multicultural
events in the City of Dublin. Member David indicated the Splatter Event was originally
intended to be multicultural festival and wanted to know what changes have been made
to address this. Mr. Stefanski shared that he would get more information on this event to
report back at the next meeting. Member Tripplett shared that her daughter, Acacia
Tripplett, and her had conversations with former Mayor Haubert on working together to
rebrand Splatter and make it a more multi-cultural event to honor more people in the
community. Member Tripplett then indicated that she wanted to work in this area
(programming and events) in the community. Mr. Stefanski indicated that he would get
more information on the Splatter event and report back to the group.
Member Brown asked about how the recruiting of contract instructors is done and if
there is a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. Mr. Stefanski reported on the
recruitment process of contract instructors in the community. Member Brown asked
about recruiting with a diversity lens. Mr. Stefanski reported that the City will recruit
diverse contract instructors for culturally specialized programming. He also reported that
there is not a set RFP process for hiring contract instructors. Member Brown asked if
there are diversity guidelines for recruiting. Mr. Stefanski reported that with culturally
specific programming, staff will recruit folks with a track record in that specific area (e.g.,
Tai Chi).
Member Jacobs requested an exhaustive list of the holiday related programs organized
by the City that are not currently represented. Mr. Stefanski shared that he would pull the
list of annual events, including holiday related programs, to report back at the next
meeting.
Member Kohli asked about the criteria utilized for selecting independent contractors,
particularly, women, veteran, or minority owned businesses. Mr. Stefanski commented
on this and reported that Parks staff looks to ensure that the City is providing safe and
quality programming first and foremost. There is no specific DEI lens applied when
selecting contractors.
Member Tripplett asked about the number of programs offered and whether the City was
at capacity or had room for additional programs. Mr. Stefanski commented on some
enrollment data shared that he would report back at the next meeting from the Parks and
Community Services department. Mr. Hudson commented on the DEI and the city’s
interest in ensuring equitable participation in programming.
Member Ballesteros-Kogan asked about the communication to residents in multiple
languages. Mr. Stefanski reported on the information not being translated on physical
documents, but online would be translatable.
Member Kohli asked about a breakdown of contractors with a DEI lens. Mr. Stefanski
reported that the city does not track demographic data on contractors outside of their
names and basic contact information. Member Kohli asked if this has just not been
done to date or if the City of Dublin is not allowed to. Mr. Stefanski commented that he
would double check on this and provide an answer at the next meeting.
Member Jacobs asked about demographic data on enrol led participants. Mr. Stefanski
reported that age and gender of program participants is collected. Member Avanzino
then commented on wanting to know the geographic information on the participants in
the programs. Mr. Stefanski reported that he would speak to Parks staff to see what kind
of reports they could run to show this information.
Member Tripplett asked about how contract instructors were paid and if there was a DEI
lens focused on that. Mr. Stefanski reported on the methodology based on the cost per
person of each program. Member Brown asked about data on how
instructors/contractors are paid. Mr. Stefanski reported that he would report back on this
data.
Member Tripplett asked about the demographic information on the parks and recreation
employees. Mr. Stefanski reported that the City has this information but not for the
meeting.
Member Tai asked about the diversity of the offerings in the recreation programming. Is
there a way to find out if there are different ways of asking the community w hat
programming they would like to see offered. Mr. Stefanski reported on the Parks and
Community Services Department surveys issued after each program/class and that
there is an opportunity for individuals to provide feedback on potential programs there.
Mr. Stefanski then reported on the Community Agency Funding and Support. Mr.
Stefanski provided an overview of the City’s Human Services Grants program, reporting
requirements, and available data.
Member Avanzino asked about the process of determining funding for Human Service
Grant applicants. Mr. Stefanski provided further detail in the process used by Human
Services Staff and the Human Services Commission to determine funding amount s.
Member David asked about if there were levels of prior ity for each category identified in
the 2012 Tri-Valley Needs Assessment and if that was captured in the ranking by the
Human Services Commission. Mr. Stefanski presented on the Human Services Grant
Ranking Sheet and the criteria they use when reviewing and ranking applications. Mr.
Stefanski reported that a new Tri-Valley Needs Assessment would likely be done in the
near future. Mr. Hudson commented on the criteria and Tri-Valley Needs Assessment
and that it would likely not change given the identified categories. Mr. Stefanski
concurred but shared that the context and supporting information in the Assessment
would be updated to capture changes from the last ten years.
4.2 Task Force Discussion on City-Wide DEI Presentations and Approach to Work
Mr. Hudson led a discussion on how the Task Force would like to approach their work
around Citywide DEI Initiatives. Mr. Hudson asked about upcoming meetings. Mr.
Stefanski reported that the next meeting will be a special meeting on April 29 and then a
meeting following May 27.
Mr. Hudson recommended the Task Force frame questions as also recommendations.
Since the Task Force only has a few more weeks to complete this work, they may not
have enough time for all of their questions to be answered.
Members Kohli, Tai, Tripplett, Avanzino, Aini, and David all commented and shared their
desire to utilize ad-hoc groups to complete this work and that using the same groups as
were used for the policing recommendations was preferred. Member Kohli also
recommended Members conduct individual research and then coming up with
recommendations individually as an alternative option but that he still prefers the ad-hoc
group option. Member Tripplett commented on the agreement of holding the ad -hoc
groups.
Mr. Hudson asked if there was a topic preference of the Task Force Members. Following
a discussion among the Members, the following was determined:
Members Tripplett, David, Ballesteros-Kogan, and Foster would be responsible for
Inclusive, Equitable, and Accessible Programming and Events.
Members Aini, Tai, Orozco, and Jacobs would be responsible for Community Agency
Funding and Support.
Members Kohli, Avanzino, and Brown would be responsible for Boards and Commission
Recruitment.
Following further discussion among the members, it was determined that each group
would also work on recommendations pertaining to Communications. This arrangement
was unanimously agreed amongst the Members.
Mr. Hudson recommended that the ad-hoc groups focus in on questions and provide
them ahead of time to Mr. Stefanski. Mr. Hudson also recommended the ad-hoc groups
separate the work by categories to target specific questions and recommendations. Mr.
Stefanski recommended keeping the ad-hoc meetings at different times so that Mr.
Hudson, Ms. Hailu, and Mr. Stefanski could support the groups.
