Um council recommendation.

So I feel like some candidates on.

Do you want to leave it a few minutes or we can give it a minute chair from anyone?

I think that's the right off camera for joining us for two months after something for a push away on the text file.

City Councillor from the chair of the City Council Committee on Government Operations today's April twenty-fourth, and the exact time is ten thirty-three.

In accordance with chapter two of the acts of twenty twenty-five, modifying certain requirements of opening meeting law.

And relieving public bodies of certain requirements, including the requirement that public bodies conduct its meetings in a public place that is open to physically accessible to the public.gov forward slash city dash council dash TV and broadcast on Xfinity Channel eight, RCN channel eighty-two, and five channel nine six four.

It's also being live streamed at Boston.gov forward slash city-council dash TV and broadcast on Xfinity Channel 8, RCN Channel 82, and FIOS Channel 964.

Written comments may be sent to the committee email at ccc.go at Boston.gov and will be made part of the record and available to all counselors.

Public testimony will be taken at the end of this hearing, and individuals will be called on in the order in which they signed up.

And we'll have two minutes to testify.

If you wish to sign up for public testimony and have not done so, please email our central staff liaison.

Megan Kavanaugh at NEGHAN.KAV ANGH at Boston.gov for the Zoom link and your name will be added to the list.

Today's hearing is on docket 0410, order for a hearing to examine and modernize the Boston City Charter in advance of the city's 400th anniversary.

The matter was sponsored by Councilor Julia Mejia and was referred to the committee on February 25th, 2026.

Today I'm joined by my colleagues in order of arrival, uh, Councillor Ed Flynn and Councillor Julia Mejia.

We'll go to the lead sponsor for any opening remarks she may have, and then we'll go to the first panel.

Council Mejia, you have the Zoom.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I want to thank all of our panelists for being here today.

And I also want to excuse myself for not being on camera.

It is school vacation week, but a public servants' work is never done just because uh you have you know family situations to handle.

So um my bandwidth is a little bit low, and so I'd rather make sure that you can hear me and spare you uh seeing me.

Uh so I just want to thank Madam Chair and thank you again to our panelists and everyone who has worked hard to get us to this point.

Our office is excited for this hearing today to start the discussion about the charter reform and modernization of the city of Boston.

We want to thank the advocates who have reached out to us on this issue and inspired us to file this hearing order.

Um, as our city approaches our 40th, oh my god, 400th anniversary of its founding.

We are presenting, um, we are presented with a critical opportunity to reflect on how the city governs itself and whether its governing framework continues to meet the needs of the residents.

The last time we reformed our charter was approximately 75 years ago, and since then, modernized um is far long overdue.

We understand, however, that this will be a complex process as community decides which path is most appropriate.

Ideas and recommendations are developed, and meaningful community input is collected.

The complexity of this process is um multiplied by the fact that the Boston City Charter is in fact not a single document, but rather a collection of statuses, statutes, amendments, and home rule petitions.

Our office is committed to the long game on this issue.

We also want to thank Meg Kavanov on our central staff for her research to prepare today's hearing.

The biggest takeaway uh uh for this research is that we have three pathways for charter reform.

Um, an amendment um for fire for charter reform, an amendment, a charter commission which requires certified signatures of 15% of registered voters to initiate.

This is the pathway if there are very significant fundamental changes in the charter, such as changing the plan of government.

Two, a home rule petition.

This may be a pathway if there are items that we want to amend in the charter but are maintaining the governance structure.

Three, binding ballot question.

One reasoning sample of this is the ballot question that then counselor Edwards led in 2021 that gave the council the budgetary powers it now allegedly has.

With this a third option, there are three ways a binding ballot question can be initiated.

First, the city council may um by two-thirds vote and with mayoral approval submit proposed amendments to the voters.

Second, the city council shall consider and vote upon any charter amendments formally suggested by the mayor or the city council.

Third, the city council shall consider and vote upon any charter amendments or revisions suggested it via a citizen's petition signed by 200 voters.

Residents, advocates, and policymakers have raised ongoing concerns about transparency, accountability, and checks and balances, civic participation and accessibility within Boston's current governance structure.

And we are excited today to begin this conversation in the process of restoring trust in our local government and as many pathways as we can to increase civic engagement.

And I look forward to listening to those folks who have already taken the lead in other spaces and places around this issue.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Council Mejia.

Councillor Flynn, do you want to provide any opening remarks or should we go straight to the Africa's panel?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm I'm here to listen to the panel.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, great.

So I'll introduce uh the folks who have joined us today.

And then Council Mejia, you let me know who I apologize, I don't have that in front of me of who you'd like to go first.

And I apologize if I say your your any of your your name wrong.

Umona Rabovsky, who's the executive director of Gen Unity?

Richard Young, who's the founder and executive uh director of Civic Flex.

And then John Smith Saint Sierre, founder and executive director of the jails, Smith Suicide Prevention Center for Young Black Boys, Inc.

Um Council Mahe, do you have any um reference who wants to go first?

Yeah, I believe that Richard has a hard stop.

And I also believe that Inona, thank you for being here and the whole gen uh crew.

Uh, you guys have been active participants in this process.

So I believe they're going to be doing their presentation together.

Is that true?

Just seeing people shaking their heads so that I know.

So I think that they're going to be presenting together.

Madam Chair and then John.

Okay, great.

Um Richard, do you have access to share your screen or have you shared uh the presentation?

I'm not planning to use slides, I'm planning to just speak.

Okay, great.

Go ahead.

Thank you so much.

Hi.

Um, so first I wanted to thank the council for their time and for allowing us to join this hearing.

My name is Ilinor Bowski.

I live in East Boston, so shout out, Madam Chair.

Um, and I'm the executive director of Gen Unity at Boston based nonprofit.

Um, we create intergenerational, multiracial, cross class cohorts where people come together and build relationships across differences to learn about and take action on the issues that are impacting their communities, particularly by creating participatory spaces that elevate lived experience and institutional decision making.

When Councillor Mihia uh connected with our founder, Jaron Chang, he mentioned our friends over at Civic Lex, who recently implemented a citizen assembly process to deliberate on city charter updates in Lexington, Kentucky.

So we are super grateful to be able to introduce Richard Young, the founder and executive director, so he can share a little bit more about their process and learnings.

Um Richard, I will hand it over to you.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, I'm so pleased to be with you all here today.

Um as stated, my name is Richard Young.

I'm the founder and executive director of Civic Lex down here in Lexington, Kentucky, uh, where I'm zooming in from.

Um, Civic Lex is an organization that's focused on strengthening civic health here in Lexington, Kentucky.

And we do that by helping folks in our community understand and get involved in civic life, connect with their neighbors, and work to reimagine decisions and how they get made in our community.

Um the best example of that of doing all three of those things, I think, um, would be the Civic Assembly that we just hosted last month here in Lexington.

Um, as stated, uh the Civic Assembly um was focused on charter review.

Uh, it is in fact the first review of the Lexington Fed County um charter that has been that's taken place since the year 1998.

Um, and we were really grateful to be leading the process.

Um, I'm gonna speak a little bit about how it came to be, um, how this process sort of unfolded, what what outcomes came out of it, and what we've learned and how that could be um transferred in in any way to other communities.

So um we were approached in uh 2022, late late 22, early 23 by a couple of council members who are interested in doing charter review.

Um, like I said, it had been since 1998 since since the charter had been reviewed.

Um, and particularly in the 2021 redistricting process, a number of concerns were brought forth both by council members and the community about the way that the redistricting process here in Lexington worked.

And that sparked a bit of a larger conversation about charter uh review more broadly because the city's redistricting process is housed inside the the city charter.

Um over a couple years, we were in conversation with our urban county council um about what it would look like to uh most effectively tackle charter review in a way that deeply engages the public.

Um and what we ultimately settled on was hosting a civic assembly.

And um, you all may be familiar with civic assemblies, but the quickest way of describing them uh is I've been told not to say this because it sounds a little bit boring, but jury duty for public policy.

It is a representative lottery selection process where random residents from across our community are selected, grouped together based on their demographics, and then sort of empowered to learn about an issue, deliberate on that issue, and then ultimately come up with a recommendation.

One of the conditions for us wanting to do this was that we wanted council to stay at an arm's length.

We wanted them to deeply listen to our process to respond meaningfully to the results that came out of it, but we wanted to run this process ourselves and not have council significantly involved in the process.

And so Civic Lex's role was really top to bottom running this assembly.

We decided to build our assembly with 36 people and we uh did that via a lottery selection process.

We sent out 10,000, um, ended up sending out 11,500 mailers to randomly selected residential addresses using property valuation data here in Lexington.

From there, we had a number of respondents apply.

