Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHRC December 12 2024 PacketCanceled Human Rights Commission December 12, 2024 Special Meeting – 5:30 PM Helling Conference Room, City Hall Agenda: 1.Call the Meeting to Order and Roll Call 2.Approval of the November 26, 2024, meeting minutes 3.Strategic Plan 4.Farewell to outgoing Commissioner Jahnavi Pandya. 5.Adjournment *The Commission will not seek or receive public comment at this meeting.* Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to attend all City of Iowa City-sponsored events. If you are a person with a disability who requires a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in these events, please contact the Office of Equity and Human Rights at 319-356-5022 or humanrights@iowa-city.org. Canceled 1 Draft Minutes Human Rights Commission November 26, 2024 Emma J. Harvat Hall Commissioners present: Roger Lusala, Doug Kollasch, Mark Pries, Vianna Qadoura, Kelsey Paul Shantz, Idriss Abdullahi, Emily Harkin. Commissioners present via Zoom: None. Commissioners absent: Jahnavi Pandya, Elizabeth Mendez Shannon. Staff present: Stefanie Bowers. Recommendation to City Council: None. Meeting called to order: 5:34 PM. Native American Land Acknowledgement: Kollasch read the Land Acknowledgement. Public comment of items not on the agenda: None. Approval of meeting minutes of October 22, 2024 & November 4, 2024: Pries moved; the motion was seconded by Lusala. Motion passed 7-0. Updates on Outreach and Engagement by the Police Department: Staff provided a handout from the new Community Outreach Sergeant Eric Nieland. Funding request: Pries moved and Lusala seconded, to provide funding to the Johnson County United Nations Association for its program, Human Rights: Engagement into Action being held on Tuesday, December 10 at 6PM in Meeting Room A at the Iowa City Public Library. The event will engage seven of the former “Night of 1000 Dinners” honorary NGOs in a set of roundtable discussions about the state of human rights in Johnson County, specifically in the areas that they work in. Strategic Plan: Commissioners spoke about meeting in December in order to go into the New Year with a clear plan. Paul Shantz asked if there will be new commission members joining at the start of the new year. Staff answered there will be one new commissioner. Lusala asked when the new member would start with the commission and staff answered their term starts the first of January. It was agreed that commissioners would read the Strategic Plan document on their own time and come prepared to discuss it at their next meeting. A motion was announced to put the strategic plan on the agenda for a special December meeting date. Paul Shantz suggested to use the December meeting to discuss the material but wait until January to vote to approve the plan. It was agreed this matter could be included in next meeting’s discussion. Canceled 2 Racial Equity and Social Justice Grant (RESJ): Kollasch started the discussion by asking commissioners if they had any questions on the reports submitted to the commission. Lusala shared the idea of possibly inviting members who submit reports to the meetings in order to ask questions and discuss their work. Kollasch shared that he would like to add into the criteria of the grant that the recipients would present a progress report to the commission. Paul Shantz brought up a previous idea of assigning a commissioner to each grant recipient in order to maintain communication and a positive relationship with the commission. Kollasch brought up the fact that City Council had concerns about grants and the process that boards and commission use to recommend awardees. Kollasch asked staff if there were any directives that came from the discussion that would be important for the commission to know. Staff answered that the focus wasn’t necessarily on the racial equity and social justice grant. The main concern seems to come from who has received funding previously. Staff also mentioned making sure those applying for the grant are applying to the right grant or if they should be directed to other city funding opportunities. Pries asked staff if all grants are approved City Council regardless of the board or commission. Staff answered that all grants that come from a city board or commission go to City Council for approval. The commission discussed whether the City Council reviews who has or hasn’t received a grant previously from the city. RESJ Grant Review The commission reviewed the updated RESJ Grant application and rubric with staff. •Staff read the updated Purpose section of the grant and prefaced that the language used comes from the Human Rights Ordinance along with the City Council’s strategic plan. Staff also explained that the grant period would likely start sometime in February and questioned if the commission would like to give less time than the four weeks currently allocated for applications to be submitted. •Commissioners discussed the timeline and clarified that with a potential release date of February 1st submissions would be ready for review by March 1st which would keep the commission on a similar timeline they have previously operated on. Lusala suggested allowing three weeks for submissions due to the fact the starting date for applications is later than usual and would allow the commission to review applications sooner. Paul Shantz confirmed with staff the timeline and staff noted the commission is about one month behind their usual release date on the grant. However, if the applications