Good evening, everybody.

Good evening, everybody.

Thanks for coming this evening.

Um, today is October 28th, 6 p.m.

in or in the city county building.

Uh this is a meeting of the rules committee.

And we're first going to start off by introductions.

We're gonna start in the far left with counselor Delaney.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm Brienne Delaney from District 2.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Jessica McCormick, District 16.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm a guest this evening.

My name is Michael Paul Hart, representing District 20.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mike Dilt, District 24.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, Josh Bain, District 21.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Brian Mowery, District 25.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Allie Brown, District 10.

Good evening, Chairman.

Uh Andy Nielsen, District 14, East Side.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening, all Dr.

Carlos Perkins, District 6.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman Leroy Robinson, District 1.

Good evening, Maggie Lewis, District 5.

Good evening, Bob Osili, District 12.

Thank you, everybody.

And I'm Vice Chair Boots and I have the honor of chairing the meeting this evening.

Tonight we have a combination of a working group members of our council in addition to the rules committee.

So I'd like to call this meeting to order and thank you all for being here tonight as we hear about the steps the city county has taken to update its sexual harassment policies and procedures and to consider any appropriate legislative action.

I particularly want to thank the working group that consists of uh Councillor Delaney, Councilor Nielsen, Councilor McCormick, Councilor Hart, and Counselor Bain, and also uh a great thanks to Council Pierce and Greg Stowers for all the effort they put in uh heretofore leading up to this meeting.

Uh so this is uh an important and sensitive topic, and we appreciate your engagement as we work toward a safer, more accountable workplace for all city county employees.

As we know, our most important asset for the city is its people.

It's not our dump trucks, it's not our snow plows, it's our people.

So before we begin, I want to clearly outline the purpose and structure of tonight's meeting.

This meeting is focused solely on reviewing steps already taken and discussing future policy changes.

We are here to evaluate options, hear public input, and consider improvements moving forward.

With all due respect, this is not the appropriate venue to raise individual complaints, past incidents, or personnel matters.

We understand that some may have strong feelings on these issues or have personal troubling experiences, but this meeting is not designed to adjudicate or revisit specific cases.

To ensure a respectful and orderly process, all public comments should be directed to me as the chair and not to any individual staff members, committee members, or presenters.

Representatives from the city's human resources are here to present steps already taken and future options and to answer general procedural questions posed by our counselors.

They will not be responding to any questions or comments about specific incidents, investigations, or personnel decisions.

It would be inappropriate for them to do so in a public forum such as tonight's meeting.

Excuse me.

We ask that everyone maintain a respectful tone, stay focused on constructive feedback about tonight's presentations.

If you have concerns about individual matters, please use appropriate internal channels outside of this meeting to raise those individual concerns.

Again, please note this meeting is intended to f intended to foster constructive discussion and public or problem solving.

It is not a forum for public criticism or blame to ensure a respectful and focused environment.

Only counselors will be asking questions during this session.

Additionally, the conversation will not center on specific cases or individuals as previously mentioned.

While illustrative examples may be used to highlight systemic challenges or potential solutions, the discussion will remain policy focused and forward looking.

On a more personal note, we realize this topic has been an emotionally charged one, and we sympathize with what many of you in this room this evening or elsewhere may have experienced.

We sincerely apologize for what you've been through.

We want to ensure that nothing like what has happened in the past ever happens again in the future.

Once again, we thank you for your participation and commitment in improving our city's workplace culture.

With that, uh, we'll begin with a discussion of the current HR recommendations that our uh working group have compiled.

And if the clerk would turn to the next slide.

There are seven listed.

And I'm sorry, they may not have made your paper group that got distributed, but these are the ones.

Temporary appointment of an ad hoc inspector general, creation of an independent human resources board, consideration of an independent office of equal opportunity, promoting awareness and access to reporting tools, audits of HR investigations, creating a universal harassment-free work environment, yearly aggregate reporting of harassment statistics.

Those are the seven that we are studying tonight and going forward, and any others that are worthy that come to our attention.

Having said that, we'll now invite Council Bieler forward to give us a summary of current policies and what has happened in the last several months from the HR and OCC perspective.

Feel free to sit up front or even up front if you'd like.

Okay.

All right.

And we'll let you and be in charge of the slides as you move forward, and the floor is yours.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and members of the committee.

My name is Brandon Bieler.

I serve as the corporation counsel for the city of Indianapolis, and I thank you for having me here tonight to give you an update on the actions that the City County Enterprise has taken in the last 15 months.

The first category I'm going to highlight and focus on are the trainings.

And then in August of 2024, the mayor signed an executive order.

As you clear the mandatory training that was passed and is still in ordinance, is for supervisors only and is something that's required to do every two years.

Back in last year, in August of 2024, the mayor signed an executive order that requires mandatory sexual harassment training for all employees every year.

This training is sent to employees, employees via the software lessonly.

Employees are notified multiple times by emails that the training is available to and to complete with the deadlines.

And something I want to highlight to this committee is that because we have employees in the enterprise that do not have email or computers, human resources is coordinated to make sure that those trainings are available to workers who don't have those resources.

Just last year, the human resources department conducted 10 in-person trainings to cover and make sure every employee was trained, and as well as HR plans to continue to do that again this year with all of our city-county employees.

And this year on September 9th, the sexual harassment training for supervisors and non-supervisors went out, and the due date to complete that for all employees is November 30th.

Supervisors also receive a weekly report from human resources so they can keep a track of their employees to make sure that the training is done timely.

Thank you.

The next category we'll talk about is the anonymous reporting system.

So last August we began demonstrations of six different third-party anonymous reporting system vendors for the City County Enterprise to consider.

This is a coordinated effort between HR, OFM risk management, the Office of Audit and Performance, ISA, and the City County Council.

I'm going to personally thank to counselors Carlino, McCormick, and Nielsen who are engaged in this process with us.

The vendors were scored based on six different categories and aggregated average to get a quantitative ranking.

Speakfully was selected, and work began right away on implementation.

While the work continued to get speakfully set up, ISA launched an anonymous reporting tool that we use temporarily within the system within the city county to allow us employees to have that option to anonymously report until we get speakfully under contract and get the ISA infrastructure so it could function properly.

We are proud to officially launch, we were proud to officially launch Speakfully at the beginning of this year.

I do apologize for your handouts at say 2024, it should say January 2025.

I think it's credited on the slide.

No, it's not.

So that was actually the this year.

Since then, the many ways to access SpeakFully has been featured in HR newsletters and flyers have been distributed to all offices, and a link to the system is also available on the city county's internet.

Thank you.

I'd now like to address some of the employee resources we have that have been around, but we also made some enhancements to a few of them.

So employees here in the city county do have access to mental health support and resources through several different channels.

The employee assistance program, or what we call the EAP, provides free counseling as well as guidance for legal, financial, work life balance needs for all employees and their families.

It offers 24-7 confidential support, accessible in person, by phone, video, or chat.

Behavioral health services are also available through Marathon, which is the city county's health provider.

This free resource offers coaching, therapy, treatment for stress, anxiety, grief, depression, and more.

The services available for all employees and cover dependents 12 and older, are accessible through an in-person, phone, or video visit options.

This past year we expanded Marathon service, and now we allow that employees can make up an appointment with a therapist without first requiring a referral from their provider.

And in this last year, we've continued to expand available resources for the city county employees, which includes adoption of the new anonymous reporting system that I previously discussed, as well as a new handout for employees that provides detailed information on what to expect from the reporting and investigation process should they have a workplace related concern or complaint.

The three pieces of information on this handout for employees, first of all, provides the list of employee resources so there that employees are aware.

Second, describes the investigative process so there's less surprise and less questions or confusion about how HR investigates complaints.

And finally, it includes what an employee's appeal rights are.

Thank you.

So in early August of last year, a planning group was convened of cabinet members, members of HR, OCC to start working to address the company culture concerns.

This group helped procure SpeakFully, created the harassment and company culture working groups, and to pick a vendor for the cultural assessment survey.

This planning group continues to meet on a regular basis to move initiatives forward.

The advisory group consists of a subset of cabinet members and county officials who have provided strategic advising and will provide final approval over recommendations.

This group has met eight times this year.

Now talking about these two subset groups that I previously mentioned.

The first one is the harassment policy working group.

This group is led by our chief diversity officer, Ben Tapper, and this group has met about half a dozen times.

This group is spearheaded the updating of the City County Enterprises harassment policy, which included adding definitions, more details on the reporting procedures, and ensuring that the updated policy reflects best practices.

This group spearhead or this fall, an updated version of the harassment policy was approved by the intern by this internal advisory group, and that policy is now being incorporated into the city county HR's manual and required acknowledgement form.

As some context of that, any time a major update happens to the employee, the human resources manual, an acknowledgement form is required to be signed by all city county employees to show that they are aware of the new policy and understand the new policy.

And this update we anticipate and intend to have done by the end of the year.

Thank you.

The next working group we have is the Company Culture Working Group.

So this working group is led by the director of office and the director of the Office of Audit and Performant Wes Jones, as well as the Chief Diversity Officer Ben Tapper.

This group has met a total of eight times this year and plans to meet into next year.

So far, the group has reviewed and edited the cultural assessment survey and developed the rollout process aimed at and aimed at ensuring that employees had buy-in and engagement leading into the August 11th survey opening.

The bulk of this group's work will begin once we receive results from the Cultural Assessment Survey.

Oh, you're good, thank you.

Now I'm going to talk a little bit about the employees survey.

You may have heard this one out and to give you some information that about this is that in spring this year that the planning group selected Reftillus to assist us in the development, execution, and analysis of the cultural assessment survey.

Raftellus was selected due to their vast experience in working with government entities.

The company culture working group and advisory group helped draft and approve the survey questions.

To ensure trust and participation in the anonymous survey, a webinar was conducted and recorded by Reftellus to answer questions for any interested employees.

Supervisors were also asked to encourage their employees to participate.

The survey was opened for three weeks to ensure plenty of time for participation.

We received about a 30 per 3% participation rate from eligible employees.

Once the survey closed, Raftellus came in, or came in person to perform nine focus groups to collect more data and to glean deeper insights.

We are still waiting on the final results and recommendations, which we hope to receive by the end of the year.

And we are committed to working with the company culture working group and advisory group to review and implement pilot programs to continue to improve our city county enterprise.

And that will conclude the update.

So I thank you all for your work and this important effort, and we are committed to continuing to work alongside you.

So thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you, Council Beler.

Um any questions from uh any member of the group or work?

Yes, uh Madam Leader.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

Just a little clarification.

So on the harassment policy working group, uh, it's led by the chief diversity officer Ben Taper.

Who does he report to?

Um so Ben Tapper is a cabinet level official.

