Welcome to the NYC Civic Engagement Commission
October 23, 2023
	TotalCaption
Captioned stenographically by Joshua Edwards, RDR, CRR 

	This text is provided in rough draft format.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

>> Chair Sayeed:  Everyone can hear me okay?  Good morning.  Or good afternoon, rather.  I know call to order the Civic Engagement Commission's public meeting and we are live streaming as part of the open meeting guidelines.  I want to welcome everybody who is here either in person with us and also through the live stream.  Thank you so much for taking the time to join us today and thank you as always to the Civic Engagement Commission team for helping us prepare for this meeting and also want to always do a special shout‑out to Abby who is doing a remarkable job of pulling all the different pieces together from staff, the commissioners.  So thank you, Abby.  
(Applause) 
>> Chair Sayeed:  For members of the public who are here with us, we would love for you to sign in and join our mailing list.  And if you are online, you can go to nyc gov/civic engagement and go to the tab get involved and on the left side of the page you will be able to sign up for the news letter.  We have reserved the last 30 minutes of the meeting for members of the public to comment.  So if you would like to make a comment, you can do so by signing in on the sign‑in sheet and just writing comment next to your row.  And we are going to call on people in the order that we receive your signup, I guess, the last 30 minutes of the meeting.  And sorry that I'm shuffling around trying to find the right piece of paper here.  Okay.  And then we do have captioning today.  So I want to thank our captionist, the captions are on the right side screen.  And you can also, Abby, we don't have the slides up yet.  You can also, there's a link for realtime captioning as well.  That is in the deck that we will see shortly.  
You can also submit a comment via e‑mail by e‑mailing info@civic engagement.nyc.gov or text it to the number and we can read the comments in the order that they are received in the last 30 minutes.  So in preparing for this meeting, I am going to take attendance of the commissioners to ensure that we are here and in quorum.  So Murad Awawdeh?  Giovanni Barcenes?  Present.  Eve Baron?  Present.  Holly Bonner?  Amy Breedlove?  Present.  Natalie DeVito?  Present.  Mark Diller?  I'm here.  Donna Veronica Gill?  Here.  Anthony Harmon?  Present.  Ishrat Jahan?  Present.  Edwin Maxwell?  Present.  Lilliam Perez?  Anastasia Somoza?  With us online.  Mitchell Wu?  Here.  Thank you.  And for the record, my name is Sarah Sayeed and I'm one of the commissioners appointed to lead the Civic Engagement Commission.  I'm also the chair of this body.  I'm the executive director of the Commission.  And you may notice that my voice for those who can hear it is a little raspy.  That's because I am recovering from a cold which I think I'm past the contagious phase, but I am going to pass the masks around if anybody wants to wear a mask.  There's also hand sanitizer.  We have a pretty packed agenda for today, so we are going to get straight into it.  So we have minutes.  The first order, the first thing we are going to do is approve the minutes.  So all the commissions, you should have copies of the deck in your folder so you can follow along.  The deck will be up on the screen for those who are watching the meeting either from the audience or from online.  So we are approving minutes for two meetings.  The first is let's turn to the September meeting minutes.  Everyone can just pull that out.  So this meeting minutes essentially says that we gathered here last month and we didn't meet quorum, so we didn't actually meet.  Though I think we had a really good conversation amongst ourselves and some of the members of the audience were here.  So are there any additions or corrections to the minutes for September 26th?  Would someone like to make a motion?  
>> Move to approve. 
>> Second. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  All in favor?  
(A chorus of ayes.) 
>> Any opposed?  Okay.  So the minutes for September 26th are approved.  Next we have minutes for our July meeting.  Are there any edits to that meeting?  Or sorry, not those minutes. 
>> Move to accept. 
>> Second.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  All in favor?  
(A chorus of ayes.) 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Any opposed?  Hearing none, I will go forward and approve those minutes as well.  One thing to note on those minutes is that we actually kind of, we were on autopilot and forgot that we were supposed to meet in person in July.  So that meeting, the actions we took in that meeting will need to be redone today even though we are just approving the minutes for it because the emergency had expired by then.  So that's what we are going to be turning to as the next in the meeting; however, before we do that, we do have a resolution on remote participation because this came up, has come up numerous times for us and for different commissioners it's been an issue to get here.  And so we do have a resolution.  And I thought putting it forward first on our list of items would allow folks who are here remotely to participate.  So that resolution is also in your packet.  And should be on the slide authorizing the use of remote technology for participation.  Okay.  
So this resolution refers to Open Meeting Law and authorizes the use of videoconferences to conduct public meetings and subject to certain requirements.  As you can all read, it allows people who are unable to attend meetings in person due to a physical or mental impairment or qualifying disability to attend public meetings remotely and still fully participate in the meeting including counting towards quorum and casting votes.  
The OML is silent on how qualified disability determination should be made and whether documentation must be provided to support a claim.  Should a public body elect to implement qualifying disability and it must state its intention to permit the option and the methodology for doing so through an amendment to the bylaws or by resolution.  So that's why we are discussing this today.  And we are saying we wish to authorize videoconferences and to extend the use of remote technology to also permit its use by Board members with a qualifying disability.  
So be it resolved that we may use videoconferencing for the Civic Engagement Commission meetings for committees, subcommittees, consistent with the requirements of the OML.  The public will be able to review the meetings by video and realtime, remote participants including the general public will have the same realtime opportunity to participate as in‑person attendees.  And if a quorum of the Commission is present in person, another commissioner may join the meeting remotely from a location that is not open to the public if that commissioner is unable to join in person due to extraordinary circumstances such as disability, illness, or caregiving responsibilities or significant or unexpected events that preclude the commissioner's physical attendance.  
The Commission elects to perm its members the option to claim a qualified disability and participate using remote technology at any meeting of the Civic Engagement Commission, provided a remote option is generally available at such meeting.  
The Commission will recognize that a member has a qualifying disability provide each member attest to their status by completing a copy of the form attached which copy will remain on file in the Commission's office and commissioner of the Civic Engagement Commission claiming a qualifying disability shall not be required to produce documentation, medical or otherwise, to support their claim.  And the remote participation form allows people to opt out for single meetings and then to specify a date when they think they will come back and/or if their disability is permanent and they do not think they can make the in‑person meetings at all.  
So I would like to just open the floor for discussions on that resolution.  Anyone has any comments?  Questions?  
>> May I ask a question?  
>> Yeah. 
>> How does it work if we are unexpectedly, we haven't filled this out, but we are unexpectedly, cannot make a meeting and wish to attend.  Do we then fill out the paperwork at that time?  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yeah.  I think you would just fill it out and send it to us.  Send it to the office.  Yeah.  Because it does cover unexpected events.  Mark?  
