Committee Report CR-3

Present at the meeting were Vice Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Committee, Councillor Craig Kelley, Councillor Minka vanBeuzekom, Councillor Leland Cheung, Mayor Henrietta Davis, Councillor Kenneth E. Reeves, Richard C. Rossi, Deputy City Manager, Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor, Sheila Keady Rawson, Personnel Director, Brian Corr, Executive Director, Peace Commission, Neal Alpert, Aide to Vice Mayor Simmons and Paula M. Crane, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk's Office.

Also present were Elie Yarden, Mark Levy, Patricia Lewis, Sylvia Barnes, Steve Kaiser, Heather Hoffman and Richard Clarey.

Patricia Lewis, 55 Granville Road, stated that she is concerned about the millions of dollars spent on the Monteiro case and that the city has six more lawsuits pending.  She asked that the City Council take a look at what the city has in place for employees to go to for help when they feel they have been discriminated against.  She stated that the process begins with the department the employee goes to for help such as Affirmative Action, Personnel Department or Human Rights.  Are they treated fair and impartially?  She stated that she hopes that these meetings continue so that city employees can settle and mediate with the city rather than file lawsuits.  This should not be happening in the City of Cambridge.

Sylvia Barnes, 196 Harvey Street, stated that she is pleased that the committee is having this meeting.  She stated that it appears that lessons have not been learned from the Monteiro case.  She stated that when an employee brings suit against the city they must use their savings to pay for an attorney, but that the City uses taxpayer money to defend itself, and therefore the City will always have more financial resources at hand to spend on defense.  The employee filing the suit risks financial ruin in pursuing such a case, which can deter them from taking any action.  She stated that the taxpayers are paying as well.  The losers are the employees and the residents who have to foot the bill.  She stated her belief that management and administration have nothing to lose, since they are not paying for their own defense.  She stated that if there are no repercussions, then the actions will not change.

Elie Yarden, 143 Pleasant Street, stated he has sued the City of Cambridge successfully.  He questioned if the city is serious about feedback from residents.  Giving speakers a three minute maximum to speak at public meetings is not right.  He stated that he participated in the Monteiro case actively.  He stated that this litigation was well on its way to achieving something positive and at that moment the ax fell and Ms. Monteiro was forced to cease all of her activities that were beneficial to the city.  It is a failure of democracy.  Mr. Yarden said that if a citizen has no standing in the court of law when they are trying to prevent a 5-story parking garage because the city decided to favor a private developer, one of the problems has to do with a revolving door.  He stated that the City Manager form of government was instituted in Cambridge in order to get rid of "bossism".  He stated that the Monteiro case is a glaring example of how much it cost the city, and how "bossism" lives on.  He stated that the City Manager has the relationship of a corporation to its board and that in the City of Cambridge it is different because there are no shareholders.  Government needs to answer to the citizens.  Public interest is key.  When the city makes use of its financial power to defend the misbehaviors of the boss, then the system is not functioning properly.  The City Council has the obligation of helping the City Manager by pointing out the faults of the City Manager.  He stated that we should not blame the City Manager form of government but rather the democratic government.  He added that he hopes that the next City Council can participate in its restoration.

Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, suggested that the issues are important and the number of people in the audience is sufficiently small enough to let people speak for more than three minutes of public comment if they wish to.  He stated that this is an opportunity to reflect back and to look into the future.  He is optimistic, but critical, of the things of the past.  He believes there is a good future for the city.  He noted that the important thing is how to deal with the flaws of the City Manager.  He stated that Mr. Rossi's statement regarding the desire to improve communications between City Hall and the residents makes him feel very optimistic, and he was very pleased to see Mr. Rossi present at this meeting.  He stated that when the City Manager is unwilling to speak with residents it is a problem.  He told of meeting many years prior in which the City Manager was present.  He stated that the City Manager was unwilling to engage in a give-and-take conversation, and was unwilling to accept criticism.  He said that the City Manager interrupted a speaker when he was talking and a City Councillor felt compelled to tell the City Manager to relax.  The City Manager is a smart and capable person but has resisted people who are opinionated.  In Mr. Kaiser's opinion, the City Manager has held great resistance to alternative opinions.  He stated that his hope is that there will be dialogue to resolve issues so we don't have to go to court.  He stated that he believes that like baseball players, the City Manager can become a problem if he stays in the position too long.  He stated that people lose skills after their peak.  He stated that he is optimistic that in the coming years there will be an improved change where dialogue is important.