are opened by February 1st and reviewed in March it would be pretty much the same timeline. Paul Shantz suggested keeping submissions open for a full four weeks to allow all applicants ample time. Kollasch agreed the four weeks may be best for applicants. Staff noted a decision could be made later. •Project Requirements were discussed next with staff noting the language of this section comes from the Human Rights Ordinance and/or the City Council’s strategic plan. Points 1, 2, 5 and 6 of this section come from the City Council’s strategic plan, 3 and 4 come from the Human Rights Ordinance. Canceled 3 •Project Eligibility Criteria was reviewed, and staff confirmed the project duration dates are not at all flexible. Lusala asked for clarification that it can be a repeat organization as long as their project is new. Staff confirmed, yes. Kollasch asked if there is a way to define a “new” project. Lusala offered that although the mission may be the same for an organization the commission should look at the target of the project being proposed to consider if it is “new” compared to their last grant submission. Staff confirmed the main purpose of this statement is to avoid giving the same organizations money for the same project(s) year after year. Paul Shantz suggested defining what the commission’s definition of a “project” is and using that as a chance to disclaim they would like the project to be a new effort that contributes something beneficial to the community. Staff suggested linking people to previously funded projects to use as an example. Qadoura asked staff if there is a list of previous recipients of the grant. Staff confirmed, yes. Lusala clarified that the commissioners will receive the list in a later email when it is time to review applications. Lusala also clarified that the commission will be responsible for reviewing each application and accepting or denying applicants, which is when previous recipients come into consideration. Staff confirmed that the city is requiring staff to provide a list of previous recipients to board and commissions offering grant opportunities. •Ineligible Expenses, Paul Shantz asked Staff if it may be necessary to provide an explanation for “operational costs” listed under ineligible expenses due to confusion in the past. Staff confirmed a previous description can be included. Paul Shantz also requested clarification for “consultant fees” listed under ineligible expenses. Staff agreed to provide clarification. Kollasch requested including specifics in the clarification on the application. •P2. Next, Applicant Eligibility was reviewed. Staff noted a new ineligibility requirement “Applicants cannot be for profit businesses…” Kollasch brought up that some organizations have concerns regarding budget restrictions. Kollasch read from an email from CommUnity that noted while they have a large annual budget a lot of the money is restricted to specific services and does not properly reflect their operating budget for new projects. Lusala shared his experiences working with non-profits and the reality that a majority of annual budgets are restricted to one particular service or resource. Qadoura agreed it is hard to draw a line and recommended considering the organization itself. Paul Shantz proposed removing the limit and writing “The annual budget of requesting organizations will be reviewed.” Pries clarified that they will still be asking for the annual budget total in the application. Staff confirmed, yes. Paul Shantz suggested requiring that question to be answered. Staff confirmed it is required. Lusala suggested requesting an organization’s 990 in order to get a better picture of the organization’s entire budget. Paul Shantz questioned the wording of the first bullet point “The organization must be physically located in Iowa City.” Paul Shantz suggested an alternative requirement that would read “The project must serve Iowa City residents primarily.” Staff was unsure of the City’s stance on the matter but shared that there is a strong preference for the organizations to be Iowa City based. Staff also noted that there would need to be a way to quantify the amount of people being helped within Iowa City. Qadoura shared her concerns for organizations operating out of Coralville but benefiting Iowa City residents as well. The alternative would be to change the wording that allows the commissioners to decide if Iowa City residents benefit from the organization enough to be considered. Harkin suggested changing the wording to “The project must only serve Iowa City residents.” Lusala brought up the fact that this would be hard to track and may discriminate to those living outside of Iowa City. Staff clarified this rule comes Canceled 4 more for the selection process rather than the applicants themselves. With all things considered it was agreed to leave the rule as is for the time being. •Funding Restrictions was discussed with staff explaining that the $10,000 suggested maximum would allow for more organizations to be funded, however the decision will ultimately be up to the commission. Kollasch and Pries stated they agree with the $10,000. Paul Shantz shared her reservations on the limit stating organizations may then be limited to what they can accomplish. Kollasch recognized Paul Shantz concerns and offered a possible limit of fifteen to twenty thousand dollars. Kollasch also explained that a new goal is to spread the funding out more across the city to more groups. Paul Shantz responded that her understanding was a focus on