Member Kohli asked about Brown Act Requirements for email messages. Mr. Stefanski
commented on the question about emailing ad-hoc group members stating that Ad Hoc
members may communicate with themselves but may not discuss their work with the
other Ad Hoc groups unless at a full meeting of the Task Force .
Member Orozco asked about who the City hires for security at events. Mr. Hudson
recommended all the Task Force members add their questions now. Mr. Stefanski
shared that he would get an answer to Member Orozco’s question for the next meeting.
Member David asked about the APAPA town hall video link not working on the Website.
Mr. Stefanski stated that he would get the link fixed.
Member Tripplett asked who decides City statements? (e.g., APAPA Town Hall meeting
or press releases). Mr. Stefanski reported that this is done by Shari Jackman,
Communications Manager and Mr. Hudson commented that the City Manager may also
request to send out statements.
Member Jacobs asked if the Communications Manager and the Social Media Manager
are the same person. Mr. Stefanski reported that the Communications Manager
oversees the Communications Analyst, who is more responsible for managing the City's
Social Media channels. Member Tripplett asked to see additional information on the
information distributed to the community and the job description for the Communications
Manager. Mr. Stefanski reported that he would be able to get this information for the next
meeting.
Mr. Hudson commented on the lack of participation from the public at the Community
Task Force meetings. Mr. Hudson recommended that there should be outreach to the
community. Member David commented on the accessibility of the meeting recordings
after the meetings and that it would be easier to share the link with folks to see what the
Task Force is working on. Member Jacobs asked about the minutes and adding
additional information to be more descriptive. Mr. Stefanski reported on providing more
detail in the minutes moving forward.
Member Avanzino commented on the lack of public comment even though there were 76
applicants who applied to be on the Task Force and asked if there was an opp ortunity to
outreach to these applicants to get them involved.
Mr. Hudson recommended that each ad-hoc include this in their Communications
recommendations since all the ad-hoc committees can touch on this. Mr. Hudson asked
Mr. Stefanski about the other commissions and committee meetings and if they had
public comment at their meetings. Mr. Stefanski reported that most commission and
committee meetings did not have much in terms of public comments, unless it is a
controversial project. Mr. Hudson commented on governments functioning more
smoothly when there is no public comment. Mr. Hudson recommended considering how
the Task Force could help get the information out to the public to give comment on
recommendations provided to City Council.
Member Orozco commented on asked about promoting on social media platforms about
meetings of commissions and committee meetings.
Member Kohli commented on the planning commission and other commission meetings
and asked about setting up notifications of Task Force meetings. Mr. Stefanski reported
that this could be set up but that individuals would have to opt-in to receive the
notifications. Member Kohli commented on the community reaction and then
engagement once the recommendations are announced at City Council. Member Kohli
asked about asked posting on social media the Task Force meetings. Mr. Stefanski
commented on the liking of other Task Force members posts and sharing their posts
would be a violation of Brown Act requirements.
Member Avanzino commented on seeing this Task Force publicized on next door from
Stephen Wright on the planning commission. Member Avanzino recommended using
NextDoor to engage the community. Mr. Hudson recommended the Task Force agre e
on the language and strategies to outreach to the community so that Mr. Stefanski could
get this cleared from the City Council and the City Attorney. Mr. Stefanski shared that he
would work to push more information out on the meetings of the Task Force.
4.3 Review and Comment on the Proposed Agenda Planning Calendar
The Task Force reviewed the Proposed Agenda Planning Calendar, noting that the
month of May will be utilized primarily for the work of the Ad Hoc Committees.
Member Brown left the meeting at 6:37 PM.
5. Other Business
Mr. Stefanski shared with the Task Force about the Volunteer Recognition Event on
Wednesday, April 28 from 6 -8 PM.
Mr. Stefanski shared information from Member Foster about an event at Las Positas
Community College District.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:01PM.
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY TASK FORCE ON
EQUITY, DIVERSITY & INCLUSION
SPECIAL MEETING – April 29, 2021
A special meeting of the Community Task Force on Equity, Diversity & Inclusion was held on
April 29th, 2021, via Zoom telecommunications. The meeting commenced at 5:37 PM.
Roll Call
PRESENT: Natasha Tripplett, Rameet Kohli, Isabella Helene David, Clifford Brown Jr., Matthew
Aini, Beatriz Ballesteros-Kogan, Kathy Avanzino, Martha Orozco (alt.), Brittany Jacobs (alt.)
John Stefanski, Jordyn Bishop, Paul Hudson, Rodas Hailu.
ABSENT: Eman Tai, Dyrell Foster
1. Call to Order
Assistant to the City Manager John Stefanski called the meeting to order at 5:37 PM.
2. Public Comment
Mr. Stefanski called for Public Comments. No comments were made.
3. Reports
3.1 Reviewing of Policing Recommendations
Mr. Stefanski began a review of the Task Force’s policing recommendations including
providing an overview of the City identified areas of concern and recommended changes
to address the concerns. A copy of the Recommendations, Concerns, and
Recommended Changes to Address Concerns is attached to these minutes.
Mr. Stefanski began a review of the Task Force’s Policies and Procedures
recommendations, with clarifying commentary and counsel from Assistant City Attorney
Jordyn Bishop.
For recommendation #1 on the Dublin City Council establishing a permanent
commission to review law enforcement and community safety in Dublin, Ms. Bishop
clarified that Dublin is a general law city, and as such, has limitations in the creation of a
policing commission as defined by state law. Any commission created would be only in
an advisory capacity to the City Council and could not exert any “control” over Dublin
Police Services.
Mr. Stefanski reviewed recommendation #2 on the City Manager hiring a consultant to
enhance collaboration amongst the Dublin community, City Council, city staff, and Dublin
Police Services, and shared adjusted language to be inclusive of Alameda County
Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) staff.
For recommendation #3 regarding data collection and transparency on non-violent police
interactions from DPS, Ms. Bishop stated that the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of
2015 (RIPA) already requires that state law enforcement agencies collect and report this
data. Mr. Stefanski shared that DPS would not have the ability to track the amount of
time they spend on responding to noncriminal activity vs. minor and violent crime.
Mr. Stefanski moved onto recommendation #4 on the enhancing of de-escalation data
collection and reporting, and shared adjusted language. De-escalation data is not readily
available and quantifiable for the purposes of analysis and publication, which would
complicate the City’s ability to complete this recommendation. Furthermore, the City
would not have the authority to set goals regarding de-escalation under the current
ACSO contract.
