►
Description
Docket #0945 - An ordinance amending Chapter 12-9 of the City of Boston Code, Ordinances, regarding human rights
D
D
D
D
Boston.Com
made
part
of
the
record
in
quick
summary.
This
ordinance
amends
the
city
of
boston
code,
chapter
12-9
by
adding
new
sections
that
would
prohibit
covered
employers
from
discriminating
against
employees
or
applicants
based
on
credit
history
information
and
imposes
penalties
for
violations.
Docket
0945
contains
exemptions
for
a
position
or
or
employment
classification.
Where
credit
information
is
established,
bona
fide
occupational
requirement,
the
city
of
boston's
human
rights
commission,
would
have
the
authority
to
enforce
the
provisions
of
this
proposal.
D
D
Since
this
is
a
working
session,
we
will
discuss
the
specific
language
of
the
proposal
as
well
as
the
following
issues.
Any
employer
concerns
the
city
policy
in
general
or
the
employers
that
the
city
contracts
with
use
credit
history
in
employment,
impact
of
the
ordinance
on
city,
contracting,
adding
protections
for
housing
purposes
and
put
background
on
city
and
state
and
federal
policy.
D
D
D
D
D
This
letter
basically
states
that
the
with
regards
to
the
working
session
on
the
city
council's
committee
government
ops
that
you
plan
to
participate
in
today,
this
letter
is
actually
to
ms
leonard
and
ms
carvalho
and
ms
ortiz
that
the
proposed
ordinance
would
prohibit
the
use
of
credit,
information
and
employment
decisions
by
certain
employers.
You've
expressed
the
administration
and
human
rights
commission
staff
are
both
supportive
of
eliminating
the
use
of
potentially
discriminatory
credit
information
in
certain
employment
decisions.
D
In
summary,
the
proposed
ordinance
would
amend
the
human
rights
commission
ordinance
to
make
use
of
credit
information
and
unlawful
discriminatory
practice
in
a
variety
of
employment-related
circumstances
where
it
permits
the
use
of
credit
information
in
employment
decisions.
It
would
require
employers
to
afford
people
certain
notice
and
opportunities
to
explain
and
correct
the
information
critically.
It
would
provide
authority
to
the
human
rights
commission
to
enforce
compliance
with
this
with
those
rules
through
the
issuance
of
fines
under
the
home
rule
petition
or
a
home
rule.
D
Amendment
cities
are
not
authorized
to
enact
private
or
civil
law
governing
civil
relationships
is
set,
except
as
an
incident
to
an
exercise
of
an
independent
municipal
power.
The
proposed
ordinance
would
direct
and
control
the
private
employer,
employee
relationship
under
threat
of
enforcement
in
fines
by
the
commission.
D
D
D
This
limitation
preempts
local
laws
that
conflict
with
state
laws
or
seek
to
regulate
where
comprehensive
state
legislation
on
topic
has
already
occupied
the
field.
Chapter
93
sets
forth
a
relatively
comprehensive
set
of
rules
concerning
the
creation
and
use
of
credit
reports
and
private
rights
of
action
to
enforce
them.
The
statute
authorizes
the
provision
of
consumer
reports
for
use
for
employment
purposes
because
of
these
legal
issues.
We
do
not
think
that
there
are
drafting
changes
that
you
can
offer
at
the
working
session
to
prohibit
the
use
of
credit
checks
by
private
employers.
D
D
Moreover,
you
can
continue
to
consider
how
to
prevent
the
potential
discriminatory
effects
of
credit
checks,
likewise,
the
human
index.
The
letter
goes
on
to
explain
again.
This
is
to
ms
leonard
and
miss
carvalho,
the
ways
in
which
they
could
continue
to
push
for
and
explore
ways
in
which
I
could
reduce
discrimination
in
the
city
of
boston.
D
But
in
short,
the
letter
from
the
law
department
is
claiming
that
the
current
proposed
draft
of
the
sponsored
ordinance
by
councillors,
janie
and
councillor
campbell
is
is,
is
in
conflict
with
the
honorable
petition
and
therefore
the
constitution
of
the
state
is
in
conflict
with
the
and
in
conflict
with
consumer,
consumer
rights
or
consumer
reporting
statutes
in
the
state
laws.
So
I
wanted
to
put
that
out
there
and
I
guess
I
wanted
to
talk
directly
to
the
administration,
because
this
is
a
working
session.
D
I
have
every
intention
of
going
through
the
language
of
this
ordinance
and
making
sure
that
we're
going
to
get
it
to
the
best
place
possible.
Now
the
law
department
is
outright
said.
There's
no
way
to
get
there
because
of
the
general
context
of
this.
So
I
don't.
If
there's
a
I
don't
know,
if
you
guys
are
here
to
work
on
an
ordinance
that
the
law
department
just
told
you
is,
it
is
not
constitutional,
but
I
really
want
to
know
that
before
there's
this
big
grandiose
presentation
or
conversation,
what's
the
goal
for
the
administration.
C
Bring
it
into
existence
so
that
there
is
the
ability
for
enforcement.
We
don't
want
to
be
in
a
position
where
we
find
ourselves
getting
sued
by
a
private
employer,
alleging
that
we
violated
the
law.
So
I
think
you
know
if
we
can
find
a
way
to
do
this
and
so
that
it
passes
the
muster,
then
I
think
that's
that's
where
we
want
to
be
at
the
end
of
the
day.
That's
the
way
I
think
about
it.