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  I don't read this certification form as dealing with anything other than disability.  Because it specifically cites that it's either a permanent or nonpermanent disability.  And it includes the definition at the bottom what a disability is under the law.  So it's perfectly ‑‑ and this is very similar to what community boards are using. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  I think that's what we borrowed from. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  And it came from the Manhattan Borough President's general counsel who was in conference with the general counsel.  So I think it works for the purpose it was intended which is disability, permanent or temporary, but it doesn't work for the extraordinary circumstances portion of section 103‑a of the Open Meetings Law.  We have a lot of community boards doing with respect to that is essentially appointing the chair as the arbiter of whether a person has an extraordinary circumstance or not and cutting through it that way.  
I would be happy to either make a motion to amend this or a separate motion perhaps would be clearer to adopt that procedure as well so both base also covered, and perhaps the office can simply generate a form that says I'm Mark Diller, I'm unable to make the meeting on October 23rd.  The reason is my babysitter quit unexpectedly and I don't expect it to occur, so it's extraordinary, not a chronic condition, something like that.  I would be happy to help draft such a form.  But I think it should be separate from the disability. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  You are saying ‑‑ I'm a little confused.  
>> COMMISSIONER GILL:  I am going to jump in here.  It seems very specific to disability. 
>> Yes. 
>> COMMISSIONER GILL:  Whereas if for some reason you are not able to attend something happens, there's no out, because it says "disability."  
>> Yeah. 
>> COMMISSIONER GILL:  So I consider disability being out of the country because I'm not physically able to come in here.  You know, but then that's not covered here.  So I think we need to have something, add something to it which does not speak to a different ‑‑ if you have a disability because it's saying that you must have a mental, physical, medical impairment.  But if you are not in country, you don't have either one of those, if your babysitter quits, you don't have ‑‑ it doesn't cover that.  So I'm thinking maybe we need to, maybe Mark says to add a new one.  Let's make it less complicated just to add that verbiage in there that would change. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Sorry, Mitchell, you had a question.  
>> Just for a point of clarification in terms of what constitutes as a quorum, if we sign this, even if we are remote, I want to make sure it still counts as quorum because I know some other councils still need physical quorum as well.  For the other members to also count towards being able to vote and so forth.  But you still need physical quorum.  I just wanted to that point of clarification. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  If I may?  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Go ahead. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  The answer to that is if you have a qualifying disability and it's recognized by whatever form, then you can count towards a quorum.  But anybody who is with the extraordinary circumstance otherwise does not count towards quorum and can only participate if a quorum exists both in person and disability.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Natalie?  
>> Yes, thank you, not to split hairs here, but the language around this form, for example, seems to be a little binary, I'm either permanently disabled or I'm temporarily disabled and not fluid like a lot of disabilities might be.  I will give you an example just to illustrate, make it comprehensive.  A person who is under going treatment for cancer, for example, they have cancer.  That's their chronic condition.  And for two months in a row, they are strong and they have no vulnerabilities towards showing up in person.  And then following that, they have a series of difficult treatments and they need to attend to that and only attend remotely.  
And I feel that it could be addressed, perhaps, in a nonbinary fashion if we are a little imaginative about it, we could consider that.  As I see it at this moment, it's I'm permanently disabled and I don't know if this is, you know, if I will ever be able to show up in person, or I'm temporarily disabled with no stop date and not in my view leaving an option for hey, I'm disabled in general, and sometimes I will be able to find the strength to show up, and sometimes I won't.  Or sometimes I will be able to find the resources and sometimes ‑‑ and that's not particularly predictable. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  So I wanted to just talk through this a little bit, because the way that I'm understanding it is that first the OML is silent on how qualifying disability determination should be made.  And because of that, I'm gathering that's part of why the Law Department has kind of spelled this out for us.  And it does talk about, it does talk about the importance of having a quorum, right, in person.  And it does talk about some of the things you were raising, disability, illness, caregiving, significant unexpected events.  And it is also saying that on the form itself it's saying that I'm unable to determine at this time when I will be able to resume participating, but when my knowledge of my condition changes, I will inform the Commission when I anticipate resuming participation.  So the form isn't a static form.  You could change your options whenever you know that your condition is different.  
So I guess I am not fully gathering or understanding why we would need to have, like, a different resolution.  
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  If I may. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  I feel like the points everyone is covering ‑‑ 
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  I don't see an option here that says by making this choice, I yet may at any time show up in person.  It seems to make it so I shall not attend except remotely because of this reason, and I can revoke it periodically.  Does anybody want to fill out a form under the circumstances that I mentioned, for example?  Do you want to fill out a form every time you go for chemo, or do you just want to reserve on the resolution the option to override it, let's say, at any finite discrete period of time?  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yeah.  So what would you like to propose?  Would the form be different or the language of the resolution itself?  
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  The form itself seems to exclude a number of these concerns, I think.  Does anybody agree with that?  
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  Yeah, I think it goes back to my original question which is if you have an extenuating circumstance, how would you ‑‑ what would you do?  Because this form, to me, as my fellow commissioners have said, speaks to disability and the laws of disability, not towards extenuating circumstance.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  I think what it's saying, I guess, yeah, I guess I just missed not reading it differently because the language is very specific.  It says physical or mental impairment.  And I guess the Law Department considered that whatever they put in the resolution is covered by that.  But because physically like physically unable to broadly physically, I'm in another state or something?  I can't physically be present.  But I'm happy to take out if we are not ready to vote. 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  I wonder if this goes back to if we remember during COVID when we were filling out absentee ballots, and the State was requiring everyone to say that they had a disability in order to get those absentee ballots, regardless if you have a disability or not.  That was what the state was asking you to submit in order to legally get an absentee ballot.  So I'm wondering if the Law Department is in this same sort of legal bucket as the State was at that time.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  I mean, that fourth whereas is what seems like ‑‑ 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  No, we get that.  I think what we are not understanding is the form itself.  
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  The form feels ‑‑ 
>> It's not the language ‑‑ 
>> Painting yourself in a corner. 
>> I think the form as it stands is a good use for folks with temporary or permanent disabilities.  I think to Mark's point, we should in addition to that, create a secondary process to help when situations arise outside of having a permanent or temporary disability.  And I think that the recommendation was to have one where it is at the discretion of the Chair to approve said absentees or potential need for remote access.  I think can we make a motion on that secondary recommendation now so that we can move this process forward?  Just because I know time is of the essence we are trying to catch up with things we missed in the past couple of meetings.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Thanks.  Natalie?  