In reviewing recommendation #5 on requiring DPS to provide comprehensive reporting
on incidents involving Use of Force, Ms. Bishop clarified that AB 71 and SB 1421 are
laws which have already established data collection and reporting requirements for law
enforcement agencies. Mr. Stefanski added that some of the suggestions within
recommendation #5 are already covered by AB 71 and SB 1421.
Member Kohli asked a clarifying question on reviewing the Task Force’s
recommendations with legal counsel. Mr. Stefanski stated that it was important to
examine recommendations with the City Attorney before presenting them to Dublin City
Council. Member Kohli asked if there will be another opportunity to review the
recommendations and edits. Mr. Stefanski said that recommendations can be further
discussed in the ad-hoc groups. Alternate Member Jacobs posed a question on creating
a community advocacy body. Ms. Bishop clarified the legality of creating advisory
bodies.
Member Brown asked how the recommendation could be modified to include information
on publicizing data for Dublin specifically. Mr. Stefanski clarified that the data would be
able to be published through the City’s data platform. Member Tripplett made a comment
on the City’s comments and recommended changes to the recommendations. Mr.
Stefanski clarified that there are limitations to what Dublin can and cannot do due to the
City’s contract with ACSO, as well as the limitations of being a general law city. Member
Aini commented and clarified on the de-escalation target portion of recommendation #5.
Mr. Stefanski and Ms. Bishop continued to Staff, Management and Accountability
recommendations. On recommendation #6 regarding criteria to guide the Chief of DPS
when hiring law enforcement personnel, Ms. Bishop stated that AB 846 provides some
regulatory language and context on minimum standards in hiring evaluation processes.
Mr. Stefanski reviewed recommendations #7-13, which discussed police procedures,
communications, public engagement, and community relations, and provided any
adjusted language.
Regarding recommendation #14 on releasing to the public civilian complains against
DPS, Ms. Bishop clarified that some complaint data is collected and sent over the
Department of Justice, which is published annually. Ms. Bishop noted, however, there is
some employee information that is considered confidential within their personnel file.
Alternate Member Jacobs asked if there is anything that could made public in the file.
Ms. Bishop explained the process of requesting access of a personnel file through filing
a Pitchess motion. Mr. Stefanski commented on how to release general, unidentifiable
information on complaints.
Member Kohli posed a clarifying question for recommendation #10 on the City hosting
annual DPS study session, and if the City can ask ACSO to attend. Mr. Stefanski stated
that the City could ask ACSO to attend or participate in the study session.
Mr. Stefanski reviewed the last set of recommendations on Training, Mental Health and
Budget. Mr. Stefanski spoke on the minor changes to recommendations #15 and #16,
and shared adjusted language. Regarding recommendations #17 and #18 on training
and curriculum topics for DPS, Mr. Stefanski requested that the ad-hoc provide clarifying
language, particularly around the frequency and modes of training. In reviewing
recommendation #19 regarding forming a working group to determine training topics,
Member Jacobs commented on considering a community commission in the
conversations.
Member Tripplett commented on the composition of recommendation #18. Member
Ballesteros-Kogan asked about how to present recommendations at county level. Mr.
Stefanski described the process and available options of presenting recommendation to
county. Member Kohli commented on the inclusion of curriculum topics in the
recommendation. Mr. Stefanski specified that the frequency of the trainings in the
recommendation should be revaluated by the ad-hoc groups.
At the conclusion of the policing recommendations review, recommendations #1, #6,
#17, and #18 were identified to be revisited, modified, or edited by the respective ad-hoc
groups. The remaining recommendations would be incorporated into the draft final
report.
3.2 City-wide DEI Initiative Discussion, Questions, and Data Requests
Mr. Hudson introduced a discussion on city-wide DEI initiatives. Member Kohli asked a
clarifying question on city commission demographics. Mr. Stefanski referred Member
Kohli back to the presentation on City Boards and Commissions. Member David asked
where to find racial demographics of Dublin voters. Mr. Stefanski shared that the
Alameda County Registrar of Voters would maintain information tied to voter registration
and requested languages for ballots. Member David asked about city officials making
communications with inmates at the women’s prison in Dublin. Mr. Stefanski discussed
the City’s engagement with FCI Dublin pre-COVID. Member Tripplett presented an idea
about establishing a DEI liaison within DPS and the City. Mr. Stefanski shared that the
City had recently established a similar role for LGBTQ+ members of the community.
3.3 Review and Comment on the Proposed Agenda Planning Calendar
Mr. Stefanski reviewed the agenda calendar. Alternate Member Jacobs asked about
how the Task Force will preset final Task Force recommendations. Mr. Stefanski
responded that he will find out more information on the official presentation. Mr. Hudson
provided advice, counsel, and framing for the Task Force as they work through revising
policing recommendations and drafting DEI recommendations. Member Tripplett
commented on potential implementation strategies for the DEI proposals and
recommendations. Mr. Stefanski clarified that final Task Force recommendations will go
the City sometime in July or August.
4. Other Business
Mr. Stefanski noted that he would be out the office next week but would provide support
to the ad-hoc groups as they scheduled their meetings.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:31 PM.
# Recommendation Concerns Recommended Changes to Address Concerns
Policies and Procedures Ad Hoc Work Group Recommendations
1 The Taskforce recommends that: the City Council
establish a permanent Commission for ongoing
review and attention to law enforcement and
community safety in Dublin.
a) This Commission would be selected by the
City Council using a similar process to the
selection of this Task Force and
recommendations will be made to the City
Council.
b) The Commission will not be overseen by or
have members chosen by Dublin Police
Services, the Alameda County Sheriff's
Office, or Dublin city staff.
c) The Commission would support the City in
taking action and ongoing oversight and
implementation of approved
recommendations of this Taskforce, as well
as play an ongoing role to enhance police-
community relations in Dublin.
d) The Commission may also consider
adopting a harm reduction and/or
procedural justice framework for policing.
The Taskforce recommends the use of this
framework to focus on community
experiences with police, not just the final
outcomes.
e) The Taskforce recommends that the
Commission utilize DPS and other data to
set benchmarks in reducing traffic stops,
minor crimes and traffic violations, and
other minor infractions.
f) The Commission is in addition to the
Civilian Oversight body being considered at
the county level.
California state law creates some limitations on
the authority of a policy commission.