diversification rather than reach. Lusala shared that he was in favor of reaching more people/ organizations rather than allocating a majority of funds between fewer organizations. Kollasch confirmed with staff that this can be changed in later years if the commission feels they would like to change the maximum amount to be allocated to each organization. Lusala offered the idea of $12,500 as a maximum amount. Qadoura asked about including a clause that states if the organization has previously received this grant, they cannot receive more than X amount this time around. Qadoura’s question will be addressed in the next bullet point. Staff informed the commission that some organizations do not use the full amount of the grant they receive and have to return the remaining balance to the city, therefore limiting the maximum amount to be received may help with this concern. Staff suggested settling on $20,000 as the maximum amount to be received. Commissioners agreed. Paul Shantz requested to include in the presentation given to new applicants an average amount typically granted so there is an understanding that receiving the full amount ($20,000) is exceptional. The next point regarding previous recipients of the grant receiving a lesser amount was discussed. Kollasch shared he fully supports this point. The commission decided the maximum to be received by previous grant recipients (in the last two years) is no more than $5,000. •Reviews and Funding Allocation. All were in agreement and understanding for this section. •Grant Responsibilities were discussed. Pries clarified that the grant would operate on a reimbursement basis. Staff reiterated this will be a new approach to allocating grant funds. Paul Shantz and commissioners agreed the new reimbursement approach is favored. Staff explained the next point would require grant recipients to submit three quarterly reports to the commission along with a final report. Pries asked if the report would be solely up to the recipient or if there is a form/ template that can be provided. Staff confirmed a template can be created and provided if need be. Commissioners agreed that a quarterly report could include video and photos. •Application: Staff read through the application. Commissioners had no changes. •Rubric: Lusala asked if applicants will have access to the rubric. Staff confirmed, yes. Paul Shantz asked about reworking the section of project outcome expectations to make it more accessible and to create meaningful feedback. Staff will reword this part of the rubric. Canceled 5 Qadoura asked how commissioners are to know if applicants have a history of implementing projects well (Scoring Criteria #6). Lusala answered they will receive a list of previous recipients. Pries agreed that is not enough information for commissioners to understand and score organizations off. Paul Shantz suggested encouraging applicants to include as much detail as possible when it comes to touching on topics the commission is clearly looking for. Lusala commented it may be the commissions responsibility to check the history of applicants. Staff suggested changing the wording of the criteria and adding a question that addresses their ability to follow through with the project. Commissioners agreed to staff’s suggestion. Abdullahi touched on the third point of the criteria regarding the project’s benefit to the community. Abdullahi suggested adding into the application how they will measure the success/ impact of their project. Staff stated a similar question was used in a previous application and can be included in the new one as well. Commissioners agreed to the change. Kollasch stated question 5 on the application may help commissioners measure the impact and goal for each project. Paul Shantz asked staff if there could be character limits for each text section to keep answers on topic and meaningful. Staff offered to check with other departments about lowest and highest character counts for other grants to come up with a suggested limit. A motion to approve the Racial Equity and Social Justice Grant for fiscal year 2025 as discussed and edited was moved by Lusala and seconded by Qadooura. Motion carried 7-0. December Meeting Date: Kollasch suggested Thursday, December 12th for a special meeting on the strategic plan. Commissioners agreed this time would work to meet. Announcements of Commissioners: Lusala: Wished all a happy time with family. Abdullahi: Wished those celebrating a Happy Thanksgiving and all commissioner to enjoy the holiday. Paul Shantz: Shared news that a member of the Peace in Our Cities network she works with has successfully launched an office of violence prevention in Bristol, UK. Kollasch: Shared he has been reappointed for a full term and also accepted the proclamation for Transgender Day of Remembrance at last week’s City Council meeting. Kollasch wished all a happy holiday and to enjoy the time with family. Harkin: Thanked the commissioners for welcoming her to her first commission meeting. Pries: Encouraged commissioners to visit the Cedar Rapids Art Museum to view an exhibit titled A More Perfect Union: Political Art from the Collection. Pries also spoke on his work with Interfaith Alliance and the film on Christian Nationalism. Canceled 6 Qadoura: Shared that the Iowa City Mosque has welcomed a Christian Homeschooling Co-Op group. Also, the Coralville Food Pantry will host a community meal on December 6th at 5:00pm. She ended with asking commissioners to keep those suffering due to war in mind. Announcements