Finance & Services Committee - Regular Meeting

Welcome back to this bi-weekly meeting of the Budget and Policy Committee of Denver City Council. Join us for the discussion as the Budget and Policy Committee starts now.

Hello. We just had an echo.

Wait just a minute.

Here you go. You're good. Here we go.

I think we're good now. Hi, I'm Diana Romero-Campbell, and I represent Southeast Denver and District 4, and we are at the budget and policy meeting today on September 14th. Thank you all for being here and joining us. I think we are going to go online. We have a few council members that are online and having maybe a little... trouble connecting. So let's go ahead and do our introductions here and then we will go back online and I will start with the birthday man himself to my right.

Thank you, Madam President. Kevin Flynn, Southwest Members, District 2.

Amanda Sawyer, District 5. Councilwoman Stacey Gilmore, District 11. Serena Gonzales-Guitierrez, Councilmember at Large.

Darrell Watson, Flying District 9.

Jamie Torres, District 9.

And let's go ahead and go online to Councilmember Sandoval. And have been promoted. Okay, well, I would like to recognize Council Member Sandoval online with us, and we are working on the technology right now, but thank you for being with us today. I turn it over to you, Council Member Gilmour.

Well, thank you so much. Good afternoon, Councilwoman Stacey Gilmore, and I am honored to be here in Budget and Policy Committee. I have Meredith Gleitz, my senior council aide here with me, sending regards from Councilwoman Lewis. She had an emergency yesterday and unfortunately isn't able to be with us here this afternoon, but she's doing all right and we will hopefully see her on Wednesday in committee. But we have I believe briefed everyone on council about this bill and then numerous agencies and so this is a sex and gender identity protection ordinance and we will go ahead and go to the second slide with the agenda please and We will talk about why it's needed, what does it do, key provisions, there's four of them, community support that we have had from the very get-go of even talking about this, and then the timeline. And our next slide is, you know, really why is this ordinance needed? And as we've seen, several states across the country really embrace regressive and biased policies. Transgender and gender expansive people seek safety, dignity, affirmation and opportunity in Denver and where we've seen the alarming political climate and increasing targeting of transgender and gender expansive people, our city must act to protect the people who live, work and recreate in Denver and this policy, as I said, was shaped by the direct input of community leaders and constituents to address their concerns. And so what does this ordinance do? As a broad summary, this ordinance aims to reduce unnecessary sex and or gender documentation and record keeping, prevent city resources from being weaponized against trans and gender expansive people, and prohibits the city and county of Denver from sharing information that would advance investigations which would target trans and gender expansive people. The ordinance overview, to flush it out a little bit more around what it means, it will apply to voluntary collection and disclosure of an individual's actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. which for ease of reference will refer to as the SOGI data. I want to underscore that mandatory collection and disclosure of SOGI data that is required by federal, state, or city law is exempt from these requirements. Moreover, voluntary collection and disclosure of SOCHI data that is necessary to effectuate an important city interest is also exempt from these requirements. And that includes but is not limited to human services, health services, behavioral health services, criminal justice, shelter management, and matters related to grant applications, compliance, reporting, or management. And this ordinance is proposed to go into effect and require city entities to come into full compliance on January 1st of 2027. But we also want to note that this date might shift slightly as we hear from agencies about whether that be feasible on their end. And we haven't heard anything definitive yet, but we just want to put that out there that it might shift slightly. And so our next slide talks about the key provisions. This is the first one, reducing unnecessary documentation and record keeping. And so To get specific on this provision, it will ensure that no department, agency, board, commission, officer, employee, or contractor of the city shall require the collection or disseminate personal information regarding an individual's actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. We repeat those words in this document because it is very important that we stay in alignment with the state and that we've talked quite a bit about the meaning of these terms and so you'll see that continued and again unless required by federal state or city law regulation or unless necessary to effectuate effectuate an important city interest. All right. If SOGI data is required to be collected, the information shall only be retained for 30 days, excluding information needed to comply with the federal, state, or city law or regulation or to effectuate an important city interest. Thereafter, any non-excluded information related to SOGI data must be permanently destroyed from any city records. We might have briefed some of you with the 60 days in the document upon further communication with city agencies and especially technology services. They're working very hard to