Richard Clarey, 15 Brookford Street, stated that the Monteiro case illustrates problems with the City of Cambridge's Plan E form of government.  He said that this litigation was solely about race and it began in 1990 when the City Manager refused to interview Ms. Monteiro for a position in the city.  He stated that Mr. Gomes, the Affirmative Action Officer at the time, got so angry and made life difficult for the City Manager.  The City Manager then hired Ms. Monteiro because of this.  She was always named as an Affirmative Action hire.  Mr. Clarey agreed with Ms. Barnes that not much has changed.  All the plaintiffs said in their complaint that they were treated as if they were inferior because they were hired under the Affirmative Action policy.  They were called Affirmative Action hires in 1990 and that remains today.  He stated that in Executive Session notes from 2009 Ms. Lukey, who was the attorney for the city, told the City Council that Ms. Monteiro's conduct was egregious.  This is a disservice to the City Council.  This was a twenty year vendetta by the City Manager, the Personnel Director and others.  The Personnel Director was instrumental in blocking Ms. Monteiro's advancement in the city.  She was made to fill out a questionnaire that no one else had to fill out.  Mr. Savoy complained about this in court.  She was treated badly when she was terminated in the middle of her case after the judge ruled that she could go to trial.  He stated that the City Council could not do much when the wrongdoers include the City Manager and the City Solicitor's Office.  As it relates to the Stamper case, he noted that the entire City Solicitor's Office was named in the complaint.  He stated that the City Solicitor's Office kept facts from the Personnel Department who said they learned about the case in 2005 which was seven years after the MCAD case was filed.  People were kept in the dark.  He stated that he cannot fault the City Council for not policing this before 2008, and he stated that the City Manager and City Solicitor had kept the facts from the City Council.  He stated that when a mostly white jury whacks the city with the highest punitive damage award for this type of case, the jury is saying that there is something very wrong going on with the conduct of officials.  The City Council didn't do anything after the award.  He urged the City of Cambridge to fire Joan Lukey.  On appeal she spent one million dollars.  He noted the necessity of an oversight committee as it relates to lawsuits.  He said that the City Council cannot solely rely upon the Law Department to act in the City's best interests when the Law Department itself if accused of wrong-doing.  He stated that the City Council must insist that people do not hide behind claims that keep lawsuit information from the people.  He stated mistrust for the City Solicitor's Office and Attorney Lukey.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that the city has learned nothing from this lawsuit.  She stated that at the City Council meeting of the previous night the City Council was told that it had violated the Open Meeting law.  She stated that Councillor Kelley has said in past that good things have not come out of going into Executive Session.  The name of a lawsuit and other papers filed are public records, they cannot be litigation strategy, and there is no reason why the City Council should not be allowed to openly discuss those items.  They cannot be things to be kept secret.  The conclusions that one draws from them may be different, but their existence is not a matter of debate.  She questioned how the City Council can take advice from people who give them such information.  She stated that there is a sense of stratification in the nation between people in the community and the people at the top who must never be questioned, examined or anything else.  People who have destroyed the economy suffer nothing except giant paychecks.  People who have cost the city millions suffer nothing but adulation and giant paychecks.  The only inconvenience to these people in power is that they occasionally have to listen to people saying rude things about them during public comment.  She said there is this sense from the City's administrators that we can coast on good things we have and ignore the good people who live and work in Cambridge and want it to be the greatest place ever.  We can punish people for suggesting that people at the top are not perfect.  She stated that her favorite clients are the ones who question her and notice things that she may not notice.  She stated that it is not shameful if you don't know everything and are not perfect.  That is what we should learn from this case.