Control over most aspects of the administration
of the City and its employees is assigned to the
City Manager. This includes the Chief of police
who, under state law, has expressly assigned
control over the police department. The City
Council does not have the ability to create a
commission that exerts “control” over the
police department, as such a body would
conflict with State Law. “Control” includes any
actions related to discipline, or requiring the
implementing of policies, procedures, or
practices.
Under the ACSO contract, the Sheriff has
supervision and control over the standards of
performance.
As such recommendation parts 1c, 1d, 1e,
should be reviewed with this legal framework in
mind. A commission created by the City Council
would be advisory because it could not exercise
control over the police department (e.g.,
commission could not mandate that ACSO
implement the commission’s recommendations,
policies, or benchmarks.)
The Civilian Oversight Body being considered at
the County level would be the appropriate
body to address the parts 1d and 1e above.
Recommending the advocacy for a Dublin
specific seat on that body would ensure Dublin
related issues are brought to the forefront to a
body with the more authority to investigate
and make recommendations for changes
requested by the Task Force.
The Task Force recommends that the City advocate
for the creation of a Sheriff Oversight Board and
Inspector General and that the City advocate for
permanent seat on the Board.
The Task Force recommends that the City advocate
for the Sheriff Oversight Board and Inspector
General position study harm reduction and
procedural justice framework for policing and
develop recommendations for the implementation
of best practices identified from said study.
2 The Taskforce recommends that: the City Manager
hire a consultant to provide capacity and expertise
in supporting enhanced collaboration between the
Dublin community, Dublin City Council, Dublin city
staff, and Dublin Police Services. This consultant
should bring expertise in law enforcement-
community relations and serve as an outside
support to the city.
Police Services are performed under contract
with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. The
Sheriff has supervision and control over the
employees providing services including items
like standards of performance, training, and
discipline. Any changes to the policies under
which the Sheriff’s department operates would
require further discussions with the Sheriff and
potentially contract amendments.
Recommendation 2 is implementable;
however, this work would have to be done in
cooperation with the Alameda County Sheriff’s
Office.
The Task Force Recommends that the City Manager
hire a consultant to provide capacity and expertise
in supporting enhanced collaboration between the
Dublin Community, Dublin City Council, Staff,
Dublin Police Services, and the Alameda County
Sheriff’s Office. This Consultant should bring
expertise in law enforcement-community relations
and serve as additional support to the City.
3 The Task Force recommends that: data be
collected in the following categories to help
establish benchmarks in reducing nonviolent police
interactions:
a) Number of consent vs. Probable Cause
searches
b) The amount of time DPS spends on
responding to noncriminal activity vs.
minor crime activity vs. violent crime.
c) Pre-stop perception of race of subject prior
to them being charged with minor crime
with misdemeanor.
d) Police officer’s pre-stop perception of the
race of individuals they stop.
e) Police officer’s basis for reasonable
suspicion leading to a stop.
The Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015
(RIPA) requires that, among other things, each
California Law enforcement agency collect and
annually report their stop data to the Attorney
General.
ACSO began collecting RIPA-required stop data
on 1/1/2021. The State RIPA Board will publish
all Stop Data information annually. ACSO data
will be available in 2022.
RIPA requires that stop data collected include
perceived race/ethnicity of a person stopped,
as well as the primary basis for the stop,
including reasonable suspicion. RIPA also
requires that the Basis for a Search be reported
including whether consent was given or if there
was probably cause. The officer must also
provide a brief explanation regarding the basis
for the search and must provide additional
detail.
Given these RIPA data collection requirements,
items 3a, 3c, 3d, and 3e are generally
duplicative with state law.
The Task Force recommends that all RIPA required
stop data be published on the City’s Data
Transparency Platform on an annual basis. This will
include stop data in the following areas:
- Perceived race/ethnicity
- Primary basis for the stop
- Whether consent was given or if there was
probable cause.
ACSO does not have the capacity to develop the
data and analysis for item 3b. In the case of
pre-stop perceptions of race, there would be no
consistent way to collect and track such data
due to the different circumstances surrounding
how individuals are cited for a misdemeanor
(I.e., Cite-Release) as well as other scenarios
which would contribute to a lack of consistent,
reliable data.
4 The Taskforce recommends that: de-escalation
data collection and reporting is enhanced to
increase de-escalation efforts. Furthermore, this
de-escalation data should be made transparent
and be shared via annual reporting. The Taskforce
suggests a goal of 20% increase of de-escalation by
end of 2023. For officers who effectively de-
escalate, the Taskforce also recommends that they
be recognized for their efforts.
De-escalation data is not readily available and
quantifiable for the purposes of analysis and
publication.
As stated earlier, the Sheriff has supervision
over the standard of performance of DPS. The
City does not have the authority to set those
goals, under the current contract.
The Taskforce recommends that the City and ACSO
explore ways to collect and report data regarding
de-escalation.
5 The Taskforce recommends that: the City Manager
request DPS to provide comprehensive reporting
for incidents involving Use of Force. Information in
this report should include the following:
a) The type of force.
b) The types and degree of injury to suspect
and officer.
c) Date and time.
d) Location of the incident.
e) Officer's assignment.
f) Number of officers using force in the
incident.
g) Officer's activity when force was used (ex.
Handcuffing, search warrant, pursuit)
Subject's activity allegedly requiring the
officer to use force.
h) Officer's demographics (age, gender,
race/ethnicity, rank, number of years with
[Insert Jurisdiction], number of years as a
police officer).
AB 71 and SB 1421 established standards for
Use of Force Data and Reporting requirements.
Under AB 71, California Law Enforcement
agencies are required to collect and annually
report data on specified use of force incidents.
For each incident reported, the information
reported to the California Department of
Justice shall include, but not be limited to:
• The gender, race, and age of each
individual who was shot, injured, or
killed.
• The date, time, and location of the
incident.
• Whether the civilian was armed, and, if
so, the type of weapon.
• The type of force used against the
officer, the civilian, or both, including
the types of weapons used.
• The number of officers involved in the
incident.
The Task Force recommends that in instances
where there is a DPS officer involved shooting or
use of force resulting in great bodily injury or
death, DPS will make the AB71 and SB1421 data
publicly available on the City’s Data Transparency
Platform.
i) Subject demographics including
race/ethnicity, age, gender, gender
identity, primary.