make sure that agencies are complying with document retention requirements, but they're also trying to ensure that if an agency is holding onto information that they don't have a legal reason to do that, that we're, you know, destroying that information after the 30 days. That's really the best practice. And so TS was excited about us having this in here and to really start that process. The next provision will prevent the weaponization of city resources and we have the actual language of the ordinance in here but really it mandates that the city should not use any city funds or resources to assist another city, county, state or federal government with the collection of that SOGI data. nor will it assist in any current or future effort of another city, county, state or federal government to disclose an individual SOCHI information or discriminate a person based on, again, their actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression unless required by federal, state or city law or regulation or unless necessary to effectuate an important city interest. Additionally, the city shall not enter into any contractual agreement that would commit or require any city officer or employee to directly or indirectly assist in the collection of an individual SOCHI data unless, again, it's necessary to effectuate services or serves an important city interest. The third key provision is to limit city involvement with outside entities in investigations that may target trans or gender expansive people and we define that as in E, the city should not use any funds, resources or law enforcement personnel to assist another city, county, state or federal law enforcement agency in an attempt to stop, detain, question, search, interrogate, surveil, identify or investigate individuals based solely upon an individual's actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression and that no city agency shall share its program applications. intake information, census databases, or technology use agreements with another city, county, state, or federal law enforcement agency. Again, unless required by federal law, state law, or city law regulation or to effectuate an important city interest. And through the conversations with city agencies, We also, to cover some concerns that they had, added sections G and H to the ordinance after conversations with folks and it explicitly says that the City of Denver agencies are still allowed to internally share data they may maintain with one another and that their policies can be revised to reflect that. and then that around provisions for the implementation that they can also internally share that data and that the heads of Denver agencies can implement policies with that. our next slide is around community support. And I had started working on this. Council Member Paradis had brought this to me about a year and a half ago and we started talking and working on it and meeting with stakeholder groups and folks in the community. And so in terms of community support, I just want to thank the community because they have been there from day one. They brought this forward. They've continued pushing the council offices to stay engaged. Where are you at with it? And then we wanted to get it introduced and hopefully in the legislative pipeline before Councilwoman Parity was resigning, but we weren't able to do that and so super grateful that Councilwoman Lewis stepped in as a co-sponsor and I have to say her staff, Macayo and Dakota along with Meredith on my staff have been amazing working with us on this and all of the advocates as well and so we have 14 community groups that have endorsed this bill and then we've also included some information from folks their personal stories just around how this is really something that affects their every waking moment at this point in history. Who has my data? What are they doing with my data? The fear is really great and so very honored to carry this forward and hopefully give them some protections along those lines. And so the next slide which is our last one is that we've co-created this legislation. We've briefed 15 agencies and received feedback. Then also we are, you know, in the process of, we've already briefed the mayor's office, the LGBTQ commission. We're here today in budget and policy planning to be in committee on Wednesday. There will be public comment. committee on Wednesday so just want to make sure folks are watching they sign up for that with first reading on Monday September 28th and then second on October 5th and we're right now kind of talking a little bit it sounds like there's quite a few hearings that are perhaps planned on October 5th and so we might try to skip Mayor Council, but that's a little further out because I want to be respectful of the process and we're just here today to introduce this to you. And with that, I will pause and take any questions that folks might have.

Thank you so much for the presentation. We do have members in the queue and we're going to go ahead and get started with Councilmember Sawyer.

Thanks, Madam President. Thank you for bringing this forward. I think this is so valuable and important and I know for a fact that it is very meaningful to members of our community. So really appreciate the work that you've done in terms of the. Logistics. I'm just trying to think through and when you briefed me we talked a little bit about this through like which city agencies really kind of impact this and the one that I wasn't sure about but I feel like we needed to have a little more information on was the DMV. Did you guys get a chance to connect with them about it?

