Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Incident Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord DEI Commission reviews draft bias incident reporting system; working group to brief Select Board June 22
Summary
A DEI working group previewed a townwide bias and incident reporting system that would offer multiple intake modes, anonymity options, a trained intake specialist and a public trends dashboard; the group will present recommendations to the Select Board on June 22 and seek public feedback.
The DEI Commission on May 28 heard a detailed preview of a proposed bias and incident reporting system that the working group plans to recommend to the Select Board on June 22.
The system, which working-group member Paul said is intended as a "safe, trusted system for targets and bystanders to report incidents," would complement—not replace—existing police and school reporting channels. Paul emphasized the incident life cycle: an incident is reported, responses are recorded, trends are analyzed and the town and community use the data for education and action.
The working group proposes multiple intake methods—a dedicated website form, QR code, hotline, email and walk-in hours—plus multilingual intake and disability accommodations. The draft would allow anonymous reporting with a disclaimer that anonymity can limit personal follow-up and that confidentiality cannot be absolutely guaranteed because public-records requests may apply.
Paul described the intake specialist as the "most important component," likely a trained town human-services staffer who would log reports, assess urgency, provide an initial response to named reporters and route matters to police or other town bodies as appropriate. Training requirements and a decision tree for referrals remain to be finalized.
Commissioners pressed the group on how the system would handle named allegations and public-records risks. Paul said reporters may include names but the working group has not yet finalized procedures for storing or sharing those names, and legal counsel and town staff will be asked to clarify redaction and records-management options before the June 22 Select Board briefing.
On timing, Paul said the working group envisions an accelerated beta-test by the end of the year and an operational pilot in the first quarter of next year, contingent on Select Board input, IT platform setup and staff training. He also asked the commission to share survey data and community feedback to strengthen the forthcoming presentation.
The working group plans a public forum after the Select Board briefing to solicit broader comment and to explain procedures for reporters, including the limits of anonymity and what kinds of incidents should be reported to police versus the new system.
The working group’s preview left unresolved questions about how alleged-perpetrator names will be handled in the database, whether reports will be redacted for public records requests, and the anticipated staff time required to maintain the intake function; Paul estimated an initial staffing need on the order of about a quarter of an FTE but said that could change depending on volume.
Next steps: the working group will present formal recommendations to the Select Board on June 22, host public outreach afterward, and return to the commission for feedback as implementation details are refined.