Language and other factors such as mental
illness, cognitive impairment,
developmental disability, drug and alcohol
use/addiction and homeless.
j) Outcome of any investigation regarding
the use of force including any disciplinary
actions that were taken as a result.
k) De-escalation reduction targets.
l) Recommendations.
• The number of civilians involved in the
incident.
• A brief description regarding the
circumstances surrounding the
incident, which may include the nature
of injuries to officers and civilians and
perceptions on behavior or mental
disorders.
Given these AB 71 reporting requirements in
existing law, portions of item 5 are duplicative.
Under SB 1421, records relating to the report,
investigation, or findings for incidents involving
either the discharge of a firearm at a person by
a peace officer, or the use of force resulting in
death or great bodily injury, are subject to
disclosure in response to a CPRA request.
All other reports regarding use of force
incidents, including investigation and
disciplinary records, are confidential and/or
exempt from disclosure under state law.
For 5k, see recommendations 1 & 4 above.
Staff, Management, and Accountability Ad Hoc Work Group Recommendations
6 The Task Force recommends that: in addition to
current hiring criteria utilized by the Chief of DPS,
the City Manager, in consultation with the City
Council, direct the Chief to include the following
selection criteria to guide the Chief of DPS when it
comes to hiring law enforcement personnel for
DPS:
a) Residents of Dublin
b) Race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation
representation to reflect the City of Dublin
and individuals DPS engages with on a daily
basis.
c) Community policing engagement
experience
See #7 below See #7 below
d) Experience working in diverse communities
and/or on diverse teams.
7 The Task Force recommends that: the City
Manager meet with the Chief of DPS annually to
review the hiring criteria and DPS demographic
data.
Under the current contract, the Sheriff provides
personnel and police services in Dublin and the
City pays for those services based on actual
costs. Under the terms of the agreement, the
Sheriff has supervision and control over the
employees providing services, including items
like standards of performance, training, and
discipline. Any changes to the policies under
which the Sheriff’s department operates would
require further discussions with the Sheriff, and
potentially contract amendments.
State Law expressly assigns control over the
police department to the Police Chief (GC
38630). The Sheriff has supervision and control
over the employees providing services. Any
changes would require further discussions with
the Sheriff and potentially contract
amendments.
Under existing law, peace officers are required
to meet certain minimum standards during the
hiring evaluation process, including a finding
that the applicant is free from any physical,
emotional, or mental condition that might
adversely affect their duties.
AB 846 broadens the minimum standards to
specific that a disqualifying condition includes
implicit and explicit biases. AB 846 requires that
when a law enforcement agency evaluates
potential peace officers for hiring, the
evaluation must find that the applicant is free
from any bias against race or ethnicity, gender,
nationality, religion, disability, or sexual
orientation that might adversely affect the
exercise of the powers of a peace officer. POST
must update its screening regulations and
The Task Force recommends the City publish the
demographic data of DPS officers on an annual
basis on the City’s Data Transparency Portal.
materials to incorporate this new standard by
January 1, 2022.
AB 846 specifies that law enforcement agencies
must review all peace officer job descriptions
and make changes that emphasize community-
based policing, familiarization between law
enforcement and community residents, and
collaborative problem solving, while de-
emphasizing the paramilitary aspects of the
job.
8 The Taskforce recommends that: the City Manager
annually report to the City Council hiring criteria
and demographic data.
See #7. See #7.
9 The Task Force recommends that: DPS issue a
press release within 72 hours after every incident
involving use of lethal force by DPS.
None The Task Force recommends that the City enact an
administrative policy which states that the City will
issue a press release within 72 hours after every
incident involving use of lethal force by DPS.
10 The Task Force recommends that: the City
Manager in consultation with the City Council
engage an independent third-party to convene an
annual DPS Study Session for Dublin residents (to
include, but not limited to workshops, breakout
groups, open comment, etc.). The DPS Study
Session to include:
a) Report on “best practices” regarding
community policing, police disciplinary
policies/procedures, law enforcement
hiring/recruitment/retention, bias, and
other topics that are of interest to all
stakeholders involved.
b) Issuance of a public report to include
findings, recommendations and actions
from the DPS Study Session.
c) The Task Force recommends that: the City
Council direct DPS to provide a public
response to Study Session Report findings,
recommendations and actions, with such
response to include potential revisions and
new policies and procedures.
This kind of public report would be best
completed by the Sheriff’s Office Inspector
General which is anticipated to be created by
the Board of Supervisors. This position will have
the resources and the ability to set
recommendation and follow up actions for
ACSO.
Under the City’s current contract, the Sheriff
has supervision and control over the employees
providing services, including items like
standards of performance. Changes to ACSO
policies would require further discussions with
the Sheriff and potentially contract
amendments.
The Task Force recommends that the City advocate
for the creation of a Sheriff’s Office Inspector
General and Sheriff’s Office Oversight Board and
that said newly created bodies conduct a public
study session to discuss policing best practices and
develop a public report which includes findings,
recommendations, and actions for the Sheriff’s
Office.
In addition, the Task Force recommends that the
City host a facilitated, community educational
workshop on 21st century policing and community
relations best practices. The workshop will include
guided community conversations for those in
attendance.
11 The Task Force recommends that: the City Council
direct the City Manager in consultation with DPS to
develop an online platform to enable civilians to
file DPS complaints and commendations through
an online form (e.g., ACSO's website/mobile app)
and by voicemail to make complaints and
commendations easier and safer to report.
ACSO will evaluate the options for this. The
quickest way to implement this
recommendation would be through an email
address. Form functionality on their website
and the use of a voice mail option will require
further discussion with ACSO.
The Task Force recommends that the City work
with ACSO to develop additional methods for
residents to file DPS complaints and
commendations either through electronic means or
voicemail (internal affairs email address).
12 The Taskforce recommends that: non-private DPS
complaints and commendations data be available
on city websites.
Commendation Data can be uploaded to the
City’s Data Transparency Portal. ACSO currently
reports aggregate complaint data to CalDOJ.
The Data is published annually, which could be
shared on the City’s Data Transparency Portal.
Data Categories for these reports are detailed.
here.
The ability of ACSO to bifurcate complaints tied
to DPS will require further conversation with
ACSO.
The Task Force recommends that the City work
with ACSO to publish information regarding DPS
complaints and commendations data on the City’s
Data Transparency Portal.