A
A
It's
it's
it's
a
severe
issue
that
we
should
be
talking
about,
but
you
know
counselor
edwards,
for
instance,
when
you
say
you
know
I
guess
to
an
extent
when
I
took
this
position,
I
I
thought
that
the
boston
rights
commission,
at
least,
as
the
ordinance
is
said,
is
written
now
right,
I
really
don't
represent
the
administration.
If
you
will
right,
the
commission
is
is
intended
to
sort
of
be
independent.
A
If
you
will
right
and
to
be
honest
to
to
help
both
the
mayor
and
council
in
terms
of
human
rights
in
the
city
of
boston,
so
I
can
tell
you
that
from
the
boston
human
rights
commission
perspective,
in
fact
I've
had
comes
since
the
last
hearing.
I've
had
conversations
with
the
chair
of
the
commission
margaret
mckenna,
and
we
both
agree
that
this
is
an
important
issue
that
we
should
try
to
to
be
helpful
in.
A
So,
if
there's
something
that
can
come
out
of
it,
I'm
happy
to
sort
of
figure
out
what
to
do
right
in
a
sense
of
this.
This
particular
in
this
particular
docket
right,
but
you
know
the
letter
that
you
just
read
in
my
perspective,
particularly
as
someone
who's
an
attorney,
it's
hard
to
sort
of
figure
out
what
space
is
there
for
the
commission
to
sort
of
lean
on
or
not
lean
on,
right
and-
and
I
guess,
as
a
general
remark
as
well.
A
Obviously
it's
a
it's
an
entity
of
the
city,
and
so
I
guess
the
the
connotation
of
administration
and
not
it's
sort
of
the
space
that
I'm
not
clear
about,
but
I
do
think
that
the
commission
and
its
decision,
particularly
if
this
was
passed,
and
we
have
to
do
investigations
and
such
as
as
an
attorney.
I
take
these
sort
of
the
space
sacred
if
you
will,
because
I
think
this
it's
irrespective
to
some
extent
of
of
where
you
know
we
all
are
right.
A
So
I'm
hoping
that
I
guess
in
my
journal,
as
I
conclude
my
remarks
is
that
we
get
to
a
place
where,
if
the
commission
can
do
something,
you
know
to
to
help
the
people
of
boston
in
this
space
does
that
make
sense.
I'm
happy
to
engage
with
you
in
in
the
language
of
and
some
of
my
thoughts
in
the
language
and
so
on,
but
but
to
some
extent
I'm
not
sure.
A
D
Thank
you
one
second.
Well,
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
the
issue
that
I'm
going
to
shortly
summarize
is
our
legal
arguments
I
guess
before
before
us,
so
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
note.
Actually
you
know
what
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
have
my
my
colleague
do
their
introductory
remote
remarks
and
then
I'll
come
back
to
kind
of
summarizing.
What
we're
going
to
do
today.
So
counselor
flynn,
then
counselor
braden,
counselor,
janie,
counselor,
campbell
and
then
counselor
will.
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
council
edwards,
for
sharing
this
important
working
session
to
council
campbell
and
councilor
janie
for
sponsoring
this
as
well.
I
believe
that
we
should
do
what
we
can
to
ensure
that
job
seekers
are
afforded
employment
opportunities
based
on
their
ability,
not
on
something
like
credit
history.
E
Someone
can
have
a
bad
credit
history
because
they
have
outstanding
medical
bills,
various
emergency
expenses
for
their
family.
We
had
a
hearing
before
on
student
debt,
and
we
know
that
having
student
debt
is
a
common
issue
that
impacts
many
people's
history
as
well.
Things
happen
and
many
people
have
to
take
on
debt
and
they
shouldn't
be
penalized
when
they
are
seeking
employment.
E
A
person's
credit
history
can
also
be
inaccurate.
I
also
filed
a
hearing
order
with
councillors
campbell
ian
edwards
on
the
human
rights.
Can
commission
like
utilizing
it
to
prevent
and
investigate
discrimination?
I'm
glad
that
the
human
rights
commission
is
playing
a
part
in
this
ordinance,
as
we
know,
is
established
under
mayor
flynn.
It
was
re,
it
was
deactivated
and
then
it
was
re
reactivated
again
under
under
mayor
walsh,
and
I
look
forward
to
discussing
how
we
can
best
work
with
the
human
rights
commission.
I
have
great
respect
for
this
for
this
agency.
E
F
F
I
want
to
echo
counselor
flynn's
words
that
you
know
a
credit.
Your
credit
history
can
be
impacted
by
all
sorts
of
unforeseen
events
like
medical
bills
or
sudden
illness
or
loss
work,
and
for
that
to
be
an
impediment
to
future
employment
is
just
as
basically
unfair
and
it
needs
to
be
remedied.
So
I
hope
that
we
can.
I
hope
we
can
make
forward,
make
progress
in
this
space.
Thank
you.
So
much.
B
Thank
you
so
much,
madam
chair.
Let
me
begin
by
first
thanking
my
sister-in-service
counselor
campbell
for
her
partnership
on
this
ordinance
to
outlaw
discriminatory
credit-based
practices
used
by
employers.
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
and
thank
our
former
colleague
and
now
congresswoman
ayanna
pressley,
for
her
leadership
on
this
work.
B
We
need
to
make
sure
that
private
employers
as
well
are
not
using
credit
checks
that
could
could
hinder
opportunities
for
people
in
our
city
and
saying
this
isn't
enough.
We've
got
to
codify
it
into
law.
We've
got
to
make
sure
that
our
values
actually
follow
that
our
legislation
follow
follows
our
values.
My
goal
is
that
we
will
pass
this
legislation
this
legislative
cycle.