So he reports directly to the mayor probably the mayor, the chief of staff or the mayor, or those officers.

And okay, so I just I just want to make sure that there's like a direct uh line to like any issues that it makes its way up to the the 25th floor.

Yes, right.

So he so you believe he's reporting directly to Parker to the chief of staff.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any additional questions?

Yes, Counselor Neil.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um thank you, Council Bieler, uh, for this update.

Could you um sorry if someone's mic's on?

Um, could you kind of walk through, and this is a technical question on the speak fully piece, um, that it is an anonymous reporting tool.

And so, how are how are um how are complaints or allegations handled and then disaggregated so that it preserves confidentiality, but uh also you know, like could you maybe walk through how that is handled if you can on an out of employee were to submit a submit a ticket?

Sure, and I'll do my best, obviously, is gonna vary case by case in what what how much information an employee provides initially and all that.

So let's take it through an employee wants to remain anonymous but can but report bad workplace behavior that they believe rises to a level that violates city county policy.

So that complaint is gone goes in.

Um it's monitored by the professionals and human resources, the few people who do investigations.

Um I've seen just through some demonstrations how the interface works.

I'm not overly familiar with it because as the attorneys we don't get involved at that investigatory state uh typically, but um, if a person wishes to remain anonymous, then it's kind of like a chat.

It's almost as if so the the uh there, I know there's some standard operating procedures for HR and they're continuing to perfect those, but they can ask questions saying, okay, can you tell us what department you're in?

Can you tell us any more information?

Or we try to be a specific, or they try to be as specific as possible on what information can help them get started in investigation, which doesn't always necessarily have to be someone's name.

Um so they try they have you know different things in their arsenal of tools that they can start trying to get more information from the employee.

That remains open, and the employee can even say, I'm thinking about it, don't close my ticket yet.

I'm I'm going, and so essentially it's just sort of a private interface that the employee can access from their personal devices, from their home devices, their work computers as well.

So it essentially goes to the point where if there's enough information that it's given, and it does rise to what a complaint is, meaning that it's a violation of someone who'solated city county policy and the workplace and proceed workplace procedures and policies, then it'll start the investigatory process as best they can, whether they need to pull data and documents, information, whether they need to start interviewing.

Um other ones would be like concerns where those are more just questions, and that's another speakfully can be used for that.

If you just have a general question and don't want to identify yourself about a question about our policies, you can do that through speak fully as well.

Ultimately, it's still it's the avenue for HR to get as much information as they can while protecting that employees' rights remain anonymous to investigate and if bad behavior is found to stop that.

Sure.

Continue.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um so then was uh as one is submitted as a case is submitted, it's being investigated.

Um I know one of the as you know from following this, something that was brought up during the investigative committee process, and I wasn't the only one, was what happens at the point with which a something has been brought up about uh elected official, either a county executive, member of this body.

How has how does or will the speakfully process inform that decision or inform that process going forward?

I hate to give that lawyer answer that it depends, but it really does depend on just kind of the nature of what is known.

And it's hard to just put that.

I mean, I will just say that you know if that's the case, I think it's something that it would be treated the same as every other complaint.

We want information, we want to know if there's bad if there's bad behavior happening.

We try to ensure that employee and and reassure him, her or them that they're there, they're they have a right, they have a protected right to complain about bad behavior.

Um, but it isn't anything triggered in the sense where the standard operating procedures of investigating a complaint of bad behavior, whether it's an elected official or not, it's still investigated as independently as it can be.

Thank you.

Uh counselor Bain.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you, uh Mr.

Bheeler for the presentation and being here tonight.

Um I think anything that the city does to try to rebuild trust and create a better working environment is a step in the right direction.

That being said, about these working groups, the harassment policy working group and company culture working group.

I see they're being led by Director Tapper and Director Jones.

I guess outside of their current city government role, what qualified them to lead that working group?

Oh, I mean, I can't I can't speak.

I mean, they're both very qualified individuals, generally speaking, but I think um I know it was it was a goal of at least the administration informing these to get a diversity of opinion, a diversity of not only background, but of where we all we all work in different departments, we all have different needs, we have you know different subcultures in our departments.

So I think if I'm to conjecture conjecture a bit, it was that these folks could help identify members of that group who should be present that have different voices that can help us come together to have a comprehensive policy that would benefit all departments.

So is there any outside HR consulting going on through that process?

You know, when the council decided to look into this whole situation, you know, we went out to HR professionals, and while that process did ultimately have some flaws, I believe, you know, the the intent is there to make sure you're talking to the appropriate individuals and working with HR experts.

Do you know if those two policy working groups are doing any of that?

Are they working with HR experts?

Because I don't exactly know the full employment history and qualifications of Director Tapper and Jones, but I don't recall off the top of my head seeing that as a part of their work history.

I think for that, I think that the the interests were different there.

I think one was to look into a specific situation or situations that occurred.

This one I think was focused on let's hear employees, like, and so I think they were selected more as having a better tap on the diversity of work workers we have within the enterprise, and to hear from employees what they felt was lacking, where they felt unsupported, where they felt there were gaps in the system, and that and they think so the goals were just different.

So no, no outside human resources experts at this point have been have been um identified for this work at this point.

All right.

Um I've got a couple questions too before I get to the rest of the counselors.

I'm gonna sprinkle my in mine in as we go.

Um is there in currently any annual reporting in an aggregate basis of the statistics from the HR department as complaints filed, the nature of those filings and complaints and the disposition of those cases.

Um I don't know if a report has been compiled for even internal publication.

The prior in in my preparations, so this is rough.

No, this is not official, but I believe when I was looking into this today, um so since Speakfully went live, we've roughly had about 123 submissions.

And I know we've talked about complaints and concerns and the difference between them.

They're about half and half.

So half being concerns, meaning questions about what the policy is, the other half being roughly about what complaints are.

Of those, um, of those 123, only four were complaints of sexual harassment.

Um, and after investigation, only one resulted in a finding that the city county policy harassment policy was in fact violated.

Um, I do want to note for context and for full transparency and disclosure.

Uh there are five county offices that have their own HR department.

So if they can't so part of the 123 is coming in, so if it's say the Marion County courts, then it would be appropriately shipped off to them to also use the anonymous system, but they that would not be city county HR who handled those, but that's kind of a rough numbers.

Okay, what was the disposition of the one case where sexual harassment was found?

I do not know on I truly do not know.

Okay, we'll try to report back.

Uh another quick question.

During the process, are the complaints routinely updated on the stage or the phase of the investigation?

I believe so.

I know that they've been working with SOPs on trying to keep keep keep the the complaint apprised that it's moving.

I know it gets difficult, and I think that's some concern we certainly have heard.

Um, so I know that that that is happening, and should that happen more, we're gonna try to work towards that so people know and those who have made complaints are aware that it's still being investigated.

Sometimes it's just a matter of time.

If it's a documents of thing, it can take time to go through emails, also scheduling interviews and things, but it is important for us to let that employee know that they are that we are investigating actively, and we do try to also make sure that employee feels safe if we need to move workplaces, do something that of that nature, we are willing, and we do actively do that within our investigations as well.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Counselor Brown.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um I want to kind of jump back to what counselor Bain was talking about earlier and an answer to a question.

Um, when we talk about the we've lost trust, people have lost trust in what's going on, and frankly, lost my trust in a lot of this stuff.

Um, and so the idea of just going straight to the 25th floor and reporting it makes me uneasy, right?

Because things were reported to the 25th floor before, and we're here.

So is there a way that we because when things get sent to counselors, they become public record, right?

So we have to be careful to protect people.

But is there a way we can get an anonymized report from uh directors uh tapper and Jones about the what is happening in these harassment groups, uh harassment policy working group and the cultural working group, so that we can be responsive to the people who are coming to us to saying what the heck is going on?

Um, you know, any of that kind of stuff.

I know I want to protect people and their what they're saying and make sure they're protected in their workplace and when stuff comes to us, but I would feel much more comfortable um uh exposing this, making sure everyone's exposed to what has a chance to know what's going on because no one the trust just isn't there.

I appreciate that.

And I I and to the extent we can do that, I'll certainly take that internal and uh happy to work with you on getting some of those charges to to build that to rebuild that.

Thank you, counselor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Kind of big uh piggybacking off uh VP Brown there.

I agree.

I think there should be a better way than to go straight to the 25th floor with this because what we've seen in this investigation is that there's been a lot of trust loss, and having all these issues roll right up to the person that caused all this doesn't seem like it's gonna be beneficial to the people.

And it uh to me it would seem people wouldn't be as trustworthy trusting of this process because they know of where it's gonna end up.

And uh if there's a way for us to figure that out, I'm not sure who that would roll up to, but I think you know, you could probably work on something like that where we figure out a way to try to take the 25th floor out of it.

Uh what we've seen is things were handled by uh things are handled legally, not necessarily ethically, and I think that's gonna crazy create a lot of hesitant hesitation in uh people's mind to really want to go come forward and say something because we've seen what's happened so far.

So uh I would hope we can find a way to keep that done.

So thank you.

Thank you, counselor.

Yes, uh council counselor Hart.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I guess what to keep that conversation going and that that thought alive.

We'd mention policy advisory, company culture, and there's a documentation here that there was an additional nine focus groups conducted to collect more data and more information and glean deeper insights during that time uh were alternative uh reporting methodologies considered or brought up and/or denied for any particular reason that they wouldn't be feasible uh that ultimately led to the decision to take it to the 25th floor.

So quickly to separate out the nine working groups, those were um put together by Ref Tellus, the company that did the survey to glean because they after they had I I don't know what they did, I'm not a statistician or uh uh do it, but I think they got information and wanted different different uh wanted additional information and found different groups, so that was not necessarily related to the working groups as far as policy goes.

That was to get more information as they prepared the survey results from the cult the company survey.

Um the other groups, the advisory groups and the harassment and the company culture group, um I frankly don't exactly know how they're forming.

I mean, I again my understanding it was all to be inclusive and to pick folks that maybe were a bit disconnected or just at least who knew the enterprise and knew the employees better, but I think these points are well taken.

Okay, uh Mr.

Chairman.

Sure.

Yeah, my thought being is that you know we've gone through as part of our working group, right?

We went through a lot of ideas from a lot of different folks, and we were able to vet some of those through various legal councils.

Um, and we have explanations of why particular things you know weren't gonna work.

And so uh I as we continue to look forward to policy recommendations from our side, uh I just think it would be helpful to see what y'all considered and and any particular reason that it wasn't considered in your your policy recommendations.

Thank you, Council.

Council uh Beeler, if I may ask what is the current means of appealing an HR decision that the complainant disagrees with?

