All right, good afternoon. We're going to go ahead and convene this meeting of our Health and Human Services Committee. I am Joy of my Council Member, Sales and Lutki. The purpose of today's session is to follow up on the conversation we had on November 21st, in which the committee had a joint session with our audit committee to discuss a Office of Inspector General Report regarding our Office of Human Rights. And we discussed at that session some issues that had been raised and some questions had been posed which the department has the team has responded to. And this is a follow-up to that conversation to see where things stand now. There were several issues that arose during that session where Director Stowe discussed some hiring challenges because the council was able to help appropriate some additional positions, still not feeling we know all the needs, but those positions had not been filled. So we're hoping to get an update on those particular positions. And then an update on the operational improvements that hopefully have been made and implemented and where all of that stands. So and before I turn it over to Miss Singleton to just set some broader context I think it goes without saying Mr. Stowe I know I speak on behalf of all of my colleagues especially us on the committee and how much we deeply respect the importance of your office and the work that it does. We also acknowledged during our session in November that the council has been very aggressive in passing laws that your team is responsible for enacting and that you have not received the funding support as you've requested over a number of years. But within that, there were still some administrative opportunities that you acknowledged could and would need to be addressed. And so that's what we're going to be spending the bulk of our time on this afternoon. We will not be getting too far into the budget because obviously we will wait in just a couple of weeks for the executive to release his budget. So for purposes of this afternoon's discussion, we're just going to focus on those administrative and operational changes that the team has made. So with that, Ms. Singleton, I'll turn it over to you to make any initial comments, provide any context, and then we'll turn it over to Director Stowe and his team to make some comments as well. Sure. anything don't have anything to add to what you shared, except that there are some related materials that you have. The standard operating procedure guidance has been shared with you as well as the Office of Human Rights Intake log. And so those might help address some of the questions that you have. Great. Director Stowe, I'll turn over to you to make some opening comments and then we'll sort of walk through the packet and get the updates. First and foremost, let me again share my appreciation for this opportunity to come back and begin to kind of to continue the conversation on what we're doing in the office of human rights. We picked up the opportunity and this has been evolving. I have to admit that in terms of trying to see the bigger picture relative to ways that we can in fact improve and also to acknowledge what we have done. As to say then to get us to this important time. With me is our compliance manager, the Rodriguez-CIA and the back here is our coordinator, Anisa Med. He's the office service coordinator in this area. Let me start off by saying that we took the heart, as I said, as we evolved to a point for which we said to ourselves, can we in fact do better? Look at ourselves critically. And we did. I think the suggestions by the OIG's office were helpful. We went back in and looked at those things, particularly the standard operating procedure, which I maintained then and maintained even now was not something that many of us had. As it turns out, I did share that in my colleagues around the state of Maryland, no other organization has a standard operating procedure as far as investigations are concerned. All of them were in the law, as it were, in their particular areas, to guide them through their process by which they made investigations. However, what it did do for us, and we did, by the way, include all of our staff persons in this process. We literally went through every step of our actual and best get vestigatory process from the time someone knocks on our door or makes a phone call to our office or sends us an email, all which are the end of the process by which we in fact make some conclusion about their complaint or otherwise their disposition that complain itself. And in doing so, it brought to light a lot of questions that our folks had and there was some inconsistency to have to admit that. But what came out of it though as a result of us going through, line by line, wasn't appreciation of what was being done when, whatever it was, being done needed to happen. And then the follow-up to that particular step as well. And so what you have before you then is a completed standard operating procedure for investigations. It includes, as I mentioned at the very beginning of the process, staying overall parameters of how we exist in our opening statement and that document. And then following that are the steps that are crucial to going through from point A to point Z of how we conduct the investigation itself. It gives then, investigators, an actual roadmap as to how they should go through the process of investigation. And so as we have new folks come to our organization, we now can actually have them with a handbook, if you will, that allows them then not only with the instruction given by the supervisor, but also have this reference document that can actually walk them through the process of how it investigated case. And that is our core work that we do in the office. And that's why we actually focused on that in terms of our standard operating procedure. The only other things we do outside of that, and only for the standpoint of the number, is education outreach. Many of our administrative tasks have been taken over by OMB. And so they are involved with the process of dealing with issues relative to purchasing in those kinds of matters. We are tracking those kinds of things in our office, but in terms of the actual facilitation and so forth that's been done now by shared services. It leaves us with education and outreach. And primarily I'm involved with that directly with assistance from my team Primarily, I try to involve myself in those things so that we can free them up to do this core work we talked about a man to go. So that is one step I believe that is, I think, important to note about what we've done procedurally in the office. The other thing we've done to really, really hopefully grow our offices that now I'm asking our supervisor, in this case make sure that what we're doing is having learning take place in our office. What I mean by that is this, we're trying to free up time in her schedule to allow her to then work more on one of the investigators. So there's an opportunity to have that given take, particularly those of the investigators that are younger and less experienced to where this particular kind of work. And I don't just say this, an investigator is not an investigator, is not an investigator. One of the most similar skillsets and the nuances and the complexities are very, very different in the work that we do as opposed to maybe other work that's being done by people who have a title of being an investigator. But as a result of all that, I think what we've done now is allow then some one-on-one time for each investigator every week to meet with the supervisor and to go over his- But as a result of all that, I think what we've done now is allow then some one-on-one time for each investigator every week to meet with the supervisor and to go over. Here's a her caseload at that time. If there's any problems or concerns and you'd in fact to go and directly to speak with her about, then they able to do that in the context of that kind of cost-trade of time. We think it's going to play a huge deal with this as we go forward. Each now has also a new tracking sheet, a tracking log if you will. The lousy to make sure that we're tracking that case all the way through the process. So the given time, I mean to ask someone, where are we with case X, Y, and Z? We ought to be retell from that log where that case is and what process it may be in at that particular point of time. That will also help us again make sure that the age of those cases is always monitored. So we get an idea about where we are, how