HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/02/2022 Item 6b, Pinard
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Peg Pinard <pinardmat@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 28, 2022 11:27 AM
To:Advisory Bodies
Cc:CityClerk; Stewart, Erica A; Christianson, Carlyn; Marx, Jan; Pease, Andy; Shoresman,
Michelle
Subject:Input for the Human Relations Commission Meeting 11/2/22
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Human Relations Commission
Meeting November 2, 2022
Business Items 4-A and 4-B
cc: SLO City Council Members
Dear Human Relations Commission Members,
It was actually quite shocking to read the proposed changes to the HRC’s purpose and residency requirements. The
proposed “Revised Purpose Statement” is nothing but verbal fluff. It “sounds” good as it is what we all intend, but it has
the efffect of taking all the teeth out of the existing stated purpose. The current language is very clear and gives a basis
for any legal challenge that someone might need: “race religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, or physical,
mental or economic status” are all quantifiable designations. As such, they are as clear as we can be if a person felt
discriminated against. Language such as “provide a forum…can air complaints, encourage…build community
partnerships", etc. are all ambiguous words. They rely on interpretations, and from a HRC point of view, goes
nowhere. Basically, this is using fluff language to weaken the existing legitimate causes for action. Why would you want
to weaken the protections that have taken years to put in place?
The second issue…that of residency…uses a false equivalency when it cites the Mass Transportation Committee’s
allowance for two positions to be exempt from the city’s residency requirement. The decision for the MRC was because
the tens of thousands of the Cal Poly and Cuesta student populations were a significant factor in trying to reduce our
local traffic and get many cars off the roads in our city. That population made up a significant percentage of our bus
ridership. Their "vehicle miles traveled" directly affected our transportation/road system and pollution sources in the
city.
No such direct relationship exists for selecting members of the HRC. There is no similar justification for going outside the
city for membership. The residents of this city have to live with the policies of their city! It makes no sense to turn over
our city's policies to those who live in another community, like Shandon, Nipomo, Paso, Pismo or Poly. All those
jurisdictions are outside the City of SLO and are able to determine their own policies. Why aren’t you according the
residents of this city the same basic right? The rationale for not requiring that people be a resident of this city is simply
taking away local control and residents’ rights and responsibilities for the care and liveability of their own city. Any
resident of the county wishing to make a suggestion to our city is welcome to do so at any meeting of any
1
committee. Simply “having a connection to the city” is not the same as living here and being responsible for living with
the results.
Sincerely,
Peg PInard
Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo and
Chairperson, San Luis OBispo County Board of Supervisors,
Member of many of the city’s commissions
2