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  As a person with a disability, this form doesn't work for disabilities.  And I'm acknowledging that.  I feel that it either ‑‑ that it paints me in a corner to either say I will never attend in person until further notice or I will always attend in person.  And it is not a circumstance where I want to submit a form every single time to see how it's going as a person with a disability who may be able to attend in person is important. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  May I ask a question?  Is the issue more with the form or the resolution itself?  
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  For the disabled issue, for me, the issue is with the form only. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  With the form?  
>> Form. 
>> Form. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Mark?  
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  So I think we can, whether it's one resolution or two, we can solve this relatively simply.  I think, to your point, if we can simply add number sub box under he 'neath where it says the above disability is not permanent and we can add a third box that says my attendance in person from time to time as my health allows does not preclude my need to participate remotely at other times. 
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  That's beautiful.  That would be a perfect solution to my particular finite concern. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  And then, so that would cover the disability.  Now, the particular reference that this form makes is to the disability part of the Open Meetings Law because there's an exception to exception in 103‑a2 sub‑c. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Sub‑c?  
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  And to be really helpful, they combine two different thoughts into one subsection.  So the other thing that I think we should do is create a form whether it's another part of this form or a separate form which might be easier to navigate because you don't want people who are asking for a one‑off extraordinary circumstance to mistakenly fill in the disability box.  But it would simply say take the same banner up there and just eliminate Open Meetings Law section 103 (a) 2 (c) and delete the part that says self‑certification for qualifying disability because now we are not doing that and all it needs to say is I hereby request the opportunity to participate remotely at the upcoming blank meeting based on extraordinary circumstances per Open Meetings Law section blah, blah, blah. 
And then a separate paragraph my extraordinary circumstance is blank, signed by me, and you are done.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Okay.  Any comments or questions on that?  So it sounds like we are ‑‑ the vote is ‑‑ sounds like we are proposing not to change the resolution, but the form, right?  
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  Correct. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  So there are edits to the form.  So we would want to, do we want to move forward to vote on this with the edits to the form?  How would you all like to ‑‑ 
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  Motion to vote on the resolution.  
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  As modified?  
>> COMMISSIONER GILL:  As modified. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  The form is a part of the resolution. 
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  I see, okay.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  So motion to approve. 
>> COMMISSIONER HARMON:  As amended, right?  Second.  Second, yeah.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  All in favor?  
(A chorus of ayes.) 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Any opposed?  Okay.  Hearing no opposition, we will move forward with the resolution with edits to the form.  
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  I will type them up and send them to you.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  That would be great.  Thank you so much.  Moving right along.  
>> Are we going to vote on the second idea of the condition?  
>> COMMISSIONER HARMON:  I think that's part of the ‑‑ 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Would it count just to say with edits?  
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  It might make sense to have a separate resolution on that.  So with the Chair's permission, I move that we adopt a similar resolution with respect to extraordinary circumstances that adopts a form that recites the appropriate section of the Open Meetings Law in the same way that the current resolution does, and has a form that reads I hereby request the opportunity to participate remotely at the upcoming blank meeting based on extraordinary circumstances per opening meeting law section 103‑a2 c.  My extraordinary circumstance is, and then signature of the commissioner.  That would be my motion.  
>> I second.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  All in favor?  
(A chorus of ayes.) 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Any opposed?  Okay, so we are approving that second resolution to create another resolution focusing on the extraordinary circumstances.  Okay.  Great.  
Okay, I think next we are turning to the resolution related to the CEC resolution so this particular resolution is resolution of the Civic Engagement Commission.  It provides a delegation of responsibilities to the executive director.  And we have been updating it periodically ever since we started in May of 2019.  And the delegations that we are considering and reconsidering relate to the recording on Democracy NYC and participatory budgeting projects.  
And in our last meeting, we discussed whether it made sense to vote on each provision separately, and then we decided we were going to vote on them together.  So that's what we will do again.  We will just take that same approach.  
So for people who may be new to this, what we are talking about is just having integrated into our annual reporting, reporting to the commissioners about the Democracy NYC activities and the democracy or the equivalent which was language proposed by the commissioners last time is charged to develop and implement a report related to the activities and the chief democracy officer will be providing that report to the Commission. 
And then the other resolution or the other addition to this resolution is related to the selection of local projects where we have been authorized by the mayor to make these selections, since this is an expense program rather than a capital program and report to the Commission which projects received funding and the last is to implement and report any additional functions that may be assigned to the Commission and are not otherwise set forth in this resolution. 
So is there a discussion about these changes to the resolution?  Any questions?  
>> I make a motion to accept the resolution. 
>> I second. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  All in favor?  
(A chorus of ayes.) 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Any opposed?  Okay.  Just moving along really quickly here.  Okay.  So the resolution of the Civic Engagement Commission also stands approved.  Okay.  Next we are turning to the annual report.  As you all know, we need to vote on the annual report for submission.  This report is due at the end of September.  So we let the Mayor's Office and counsel know that we are waiting for approval and we will submit it.  I thought it would be helpful for to us just quickly go through what the Charter actually charges us to report on because there are specific things we must report on and then there are things we can report on if we want to if we think it's important.  
So on the slide above, you will see that there are specific things related to participatory budgeting that we must report on, including how many people participated.  We need to disaggregate this by borough and we also need to share voluntarily disclose demographic information.  And then report on the number of projects selected for recommendation disaggregated by borough, description of public outreach tools employed to promote participation in the program, recommendations for changes to enhance participation, and other information that we think relevant.  
For poll site language assistance, we must report on languages provided, poll sites where we serve, the number of people who utilize these language interpretation services, disaggregated by poll site and then recommended changes to the program.  
And other information.  And then for community board trainings, we need to provide a description of categories of the kinds of trainings we provided, and the number of community boards that utilize these resources disaggregated by borough as well as recommended changes to serve the needs of the community boards.  
So those are the things that at minimum need to be in the annual report.  And I'm not sure if everyone had a chance to go through the annual report which we shared with you.  We have not submitted it, so if you would like to make suggestions or edits, you still have the opportunity to do so.  Today I am going to take you through really quickly, zip through the highlights of the annual report that are captured on the slides.  This will be helpful to folks who are perhaps new watching this live streamed now or later just to understand what the Commission's work is.  
We will be starting first with participatory budgeting.  As you all remember or know, we had a historic process last year with city‑wide participatory budgeting happening for the very first time and this process was open to everyone 11 years or older regardless of their immigration status to help decide how to spend part of the city budget. 
And the process last year had $5 million in the pot, and it was focused on expense.  And we partnered with a lot of community‑based organizations.  So thanks to all the partners who worked with us on this.  We had 82 partners, and we had received over two hundred applications to join us in this process.  