B
I
think
it's
important
that
we
get
at
the
issues
of
hand
and
have
a
good,
thoughtful,
productive
conversation
here,
so
that
we
leave
this
conversation
having
the
clarity
needed
to
put
forth
something
before
the
council
that
will
be
signed,
hopefully
by
our
mayor.
I
want
to
thank
everyone
again
on
this
panel,
the
administration.
Certainly,
my
colleagues
thank
my
partner
on
this
counselor
campbell
and
thank
you,
madam
chair.
G
Thank
you,
councillor
edwards,
and
thank
you,
madam
president,
for
your
partnership
on
this
and
you've.
Summed
it
up.
This
legislation
is
critically
important
and
it
has
been
for
some
time,
and
we
know
that
as
more
residents
are
facing
unemployment
because
of
covid
this
barrier,
an
unnecessary
one,
will
only
get
in
the
way.
If
anything,
we
need
to
be
easing
barriers
or
lifting
barriers
to
opportunity
in
this
moment
in
time.
I
too
want
to
thank
the
administration
vivian.
Thank
you
for
your
leadership,
continued
leadership
and
work
avandro.
G
I
also
want
to
thank
christine
from
central
staff
who,
in
the
last,
maybe
two
hours,
because
we
got
the
letter
quite
late
turned
around
really
quickly
some
legal
research
and
analysis
as
well
for
all
of
us
on
this.
She
has
been
in
the
weeds
for
this
piece
of
legislation
since
the
very
beginning,
even
when
congresswoman
presley
was
still
here-
and
I
think
you
know-
I
won't
necessarily
have
any
questions.
I
think
for
me-
it's
it
is.
You
know
some
pushback
on
the
analysis.
G
That's
in
the
letter
that
counselor
edwards
read-
and
you
know
this
for
me-
is
not
unsimilar
to
the
living
wage
ordinance.
If
anything.
This
is
exactly
that,
and
just
of
course
creating
another
category
of
discrimination
and
adding
that
to
the
current
work
of
the
human
rights
commission.
To
say
we
want
to
add
credit
checks
and
on
the
state
law
piece.
We
know
there's
state
law
pending
and
we
know
how
long
the
state
can
take
to
pass
legislation.
G
We
are
already
doing
it
as
an
employer,
which
vivian
of
course
spoke
to
in
our
last
hearing,
which
was
wonderful.
This
is
a
continuation
of
that
to
say,
other
employers
in
the
city
should
also
follow
our
lead
in
practice.
With
respect
to
this,
so
I
don't
have
anything
else
after
this
I
know
you
said
opening
counselor
edwards,
I
don't
have
anything
else.
G
I
just
wanted
to
go
on
the
record,
to
say
I
think
the
ordinance
as
is
is
sound,
and
I
really
wanted
to
thank
you
and,
of
course,
councillor
janie's
office
for
the
quick
turnaround
and
christine
from
central
staff
for
really
digging
in
at
the
in
the
last
hour
or
so
on
this
too.
Given
how
busy
you
are
so.
Thank
you
so
much
and
again,
thank
you
to
all
of
you
for
the
administration.
D
May
have
had
to
oh,
I'm
sorry
counselor
will.
I
think
I
just
got
attacked
from
her.
My
apologies.
She
did
say
she
had
to
step
away.
She
will,
when
she
comes
back
I'll,
have
her
plug
in
if
need
be.
Okay,
so
just
to
give
some
again-
and
I
appreciate
councillor
campbell,
I'm
going
to
lead
sponsors
having
to
kind
of
explain
the
context
and
what
we're
working
with
here
today.
D
Again,
I'm
going
to
say
very
directly
what
this,
what
I
intend
to
put
before
the
body,
and
that
is
a
robust
ordinance
that
bans
credit
discrimination
and
employment
in
the
city
of
boston.
That
is
what
is
proposed
to
this
body
and-
and
we
will
be
working
on
that
in
this
working
session.
I
want
to
directly
respond
to
attorney
cedar
bombs
or
the
corporation
council.
D
That
particular
argument
is
based
off
of
his
understanding
that
we
cannot
govern
as
the
municipality,
private
relationships
or
civil
relationships
between
employers
and
employees.
The
first
argument
we
would
have
is
that
we
don't
believe
that
this
is
part
of
that
definition
that
banning
discrimination
is
different
than
say.
Trying
to
raise
the
minimum
wage
is
different
than
saying
certain
vacation
policies.
It's
different
from
that.
That's
number
one
number
two,
this
was
created.
D
D
D
Not
only
that,
but
we
have
amended
this
before-
to
include
gender
identity,
to
include
other
protected
classes
and
in
no
way
shape
or
form
will
be
challenged
by
adding
additional
classes
under
the
constitutionality,
and
let
me
be
very
clear:
the
argument
that
we
cannot
govern
private
relationships
is
not
a
challenge
to
the
specific
addition
of
credit
discrimination.
It's
the
challenge
to
the
whole.
D
D
So
not
only
that
we
have
done
this
before
and
we
do
it
regularly.
I
would
say,
with
the
boston,
residency
job
policy
and
the
ordinance
that
we
created
to
specifically
govern,
even
more
so
than
the
discrimination
practices
of
employers,
but
how
they
hire
how
many
hours
they
give
to
people
based
on
race
based
on
gender
and
based
on
residency,
and
you
know
what
we
did.
This
administration
amended
that
recently
in
2017
to
increase
the
percentages
further
involving
itself
in
the
private
conversations
of
employers
and
contractors.
D
Even-
and
it
applies
beyond
just
the
money
where
the
city
goes.
It
applies
to
large
projects
over
a
certain
square
footage.