They gave us their demographic information across eight demographics, um, and then we used uh uh software called Panelot to build as many representative groups of 36 people that would represent Lexington within a meaningful um margin of error across all eight of those demographics.

So age, race, housing status, political registration, income, um, various other um demographics.

Um that gave us 204 panels.

We randomly selected one using a bingo cage, uh, and we got panel number 24.

Um that lottery selection process took place in January of this year.

But in the process and the time before that, we spent a lot of time engaging our community onto what specifically our assembly would be looking at in the city charter.

We did a citywide public engagement process uh and ultimately picked the two topics, um, two topics for review out of eight potential ones inside our city charter.

The first one is count the compensation of council members, the second one was the frequency of charter review in our community.

Um those topics were selected because one is the most controversial in our data and one is the least controversial in our data.

And we wanted to see how people would move on those controversial and not controversial issues when presented with additional evidence.

Um we convened these 36 people across the month of May.

We compensated each one 1,200 in addition to providing them with child care and um and transportation stipends.

They spent about 35 hours together across the month of March in seven sessions that took place at a historic university here in Lexington.

Um during that time, they learned about local government.

Um some of them had never even considered what the Urban County Council was before uh becoming part of this process.

Um they learned about uh the two issues at hand, council compensation and charter review.

We looked at what other communities do, um, and then they deliberated on potential um changes.

They uh in their first session, they adopted a threshold voting process in which 70 uh percent of the assembly had to agree on recommendations for them to advance.

Um we're happy to say that three recommendations, one more than we expected, um, came out of this process.

Um, the lowest of which had a recommendation um threshold of 84.6% of our assembly members.

The three recommendations that came out were increasing council compensation to the average annual wage in Lexington Fayette County, which is around 59,000, just under 60.

Um the second one was creating new accountability and attendance expectations for council members, um which assembly members voted uh to create as a sort of uh package with the council compensation increase.

And the third one was to actually institutionalize the process of hosting a civic assembly every eight years here in Lexington to review the Urban County Charter, in addition to creating a new standing committee that would receive feedback on an annual basis about what needs to be reviewed in the city charter.

Um what we've heard from folks is that it was an incredibly wonderful process for them.

Um the uh the assembly members that went through it were um, I think one of them said, I don't agree with any of the recommendations that we came up with, um, but I thought the process was fantastic, and I don't feel bad about it.

But I thought the process was fantastic, and I don't feel bad about it.

We were uh one of the other things that was incredibly encouraging about it was hearing assembly members who entered this process with predisposed views on one of our topics, actually switched positions when uh presented with new evidence.

Um, one person saying that they thought the charter should be reviewed regularly.

Um, at the end of the assembly, they thought that it shouldn't.

And one person who didn't think the charter should be reviewed regularly at the end of the assembly thought it should.

Um, and so that is always uh a good sign when you have people presented with new evidence changing their positions.

Um, in terms of next steps, we're presenting out these recommendations, these three recommendations with our assembly members.

Um four of them are gonna be presenting alongside us in our council's general government and planning committee uh Tuesday of next week on April 28th.

Um, from there, council um has agreed they adopted a resolution to meaningfully respond to the recommendations.

Um our hope is that those recommendations will be advanced into council work session um unchanged uh and will be placed on the ballot by council um uh in subsequent council meetings for uh to go on the ballot this November in our general election.

Um there are a lot of learnings that we have from this process, um, but I think the biggest takeaway for me is that hosting a civic assembly of randomly selected demographically representative of lexic residents is an excellent way to review a public document like a city charter.

Um it is a topic that very few people, if anyone knows anything about.

And so uh traditional public engagement mechanisms, large surveys, focus groups, um uh town halls, convenings, kind of would have a limited effectiveness because people don't quite know what they are, what what the uh charter review is, nor the implications.

So this process feels uniquely suited for this particular um topic, because it allows residents who might not otherwise have any sense of frame framework or context to learn deeply about the ramifications of their decisions, really wrestle with those ramifications, um, and then uh ultimately try to find some sense of shared consensus in a broad way, particularly with supermajority um uh voting.

So uh with that, uh, that was our the quickest version I could do of our civic assembly process.

Um, and I'm happy to answer any questions if if if appropriate.

Great, thank you.

And um to Alona, is there anything you wanted to add or before we go over to our next panelist?

Um no, just to share that you know, we at Gen Unity have been um looking more into hosting these types of assemblies and are happy to share any learnings that we come along the way if this is a direction that you choose to move in.

Um yeah, just happy to be a part of it.

Great.

And just a quick question for you are you a successor um agency of the Center for Economic Democracy, or you had mentioned Aaron Tanaka is.

Oh no, I said set uh Jaron Chang.

Oh, okay, okay, never mind.

No worries.

Um we have okay, our next uh panelist, John.

Hello.

Hi, good morning.

Um we if there's any way to have the mic closer to you, you're coming in a little faint.

Just want to make sure that we can hear your presentation.

Okay, is that better?

That's a lot better.

Thank you so much.

And you have you have the zoom.

All right, thank you.

Um, so yes, my name is John Smith St.

Cyr.

I've been a Boston resident my whole life.

I'm here because the Boston City Charter is not just about a legal structure.

It also speaks to how power is organized, who controls major decisions, and whether Boston's system of government is built to produce real accountability.

Um Boston's own charter materials describe the charter as a patchwork of statutes and amendments rather than a single clear code.

That matters because structure shapes power.

If the structure is fragmented, difficult to follow, and overly concentrated, accountability becomes weaker, and reform becomes harder.

Boston's government is structured in a way that concentrates too much power in one office and leaves too little power elsewhere to meaningfully counterbalance it.

Boston has already seen what it looks like when the public votes for a more democratic structure and City Hall resists it.

In 2021, Boston voters approved the ballot question asking whether the appointed school committee should be changed to one elected by a Boston residents.

The measure passed by what by a wide margin, about 79% to 21%.

But that vote was advisory, not self-executing.

So it did not automatically change the law.

The result is that in 2026, Mayor Wu is still making school committee appointments, which shows the larger point.

Even when the public votes clearly for structural change, the existing system can still keep real power concentrated at the top unless the underlying structure is actually changed.

So the problem is not just whether there is public process.

The problem is where actual decision-making power lives inside that process.

So, yes, residents can testify, hearings can be held, public comment can be taken, but when the key leverage points are already concentrated in one office, participation becomes thinner than it looks.

Sorry.

That is not a balance of power.

And for me, this is bigger than any one budget cycle or contract.

A charter should distribute authority in a way that creates meaningful checks, clear responsibility, and real counterbalance between branches.

If too much power is concentrated in one office, then oversight becomes reactive instead of effective.

That is why this hearing matters.

The question is not whether Boston has hearings, votes, or formal procedures.

The question is whether Boston's governance structure is balanced enough to produce accountability before decisions harden, not just commentary after they do.

That matters the most in a city that says it values democracy, transparency, and public trust.

A system can be legal and still be overly centralized.

A system can allow participation and still give too little influence to anyone outside of the executive branch.

A system can look functional on paper while producing weak checks in practice.

That is why modernization has to mean more than cleanup.

It has to mean structural change.

It should mean clearer lines of authority and responsibility.

It should mean stronger legislative power, stronger oversight, and a direct rebalancing of authority away from a system where too much power remains concentrated.

And it should mean a serious examination whether the current strong mayoral structure leaves too little power anywhere else to function as a real check.

So I'm not saying that government should be unable to act.

I am saying no office should hold so much power, so much structural advantage that accountability becomes weak by design.

A city charter should not make counterbalance difficult.

It should not make oversight secondary, and it should not leave the public entering the process after the most important decisions have already been shaped.

Boston has had a charter commission in 1947.

Its work led to three options of government structure being put before voters in 1949.

And I think that history matters because it shows Boston has confronted the structure of city government before and has already recognized that the organization of power is not permanent, untouchable, or beyond public reconsideration.

The question was put directly to the people once before, and there is no reason structural change should be treated as off limits now.

While Boston is approaching its 400th anniversary, that makes this the right time to ask a basic question.

Is this structure being preserved because it still serves the city well, or because concentrated power becomes normalized once institutions get used to it?

A modern city should not rely on a governing framework that is fragmented, difficult to navigate, and overly centered in the executive branch.

A modern democracy should be built to distribute power, clarify responsibility, and strengthen accountability.

So my point is straightforward.

Boston does not need a charter that functions.

Boston does not just need a charter that function.

Boston needs a charter that is structurally stronger, one that creates a better balance of power, one that gives oversight, and one that makes accountability easier to enforce.

And also one that does not confuse public participation with actual public influence.

Because if power is too concentrated, accountability will always be weaker than it should be.

If oversight enters too late, it cannot function as a real check.

And if structural reform avoids the question of power, then it is not real reform.