So the way that this process worked, go to the next slide, we ran a borough‑based process as well as a neighborhood process in 33 neighborhoods identified by the task force for racial inclusion and equity.  And these neighborhoods had been the most heavily impacted by COVID‑19.  And each neighborhood was allocated $50,000 for the city‑wide process.  And the remaining pot of money was distributed to each borough, 3.35 million based on a percentage of people living under the 100 percent poverty level as well as the size of the borough.  
And what we did here is that just some historic information about what happened last year is that the Charter had specified that people must be 16 years old to participate.  And we held a public hearing to reduce that from 16 to 11.  
And then we did involve the participatory Budgeting Advisory Committee which was comprised of agency representation from agencies that the Charter or the populations that the Charter charges us to work with and the agencies that represent them, we had a rep from those agencies involved in the planning of the process.  
The four phases of participatory budgeting people's money, idea generation, project evaluation, ballot creation, and voting.  And then project implementation are the four phases.  And over five hundred sessions across the city, over 12,000 people engaged, and people submitted ideas on their own as well as through organizations.  And we also held our own borough‑based solutions.  More than two thousand ideas for the five boroughs, and more than two thousand ideas for the 33 neighborhoods came in.  
And during the project evaluation ballot creation phase, we used a civic assembly model.  This was like an innovation that we had because we attended a conference on citizens assemblies actually the summer before and this was our attempt to integrate citizen assemblies which are typically forums where participants are randomly selected from a population to come and deliberate on an issue.  And we took that idea and we applied it to our own participatory budgeting program, though we didn't randomly select, you know, just members of the New York City public.  We did select from a group of applicants.  There was a process that was involved to sort by different demographic characteristics. 
And we made sure these borough assembly nominees were representative of the borough.  And those individuals met to deliberate about the ideas that had been submitted by New Yorkers.  They narrowed them down and they created ballots that the public would then vote on.  We had a lot of ballots in the first year.  There were 38 ballots.  There were five borough ballots and 33 equity neighborhood ballots.  And these were translated into 12 languages.  
So that's a lot of projects.  We can go to the next slide.  There were eight projects in the Bronx, ten Bronx in Brooklyn, nine projects in Queens, eight in Manhattan, and four in Staten Island that were listed on the ballot.  And of course as I mentioned, there were three neighborhood ballots, three to five projects on each.  People in the TRIE neighborhoods actually were voting on two things.  They had two ballots.  They were voting on their neighborhood ballot and voting other than their borough ballot.  Anyone that didn't live in a neighborhood was voting just on the borough ballot.  So now we can turn to the results of what happened during this process.  
We did do an optional exit survey for voters.  And there were nine questions on that survey.  And we did ask people to report their demographic characteristics to us.  This was the survey that was available online and in person.  
And we collected over 22,000 surveys in ten different languages.  And close to 18,000 were filled out in English.  And then we have Spanish, Chinese, and Bengali were some of the other languages that were completed.  
And if we go to the next slide, it's very interesting to see the pattern of projects that people selected.  In the TRIE neighborhoods, 12 focused on mental health, six or job training, seven or education, three on food insecurity, two on antiviolence and there was one on each on intergenerational immigrant rights and sanitation.  Similarly again in the five borough projects, yeah, the borough projects, there were five focused on education, three on mental health, two on parenting, jobs, housing and food security.  So you can see these are kind of the issues that were dominant and important to communities and that's what they wanted to see supported and we list all of the projects on our Participate platform where people can go and read the information in greater detail.  
Looking next to the next slide which is about the demographics of people who participated, as we mentioned we did have the ballots translated in order to make this accessible for people with limited English.  And this graphic shows you how many people filled out these, based on the exit survey ‑‑ oh, sorry.  This is the demographics of the ballots cast.  Apologies. 
This tells you that while most of the ballots were cast in English, there were about 36,000 in Spanish, and then Chinese was the next largest group.  And then you have some of the other languages such as Haitian Creole, Bengali, Korean, Arabic, French, Russian.  So I think this is good.  We can do more to connect with communities and do more in language outreach and we have been looking at, like, one of the things we did this year is looking at our partnerships to see how it can expand into language communities.  
Interestingly, more than four times as many votes were cast by paper relative to online.  So that's also interesting finding.  And then going to the next slide, we were looking at who were the people that voted in this process.  And the highest participation came from ‑‑ and then 45 to 54 years and then youth ages 11 to 15 made up eight percent of the participation.  
And most of the participants were women identified as women and 33 percent identified as men and three percent identified as nonbinary.  
Next slide.  We had a diverse population in terms of ethnicity and race.  About 32 percent of participants on the exit survey identified as Black or African‑American, 28 percent identified as white and 18 percent as Asian.  And we do believe that we are building a process that is inclusive of communities that are underrepresented in traffic civic engagement processes.  
>> Can I ask a question about that?  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yes, of course. 
>> With the second to top line outside of English being Spanish, why Latino ‑‑ where would the Latin or Hispanic community fall under this graph?  
>> Chair Sayeed:  That's a really good question.  Very good question.  Team?  
>> Audience member:  It was a separate question that we asked on the survey.  Are you Hispanic or Latino?  Which the breakdown isn't up there, but we do have. 
>> Okay, just for it to be edited into this chart just putting them in for that one edit. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yeah, thank you for that.  That's a really great point.  I'm noticing, team, I don't think we included that in the annual report.  So let's make sure that we edit that particular piece.  Okay.  Great.  Thank you.  And I'm glad you stopped me.  If anybody wants to ask a question, I will just pause after each slide to see or make an edit or suggestion. 
Okay, we can go to project implementation.  So this is the year where we are getting to see what happens as a result.  It's the year where we are building our proof of concept.  This works, right.  Because it's one thing to get people involved in a process.  It's another thing to actually see what emerges from that process.  And I think one of the things that's been frustrating with the capital process is that people don't see results.  So we are hoping that this year we will get to show results and we are going to need to really think about how we are telling the story of results, right.  
So all the projects that, one, that are selected are ask that we have to complete them by 2024, June, and we did run a request for expressions of interest for the borough projects.  And then we are currently working with organizations that were selected to begin planning out the implementation.  And for the TRIE neighborhoods, either the TRIE neighborhood administrator the organization that we were working with, either they are implementing the project or they selected partner, there are a couple of neighborhoods where we had to identify a partner.  And one thing that we are making sure we are investing resources and time into is supporting project monitoring and evaluation.  Really building in capacity‑building for our organizational partners to be able to monitor and document the effectiveness of their projects.  
So are there any questions or edits so far on the PB section?  In addition to the one?  
>> One question.  