of staff: Staff announced there will be a third-floor remodel so the Equity and Human Rights Office will be relocating to the Robert A. Lee Recreational Center Meeting Room A. Adjourned: 7:32 pm. Canceled Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2024 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 1/23 2/27 3/4 3/26 4/23 5/28 7/23 8/27 9/24 11/26 12/12 Jahnavi Pandya 2024 X X X X X X X X A A Emily Harkin 2024 - - - - - - - - - P Doug Kollasch 2024 X X X X X X Z X X P Viana Qadoura 2025 X X X X X X X X X P Idriss Abdullahi 2025 - - - - X Z X Z A P Mark Pries 2025 X A X X X X X X X P Roger Lusala 2026 X X X A X X X X X P Kelsey Paul Shantz 2026 X X X X Z X X A X P Liz Mendez-Shannon 2026 X X X A Z X X A X A KEY: X = Present A = Absent Z = Present via Zoom Canceled Iowa City Human Rights Commission Strategic Plan 2024 Canceled Report prepared by: Jennifer Horn-Frasier Bluebird Sky, LLC Jennifer@BluebirdSkySolutions.com Canceled CONTENTS Executive Summary ………………………………….. 1 Context …………………………….………………….. 2 Process …………………………………………………….. 2 Strategic Plan ……………………..……………………. 3 Recommended Next Steps ..………………...…… 6 Strategic Action Plan …………………………….…… 6 Conclusion ………………………………………………… 7 Appendix: Key Insights from Commissioner Survey ……..9 Notes from Strategy Retreat 2 …………………..12 Canceled Blank for 2-sided printing Canceled p. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the fall of 2024, the Iowa City Human Rights Commission (ICHRC) engaged in a series of strategic planning activities and retreats that resulted in a new strategic plan. The main elements of the plan are listed here, with details following in the body of the report and the appendices. PURPOSE OF THE IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION The Iowa City Human Rights Commission exists to raise awareness of and advocate for the protection of fundamental rights and to celebrate the diversity and shared humanity of all community members. DESIRED OUTCOMES FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS Internally: Consistency and stability within the commission Externally: High community engagement in which there is meaningful two-way interaction between the commission and the community GOALS 1) INTERNAL—Commissioner training: New commissioners receive thorough training, and knowledge from outgoing commissioners is transferred to the rest of the ICHRC. 2) INTERNAL—Shared leadership: Commissioners share responsibility for activities in which the ICHRC engages. 3) EXTERNAL—Community engagement: The commission develops deep understanding of the human rights needs and concerns of the community to inform its recommendations to City Council and to strengthen the support it provides for community members and organizations working on human rights. KEY ACTIVITIES Goal 2a: Shared Leadership—December Planning Session The commission would meet in December each year, once the new commissioners are selected and the outgoing commissioners are still in place. This meeting would be used to provide the desired continuity from year to year and set goals and plans for the coming year. Goal 2b: Shared Leadership—Rotating Quarterly Programming Each quarter, a different group of two to four commissioners would volunteer to organize community engagement programming, in collaboration with city staff members. Canceled p. 7 STRATEGIC PLAN CONTEXT The Iowa City Human Rights Commission (ICHRC) created a strategic plan in the first half of 2022, at the tail end of the challenging pandemic period. The ICHRC made progress on the programs and goals it had set in that plan but, by 2024, commissioners felt they could be doing more. Thus, they decided to engage in another strategic planning process with a goal of increasing the engagement and impact of the ICHRC in the post-pandemic era. Specifically, the commission wished to explore ways it could more actively support the community it represents. PROCESS The 2024 strategic planning process followed by the ICHRC was organized into four phases: Phase 1: Where are we now? Understanding the current state through a survey and preliminary conversations Phase 2: Where are we going? Clarifying the future direction and desired outcomes through a facilitated retreat Phase 3: How will we get there? Designing projects and specifying actions to help the ICHRC achieve the desired outcomes through a second facilitated retreat Phase 4: Turning plans into action: Determining how to organize commissioners’ efforts to carry out prioritized projects In Phase 1, the online survey comprised 13 items, the results of which were used to design the planning retreats. Key insights of the survey are included in the appendix. In Phase 2, the objectives for the retreat included these: • Create a shared understanding of the current state of the Iowa City Human Rights Commission and human rights in our community. • Provide input to city staff on key topics to guide their work in support of the ICHRC. • Create a first draft of a framing question to guide the development of the new strategic plan. The retreat in Phase 3 was designed around the following objectives: • Create a clear shared vision of the future of how the commission will function in the next three years. • Set goals for the next three years. • Identify metrics to track that will allow the ICHRC to evaluate progress toward its goals. This report summarizes the output of the first three phases. Phase 4 is planned for early 2025. Canceled p. 9 THE PLAN The strategic plan that emerged through the first three phases of the process is focused on helping the ICHRC collectively and as individual commissioners to be more active and engaged in the community. The group evaluated what had worked and not worked well in the previous two years, learned more about the activities of the commission prior to when the pandemic halted much of that activity, and developed a new shared vision of the commission they want to be for the future. All the work of the commission must be grounded in its duties that are stipulated in its charter. These duties are as follows: 1) Make recommendations to the City Council for legislation on discrimination. 