long has been with us, etc. We have a unique set of circumstances in the instance that we work very closely with USEOC. In many instances we have what we call a referral relationship, a 706 agency relationship, that allows them to deferral of cases then to local agencies across the country. And so if a complaint comes in with an address with Emma Garmory County, generally speaking that case is referred then to us for in fact, judicating that particular case. As a result of that, we get some time cases in our inventory that may have sat in their inventory for some period of time, a problem having gotten to that particular case, to do the transfer. And so as a result of that, we are going to now better monitor when it actually comes into our inventory, because we have some cases that have been sitting with them since 2022 as an example. So if we don't get it until 2024, obviously that case has been sitting for a minute. I'm so sorry, let me get back to a bit, regular vernacular. It's been sitting for a while. And as a result of that, we then allow there to be a real disconnect with the route and how long that case has been in the system. That far as the actual complaint is concerned, it's been a long time. No doubt about that. But clearly, we want to make sure that at least we are accountable for the timeframe for which it actually came into our inventory. We obviously could not be accountable for what happened before then. And so now we're trying to sort that out to have a position then that we can, in fact, see that date and mark our calendar, if you will. Mark Rock clock if you will. From the time it actually comes in, if you are in midter, so we can evaluate our work against the end of the work that they've been done by some. that date and mark our calendar if you will. Mark our clock if you will. From the time it actually comes in, we're in the end of the day, so we can evaluate our work against the end of the work that they've been done by someone else. And so we're finding ways that we can, in fact, can also enhance the skills of our investigators, but also give them the tools that they need to make sure they can do the best job possible. As with We also are migrating our current case management system to an all EEOC management system. That will allow us not only to do employment cases, but all cases. And people have a case management system that's responsive to what we need. What we had in place was a system called Time Matters. We've had it four years. But we had less and less opportunity for, again, support for the system. Because it was one that was outside of the county government domain. And so as a result of that we always had breakdowns, we always had issues of concerns while some of them got fixed, some of them did not. And we always was a source of again frustration for our investigators. So we hope then that as we migrate over then to the art system, as what it's called for EOC, that we'll be able to try to deal with some of those issues. deal with some of those issues. And so we'll be within the drastic issues, rather than again to the toolsCH system, as what it's called, for EOC. The one baby didn't try to deal with some of those issues. And so, we'll be within the drastic issues, rather than again, to the tools that we think are important to give our investigators. And then the issue of training comes in. That was a big issue of the OIG pointed out. We have what we call a mandatory requirement for basic EEO training that was being done by EOC. It was actually a 40 hour training that all of our folks go through as a result of what it's had more recently that training is no longer available by that particular organization. And so we've got to find ways to augment that. And we do have other partners throughout the state. State of Maryland has exemplars offered that when they do their training for the state employees and I mean those who are coming from the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, that they will include us in that training. And so we're trying to find avenues for folks to be able to do that. Other folks who are in the advocacy business and enforcement business also are doing training as well. So we're trying now to put in place an inventory, if you will, of all the courses our individual investigators have taken. So when we meet with their work plan and have an opportunity to talk about that performance reading sheet that we look at what they've taken and what it's not fact needing to required to have them have a round well rounded a point of view of the work and the skillset itself for being a top notch investigator. The thing is going to be very helpful not only for the investigator but also for us to know what our folks in fact need to have and what training have already completed. In the past what we've done is required the training, but we left the training as to what they would take up to them. Because what we said in those days was the fact that you may know better what you are weakest in. And so please open up the entire book of opportunities, not only from across the country, but also through our federal partners at that time. What do you see out there that's available that may speak to that weakness and we'll make sure we find a way to fund it, to pay for it. And so we move from that now to more of a mandated kind of situation where we're saying that you need extra number of hours in the area of housing, in the area of employment, area of public accommodations, etc. So then that you are fully, fully skilled and those very basic areas of EEO law. And so that's the approach we're doing now for our training that's starting now in this round of again performance ratings that are going on right now. We're putting that in so people will know about that as well. So the other area that I think is important though is about this issue of how long cases are staying in our inventory. And so again, with these opportunities we put in place for investigators not only to be aware of where their cases are, but also those of us in the management side as well. And so we're tracking that in terms of the year. In fact, they came into our system and seeing how long it's been there and asking the question, why is it there? not waiting to the end of the quarter end of the year forever to say why is it there, but along the way, what's going with this case? Why is it there? And not waiting to the end of the quarter, end of the year, whatever, to say why is it there, but all along the way, what's going with this case? Why is it not moving? Are there problems that we didn't know about? Can we intervene? Can we help? And try to find again ways that we are meeting the needs of the invisible, visual complainant and also the respondent to make sure that we're doing the expedient as possible, but also as comprehensive as possible. Because in the day, we want to well, well not run, but well operated, and well concluded kind of investigation. And so that's how often we go. So I think them's chairman and members of the committee. I think those with the basic areas, their folks had it had a concern around. You mentioned the issue about our employees and those that we were in fact looking to recruit and to hire, again, compliance management working on that for us. And in any of your process right now, to hire the one open that we had since December of last year. And now we also had a ex-resonation that was part of a actual retirement. And so we're going to actually try to hire two people with this interview process that we're going through right now. They'll take us back up to our full complement of 11 people. Again, seven of those folks are investigators. The other two people are administrative, again, my compliance director and OSE. And then the other two people are myself and another OSE in the department. So that makes up our 11 folks who do the work and I believe what we're doing now and beyond that is also evaluating each individual task of our again supporting staff as well. All utilizing our OSEs in the best possible way and we're evaluating it right now to make sure that we are, we think we're utilizing them to the max, but again, can we can we sort of bring a little bit more water out of that rag? Right? To see what we can do something in terms of that. So we're hopeful to be able to look at that kind of analysis and come back with what we think is going to be a plan that will work fair by the concern. But we're happy to report that we should have after next week complete those interviews and be ready to make