I mean, I think that is the issue this hearing should confront.

Thank you.

Thank you, John, and to our panelists for their presentations.

I just want to acknowledge, I apologize.

Um they've been here for a while, Councillor Braden and Councillor Weber have joined the Zoom.

We'll now turn it over to questions, starting with the lead sponsor, Counselor Mejia.

Um we'll do six minutes, and then when you see my camera come on, that means that six minutes has uh just happened.

Um feel free to just start Council Mahe, and then we'll go in order of arrival.

Wait, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, great.

Uh thank you again to the panelists, and thank you uh to my colleagues for joining us in this discussion.

Um so I want to just kind of start off with Richard first.

If you can please describe the relationship uh between your nonprofit and your local government, for example, what are some of the benefits and challenges of running a civic assembly or other types of working groups out of a nonprofit instead of within local government?

Because sometimes you know these things get a little sometimes there's friction, and I just would like to know kind of like how you've been navigating that.

And then also, what are some of the issues that you that you are facing in Lexington that led to the civic assembly?

I know for us here in Boston, a lot of it, a lot of the work has been about voice and how people participate and folks really wanting to feel like they have a real meaningful seat at the table, not like the checking the box type of situation.

Um so you know, this is coming from trying to understand the appetite from residents and election and elected officials.

What's what's that been like, you know?

Um, and then I'm asking you all my questions just so that you you know.

I'm writing them down.

You're fine.

Okay, good job.

Um and I'm just curious, how did you secure the funding for um compensating the civic assembly uh members?

Was it through city funding?

Was it a grant or was it something else?

Like, you know, if we were to do a civic assembly, we we want to make sure that we do it in a way that is equitable.

We often the people who are doing the work on the ground are usually the ones that are not getting paid to do the work, and then the big time consultants and the Harvard, you know, law folks are making thousands of dollars off of the Boston public schools, but the real stakeholders, you know, don't even get a small stipend for showing up, you know.

So just curious about kind of like how you all are grappling, what that what does that look like?

And then um, yeah, and and I have questions for everybody else, but let me just start off with you because I know your time is limited.

I appreciate that.

Um yeah, so I will try and answer your questions in the order that you asked.

Um so uh we have a we have a um, I think an interesting and complex relationship with our local government.

Um we uh both partner with them on projects to reimagine how public um decisions get made.

So we've worked with local government on uh reforming the structure of public meetings and the process of public participation in those meetings.

We've um done comprehensive reviews of our city's boards and commissions.

Um we've worked with them on reimagining the process of uh uh long-term land use planning.

Um so we have a we have a long history over our nine years of um of partnering with government um to uh consider new forms of decision making.

I'll also say we also are a news organization and report on local government, so it's a little bit of a complicated relationship.

Um I think it was essential for us to do it outside of local government.

Um one of the things that we heard from our assembly members is that if it had been local government itself um running every aspect of the assembly, um they might have been a little bit more suspicious.

Um I don't think that precludes a government from doing it itself.

I think that absolutely can happen, but I think it's just an additional consideration that that um that should be part of the formula of decision making.

Um I think that there were also a no we were able to move, um, even though this process took about three years um from sort of initial planning through execution, and we'll probably go for another year um uh from now, um we were able to move, I think a little bit more quickly than local government um would have been able to.

Um and I think we are able to uh we just had a little bit more freedom to like engage with national experts, and it just I think it just was a little bit easier for us to do that.

Um in terms of the issues that we um are encountering in Lexington, it's all this it's all the same thing that it sounds like you all are grappling with.

Um how do how do everyday residents um have a meaningful say in the decisions that shape the community, right?

Um I think a suspicion of government.

Um I think uh frustration uh with traditional government decision making processes.

Um I mean, all of those things I think are very similar to some of the issues that we're experiencing here in Lexington.

Um and I'll say, I've said this uh to a number of people over the past um uh couple weeks that that this room, but when you when you randomly select people, um, and it was true, truly random.

Um it uh I cannot overemphasize that enough.

It the these went to random residential addresses, apartments, homes, random people applied, then random people um uh were built into these panels, and then we randomly select a panel, there's like triple randomization.

Um you get people that don't traditionally participate, right?

I think we all know like the typical people that show up to cover government meetings and we love them, they're great.

It's good for them to show up, but we really need to broaden who participates.

And this really did that.

And and the thing that was like, I think so special about it is it was the least cynical room I've been in in a really long time.

Um people were genuinely enthusiastic to participate, people were excited to show up.

They didn't, they might have frustrations with government, frustrations with how decisions have been made in the past, but they didn't most of them didn't have the experience of showing up to public meetings to sort of uh to jade them uh in a way um in it in advance.

Um and so I wouldn't have traded that for the world.

It wasn't it was incredible.

Um it was just an incredible experience being in a room filled with people that are again exactly demographically representative of our community, um, and uh people that don't that have never participated in decision making like this.

Um and I'll say that the funding on the last on your last question on funding, um it took us about two and a half years to raise the funds from local donors, um members, uh grants to make this possible.

We did our assembly for a very, very low cost, far lower um than most other assemblies uh cost.

Ours was our budget was around 225,000.

I think in a um uh uh I think most assemblies are closer to half a million dollars, if not higher.

Um, I wish we had had a little bit more money, but that's what we had to work with, and so that's what we worked with.

Um, but uh the the expensive part of the assembly is the staff time.

Um, it is really all of the planning that goes into this.

It is the making sure that we are appropriately caring for and supporting our assembly members, making sure that we have all of the time and energy to do the educational resources they need to make an effective decision and an informed decision.

Um so that was uh that was the most time uh money intensive part of it.

Um, but we also spent, you know, almost $70,000 directly on our assembly members.

Um all of them, like I said, received a 1,200 stipend um for their participation for about that 35 hours worth of work.

Um they all received um uh uh transportation stipends if they if they needed one.

Um many of them used that for bus fare, some of that used that for car rentals, some of some folks didn't have access to technology to call a car rental and weren't on a bus route, so we actually reserved a taxi service for them.

Um they had child care stipends if they needed it, and of course we fed everyone many, many meals um across our assembly.

Um thank you.

And I see that a chair has come back on screen, and I don't know if I have two more minutes.

Oh, thank you.

All right.

So my last two minutes, uh, one is for Iona.

I hope I said it right, and I'm sure you're gonna correct me.

Um, but and I apologize.

In Los Angeles, the Charter Reform Commission issued a formal letter endorsing rewrite LA's um an organization similar to uh civic Lex role in um Lexington efforts to help expand public participation and committing to uh considering the recommendations they bring forward.

Why is it important to have this type of collaboration between community and government?

And for John, my last question, and then I'll come back for my second round.

Uh I'd like for you to answer this, please.

Um, what barriers exist for public engagement and city government as it stands now?

And how can we do better?

What processes and norms need to be changed?

So those are the two questions that I have for the last two minutes that I have.

Okay.

Um thank you.

It is Illina.

Um, spelling is not helpful at all.

Um, yeah, I mean, I think that a lot of the well, how I would answer that question has already been said, right?

Like I think that having a participatory process where people are in the you know, in rooms with people and making sort of deliberations with folks that they may never not usually be in the same room as um just does a lot for our civic strength as a community.

I think more importantly, as we've mentioned, but I think that it does help to sort of restore trust and process.

Um, I think people, whether at a local or a national level at this point, have you know some skepticism on how much their actual voice counts and having a governing body institute or you know be engaged and bought into a process like this really sort of turns the power back over to the people.

I'll keep my answer short because I know that someone there's another question.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I think some of the barriers that I've been able to identify has been accessibility and then power.

Um when you think about like the city council hearings, they're scheduled two o'clock in the afternoon or 10 o'clock in the morning.

Usually, you know, residents are at work, um and they can't make it, they're dealing with families, doctor's appointments, it's it's just not accessible.

Um, I make it to some of the hearings, and sometimes I'm the only person there, or maybe it's like two or three other residents.

Um, and then it's so much things get decided in those rooms, and it's not any like real public participation.

Um, but even with that, um I think power is still a major barrier because if we do show up, there's no say that our voice is going to shape anything.

Um, there's nothing that says that our city council is has to vote with you know what we believe in or you know, our thoughts and ideas.

It's nothing to say that you know the mayor has to take into consideration residents' voices.

And so yes, accessibility matters, but once we are there, um, how are we making sure like our voice actually like means something and it is not just a performative show?

Thank you for that.

I'll wait for my next round.

Thank you, madam.

Air.

Thank you.

Um, just flagging for central staff.

Counselor Culpepper is here.

I think he may be in the attendees list under the iPad designation.

She's just flagging that.

Um, next we'll go to councillor Flynn.

You have six minutes.

Is it my internet?

Because I can't hear anything.