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  I'm just wondering on the project implementation, June 2024 for a lot of us is right around the corner. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Uh‑huh. 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  So just wondering if you are going to provide any status update at this time on where these prongs are at.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  We will definitely be providing updates periodically to the commissioners.  We also will have an online portal where people can go and see what's happening and we are going to be updating that periodically as well.  So yes, definitely, not today necessarily, because we have a lot to get through. 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  No, I understand that.  I mean in the annual report, give some sort of where things are at September 30th.  Or October 23rd or wherever we are at now. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  I think the annual report, since it's due September 30th, everything in here is predating that pretty much.  So we will include the results in next year's annual report if that makes sense.  Yeah.  

>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  I think just on that note, having June '24 deadline for these to be implemented is pretty remarkable considering how we've seen PB processes after voting take years for the project to get implemented.  I think it's a kudos moment on that piece having a quick turnaround time.  And I think Amy's question earlier is to actually just be, I think we are all excited for it and we want to to see it working.  So I think obviously not in this report, but in our next meeting we can have a conversation on where things are, I think that would be super‑helpful.  Ill. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  If I could?  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yes. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  I think the difference is that all of our frustrated experience with PB to date and counsel PB was because it was capital money which goes through a very rigorous process, a laborious process, rigorous, maybe not.  This is expense, use it or lose it in this fiscal year which ends June 30th, right.  So ‑‑ 
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  There's been some programming PB in the past, too.  And it took forever. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  Yeah, okay. 
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  So even if it was intended to be met by the end of the budget cycle, it wasn't and that money just ‑‑ 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  Evaporates, yeah, and that's not a good thing.  Thanks.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yes?  
>> COMMISSIONER BARON:  Sorry, I did look at it, but maybe not in this detail.  But I would be interested in knowing a little bit more about the capacity‑building that you are incorporating for the people who are taking on the projects.  The implementation question.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yeah.  So just I'm just, to try to ‑‑ what we did, I was looking at what we put into the report as far as the project.  So in the report, we have listed the selected projects.  And where we were when we wrote this report is we were working with the organizations that had responded because, remember, the projects were selected at the end of May.  So we had to build in time for orgs to, you know, finalize the orgs and that's kind of what's been happening in the past. 
And more recently, we got the organizations started with their orientation, you know, for how this process is going to work out.  And as far as the capacity‑building piece, we are working with an expert in evaluation monitoring to building training and that person happens to also be a professor and has students that are going to be supporting the organizations as they are doing this work.  And we did ask them to carve out a certain part of their budget to write up the evaluation for their particular project.  Yeah, we can definitely share more information about that.  
So does anyone want to, in addition to the change proposed by Murad, is there anything else we want to say that we must have in the PB section of the annual report?  Okay.  
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  Looks good. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  All right.  So we are going to move next to the poll site language assistance program.  And so in this program, in November 2022, we assisted 1,320 limited English‑proficient voters.  We had a total of 135 language services.  And what that means is interpreters at different sites.  And at one hundred unique poll sites.  Some of those poll sites had more than one language, and that's why the language services is 135.  
And then in the June 2023 primary, we had assisted 371 voters and provided 132 language service.  These are broken out by in the graph for us as well by language.  Next, we are covering some information on how we do outreach on this.  So we had developed a UPSA is that informed limited English proficient voters of their right to vote in their language and the availability of our services.  We had a campaign media ad placement, geotargeted ad placement as well to reach voters ahead of each election.  We also used our social media channels, distributed information to a variety of partners and through events.  And we also did a text initiative where we texted people who lived in the geographies where we were providing services.  
So this was, and I will pause here to see if anybody has questions on the poll site services.  Yeah?  
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  I don't have a question.  But if we can make an edit. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yeah. 
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  To add uniqueness to the selections we are talking about here.  Because in June of '22 and then the August primary, are that was not supposed to happen August primary.  So I think that was a unique moment.  And then if there could just be a note for the June '23 primary that the reason why there is a June '23 primary is because a redistricting, there were very few actual elections just because I think we're going to start getting real data on the language access ‑‑ poll site language access assistance program in the coming years as elections get back to normal routine.  
But these past two elections are not truly indicative of the needs, nor should we be looking at it in that way.  But it's a good marker for how the program has been set up and will continue to grow. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  So something about the uniqueness of ‑‑ 
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  Yeah.  I think there needs to be the 2022 elections were just a mess. 
(Laughter) 
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  And, you know, all of them should have been in June, and then I think it was the Senate and congressional, maybe that got pushed to August. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yeah. 
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  And it was just, like, district leader and Assembly when they were all supposed to be condensed into one like happened in the last couple of years.  But because of the court decision to redraw some of the maps, we had an additional random primary in August which is also a bad month to have a primary in.  
So I don't want people looking at these numbers thinking oh, this doesn't make sense.  It does not make sense. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yes. 
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  And also the note of this year's primary just indicating that because we are in a post, you know, census count and redistricting, that the elections of '23 are the two‑year mark that have to be redone in that very few elections actually happening in June of '23 because there were not primaries for before we list how many primaries were actually were.  I'm just saying this is how many elections we were providing poll site language access assistance.
>> CHAIR SAYEED:  Yeah.  
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  Murad, I feel like you are raising extraordinary and unusual election scheduling. 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  I think this is a good point.  We discussed this in a number of elections where I think it should be part of the process to document differences in these elections, because we did have for the first time ever, what is it called when you rank it?  Ranked choice voting which was brand new.  And some other things.  So I think we should get in really the discipline of documenting what exactly happens in each one of these elections.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Okay.  So from what I'm understanding, so I get this right, one thing we want to talk about is the uniqueness of these elections, right?  In terms of the larger election landscape and what was happening in these elections.  And the other thing is the nature of the elections such as ranked choice voting which was done in June.  And then ‑‑ 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  I would get away from uniqueness. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Oh. 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  And document what was the election. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Okay. 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  So it happened that it was unique for this reason.  Another time it was unique for another reason.  But documenting what these different elections were. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Got it, okay.  So other than those two things, and what we will do is we will add these sections and just send them to you also and work with you offline.  Other than those two things, are there other ‑‑ 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  This is not for the annual report, but I would just like to capture that we have, of course, the largest amount of language assistance is done in Russian. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yes. 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  And yet, we didn't really capitalize on that for the PB where Russian was quite low.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yes. 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  So I think that we should start to, so again this is not for the annual report, but I want to mark it that this is something that we should start to look at on how we can capitalize on our efforts. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Right of the I think that's a fair point.  Yeah.  We are going to be looking at that for sure.  Yeah.  Okay.  Anything else on the poll site program before we move to Democracy NYC?  