13 The Taskforce recommends that: the City Manager
request DPS to provide a card with information
about how to make a complaint, along with the
officer's name and badge number, to all people
who they stop.
None. The Task Force recommends the City develop cards
for DPS to provide with information on how to
make a complaint or commendation.
14 The Task Force recommends that: the City
Manager request DPS to compile and make
available to the public on a quarterly basis non-
private,
a) statistics of all complaints and
commendations filed with DPS broken
down by race, gender, age, time of day,
location, and related data,
b) statistics of types of disciplinary actions
taken by DPS and for what actions, and
c) statistics on how or if complaints were
resolved.
State law requires collection and reporting of
specified Civilians’ Complaint Against Peace
Officers (CCAPO) data to DOJ, which is
published annually.
Under state law, commendations and
complaints (including disciplinary and
resolution information) are considered part of
an employee’s confidential personnel file.
Under Penal Code section 832.7, police officer
personnel records, including “information
obtained from the records” are confidential
(unless it falls within a SB 1421 category
requiring disclosure under CPRA).
See #12.
Training, Mental Health, Budget Ad Hoc Work Group Recommendations
15 The Task Force recommends that: the City of
Dublin develop and implement a multidisciplinary
mobile crisis team for nonviolent situations.
a) The team would consist of a licensed
behavioral health provider, an Emergency
Medical Technician, and a Social Worker.
b) The team would be dispatched through
911 calls and would attend to non-violent
situations such as: individuals undergoing
mental health crisis who do not pose a
threat to others, non-criminal homeless
activity, community dispute resolutions,
youth intervention, and welfare checks.
c) This team would begin by operating
Monday through Sunday 11am to 9pm.
The hours could expand as deemed
necessary and as funding allows.
d) The purpose of the mobile crisis would be
to assess the situation, provide brief
supportive interventions, help stabilize
crisis matters and assist in connecting
individuals to services as well as resources.
e) Additionally, the mobile crisis team would
be available to provide scenario-based
training and consultation to law
enforcement, first responders, schools,
community providers, families and other
community members.
The City requests flexibility regarding the
“development and implementation” language
to read as “implementation.” The City may
elect to partner with existing programs
available in the County rather than develop a
program internally.
The Task Force recommends that the City
implement a multidisciplinary mobile crisis team for
non-violent situations…
16 The Taskforce recommends that: the City of
Dublin, in collaboration with DPS. develop and
implement co-responder teams consisting of one
police officer and one Mental Health Professional
(licensed LMFT or LCSW) to respond to situations
where people are experiencing a severe mental
health crisis that could pose a threat to safety.
Components of the collaborative response would
be:
a) Co-responder team would either be first
on the scene as dispatched through 911 or
be called in by other first responders after
initial assessments indicates a necessity of
The City requests flexibility regarding the
“development and implementation” language
to read as “implementation.” The City may
elect to partner with existing programs
available in the County rather than develop a
program internally.
The Task Force recommends that the City, in
collaboration with ACSO, implement co-responder
teams consisting of….
mental health services where there is a
threat to safety.
b) Co-responder team would provide
immediate help to individuals experiencing
a severe mental health crisis, deescalate
intense situations, provide accurate on-
the-scene mental health assessments, if
necessary, include family and/or friends in
crucial information gathering process,
connect individuals to resources, and assist
with transportation to care facilities for
services needed in 5150 cases.
c) Co-responder team should drive an
unmarked police car and wear civilian
clothing to intentionally and proactively
diffuse tense situations.
17 The Taskforce recommends that: Dublin Police
Services amend the Critical Decision-Making Model
(CDM) to require self-evaluation and procedural
justice during police response, including the
assessment of the proportionalism, accountability,
necessity, and ethics of police actions. Prompts
pertaining to proportionalism can be added for
further consideration in the CDM.
Under the City’s current contract, the Sheriff
has supervision and control over the employees
providing services, including items like
standards of performance.
Changes to ACSO policies would require further
discussions with the Sheriff and potentially
contract amendments.
18 The Taskforce recommends that: Dublin Police
Services’ mandatory CPT training for all officers
include the following topics, with an emphasis on
scenario based, situational decision-making
training, specific to the demographics and
populations within the City of Dublin:
a) Implicit Bias
b) Understanding languages and cultural
responsiveness
c) Understanding people with disabilities
d) Community policing
e) Use of Force/De-escalation
f) Leadership, professionalism, ethics
As discussed in the DPS Training Memo, DPS
already provides Use of Force/De-escalation
training at least three times a year during
firearms trainings and daily briefings. DPS
Officers already attend a four (4) hour in-
person training course on Implicit Bias and
Racial Profiling.
DPS officers attend training that covers items
18a-f every two years.
The City requests clarification on the
prioritization of the trainings and to make sure
that the amount of training is reasonable in
terms of overall hours.
The Task Force recommends that DPS identify ways
to expand the training offerings in 18a-f either
through muster room briefings, independent
study/self-paced trainings, or additional training
days.
19 The Taskforce recommends that: the above topics
shall be in addition to the mandatory 24 hours of
There are impracticalities with the
recommendation. Dublin does not have local
The Task Force recommends that DPS identify a
staff member to serve as a liaison with advocacy
CPT for every DPS officer every two years. The Task
Force encourages DPS to develop a work group
that would include a representative(s) from Las
Positas College and advocacy groups, including the
local chapters of the National Alliance on Mental
Illness, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, and the American
Civil Liberties Union to determine the number of
hours and the content of training for each topic.
chapters for all of these entities and it remains
unclear as to whether they would be able to
dedicate resources to DPS for this purpose.
Any identified or developed trainings and
content would need to be certified by CA POST
to ensure consistency with the other training
DPS officers receive.
groups, including but not limited to Las Positas
College, NAMI, NAACP, and ACLU. Identified liaison
would reach out to the nearest chapter of these
groups annually to see if they have any items they
wish to share or discuss. Based on conversations
with those groups, that information will be shared
with DPS staff through daily muster trainings.
Page 1 of 7
Community Task Force on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Draft Recommendations
May 27, 2021
Boards and Commission Recruitment
1. Recommends that City Council and City Staff actively engage with local nonprofit
organizations, faith-based organizations, DUSD, to announce/apprise citizens of
upcoming vacancies on boards, commissions, task forces, and other city committees.
2. Recommends that City Council encourages City Staff, commissioners, task force and
committee members, as well as the City Council itself, to actively post, share, engage in
social media to share information regarding upcoming vacancies on boards,
commissions, task force and other city committees.