Uh no.

Uh, Councillor Flynn, are you available for your questions?

He is on, but I don't um he's not putting his mic on or video.

So we'll go to uh the person who came in next, and I apologize.

I don't know if it's um council.

Let's see here.

Counselor uh councillor, Council President Braid.

You have six minutes for your questions, and then we'll circle back to Councillor Flynn.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you.

Um thank you for the presentation about um civic assemblies.

I am a big fan.

Um I've been following the civic assembly process in in Ireland where the the national government has used civic assemblies to um uh put forward uh referenda questions on big big big big issues.

The most important for me being uh same-sex marriage, which they had a civic assembly for the whole country, and then they put it on the ballot and it's passed by 73% of the population voted in support of uh same-sex marriage in Ireland.

Uh the other issues that they grappled with in a civic assembly were abortion and divorce, I think.

So um I'm a big fan, uh, and it's I'm interested to see how it worked locally.

Um, you know, I think um I think it's really important to emphasize uh if you could sort of um go over again the selection.

How do people the selection of your your members?

I know it's totally random, but do people volunteer to put themselves forward, or do you just randomly select from the population and then uh if someone's selected, you ask them then do they want to participate?

Um and then just in terms of um how you ended up with the questions, like uh uh what's uh how how did was there a range of questions who who generated the questions that were going to be considered by the civic assembly?

Those are the two questions I had at the moment.

Great.

Yeah, so I'll start with the selection process.

Um so we decided against allowing um open um application process, and we required it based on um randomly selected residential addresses.

So we got a list of every single residential address in Fayette County from our property valuation administrator.

Um, and then we used a script basically to randomly select 10,000 of those.

Um and those are the addresses where we sent these postcards that had uh essentially was the invitation to apply.

Everyone in the household that received um the postcard could could apply if you were over the age of 18.

I'll say we did use a different selection process to pick one um youth representative on council um under the age of 18.

Um, and I'm I'm happy to go into that process if you would like, but um, but 35 of the members were selected using this random residential address population.

So when someone got the postcard, they would apply using uh a QR code or um some uh we we would bring them a paper copy if they called.

We had a f and we could also take applications over the phone.

Um and uh and that gave us a their demographic information.

We anonymize that demographic information with an individual code for each person and then use that to build our representative panels.

Um I'll say that that when someone applied, they had to provide their address so that we could verify uh that they received a postcard.

And the the main reason for that was to try and limit um the number of people that you know uh that had tip that you know that were outside of it's just basically a way to make sure that we were truly reaching random people.

And we had a lot of people ask if they could apply, um, if even if they didn't get a postcard, and we sadly had to say no, but you can volunteer um to help us if you would like.

Um so uh the selection process went went pretty smoothly.

Um we had a uh a good response rate on our postcards, um, and we um we felt really great about our panel.

Um and in terms of how we how do we generate questions?

So we um we decided to focus on um for the most part a single article inside our our our charter for this review, and that was the article focused on the Urban County Council.

Um and there are a number of reasons for that.

This is our first time out of the gate doing this, and um uh no better way of saying this.

We wanted to sort of limit the potential damage that could be done um from a charter review process to the council since they were the um the body that approached us about doing this.

Um and so uh we really were it was really asking questions about accountability and representation in government um via the legislative body.

Um so we we had eight potential topics um and we used a public engagement process that reached thousands of residents um to to narrow that down to our two final topics, um, and then we wrote the mandates for the assembly based on those two topics in consultation with um an advisory group of residents and experts here in our community that helped us all the way through the process.

I think you're on mute.

Um yes, um so in terms of uh educating, you know, you're going to go to the ballot this this this fall with the with these with these changes to the city charter on your charter.

Um do you in that process, you know, were people able to watch it like on YouTube or whatever, watch the deliberations and hear the conversation, all the pros and cons of all the different questions as a way to educate the populace and and how many people checked into that process, or was it you know not just a group of 36 people talking to themselves in a room all on their own, you know?

Yeah, sometimes it was a group of 36 people talking to themselves in a little in a room.

Um so we had uh, but no, all of our sessions um were open to the public.

We began most sessions with about an hour of closed session that uh was really designed for relationship building purposes, um right, giving the assembly members a space to be a little bit more open and vulnerable with each other, because you know, these are people that have not used to being on television, they're not used to having all of the public eyes on them.

And so we wanted to try and strike a careful balance between giving them the space to build relationships and to get comfortable with each other while also making sure that we're being open and transparent.

So most of the sessions um we had about a uh an hour that was closed, um, and then the remainder of the session um for the larger sessions was about five hours of open.

Um so we had news media there filming.

We um every single session was streamed live on on government television.

We're really grateful to the government um here for um for providing that service.

It was it was an enormous to have that um not just that uh that ability for people to watch live, but that permanent record of everything that was said being archived forever in um in on government television.

Um and yeah, we had we had tons of members of the community show up.

Um we also had a public input session.

Um so we had you know, a number of community members come to that and speak.

We had a number of community members coming to watch.

Um we had a lot of people uh uh talking to us about watching it on on TV and watching it on the news here.

So um we also released updates after every single session to help our community understand what deliberations were made and and sort of what direction people were going.

And and in terms of were there any surprises in terms of your you know, things that people that people thought strongly about, or were there any sort of things that surprised you in the process or any takeaways from that?

I'm sure there's a few learning points.

Yeah, a lot of surprises.

Um, the I think the biggest surprise is that we expected them to put out two recommendations and they put out three.

Um that was the biggest surprise.

Um, you know, honestly, I think the thing that was the most the beyond that, the thing that was the most surprising to me is I think you know we we've done a lot of public engagement on an annual, I mean, annually we reach you know, 30, 40,000 residents across our community.

We reach a lot of people.

Um we host over 150 events every year.

We do a we're we're on the ground a lot with our community.

Um the thing that was most surprising to me about this was the genuine joy and enthusiasm that these folks had for simply getting the invitation.

Yeah, right.

And like it, you know, a lot of times uh for better or for worse, the people that participate are the folks that typically show up, right?

They have a stake in the outcome, or it's part of their professional obligation to be there, or um, they have a um, you know, they're there's someone who has the time and resources to participate and engage with local government.

The assembly really leveled the playing field um and brought out people that would not typically participate.

And I found that they had far more joy um in their participation and enthusiasm about it than the typical person that we've engaged in the past.

And and that's not to disparage anyone.

I think it's just to say that um that watching a room of people that are built to disagree with each other, do so with joy um and happiness, yeah, was like, you know, in our modern times, quite a balm.

Um yeah, it was wonderful.

Good.

Well, um, thank you.

I am inspired to think about doing this little more locally as well.

But uh thank you, madam chair.

That's all the questions I had for now.

Thank you, Counselor Braden.

Uh, we're gonna circle back to Counselor Flynn if he's available.

Okay.

And then also flagging to Councillor Culpepper.

I I believe that Central Staff is trying to uh invite you to be a panelist.

So if you just want to click yes on that.

Um okay, we'll go to counselor Weber.

Hello.

Uh uh thank you, Chair.

I I guess uh in terms of the city charter, um, you know, is there anything in there?

Like, so I I'm just thinking back to uh when I started working as a lawyer, I represented my group farm workers and uh, you know, I a lot of I I focus on cotton gin workers who are exempted from overtime pay in the 1938 Fair Labor Sanders Act, and uh, you know, if people thought that there was like an economic justification for that, it turned out it was you know, really just part of um uh FDR to get the new deal legislation for minimum wage and overtime pass, made a deal with Southern Democrats that basically exclude uh black laborers from minimum wage and overtime requirements, and a way to do that was to be excluding farm workers and domestic workers uh from these rules.

So I guess in terms of when we look at our city charter, uh, you know, are there things that have just sort of we feel like are baked in?

Yeah, and I I know John, you talked about just generally, you know, how we have the government structure, but it yeah, aside I I heard your comments on that.

Is there anything else in the city charter that really you know we're sort of we just think is there for there, must have been a good reason for that in 1910 or something, but um you know, that that we really need to take a look at.

And maybe I don't know if you saw anything in Lexington.

Uh cried out for reform.

I'm happy to speak to Lexington very briefly.

Um I think uh there are so many things.

There are so many things that need to be updated in the charter.

Um, and that is one of the reasons that um our assembly members, I mean, just hearing sort of colloquially through the process and through testimony that we heard from public officials here.

Um that is one of the reasons that the assembly members uh voted by an 88.8% supermajority to create a standing charter review process um that requires the charter to be reviewed every eight years.

Um I mean it's from very small things, right?

Like everyone in like every use of um everyone in the charters referred to as a he.

Um, and there are, of course, people that refer to themselves differently in our local government.

Um and uh, you know, from things like that uh to you know major structural issues um that that need to be updated.