We
have
no
problem
involving
ourselves
in
that
I'm
happy
about
that.
I'm
happy
that
they
amended
it
and
yet
somehow
we're
dealing
with
this
an
additional
protected
class
and
the
administration
says
this
is
too
much.
D
That
does
not
make
sense.
It's
not
consistent
with
its
own
action
with
prior
administration's
actions,
and
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
at
all
make
sense,
considering
it's
a
city
ordinance
that
we
created
as
far
as
lawsuits
and
people
challenging
the
validity
of
this
particular
component.
They
would
wouldn't
be
challenging
just
this.
They
would
be
challenging
again
the
entire
law's
ability
to
involve
itself
in
employee
and
employer
relationships
and
banning
discrimination.
D
D
I
would
hope
that
this
administration
finds
that
the
barriers
to
employment
that
are
pretextual
and
discriminatory
are
worth
destroying
and
with
whatever
powers
we
have,
we
will
move
in
that
position.
I
want
to
talk
about
the
consistency
with
the
state
laws.
Our
jurisdiction
under
this
law
is
exactly
consistent
with
the
state
jurisdiction
under
its
own
discriminatory
laws,
as
in
it
applies
to
employers
with
six
employees
or
more.
We
have
not
gone
beyond
that
jurisdiction.
We
haven't
gone
further
than
the
state's
willing
to
go.
D
There
were
several
components
that
I
mentioned
in
the
introductory
remarks
about
things
that
were
left
unsaid
or
things
that
we
wanted
to
provide
space
for.
The
first
was
any
pushback
that
we
were
going
to
hear
from
employers
beyond
the.
I
guess,
challenging
the
whole
concept
of
having
a
discrimination
law
at
the
municipal
level.
What
other
pushback
did
we
hear
has.
H
D
Heard
or
concerned
specifically
I'd
hope
that
the
exception
provided
or
bona
fide
qualifications
right
for
financial
and
certain
jobs
that
require
you
to
have
a
good
credit.
I
guess
was
enough,
but
does
anyone
did
anyone
here?
Has
anyone
received
any
concerns
about
whether
the
actual
employer
community
is
concerned
about
this
language.
D
Does
the
city
beyond
the
the
you
know
the
whole
constitutional
fight
and
not
even
fight
the
disagreement
about
the
legal
components,
but
does
the
city
have
any
thoughts
about
that,
and
I
do
know
that
one
thing
that
the
city
we
had
hoped
to
get
committed
from
the
city
was
the
outright
banning
of
the
practice
of
using
credit
checks
in
the
city's
lottery
system.
Counselor
bach
brought
that
up.
D
We
know
the
city
already
is
leading
and
that
you
do
not
use
credit
checks
except
for
bonafide
employment
right
now.
So
thank
you
for
that.
Thank
you
actually
for
setting
a
model.
Ms
leonard,
that's
that's
what
we
do,
but
we
were
talking
about
housing.
Specifically,
I
see
tim
has
joined
us
right
on
time
tim
to
talk
about
housing.
H
H
We
already
have
a
boston,
fair
chance,
tenant
selection
policy,
which
applies
to
the
lotteries
that
are
held
through
the
city,
both
on
dnd
funded
properties
as
well
as
inclusionary
development
units,
and
that
is
a
start.
We
recognize
that
there
is
more
that
we
can
do
and
we
are
interested
in
looking
at
what
we
can
do
both
for
income,
restrictive
properties
and
for
properties
and
at
large
and
market
rate
properties,
but
feel
that
that
is
something
that
needs
to
have
some
time
and
some
thought
put
into
it.
H
H
A
landlord
is
extending
you
credit
by
allowing
you
to
be
in
the
property,
and
so
it's
a
little
different
from
employment,
where
they're
not
extending
your
credit
they're
just
giving
you
a
job.
So
I
think
that
we
do
want
to
take
the
time
to
look
at
this
thoughtfully
because
minneapolis
and
seattle
already
done
some
legwork,
we
might
be
able
to
do
a
little.
You
know
a
little
faster
pace,
but
I
think
that
I
think
we
should
do
it
as
a
standalone
effort
from
the
employment
effort.
D
Okay,
so
in
terms
of
policies,
then-
and
I'm
I'm
fine
with
that-
if
that
that
was,
you
are
correct,
it
wasn't
and
for
anyone
watching
that
was
never
filed
was
a
housing
component.
The
co-sponsors
counselor
janey
council
campbell
filed
in
a
strictly
employment
perspective
based
off
of
barriers
to
employment
for
people,
and
it
came
up
kind
of
organically.
In
the
conversation,
housing
did
yeah
and
in
terms
of
the
practice,
or
do
you
think
you'll
you'll
need
much
time
in
terms
of
terms
of
the
lottery
process.
H
I
think
I
think
we
want.
We
want
to
see
what
the
best
practices
are.
I
know
that
new
york
has
moved
recently
to
do
to
look
at
credit
records
differently
in
affordable
properties,
so
those
are
our
examples
is
that
seattle
and
minneapolis
have
looked
at
all
units,
so
in
all
situations
and
new
yorkers
look
specifically
at
that,
and
I
think
we
just
need
some
time
to
really
kind
of
look
at
that
and
see
where
we
go
with
it.
D
Very
well,
okay,
all
right,
then
that's
that's
fair.
We
also,
let
me
just
pull
up
the
minutes
and
you
know
what
I
apologize.
Colleagues,
I
got
right
into
it.
I
didn't
go
back
in
line
for
anything.
I
went
straight
into
it.