Vice Mayor Simmons asked if any of the previous speakers would like to add to what they have already said, before she closed public comment.  Patricia Lewis testified that she is a lifelong Cambridge resident.  She reiterated her concern that there are six more lawsuits pending.  She asked the City Council and the committee to take a serious look at what is currently in place in the City for employees to go to for help when they feel that they have been discriminated against.  She questioned if the Affirmative Action Department, Human Rights Commission and the unions are impartial when processing complaints.  She stated that it is crucial that people are treated fairly and impartially when a complaint is made.  She noted that she appreciates this meeting taking place and hopes that more meetings are forthcoming.  She would like to see future meetings at a time when everyone can attend.  She stated that in order for her to attend this meeting she had to take time off of work to be present.  (Attachment A)

Sylvia Barnes added that she is hopeful that things will change with the new administration in July.  She stated that this can be a new beginning and things will be better for all.

Vice Mayor Simmons then moved to the questions of the Civic Unity Committee Meeting Agenda (Attachment B).  She asked what City policies, protections and safeguards were in place to address discrimination concerns at the time that Ms. Monteiro and other City employees filed their lawsuits against the City.  Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that she was pleased with the outline of the Agenda.

Mr. Rossi stated that in terms of policies, protections and safeguards, the Personnel Department has the responsibility to represent all City employees.  He noted that there is an Affirmative Action office, the Human Rights Commission and union representation that are available for people to go to informally for assistance.  There are also organizations in the city such as the Disabilities Commission and the Police Review and Advisory Board as well.  All of these offices and/or individuals can assist employees who have grievances.

Vice Mayor Simmons stated that she was appreciative of these various departments and organizations, but then she looked back upon her own experiences as a former city employee.  She stated that at the time of her employment with the City in the 1980's, she was unsure that if she were to lodge a complaint, she would have gone to the Personnel Department.  She noted that in her past experience she did not find Personnel would be the place to go. She questioned the role of the Personnel Department as it relates to a complaint from an employee who is having a problem with a direct supervisor.  Mr. Rossi stated that in his early days in the city, a new employee would receive a booklet publication containing information regarding employee benefits and rights.  Ms. Keady Rawson stated that there was a major revision to the Employee Manual in 2001.  Mr. Rossi stated that the revised Employee Manual contains more depth.  Ms. Keady Rawson stated that an exit interview is conducted with employees who leave the employment of the city.  She stated that the City attempts to conduct exit interviews with employees who leave the city but noted that it is not always easy to get the employee to take the time to attend the exit interview.  She stated that people are generally honest in these interviews because they do not feel that they have to hold information back as they will no longer work for the city.  She noted that some departments conduct their own exit interviews.  Vice Mayor Simmons asked what is done with information gathered from an exit interview.  Ms. Keady Rawson stated that the Personnel Department looks for patterns and practices, especially in city departments in which the Personnel Department does not have frequent interaction.

Ms. Keady Rawson stated that the Personnel Department takes seriously the idea that they represent all employees.  As such, if they do receive a grievance, they attempt to get all sides of the story.  She noted that the Personnel Department has an open door policy for all employees.  In terms of new hires, the employee receives an Employee Manual and orientation packet which includes policies and procedures of the city.  Union employees also receive the Collective Bargaining Agreement which includes the grievance procedure.  Vice Mayor Simmons requested a copy of the Employee Manual to be provided to her.  She questioned that if an employee is not represented by a union and goes to a supervisor and/or the Personnel Department without relief, where would one go?  She stated her belief that there should be an Employee Fairness Committee of some type.  It seems that we might be better-served if there was a non-biased committee of employees that hears grievances and then reports to the Personnel Department and the City Manager so that we circumvent and provide remedies to employees to resolve disputes and hopefully avoid people feeling their only recourse is to file a lawsuit.  Vice Mayor Simmons spoke of an employee who went through the channels with no relief and stated her concern that there is no other avenue to pursue.  She noted that a suit could have been filed but it was not.  She noted the need for a place that is provided to city employees before it reached the MCAD or court where these issues can be vetted out.  She stated her desire to be proactive as opposed to reactive.