Um so you know uh there are there are a number of things that need to be reviewed um and and potentially um altered uh moving forward.

And so that is the reason that they created that structural review process.

Yeah, I don't think I can speak to just one specific thing that might be outdated or not relevant.

Um for me, it's just like the overall um way where power is concentrated that should be really evaluated and looked at.

Um so yeah.

And I can just quickly jump in as well.

I know when we had our initial conversation with um counselor mehia, uh she mentioned you know that there are like laws that aren't being used or fines that are either too low or not being implemented, and and and so I didn't get into specifics there, but I did like Google Boston City Charter as a citizen to try to figure out like oh, like you know, just to try to educate myself.

And I think the uh the fact that it is a series of documents that are um challenging to find and put together in one place.

To me, that speaks to something that it should be at least a document that's accessible to a citizen.

Okay, and then uh can you just uh for I I apologize to miss the beginning in terms of the process for amending, I mean what are they doing?

You know, is it different here than in Lexington?

Does it have to be does it just get put up for a vote for the city?

Do we have how does it work?

Uh I think like if we're looking to for more structural change, then it would be a a charter commission.

Um, and that process looks like basically like nine people would you know go up for election that the people would vote on with with they'd select nine people to be on the charter commission.

Um, and then the charter commission would have, I think it's 10 months to come up with a reformed charter, and they would put that in front of the people um to vote on.

Okay.

In Lexington, there um there are two paths to the ballot.

Um, our city can really do anything with um to to do a charter review, which is how we were approached to to review the charter.

Um there is also a charter review commission process in there, but the city doesn't necessarily have to follow it.

Um the uh the two processes are two paths to to develop any charter change has to be amended and put on the public ballot.

Um council can either vote to put something on the ballot or there can be a public petition of 15% um of the voters in the past mayor oral election.

Okay.

Uh okay, well, thank I'm sorry, I just I just don't have any question more questions, Chair.

I'm gonna hand it back to you.

Okay, you're uh you're relinquishing your time.

Just yes, I guess that's what we're calling.

Okay, yeah, no worries.

Um, so that there was actually three different ways that was uh talked about to amend this.

Um we had talked about um uh a binding ballot question, there's a charter commission, there's uh and then there's there's another way.

Um sorry, I just I just wanted to clarify that that there are three separate ways, but happy to send more information that we got um based on this presentation.

Yeah, thanks.

Yep.

Um okay, we counselor Culpepper, is he in a homework petition is is the third one.

Sorry, thanks to team.

I don't see counselor Culpepper, so we'll circle back to Counselor Mejia um for her additional questions.

Yeah, thank you.

And just to uh for counselor uh Weber's question in my opening remarks, I laid out the various pathways um with a little bit more scaffolding so you can have somebody from your team kind of just synthesize those notes.

Um so that might be helpful.

Um I am curious.

Um with both uh civic lexts and we write LA, um, they're using civic assemblies in their processes where residents are chosen randomly in order to have representation um sample of their city.

Why are civic assemblies being chosen across the country?

Could a civic assembly work here in Boston?

And if so, how how do you see that?

And I'll tell you this.

I um am more of a community organizer, I'm not a lawyer, I am not a policy wonk.

I am just somebody who grew up in the city of Boston, just not happy with anything that's happening uh here, and so that's why I'm on the inside now trying to fix things so that we can have more engagement.

And oftentimes when I see that that engagement, you know, people are just frustrated.

And so this is one of the reasons why I was so super excited um to to explore ways that we can rebuild trust and create as many pathways for us to have better relationships with our residents.

And so that's why we are really excited about exploring this as a tool and a tactic um for um restoration of trust in government.

So I'm just curious, you know, how would how would a civic assembly work here in Boston?

And how do we give people the power in that process?

I'm gonna ask you a few questions, so whoever wants to answer.

Um, what does good governance and good government look like?

Okay.

Um we talk a lot about oh, everybody has a voice, and and then people come in and tell us what they want, and then we don't execute against those deliverables.

So if you could tell me what good governance looks like, I would really appreciate that.

And what are major issues we're facing in Boston's local government that need to be addressed?

Like, you know, uh maybe Richard, you may not know too much because you're not living in Boston, but I'm sure you travel around the country and you probably have heard some things about us.

So Boston politics are a an appetite here.

So I'm just curious, you know, what structures, norms, and processes do we face, or that you believe we face that um we should uh consider changing.

And the big question here, the final bonus round question is how do we restore trust in our city's government?

So I asked a lot.

I don't know who wants to go first, so what order you don't have to answer them all, but I I asked enough questions to allow for our panelists to take the ones that they feel most passionate about.

Um, and and and dive right into those.

Oh, for well, none of y'all like them.

Okay, go, I lana.

Oh, sorry.

Um I can just jump in quickly.

You know, I think in terms of how this could work in Boston, there's a lot of different ways that it can work, but like as an organization that is bringing together everyday Bostonians to grapple with issues on a regular basis.

We have a lifetime community, um, an active lifetime community of 450 members in the greater Boston area.

I know that's small compared to the skill that we'd be talking about in terms of some of this participation.

Um but just wanted to echo like what I've seen and heard firsthand with our community members, really um echoes a lot of what Richard shared earlier, which is just that people are excited to learn a pathway to even feeling like they have a voice.

Um, whether those are people that have tried to have a voice before and failed, or folks that hadn't really been activated at any point up until this point, or not and like not really tried.

Um, I think that Boston is a is such a great city with so many like driven, smart crazy, crazily, you know, um engaged folks in a lot of ways, but there's also a lot of people that haven't been engaged.

And I think that this process, if we were to move into a sort of civic assembly process, Boston would be a great space for that um because we're passionate about where we live, and I think that bringing in more opportunities to um have everyday residents, you know, sort of build trust, build that collective knowledge, and and really feel like they have some power to drive change, I think would have impacts far and beyond just the specific issues that we would mention um on a uh modernization of the COP charter.

Thank you.

We're definitely um uh politics is a sport here.

We're fanatics when it comes to to that, and you know, to your point of there are some folks who don't feel heard or not as civically engaged, that is a real concern.

Um our office worked on putting together a leadership development initiative specifically for non-English speakers so that they understood what neighborhood council meetings were about, what civic associations do because they make a lot of decisions that impact everyone, so that we can make it a little bit more accessible to folks who are not English speakers, but they live in this, they live in the neighborhoods, they pay taxes, they are part of that civic life, but they had no voice.

And so we're always trying to explore ways to do that.

And I'm gonna follow up with with John regarding this power, how do we share power?

Um, with this whole idea of having like civic assemblies or a charter commission, you know, how do you see that as a way to activate people who don't feel heard or who haven't been engaged um in the process, kind of like as a as a as a way to re-engage communities.

How do you see this kind of serving as a tool to do that?

Yeah, I think I think the charter commission would actually be a great tool to do that because it's not um appointed, it's not an appointed commission, it's elected from the people.

Um, and when they do come together, it's not them making a final decision, that they're they're then again putting it in front of the people to vote on.

Um, so I think in essence, what that does is it moves the power back into the hands of the people to decide how their government is going to be shaped and what it's gonna look like moving forward.

Um so yeah, so I think a charter commission would be great in getting people more excited and more engaged in city government because it's not performative.

They can make actually like real changes.

Um yeah, I think that's something that's really concrete.

Thank you for that.

I um I traveled, I had to go all the way to a different country to Chile, actually.

Um in 2022, I believe it was, worked with a cohort of folks on the national level who were looking at civic discourse and and Chile went through their um rewriting the entire constitution.

And uh I was there for some of that, and I got to see it in and at play, and it was such a beautiful thing to see to Richard's point in terms of the rep, how random it was that it it was a process in which people who were the least likely to be engaged became the most likely to understand and inform what are the things that need to happen because those who are living the realities usually have the best ideas of what needs to change.

And so I was really inspired by what Chile um the country was able to do in terms of activation at a time when they were going through protests and there was a lot of turmoil politically there, but rewriting the constitution was with that, and that was also citizens-led was really inspiring.

And one of the things that I learned from that experience, and I'm just curious if you all can talk to it.

I'm sure that you probably did not answer a hundred and more questions that I had, but I wanted I want to get this one in here, is that that within within their process, they had different committees um that were tackling issues of like housing, issues of education, issues of public safety.

So even within their processes, they had different committee members.

Uh can you is that something that uh Richard or you guys have seen in other cities where there is a commission or or the civic assemblies, but then then there are folks who are doing work specifically around different issues or or or not.

Just curious.

Yeah, absolutely.

There's there's for sure a precedent of that.

Um, you know, civic assemblies are somewhat new to the United States um over the past couple decades.

Um, but I think people are using them to tackle all sorts of different issues.