I think we have an ask out to the DMV on that one. We did also get a chance to talk with consumer protections as well and that was a really productive conversation and everything that they do would fall under the effectuating a city interest or city business. And so really the information that they're collecting is not voluntary. It's required for their business processes. And so I'm hoping that that might be the same with the DMV, but we'll have a definitive word hopefully by the time we're in committee.

That's perfect. Thank you. I really appreciate you guys following up on that just because I feel like I had an experience with the DMV this week already. You know, I just like dealing with the DMV can be frustrating for all of our residents and us. And so I just want to make sure that there's not something in there that kind of makes things harder than it needs to be at all. But really appreciate that. My other question, which I also asked in our briefing, and I'm not sure if you guys have had an opportunity to follow up on yet, was around contracts that we have, right? And so, like specifically the contract I was thinking about was the Denver Health contract because Denver Health is one of our contractors who provides or used to provide gender affirming services and who would collect this kind of data. And so, have you had an opportunity to have a conversation with them? Did they have... thoughts or feedback for you guys?

I think we were maybe reaching out to Denver Health on it, but after the conversation that we had, we did add the provision in about contracts specifically addressing, you know, that that if they do need to collect the data, great. But if they don't, we would ask them to follow this bill. But I can pause there and I know we have Lori here from the city attorney's office who's helped us amazingly with this bill and everything. So I will stop there and let her talk about it a little bit more.

Thank you, Council Member Gilmour. Yes, I've been happy to work on this legislation. Lori Simonson, Legislative Council. And so with regard to contracts, I guess one of the agencies had a question about that, and I said it would really depend on the language in the existing contract. But if it was generally we've created the importance in city interest exception so that it's not going to hamper existing services and business.

Thank you. That was it. Really appreciate that. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Flynn.

Thank you, Madam President. First question, thanks for the briefing the other day. First question on census databases and city sharing census databases. That's federal. I'm curious in understanding what census databases we have that we wouldn't share because they're already public. I'm trying to understand that specific reference.

Right. I believe when we were talking with particular city agencies, We went into this legislation pretty much with this is the template that we have that's been brought to us. Help us craft this in a way that we're not mucking up city systems. Like we know that people are doing good work and that we wanted to work alongside them to protect folks. And so I don't know if there was any additional information that we had.

I don't believe that come up much in our discussion, but here's where the... Yeah, exactly.

So the census databases and the technology use agreements. So that was something in talking with agencies that, and also with technology services, it was shared to us that many times agencies will want to create a survey or a database or something and kind of put the sky's the limit as to what the different provisions or the different variables that they want to collect. this legislation would create a few guardrails around what questions are you asking? Why are you asking those questions? And I believe Councilman Flynn, it was in one of the conversations with an agency that we were listing out and the census databases that might have sensitive information, we're wanting to make sure if they weren't protected by other mechanisms that we listed them out.

You're referencing the U.S. census, right?

Or are we talking about small C, the census we might put together? Yes, census data that they would be using internally, not the big C. Yes.

And then the last question is what we discussed during the briefing. So I'm having a difficulty visualizing how this ordinance changes things that we do. So what is happening? What are we doing today? that under this ordinance we will no longer be doing or what's happening today that under this ordinance will not be happening. I'm having trouble understanding or visualizing it.

Right. We actually, you know, we're talking with technology services and so, you know, your question about what is happening today that will not happen any longer. We in the city right now do not have an exhaustive category of what applications we have out there, what technology databases, what census data. We don't know what's out there. And so this will for the first time in the city's history have a provision that before you start collecting data, you have to be sensitive to this and make sure you're in compliance. But when we were talking to TS, a lot of folks voluntarily share personal data or information and the one that they shared with us was Denver Human Services. So when somebody goes in to fill out a form for maybe SNAP benefits, and there's space in the side of the form, they will start divulging more personal information than is required and answering any question and they don't have to. And so by especially limiting, one, what people are collecting, and then the 30-day retention, if there's no reason that you need that, we're not keeping it, but that there's also that reminder. And we were talking about doing some follow-up education with agencies around this is what you can collect, this is what you should not collect. And if people are voluntarily giving you that information, that it's probably you might want to give it back to them or if you don't have to keep it that we're being very sensitive to that but Tyler was going to go back and find us some other examples.