My
apologies
especially
to
the
co-sponsors
so
counselor,
I'm
gonna
go
back
in
line
and
have
you
guys
ask
whatever
questions
or
concerns
so
counselor
flynn.
E
E
We're
going
to
see
many
families
going
into
bankruptcy,
probably
in
the
thousands
it
seems
like
that
will
be
the
case
and
they'll
probably
be
more
work
for
the
human
rights
commission
to
work
on
these
types
of
issues
or
or
at
least
address.
These
issues
just
wanted
to
throw
that
out
out
there.
If
anyone
had
a
comment
on
that,
knowing
that
we're
in
a
pandemic
that
we're
in
a
recession
and
we're
in
for
a
difficult
economic
period,
what
impact
will
that
have
on
maybe
on
the
human
rights
commission.
A
A
Since,
since
we
started,
as
you
know,
we
actually
didn't
start
meeting
until
covet
started
really
because
the
commissioners
were
appointed
early
january
and
by
the
time
we
could
launch
a
meeting.
Things
had
gotten
much.
You
know
things
were
shut
down,
so
a
lot
of
the
commissioners
haven't
even
met
each
other
in
person,
but
one
of
the
consensus
is
that
the
commissioners
have
arrived
at
now.
Is
that
more
or
less
we're
not
going
to
focus
in
into
again?
A
So
something
like
this
right,
which
I
think
and
don't
quote
me
on
this,
but
I
think
that
credit
history
is
not
as
as
counselor
counselor
edwards
have
put
it
several
times.
It's
not
a
protected
class
at
the
state
level
right
now
right,
so
that
those
complaints
will
be
if
they.
If,
if
this
was
passed,
those
complaints
we
would
handle,
because
we
would
have
no
way
to
send
it
to
if
you
will
right,
because
it'll
be
a
local
ordinance
and
it
doesn't
exist,
the
state
author
or
the
federal
level.
A
So
that's
one
thing
that
that
we
are
cognizant
of
right
now.
Is
that
so
again,
I
guess
that's
a
different
conversation,
but
the
commission
as
a
whole
right
now,
they're,
not
we're
not
we're,
not
at
least
in
the
immediate
future,
we're
not
handling
individual
complaints
as
in
thorough
investigation
of
complaints
and
and
try
to
resolve
them.
A
What
we're
done
for
the
little
that
we
got
is
sort
of
you
know,
guide
them
to
to
the
mcad
and
so
on
and
try
to
resolve
them
without
sort
of
this
formal
process
that
is
articulated
in
the
commission
in
the
commission's
doc
ordinance.
Now,
the
on
the
flip
side
is
that
the
commission
is
looking
at
systematic
issues,
for
instance,
one
of
the
things
that
we
we've
been
looking
at
now,
that
I'm
sure
is
no
no
secret
to
any
of
us
here.
Is
the
digital
divide?
That's
that
covert
s
has
shown
to
be.
A
So
we're
looking
at
that
as
one
of
the
issues
there's
several
other
things
that
we
look
again
just
particularly
as
we're
thinking
about
the
city
as
a
whole
as
we're
coming
out
of
this
epidemic.
As
we
think
about
you
know,
the
mayor
made
the
announcement
of
the
new
created
a
new
cabinet
position
of
the
equity
and
inclusion
which,
as
you
probably
are
aware,
this
this
department
is
part
of
that.
So
where
I
guess
long
story
short
consular
happy
to
engage
more
in
that.
A
E
D
Thank
you
and
to
my
colleagues
as
you,
as
you're,
going
through
feel
free
to
also
indicate
if
this
is
something
you're
going
to
support,
ultimately
feel
free,
don't
feel
pressured
but
feel
free,
and
because
I
I
am,
I
intend
to
get
this
before
the
body
in
the
next
two
weeks,
so
would
love
to
hear
it.
I.
D
F
I
don't
really
have
a
huge
questions.
I'm
learning
a
lot
just
listening
to
you,
folks,
you
you,
you
lawyers,
you
know
when
I
think
about
someone
graduating
from
college,
with
a
huge
burden
of
student
debt
and
and
then
you
think
about
someone
who
has
a
poor
credit
score
because
of
a
medical
emergency
or
unforeseen
incident
in
their
lives
that
caused
them
to
to
damage
their
credit
history.
F
I
just
think
that
there's
there's
sort
of
this:
it's
not
an
even
playing
field.
When
you
compare
the
impacts
of
one's
credit,
it
seems
like
there's
even
biases
within
within
how
potential
employers
would
look
at
someone's
credit
history.
If,
if
they
were
looking
at
credit,
history,
they'd
say
oh
sure,
he's
got.
Some
he's
got
debt
because
he's
just
graduated
from
college
or
or
they
might
they
might
view
some
some
other.
F
F
B
I
would
say
we're
looking
at
the
overall
credit
history,
and
so
a
credit
score
is
what
usually
an
employer
or
a
landlord
or
someone
would
look
at
kind
of
the
fico
score
in
the
credit
history
and
so
whatever
that
debt,
whatever
caused
the
debt,
whether
it
was
medical
bills,
whether
it
was
student
loans.
What
have
you?
I
don't
think
we're
making
those
distinctions
here,
we're
saying
that
you
should
not
use
a
credit
check
credit
history
as
a
determination
for
employment.
You
should
look
at
the
skills.
You
should
look
at
the
resume.
B
We
know
that
this
is
discriminatory
and
that
it
unfairly
disproportionately
impacts
poor
people
of
color
in
particular,
but
poor
people
widely,
but
poor
people
of
color
in
particular,
and
so
that
would
be
my
two
cents
certainly
would
offer,
and
I'm
not
an
attorney.