Um, there are also you know, folks talking about using permanent assemblies that are that could essentially be an advisory body that sits alongside legislative bodies like an urban county council, um, or sorry, I'm so predisposed to saying urban county council because we have emerged city county government.

And I I think but I think like the big thing, right, is the randomization and the selection process for any of these, right?

Um I think the the piece of that that is so transformative, um, like you mentioned is inviting people who are who would otherwise likely not participate at all to have a not just a um a seat at the table, but to have some real meaningful decision making power.

Um I I think that is just it is truly powerful.

Um and I'll I'll say I went into our assembly process like somewhat skeptical because they are they take a long time, they're a lot of work, they're expensive.

Um, but I've kind of come out on the other side a bit of a convert.

Um I I definitely see the power that they can have in making really tough decisions and in making decisions on things that maybe the government itself shouldn't be deciding, um, particularly issues about itself.

Um so though those are all things that um that I've certainly observed over the past couple years.

Thank you for that.

And I I'm sure my time is up.

But I and one more question, Madam Chair, if you don't mind, as I'm curious, if you could tell me who are the uh naysayers, who are the who are the folks who would be against something like because you know you gotta know who your targets are, right?

At the end of the day, we're here all about civic life, but there's some folks who just don't want it.

So can you tell me who are the types of folks that we need to be mindful of as we continue to navigate this process here in in Boston?

Like, who are the folks that are uh opposed to this sort of type of idea?

Like I always like to know who those folks may potentially be, so that we can stop preparing ourselves for that because what I never want to do is alienate folks who don't agree, but I just like to know what are the prototypes of folks that potentially are not uh you know in favor of charter reform or amend, you know, things that change government structures, like who are those folks so that I know what I'm up against and you know what what we need to prepare for.

And what are the arguments?

What do they say about why we shouldn't do that?

So who are they and what type of you know rhetoric should we expect to hear from that opposite side of the fence?

Yeah, I'm happy to speak a little bit about our experience.

Um I think uh the thing that you know I've found that um assemblies are actually a pretty easy case to make to people.

Um it's confusing and alienating at first.

I think people don't understand it.

It's not something that they are used to knowing about.

But particularly when you talk about that that that selection process being representative, um, people's you start to see people's minds change a little bit.

Um you know, Lexington's a politically contested city.

Um it is a fairly, you know, it's on the blue side of purple, but it is a purple city.

Um I think you know, when there are whether it's um certain political ideologies that always feel like they're in the minority or certain um uh uh uh lived experiences or certain perspectives um that feel like they aren't typically at the table.

When you go through extreme lengths to ensure that they are at the table, they start to come around a little bit, right?

Like I so there are a number of people that I was talking to that are like, oh, more conservative perspectives are never part of discussions in in local government.

And I was like, well, whatever percentage of our county is Republican, um, that is how many Republicans will be on this assembly.

Um and they're like, oh, so it's just what the what the county is now.

Yeah, it makes sense.

The same with people um uh our community has a significant problem.

90% of the people on our city's boards and commissions are homeowners.

Um, so that is a huge perspective about issues in our community where folks that rent, um, 50% of our community isn't at the table.

Um, and so we were able to talk to tenant groups here in our community and say, yeah, 50% of this assembly are gonna be renters.

Um, and so it really starts to change um this the sort of traditional calculus that we have about who shows up and who participates and who has a meaningful say um in our community when you actually are being fully representative and it's designed to be that way.

Um I think the big pushback that we got is like maybe things in the charter don't need to change.

Um and that is, you know, that that is a perspective that uh is a little bit challenging to get past.

I will say going into our assembly, not quite 50%, but a pretty substantial group of our assembly members said that the charter didn't need to be reviewed regularly.

And they came out with 88.8% of them recommending that the charter be reviewed regularly.

So I think the way that to get through to people that that at least our experience of people that think that things don't need to be looked at, things don't need to be updated, is talking to them about the issues, very concrete issues about what could be changed and what could be addressed.

And I think you know, trying to make the case that like all govern government should always be looking at itself and examining its own structures and trying to determine how they can better serve the community that they represent.

That is the sort of promise at the heart of self-governance.

And so I think that there is there are clear arguments that that um can resonate even with skeptics.

Again, I went into this process as a skeptic and I'm coming out feeling feeling pretty good about it.

Thank you.

And I see that the chair has already surfaced yet again.

So my time is up, and if there's an opportunity, uh I'll end with my third round of questions.

Thank you.

Um thank you so much.

I just want to go to uh so it looks like Councilor Flynn left.

Um, either counselor Braden or Council Weber, if you have any questions, feel free to put your Yes.

Um just a little bit, I'm I'm checking out uh I'm checking out your Civic Lex uh website and learning more about uh the work you do.

Very impressive.

Um I had a question about uh in terms of your demographic spread.

So we ended up with like 36 members for the civic assembly.

Um I'm wondering, did you have folks that represented the folks with disabilities and folks with um English wasn't a first language, like um uh and incorporating a different making sure, yeah, that you have I'm sure you did a good job, but uh those are two particular spaces that I was wondering what were those people incorporated.

36 doesn't seem like a huge number of people at the end of the day.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um so I can speak a little bit to that.

Um so we decided to use um to go with demographics that we could get really clear data from from the census um and from other sources to build our eight categories.

Most most assemblies, particularly in Europe, um, are really looking across two or three demographic groups, uh, and we were trying to hit many more with eight.

Um we did make a determination um early on that we that we that language um was going to be for our first assembly too much of a lift for us as a pretty relatively small organization to do our assembly in multiple languages.

Um and we recognize fully that that is a that is a barrier.

A lot of people in our community speak um languages other than English as their primary or even only language.

Um but our experience over the past eight years, we've run many programs bilingually or trilingually, or some even in five languages, and that the our experience has been that that every aspect of it from top to bottom to give someone a really fair shot in participating has to be available in that language in order to help those folks uh participate fully.

Um and we were just concerned that we weren't going to be able to do that with this assembly, particularly for the deliberation pieces.

Um if we do an assembly again, I think that we're that's something that we would like to remedy.

Um, but for our first time out of the gate, um, we we we made the determination to do the assembly only in English.

We did have a number of people who English wasn't um their first language necessarily.

Um, so that is something of note.

Um, but uh if I'm able to share my screen, I'm happy to just very briefly show you um the demographics uh that we um went with.

Let's see if I can um do this here.

Um these are the demographics.

This is from a presentation that we're doing to our to our council um next uh on Tuesday.

Um, but on the right, you will see uh the goal demographics, which are the demographics of Lexington over the age of 18, um, and then what our assembly was.

Um so this is for age and race and ethnicity.

You'll see it's almost exactly identical to our community.

Yeah.

Um political registration and council district.

Um you'll see again, it's almost exactly representative of our community.

Um sex and education.

Education was our one outlier um where we um uh lost a few people along the way um that uh that just didn't have the time and space to to do all seven of the sessions.

Um so it ended up throwing that demographic out a little bit, and then housing status and income.

Um and we ended up a little bit off on income with um more uh more people being low income than would be representative in our community.

So across all um eight of those uh of those demographics, we feel really good that we hit um we hit all of them.

Sounds good.

And um I have one more question just walked from ahead.

Uh in terms of the participation, you did um 25 um what was it 25 hours of deliberation?

35.

35 hours over seven sessions.

Okay.

Um in terms of funding, then how did you did your did your county government put money in, or how did you have to fundraise for it?

Or uh we did fundraise for it.

Um we did not, we actually told our government we didn't want them to put money in um because we wanted to uh this is our first time doing this process, and we wanted to make sure that there was no perception of or reality of influence on the direction that we were taking our assembly.

Um and uh and for better or for worse, I think that that had there been um substantial investment from local government that that could have been a perception.

Um that being said, if we do the assembly again, I would love for the government to come to the table uh to at least match, if not exceed the match of um of what we raised.

We raised about 225,000 um from a combination of local donors, um uh our membership um in national philanthropy, then we also um dug into our reserves um to make this happen.

And uh and and yeah, um it's good.

That's how we did it.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, Council Mahir, we'll do uh a third round and we'll do four four minutes.

I see I see your cameras on, my bad.

Just said one quick question.

Sorry.

Uh, in terms of like, so I guess that there's three options for us in terms of actually rewriting the city charter, where you know, there's uh I think it's like getting signatures to have the issue put on the ballot, then an elected uh commission to rewrite the charter, or there's a home rule petition, uh, or there's another one, but I can't remember at the moment.

But I think uh John said the elected uh charter commission would be the way to go.

I for Ms.

Robovsky and uh uh Mr.

Young, I guess based on your experience.

Do you you have any thoughts on which pathway uh you know would produce the best results?

Um there's a hand a hand up.