selections and get those people in high on board. Two persons coming in, they'll be investigator threes. Great. Well, thank you for that update, director. So I had a few questions and then we'll yield the colleagues. We'll start with Council Member Stales, followed by Council Member Lutke. So I appreciate the response. Could you be a little bit more specific in terms of the benchmarks that you're hoping to achieve moving forward on the time frame for the investigations? Now acknowledging, every investigation is different. And I did not focus enough on the fact that with the transition of the EEOC cases to your office, you know, you're at the mercy of however long those investigations have taken to that point. I acknowledge that, but many of the investigations are initiated from within the county and from within your office. But what are appropriate benchmarks? What is a reasonable expectation for a county resident that approaches your office? And just walk me through basically what that process looks like. They reach out to your office with the complaint, take me from there and then in your opinion based on these reforms that have been done, how long is a reasonable time frame for these investigations to take? We are going to really look at what reasonable actually is defined for us with our current staffing and our current levels experience. I have tasked our particular team that within one year we should close the case. That's a very aggressive, very aggressive kind of goal, but it is a goal that I think we've got to work toward meeting. What we will find out is whether or not the SOP that now has timeframes. And the little words again, when you call and in fact bring your investigation to our attention, we've got days, we've got five days to move on that. We've got days to move on the next thing. We've got days to move on, so the little words is not just sitting there waiting for something to happen because either there's been no response has been a lack of response, we're not waiting on that any longer. We've got in place if they have not responded to giving them a period of time, we move to the next step of the process. And so we think that that will allow us then to meet as closely as we possibly can that time frame. We will find out because getting earnest, we're doing it right now. We'll find out whether or not that's reasonable for us with a level of experience that we have. Again, we have lost some very, very experienced folks replaced with people who are trying to learn our system. But again, we believe that we have now the kind of tools in place that will help us get to a place. And we find out that we can't make that one year mark Ms. Chairman, members of the committee, then we'll back up a little bit and say what's now reasonable for us. but we want you to at least set the most aggressive, kind of go possible to get back to a place where we believe in that the credibility of what we're doing is intact and people have some sense of their case being addressed and more important that they get some answer. Because at the end of the day people just want an answer. They want some sort of end of conclusion to that. I will say say to your appoint and that you've already again taken that point into consideration. I do want to add one more layer to it because not only do and you had some sense that I believe when you made your statement, but not only when we get cases from outside of the organization and we get them also from the state of Maryland as well, not so many, but we do get some from time to time. What we don't know is what has been done with that case up to that point. So in many instances, we got to go back and start them and actually reinvestigate the whole case itself, including intake, because maybe something was left off that was important to our process as it turns out. And so that again is more time involved as far as that's concerned. The biggest issue that also hinders that one year mark, and we've got to figure it out, is how we deal with intake. Because there's the other part of it that really causes us a bit of a challenge, a bit of a tip to each investigator. Because each investigator takes a turn doing intake for the day. Now, the day just means that they're on the phone. They are going to the website. They're going then to 3-1-1. They're going wherever it is to pull back the information to find out what has happened during that period of time that they are in fact to have intake. But once they have that intake process, then begins the intake process. Because now you've got to make sure that what you heard is correct, particularly if it comes in by way of online or by way of telephone. Ma'am, sir, is this what you meant by that? Can I get additional information? Just that and the other, all it has to happen and be in some sort of form that it would then be assigned into an investigator. That takes time. I didn't take as an example and stamp tells me it's all the time. It could be from five minutes to 35 minutes. If somebody has really really emotional about their particular situation, it could be an hour. So we... example and stamp tells me it's all the time. It can be from five minutes to 35 minutes. If somebody has really really emotional about their particular situation, you could be an hour. So we just don't know how it's how to deal with that from time to time and remember now, when they are engaged in that kind of way, they're not investigating a case. And so as a result of that, then we've got to work that through a little bit. We've got to figure Right now, do we have capacity that we're not utilizing in some important kind of way to sort of reshift things, we're not utilizing in some important kind of way to sort of reshift things. We're looking at that right now. Looking at OSCs for that purpose, just trying to figure out, can we augment that and mean to put kind of ways that might free up, might free up, then on Vescazadeal, the investigation part, period. Not everyone, a lot of my colleagues, particularly those who come from the state of Maryland and then, generally around the country, have dedicated persons doing that task. And so therefore, it frees up persons in that regard. What we've got to do is to say before, and you made a statement to the front, and about a tip to looking at administratively how we can, in fact, maybe look at things more effectively, we're doing that. So maybe that's capacity that we're not again utilizing the right way that might give us that free. But I want you to understand, then, that not only do I have 30 cases, I've got 30 cases and intake. And intake that again, work simultaneously. And I've got to kind of figure out how you prioritize that. But again, the purpose of it, again, having beans with the supervisor every week, the purpose of it. having now timeframes for every step of the process. We're saying to our investigators this ought to help all of us know where things are more important to have that particular complainant because in that process of the SOP also a requirement to be in contact with the complainant to make sure that he or she knows what's going on with their case as well. So again, we kind of looked at all the errors that we thought we would look, we could improve in, right? And we're back in and say, okay, now not only do we want to put it into our system, let's make sure that we have accountability. Let's say then that how much time is it realistic for us to be able to do these tasks? And that's how we determine whether it was five days or two weeks or a month. How can we get this done in the most efficient way not taking it again forever but making sure it's realistic for us to do with the resources that we have and that's how in fact came up with the actual time frame that you will see in the SOP. I hope that's helpful. Yeah, I know that's helpful. Two final questions for now and then I might get back on the queue depending on what my colleagues ask. But one is, so another component that was a focus of the investigation was the organization of the files and being able to pull things easily and being able to track things. When you describe the change to the new software platform, can you just go a little deeper on will that change in software address some of these filing challenges that you had before or is that a separate response? It's a separate issue but that was before. We have addressed the filing issue and so what we've done now is the area for which was looked at. We've gone back through that and all those files are in place in the