So
I
certainly
want
to
hear
from
our
the
lead
sponsor
on
this
and
my
partner
on
this
campbell
through
the
chair.
Obviously,.
G
We
didn't
necessarily,
I
don't.
I
didn't
see
any
reports
or
anything
like
that,
but
you
sort
of
heard
it
in
different
stories
how
we
categorize
it
so
people
tend
to.
They
see
medical
debt,
say:
okay,
that's
out
of
your
control,
whereas
some
other
forms
of
debt
may
not
be,
and
you
just
made
poor
choices.
F
Yeah,
I
think
my
point
is
you
know,
let's
hope
we
can
put
all
of
that
in
the
rear
view,
mirror
and
then
level
of
playing
field
and
make
it
that
that
your
credit
score
is
not
an
impediment
to
being
gainfully
employed
and
getting
a
job
and
moving
your
life
forward.
You
know
it
shouldn't
be
a
ball
and
chain
that
you
carry
around
that
stops.
You
stops
you
making
progress
in
your
life
so
to
counter
edward's
question.
D
B
B
Janie,
thank
you
so
much,
and
I
will
try
to
be
very
brief.
As
my
partner
and
co-sponsor
on
this
has
already
said,
I
think
the
ordinance
is
sound,
as
is,
I
think
it
stands
up
to
the
legal
challenges
as
the
the
only
non-lawyer
here.
Well,
not
the
only
one,
but
I
I
want.
I
really
would
like
to
understand
if
the
letter
from
corporation
council
are
these
the
only
concerns
from
the
administration
or
are
we
still
is
there?
There
was
concerns
around
fees
before.
Is
that
no
longer
a
concern.
A
So
let
me
add,
let
me
have
something
briefly:
okay,
and
this
is
just
reading
again
the
ordinance
I
have
in
front
of
me
one
thing
and
I've
read
it
several
times.
One
thing
that
I
noticed
about
the
ordinance
and-
and
this
is,
I
guess,
not
reference
to
the
ordinance-
the
proposed
docket.
Okay,
I'm
talking
about
the
original
human
rights
ordinance
commission
ordinance
that
ordinance
does
not
have
fees
in
them.
That's
one
thing
I
note
it
doesn't
say
in
any
way
that
fees
can
be
essentially
leveraged.
B
Regardless
of
whether
the
original
ordinance
says
we
can
collect
fees,
the
point
here
is
the
city
of
boston.
Can
collect
fees
does
collect
fees
for
lots
of
things
right
right?
That's
true,
right!
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
assume
that
the
only
concerns
that
the
administration
had
are
in
this
letter.
Yes-
and
it
was
about
you-
know
all
the
things
that
our
chair
summarized
in
her
opening.
Yes,
those
are
the
only
concerns.
B
C
Leonard,
yes,
I
think
you
know
we
certainly
I
wouldn't
be
enforcing
this
within
the
city
of
boston
in
terms
of
not
allowing
credit
checks.
If
I
didn't
believe
in
it,
I
think
the
issue
becomes,
as
you
stated
what's
in
the
letter
most
certainly
we
are
for
we
are
for
supporting
that
that
prevents
barriers
to
employment.
C
B
Right
and
this
would
be
enforced
by
the
commission
so
right,
that
is
my
next
set
of
questions-
is
around
implementation.
So
I
would
be
interested
mr
cavallo,
and
what
resources
do
you
think
the
commission
would
need
or
your
office
would
need?
Is
there
going
to
be
a
database
to
track
compliance
and
non-compliance?
B
A
The
way
I
see
here
right
the
way-
and
actually
some
of
this
might
be
my
lawyer,
but
all
what
I
see
is
you
know
an
ordinance
that
says
you
cannot
do
this
right.
You
cannot
use
credit
if
you
will
to
determine
people's
eligibility
for
work
advancement
and
such
right,
and
then,
if
that
happens
in
the
particular
space,
the
individual
there's
some.
Obviously
how.
B
Is
non-compliant,
what
will
be
your
process
or
your
systems
that
you
will
create
to
track
this
and
then
the
follow-up
question
is:
what
support
might
you
need
that
you
don't
currently
have
to
make
sure
that
you
will
be
effective
in
order
to
carry
out
the
duties,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
want
to
set
anyone
up
for
failure.
So
if
we're
doing
this,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
commission
will
have
the
resources
and
supports
necessary
to
implement
it
and
enforce.
B
A
I
B
A
But
to
be
to
be
completely
honest
with
you
when
that
would
happen,
I'm
not
100
sure,
and
that's
particularly
because
what
I
was
saying
earlier
that
in
that
the
way
that
the
commission
is
thinking
about
its
mission
currently-
and
that
is
commission
commissioners-
the
folks
that
are
appointed-
that
they're
not
focusing
on
individual
complaints.
So
there
is
particularly
now
there's
no
immediate
need
to
sort
of
say.
Let
me
go
high
of
two
or
three
investigators,
because
I
don't
have
an
influx
of
of
complaints
that
I'm
does
that
make
sense.
B
A
A
Yes,
yes,
but
I
also
have
I
mean
the
issue,
is
that
you
know
undercover
in
the
timeline
and
and
being
able
to
actually
execute
it
right
in
this
in
this
in
this
sort
of
next
several
months?
If
you
will
right
now,
it
does
again,
if,
obviously,
if
this
became
law-
and
we
went
out
to
execute
it,
the
priorities
of
who
were
hired
when
we
hired
people
changes
right.