Excuse me, I'm glad you brought up, you know, education for agencies because it seems to me that as high level and very general this bill is, that all the agencies are going to need some kind of training. If I gathered, like if that person at Human Services took an application that had more than they need, they would need to keep track of it so they could get rid of it in 30 days or... How are we going to be assured that this will be as automated or as strictly followed as you want it to be?

Yeah, I mean, you know, we know that agencies right now today are working really hard with technology services around their data retention policies. We know that some are in compliance and we know that other agencies are in compliance and they're working to get there, but really technology services are kind of unexpected partners in this whole legislation because they, um, you know, have been like, yes, this is awesome. And maybe, you know, this will help us in other ways.

Yeah. So they're unexpected partners in a lot of ways sometimes. Yeah. No, no. For sure. So, uh, yes, the committee, when this comes to committee, it'd be helpful to have examples of things that will change because of this because there are so many exceptions that have to be in there obviously because we need when you fill out a driver's license application you need to put your age and your your gender and everything else voter registration things like that like what does it affect and what does it not affect it seems so broad the exceptions are so broad i'm wondering what are the What are the cases where that will fall under this ordinance that will have to be deleted? And I just need a better understanding of that. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Council Member Torres. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this up. It reminds me of the conversation we had around immigration status and not collecting more information than we need to, particularly when it can be used in some way to villainize or identify somebody for something else. I am curious what the LGBTQ Commission's feedback was on this because I know that they go through effort to try to make sure they have representation from different Self identifying groups, so how would they know that if they weren't asking for that information from applicants?

Sure. Thank you so much for that question, because that was something that we went back and forth on and, you know, we had. of course, folks that were saying, well, geez, we fought for so many decades to be seen and be heard. And so if you don't collect that data, how are we going to continue pushing forward for equity and inclusivity? And then there was the other side of, are we at that place in time that we need to be very cognizant of what we are collecting as far as that information and where does it go and what happens with it. And so that was something that we talked at great length about and we settled on are very, you know, narrow definition but then also that to effectuate the city business or interest that gives an allowance for say the Denver Police Department. to enact their 30 by 30 goal that they diversify the police force with gender expansive and women applicants. And so that was a question of, well, can we not ask those questions anymore? Can we not do outreach and marketing around that? And it was like, no, no, we, you're effectuating an important business city interest and so you can continue collecting that info and so that I think even that out a little bit so it didn't feel like we were just saying no don't collect it at all but that we don't want to be collecting data in such a way that say for example somebody who moves here from Kansas because they lost their license and they moved to Denver and they sign up for SNAP benefits, they sign up at Denver Parks and Rec, etc., etc., and then they maybe get picked over, picked up on and end up in our jail and then they're in our city system and we really started from that place of who asks who they are, who records that information, where does that information go and how long are we keeping it and through the process we actually found out that the Denver jail does follow some of the best models in the country around how they intake and how they keep trans and gender expansive people safe within the jail system. But we really put some of those exemptions to make sure that we can continue to collect that information.

So who helps a department decide if they're going to use it today or in 10 years?

Yes, so we talked in depth with Dr. Ben Sanders and the Office of Social Equity and that is why we included a provision in here that it allows city agencies to continue to share information between agencies so that any equity inclusivity goals that they're trying to work on and then Tyler Zimmerman and Technology Services, they have really dug into, as you might imagine, the data retention in our city and so, you know, we will really lean on them and what are agencies collecting data for and how long are they wanting to keep it. But around process, I definitely hear you around kind of where the rubber hits the road on it. And that's really why, again, we wanted to have an effective date, the first of the year, so that it does give agencies and others a chance to have those conversations.