3. Recommend that City Council instruct City Staff to ensure that all upcoming vacancies
are posted with sufficient notice to apply on the new monthly newsletter, "Backyard
Brief" as well as all other City publications.
4. Recommends that City Council instructs City Staff to request demographic information
on all applications (e.g., race, gender, income level, etc.)
5. Recommends that City Council instruct City Staff to add a DEI focused weighted scoring
system to evaluating all applications (e.g., demographics, underserved communities,
etc.)
6. Recommends that City Council expand all commissions to no less than seven members
to allow for more opportunities for residents to serve on commissions.
7. Recommends City Council direct City Staff to review the current process to collect, store
and disseminate information of all current, former, and unsuccessful commission
applicants, as well as past Dublin 101 graduates, and determine if the process needs to
be revised to ensure that updated notices about additional
commission/board/council/task force/ committee opportunities are being shared with
all current/former/unsuccessful applicants.
8. Recommends that City Council instruct City Staff to create a formal certification and
mentor program that prepares Dublin residents to serve on commissions and similar
bodies. This could include taking the Dublin 101 course and similar training sessions. The
certification would "fast track" these individuals through the application process and
have them ready to serve as seats open up. The mentor program portion will be
voluntary and enlist former/current commissioners and similar appointees to volunteer
their time to educate and share experiences with Dublin residents interested serving. All
sessions (classes, mentor meetings, etc.) should have a virtual option to attend to make
Page 2 of 7
it more equitable to Dublin residents. The City should focus on recruiting both former
applicants and residents from under-served and underrepresented communities within
the City to participate in the program.
9. Recommends that City Council limit the duration of a term that a commissioner serves
on a commission to be no more than a period of four years. Commissioners will not be
allowed to serve successive terms on the same Commission but will have the
opportunity to reapply for non-successive terms. Commissioners will also have the
opportunity to apply to be placed on another commission once their term ends. This
allows for more equity by providing an opportunity for more citizens to be placed on
commissions.
Inclusive Equitable and Accessible Programming and Events
10. DEI Town Hall Meetings: The DEI Task Force recommends that the City of Dublin host
monthly diverse Town Hall meetings, each meeting aimed at amplifying the voices and
concerns of different diverse groups represented in the City of Dublin.
11. Data Collection: The DEI Task Force recommends that the City of Dublin collect the
following data sets: disaggregated data on specific languages spoken at home, and
disaggregated ancestry data on Asian Americans in Dublin.
12. Translated Info Bulletins/Paper Resources: The DEI Task Force recommends that the City
of Dublin translate local government and city information into multiple languages and
post paper copies to be displayed on bulletins at strategic locations identified by the
City. The Task Force recommends that these bulletin boxes be built as standalone
outdoor structures with a lockable display case, maintained, and accessed solely by City
staff. The City will assure that the bulletins are in the predominant languages spoken in
the specific bulletin box locations.
13. Diversity/Multicultural Festival: The DEI Task Force recommends that the Splatter
festival be renamed and rebranded into a multicultural/diversity festival that highlights
the diverse cultures represented in Dublin through entertainment, food, and interactive
activities.
14. Farmers Markets/Food Events: The DEI Task Force recommends that the City of Dublin
promote restaurants and small businesses that are owned and operated by marginalized
groups through new and existing local events.
15. Arts: The DEI Task Force recommends that the City of Dublin is intentional about
displaying public art and utilizing the public art fund in a manner that is representative
of the diversity within our city. This includes but is not limited to: cultures, abilities,
Page 3 of 7
gender diversity, mediums, styles, and artistic theory. City should collect data on the
array of artist-diversity represented and include it in the annual report.
16. Programming: The DEI Task Force recommends that the City of Dublin proactively
recruit instructors and intentionally seek class offerings that represent the diverse
cultures and ethnicities in Dublin.
17. Programming: The DEI Task Force recommends that The City of Dublin enhance efforts
to inform residents of Dublin of how they can submit requests for additional classes that
are reflective of the City’s diversity.
18. Library: The DEI Task Force recommends that the City of Dublin collaborate with The
Alameda County Public Library to encourage the Dublin Branch to increase the selection
of books by authors and illustrators who represent the diversity within our community
(language, culture, ability, and gender). The Dublin Public Library should highlight and
promote a diverse selection of authors and speakers when possible.
Community Agency Funding and Support
Grant Process
19. Data Collection & Continuous Improvement
a. Increase data collection.
i. Surveys after workshop and after decisions are made.
1. Compare data to identify differences in experiences.
2. Survey via a question on the application itself, a separate email or
a short online survey.
3. Sample questions:
a. Collect feedback about number of hours to go through
application process and other ways to improve it, from
applicants.
b. What did you think of the application process?
c. How many hours in total did it take you to complete this
application?
d. How do you feel about the amount of data asked for in
this grant application?
e. What is your opinion of assistance provided by CBF staff in
completing the application?
f. Were the instructions and tips provided in the application
helpful?
g. Was the grant application workshop for the grant round
helpful?
h. How did you find out about the grant application?
Page 4 of 7
i. Please provide us with your suggestions about any
improvements to the application process that you think
we need to consider.
ii. Demographic information tracked at in each point in the process.
b. Identify pain points.
c. Explore root causes and pain points.
i. Survey /focus group with diverse group of potential and actual applicants
ii. Provide incentives and flexibility to participate to ensure diversity of
perspectives.
d. Implement or pilot solutions and examine data.
e. Have feedback provided to applicants to improve their application for the next
funding cycle.
20. Recommended edits to the Grant Application
a. Ask about demographics of organization’s beneficiaries, board members, and
staff members Applicant? Head of org? Who do they serve? Whole staff
demographics?
b. Ask about DEI lens and training.
c. #7 Add a request for staff demographics, and number of staff within each job
levels (Entry-level, Intermediate, Mid-level, Senior or executive level).
d. #8 Remove word limit.
e. #10 Reason why a request for a new Eastern County assessment is needed (old)
f. # 18 include How is your agency working to ensure hard to reach clients are
aware of your services?
g. “The organization charges a fee and/or produces other income that may be used
to support this program” -- There should be a consideration to waive the
requirement if the program helps an underserved group in Dublin.
