Octavia Hamilton, a sitting commissioner of the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, read a statement for the record alleging she was excluded from key stages of the executive director hiring process and that the commission27s internal and municipal oversight structures have created barriers to meaningful participation by marginalized commissioners. "I was denied the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the hiring process for the executive director position despite being an engaged and active commissioner," Hamilton said, and she recommended "an independent external audit of the Anchorage Equal Rights Department" covering a "minimum of 10 to 20 years".

Hamilton said the hiring process lacked transparency and that the ombudsman's office, municipal human resources, legal counsel and members of the AERC participated on the hiring panel without acknowledging the appearance of impropriety until she raised concerns. She framed these omissions as examples of systemic exclusion: "The omission or dismissal of marginalized voices during key points of the process and decision making ... is a hallmark of systemic discrimination."

Commissioners and municipal staff responded with procedural clarifications and discussion. A staff member from the municipal ombudsman's office stated that the office does not handle discrimination investigations directly: "The ombudsman's office doesn't handle discrimination complaints," and explained that the office typically refers people to the appropriate agency and can forward case information to AERC leadership with an individual's authorization. The ombudsman staff also described the office as often being "the last stop" for residents who are unsure where to file complaints and said referrals are made based on the issue presented.

After discussion about next steps and whether to address the matter in the full meeting or in a smaller group, the commission voted to form a committee to "go through the statement of record, dissect it, and pull out the talking points and the items that have an action to them, and then present that to the commission in the next meeting." The motion passed. Commissioners agreed that Commissioner Hamilton would serve on the committee and sought two additional volunteers to complete a three-person working group.

Separately, commissioners voted to postpone further discussion of the hiring process until the next meeting when municipal staff (identified in the meeting as a key stakeholder in hiring and ethics matters) would be available. One commissioner said the topic should wait until the municipal staff member who oversees hiring and ethics, and who was not present, could attend.

The meeting record shows several procedural requests from commissioners: to clarify how complaints are logged and routed when residents visit the ombudsman's office; to provide written records upon request; and to set clear expectations for what a committee's authority would be when convened. Hamilton's statement and the commission's votes create multiple potential next steps: the internal review by the newly formed committee, a postponed full discussion with municipal ethics and HR personnel, and Hamilton's formal complaint referenced in the meeting.

The commission did not adopt an external audit at the meeting; Hamilton requested that the municipality initiate an independent external audit and provided a recommended audit scope to the assembly. The meeting record shows the commission approved forming the committee to parse Hamilton's statement and develop specific agenda actions for future meetings.

Ending: The committee charged by the commission is expected to draft agenda items and recommendations for the full commission to consider at a subsequent meeting. The commission postponed broader hiring-process deliberations until municipal hiring and ethics staff can attend; no formal external-audit contract or timeline was adopted during the meeting.