The current, oh I mean it's it's a pretty standard is that after the end of the investigatory process, if the complaint disagrees with the result, which in cases would be that either a violation of policy did not occur or a violation occurred, but the discipline isn't severe enough, and they disagree that the discipline wasn't severe enough, they can go it's that at this point is the EOC, which is an independent investigatory agency of workplace uh of workplace conduct, or the Indiana Civil Rights Commission, the ICRC does that does similar work and both avenues, and that's what we put on our information sheet.

So employees are aware that that's a possibility because we did hear that employees did not know that was an option to them at the end of the process.

Thank you.

Counselor Perkins.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I I wanted to just bring some clarity around a couple of things that we're throwing around that I think we're confusing a bit, the difference between uh the working groups, the culture assessment survey, the deeper questions through the focus group, and your anonymous report in systems.

So I I'm I think we're asking questions that seem to be conflating those things together.

My understanding is your working groups were ex established internally to further look at policies and practices.

The survey focus group came on board as a result of the culture survey and wanted to know more and asking deeper questions.

Those things are separate from your anonymous report and structure that's in place, correct?

That is correct.

I will just clarify that the cultural the cultural work the the company culture working group was charged with doing the survey.

I guess we guys look confusing.

And so they were part because that is the group that went together and took uh employee feedback, not just from members of the group and employees within their department to come up with questions that would be relevant to really getting answers on company culture.

Thank you.

Uh so my question then becomes for your harassment policy working group.

So that in fall of 2025, that the policy was approved by the advisory group.

The final policy or whatever the policy looks like, can you share that with us?

Is that anywhere in terms of what was recommended by the working group?

Yes, I do believe we did have a brief meeting.

It was shared with some counselors, do we do all the counselors, but it it can go.

Yes, we can share that with you.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, counselor thank you.

Yes, Councillor Delaney.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, we had our seven recommendations that we presented, and part of the recommendations included an appointment of a temporary uh ad hoc inspector general and/or creation of an independent human resources board.

And both of those, as part of their formulation, talk about truly being independent of the current reporting systems that are there.

And I know we had a couple questions about well, what happens when you're reporting to the number one person or an elected official?

How do we make sure that those complaints are also remain fairly adjudicated?

Um, and I think that's some of the concerns that I heard from over here.

And I think these recommendations that were putting forward that came from Fisher Phillips, that was the truly independent part was an attempt to address that.

But as a part of going through all this, um, there may be some problems with with having things truly independent because of the public records portion and things that if you have a truly independent board, um, you know, the the things that the board has would have to become public.

So I was hoping that maybe you could talk a little bit about that as our recommendations seem to be a little bit um in contradiction to what may be possible, and I was hoping you could talk about that as to why we can't maybe we can say we need something truly independent, but if you could talk a little bit about that.

Thank you, Councillor Claney.

Yeah, that was as we've you know, at least from our perspective, has tried to evaluate all these different recommendations from the council from Fisher Phillips, from others who worked here who still work here or don't work here.

I think there lies a problem.

We've I've looked at several different inspector general models.

It's hard to see what would work for the city at this point.

That doesn't mean the doors closed on any of those ideas, but it really is the independence.

I think that would be the fundamental hard part of disclosing, because I think at the heart of where everyone's interest aligned are that witnesses, survivors, complainants have the right not to be identified should they not want to be identified, and to turn something to another board would make investigatory material public record.

So it seemed to not strike that balance.

And we haven't figured out a way at this point how to do that, but I think independent oversight has certainly been the idea in our head, and I think it's just challenging to get there with frankly the limitations of being government.

Thank you.

And I do have one additional question, but I can wait and come back around.

Sure, we'll have plenty of opportunities to go around.

Uh Counselor Perkins.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, just wanted to close the loop on what I was asking before.

Um there was some question about the qualification of the individuals that are running the working group.

Um, and I think that those individuals have stepped up to do the difficult work uh in the midst of all that we're doing now.

And so we want to highlight and applaud them by nature of the work that they do for the enterprise, uh allows them the and gives them the credibility and the credentials to be able to run the the working group.

The question that I I want to ask though is I wonder if um what we can learn from the climate survey and the deeper questions that might help us and inform our decision around moving to an independent human resource board.

This is my challenge.

If the discovery is the current climate and culture that exists is brought on by this administration that will change after the next election, then do we make a decision now that is a decision for the future?

Impact in the enterprise.

If the issue is there's a culture and climate that exists now that needs to change, which I think I believe it is.

There's a culture in a climate that exists now that needs to change.

Is the decision a future decision for us to have an independent board, or there's something that needs to be done now with the current administration and the climate that exists?

And I think we can learn some of that from the climate culture here and from current employees, and knowing what we know now.

Thank you, Councillor.

Yes, Councilor Brown.

Um just picking backing a little bit off of what Councillor Delaney said.

Everyone just keeps giving me thoughts, and it just brings me back to this because HR is created to protect the enterprise, right?

That's what it's for.

We have union employees that have grievers.

If we don't have an IG or anything like that, is there a way we can create an office that is effectively a griever for our city employees?

Because who is going to advocate for them when HR is to protect the enterprise?

That's what it does, right?

It's not to protect the employees, it's to protect the enterprise.

In a way, it protects employees by protecting the enterprise, but no one is there to hold the hand of somebody who's now going against the deputy mayor of the city of Indianapolis when the deputy mayor of the city of Annapolis is a big part of the enterprise, right?

That's where Cook was.

So how do we get how do we get a griever or something, an IG something, that is actually there for the victim, for the employee, whether they're an employee anymore or not, if you're union, you have that.

But we have quite a deal of non-union employees that don't have that kind of protection.

And this may be a question too for the society uh human resources Society for Human Resource Management that's coming up later, but that's something that's really important to me because no one's there to advocate.

And as someone who's been a victim of sexual assault, it's taken me 20 years to be able to advocate for myself on this.

So I want to make sure that people feel protected and have that support.

And if that support is somebody who's appointed and then it comes down, I mean, where is that protection?

Did you have any comment on that, Council Beler or No, I mean the point is certainly well taken.

I I mean, I from my purge, I do think HR serves both roles.

I understand I I hear, I think, in my view, it's a more maybe a perception issue because I would kind of further argue OCC's job is to protect the enterprise from you know legal and challenges.

Um HR does, I believe, take their role seriously in providing employee support, making sure employees who complain feel safe or feel that A, they can complain freely without consequence, and that their complaints will be taken seriously and believed.

Um so I think that I I hear that I think continuing to remind us as we think through different whether it's policies or changes of ordinance or what it is.

I think that's a very important point.

All right, question for me, Council Beler.

When was the last time the employee manual was substantially revised?

I believe, and I'm going off from what I litigated, I believe it was 22 was the last substantial was 22 or 21, it's stamped on the front of it, but I think it's 22.

So do you first see all these recommendations that are coming from these, you know, the the culture group and the harassment policy group?

Are these just gonna be tweaks and additions or deletions to the current policy as you move forward as far as the um the workplace harassment policy, that's been a pretty big overhaul.

That's that's adding again, like I said, definitions being more clear in the manual itself about the policy the procedures that HR will go through so that employees understand what the investigatory process looks like, because I think that I mean, kind of I think many of the counselors have discussed that.

A lot of employees who complain that they have no idea what's going on, they have no idea if their complaint's still being heard.

So I think to put that out there and to be as transparent up front as possible, what an investigation looks like, but there's still gonna be work to do, and there's but I think as far as updating the manual, this is the this is a big upgrade compared to I don't know how what it's been done in the past.

Great.

Any final questions?

Yes, Counselor Delaney.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, our recommendation number three, um, well, it says consideration but not recommendation, but I want to talk about the independent Office of Equal Opportunity.

It from my understanding would allow complaints from individuals outside of the enterprise.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

And so that one of the initial complaintants that sat here before us did never work for the city-county enterprise.

And I I wanted to just talk a little bit about are there things that we can do that would allow, because we're such a big organization, we have we interact with campaigns and um uh unions and vendors and all sorts of folks, uh, citizens that come into the city, and so it's I think that this could be a good avenue if we promote it effectively.

And the Fisher Phillips report talks about it being, I guess, sort of like underpromoted.

Um, and so I want I just wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about how that office could be used more effectively.

Thank you, counselor.

So OEO, and in this process, I've I've learned a lot about the history of that office.

So while it is housed currently in OCC, it is sort of like the local EEOC.

Since it does the same work as the EEOC or the ICRC, we will for it out.

It's free, it doesn't cost money for them to do that or anything.

But in the interest of having that independent investigation, we say, well, maybe we shouldn't investigate this.

Some of the history back for it, where I think OEO is like in its prime, as I understand from again the history of the city in that office, is there was a time, not in the far recent past where uh gender identity and sexual orientation were not recognized by state or local law as protections.

The city of Indianapolis did.

So we would take those in because we have the authority to say you cannot discriminate on those bases.

And so I think that's when OEO is really at its height.

But I think we get into problems with kind of that independence that we're all trying to strike that balance between protecting our employees, having you know some systems internally, but also being independent.

That's kind of where my analysis and looking to where OEO can be beneficial, has been challenging.

Seeing none, Council Belar, thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, counselors.

And for purposes of the public, if anybody wishes to speak later after our third presentation, please come forward and sign up on the sign-up sheet.

Okay, now we're gonna next hear a presentation from uh Emma Davidson Tribbs, co-founder and director of the National Women's Defense League.

She is gonna speak with us from upper state New York.

And we're going to pull her up here on the screen.

Shortly.

Yes.

We can hear you.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Leslie, you may have to sound from your spot so she can hear you.

Okay.

Hi, Salah.

Can you hear me?

Hi, I am not saying that's just not the way.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Chair Chairman Boots and members of the rules committee and working group.

My name is Emma Davidson Tribs.

I'm here on behalf of the National Women's Defense League, a nonpartisan organization whose mission is preventing sexual harassment and protecting survivors through research, policy, and advocacy.

And I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all tonight about these proposed reforms.

I apologize, I'm not there in person.

At the council's invitation, NWDL reviewed the proposed summaries of recommendations for structural and procedural reforms.

We approach that work through two lenses.

First, as experts in policy and process, and second, as advocates for those whose courage has brought these issues into public light.

Many of the proposed steps, creating an independent oversight, providing multiple reporting channels, and mandating regular training align with what we see in effective models across the country.

These are strong evidence-based practices that, if implemented properly, could strengthen compliance and accountability within the city government.

Based on our review, NWDL recommends three priorities to continue to be central to any reform.

One required an unbiased third-party support for reporting investigations and resolution.

Investigations involving senior officials must be handled by an entity that is independent of elected officials and city employees' influence.

The hiring process for third-party support should include vetting for any existing conflicts of interest with elected officials or senior staff.