2) Cooperate with other agencies and organizations to plan and conduct programs designed to eliminate racial, religious, cultural, and other intergroup tensions. 3) Educate the public on human rights and unlawful discrimination, such as organizing and facilitating educational public forums that address one or more of the broad range of topics included within the rubric of human rights. While these duties are clear, the commissioners wished to explore ways to see them in action. To that end, they distilled the duties into a single statement of purpose: The Iowa City Human Rights Commission exists to raise awareness of and advocate for the protection of fundamental rights and to celebrate the diversity and shared humanity of all community members. The Future State: Where are we going? In discussing the future it would like build, the commission identified key outcomes in two main categories: how the ICHRC functions internally, and how the ICHRC engages with the community. Internally, the commission would like to build toward greater consistency and stability. The commission has nine members, three of whom are replaced each year. Regularly adding new commissioners keeps perspectives fresh and ensures that the ICHRC can reflect changes taking place in the community. The challenge with this structure, however, is ensuring that outgoing commissioners’ knowledge, perspectives, and activities are passed along to new commissioners. Continuity and stability are important to ensuring the commission operates efficiently and effectively, and the commissioners identified this as an important outcome to plan for. Externally, the commission would like to achieve a state of high community engagement in which there is meaningful two-way interaction with the community. The ICHRC would like to be seen by the community as a supportive resource that listens with curiosity and empathy to all. This deep engagement will enhance the ICHRC’s ability to be responsive to what it learns from the community. The commissioners are aware that its current level of engagement activity in the community is lower than it was in the years prior to the pandemic. Thus, their focus is on how to strengthen engagement. Canceled p. 11 The Plan: How will we get there? Commissioners identified several goals, each with supporting actions. Internal Goals Supporting Actions 1) Commissioner training: New commissioners receive thorough training, and knowledge from outgoing commissioners is transferred to the rest of the ICHRC. a) Every new commissioner participates in a standardized onboarding process by the end of their first month of service. b) Experienced commissioners serve as mentors for new commissioners during their first year on the ICHRC. c) Departing commissioners share an overview of their critical activities and vital community relationships with the staff and commission prior to their last day of service. 2) Shared leadership: Commissioners share responsibility for activities in which the ICHRC engages. a) Each December, the commission holds a planning session to set goals for the coming year and to make plans for meeting those goals. b) Each quarter, a rotating group of commissioners is responsible for leading the planning and executing of community engagement activities. External Goals Supporting Actions 3) Community engagement: The commission develops deep understanding of the human rights needs and concerns of the community to inform its recommendations to City Council and to strengthen the support it provides for community members and organizations working on human rights. a) Commissioners, as representatives of the ICHRC, attend, participate in, and/or present at public events with residents from all areas of the community. Engage frequently in community conversations. b) Commissioners regularly share with the full ICHRC what they are hearing and learning in the community. c) Commissioners regularly receive updates about the issues being addressed by the Office of Equity. d) Commissioners use these community interactions to identify areas of local human rights concerns and explore what advocacy might be needed. Canceled p. 12 The Plan: Some details While detailed plans are needed for each of the Supporting Actions included in the previous two tables, the commissioners have developed initial plans for two items. Goal 2a: Shared Leadership—December Planning Session The commission would like to meet in December each year, once the new commissioners are selected and the outgoing commissioners are still officially in place. This would help provide the desired continuity from year to year through the following activities: • Celebrating the work of the year • Reviewing progress made on the goals set at the beginning of the year • Setting commission-level goals for the coming year • Setting individual goals for the commissioners who will be serving in the coming year • Recognizing and thanking