Mr. Rossi stated that he likes this idea.  He stated that speaking prospectively, he will make the minutes of this committee meeting required reading for major department heads in the city.  He stated that he welcomes conversations with city employee s who have an issue and would like to speak with him.  He noted that he does not consider himself to be the sole expert.  He will be willing to listen and stand corrected when necessary.  He stated his offer is genuine and he would like to figure out a model moving forward.  He stated that a committee of city people is fine but noted that some people may not feel comfortable with this model.  He stated that he would like monthly meetings in departments wherein if there are any disputes or issues they can be addressed proactively.  He noted his desire to see this happen and welcomed suggestions.  He noted the valuable resources that the city offers and spoke of many talented people within the city who would like to act in the role as mediator.

Councillor vanBeuzekom asked if there was a catalyst in 2001 which prompted the revision of the Employee Manual.  She questioned the existence of the Human Rights Commission prior to 2001.  She asked what recourse Ms. Monteiro had at that time of her initial grievance.  Mr. Rossi stated that there were many venues that one could go to such as the Personnel Department, Affirmative Action, Human Rights Commission or the City Manager's Office.  Ms. Monteiro's action was filed in 1998.  Councillor vanBeuzekom asked if the change in the policy was a result of this filing.  Mr. Rossi stated that the reason for the revised Employee Manual was because personnel issues needed to be laid out in one document, and that much of the original manual had been drafted in the 1950's and was simply in need of updating.  All of the necessary information was not in one document.  He noted that there was a task force working on consolidation of information into one document at that time.

Councillor vanBeuzekom asked about exit interviews.  She asked if the Personnel Department conducts these interviews and if they are mandatory.  Ms. Keady Rawson stated that the Personnel Department encourages employees to come to the Personnel Department for exit interviews.  Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that it would be appropriate to have a single department conduct all exit interviews.  Her experience is that the ideal time for conducting an exit interview is on the last day of employment.  She stated that this interview could be a requirement of leaving the employment of the city and could be an opportunity to uncover how the city can improve.  She stated that the Personnel Department should be responsible for exit interviews as there would be consistency of data gathering

Councillor vanBeuzekom asked for the inclusion of the Employee Manual in the minutes of this meeting.  Mr. Rossi stated that he will provide a copy of the Employee Manual (Attachment C) to each City Councillor and noted that this manual can also be found on Common Ground in the Employee Information section.

Councillor Kelley stated that his issue relates to the policy order that he submitted regarding the City Council's opinion on the Monteiro case.  He stated that he has asked the City Council to take the position that what happened was wrong.  He stated that claims are made and are dealt with.  The Monteiro case is special because it rose to a unique level.  He stated that the City Council never accepted responsibility.  Acknowledgement of this by the City Council should be part of discussion.  This is a huge omission.

Vice Mayor Simmons asked if the City of Cambridge has developed policies going forward that will ensure that a situation like the Monteiro case will never happen again.  Mr. Rossi stated that he feels what is most important is that complaints not be allowed to linger or fester.  He noted that time is of the essence and prompt action needs to be taken.  He stated that when a person raises a concern they would like a response in a timely fashion.  He stated that he would like to incorporate review sessions with the Personnel Department to deal appropriately with departments where there are problems arising.  He noted that the most effective way to address concerns is take another look at the policies and procedures and the Employee Manual.  He stated that offering alternative ways in which employees can be heard when they are not satisfied with the response could be beneficial.