Unbiased independent investigation prevents conflicts of interest and increases employees' confidence, the cases will be handled fairly.

Eliminating bias and conflicts of interest and the handling of sexual harassment complaints is a foundational and non-negotiable component of any effective and trustworthy process.

Two, establish multiple confidential reporting options.

NWDL supports the effort to expand reporting tool and believes that the employees must have multiple confidential options to report misconduct.

The current summary provides for the implementation of a single reporting system.

We would urge the working group to include additional options.

Best practices show that offering several channels, such as online forms, confidential hotlines, designated HR or oversight contacts outside of direct supervision significantly increases reporting and reduces fear of retaliation.

A single reporting path can deter complaints, especially when the alleged harasser is in a position of authority.

A unified intake system supported by clear escalation rules and trained investigators will help ensure that no report is lost, delayed, or mishandled.

Three, ensure survivor confidentiality, retaliation protection, and public transparency.

The recommendations currently under review do not explicitly address protections for survivor confidentiality, uh, retaliation prevention or provide for the public transparency.

These three components are not optional, they are essential.

Policies that protect survivor privacy while ensuring transparency for the public are operational necessities for a functioning complaint process.

Survivors must know they will be believed and protected, while the public must see that the system works through regular anonymous reporting and audits.

Several cities now release annual transparency reports summarizing the number of complaints, outcomes, and corrective actions without disclosing personal details.

This practice both builds internal and external confidence by showing that cases are handled properly and fairly.

Each time communication falters or information is shared unevenly, confidence in the process erodes, not because of intent, but because the structures themselves are not yet strong enough to guarantee fairness and transparency.

That is precisely why these reforms are so important.

Strong survivor-informed policies don't just prevent misconduct, they prevent confusion, inconsistency, and the perception of bias.

When reporting channels are clearly defined, when survivors can access updates on their cases, and when oversight is independent and data is made public, confidence follows naturally.

Trust is not restored by statements, it is restored by seeing a system that works the way it should.

These are the markers of a healthy government.

Each of these reforms helps shift the cut the city's culture towards prevention, fairness, and public integrity, not just for survivors, but for every employee and resident who expects ethical, accountable leadership from their government.

Their survivors who came forward did so believing their experiences could lead to lasting change.

That belief should guide this council now to turn lessons into policy and harm into prevention.

On behalf of the National Women's Defense League, I thank you for the opportunity to continue to be part of this process.

We remain ready to assist as Indianapolis builds the systems and standards that will make safety and accountability permanent features of public service.

Thank you so much.

I asked this question earlier, and you may have some recommendations in this space because you talked about advocacy for employees.

Our union employees have grievers.

They have somebody that can advocate for them even against the union in that space, whether it's the union or the enterprise.

Generally, HR protects the enterprise.

How can we create a griever style position protection?

How can we ensure that confidence back into our employees that they have that advocate for them that is number one responsibility is them and not the enterprise?

I appreciate it that question so much and I appreciate the time and effort that this council is considering between true confidentiality and um and holding that sacred and moving into the idea of a third party entering this space.

From our perspective that third party component having them be fully separate from the inner workings of the government and the political aspect of really what what happens within a government is is essential.

If you can f having a griever style system, a public advocate of some kind, an ombudsman if you will that's what we see a lot in other cities is that they will have an ombudsman position created um we really see that as an essential component of this and if it means that eventually as was brought up earlier that the larger goal is to get to an independent third party as you work out the system and how that could operate effectively we would suggest creating an ombudsman position to be the intake for the complaints and providing that position with the authority to investigate and to move forward separately from any of the political interference.

Counselor Brown is that all right yeah counselor Hart thank you Mr Chair and thank you for the presentation and and where I want to continue this conversation is you know the the concept in the working group of an independent board came up frequently we talked about it uh on multiple occasions and what we kept coming back to when it sounded like even Counselor Bieler was even coming back to is that as soon as these documents leave HR they become public record and I'm curious um from our presenter her recommendations on how we can or if there's other examples in the past where you may have worked with where we're able to keep those records private and still have a third party uh thank you I would be interested to know if there's an option to have those reports go directly to a third party and not interact with the internal HR system.

I believe I've I have shared several options that other cities have been utilizing because they faced similar problems um I think the if a you know if an employee is coming forward with a complaint they are assuming that whoever is going to get to the bottom who's going to investigate is going to get the information that they share part of the reason why having an anonymous option is so important being able to send those directly to the investigative body and if that is a third party that would be our recommendation is to have those complaints go straight to them so that you bypass the internal system thank you.

The additional questions counselor McCormick thank you Mr.

Chair um thank you Ms.

Tibbs for the presentation I kind of want to ask about the ombuds um versus like the centralized intake system that you talk about um with the ombudsman is that someone who is when we say farmed out or third party we're just talking about HR versus another entity within the city correct we're not talking about an independent law firm or another company doing something is that correct that yes that would be our recommendation there are examples of cities and government entities that have a that have designated a specific law firm as their centralized hub I will say that is a that's better than nothing but um having a department or a cabinet level whatever it might look like for that works for the city um that the sole purpose of that department is to investigate these kinds of complaints that that is our recommendation.

And so and so we're looking at this isn't right that an external outside of the party somebody this is just someone who is independent of the the mayor the executive level correct we we we are supportive of the first two recommendations that you have put forth understanding that we're that you're still grappling with the confidentiality and how do you make those work we are supportive of the first two recommendations any additional questions I have uh one um Mrs.

I have uh one um Mrs.

Tribs.

Um we talk about not making reporting mandatory or not having a time limit on it and not to force a complainant to do something they're not comfortable doing.

Um I'm sure you can appreciate that that might have some legal ramifications for the city as an employer.

Um particularly if a supervisor knows of such a situation and does not raise it because the complainant feels or chooses not to raise it, um, that could expose the city to possible legal uh jeopardy.

Um so how do you suggest or or what are ways to handle that, particularly if the uh this is something that's the report comes up three, five, ten years later when that person may not even long any longer be an employee of the enterprise.

There's a lot of legal issues there that I think are difficult to navigate.

Yeah, we I agree, and I will say the best practice of moving away from the idea of mandatory reporting for these circumstances has really come out since the the Me Too movement of the 2017 and 18.

We saw a lot of government entities move towards mandatory reporting, and it it did not serve the the entity or the survivors well.

So we are still grappling with how best to manage those two pieces as a movement.

Um I would say it's the reason we put so much emphasis on the transparency, and I appreciated the question earlier about the um regular reporting and how you would provide an idea for the public on what what's really happening inside of these cases.

There certainly are options to put forward that from an anonymous standpoint on every three or six months where managers can say they've received reports even though the complaint does not want to move forward, um, where you can under where the city can get a better understanding of the scope of the problem without those individual cases moving forward.

Obviously, those situations do not allow the city an opportunity to remove someone who could be dangerous, um, and that's that is a balancing act that I wish I had a better answer for.

Um, unfortunately, I think that's the best thing you can do is to put forward policies that instill the greatest amount of trust so that survivors feel more comfortable providing the full information and telling their full stories.

Thank you.

Any additional questions?

Counselor Nielsen.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Um thank you, Ms.

Tribs, for all your work and support of our efforts here, not just tonight, but in the past as well.

I would really appreciate it.

Um as we talk about this process, it was kind of brought up a little bit um when we were hearing from uh counselor uh Beeler.

But um as we look to explore what the appeals process looks like, what do you have any good examples in our you know, as we continue to review best practices and what's working well or what's not working well and other municipalities?

Do you have any examples or example cities or government entities that have done this well?

So I will say the the part that we would hope is that you don't need an appeals process because the initial complaint is investigated fully, that the um that if there is any kind of punishment or outcome that it feels fair and just um and that policies are being updated to ensure that whatever slipped through the cracks is eliminated to the best of the government's ability.

The appeals process we think is a vital component both for the complaint and for those who are accused.

Um for fairness, we think it is also important that it be separate from the entity that did the original investigation.

I'm more than happy to pull some examples and share that with the working group and the rules committee.

Um I don't think anyone has gotten it perfect yet.

I don't think there's any government entity that is that has ensured that going through this process results in the kind of fairness that makes everybody happy or justified.

But we are making strides and providing the opportunity to learn more about an appeal and see somebody else come in with another perspective has never backfired so far.

Yeah, just following up.

Thank you for that.

So is it your recommendation that at any at any point right that a complaint or accusation would could go through the appeals process?

Right?

Because I think sometimes uh as we're grappling with you know uh building out the policy and the procedures for a robust anonymous reporting system, right?

There's obviously a chance, right?

When we're dealing with large law and law large numbers, that there will be some that are just either errors or whatever it be.

So um I think as as uh an ask uh for you when you're continuing to do that analysis, just um how well that is how well that is spelled out, so that obviously nothing um slips through the cracks and that every determination is is given it the proper notification of an appeal.

I think that that's as I'm kind of thinking about very supportive of the anonymous reporting tool, but how if we have a situation where there is a number and uh of complaints, how we are able to tease that out and ensure uh both due process and and good communication with those who have made those those complaints.

So I would appreciate that.

So thank you.

We will happily provide um a detail as detailed as we can as we can make it.

Um and I will say the other components that you the council's already been discussing, um, you know, keeping survivors up to date about their how their cases are moving forward, making sure that they have a solid contact that they can go back to with questions, those are all pieces that add in to the feeling of trust and support where the uh a standard appeals process becomes a part of it and it doesn't need an additional set of circumstances surrounding it.

They're all parts of the same best practices.

Additional questions delaying.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you, um, Ms.

Tribbs for coming before us today.

One of our recommendations um in number five B was creating a universal harassment free work environment, and something similar appeared in the written um document that you gave to us.

Um outside of entities that we contract with or fall under direct supervision of the enterprise.

How can we have any kind of reach over organizations that we don't necessarily have a contractual relationship with?

I'd love to hear your ideas or thoughts on that.

So one of the there are a number of great things, and I I appreciate that you all are considering adding in kind of these third parties is is how is what we call them.

Um one of them is to ensure that any vendor that is um contracted to work with the city has their own sexual harassment policy for their employees and making sure that anybody who is coming in and operating in uh inside of government property understands that if something happens, they also have access to some of these reporting systems.

The hotline, the speakfully program, um allowing them to access those those institutions as well, depending on their on their position and how they're interacting with the government are the the places that we would say are the best places to start.

Um so really making sure that the city is working with organizations and vendors that operate within the same kind of value system on this issue that you are all putting forward is the best place.

Any additional questions?

Seeing none, Mrs.

Tribbs, thank you so very much.

Um appreciate your time and hopefully we'll be able to continue working with you as we move forward.

Thank you.