outgoing commissioners • Welcoming incoming commissioners • Establishing mentor relationships • Allowing opportunity for all to become better acquainted in preparation for voting on new leaders at the January meeting Goal 2b: Shared Leadership—Rotating Quarterly Programming Each quarter, a different group of two to four commissioners would volunteer to organize community engagement programming, in collaboration with city staff members. Some ideas for programming include these: • Programming related to the various awards given by the commission • Education topics related to award recipients, to current events, or to other issues and concerns the commission is aware of through its community engagement efforts and the regular updates from the city staff • Programming developed in collaboration with other community organizations, such as Great Iowa City or the United Way of Johnson & Washington Counties Setting the Commission Up for Success In the previous strategic plan, the ICHRC had organized subcommittees to address each of the three priorities it had identified. These subcommittees were designed to meet monthly to plan and carry out their respective plans. While each subcommittee made some degree of progress on its goals, the commission found that it was difficult to accomplish the goals in that structure. Each subcommittee included only three people, and it was difficult to establish and maintain a regular cadence for the work outside of the regular ICHRC meetings. Thus, during the current strategic planning process, the commission explored other ways to organize the work of the new strategic plan in order to better set itself up for success. Canceled p. 13 As the commission carries out the activity of this strategic plan, it will incorporate the following practices: • Annually set and track goals for the commission as a whole. • Each commissioner should also set and track personal goals in support of the ICHRC’s annual goals. • Each quarter, rotate teams to lead programming efforts. Also rotate the responsibility for leading and capturing notes for subcommittees or teams. • When there is a need for a subcommittee to meet, consider holding the meeting the same day as the ICHRC monthly meeting. • Identify and record clear action items for each meeting. • Follow up on action items from previous meetings. • Regularly evaluate progress being made toward strategic goals by tracking measurable metrics. RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS Given the rate of change in the world today, a strategic plan needs to be a living document that evolves as the organization makes progress and responds to changing external conditions. For this plan, the overall purpose of the commission and the umbrella outcomes should be constant guides, while the details of the actions the commission takes from year to year are adjusted to account for progress and change. Thus, the framework for annual plans and activities should be these three elements taken together: Purpose: The Iowa City Human Rights Commission exists to raise awareness of and advocate for the protection of fundamental rights and to celebrate the diversity and shared humanity of all community members. Internal Outcomes: Consistency and stability within the commission External Outcomes: High community engagement in which there is meaningful two- way interaction between the commission and the community Starting with the December 2024 planning session, it is recommended that the commission take the following action each December: 1) Set a small number of specific, measurable goals for the coming year for the commission as a whole 2) Identify one or two metrics to track for each goal 3) Define activities that can be implemented to achieve the goals 4) Set timelines for these activities 5) Identify who will be responsible for the activities 6) Invite each commissioner to set personal goals in support of the commission’s goals, along with a metric or two for each Canceled p. 14 Following this planning session, each monthly commission meeting could include an agenda item to review progress on the strategic plan, celebrate progress, and troubleshoot obstacles. Additionally, the commission may want to consider including at each monthly meeting the opportunity for each commissioner to make a micro commitment. This is a commitment each individual offers in accordance with their time, interests, and resources to engage in some activity that helps further the goals of the commission. A micro commitment typically requires up to an hour of time to complete. Then commissioners could also report each month on the outcomes and learning from their micro commitment to help educate and inform colleagues and to seek assistance for activities where needed. The combination of annual commission goal setting and planning, individual goal setting, sharing the leadership for new activities, monthly progress monitoring, and monthly micro commitments can create a powerful result of progress. CONCLUSION The commission has created a framework for its work that provides clear guidance and also allows for flexibility to adapt to the evolving issues and needs of the community it serves. Additionally, the approach it has chosen is one that lends itself to starting relatively small and building on actions over time. This type of approach helps ensure the commission will not be overwhelmed by the new work but instead will be organized to make steady progress over time, increasing its positive impact—a tremendous benefit to the entire community.