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
J
A
But
the
the
first
portion
of
that,
though
right
it
says
if
a
person
believes
that
that
means
that,
as
as
the
executioner,
if
you
will,
if
I'm
executing
this,
that
means
that
the
person
then
has
come
to
the
office
right
to
say
that
I
try
to
get
a
job
abc
company,
and
this
happened
this
way
right.
So
yes,
then
that
triggers
me,
if
you
will,
which
is
what
I
was
talking
about
the
earlier
about
the
database,
because
it
says.
B
A
The
the
first
I
mean
there's
different
things
we
can
do,
but
the
the
place
like
this,
particularly
the
commission,
we're
designed
more
or
less
to
start
resolve
situations.
Okay,
so
the
person
comes
in
and
again
another
person
that
we
could
potentially
hire
and
that
we
haven't
hired
would
be
a
constituent
service
person
or
an
intake
person
that
sits
with
this
person
and
listens
to
the
whole
story.
Okay,
that
listens
to
exactly
what
happened
and
type
up
this
sort
of
intake.
A
A
A
Depending
on
the
situation,
we
request
the
documents
we
may
do
what's
called
interrogatories
and
ask
questions
of
the
individual
or
the
other
party
that
they're
accusing
right
and
then
hopefully
bring
the
two
of
them
together
if
they
want
to
right
to
say,
come
together
and
try
to
resolve
this.
This
is
a
process
that's
described.
B
Be
some
happy
mediation
moment
where
you
bring
the
two
parties
together
and
they're.
Suddenly
hired,
it's
not
gonna
happen.
If
anything,
the
resolution
would
be
a
civil
lawsuit
and
some
sort
of
restitution
that
way,
but
it
isn't
going
to
resolve
itself
and
that
this
person
is
suddenly
hired
by
that
company.
Who
was
doing
this,
this
bad
deed.
A
Let
me
ask
you
this
not
not
to
ask
you're
the
one
asking
questions,
but
in
a
situation
like
this
right,
ideally
I
mean
I
get.
Obviously
we
can
get
to
a
place
where
a
fine
can
be
can
be
can
be.
You
know,
leverage
against
the
the
perpetrator,
but
ideally
the
reason
why
it's
built
in
the
system-
and
I'm
just
talking
about
in
the
process
which
you
asked
about
the
process
asked
this,
so
people
can
meet
and
and
honestly,
if
I
was
a
person,
I
was
in
this
position.
It'd
be
great.
A
If
I
get
the
job
versus
the
city,
finding
the
person
a
hundred
dollars
right
or
whatever
the
the
fine
may
be
so
there's
a
space,
that's
called
that's
sort
of
mediation,
con
conciliation,
where,
hopefully
we
can
work
things
out
now.
If
we
can't
work
things
out,
we
determine
that
there
is
a
probable
cause
right
from
probable
cause.
B
Okay,
because
so
I'm
asking
these
questions
because
again,
we
don't
want
to
set
anyone
up
for
failure.
If
the
commission
is
going
to
be
charged
with
ensuring
that
these
rights
are
protected
and
should
they
be
violated
their
the
commission
will
then
issue
fines
or
some
sort
of
levy.
Then
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you
have
the
capacity
to
do
just
that.
B
We
don't
want
to
take
all
day
and
I
want
to
make
space
for
other
colleagues.
Obviously
I
am
very
supportive
of
this
ordinance
as
it
is
written
and
plan
on
voting
in
the
affirmative
for
it.
I
I'm,
I
believe,
as
was
already
stated,
that
it
it
is
sound
and
does
not
violate
any
of
the
state
laws
that
we
we
have
to
concern
ourselves
with
that,
it's
legally
sound,
and
I
don't
want
to
take
much
time
here.
B
G
D
Housing
commission
specifically
talked
about
the
complaint
driven
nature
of
that
of
that
process
and
that
people
would
be
able
to.
They
would
because
of
their
program,
they'd
be
able
to
find
those
discriminating
real
estate
agents,
those
landlords
and
they
had
no
problem,
accepting
those
complaints
and
also
assigning
fines
to
them
as
well.
So
there
is
a
precedent
for
it,
or
at
least
about
to
be
with
the
with
the
discrimination
and
housing
component.
I
recall
I
mean,
if
tim
is
still
here,
he
was,
he
may
be
gone,
but
he
was
on
the.
D
D
As
I
understand
the
letter
is
specifically
as
to
whether
we
can
expand
the
discriminatory
categories
in
this
ordinance
or
and
if
we
do
that,
if
it
violates
the
homeworld
petition
and
again
this
was
not
a
home
rule
petition
that
created
this
ordinance.
We
do
have
precedent
for
that.
Obviously,
as
you
know,
it
wasn't
one
we
created
the
ordinance
and
so
what
we're
doing
is
amending
an
ordinance
that
we
have
within
our
house.
D
D
So
I
believe,
between
following
up
with
ms
cohen
and
getting
whatever
comments
from
the
national
consumer
law
center,
making
sure
that
we
tighten
up
any
loopholes
because
we're
not
trying
to
build
something
that
you
could
drive
a
truck
through
either.
You
know
and
pat
ourselves
in
the
back,
so
I
believe
we
can
get
there
and
balance
those
needs.
But
I
I
do
not
see
how
this
flies
in
the
face
of
the
homeworld
petition
law
and
the
letter
from
corporation
council
really
doesn't
explain
that
very
well.
D
Besides,
just
just
saying
that
it
does,
and
if
at
home,
if
they're
insistent
on
staying
in
that
position,
then
I
think
it
challenges
the
very
concept
of
the
entire
human
rights
commission.
We've
we've
now
been
joined
by
councillor
bach.