Next in our final presentation, uh last but not least, um Tracy Justice from Society for Human Resource Management will give a presentation if we need a five minute break, please take it all right.

All right, we're gonna get started here.

Um Ms.

Jesse, if you introduce yourself, and the floor is yours.

All right, good evening, um, chairman and committee.

Thank you for having me here.

Um, my name is Tracy Justice.

I am the um director of government affairs for Indy Sherm, and I want to make sure that I provide this disclaimer uh uh clear, loud and clear that I'm providing HR perspectives for educational purposes.

So everything that I talk about today, it's recommended to speak with your legal counsel to confirm if these perspectives make sense for your organization.

Oh, and I'm sorry, I didn't tell you to go to the next slide.

Slide.

Okay.

Um our mission with Indy Sherm, uh, Indy Sherm serves and advances the human resource profession in central Indiana by developing strategic business partners through comprehensive programming and collaborative development opportunities.

And our vision is transforming human resources throughout central Indiana as a premier provider of human capital management resources.

Next slide.

So in regards to the summary of recommendation for structural and procedural reforms in Indianapolis, Marin County, City, County, Human Resources Investigations.

Um, Indy Sharm is neutral on the recommendations.

We respect the taxpayers' decisions as well as the council to make um the decisions.

But however, um the the question here is to consider for everyone to consider as you're forming your policies is what structural safeguards are necessary to ensure HR independence from political influence.

And I and we've I've heard you all talk about that today, but that is a consideration for the council.

What charge do you give to your HR um department?

It's it's really what um defines that.

So we're gonna talk about um the HR role, HR's role in an organization, employee and labor um relations strategy.

So when you look at the role of HR, it moves from tacals to to strategic partnership.

So HR isn't just about the transactions, about payroll benefits, hiring.

SHERM emphasizes that, oh, and SHERM stands for the Society for Human Resources Management, just in case.

Okay, I apologize for that.

Um Sherm emphasizes that HR must elevate its role to a strategic one.

That means aligning people practices with organizational strategy, contributing to the business or local government outcomes.

Um, so I also provided here on the PowerPoint slides different um different topics that you can look at um if you go to Sherm to Google, because of course I wasn't gonna give you a full, a full, you know, 100-page report, but giving you a place where you can start um to do a little bit of research, or at least your HR department to do that.

Um next slide, driving change and transformation.

HR is central in leading organizational change because people are the asset.

So and change evolves capabilities, which are skills, culture, systems, and behaviors.

And so HR is part of driving that change and transformation.

Next slide, linking workforce and business strategy.

HR must ensure the workforce is aligned with the organization's strategic goals, not just fulfilling current roles but enabling future direction.

And then also HR is responsible for building culture, capability, and employee experience.

Or, however, I should say that HR's role is is important in shaping that work for work environment, fostering culture, enabling learning and development, and creating the conditions for employees to thrive.

So when we think about HR, this is what HR's role in an organization is.

Now, with local government, there is uh a bit of a nuance because public sector HR does differ from private um private sector HR.

So public um, so its ultimate duty is to balance compassion with compliance, right?

Because compliance is the floor, rights with responsibility, making sure that everybody um within the organization understand their different rights because every role has different um has have rights, and then trust with transparency.

So we'll talk about the constitutional protection.

So when HR in public sector is thinking about um considering that strategy, unlike private sector HR, public sector HR operates under constitutional law because government employers are state actors, because local government are arms is an arm of the uh of the state of the state government.

This means every employment policy must respect the following protected rights for all its employees.

First amendment, freedom of association and expression.

So understanding that public employees retain the right to form personal, romantic, and social relationships and to speak freely outside the scope of their official duties.

Another constitutional right, the 14th Amendment, private right to privacy and due process.

Government cannot intrude arbitrarily into employees' private lives, nor discipline them without fair process and a legitimate governmental interest.

And then the equal protection clause.

Policies must be applied equally, so it must be applied uniformly for everyone within the organization.

So you may regulate the conduct that affects operations, but you can't police their private life without a demonstrable connection to the work itself.

So public sector HR professionals, as they're going through their processes, the things that they're responsible of considering is evaluating whether a personnel action could implicate constitutional rights, provide due process safeguards, notice and opportunity to respond before imposing discipline.

Ensure policies like non-fraternization, social media rules, or off-duty conduct codes are narrowly tailored to legitimate business or governmental interest, and then document those decisions serve as an operational necessity.

So when the policy is being created, you're not simply saying we don't want, you know, you don't you can't make a blanket statement.

You have to make sure that if if if it's something like non-fraternization, social media rules or off-duty conduct, you're giving a reason why you're why you don't want you know the employees to do certain act engage in certain activities.

Now, key key SHERM guidance highlights for building a respectful and inclusive work policy.

Number one thing is the policy architecture.

Um SHERM does offer a sample of a policy on their website when you're a member of SHERM.

You have access to policies, all the templates for HR professionals.

Um of course, you tweak it to the organization's needs.

It emphasized that employee handbooks should be reviewed and updated to reflect anti um harassment, anti-discrimination laws, and the training requirements.

They suggest policies clearly define harassment, define what discrimination looks like, define what retaliation, and make sure you're protecting individuals who report in good faith.

So the policy, as as your employees are reading the policies, they should feel that they're going to be protected through that handbook.

You want to make sure that it's clearly stipulated, um, what's allowed and what's not allowed, and then make sure that there's whistleblower protections.

For the complaint and investigation processes within the policy, um, the out they outline, Sherm outlines that the best practices for how to strengthen um complaint procedures.

So you want to make sure that there's multiple channels for reporting, that there's confidentiality, avoidance of retaliation, so that employees trust the system.

And they also um Sherm also covers an investigation, how investigation should be handled.

They have a full process, code of conduct enforcement, and non-discriminate non-discriminatory discipline as key elements of your policy.

So you want to make sure that that's clearly understood what the investors' investigation is going to look like, what the code of conduct enforcement is, and uh what the discipline is.

You want to ensure that the policy is preventing hostile environments and bullying.

Sharm stresses that prevention goes beyond what what's legally required, right?

So compliance, um you want to make sure that HR has the ability to not just say what's not allowed, but what the culture, you know, create a culture that that prevents hostile environment and prevents bullying.

They advise organizations explicitly inform staff of the employer's policy against discrimination, harassment, and bullying, and that the requirement to act if they experience or witness it.

So that has to be something that's within your policy, um, making sure that uh everyone knows that it's their responsibility to uh everybody has a role and responsibility to making sure that an environment, a workplace stays universal, um universally free of harassment is that everybody has a role.

Um policies I have seen have included uh if you don't report or if you don't um act on what you see or if you experience it, that that can actually lead to disciplinary actions leading up to grounds for termination because an organization has the um the responsibility to ensure that they're doing everything that they can.

But of course, you um the organization has to know what's happening, what's going on.

Um in the training and communication, Sherm underscores the need for ongoing training.

It can't be just the one and done.

Um it has to be tailored to different roles, understanding the dynamics of your organization and making sure that you consider all the different roles and that you apply you apply the policy to those different roles so people under so your employees understand it from a full perspective.

They recommend clear accessible communication of policy rights and procedures, and that leadership visibly supports it.

So they have to see examples of leadership showing that they respect the policies as well.

Alignment with strategy and culture.

Sherm implicitly and explicitly links that uh anti-harassment and non-discrimination efforts are part of risk management, they're part of employee engagement, it's part of creating an inclusive culture, and it also includes leadership accountability.

So, what I thought would be really interesting for us to really look at what a public employment law case that actually went through this process, it'd be easier to dissect this case.

It's the Helm v.

Kansas from the 10th Circuit Court in 2011.

So the facts of this case is that the um the plaintiff, Christy Helm worked as an administrative assistant for two Kansas district court judges.

One of the judges allegedly uh one of the judges allegedly um sexually harassed her over nearly 10 years, including non-consensual touching, fondling, forced kissing.

Helm sued the state of Kansas for sexual harassment under Title VII.

The legal issues in holding, the case depended on two principal issues.

First, the court had to look at was the it was the person an employee, because that matters whether um how it's processed under Title VII.

And then the second uh principal issue was the employer liability for supervisor harassment, whether the state could be held vicariously liable for the judge's harassment under the supervisory harassment standard, or whether the affirmative defense under the Farragar vs.

City of Boca Burlington Industries Inc.

V L Hearth applied.

I'll talk about that in here in a little bit.

So the holding is that uh so what ended up happening in that case is that the 10th Circuit did not decide on whether the employee was uh fulfilled the definition of what an employee is.

However, the second issue was found, and um the the state was the state successfully invoked the Farager L.

Herth affirmative defense.

So the state was not found liable for the judge's harassment, and the court therefore affirmed summary judgment for the state.

So, what were the legal questions before the court when you think about this case?

Was Helm even covered by title by Title VII?

So being able to define what employees, what employ what an employee is for the city council is important within your handbook as well, defining what those roles are.

Um the state was able to argue that uh that the judge was a personal staff, I mean that the that the um uh alleged that the plaintiff was a uh personal staff and therefore did not was not protected.

However, that wasn't really fully worked through because number two was found.

The question turns on employer liability under Title VII's Farragger L Earth framework.

Now, the Farragger L Hearth framework, if you if you're not familiar with that, is the underpinning of the sexual harassment um policies here, um are modernized sexual harassment policies.

Um is anyone familiar with with the with the framework with those two cases?

Okay, so then I'll just share real quick what those um for um what those case studies um what it found.

Um so for the Farragger versus City of Boca Raton, which was um the Supreme Court um ruled in 1998, the facts of um of this case was that the Life Guard Beth Ann Farager allege her supervisors created a sexually hostile environment through pervasive comments and touching.

The city had a harassment policy but didn't effectively disseminate it or enforce it within her department.

The ruling was that the Supreme Court found the city liable because it failed to exercise reasonable care.

So the supervisors weren't trained and the employees didn't know how to report it, so therefore the Supreme Court found them liable.

So the key point here is that just if if you have a policy, you want to make sure you're doing more than just that that floor.

Um for the Burlington industry, Inc.

vs.

L Earth, the facts there was that Kimberly Ellerth alleged her supervisor made repeated sexual advances and implied that her job depended on compliance.

However, she was never demoted or fired.

The ruling, the court held that since there was no tangible employment action, and tangible employment action is whether you lose your job, uh you're fired, um, something that is tangible that can really impact the person.

Um, however, she was she was never demoted or fired.

So they the court held that since there was no tangible employment action, the company could assert an affirmative defense, it could show both prongs of the framework.

So the affirmative defense is how an organization can protect itself.

Um so going back to the Farragor Elworth uh framework, yes, okay, we're on that.

So these two cases set out rules for when an employer is automatically liable, and this is helpful to understand as you're putting your policies together, right?