right way and right to start a phone. We also have gone back through and the client manager has gone back through and make real sure than that. What's in the file is appropriate for that file. And so what anybody looking to file is they don't understand is that, and you said it is already going as well, is that every case is different. So you may not have X in that file that belongs in a different kind of case because it has different bases for which is being investigated. And so one has got it to know what the case is about to have an understanding about what should be in that file. But went back to all of those files. And most of those will close cases, by the way, when all those files make sure that they were intact. And those persons who are in place that are investigating the cases at that time, I'm now requiring all of them to keep their files. To keep their files. To keep their files in their office and file them so we know where they are, the important thing that the investigator knows where they are. And so again, we have a chance to end those cases brought forth review for questions or concerns. We know where to go because Jim Stoves assigned that particular case, it is in his office, is in his file. And so we are now requiring persons to be able to do that. At the end of the process is a stage or step that causes us from an appeal standpoint to have that file in place for 30 days. That's part of our law. And someone has 30 days to once they receive our determination to file an appeal. So those cases like kept separately from those that investigators run in fact are involved with. We've got one of our other staff persons, the OSE, who actually does that work. And so those files are kept separately and that's they in fact the term comes in, 30 days is up, that file comes out. In fact goes to be again the final filing and that case is now part of history. So we have done what we believe we needed to do from a standpoint of fine-tuning our process, but more importantly holding all of our cells accountable for where those files are at any given time in our office, in our inventory. That's helpful. Final Final question is more of a comment than a question, but I think moving forward what would be helpful for our committee and I think for you all as well as well as the executive is if we have to obviously not in any way shape or form touch confidentiality issues or cross that line. But at a macro level I do think there's an opportunity for you to be able to report with some degree of specificity. For example, how many cases you all received this month, the following month, the next month, and then establish a benchmark that lets the committee and the executive and our community know what the status of those cases are at a macro level. I'm making this up for illustration sake but let's say between November and January you got 30 cases and ten of them were referrals from EEO or the state. Twenty of them were originated from Montgomery County. They have been assigned to an investigator and they are ongoing. And then you go from there to let us know how many of those 30 within six months in a year have been closed and how many are kept open. Just establishing some macro level data that I think would be helpful and help us know, because we're not gonna get into the weeds. It's not appropriate for us to get into the weeds. We won't be in your offices every day, but it will help you tell your story when you come back before this body. I used to do that when I was an executive branch agency and I think that would be good moving forward. So I yield now to Council Member Sales. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And good to see Director Stowe and Ms. Garcia and Mr. Ahmed. As we know, we're in the middle of challenging times and a lot of our diverse communities are going to be calling on your office now more than ever before. And given that not all jurisdictions have this incredible office, you know, it further amplifies the importance of the work you do and how much we value the work you do and how other regions are going to be looking at us as the blueprint for the work that we do and how we address complaints and resolve them in a timely fashion. To be responsive to our community, and so I appreciate your updates about the actions you've taken to address the findings and recommendations in last year's OIG report. And just have a few questions to ask about some of the ongoing work to ensure that we are better understanding the volume of work that you have and the process to become more efficient in the office. And so I know that it hasn't been long enough since you've started revising the process. And so when do you think you'll have enough data to be able to determine how performance has approved with the new SOP? I believe that if we probably look at the next two quarters. Okay, so six months. We should be able to know for sure whether or not we've got something that ready as valuable or you're seeing by the way improvements in in the work that work product already because this guidance has given folks again those parameters that they weren't very before. Case in point was that we would again send when somebody makes a complaint. Before that complaint goes into court our system and they've got to come in and actually have a signed complaint before that goes forward. And sometimes persons come in and sometimes they don't. But according to the law, they have up to one year to do that. And so you may be sitting on some case and somebody's got a monitor, by the way, this can't be sitting out there and say, well, no, whatever. But we've got to monitor those kinds of intake opportunities and these calls at that point in time are called inquiries. But these inquiries come in. And so somebody has got to monitor that. And so we're already seeing areas where now that we are trying to put a little bit more emphasis on getting an answer, back from folks, the law does say, what did they say? We can't change that. But we can do is try to put things in place that allows us to begin to be in more contact with that individual as an example. So those are the things that we're doing that was already starting to see some impact. But to your very specific question, because now we'll have two brand new people. Okay. They'll be coming in as well. And so that's going to... as an example. So those are the things that we're doing that we're always starting to see some impact. But to your very specific question, because now we'll have two brand new people becoming in as well. And so that's going to also impact, the level of performance and the level of productivity as well. So we will have then that period, again, six months to be able to look at this period and say there are sales, okay, now, But even if it requires any tweaking at that point in time as we said earlier on, we know that as well. So that's the time period I think will be helpful to us. Okay. And so given the OIG report, how will you evaluate and refine the process over time? Once you have those six months, will you use the criteria that was recognized in the report? Are you looking at other criteria to evaluate efficiency? We're going to use our own criteria. Okay. And that is the absolute guarantee a little bit too strong, but the commitment we're making to the public, then when your case comes into our system, it then will go through the series of steps necessary to follow the law, but also to a timely completion. If we can't do that, that we in fact make sure that you are aware of that case, for instance, more complicated as an example. We may not make that year turn around as an example, but we need to make sure we are communicating that to individuals. So that's the criteria I think then, Councilman Saeles, that will be really important for us to make sure that we can say that. And so as we go through, even with what's been asked of us, for his committee is concerned, we're looking at giving period time, looking at cases coming in, looking at closures, looking at where those cases would have come from, where this EOC, whether it's state of Maryland, whatever case we've come from, give me that opportunity to kind of see the progress you'll be able to see that as well. You can follow how these things kind of see the progress you'll be able to see that as well, you can follow how these things are kind of moving through our system. And so that's the criteria we want to use that we think that's more direct to us. I think the overall suggestion given by the OIG, we've really spoke to a