Vice Mayor Simmons said that she appreciated this sentiment, but she asked what the City Council should do in these types of situations.  She stated that some argue that the City Council has abdicated its authority.  She stated that the City Council was all over the place on this and never spoke with a single voice, and she questioned what the City Council can do going forward to take a clear position in these kinds of instances.  She said the City Council must accept some of the responsibility in this matter, and she stated that if the City council believes that there is a misstep, it is incumbent on them for an evaluation.

Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that she was not a City Councillor at the time that this suit was filed.  She stated that based on what she heard in Executive Session, she understands why it was difficult to speak with one voice.  She stated that the Monteiro case is hopefully different from any pending cases in the sense that the case involved the City Manager directly.  Mr. Rossi clarified that the City Manager is the Chief Executive Officer for the hiring and firing of all employees and he could always potentially be named in any suit against the city.  Vice Mayor Simmons stated that in terms of the suit it was the City of Cambridge being sued.  Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that this conversation makes it clear to her that she does not have enough legal background to enable her to speak with one voice as it relates to the City Council.  Vice Mayor Simmons stated that the City of Cambridge is bound by a restrictive charter in terms of the City Council's role.  Mr. Rossi stated that these are difficult matters but noted that he cannot discuss what happened in those cases.  Vice Mayor Simmons asked for clarity as to why this case cannot be discussed if it was settled.  Councillor Reeves noted that it is not uncommon to have part of a settlement not be discussed, and that is standard fare in the legal business.  Vice Mayor Simmons asked if there is a "gag rule."  Ms. Glowa stated her agreement with Councillor Reeves in that certain aspects to some cases cannot be discussed and noted that in this case there was a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement but the agreement has now been made public.  Vice Mayor Simmons stated that it is important for the City Council to know if there is a gag order in place, as it would allow them to clarify to those who ask them about this case precisely why they cannot discuss it, so as not to appear that they are "seeking cover" to not discuss it.  She noted that the goal is trying to find the place where we are better and have learned from this so that we can be a city where all employees feel valued.

Councillor vanBeuzekom then asked about confidentiality provisions.  She stated that there is a court transcript so she doesn't understand why it cannot be discussed.  She stated she believed that a public entity cannot sign such a confidentiality agreement.  She spoke of a court case in South Hadley and stated that based on South Hadley it was determined that a municipality cannot sign a confidentiality provision.  Ms. Glowa stated that this statement is not completely correct.  She noted that the South Hadley case had to do with contents of a settlement agreement.  The contents of the settlement agreement in this case have been released.  Councillor Reeves stated that going forward he feels that the City Council does not have adequate legal representation which is understandable to all City Councillors.  He stated that the role of the City Solicitor is to handle official business of the city.  He wants to figure out how, in the context of Plan E, the City Council can obtain legal information and legal clarifications.  He stated that at one time there were as many as seven cases by women alleging discrimination.  He stated that the response was one of denial.  This continued because the style was that the city has a deep pocket.  He noted that various plaintiffs did settle and drop out along the way, and there has been this sense that "youcan have as much justice as you can afford."  Those that persevered were martyrs given the differential of powers.  He told of two women in the Cambridge Police Department who were elevated to the highest positions that women have held in the department and that they were given the night shift.  For them to be given the night shift was a particular problem.  They both settled their cases with the city.  He told of a library employee who felt that she was under surveillance.  These things existed.  He stated that he will not take credit for not speaking out to the question.  He could not imagine most of this.  Councillor Reeves stated his belief that the real problem is that there was not internal response that stated that "this looks bad."  The City of Cambridge decided to be the deep pocket and it did not work.  He stated that going forward; we should look at the climate of the city over the past 24 years.  He stated that when he first came to Cambridge, if you were a police officer and you sued for promotion, you were marked and persona non grata.  There was no minority or women in senior leadership.  For a time things got better but even under Commissioner Watson, there were no persons of color in leadership positions at all other than him.  He stated that leadership needs to reflect the city as a whole.  It is imperative to create a climate where everybody feels that they can get justice.  That is the biggest concern of people.  He stated that an ombudsperson would be helpful.