>> COMMISSIONER BARCENES:  Is it too much to ask for a map?  Again, not for this report, but for the future of where these languages ‑‑ where these services are taking place in terms of, like, neighborhoods and boroughs?  I mean, the languages are ‑‑ 
>> Chair Sayeed:  They are actually we are required to report where they are, not in the form of a map.  But we do have in the appendix the list.  And you are right, that could be distilled into an map.  It's available as an online map and we could provide a link to the online map either the appendix or in the report itself.  All right.  Anyone else?  Okay.  Next, we are going to go to Democracy NYC.  In the annual report, we are talking about Kathleen being appointed as chief democracy officer and talking about our participation in Civics Week which is an annual report that is happening in the New York City public school system.  
And we partner with the Bay Ridge Public Engagement Unit to help voter registration dusk Civics Week.  And we had a kickoff in Staten Island, and we met with students there and heard about everything like what they have been working on during their past year civics curriculum. 
And we hosted help to host registration in 15 schools and the registration activities were happening in over 185 high schools across the city.  And since it started, over 70,000 New York City students have registered to vote during Civics Week. 
So that was one of the main activities that we had earlier in the spring.  And then June, there was a Get Out the Vote initiative launched by Democracy NYC.  And the effort is really focused on reducing stopping the drop between the high number of people who are registering to vote and not going to vote for different elections.  
And the campaign focused on single prime voters, registered voters who only voted in one primary election since 2019.  There was ranked choice voting focused on areas where there was ranked choice voting in five council districts.  
There were also five primary focused districts with intense outreach.  And those five districts were chosen based on the number of primaries in that district.  Areas with more than two candidates, there were new districts based on redistricting.  There were language needs or special populations.  And then there were five secondary districts with less limited outreach.  They have ranked choice voting races.  And we didn't cover Staten Island because there was no primary election happening on Staten Island. 
So based on that particular focus area, the next slide, we ran an ad campaign.  And this included rank your vote, vote in your own language, know your rights, different transportation channels, print, digital, social media ads, ethnic media ads and we also did do some direct New Yorker outreach, including through five CBO community‑based organization partnerships, as well as paid canvassing where people actually went and knocked on doors or talked to people on street.  
This included students from CUNY, some of those students were actually also multilingual.  So we had text out the vote, call out the vote, community canvassing, social media day of action, and we also encourage our CBOs to do language ‑‑ teach in different languages.  And there was also connection to NYC service, spread love program where we can broaden volunteers from that program as well.  
So you have in the report a listing of the districts where we were working.  And campaign results are on the next slide telling you about the number of phone calls we made, text messages sent, doors we knocked on.  And the number of CBO partners and students and in volunteerships.  
Both Democracy NYC and our poll site language assistance program worked with the language assistance advisory committee.  We had education forums in Russian and Arabic.  And we had about one hundred community members attend these events.  And we also did an in‑person workshop for the language assistance advisory committee to strengthen their capacity for relationship‑building, community engagement, social media use and then we reached out to, again, community groups and community boards as well.  
So that's the overview of DNYC.  Are there any comments, questions, suggestions to the DNYC section?  
Okay, we are going to go to community boards.  In the community boards section, we are reporting on the number of trainings we hold.  We had 30 board trainings in total and we also participated in a council hearing.  And in that hearing, we heard a lot about language access at the boards, and we did attempt to follow up onto that hearing by doing a survey of community boards related to their language access work.  And we are still hoping to collect more data from that survey and reach out to more boards.  And when this report was written, about 22 boards had responded to the survey.  
So we've included some of the highlights from their responses which, you know, are captured in the report as well.  But this work is ongoing and it looks a little funkily formatted.  We also had worked on a community board awareness video, a public service announcement video.  We partnered with the COU, Mayor's Community Affairs Unit and that video is also available.  
On the next slide, we are required to report on, again, the training topic, the days we held it, and the number of boards that participated from each borough.  So you can see that for, you know, this kind of, these trainings, attends really varies by the borough.  We do have engagement from every borough.  There's no borough here that's where you see a zero.  So I think that's good.  
(Laughter) 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Some trainings are better attended by some boroughs than others.  But happy to have your support in getting out the information about the community board trainings as well.  Thank you to those who do that for us.  So any questions on that particular piece?  Yes?  
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  The reference to community boards and language access, there needs to be a greater cause and effect established in the way in which that's reported.  Community boards' budgets haven't changed other than cost of living increases for salaries since I believe 2009.  It did not allow nor did it contemplate the use of translation or interpretation services then, and nothing has gotten cheaper in the ensuing 15 years.  So I read perhaps too sensitively the statement that boards have very few resources for language access services and provide very little as not embracing the reality of trying to manage a budget that in no way contemplates either language interpretation services or some of the other things that the same Charter amendment that created this body envisioned as providing community boards, for example, land use expert advice for every board.  It just hasn't materialized because the money isn't there. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yeah. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  So I would sooner see this report call out the absence of adequate funding for a need than to create an impression that community boards are indifferent to the need for interpretation services which is how I read this sentence.  Thank you.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Okay.  We can definitely, we did talk about this, I recall.  The issue with board funding, I recall we talked about it in last year's annual report.  Not referencing specifically language access.  I think it was more overall.  So we can bring it up.  We will review this particular section. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  Thank you.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Anything else in the community board section?  Then in the other sections, we talk about ‑‑ I'm just looking at the time.  We are kind of almost at the end, so I won't ‑‑ partnerships and coalition‑building, we talk about the report also covers our work in the TRIE neighborhoods with the coalitions.  And we do talk about how, yeah.  So the TRIE neighborhoods are another section, though most of the work that was done in the TRIE neighborhoods is covered in earlier sections in the report and we do mention ‑‑ talk about that.  And we also talk about in that section our general work with community outreach. 
This report I really, really like this section a lot actually, also because it provides you with a snapshot of each engagement team member and some of the highlights that they wanted to report on as they are connecting with communities.  And part of the reason why I value this particular section is I think that generally my sense is that community outreach is not really valued across, you know, in terms of how agencies have typically operated.  
It's a core function and I think it needs to be celebrated more.  So I'm really glad that the outreach team took the time and initiative to write some of the key things that they have been working on.  And, you know, what's covered in here includes that we did do participatory budgeting on Rikers Island.  That was a very important accomplishment.  We also had, you know, have been involved with mayoral initiatives to, you know, to just get out more and that includes community affairs, public safety community affairs.  We talked about a particular workshop that we did for young people who are part of the Summer Youth employment program on advocacy and activism.  So that's a really great section.  
And then our volunteer program has really grown over the past year.  So we had a lot of people getting involved either in the idea generation sessions or, you know, in the Democracy NYC works as well helping to get out the vote for participatory budgeting.  
So there's a lot of great stuff captured in those sections.  And the final section, thoughts about what we see coming up in the future and our recommendations for the year ahead.  So that's the annual report.  And I am wondering, I know I am going to quickly summarize the things that we just talked about editing so that we all have that down.  