21. Recommended edits to the Rubric
a. Request to conduct a new Eastern Alameda County broad-based needs
assessment of human services. Last assessment was conducted in 2011 and the
demographics of the city have changed with the increase of growth within the
city.
b. Add a DEI category and award points for that section. This section should be
weighted equally (which requires new DEI questions on application & rubric) Is
DEI reflected in their mission? Is the staff diverse? Do they serve diverse set of
people within the community, or a part of the community with the most need?
c. Ask targeted DEI questions in the application.
i. For applicant organizations which have staff with limited English
proficiency, consider providing language and cultural translation technical
assistance with their grant applications. Also consider having at least one
grant reviewer who is familiar with that culture / language.
ii. Give smaller organizations additional time to submit their applications
(e.g., two additional weeks.)
Page 5 of 7
iii. Offer to review drafts of grant applications from smaller organizations to
provide feedback before the submission deadline).
iv. Ask about demographics of organization’s beneficiaries, board members,
and staff members.
v. Ask about cultural competency of staff, where appropriate.
22. Recommended edits to the Grant Process
a. Establish clear priorities for this grant.
b. Apply a DEI lens to each component of the process.
c. Example ways to make process more equitable and inclusive:
https://www.ncfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Incorporating-Diversity-
Equity-and-Inclusion-in-your-Grantmaking-Process-A-Checklist-of-Potential-
Actions-Arabella-Advisors-2016-a-checklist-of-potential-actions-incorporating-
dei-into-your-grantmaking-process-arabella-advisors-1.pdf
d. Add: For applicant organizations which have staff with limited English
proficiency, consider providing language and cultural translation technical
assistance with their grant applications. Also consider having at least one grant
reviewer who is familiar with that culture / language.
e. Give smaller organizations additional time to submit their applications (e.g., two
additional
f. Offer to review drafts of grant applications from smaller organizations to provide
feedback before the submission date weeks).
Communications
23. Establish regular touchpoints with diverse cultural and community leaders and local
organizations.
a. Frequency
b. The city goes to them or they can come to the city.
c. Listening and discussion
24. Establish additional channels for two-way communication with all city residents.
a. Partnering with other organizations and community leaders
b. Collecting information when people RSVP/register
c. Ask demographic information.
d. Ask addresses- Is there a way to understand what parts of Dublin? (East/West
Dougherty)
25. Social Media
a. Engage the Dublin community to revise the currently adopted calendar.
i. Taskforce recommendations:
1. Lunar New Year- change wording from “Chinese”.
2. Remove Cinco De Mayo, and/or use the opportunity to inform
about its true history and discourage stereotyping.
Page 6 of 7
3. Add Cesar Chavez Day March 31
4. Explore adding another holiday that is meaningful to Dublin
Latino/a community, e.g. Latin American Independence March 15
5. Establish further criteria for posting/approving with a DEI lens,
accompanied by DEI training for the social media decision-makers.
Other
26. Provide ongoing DEI training for all city staff.
a. Provide specific to role training, e.g. Social Media Manager.
27. Develop a Dublin City DEI process and decision-making checklist to provide:
a. Example event planning checklist:
https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/files/Dean_DEI%20Checklist
_FY21.pdf
b. Send post-event surveys that ask about inclusion and accessibility at the event.
Post-event survey sample questions:
i. The event included a diversity of thought.
ii. The event speakers/moderators were representative and diverse.
iii. When applicable: The event expanded my capacity to think about
diversity, equity, and inclusion-related topics.
iv. When applicable: My accessibility needs were met during the event.
Page 7 of 7
Community Task Force on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Outstanding Draft Policing Recommendations
1. The Task Force recommends the creation of a city advisory commission for police reform.
The commission would support the city in monitoring the implementation of approved
recommendations of this Task Force, as well as play an ongoing role to enhance police-
community relations in Dublin.
The task force recommends the City of Dublin recommend to DPS and ACSO to adopt a harm
reduction and procedural justice framework for policing to focus on improving community
experience with police, not just the final outcomes.
The Task Force recommends that the City advocate for the creation of a Sheriff Oversight Board
and Inspector General and that the City advocate for a permanent seat on the Board.
Additionally, the task force recommends the creation of a liaison committee between the
Dublin city council and the future Alameda County Sheriff Oversight Board.
The Task Force recommends that the City advocate for the Sheriff Oversight Board and
Inspector General position study harm reduction and procedural justice framework for policing
and develop recommendations for the implementation of best practices identified from said
study.
Sample Bylaws and Procedures for Advisory Commission
2. The Task Force Recommends that the City Manager hire a consultant to provide capacity and
expertise in supporting enhanced collaboration between the Dublin Community, Dublin City
Council, Staff, Dublin Police Services, and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. This Consultant
should bring expertise in law enforcement-community relations and serve as additional support
to the City.
6. The Task Force recommends that: in addition to current hiring criteria utilized by the Chief of
DPS, the City Council instructs the City Manager to recommend to the Chief to consider the
following selection criteria to guide the Chief of DPS when it comes to hiring law enforcement
personnel for DPS: a) Residents of Dublin b) Race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation
representation to reflect the City of Dublin and individuals DPS engages with on a daily basis. c)
Community policing engagement experience d) Experience working in diverse communities
and/or on diverse teams. (CHANGE IN BOLD)
Community Task Force on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Proposed Agenda Planning Calendar
Page 1 of 1
Meeting Location: Electronic Methods (Zoom Telecommunications)
Meeting Time: 5:30-7:30 p.m.
Meeting Dates: The Community Task Force will meet on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each
month from January to June 2021.
Date Proposed Agenda Topics (subject to change)
May 27, 2021 Discuss preliminary citywide recommendations.
June 10, 2021 Approval of Minutes from the May 27, 2021 Meeting.
Review of Draft Final Report (Police Recommendation Section).
June 24, 2021 Approval of Minutes from the June 10, 2021 Meeting.
Review of Draft Final Report (Citywide DEI Initiatives Sections).
Approval of Final Report and Recommendations.
Community Task Force Charge
The Community Task Force is charged with reviewing and developing recommendations on items
within the City’s purview, specifically the following:
• Policing
o Training Curriculum
o Policies and Procedures
o Data Transparency and Context
o Communications
o Public Engagement and Community Relations
• Diversity, Racial Equity, and Inclusion
o Boards and Commissions Recruitment
o Inclusive, Equitable, and Accessible Programming and Events
o Community Agency Funding and Support
o Communications