Mayor Davis stated her agreement with Councillor Reeves regarding a better atmosphere.  She stated that it is possible to create an ombudsman system in which people feel that they can be heard if they have concerns.  It is imperative to get on top of these issues in the early stages.  She stated that it is difficult to do all things right but it is imperative to figure out the direction of the city in this respect.  She stated that she has led a process to attempt to take a difficult topic and move through steps that can be accepted by all.  She stated the importance of the initiation of a conversation that is open to the public.  She noted her desire to be constructive as the formative stage and formative process is very important.

Councillor Kelley stated that the City Council could have gotten its own counsel but the City Council as a body chose not to.  He stated that he worries that the City Council looks too much to Executive Session to limit discussion, and he finds this frustrating because then there are things that he is not allowed to discuss.

Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that she is optimistic about the July 1, 2013 transition.  She asked Ms. Keady Rawson if there have been any changes in the Personnel Department. Ms. Keady Rawson stated that when something important happens in the city, the Personnel Department looks internally to see how to move forward.  She noted that the Employee Manual was a piece of that change.  She noted that it is important to communicate and highlight procedures.  She stated that the current administration has encouraged the Personnel Department to communicate more often and more frequently with city employees.  The Personnel Department has partnered with Disability Commission to get information out to employees.  There has been a concerted effort to be more visible.  Vice Mayor Simmons asked Ms. Keady Rawson how this has been institutionalized.  Councillor vanBeuzekom asked if there has been a meeting with department heads.  Mr. Rossi stated that in individual departments where issues were arising or growing, there have been discussions with those departments.  The City is a big organization.  It is good practice to review policies that are in place.  He noted that sometimes people can have their own interpretation of what the policy says and he noted that monitoring is important.  Mr. Rossi stated that he will be re-visiting policies to ensure that procedures are being carried out properly and equally.  Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that she recently received the policy regarding internet usage and questioned if there was a specific impetus as to why that policy was being reaffirmed.  Mr. Rossi answered that it is helpful for policies to be reviewed periodically.

Mr. Rossi noted that it could be beneficial to have an employee forum where employees could come and talk to the administration about what is on the minds of employees.  He emphasized that If employees have suggestions about techniques that have been mentioned, he is willing to listen to see if we can help include people more in how we think about resolving issues or disputes.  Vice Mayor Simmons stated that this forum should include employees from all city buildings and departments.  Mr. Rossi agreed with Vice Mayor Simmons in that it would be inclusive for all city employees.  He stated that it would be a positive opportunity for anyone who wants to be heard.  He stated that he would like to conduct meetings in different locations so this would be representative of all city workers.  Councillor vanBeuzekom asked if the School Department would be included.  Mr. Rossi stated that these meetings would not include the School Department as schools do not come under his direction.

Councillor Reeves stated that an employee forum to discuss issues is a step in the right direction because it would be a climate change.  As he revisits some of the discussions with prior litigants, the most overwhelming part is that they didn't feel acknowledged.  The thing that they couldn't get over is the city's response to their personhood and the feeling of not being acknowledged.