much broader kind of piece. I think we tried to address that. But now we want to drill down to very close to what we believe are the real specifics. And that is your case and my case and every case it comes through that persons can rely. They'll get again the right attention in a timely fashion. Okay. And how does the intake law compare to other best practices and other offices? Do other offices have intake logs? Some offices do. All of us have something. OK. It depends upon the resources that are in the given office. What we found is in our particular case in circumstance, again, our right source is our investigators. What's missing on the intake log? What do we need to know? One thing that we found out the OIG point is out was this year's ship status. That case may have come in, like I said, a minute ago, and the individual has up to a year to come back and say, I wanna pursue that case. Or we don't have a, we don't, I can hear from that person at all, right? But to that point in time, that's called an open issue for us. And so what we've learned is by looking at that tracking sheet, we now... We don't know exactly here from that person at all, right? But to that point in time, that's called an open issue for us. And so what we've learned is by looking at that tracking sheet, we now know where that case is, and we've not heard from someone within that year at a period of time. We also use that same law to close out that case, or close that inquiry at that point in time. We've not heard anything back. So that's how we're using it. I would think it's going to be effective going forward as well. And as we again need to tweak it. Maybe again, I mean that... We've not heard anything back. So that's how we're using it. We think it's going to be effective going forward as well. And as we again need to tweak it, maybe again, it may not be all inclusive. We can do that because now we're living in it real time. We're having real examples of where maybe we see something was missing. We now can go back in and say, we need to add this because we need to know that piece of information. That's how it was constructed. Again, compliance manager and the compliance team worked on figuring out what those concepts were, what those categories should be. And we think we got a real, real good document now that they can actually use and remain a full-terrified. Okay, and so this new system that you're migrating to, does it have a checks and balances component where if something is taking longer than anticipated, it will trigger a reminder to the investigator. Is there any sort of feedback loop to ensure efficient? I'm not sure that there is with our... Time... So, time... As as you said we were using. Can you hear me? Yes. We were using time matters, which is a billing system. Are you going to move closer? Move closer. That's good. Which is a billing system. Both systems have pluses and minuses. EOC is more robust in what we can track electronically, because we can upload documents in there. So when I'm reviewing something I can go in and see when things were submitted into the system and review the respondents position statement or the rebuttal statement to do better. I see things in real time, but there's no warning. No, so time matters. Did give a trigger because it was a billing system, but EOC doesn't have that sort of trigger. And, but, you know, like I said, we can go into it. The investigator who has assigned to it can go in. I can go in. The ROSC for compliance can go in. So, we can track it that way. But it's really going to be the manual tracking inventory sheet that's going to track that. Okay. And we've always been doing that quarterly. It's just now we're tightening up the process with some recommendations from OIG. Okay. Okay. And you mentioned that you're hiring two new people to get back up to 11 full-time employees. So what will the new case load ratio be once these new staff are on board? Well, they generally carry about 30 cases. So the level one investigators, I try to assign them a case that has only one basis or one basis plus retaliation. And then as level two, we'll get a little bit more complex cases. have two or three bases. The level three investigators get the more complex cases, they'll have two or three bases. The level three investigators get them more complex things. Employment cases tend to be more complex than housing and public accommodation. So generally when we get those issues in, it's just one thing. They have a problem with the stairs or they didn't get a refund and somebody else they know got a refund. That sort of thing, those are fairly easy to resolve. Those things can be done. There's a tracking time, you know, takes let's say 30 days to get assigned complaint, up to one year, and then we give the respondent 30 days to respond with their position and answers to our questions and then we summarize that and send that to complainant for their rebuttal that can take again another 30 days. You know, sometimes we get complaints from people and they themselves have asked for additional time. So, you know, that's the kind of thing we need to factor in. The SOP is tightening it up so that we give only an extension for two weeks. And then we move on. So, that allows us to figure out if there's no response, we follow up, and then we can close the case out. So, that in terms of timing, that will help with the numbers. So is the average time is one year for cases to be closed? That is our goal. Okay, okay. It's our goal. The employment ones don't need that, but we can probably do that for housing and public accommodation. Okay, I will yield and go back in the queue. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Lincoln. Thank you. I apologize for having my glasses on today. So I need to take them on and off because otherwise I can't read my own handwriting. So that's why they're coming off. So when Councilmember Albernolz was talking to you about the different things that have been done now since the time we were all together in the fall, and now it sounded like thought that all the things that OIG had raised had been met and dealt with. But then when you were answering councilmember sales as questions, it sounded like you needed six more months to figure out if it was being met. So I just want to make sure I'm understanding, because the questions were different, right? But I want to make sure I understand where you are on all of that. Like should OIG come back today? What would they see based on what was in the report for 2024 and what was in the report from 2020? What they would see is compliance with all the suggestions that they made. That's what they would see. What I heard Councilman with sales were they asked though was how would we know how effective they were relative to having now with them in place. What changes we would see, what progress we would expect. So I heard that question very different than that. Yeah, no, that makes sense. And so with that in mind, that's why I mentioned again. And particularly now with two new people coming on board, they're not going to be up to speed today or tomorrow, right? With whatever we have in place. And so I think that they would come to your second question, they would come and be able to see. And my fact, they will have a package that checks off the things for which they thought were suggestions and for us to do. And we can say we have complied. OK. And then I know that my understanding that the things that the OIG report includes aren't really suggestions. These are things that have to right? In order to get an agency to where they are supposed to be in terms of addressing underlying issues, right? And so if I am misunderstanding that, that may be part of why I am struggling with that a little bit because I don't view the misconceptions, I view them as requirements, right? And that's a, these are things that we have to do. And that was, I think, part of why it was challenging in the fall because there had been a previous report of these are the things that you have to do to get this to where it needs to be and then they weren't done and then they were the same ones, right? So I just want to make sure that you all are viewing them as required and that you're making sure they're getting done, which it sounds like you are and that we'll see how the things, how the measures that you put into place to help with some of that functionality actually play out because you need time to see how they are working. Is that accurate? Well, to some extent, customer looking, the language