Actually,
she
just
raised
her
hand.
So
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
let
her
come
in
and
do
any
introductory
remarks,
and
I
see
a
susan
helmy.
D
J
D
J
Great
and
have
you
already
covered
the
question
of
sort
of
there's
a
assertion
in
the
letter
from
the
law
department
that
employment
is
a
type
of
civil
relationship
that
we
can't
get
involved
in
here,
but
it
seems
like
pretty
much
everything
else
that
people
would
use
credit
checks
for
also
some
kind
of
a
civil
relationship,
whether
one
of
commerce
or
housing
or
other
things.
So
I
just
I
wondered
if
anyone
had
asked
that
question
yet.
D
We
did
not.
We
took
a
different
context
and
and
essentially
arguing
that,
if
they're
challenging
the
employer
relationship
as
something
that
we
couldn't
get
involved
in
then
the
very
basis
of
the
human
rights
commission,
the
jurisdiction
is
for
employers
with
six
or
more
employees,
and
so
it's
it's
not
going
to
be
just
on
whether
you
can
add
an
additional
category
right.
It's
got
to
be
whether
this
law
can
exist.
J
Right,
yes,
I
would
be
I'd,
be
inclined
to
agree
with
that
as
well.
Okay!
Well,
I
I
was
I'm
sorry
to
have
come
late
and
to
have
I
unintentionally
sort
of
butted
in
here.
I
just
wanted
to
see
if,
if
anyone
from
the
law
department
was
on
the
line,
but
it
sounds
like
we'll
have
to
submit
some
questions
to
them
for
follow-up.
D
Right-
and
I
made
my
indicate
my
intentions
very
clear
council
bloc-
I
intended
having
discussed
the
outstanding
issues
we
asked
specifically
about
whether
there
are
any
employers
who
expressed
opposition.
We
had
asked
specifically
about
housing
that
you
brought
up.
Counselor
bach
and
tim
davis
was
here
to
discuss
that
we
they're
not
prepared
to
they're,
not
in
opposition
to
having
it
be
in
one
day,
a
future
legislation,
but
they
they
came
in
to
the
employment
component
of
this,
and
so
they
would
like
to
stick
in
that
stay.
D
In
that
vein,
though,
and
they
will
be
examining
best
practices
looking
at
seattle
and
new
york
on
the
lottery
system,
which
you
also
brought
up
in
the
last
and
the
hearing
actually
to
note,
they
use
credit
checks
on
that,
and
so
we
will
probably
not
include
a
housing
build
out
in
this
particular
one.
We
discussed
potential
lawsuits,
we
discussed
specific
concerns,
but
you
know
we've
been
sued
before
by
airbnb.
What
not
so
lawsuits
were,
they
could
happen,
but
the
lawsuit
would
be
challenging.
D
The
entire
discrimination
laws,
jurisdiction,
which
we
also
notice,
is
completely
consistent.
Word
for
word
with
the
state
employer
six
or
more
so
there
there's,
we
don't
go
further
than
the
state
does
and
the
states
enabled
by
you
know
its
own
constitution
are
by
the
constitution
of
the
state
of
massachusetts.
So
we
are
at
a
point
where
I
I
said
I
am.
J
Great,
thank
you
yeah.
No,
I
I
certainly
I
my
I
I've
just
had
a
chance
to
start
familiarizing
with
myself
with
it,
but
I
I'm
definitely
skeptical
of
this
interpretation.
Like
you
say
it
has
a
lot
of
it
would
have
a
lot
of
knock-on
effects
on
what
the
hrc
is
even
able
to
do,
and
and
on
the
housing
front.
J
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
my
office,
since
that
last
working
session
did
quite
a
bunch
of
research
on
that
and
sort
of
came
to
a
similar
conclusion
that
there's
some
really
good
model
legislation
out
there
in
other
municipalities
and
it's
something
that
that
we
should
do
and
that
we're
hoping
to
work
on
in
the
new
year
and
glad
to
hear
the
administrations
amenable
to
that.
But
definitely
it
didn't
feel
madam
chair,
knowing
kind
of
the
closing
legislative
calendar
here.
J
It
didn't
feel
like
something
we
could
get
right
in
the
final
couple
weeks
of
the
year.
So
definitely
we'll
put
on
record
my
intention
to
return
to
the
credit
checks
and
and
sort
of
as
part
of
a
broader
quest
set
of
questions
of
of
what
people
are
subjected
to
when
they
go
to
try
to
rent
housing
in
our
city.
J
I
think
it's
a
conversation
we
should
be
having
in
the
new
year,
but
but
in
the
in
the
interim
I
would
just
say
that
I'm
I'm
happy
to
write
up
some
some
written
questions
for
submission
to
the
law
department,
but
I'd
be
inclined
to
agree
with
you
that
it.
It
strikes
me
as
a
interpretation
that
is
hard
to
hold
consistent
with
the
fundamental
basis
of
the
human
rights
commission.
D
D
D
D
Lynn,
thank
you
so
much
for
joining
us
today.
I
I
I
genuinely
might
my
compliments
for
the
all
of
you
is
I
that
conversation
that
we
had
in
the
hearing
was
overwhelmingly
positive
and
headed
towards
the
vision
towards
a
more
equitable
city
period.
So
I
just
I
want
everyone
to
know
that
that
that
that
there
really
is
an
interpretation
debate.
That's
it
not
an
intentional,
not
an
intention
or
heart
debate,
so
thank
you.
I
can
go
through
again:
counselor
brayden,
counselor,
janie,
counselor
bach.
If
you
have
any
concluding
remarks.