Vice Mayor Simmons raised the question of what mechanisms are available to audit the policies that are designed to address internal charges or harassment and discrimination.  Mr. Rossi stated that people have the strength of the law behind them.  You cannot ignore the MCAD or refuse to attend a grievance hearing.  There are strengths in the law.  The administration needs to be strong in its own evaluation of administrators.  He stated that he will be working on Personnel Department evaluations of senior leadership and himself, and he recognizes that his own performance as City Manager will be regularly audited by the City Council.  He noted that he will try not to take any information gleaned from these evaluations personally and is hoping that good comes out of it.  He stated that evaluation of leadership will be important.  Mr. Rossi stated that he takes meetings with organizations who are telling him of wrongful actions very seriously.  Vice Mayor Simmons stated that the lack of any formalized, written policy of how various complaints are dealt with suggests that the City may not have an effective system of auditing how effective its policies are.  She said that it may be beneficial to have a chart that would look at numbers of complaints in general and the process of how each complaint moves through the system from lodging of complaint to the outcome of the complaint.  Councillor vanBeuzekom suggested a data table with pertinent information including department, type of grievance and the outcome.  She noted that it would be interesting to see how many people went to what department.  Mr. Rossi disagreed with the Vice Mayor's suggestion that the City does not have an effective way of reviewing how it handles internal grievances, and he stated that the origin of many issues is not discrimination.  Many people do not want their issue as matter of record when contacting the Personnel Department.  He noted that the city has very few cases that end up as court cases.  Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that a data table is worth instituting at least as of July 1, 2013.  Vice Mayor Simmons stated that having some formal, systematic way of collecting and preserving this kind of data may be a future recommendation of the committee.

Councillor Reeves stated that it must be acknowledged that the role of the City Manager is very powerful.  He stated that he did not believe that a data table will be helpful for him because he does not believe in the structure that we have.  He questioned how the Police Review and Advisory Board got combined with the Human Rights Commission.  He stated that this combination has compromised each other quite a bit.  He stated that at one time when these departments were separate and equal, he would send people to PRAB with the expectation that they would find some relief there.  He stated that the Human Rights structure is not what it used to be.  He stated that after July 1, 2013, it may make sense to review what is in place structurally.  He noted his frustration in sending people through a process that does not work.

Councillor Kelley stated that the issue remains that the City Council needs to take ownership in the Monteiro case.  He noted that he is pleased that city staff does not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, but that he is still looking for closure on the Monteiro case.  He would have liked to have seen the City Council take a position.  Vice Mayor Simmons asked Councillor Kelley for clarification?  Councillor Kelley stated that he would have liked the City Council to send a letter to city staff and managers stating its unhappiness with the Monteiro situation.  He stated that the City Council has dodged this issue for years and he does not want to be in that position again.  He noted his displeasure that there is no way to get additional guidance as to what is currently in the court system regarding lawsuits.  Vice Mayor Simmons responded that in terms of Councillor Kelley's desire to write a letter stating the City Council's position, Councillor Kelley has the right to bring a motion before the City Council.

Vice Mayor Simmons then gave a summary of information that was gleaned from this meeting.  She noted that in the future she will attempt to schedule similar meetings later in the evening so that more people can attend.  She stated that an Employee Oversight Committee or an ombudsman would be a positive step.  She stated that employee forums would be beneficial to bring city employees and leadership together.  She noted the importance of having a city that encompasses the climate of fairness and equity.  She noted that the cultural competency is important.  She stated that the Employment Manuel will be distributed to each City Councillor and noted that this information is also on the Common Ground home page.  She affirmed the need for making exit interviews mandatory and having these interviews conducted by one department so potential trends will be identified.  She noted that some new form of a mediation policy would be welcome, as would the systematic collection of all grievances filed after July 1, 2013.

Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that it would be beneficial to request that department heads read the minutes of this meeting.  Mr. Rossi stated that he will ensure that this takes place.  Councillor vanBeuzekom also suggested that the city look into its policy to allow mediation between parties before going to MCAD.  She noted that she would like to see data collection in a systemic way starting on July 1, 2013 to see how many employees are using the system currently in place.

Councillor Reeves stated that July 1, 2013 should be viewed as a new day.  He stated that women of color in this structure have been the most vocal and litigious group.  He stated that he also knows men of color who feel as if they could never get a job in the city.  This is part of the cultural perception.   He would like to see more Asian and Latino employees.  He noted that the administration needs to broadly reflect the City of Cambridge.  He stated that people should be valued for their brains.  Standards need to be equal across the board.