And if I miss something, please let me know.  The first thing we spoke about was in the participatory budgeting section, we want to add something specifically for ‑‑ to clarify the graph related to race/ethnicity.  We want to make sure that we are including the Latinx community either in that graph or a separate graph.  That was one change. 
And then I don't recall, there was no change related to implementation or to discuss that, right?  
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  No, there was no change there. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yeah, there was no change there.  The next change we spoke about relates to the poll site language assistance program.  We said that we would like to see more discussion related to the nature of the elections for people, and also, yeah, the nature of the elections, bigger election actual election itself and how people vote in it.  So that is one change.  
And then we talked about either linking the map to the poll sites or ‑‑ yeah, linking the map either in the body of the report or in the appendix, just to show where the poll sites are.  That was another change.  And then lastly, in the community board section, we would like to add something related to the funding that community boards do not receive just to make that more clear that there is not adequate funding to cover this and that it's not ‑‑ it's not that community boards don't want to do this work.  It's that they have not received the funding to do this work is important. 
So those are the changes that I heard from all of you that we want to make.  So what we'll do on that is that we will write those changes and send them to you; however, trying to move forward on submitting the report, can I hear a motion?  
>> COMMISSIONER GILL:  I make a motion. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  For submission. 
>> COMMISSIONER GILL:  I make a motion. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  All in favor of submitting the report?  
(A chorus of ayes.) 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Any opposed?  So the motion is that we will submit this report with the edits. 
>> COMMISSIONER GILL:  With the edits. 
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  And that's it?  So we don't have to review and vote on the edits?  We've discussed them.  You guy also going to make a slight change to the graph which is going to include Latinx. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yes. 
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  And describe one line nuance of the last two elections poll site language assistance happened.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  You don't need to review the edits.  We won't revote on it.  But we will make sure to send it to you.  Whoa.  Okay.  That was awesome.  Thank you.  We got through a lot there.  Let's see.  On the next couple of slides, we are talking really quickly about things that are happening now so that you are aware of what we are up to.  As you all know, the second cycle of participatory budgeting started, so we are now in idea generation phase.  And we are working with 103 partners. 
We held a training for those partners early in September, and so far there have been 26 sessions held across the city.  80 more are coming up in the upcoming week.  And we would love for you to encourage community members to submit ideas.  You can also yourselves choose to attend an idea generation session in your neighborhood.  Those are listed on our site.  So you can just find one and go.  You can also hold one.  We do have a toolkit for you to host an idea generation session.  
Oh, are we going to the slide?  Okay.  Everything good?  Okay.  All right.  Democracy NYC.  So we are continuing to educate people about the elections.  So for Democracy NYC, we are working intensively with our partners and with 33 community neighborhoods.  We did a boot camp recently on Friday the 13th.  And over 60 participants attended that training. 
And that training provided information on what's on the ballot, language access, voting history, just trying to encourage people or provide people with the tools to help people come out more and vote more. 
There will be another training coming up this week.  It's a digital training to continue to provide organizations with support on volunteer recruitment and helping to do their voter engagement work.  One of the things we covered in the training is just if you look at the next slide, it is what are people voting for in this election?  It varies by borough.  
So you do have to do really tailored education for the boroughs.  So not every borough has a DA race, as an example.  And then Brooklyn has a surrogate court race.  So there's just like a lot of different things that people are voting on.  And then we also educated people in the next slide about the deadlines that are coming up today, for example, is the last day to vote by mail and change address.  October 28th is the last day to register to vote, and also the first day of early voting called Golden Day because it falls on the same day.  And then we will have a period of ten days for early voting and then election days on the 7th and November 7th is also the deadline to return your mail‑in ballot.  
One thing that we are reminding people about and we encourage you to do the same is to let people know they must flip their ballot this election because there are proposed ballot ‑‑ sorry, ballot measures regarding revisions to the State Constitution which relate to debt limits for small city schools.  They will now have the ability to accrue a higher debt because their debt limit is smaller.  
So that's one of the measures.  And then the other one is related to sewage project debt.  People can vote on an amendment that excludes sewage‑related and construction‑related work from the debt limit.  Those are in general, that was another thing we were talking to people about is, like, realize that you do have to flip your ballot this election.  
Next we are going to be engaging people in canvassing in person.  We are doing phone calls as well as a social media day of action.  So people can actually use this QR code to sign up via a site called Mobilize where they can sign up for any of these activities.  We will be sharing this deck with you and you can share this out with your networks as well. 
For poll site language assistance, what's happening is that we do have this poster that you have the right to vote in your language.  Part of what we will be doing in the community canvas is putting up some of the posters around the areas where we are providing services.  And we are going to be providing services starting the second weekend of early voting, November 4th, November 5th.  
Yiddish will be provided on Friday, November 3rd to account for the fact that people are not voting on Saturday.  And then there's a map that we are sharing with you where, here is a map, Gio. 
(Laughter) 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Of where we are going to be coming up.  We can include something like this in the report.  So, yeah, you will see that most of our work is happening in Brooklyn.  The southern part of Brooklyn and that's partly because a lot of our poll site services cover the Russian community.  Since we are not providing services in Spanish because Spanish is covered by the local elections.  
So that's that.  And then community board workshops are here.  We have already offered a couple of parliamentary procedures training.  There's an independent budget office workshop with the city budget that has already been working with the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities to do some of those trainings as well.  And there's a link here where people can go and sign up for community board members. 
One thing we do want to talk about in the four minutes that are left is just how we want to do our meetings.  Going forward, now we do have this ability to have people attend remotely, we do still need an in‑person quorum, and we do need to figure out a time that works for people.  
In the past we were trying to just keep it, fix the day of the week and said it would be Tuesday either morning or afternoon and we would rotate every other month.  Just for everyone who is new and as a reminder, we are generally scheduled to meet every other month.  So it's not a monthly meeting.  And when that changes, we need to do a hearing.  So in event that we need to do a hearing, you will need to come in another time besides that every other month.  We are not anticipating any hearings coming up this year.  So what we are trying to figure out now is when is a good day for most of us where we could be in person?  Because, you know, that's shifting.  
So what is the best way for us to, like, figure this out?  Abby, do you have any thoughts on this based on what you see from responses?  
>> Audience member:  Yeah, I think it's more a general ‑‑ I know everybody has a different schedule.  A general preference for, like, evenings or early mornings.  Like, and then just if there's a specific day obviously it's Monday through Friday.  But if we can kind of have a general idea of oh, we like evenings on this day of the week, Monday or Tuesday, that would help generally moving forward.  Or if there's discussion, if early mornings or evenings are the better time for most people.  