Um I'll say uh I'm uh not super familiar with uh with you know with all the ins and outs of of your all strength review process.

I'm terribly too familiar with the ones uh of ours.

Um but uh yeah, I I I guess uh I mean in terms of electing uh a electing a commission to draft a charter to put it up for a vote, or I think the home rule would be the city council drafting a charter and doing so like I don't know how how should we think about those two options?

So um I'll say for again um for our perspective that our council there in our city charter, there is a there is a um a provision that the council can form a 20-person charter review commission to look at the charter um and uh do it, not as sort of an official um commission of the local government.

Um they in the 1998 review, they opted not to do that.

Um instead uh approaching our city's chamber of commerce and asking them to put together uh a commission.

And then for this one, um, we did it.

Uh, and so that was also not done through that process.

Um I think that the the whatever option would enable um more uh and greater participation by residents um would be the option that I would recommend.

Um the 1990 1998 charter review, that was you know, um here in Lexington.

them to put together uh a commission and then for this one um we did it uh and so that was also not done through that process um i think that the the whatever option would enable um more uh and greater participation by residents um would be the option that i would recommend um the 199 uh 1998 charter review that was you know um here in lexington uh there was not a whole lot of public engagement um and so the things that went on the ballot failed um the same with um with past charter reviews so i think the more opportunities for the public to have a really meaningful say um in the decision making around charter review i think the better um uh and so whatever of those processes would enable that would be the ones that i would encourage you to to pursue i think you're on mute councilor are you good oh you're on mute i'm on mute yes uh sorry uh um no i'm i'm i'm good i saw counselor braden had her hand up thank you very much yeah i i think just to in the local context the city of newton had a charter review process in uh 2017 that went to the ballots and it was ultimately rejected by the voters so you know we could go through the whole process um that's why I think this this civic uh assembly um approach seems to be a way to really engage with the larger populace and get them educated about the issue ahead of time uh rather than handing down an edict that they have to vote on in an election with uh when I'm not necessarily be very well informed so you know I think it's certainly worth worth considering and it's uh um it's it's it's an interesting uh approach that's worth looking at thank you madam chair right thank you counselor burden um counselor mehia yes thank you and I guess I get the reason why I'm so excited about all of this because um in 2000 oh my god like 150 years ago I worked at MTV trying to get young people engaged in politics in every single state that I went to every single young person said why should I vote they don't listen to us and they don't care about young people and that to me was um I think what set me on a path around making sure that people have a voice because representation is people are never going to listen to folks who don't vote obviously um that's why because their votes don't matter that's that's how they feel and so this for me is a it is I hope the long game of how we're going to restore civic engagement um we don't even have civic uh uh you know in our schools right everything that deals with anything that's activating people to be citizens we talk about we the people for the people by the people and all that blah blah blah but when it comes down to it we're not building the real infrastructure to get people engaged in their own lives and for me given everything that's happening on the political landscape nationally I believe that Boston locally has an opportunity to join other cities and figuring out how we are going to not only just restore trust in government but build meaningful pathways for real civic engagement because that I believe is what's going to change the way we technically do business in Boston and so my understanding is that you know aside from a home rule petition everything that we um introduced you know all of the all of the recommendations that we we would have they will end up on the ballot for citizens to um vote on so I think that that also is another opportunity to build that political muscle because you're educating the public about something and then they go out even if they don't vote for anyone that's you know up for reelection or or running for office they at least vote for a ballot initiative that is near and dear to them right so that either way I think we're gonna win and and I and the reason why I asked who are the folks who are most likely unwilling to to do this type of reform you know it my hypothesis is that people who you know who are in power want to maintain power.

And so this is a power sharing exercise here in the city of Boston and I think that everyone who is engaged in this process needs to uh understand the importance of really what representation is and so I'm excited this is the long game I have no um expectations that we're gonna get this through the council probably not even in this term this is like to Richard's point you guys had been at it for a while and change is hard especially when people don't want it so we are committed to continue this work whether I'm in office or out it it doesn't really matter I'm committed to this work because we have to give people back the power.

I'm committed to this work because we have to give people back the power.

So I'm just letting everybody know that we're gonna be continuing to move forward.

So you've been advised and you've been warned.

Um and lastly, Richard, and I I see John, you have your hand up.

I'd like to know, you know, for me, young people are the reason, you know, why we do most of the work that we do here.

Um, and I'm just curious, how do you how did you guys go about uh electing your youth representation?

Because you know, diversity is important, age is important, but young people usually get left out of everything in every single board or commission that I've established in my office, we've always had a direct um uh youth voice in that like board or commission just to make sure that we have youth representation.

So I'm curious, how did you go about making that happen?

Yeah, so very briefly, I'll just say that our um we have a we have a pretty robust youth civic education program that we house at Civic Lex.

We teach um between three and four thousand students um uh a year um in the public school system here.

And so we actually use that network to allow self-nominations.

Um so so students could um uh nominate themselves uh to participate.

Um, but we also collected their demographics, and so we factored their demographics into the larger um demographic representation pool.

Um we did build just one um seat in there for folks um under the age of 18 um for a variety of reasons.

We made that design decision.

Um that uh, you know, private youth privacy reasons, um, given that all this is gonna be on TV, um, we required parental accompaniment um to a lot of the sessions um for uh a variety of of reasons.

Um and so we ended up having one uh 16-year-old high school student um participate.

Um, and yeah, she was wonderful.

And we're um, and actually she's gonna be one of the three members uh or one of the four members that is presenting to our council uh on Tuesday.

So we're really excited about that.

If I can just jump in really quick, sorry.

Um we invited Richard to this and and he informed us that he had a hard stop at 1145, which we were gonna try to honor.

So I wanted to just um give Richard thank Richard for joining us and also give you the opportunity to uh move on to your next meeting as well.

Awesome.

Yeah, yeah, thank you, Richard.

Yeah, if it if anyone has any further questions, you're welcome to email me at Richard at CivicLacs.org.

Um, and if you can share my email, that would be great.

But I really enjoyed talking with you all today.

Um, and um thank you so much.

I hope you're I hope you continue considering doing uh doing a civic assembly for your charter review.

Thank you.

And John, you had your hand up.

I saw before uh my time is up.

Oh, yeah, yes, I just wanted to make a quick point about the um charter commission.

And so, over like the span of the 10 months that they have to put together the the reform charter, um, they they are required to engage the public in in hearings over that time.

So I think you know, it's just another level of engagement there because not only is it the non-members elected by the people, but those people are then coming together to bring the community in to have these hearings to shape like what the charter will look like.

Um, so I think if we think about just resident engagement and like civic life, I think that's a great opportunity.

Thank you.

And unfortunately, as all ways, uh my time is up.

So I will not.

Well, if you have any more questions, Councilman, I'm sorry, because I saw you there, so this is like, oh no, gonna get the gabble.

Sorry.

No, I um yeah, if you have any other questions, please feel free.

I don't think any of any of our colleagues have any more questions.

So this is your document.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for the grace.

Yeah, I I think as we continue to navigate uh this conversation and scaffold it, you know, I think about participatory budget.

We passed that in 2021, which gave the but uh the city council uh the power to amend um the mayor's budget, and we also had the participatory budget process put in place where citizens are able to get a percentage of dollars that they can then decide.

So, you know, we we have been dabbling with uh participatory democracy now for some time, and so there's some good examples, and I'm just curious, you know, if any of you are familiar with the participatory budget uh process and uh any reflections on the implementation of it and what we can learn about you know what is working and what is not working uh as we continue to so that we're not replicating bad policy, so that we can get it right, you know.

Can can anyone talk to me about what's working and what's not as it relates to participatory budgeting or if you're following any of that work.

So I actually was at the hearing yesterday on the participatory budget, and I think um so prior to the hearing, I didn't have too much information on it, but I think Culpepper raised some great questions surrounding um how input from all areas of the city is like sorry, he made points around um just like making sure like every district is included in planning.

Um, and so he had made a recommendation that like maybe it's like each district gets to um come up with an idea that can better shape like the district um on what one where the funding can be spent.

So I just think about like um maybe just really fleshing out who is being included in the process.

I know they said that they have like um revolving meetings in different areas for like East Boston, Charlestown, etc.

Um, but yeah, so just making sure like each I guess each election cycle or however often it's coming around that everyone is included.

Thank you for that.

I said it right, Delana?

Illina close think of the state state of Illinois, Illina.

Um I think just in intercept time, I haven't followed the process piece of it closely enough to uh give a useful response to that question.

So I'll give you back some more time.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, the the reason why I point to that because that was a ballot initiative.

That was a big charter reform.

Uh that it was also citizen-led, um, and council support it, and it was a really good example of what it looks like to um decentralized power.