So for sexual harassment and when it can defend itself.

So if a harassment results in a tangible job action like firing, demotion, or pay cut, the employer is automatically liable.

If the harassment does not result in a tangible job action, then the employer can avoid liability if it proves it took reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment, and number two, the employee unreasonably failed to report or use those procedures.

So when we look at what the court decided in Helm v Kansas, the 10th Circuit sided with the state of Kansas in this particular uh situation, not because the harassment didn't happen, but because the state met the Farragor L Earth defense requirements.

So, number one, the state had policies and procedures in place to report harassment.

There was an anti-harassment policy, and there were also mechanisms to complain or report misconduct.

Helm, number two, Helm did not report the harassment for many years.

She endured the conduct for almost a decade before taking action.

The court found her delay to be unreasonable, which satisfied the second part of the defense.

So therefore the state was not found liable.

Why is this case significant when you're thinking about putting your HR, um, putting your uh anti-harassment non-discrimination policy together?

Because even when in harassment is egregious, an employer, including a state or public entity, can escape liability if it can prove both parts of the um fireger L HERF defense.

They acted reasonably to prevent correct, to prevent and correct harassment, had a policy you train staff, and the employee failed to use those procedures.

What am I emphasizing here?

This emphasizes that employers should have strong reporting policies and regular training to meet their legal obligation.

What does this also mean?

This also means that if a public employee sexually harasses someone, the individual, not the government, not the employer, can be personally liable in tort, not under Title VII, but under tort law, because a harassment is outside their job duties.

So when we talk about affirmative defense, what is affirmative defense?

A city, a public entity must be able to prevent, um, have prevention and correction in place.

That means clear accessible anti-harassment policy, multiple avenues for complaint, not just the chain of command, prompt, well-documented investigation, well-documented investigation, and then consistent corrective action.

And then number two, the employees' unreasonable failure to report.

So making like is if the employee failed to use the reporting system despite having a reasonable opportunity, that's how an employer can um safeguard itself, and no retaliation or intimidation was um is happening to discourage reporting, but of course that has to be part of the policy, um, no retaliation or intimidation.

So the takeaways for the practice is that for employers uh have clear well um communicated harassment reporting procedures, train all levels of staff, including managers and supervisors on what to do, investigate all complaints promptly and thoroughly, keep records showing that employees were informed of their rights and how to report misconduct, and then for employees, know the policy, read your employer's anti-harassment procedures, ask questions if you need to, report or document incidents early, even if you fear retaliation, and that's why retaliation and whistleblower protections need to be emphasized so that that can happen, and then of course seek support if if you need to go outside of the chain of command for any reason, do what needs to happen for the employees.

Thank you so much for reaching out to Indy Sherm, and I'm ready if you have any questions.

Thank you so much.

Ms.

Justice, that's very informative.

Um any questions from the panel here?

Yes, Counselor Brown.

Okay, that was a lot, and I am obviously not an HR person or a lawyer.

So for clarification, I'm going to use myself as an example here.

So because I don't technically have the ability to hire or fire anybody by myself.

And I am not a hired appointee or a higher person elected.

If I news media, I swear to God, I've not done this, so please don't use this clip.

If I were to grab employees or say terrible things to council employees, they have no legal repercussions against the city, it would just be against me, but sexual harassment itself isn't necess if I'm just saying bad things to them.

They have no legal repercussions against the city, and there's no legal protections against me saying bad things about somebody in a criminal court, what kind of protections do they have?

They do have protections under the sexual anti-sexual harassment policy.

But I can't be removed or fired.

That's why I'm like, so as elected officials, we could do what we want if we don't directly appoint hire fire or threaten, and there's nothing that can be done until we actually physically touch somebody, which could become assault, or because I'm just trying to grasp this because there's like 200 elected officials in this county.

And basically by this, and this is not you.

Obviously, you're not the Supreme Court here that made these decisions, but basically by this, as long as we never hire threaten to hire fire or actually physically touch somebody, we're your can do what we want.

No, no, not I mean, this the way that this is being described is that this woman was an appointed position, they never threatened to fire her, but she was sexually harassed and assaulted.

It says he tried to kiss her and all these kinds of things for 10 years, and there's no legal ramifications.

I mean, there could be political ramifications, but there's no legal ramifications.

So it are you referring to the um Helm versus Keith of Kansas?

Okay, so in that situation, uh she wasn't protected because she didn't report it.

She didn't report it, she waited 10 years later to report.

She said it had gone on for 10 years.

So it went on for 10 years, but she never reported.

If they don't report at the first instance, then they're out of luck.

It's everybody's responsibility to report.

So if if if it happens to you within the workplace, you you have to report it.

You you have to report it promptly.

You can't wait 10 years.

It took me 18 years to be able to tell my family that I was sexually assaulted in college.

And the only reason I did is because it was forced out of me here.

So and I get that it that they're sensitive topics.

But when when we're talking about employment law and and and that looks like everybody like employees have that responsibility, they must report it.

They must disclose it has to happen, because then the organization doesn't have an opportunity to do its responsibility.

So you know, so when you think about that, you know, when you think about Trump, maybe uh including trauma um informed um trauma-informed therapists or trauma-informed uh investigations, maybe having some sort of thing to help with that, however, it is it's it is employment law, you have to report it, you have to disclose it, and because she did not for 10 years, then you know, maybe she can look under constitutional laws and see whether the state applied there, but it's it's just it's it's like I want to make sure this is not this, just makes me in general have less faith in HR systems at all, because if I have to report exactly when it happens that it happened, that's not the world we live in.

That's it takes time for somebody to process trauma or process what's going on, or even realize sometimes that they're being taken advantage of that in that way.

There's just this, like I said, this is not you.

This is just this is now elevating my concern even higher.

Because it just seems like there's very few, if any, protections for city employees from any elected official, and then let alone if you if we don't threaten to hire or fire somebody to mote them, not vote to appoint them, then there's like it just especially like it's this is like I said, this is not you.

This is more concerning just HR law in general, being super loopholy to get out of actually protecting people.

Because just to be clear, HR's role is to um to protect the employees as well.

Is it's making sure that everyone within the organization understand their rights and responsibilities, and and and so if you're having trainings consistently uh and and giving people an opportunity to act out in scenarios so they know or have an idea of or maybe talk about different what it looks like, then it gives you know everyone an opportunity to speak out.

Um I mean to to share, but you know, HR can't do their job, you know, the organization can't do its job if they don't know about it, so it has to be disclosed.

But but I don't feel like I'm understanding your question clearly.

So, you know, I know there's a lot of layers to being the government, right?

There we have appointed employees, we have tenured, and and we have union employees, we have all sorts of different levels of employees, and then we're all different because we're elected, right?

So we're in a and to take us out is a state house issue.

So there's a whole other level in there.

I'm just concerned, like, is what is what is is there official a statute of limitations?

So I got assaulting on a Friday, I have to report it on Monday, do I have a month?

Do I have a year?

Do I have is it a what's the reasonable like there's so much to this that seems so much to put the onus on on somebody who's been victimized?

Um, and then go, oh you didn't do it in a reasonable amount of time.

Well, what's the reasonable amount of time if the person is employed is you know the enterprises who they're like it's just creating more this is created more questions for me, and I I know I'm not forming them correctly, but I'm just I'm a little more freaked out now to be honest with you on this and the lack and the lack of protections.

It feels like our employees have if they don't feel they're not instantly there to report.

So this is like I said, this is you.

This is this is just learning HR law, which I don't know.

This I've never been in that position.

So I want I want to thank you for answering these questions, and now I'm just kind of thinking out loud for my other counselors.

If you can pull that into a question, because I'm just frankly kind of shocked.

Because I want to make it clear that H HR does protect the employees.

Um what I'm saying here is that you know, when you look at the employees, the employer, and then the survivor, and then the the complainant, and then the respondent HR has a responsibility to ensure that the employer is uh compliant.

HR has a responsibility to make sure that the employees understand their rights, and if that's happening, I don't I guess in my opinion, if that's happening, then the HR, then the employee should start to feel comfortable if policies and if the policy if the policy is being updated and shared annually, and if there's training done annually, then the employee will realize their protections because the employee is protected, but it's it but when it goes to the Supreme Court law, the Supreme Court was the one that came up with that defense and said that you know that's how you work through it.

So if the employer is not found liable, then now the individual becomes liable.

So it doesn't mean that the victim doesn't have other things that they can do, but it just means that the employer is no longer liable because they did what they needed to do now, they can move further in another way, yeah.

Okay, hopefully that helps.

Is there a way to reconcile this point of a duty to report to what we would just learn from the prior presentation when they said you should not force anybody to report that the mandatory reporting puts the complainant in an odd situation?

Is there is there a way to reconcile those two points?

Honestly, I I I don't know if there is, you know, um because there is a responsibility, everybody has a responsibility to ensure that um a workplace is harassment free, and in order to do that, you know, the person who sees it or experience it has to disclose it, like uh unless you use the anonymous reporting, and then you're able to create programming or trainings around that.

However, how will an organization do what they need to do if they don't know something is happening?

So it does become tricky, and then you know, and really the what I presented today was just to give you an idea of how the courts process it, right?

You know, so you understand those different nuances when you're putting that policy together.

Um yeah, it's mandatory to to report, yeah.

But I I I see where she's coming from.

Um counselor Perkins.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, I'm just gonna try to uh expand a little bit on the discussion that's happening.

Um I think our desire is to have a workplace where no form of harassment discrimination happens.

I think too, with my colleague's question, uh it underscores for me the need of offering multiple ways of reporting, not only multiple ways of reporting, but creating a culture and a climate where that is acceptable.

And if something happens, since we cannot always legislate human behavior, then the culture and climate is created where you have multiple ways in which you can have um your concerns reported.

And so I I think uh for my colleagues at uh colleague, I think the issue then becomes how do we work from our perspective as the council to ensure that we're offering multiple ways for reporting to happen within the enterprise.

My question is I I appreciate your um really laying out for us the role of HR within an organization, especially in the public sector.

Um, that it's more than just compliance, it is building a culture.

I wonder what your position is if you we were to pull the HR out of the enterprise and make it into an independent uh organization or independent entity, what then becomes of the enterprise in helping to build that culture within the organization?

Um, I can't really speak to you know whether or not you know HR is moved into a separate agency, because I know it's tax dollars, and you know, I you know but I it it really what is the charge that you all have given to HR?

What's HR's role?

You know, what have they been empowered to do?

What authority do they have if they haven't been giving any if they haven't been given the power or authority or charge to be able to do the full job of what HR you know requires, then it's hard for HR to do their job.