in the actual reports says recommendations. Okay. Does not say requirements. Okay. Definitely all requirements then put the word required in there and therefore, okay. In fact, it's very, very clear, but it is recommendations. OK. And so in looking at that, we took them however as requirements. OK. And we have put in place, again, trying to meet those recommendations, these be requirements. So then that having looked at those particular things, as I mentioned, that it was clear that, if you stick a step back, can you do better? Yes, we always can do better. Yes, we always can improve, right? And there's some things for which we have capacity already in our office to do that. And so, we step back and say, forget about anything else, folks. Let's look at this. Let's look at an SOP. Let's look at, in fact, we've also looked at our regulations as well. Went to those again, worried by word, and state-of-state. And so again, our folks, our folks would understand what it is that they are supposed to do. Know what things mean. And so we took that as that, but again, I want to make sure the records is clear that it said recommendations as opposed to requirements. And I know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's of the day, the law, the basic law, undergirding all of it, they have a prescriptive area of content they're working in, and it's going to be different for housing versus employment, right? But they know that they have to follow a rubric of, this is what constitutes a violation, so this is what I'm looking for. Okay. Yes. And respecting that, again, the federal government not functioning right now so well. It's a polite way of putting it, that you don't have the training availability there that you once had through the EOC, and that there's variability in people's skills as they're coming into work for the office. What are the, what are like, and you're hiring right now? What are the baseline qualifications that you're saying? These are the absolute must-habs for the folks who are going to be these investigators. I'm going to turn to the rest if she can. Hold on a second. I'm not sure we can do what I was given ask you to do from a confidentiality standpoint. Because the enemies are going on right now in terms of sharing with you what's in that spec. Am I okay to do that? I don't know. So, well, let me put it to you this way then. Okay. Can you send us the listing for those positions that you're hiring for because they would have been publicly posted, right? Somewhere and so. Yes. And it would be useful to know whether what you've put in there now after going through this process is that it has it changed? Has it been updated since what has been when you've hired other investigators over time, that would be useful to now. Let me do this. I'm good. Okay. In terms of the actual posting announcement, can you speak to that? Okay, we can provide that. Can you speak to it right now? So in the last Chairman Alburnos mentioned that it had been allocated three positions in 2021. So we had four legacy positions. Those were level three investigators. All had been here 15 plus years. In 21, fiscal 21, we had a, so three new positions have been allocated to us for investigators and they capped out at level two. So in July 21, we had one added January 22, we had one added and July 22, we had another one. those are level one, two positions. So we were up to seven investigators by the end of January of 22, January of 23. We were up to capacity, we had all seven positions filled. And then we lost one in June of that year and another one in December of 24. So that's what the two vacancies were. And then we just, we hired one in November to fill one of those level two investigators. And then we had a level three investigator retire in January of this year. So out of this posting, it's a level three posting. The prior ones were for level two, so it's a little bit different. Okay. You could provide both. Presumably there are base minimum requirements for each one that you're like, if you don't have these, we're not gonna be able to hire you. So that's what I'm getting at. Knowing that you have different tiered. No skill sets that actually put into the post. Yes. The best thing we can do is get people who can write well. There aren't a lot of human rights investigators out there walking around looking for jobs just because this whole industry has been shrinking for a decade. But so when we were looking to hire, we got two social workers who had, you know, rapport with people. They've done intake. They've done reports to courts. That sort of thing. So those are still with us. Those are working out well. The police officer who had done investigations, not so much. But the, so that's what I'm looking for primarily is good writers, but also people who have worked with human interactions and people who can work with difficult people because sometimes are people, everyone's been stressed in some way. They've lost a job, they've lost housing, they've not been treated well with a retailer or whatever it might be. They come to us in a state of frustration. So we need someone who can deal well with that. And then somebody who can meet deadlines. There are many jobs where people meet deadlines. Like I said, writing the determination we write is much like an administrative law judges determination and depending on the issues you have to dress each issue otherwise it becomes appealable So so they're not lawyers. We did have a lawyer she left but But so I'm just looking for people who have good judgment good people skills and good writing skills and Then we can also use languages. So the preference, it's not a requirement, but the preference was for people who spoke two languages. Sure. Sure. So we got, if you want the numbers, we got, I'm not sure how many applied for this posting, but we got 11 that were put on the eligible list. And then I went through and some of them had too much experience and we don't have the budget for that. I've learned from the past recruiting that we would make an offer and they would say it's not enough money. We just can't offer them salary that they're making. We just have the budgeted amount. So we're interviewing six people. I interviewed three yesterday and three tomorrow. In terms of the case management system and that, you know, now you'll have this better compatibility with the cases you receive. What versatility is there in that, or separately, in being able to track, once the case comes to your doorstep, appreciating that you can't track what happened before. You may know when the other agency opened it before it was transferred to you, but really the clock ticking is when it comes to you because you do not have that capacity to have managed prior to then. But like, do you track how quickly or set a requirement for outreach to the complainant and then calendar for follow-up and like what is the frequency with which you must engage with the complainant in order to make sure the train stays on the tracks? We're giving ourselves again in the SOP, we're giving ourselves in five days for everybody, regardless of when they come to our system. Okay. And you need to hear from us. We've got your case ma'am, sir, or we received your inquiry, getting back with you. Five days is what we set for our state. We think that's realistic. Sure. For our groups to get back with people. And so that's for anybody coming into the system. So we're not relying upon the new case management system to assist us with that. Right. That was an area that, you know, I have to confess, we can do better. attention to when the SOP was a communication with the complainant. Right. That was an error that, you know, I have to confess we can be better. And so we're trying again, having these time frames in place to get an all-in-the-godence, but these are mandates, okay, and going back to that word, right? These are mandates for the investigation. These are not things that are all a trade. Right, right. or investigators, you know, we want to be able to see, and if you cannot, again, give us a reason that's why we did not meet that, then we have a different conversation about that. But what we're looking for is, is that, and this is why it was so important to the committee. It was so important to have everybody involved. So this was not a top level down. This was a combination of all of our thoughts and ideas and creating these timeframes. And so we feel we have buy-in from the very beginning, and so the accountability should also be built in. And then do