Work group finalizes draft bias-and-hate reporting form and dashboard, plans beta test

Chair Paul Bump opened the meeting and led discussion of a draft reporting form and an accompanying dashboard intended to collect and analyze bias- and hate-related incidents across town. The presentation, which incorporated a live form link the group will share with the select board, emphasized front-end options (anonymous submission, contact fields) and back-end choices (data capture, response tracking).

Members noted printing glitches in the packet that omitted some incident-type checkboxes (for example, physical and verbal harassment) but confirmed the online form contains the intended options. The group settled several design principles: the form should use conditional logic so anonymity and follow-up questions flow naturally; incident types should be checkboxes (allowing multiple selections); and an "additional information/supporting documentation" field should allow uploads such as photos or screenshots.

On confidentiality and response language, Naomi questioned whether the word "help" was appropriate, calling it potentially paternalistic and urging phrasing that reflects referral and redress. The group moved toward language framed as "response and support" or "response and referral," and agreed to replace terms like "victim" and "complaint" with "target" and "incident" for consistency with bystander-training terminology.

Members focused substantial attention on the intake specialist role. The work group recommended that a trained intake person triage reports rather than asking reporters on the form to pre-select who should be contacted. The intake specialist would evaluate urgency, determine appropriate referrals (law enforcement, human-rights resources, social services), and ensure the reporter receives an acknowledgement and a list of available resources whether or not they request follow-up.

The group also addressed accessibility and language access: multiple-language support (via built-in form translations or third-party tools) should be available and translations verified for accuracy; reasonable disability accommodations and an ADA contact statement will be placed prominently on the page. Members agreed to provide resources on the web page and in paper form (library, town offices) for people without internet access.

For metrics, the dashboard will report total incidents, incident types, response rate, response time and closure/follow-up measures; members suggested adding a six-month follow-up metric to check whether reporters received ongoing assistance. Budget estimates presented described a modest startup (roughly 40 staff hours of setup) and an initial ongoing cost roughly equal to a quarter of a full-time equivalent, with training spread over several weeks; the group recommended starting with existing staff resources and contracting for specialized services if needed.

Next steps: the work group will send the refined materials to the select board for feedback, schedule a public forum (timing to be determined), pilot a beta version by the end of the year, and aim for an operational rollout in early next year. The town manager will be asked to scope staffing and budget; the group agreed to one more meeting in June before presenting to the select board.

The meeting closed after confirming those next procedural steps and scheduling a follow-up meeting in June.