Um, I know that currently HR rolls up to the comp troler, I think, if if that's you know, so I I I think it goes back to what charge are you giving to your HR department, what authority have you given them, what can they do so that it can be clearly understood what their role is so that they can act within the charge that has been given to them does that answer your question?

It does, it does, it speaks to the broad, I think the bigger issue in which we're we're wrestling with, and we've been wrestling with this now for what feels like forever for at least the last year and a half, which is there is a broader culture issue within the organization.

And we have gotten to the point after doing this now for a year where we're still wrestling with trust within the organization.

And how do we fit address the culture issue?

Is it internal?

Do we address it internal, or are we to the place now where it needs to be externally addressed to fix some some internal issues?

So I think really uh the question is not necessarily what's a charge to HR, because the problem the problem that we have discovered is that whatever the charge was that there was a point where the reporting stopped, right?

When whatever influenced the reported, because we are in the situation we're in right now.

And so whatever the charge was, clearly something didn't work because we've had to address this over the last year.

So we're coming in now to say, okay, how do we address this to re-establish trust within the enterprise to make sure that our employees feel like it's a comfortable place for them to work and that we can help to move the city forward?

That's the challenge what we have right now.

And the question is, how do we do that?

Addressing these seven points that that recommendation from the working group or something else.

Is that a rhetorical question because I mean I just want to make sure I I you know I'm answering those.

She was gonna help us out in a minute, Mr.

Chairman.

She's gonna help us.

Sorry, I'll withdraw that statement.

But because culture is is culture is a hard thing for uh every organization, really, to be totally honest.

Um I mean in my opinion, it it starts internally.

Um because sometimes employees within the organization don't trust people coming from the outside either.

Um it's it's really repairing.

I it's really working with your workforce and trying to find out, you know, that it looks like there's some studies that are being done from from those studies, because that's a great first place to start there and then kind of see um what comes out of those studies and and have conversations with with your employees.

I uh because this is a public sector, um because this is the public, maybe thinking of the strategy of including the employees a lot more in in some of the you know, creating town halls for employees.

I mean, but honestly, culture is such a tough thing for private for private entities as well, and what Sherm has uh uh what Sherm is pushing pushing for improving culture is you know learning how to talk to each other, learning how to have conversations, learning how to, you know, how to be human again with each other.

That's you know, but so I'm sorry, there's not an easy answer.

I apologize for that.

Um that's it's a tough, tough one.

Thank you.

Um counselor McCormick.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I sort of wanted to jump on tag to this.

I think maybe the my last two colleagues as an equal part of government as the council, we are trying to see what we can do in law and pra at law and policy to ensure that HR who reports to the executive branch through the executive branch is doing what it needs to do, and so we don't charge HR with anything.

Oh, okay.

Our admin, like the administration does, the mayor does, right?

So that executive branch does, and we're trying to figure out how we can make the policy to ensure that things go the sort of the way that we feel they need to go.

If I'm saying that right, colleagues nod or no, yes.

So I think that's maybe where the question is where the where we're like the articulation of what we're trying to ask is how or how can we do that from our standpoint, right?

Because it's a little different, I think.

Because we don't charge HR with anything.

And maybe there's not an answer to that right now, maybe that's something to think about.

Talk to some colleagues, get back to us, because I think that's maybe where our where we are is because we don't oversee HR.

Okay, good point.

That's maybe statement.

And then I do have a sort of, I guess the second statement of question to VP Brown is so being this mandatory reporter, right?

And that's what you're suggesting.

But we've heard uh Ms.

Tribbs and others have said we shouldn't.

I work in higher education, I'm a Title IX mandatory reporter.

So we you were just talking about Title 7, so I it goes up at least till Title IX.

I don't know how many we have, but being a mandatory reporter, and there's positive and negative, but how how we can do that, and is the inspector general that sort of person we go to reporter who can be the advocate for the employee who's reporting something versus being there to cover for the enterprise or be more there for the enterprise too.

So knowing like knowing those any comments on those two sort of things, I guess the first one um about uh that you all don't have the charge over HR.

Okay, that's that that's tricky.

So, you know, um, I definitely want to reach out to my colleagues in and and and see what they know from that.

Um, and then the second question about mandatory reporting, and ask that question again.

So I guess my thought is is we have some pros and cons on mandatory reporting, and I think part of it is um the confidentiality um and the not being ready for it to come out.

We've talked about the timeline, um, but being a mandate like you're suggesting being mandatory reporter.

I know I am under top title nine, and the difference and why I guess if you can highlight again why we need to be like why you suggest having the mandatory reporting because I work in higher education and I tell students like I can't help you with the problem I don't know exists.

I wish I were a mind reader.

If I were, I probably wouldn't be here, I'd be on some beach or traveling all the time, right?

So because I'd win the lottery.

But um, so like it's that thing where like we need to have the information, HR needs to have that information to make the best decisions and to support the employees and the employer, but then how do we keep the confidentiality and that's like and that privacy of the reporters as well maybe it goes back to the multiple reporting avenues because at some point something could come out, right?

Is the you know, as the investigation is getting deeper, some of the things that you can think about, or what are some of those resources that you probably you know could have in place for that, you know, uh for the victim who may be going through this and want some more help.

I know that uh uh counselor uh earlier was talking about the EAP.

Um providing services like that, however, you know, going back to you know, HR's responsibility and making sure that the organization is compliant and that they're able to deal with issues within the organization mandatory reporting is just necessary, it's part of that.

Um it's just part of that, you know, there's no way to really get around that.

Um because you can never guarantee full confidentiality.

Of course, you know, HR's responsibility is to make sure that they maintain that at as much as they possibly can, but eventually that's gonna eventually it can come out some sort of way.

That's why the emphasis really is on making sure when people come in onboarding, they're doing that, you know.

Part of the onboarding is that um the training for anti-harassment, sexual um, anti-sexual um harassment, non-discrimination policy, um, making sure that they know what that is, and then continuing that, continuing making sure that they understand how that works, um, you know, and and that's part of the stipulation of working with the organization that you know they have to understand the what the employer is is supposed to do, and if they're going to take that job, then they realize they have a responsibility as well.

They have to report.

There's really, you know, and just back to that culture, right?

Yeah, it really is building that culture because the compliance is just the floor, but you you've got to build so much more than that.

If if it's just the compliance policy, compliance culture, well, then yeah, people are gonna be scared.

They're they're not going to report, they're not gonna feel like they're supported.

But if if there's ongoing training, there's uh different ways that you can report it.

Um, employees understand all of their rights, um, obligation leaders, people in high position understand their responsibility and understand that they are considered agents of the organization, and understanding that if the employer is doing all that they can do, but then you have you know uh some leaders that are going rogue, then they understand that they can be personally liable.

So it's just making sure that everybody knows um what their rights are, making sure that training is happening, communication, um yeah, because you know if the employer has a responsibility to make sure that the workplace is harassment free, and in order to do that, reporting and disclosure um has to happen, you know, and that's why it's important to have these trainings so everybody knows and understands.

All right, thank you.

Uh Counselor Bain.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you for uh the presentation this evening.

When we talk about this Helms case, and going through your talks about how Title VII protects employees but not personal employees of elected officials.

What defines a personal employee of an elected official?

A personal um staff.

Um in that particular case, that's you know, for Kansas, that's their law, you know.

So I'm not sure about Kansas, Kansas law, um, state laws.

However, you you would look at Indiana state laws and say, well, you know, what does Indiana state says um say about employees?

What who's considered employee and who's not considered an employee, and then make sure that those roles are defined in the employee handbook.

Um but that that would be case that would be state law that decided that.

So it seems like Ms.

Holmes was suing for damages in this case.

Like I'd have to assume that she was what's going on here because of the case.

Because she wasn't suing for damages she was suing under Title VII.

Okay, so it seems so does that case affect Indiana?

It's it's a case law that you can look at to say, okay, what questions do we have for Indiana?

Now that happened in in Kansas, but what can we look at here in the state of Indiana?

What are some things that we need to consider here?

Um I I didn't, I I intentionally didn't pull at Indiana state law because you know I didn't want to get too close to um you know to what happened, you know.

I didn't want to, you know, get into that.

But I I I intentionally chose a case law that looked at the different nuances of some of the things that HR will probably look at when you're putting a policy right, because we just don't take a policy and just create the policy and say, okay, here it is.

But you look at the policy, you look at different case laws that could impact what could happen in your place, and you start thinking strategically, and you say, okay, maybe we we should come up with a training program that talks about these different things.

Um I didn't dig too deep into Kansas state law to really understand the personal second.

I get it.

I mean, that I wasn't a criticism, it's more just you know, I kind of feel like sometimes we're comparing apples and oranges, where you know we're a municipal level government, and we're trying to craft what our city level policy will be on HR, or at least uh try to beef it up more than what it is now and add additional protections.

So I think that's kind of what I'm struggling with here is you know, I I kind of have the same concerns that Vice President Brown had, where it seems like that there's maybe no protections when obviously that that cannot be the case, like practically speaking, that cannot be the case.

But what are the protections like if we pass protections here?

Is that contrary to what courts have ruled on?

I wouldn't think it would be, but I feel like we're you know, there's so many so much is being said right now that it's hard to rationalize and come up with what a coherent HR policy could be that adequately protects like city employees, and I know we're not trying to avoid particular cases here, but at the end of the day, when everything goes up to the 25th floor and goes up to the mayor's office, and there's a track record there where HR has made recommendations in the past, and somehow the news media gets a hold of it when council doesn't get a hold of it, and HR recommendations are not followed in the past.

I think that's where we're trying to rationalize and figure out in our head how do we create that independent accountability that is void of the political process?

And I don't even know if there's a question in that.

I'm just sitting here trying to rationalize all this and have it make sense in my brain that we have to have protections for employees, we have to have that independent accountability.

May I interject here for a minute and may I ask Council Belar to step forward again?

Um just to ask some simple questions, not to ask for a legal opinion in the public forum, but just to see if he the question that's been raised is does this Helms case apply in Indiana in a nuance of law is this a 10th circuit, we're in the seventh circuit, so it doesn't automatically apply.

But the question is, what is the seventh circuit holding on that issue?

I don't know how far Helms have how far Helms went.

Helms yeah, is the 10th circuit, so it's not applicable here in the Seventh Circuit.

Um, but the general principles is as you described are correct.

I mean, as with anything, we can't liability does not start until it's reported.

So a report has to be made, and there are time frames within within within which to do that for civil liability.

Now that's different than criminal, that's a whole different ball game, but yeah, there report has to be made to initiate a complaint and civil liability.

Is there a statute of limitations in Indiana for such claims?

I think it's two years, yes.

From occurrence or knowledge of from occurrence.

Okay.

And do you know, and and this is maybe a question uh posed to both of you being in a public employer, it is different, obviously.