you track, for example, you noted that, you know, like if you haven't heard back, if they want to pursue the case, right? And there's a host of reasons why somebody might not, you know, for something I work on and still work on that I do as a volunteer, we have to try to outreach three times and we have to use three different methods, right? Mostly because we're working with teenagers and so it has to be phone, just so old school. Email, they might check it, text message, tend to get my best responses that way, right? But that's the demographic I'm dealing with. Do you track when you're doing that initial outreach to let them know so that you, you may leave message and people may not call back and do you have like a protocol for how many times there should be an attempt to connect. And then, you days before the expiration of the one year period, a notification out like we have to know by ex date. And then on day 366, the case closed if you don't hear from them. No. No. We don't have that particular piece in place. What you just described happens once it becomes a complaint. We've actually had an interview and or an inter engagement with that particular complainant. They've got no letter from us saying we've got your case. It's now signed, just that and the other. And then you got then a period of time to sign that case. Now we're engaged in a formal kind of relationship. Inquiries, we have four or 500 of those that we couldn't, we couldn't, you know, and this inquiry was just a call came in. I think this happened. There's no follow-up from that person. So no, we're not what we're trying to do better is tracking the number of those that are coming in because we've got at least a phone call, right? But in terms of pursuing that beyond letting them know what's required in order to follow that case right now that's not part of our protocol. However if he then says that I have filed my complaint I have assigned complaint to you or at least the inquiry has gone in intake process. We've had a conversation. Now we're giving you then 30 days of response, respond back to us with a signed complaint. It was not signed then. Right. And now we're trying to, again, get to a point where we move the cases and so we're trying to have as infrequent follow-ups and follow-backs as possible, but at the same time making real sure, however, when someone is engaged in the process of trying to explain themselves, we try to work with people like for instance. A lot of our persons who don't speak English are their first language. We've got to work a little bit differently than we do them them for others that are not in that situation. We have only one, now Spanish speaking person we had to. So now all that's coming into this one investigator, and in this case that, for instance, that, that's a whole little level of involvement, then when we sit 30 cases, now those cases are again, They blow up because now the issues are so very different. And now luckily that's someone who can actually speak the language, so at least that's not a problem. But they're more complicated. So that's a point that you want to look at first to kind of pursue, then just share that. But right now, to your very basic question, if somebody makes a phone call and does not follow up, right? And we don't have a protocol right now, and I'm correct about that. We don't have a protocol right now that would say, I'm going to call Jim Stowe. As you mentioned, when 30 days are left in that opportunity for him to reply to me, we don't have capacity for that, we don't think. Okay. Yeah, I'm just sort of thinking, like, I was a trial lawyer so you can work at a big firm and have all the bells and whistles and somebody tracks your stuff for you or you can work in a tiny boutique firm like I did and you're using Google and you're doing it yourself and you're calendering your own things and you're staying on top of your stuff. So like for me, it's raised those things as a way to help say, aren't you thinking about it this way to help streamline your work? And then when you have 500, 400 inquiries that come in but only this much is going to go down in the funnel and actually be a case. How can you take the noise that's up here that isn't going to go anywhere and document that you did the things to try and then be done with those so they are off your plate because if people aren't going to follow up or there's no there there, then you don't need to have that hang and over your caseload, right? So and you should have a process for saying, and this is where that ends because the people are not engaging and we can't move anything with this and that would help to streamline some of your work. You mentioned in the cases that get transferred to you, you have to re-investigate everything and I wanted to know, is there a difference between the cases that come from the EEOC versus those that come from the state as to what they do provide you and their transferring in case or referring in case over for you to handle. And then is there a process by which your team engage with whoever previously had it at the other agencies with a set group of things that they should be getting on background from the transferring agency before going out to do your own investigation. What we're doing now is this, a councilman look, we are working with the folks in Baltimore as primary equipment we get our cases from through EEOC in our district, Philadelphia District. So as a result of that, there's ongoing conversation that the compliance manager has with that person in that process of knowing how many and there's almost time it's an ask. That's 30 cases that are headed your way. Can you take those? And so we have that kind of conversation back and forth. The expectation is that that case comes in with at least the minimum done, rather the intake. Who did it? What the allegation is being alleged? Who are the persons involved? Look, that kind of information. And sometimes, and I'd say sometimes some of my colleagues, maybe tune in to my colleagues, sometimes that's not always intact. And so when I met, when I said early on, going back and doing sometimes in time,, what I mean is that they got to go back sometimes and redo the intake because there's something missing that we in fact ask for. And we try to communicate that then through the folks who are doing the referral back and forth. So the next time around, they can look for those things before they send them then, you know, to us. But again, you know, it's like anything else we did with a lot of numbers, a lot of folks, a lot of people, you know, that always happened. When it doesn't happen, then that particular one may be one that we labor on to find out all the details because again, it may have set for a year or two years in that same condition. And so now, people you're trying to find who are part of that intake process may not even be in place. The business may not even be in place. So, a lot of things can change. And so now people you're trying to find who are part of that intake process may not even be in place. The business may not even be in place. So no other things can change, right? And so folks have to work with that, but that's the nature of what we do. We're going to understand that as part of the process. And so in order to try to keep as much of that down as possible, we inform each other. You know what? Next time, make sure that they look at this, or they check that, or they put that in place, right? And that helps us a little bit with those ones that don't meet our criteria and we say all the time it was real clear even with the committee today we're in we are enforcing the county's law not the not title seven and so we're only looking at the issues that in fact we cover here with EEOC. So not sending us anything that would be outside of those parameters. Just those kinds of bases that are part of the process here. Okay. And then I know in the packet on page six there's the list of all the bills that are applicable to your work, right? All the local, sorry I should say local laws. And some of those came before, then the state subsequently did some of their own work in that space and have set up that thing. And so, I'm not expecting you to answer this today, but it would be great to give back to us sort of taking a look at the things that the council has tasked you with over time, the many things because the long list. What has changed, and I'm leaving the federal government out of this because it's not helpful for any of us right now, what has changed at the state