Um, and and and and I think as we continue to navigate this process, I just want to make sure that you know, we're looking at some of the things that work and some of the things that are not working, so that we can make sure we get ahead of it.

But I think the civic assemblies piece um provides us with a really good partner, uh, you know, here in Boston or a few organizations that we can work with.

Um I really love the fact that you know it it definitely should live outside of government.

I don't think government should be engaged.

I mean, we have to have a role in it, you know, because obviously we have to be the ones to push for the you know the policies and to be changed, but I I think the citizen-led um process is is what I believe is going to make this successful so that it doesn't come from within, it it really is being led by the people.

Um, and so to that point, you know, any any feedback that you could provide us here as we finish our time together so that we can think about kind of what are some viable next steps and what we should be doing between now and the next time we meet, because this is the first hearing, then we're gonna transition into working sessions and trying to figure out kind of how we write this up in a way to present it officially at some point.

But I'm just curious, you know, if you could just provide some insight in terms of next steps and things that we should be thinking about.

Yeah, I mean, I can tell you that you know, Gen Unity and our um sister organization partners in democracy are currently working on um scoping out a statewide uh citizen assembly um as well.

So we've been doing a lot a lot of research and a lot of like upskilling on our team to um ensure that we have a proper, you know, we have we know we have facilitation skills around having conversations across differences, but this is like a very specific thing.

So we've been working um sort of behind the scenes to get ready to be able to help support a process like this.

Um I will say that one of the things I keep hearing over and over again is that before you put people in a room together, you need to make sure that you have buy-in from decision makers.

I think the ways that it has gone the most poorly is people have had this really amazing, empowering, you know, trust building, like several days usually in a room together, coming up with recommendations, but the proper buy-in wasn't um established in the first place, and so the recommendations don't go anywhere.

And that has that is worse than not doing it at all.

So I would say if this is a um, you know, although we'd be happy to help um or consult or support in any way in terms of actually like scoping and you know, looking at budgets, things like that.

That's what we've been doing for this statewide project anyway, would be uh delighted to partner on that.

Um, but I wouldn't put the process forward until there is a clear understanding of how those recommendations would be used by the council.

So that that's the main piece of advice that I would give.

I mean, so I think that's probably just socializing it with your peers.

Um, and and sharing that if, you know, let's say that we at the end of this, whether it is, you know, just changing a small acute small few things or a whole overhaul.

How is the public opinion actually gonna be used because you don't want to do any damage to trust when this is a process that primarily builds trust.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

All right, John, any other last things that we should be mindful of as we continue to move forward with this that you want to share?

And then I'm definitely going to not hold it people hostage and and give up the rest of my time.

Yeah, no, I think um I think a lot was covered.

I think it's great and just looking forward to seeing how things move forward.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, and thank you uh just for those folks who who are tuning in.

Uh, this particular hearing was designed specifically to hear from community um and and to work alongside those who hopefully will be leading the efforts to do this on the outside.

We are hoping to have a second hearing.

Um, or maybe I don't know, Chair, you could provide some guidance in terms of what logistically would be next, just because the administration was not here and we did not get to hear from our legal uh council and in regards to what this potentially could look like.

I offered potentially doing a second hearing, but because we already had a hearing, if we go straight to a working session, and then that's when the administration comes in.

If you could provide some guidance on what the appropriate next steps are, given the fact that we didn't have the administration here, uh, how do we make sure that we are moving lockstep because ultimately whatever we do, the administration is going to have to sign off on it.

Um there was a signature that's required by the mayor.

And so not having the administration here today, just want to get ahead of you know any potential roadblocks in the future if we're gonna if we're gonna have them at a second hearing, or if we're gonna go into a working session.

I just want people to know kind of what what to expect so that we can all manage our expectations here.

Yeah, I um so there's there's a lot, I there's a lot of work when it comes to this.

So I I what I was hearing was that there's the preferred pathway moving forward is potentially a ballot question.

Um, but then even even at that point, I there's nothing physically to to look at at a working session.

So, like, are we gonna be some of the things that were brought up today that I heard was is this supposed to be intended for like a targeted adjustment in the same way that the city charter amendment was for the budget and participatory budgeting or like targeted for a specific issue, or are we gonna think of a broader, is this a part of like a broader thinking of how governance operates in Boston.

And so if it's the latter, I think we need to understand how this reform will um will be in the context of larger structural changes, and yeah, like what like what is the preferred method moving forward.

Um, I heard you talk about the the ballot question, which is something that we did in in in 2021 as well.

Um, with that, it may come with a constitutionality like check from the AG's office, like the the last charter amendment did.

So I think there's there's a lot of questions here.

So I I just don't have a firm answer for you.

But if I would only want to do a working session if there's like something that we need to look at and pass here in the council, if that's something that you you and your team want to do.

Thank you, Chair.

I I just you know, it's about greater governance, but not necessarily the change of our government structure.

So I just, you know, I think that that is a heavier lift than I don't think anyone is at this point.

We have the capacity uh to do, you know, our office is not talking about this with a specific agenda.

We don't have a clear, this is the outcome.

We never walk into it with this is what we want to do.

We really want to create a meaningful container, if you will, for the people to help us identify the role that they want you know, they they want us to take and how they want us to move.

And so that's kind of where we're at um in this process.

And so given that this is going to be a different way of how we normally do things, um, you know, we're gonna need some thought leadership from you know our legal council and you know how we how we shepherd this through the process, you know, it maybe maybe we do this work outside of city government, y'all, and we get kicked out and work with the people, and then we bring it back into the city council with whatever it is that you all come up with.

Um, but I still think what I need to hear, Chair, is um the role that the administration will play in helping to support the work.

Like we we didn't have legal counsel here, right?

So I I don't know if you see doing a second hearing before we move into working sessions so that we can then hear from the administration about what is possible, what we need to be mindful of.

That's the question that I want to get at so that when we're communicating to the public, we're communicating with what we can and cannot do and have a better understanding of that.

Yeah, and I I have not had specific conversations with the administration, so I can't speak for them, but I do believe like given the fact that charter reform touches like the very foundational structure of city government, including the role of mayor and the council, and then we have how we are currently existing, right?

With the this need the signature of the mayor being necessary, like what role would they play, what role should they play in helping to shape maybe what some of the oversight we're trying to put in.

Um I I don't have like I don't have an answer for you because I haven't heard from them, but I would be curious to know like what they think their role should be, whether that's advisory or operational or directive in the future.

So, particularly in drafting proposals, like, do we want them to be helping draft the proposals or conducting the analysis?

So these are all questions I think that we should have in earnest with them and um and then figure out how we want to move forward after that.

Yeah, no, because I know this this particular iteration of our work, the administration has if they usually have a a voice and and drafting a lot of the things that we've put forth, uh not drafting, but at least they've had a lot of input in some of the things that we've tried to push.

So that's why I want to make sure that they're engaged because we're going to need their buy-in.

Um so you know, we're just for us, it's about we're exploring the process rather than just the reform and you know the content of the reform, right?

Like for us, it's really about the how we get there, not so much where we're going, right?

So this is this is why I'm saying this is gonna be a different type of of process because you know, this is not how we usually norm.

And so the process is is going to be what I think is going to make the outcome better.

And so getting that direction would be helpful at some point, so that we know who are the stakeholders and the players that are going to be actively engaged in our decision making.

Yeah.

So totally, and I think the understanding the balance between like the administration's involvement and then the council's legislative role is gonna be um as well as like if like what what coordination is gonna be necessary with the state.

But again, if you want to go forward with the ballot initiative, then that's like what 15% of the voters and all of that, and that doesn't necessarily require their their buy-in.

So I think there's there's a lot of conversations that need to happen, and specifically like what we're we're trying to accomplish here, um, which may be informed by you know, an outside citizens assembly that you do or you do separately from the council.

Um so that yeah, at this point, I just don't have anything defined because I really just don't know.

Okay.

Well, I I appreciate that.

Um, and and so we just we just you know need to continue to speak with community as stakeholders and getting our directive from them and then working alongside you all um for next steps, and we look forward to doing this in partnership.

The last time we tried to pass something, it was the inspector general, and it took us two years to do that.

Um, and so this is a lot bigger and more structural changes if we even get to this point.

So um, you know, we're gonna be here for the long run and just manage everybody's expectations that's tuning in.

That change does take time, and while we say change can't wait, we are, you know, we're gonna get this right, and it's gonna take a time for us to do just that.

So thank you uh for your active participation in making that happen.

Thanks, everybody.

Um, I do I don't see anybody sign up for public testimony.

So we will go ahead and um just move forward to close this hearing, but I want to thank everybody again for their participation.

Thank you to counselor Mejia for bringing this forward.

Uh, this hearing on Docket 0410 is adjourned.

Thanks everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.