And our employees not only have rights as a complainant, but also as an accused, you have enhanced rights as well because your employer is a state actor.

But does not a an accused person also have Miranda like rights when they're accused by an employer, because that's a state action, and you could fire me or discipline me.

So that's a state action against me personally, and therefore I have enhanced rights like Miranda, where I can question your evidence, I want representation, you can't force me on the spot to do something.

Um does that come into play in our discussion tonight?

It does.

I want to be careful because they're very different rights, like the Miranda rights being the criminal side of things.

Um but yes, I mean, there is the interest in protecting, especially during the course of an investigation, all parties involved.

Of course, I mean, going to the beginning, and when a complaint's made, what we say of like believing the complaint is that we ask them to make sure that they feel safe in the environment while it's being investigated because the accused does have a right for a thorough investigation to see what's happened here.

That includes and really that what I would say impacts mostly if what practical sense, not necessarily a legal, a legal perspective, is a lot of this is critical on witnesses who are in the workplace who see these things.

And if they think that these are gonna be they could be drug out, and they want to be, I mean, the witnesses of all people should be anonymous as well.

So we have a we really have an interest in protecting them because that's how is really our best evidence on how we can figure out what has occurred in the workplace.

So that's where all this kind of gets into.

But yes, the accused, of course, has a right for us internally to figure out what's happened and to determine if a violation has occurred and therefore, and if so, what disciplines appropriate?

So does the at-will hire doctrine apply to a public employee?

Yes.

Meaning, I mean, every employee at the city is an at-will employee.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll stand.

Uh counselor Hart, you had your hand up.

I didn't, and Counselor Bain was alluding to it at the end of his comment questions there.

Um I guess to summarize it in another way is that um I'll just ask if there are recommendations, even printed recommendations that you mentioned, you have a larger handbook or recommendations guide that you didn't bring with, and that's okay.

To direct us to to look at situations where HR is making recommendations to leadership, but leadership's not taking those recommendations when then ultimately the truth comes out that there was wrongdoing to the individual.

And I guess that's the part that I know I'm still seeing a gap here, is that in cases that we've had without being in the specifics that were reported to the highest level, and then they were just disregarded.

And that's the the policy component that we don't have an answer for right now.

Are you all part of um the trainings anti Yeah?

Okay, so then uh the leader that we're talking about is also part of the the trainings as well.

Every everybody is my understanding is part of the training.

I mean, you know that it's it's it's it's it's it's it's really it's it's a tough situation um to really try to uh figure out.

I don't know if you all can do something, but you know, on behalf of Indy Sherm, I you know I can't really say, you know, I can't really look at the recommendations and say yay or nay, just because you know, you know, big uh of our stance uh where we are.

However that that that's a great question that you all are asking, how do you go about that?

How do you you go about that?

I um I was an HR director for local um for local government at one point, and one of the things that we did for the elected official is that if the elected official was considered doing something wrong, then they can take it up to the board, um, they can take it up to the board.

Uh but you know, Washington Township is is smaller, so it's not this many people, but you know, a person can take it up, uh, an employee can take it up to the board um and and and and to go over that person's head.

Um I wonder what can you all do, you know, legally, or you know, you know, I mean, because you're asking a very great question, how do you go around that?

How do you go around that?

And that's something that you all probably have to really think about what can you do if it's not something you can do eternally internally, is this something legally to change how that works?

Um, because the employer as an employer, you do have a responsibility to make sure that everyone that comes to work feels safe, and they don't feel like they are um are at risk for any kind of harm, and that's a responsibility for every employer.

And HR is the the one that would lead that charge with the culture, building the culture and making sure it's not just compliance.

Um, but if that can't happen, then I would have to throw the question back to you all what can you do legally?

Um you know, there's really nothing I can, and that's what makes it tough, you know.

Yeah, and this is a continuing discussion, and and and we appreciate that uh Miss Justice has offered to continue being engaged with us as we move forward because as we uh it's obvious these are some of these are unanswerable questions at this stage.

So as we all learn more, hopefully we'll see get a little more guidance.

Uh any final questions for uh Ms.

Justice.

Did I see your hand up at one time, Councillor Delaney?

Okay, Miss Justice, thank you so much for your time.

We appreciate it very much.

Thank you.

Now we're gonna turn to the public speaking part of tonight to take a few comments if there are any.

Um, and we are gonna have a uh let there's a statement to be read first.

As we move to the public comment portion of debate for there's no proposals but for this um presentations, we would like to remind council members and the public of a few ground rules.

In order for everyone to have a fair chance to speak and be heard, it is important that we each observe the following rules.

First, each speaker will be limited to two minutes.

Second, any public comments must reasonably relate to the agenda item under consideration.

Third, speakers who stray from the item under consideration or become unduly repetitious may be asked to move on to their next point or conclude their comments.

Finally, attendees who cause disruptions that prevent the council from proceeding through today's agenda in a reasonably effective manner will be removed.

Please remember that some types of threatening speech or enticement to violence are not protected by the First Amendment at all.

And we will deal with those issues if they come up, but we do not think they will.

Thank you.

Counselor Neilson.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, uh, I would like to make a motion to amend our rules this evening.

Um I move that speaker's time limit for comment for this meeting be four minutes instead of two minutes.

Second any discussion.

Hearing none, all those in favor of admitting the rules to four minutes per speaker say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Hearing none, you each have four minutes uh with the timer.

Um, or you use your iPhone, what have you?

Um, and first speaker, please introduce yourself and provide your zip code.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

May I ask a clarifying question regarding this evening, the discussion this evening before beginning?

Sure.

Uh you've you all have this evening have discussed recommendations.

Are those recommendations to go back to the administration for them to implement, or will you the rules committee be writing ordinance to them past yourself?

I'll do explain the next steps after at the conclusion of tonight's meeting.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Yep.

Good evening, members of the committee.

My name is Morgan Mickelson, and I'm a former employee of the Hogstead administration.

I come before you tonight to offer you a perspective from staff.

Um I led the Office of Sustainability from March 2021 to September 2024.

Um, and I managed a team of three.

I regularly am in communication with multiple current staff members as well.

Uh I want to speak to you firsthand tonight.

I want to speak to you tonight because I've seen firsthand how deeply firsthand, how deeply broken the culture inside the Hogs Ed mess administration still is.

Real reform is desperately needed, not just in HR or how the reports are handled, but across the entire working environment.

Much as much of what's been reported in the news has focused on the past on Mayor Hogset and former members of his leadership team.

But I can tell you from experience that the same culture that allowed that sexual harassment and abuse to happen hasn't gone away.

It is still alive and well in the city county building.

When the first stories came to light back in 2024, I raised concerns about the lack of systems to protect current staff from happening again.

Remind you, I let I managed three people.

This is why I'm concerned with many of these recommendations discussed tonight, and I urge you to adamantly pursue an independent third-party solution.

I know it's really complicated, but it can be done.

Even more this conversation here to this last conversation happening, just really reinforced the need, right?

Like so many of you had have danced around this that like HR doesn't actually protect the people.

I reported my own instances of experience inappropriate behavior to HR.

This was before the speak police system was in place because I was leaving.

I was very pregnant at the time.

I reported.

HR eventually reached out to me and asked me to share the story.

After a gone, they kind of just forgot about me.

I reached back out, I followed up, asked for what hey, what's happened there.

They're like, oh, we're just getting around to it, and then nothing.

Like I've heard that's not a one-off instance.

Like in there.

Um, I also want to reiterate a little bit of Emma's recommendations.

Emma from the the um National Women's Defense League.

Um, because to put it real accountability behind these recommendations, the council should require that measures are put in place to make sure they're implemented and to full um to commit to full transparency.

You know, we've heard a lot about like, oh, we can't talk about this because we would jeopardize the individuals and then in the minute that word, I'm not gonna try to say it right now.

Um that's just that's BS.

Let's be real.

There are ways to provide transparency to instill trust with the public.

Um finally, I also want to add that more robust public engagement needs to be done on this effort.

Um, I'm really disappointed with the turnout tonight.

Um, but I know it is really hard to engage with members of the public, whether it be like these employees or others.

I've done that job before, but it is your responsibility to make sure people are here to tell you how they feel.

It is not their responsibility to take time out of their day to figure out when they're going down what whatever, you know.

People care about it.

And I am very involved, and I almost missed that this meeting was happening.

So, like it was not publicized widely enough.

I would urge you to reconsider how this public engagement is going and also not to rely on these working groups, the report outs from them, the survey, whatever it is, because it's all coming from people that report to the mayor, report to 25.

Like, I know you all know what that means.

You're not getting transparent information.

Speak to the employees directly, like figure out how to make that happen because it's they're not okay.

So I really appreciate all this work you've done tonight and on this.

Uh yeah, that's it.

Thanks.

Thank you, Morgan.

Any additional members of the public wish to speak.

All right, hearing none.

Um obviously the what I this is my opinion, but as I foresee our future steps here, um we've digested a lot of information this evening.

Um we have a lot we've compiled and studied ourselves.

Um, and I think we're gonna have to distill all of this information and refine our recommendations, keep publicizing them to get public engagement, as we've seen.

There are very complicated legal issues involved in this, so we're gonna be working with HR and legal department um on how to set things up.

Um a big 800-pound gorilla are the fiscal issues raised by all of this.

Um creating certain agencies or independent boards.

There's a dollar figure assigned to that.

Not that this is uh we're quantifying things with dollars, but that as a steward of taxpayer money, that is an issue that comes into the calculus.

Uh so um, and with regard to the increased publication of information, we'll we'll will increase that.

We too, or at least personally, I am very surprised at the thin attendance this evening.

I expected a full room and even put notice about having additional sheriffs this evening.

Obviously, that was uncalled for.

So uh we hope to increase exposure and get more input.

Um and we do take input from anybody and everybody from every direction.

We will be talking to the working groups, we all will be talking to professional organizations like SHERM and the National Women's Defense League, uh, because we do not want to just work here in an ideological bubble within the enterprise.

So that's kind of uh where we'll be going from here.

Um any further closing comments by anybody here this evening?

Yes, counselor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh just a quick question for our attorney from the city.

Um, in terms of the end of the year final report from the employee survey.

Um do you anticipate when that will be made available?

Would the council have access to that?

Um and I think really echoing what uh the presenter, the speaker just shared, that is important for us to hear from the employees.

Uh and I think that's a way that we can hear from the employees.

Yes, the the survey are results will be a public document.

It'll be a public doc document.

Uh you said the end of the year that's December 25th or next week.

Uh answer um when require today, they said it would be done by the end of the year.

I can try to find more specificity.

I've not in charge of the contract with Ref Tellis, but I can ask them.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Hearing none, we are adjourned.

Thank you.