Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bylaws Asl Fluency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates ASL fluency requirement in bylaws; city attorney’s recommendation narrows mandate
Summary
Commissioners debated proposed bylaws language requiring applicants to be fluent in ASL and versed in deaf culture. The city attorney recommended lowering the numeric requirement to avoid exclusion and suggested using permissive language; the commission voted to continue the bylaws discussion next month for additional edits and public input.
Commissioners spent an extended portion of the June 3 meeting discussing proposed changes to the Commission on the Deaf’s bylaws, focusing on language that would require applicants to be “fluent in ASL” and demonstrate knowledge of deaf culture.
Commissioner Cicotte and other commissioners said mandatory fluency could exclude people with other deaf‑access needs, such as late‑onset hearing loss or those who use other communication modes. “I would encourage you to not include the language saying all applicants shall be fluent in ASL,” Commissioner Cicotte said, referencing the city attorney’s recommended alternative to limit mandatory fluency to a subset of members.
The commission’s discussion included procedural and measurement concerns: several commissioners noted the legal difference between “shall/must” and “may,” and one commissioner recommended replacing mandatory wording with a percentage or a more flexible requirement. Commissioners also discussed ward representation, noting that some city wards have few deaf residents and that maintaining quorum can be difficult in practice. The staff presentation clarified that the commission currently has nine appointed members plus two youth ex officio members; the ex officio members do not count toward quorum. The commission’s established quorum is six members.
City attorney guidance was referenced in the meeting packet and by staff. Commissioners asked staff to incorporate suggested edits and to circulate revised language ahead of the next meeting so commissioners can review changes and provide feedback. The commission made a motion — moved by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Price — to continue the bylaws discussion at the June meeting to next month; the motion passed.