Okay. So there's one application for all of the cities, like 130 boards and commissions, and they've got a gender dropdown question. Does that become optional or required based on which commission? That's kind of what I'm curious about in implementation side. I don't need an answer today. It sounds like some of those folks are getting back to you about how they would implement, but that might be something that I would ask just on the floor if they've made that determination by the time it gets there.

That's great. I really appreciate that. And that was really, again, we're not trying to limit the great work that the city does already. We're really trying to protect people from the data being collected and then being shared. And so I'm really glad that Lori was able to hear that question. And maybe we can also check back in with boards and commissions before Wednesday.

And it might be an interesting thing for stewardship for the commission itself, the LGBTQ commission, to either receive a report out or have some annual question that comes to them about like where are we at or something like that. I feel like that's a good role for them.

Okay, thanks. Thank you. Council Member Watson.

Thank you so much, Council President. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. And thanks for the briefing today. I got to say as a openly queer man, when I first heard of this, I wasn't certain because I needed to dig deeper into that. I was the former chair of the racial profiling task force for the city. We specifically changed the name from racial profiling to biased policing because we were certain that the police, if they had biases in who they were stopping, they were going to be stopping folks who were transgender, they were going to be stopping queer men. They were going to be doing all of these things and we wanted that information to be stored. So I appreciated your presentation and briefing that clarified that effectuating change piece that that actual data to demonstrate impacts to our community as well as steps we've taken to make sure that those voices, those names, those numbers are there so that we can build isolation to protect. community. That's part of the effectuating change. The only outstanding question I had, and I know that there's more research being done, I think Council Member Flynn and Council Member Torres spoke a little bit to some of those, was on the examples for the 30-day voluntary. Look forward to getting more of those. Understand that this is something that is very narrow. It's a scalpel approach and not a broad approach. Obviously, education is going to be helpful, so no additional questions. I appreciate the briefing and the opportunity to engage in dialogue. on this. Thank you, Council President.

Thank you. And my apologies, Councilman Cashman has been on with us since the very beginning. He was the other council member and just needed that promotion online. So he's been with us. I did have a follow-up and again, thank you for the briefing and thank you for bringing this forward. A little bit about the compliance piece for who is going to monitor or how are we going to audit? What agency is going to make sure that the data and the records are removed, are eliminated? Do we have a process for that and who do you imagine would be in charge of that?

Again, around the process and who's going to, you know, monitor that they're in compliance, you know, it's really the agency directors. I mean, they're responsible for what their agencies are doing. Most of them have, you know, a team that conduct their technology services. And I would say I have great confidence in Tyler Zimmerman and his role within TS in the city. But I'll pause there and see if Lori or Meredith have anything else to add. We really haven't dug into the process of how the city might comply because that's really the city's gig. They haven't told us they can't comply. They have totally been like, yes, this is awesome. We want to participate. And so we can circle back with a few of them and just kind of maybe get high level next steps. I would think that they're probably going to do some sort of inventory of what they currently have and collect. And Tyler might even have something that's automated that could be shared with them. But we'll get a stronger and more complete answer on that. Oh, yes. And yeah, perfect. Thank you, Meredith. And then we also have in it an annual reporting requirement that annually agencies would come back and report to council, you know, really what happened over the last year, how this worked, similar to how we write other legislation. And we have agencies come back and do an annual report to the council committee on it.

Well, you just answered my other question, because I wanted to know how we're going to assess what would come in those yearly reports. I think it's a great idea to have the commission also reflect and review and look at that as well. I don't have any other questions. Last call for council member questions. No, this is just, um, an information brief and we will see you then if there's nothing else, uh, we will see you in, um, health and safety on Wednesday.

Awesome. Good. Thank you so much. And, um, I also want to, um, uh, call out, um, Z Williams who is here in the audience. They have been, um, an amazing partner and hopefully we'll be able to, um, hear from them on Wednesday, uh, as well. But yeah, we've, I dug in hard on this one and just want to appreciate all of the agencies and everybody. They've been stellar in helping us craft it to this place.

Thank you. All right. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here.