Medford committee approves 11-member Human Rights Commission structure, keeps stipend and removal language under debate

Councilor Singh presented proposed changes to modernize Medford’s Human Rights Commission and asked the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee to consider mayoral feedback and community input before sending an updated ordinance to the full City Council. The committee voted to set the commission size at 11 members, with three appointees by the mayor, three by the City Council and five appointed by members of the Human Rights Commission, and advanced the ordinance and related edits to the regular council meeting.

The revision aims “to expand and empower the Human Rights Commission in Medford to do more work as an advisory body in our city,” Councilor Singh said. Singh said the draft and mayoral comments were circulated in advance and that committee members should decide whether to accept specific edits.

The discussion focused on three main areas: the commission’s size and appointment split; whether members should receive stipends and a city budget allocation; and whether appointing authorities (the mayor and the City Council) should have the power to remove their own appointees. Councilors, former commissioners and members of the public debated each matter at length.

On composition, supporters in the public comment period urged a larger body than the mayor’s recommended nine seats. “I would urge the committee to think about a number higher than 9,” resident Jennifer Yackel told the committee, citing the value of representation from housing, senior and disability groups. Barry Engber, another resident, said Medford committees have successfully operated at larger sizes and that recruiting would not be a problem.

Councilor Singh moved to adopt a 3-3-5 appointment model (three mayoral appointees, three council appointees, five appointed by the HRC) for a total of 11 members; Councilor Callaghan seconded the motion. The committee called the roll and the motion passed (several members recorded as voting yes, one absent).

On stipends and budget, committee members and public speakers argued a modest stipend and a small budget line for childcare, transportation or event costs would broaden participation. Singh said the mayor had recommended against including stipends, citing concerns about budget impact and a pending compensation study. Councilor Callaghan said a small stipend “could make a big difference” for people who need childcare or transportation to attend meetings. Munir Germanis, a former HRC chair, also supported stipends and asked that the staff liaison not be given a vote.

The draft ordinance in committee currently includes $1,250 per member in the text; councilors discussed an alternative $1,000 stipend and the possibility of reimbursing child care and transportation costs in addition to or instead of a flat stipend. A committee member noted that $1,250 across 11 members would total about $13,750 annually; by comparison, a $1,000 stipend with 11 members would total about $11,000.

On removal authority, the mayor proposed language allowing the mayor to remove her appointees. Committee members and public commenters raised concerns about political pressure and the commission’s independence. Barry Engber said mayoral removal authority “inserts politics into ongoing activities and compromises the HRC’s independence.” After debate, the committee adopted substitute language: the mayor and the City Council may request that the HRC remove their respective appointees (a request process rather than unilateral mayoral removal). Councilor Callaghan moved the request-based approach and Councilor Tsang seconded; the motion passed on a voice vote.

The committee also agreed to several procedural edits suggested by the mayor’s office: allowing a council liaison to serve as an interim staff contact if no city staff person is assigned; routing HRC budget recommendations through the liaison in keeping with practices for other commissions; and clarifying that the HRC may consult counsel when reviewing discrimination allegations rather than exercising formal adjudicatory authority.

The committee voted to accept the redline edits as a package and to forward the revised ordinance and associated language to the regular Medford City Council meeting for final consideration.

The committee recorded public comments from current and former HRC members and residents who emphasized independence, representativeness and making participation feasible through stipends or reimbursements. Councilors asked staff to return with clarifying language on appointment sources, stipend amounts, and the HRC’s authority to issue statements or resolutions. The ordinance now advances to a regular council meeting for further debate and final votes.