level where there are things that didn't exist before for the state to handle, but they do now that we started in Montgomery County, but now the state has taken on statewide to handle. So for example, in the landlord tenant area, there's a lot that has been changed, which I'm very appreciative of. But that sort of figuring out what is something that we started, but now has a statewide mechanism for being dealt with. And then the other piece being, there's a lot of community-related work that you all do that's informational and educational and so on and so forth. And then we also have our Office of Community Partnerships here at the county. And so we're sort of what is unique to you? What are they each doing? What might be some places for some overlap and collaboration? But who within that ecosystem between Office of Human Rights and Office of Community Partnerships may have overlap and what could be done to streamline that. If you could get that back to us, that would be really helpful. And with that, I'll turn it back over to you. Great. Yes. On the back and forth with the EOC, the kinds of things that come to us are they've done the intake and then they send that to us. That's basically all we get. We have that. Sometimes their script is in there and the drafted portion of the complaint that they have. Right. OK. For instance, on a disability case, we need to get the medical documentation proving that there was a disability and that they communicated that to the employer. That's the kind of thing we reach out with. Right, and so, so, and I'm assuming sometimes the medical documentation has been provided to the EEOC and sometimes it has not. And so you are at the mercy of whether they received it or not in the first place. Right, and so if you, and sometimes we do have to reach back because it's an electronic system, but for instance the initial investigator might have received some correspondence that didn't get uploaded into the system. So we'll— Okay. Bounce back to EEOC, but we have now the party's contact information. So generally we just move forward with it as an investigation. OK. But then from the, I guess, on the complainant side, then let's say they had provided the things to the EEOC. EEOC didn't upload it into the portal. So whatever was provided, they might have in a hard copy. It's on somebody's desk or it's in a PDF that didn't get into the portal. So then you get it, absent that information. And EEO either does or doesn't give it to you later, but then you're going back and asking the complainant for the thing they've already submitted because you need it to do your work. But again, from the user experience or from the complainant experience, like that doesn't that doesn't make people feel good because they're like I already gave it to, you know, I sent it to Baltimore and I already gave him my medical records. So who's got my medical records now? That unfortunately happens more with the respondent because the generally offers an opportunity for mediation. At that point, it doesn't mediate then they decide are they keeping it or are they sending it to a feet but Gotcha. And so that point, it doesn't mediate, then they decide are they keeping it, or are they sending it to a feeble? Gotcha. And so that's when we get it. But sometimes, if the mediation failed, the respondent will send their position statement because that's what their timeframe is supposed to be. And then it transfers to us, and the respondent says, but we already provided already provided that. We didn't get it. So those are the parties that are frustrated. Yeah. Yeah. Would you be able to buy fiscal year and say like starting with fiscal year 2020 since that was like the year that the last report came out, or the first OIG report came out. Get us the list of Kate like your cases that went to disposition not a just a number that where a final decision was rendered and then and do it by fiscal year and then how many of those were appealed. Would you be able to provide that? Do you know? We have been since the RIFS in 2010. We've been providing quarterly reports internally to the... Okay. Human rights, that's something you can get me. So we can get those. Now how many went on appeal? Those just throw the closures. Right. We'd have to go back. Well, closure doesn't mean there was a decision, correct? Yes, it does. Yes, it was. Yeah, but the closure is not. The closure date doesn't show whether it was an appeal and that was the closure or whether it was a determination. There could also be a closure if the complainant decides not to proceed any further, right? Oh, yes. Well, yes, that's still a closure document, whether it's settles or goes to court or right. So I guess, I guess sort of the nuances of those are important because if it settles, there's no appeal. If you decide not to proceed, there's no appeal. If it goes to trial and there's a decision, you have an appellate, right? So are you trying to get the percentage of determinations we have that go on appeal? Yes. Post-determination because it could be conciliation if it's... Correct. ...if it's finding... Yeah. Leaving out the mediations or any other type of like only the disputed things that... Yeah, that's what I meant. Since it's about 10%, also on a previous question you were asking about the intakes versus what actually goes into the process. Now with the intake log we've had and we put that in place before this OIG report. We've just made some modifications. But it's always been my sense that we got about four times as many intakes, inquiries, as we actually get signed complaints. Right. That's tracking with this intake. Okay. Okay. Gotcha. But your question though goes back to again, I'm gonna make sure we can understand that clearly, is actually the number of cases in that time period, like 2020, correct? By fiscal year, each of the fiscal years we... It'sating up to... ...to now? ...to fiscal year 20. I'm actually meant to appeal. Post-determination. Post-determination that went to appeal. OK, yeah. It'll take record by record, but I can get that for you. Yeah, because generally speaking, you say 10% of the red, and I think you're absolutely correct in terms of... It won't be a large number. OK. you're absolutely correct in terms of, it won't be a large number. Okay. Because that's a process that includes more time for whom they'll be involved, but we'll go for that. We'll get. Okay. Yeah, I'm just trying to see, like, it helps to know how long, you know, things take a different amount of time, depending on the process they take and the parties involved and the underlying dispute and, you know, of course, doing the things like the mediasons and considerations, those health. And you would expect most things to resolve that way and not have to go on to final disposition and then appeal. Okay. We can do that. One thing we would add though is that the appeal process course is another agency,s of the Ministry of hearings. Yes, but you would know when an appeal has been noted correct? Yeah, that's all I don't need to know what what office it minutes No, but just that that that the request was made for it to go over to OAH and then Great I took the LSAT about 21 years ago. So a little bit of a background, but that was helpful. So I guess two homework assignments. One that Councillor Melloud Kiechis mentioned. We didn't discuss the time frame, but I think just, you know, a month. Yeah, yeah, okay. And it sounds like the quarterly reports you're providing for the executive provided that they are not disclosing any confidential information. That may achieve the goal that I had requested, which was just macro level numbers, a number of cases, number of cases ongoing, number of cases closed. So maybe Missingleton, if you can follow up with the team, and we can get a copy of that, take a look at it, see if it's what I have in mind, but we have in mind. And if it is, then you just have to copy us on what you send to the executive branch, which doesn't create any more work. And then as we go through our budget deliberations, that can be something we lead with and have as a talking point when we meet with you. So I'll end where I started in just expressing our deepest appreciation for your work. Appreciate it, Council Member Sales comments about your work being particularly important right now. And we will continue to collaborate and forge this partnership between the legislative and executive branches because we know how important this work is. So with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.