>> COMMISSIONER HARMON:  Will they always be in this space?  
>> Chair Sayeed:  As much as we can, yeah.  
>> Audience member:  Probably. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  As much as we can.  
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  Because now, a time like now work for most folks?  
>> COMMISSIONER HARMON:  No, this is difficult, I will be honest.  A meeting, you spend time in the morning then come here and go back to work.  Morning or evening, yeah. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  So like first thing in the morning, you are saying?  
>> COMMISSIONER HARMON:  9:00, 10:00, whatever. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Okay.  Mark?  
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  Yeah, evenings both my day job and my volunteer life, that's where they tend to have meetings pile up.  Actually the noon time works for me, too, but I'm relatively close in proximity, so I appreciate it's not the same for everybody.  So morning seems more equitable solution.  You schlep in and then you are done at an hour and most of your ‑‑ a little shifting your schedule for work.  The. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Okay.  So, like, 10:00 a.m., does anyone have issues with that 10:00 a.m. slot?  
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  On a Monday?  
>> Chair Sayeed:  You prefer Mondays?  
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  Yeah. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Monday or Tuesday?  Is there ‑‑ are you teaching?  
>> COMMISSIONER BARON:  It's okay.  Don't worry.  
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  I want to put in that Monday at 10:00 a.m., I told Abby I'm never available on Tuesdays, but I always remove my Tuesday commitment to come and be with you all.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Okay.  
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  It would be great if I didn't have to, but I'm just one person. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Thank you.  So Mondays at 10:00. 
>> Sounds good. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  So the next poll that will go out will not be in November, December. 
>> COMMISSIONER DEVITO:  And that brings us to very, very near to the holidays. 
>> Yes. 
>> I just want to you consider that.  I don't know what that week looks like. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  It will be between ‑‑ early December.  It will be after Thanksgiving.  So one of those Mondays.  I mean, I don't know if we want to just look at our calendar.  We are a little bit over time, but maybe we just want to look at our calendars right now if you can.  Because the first Monday in December is the 4th or the 11th.  So it will be one of those.  
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  I will just let you know I'm out of town the 11th.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  You are out of town the 11th?  How about the 4th?  4th.  Okay, Abby, you got your date.  Hopefully no poll is needed.  December 4th at 10:00 a.m.  Yeah.  
>> COMMISSIONER AWAWDEH:  I might be out of the country, but I will ask for one of those exceptions. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  It might be an extraordinary circumstance. 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  He's going to be the first one to try it out. 
(Laughter) 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Okay.  Okay, awesome.  All right.  So I think we got through everything amazingly, everything.  Yeah?  We didn't do public comment.  
>> Audience member:  There's somebody here. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Please, can people stay a little bit longer?  Member of the public?  Thank you so much.  I'm sorry I completely blanked and I should have stopped 30 minutes before.  
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  We are 30 minutes before.  You have us slated for 12:30 to 2:30. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Oh, gosh. 
>> COMMISSIONER BREEDLOVE:  I wasn't going to stop you.  Rock and roll. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Great.  Thank you.  
>> Audience member:  I will still keep my commence to three minutes. 
>> COMMISSIONER DILLER:  You do need to use the mic. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Please come use the mic.  
>> Audience member:  I want to thank you all for the education session I had this morning.  I had met on a couple of occasions Anthony who I think is one of your outreach people.  And he's given me a lowdown on what you do and seeing such detail and the work you do is very impressive.  Thank you very much. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Thank you.  
>> Audience member:  My name is Al Kurland.  I'm now three years retired from working for 22 years with the Police Athletic League.  Part of that time I was the director for team services and MPAL, we did a lot to encourage high school students to become civically engaged in their own communities.  Researching their own issues, you know, developing one issue in detail and making presentations to their own communities on how to better address issues up is as community violence and lack of health services and things of that nature.  
And during that time, I also had the opportunity to partner with an agency that was called The Future voters Of America in a campaign to lower the eligibility age on community boards from 18 years of age to 16 years of age.  So that was the campaign.  It actually took seven years from the start of the campaign to the governor signing off and change law.  But it did finally happen.  And we had some success early on in the first few years and then a drop‑off, there was a big drop‑off for everything with the onset of COVID. 
To bring visit to community boards and specifically to younger members including 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  That's great. 
>> Audience member:  So after retirement, it came to my attention that there was legislation in the New York State Legislature to lower the voting age for all 16 and 17‑year‑olds from 18 years of old to 16 years of age for New York City elections and New York State elections.  They were not tackling federal elections.  
So I got to work doing research on the issue and also in very early days, six or seven months old of developing allies in the youth agency level.  So currently, we have a small band of volunteers that we call Vote 16NYC.  And we have two agencies that are partners, Generation Citizen which runs action civic classrooms in high schools and middle schools around the city.  But they also have endorsed lowering the voting age to 16.  And they have been active in other states, San Francisco in California, and also Maryland which has successfully, Maryland has successfully lowered their voting age for about ten years now.  And in San Francisco, they had a couple of referendums, the latest of which failed by nine tenths of one percent of getting that referendum passed. 
So what we have been doing in New York City is we have been reaching out to community boards.  We reached out so far to seven community boards to try to get resolutions of support.  And we have obtained those from two boards.  I live in Washington Heights, so I went to Washington Heights first and Community Board 12 approved the resolution by a vote of 33 in favor, three opposed, and two abstentions.  
And also went to the East Harlem Community Board and they didn't give me specific numbers, but they passed a resolution in support.  And we have five additional actions pending in community boards, two in Manhattan, two in the Bronx and one in Brooklyn.  And we will be working hard over the next few months to develop outreach to community boards across the city.  So community boards, also neighborhood‑based institutions, both youth advocacy groups and also groups that in general are working on improvements in the voting process all across the board, including inclusive of 16 and 17‑year‑old voters.  
So at this point, the legislation exists.  I have a packet that I will give to Abby and she can share with all the commissioners.  The lead sponsor in the State Senate is from the West Side of Manhattan Brad Hoylman Segal and the lead sponsor on the Assembly side is Robert C. Carol out in Brooklyn.  And just seen two resolutions of support introduced in the New York City Council, one by Shawn Abreu from Washington Heights and one from Gale Brewer from the West Side of Manhattan.  Of course Gale Brewer, I guess she's in on everything of that nature.  So I considered my presentation today not to be an official appeal of like a resolution of support or anything like that.  But this is just my attempt to bring visibility to the fact that the opportunity exists and maybe I could have some negotiation with the Civic Engagement Commission on recommendations on how to broaden the visibility of the opportunity throughout the City of New York.  So I'm particularly impressed by your multilanguage outreach, and also particularly impressed on, you know, diving deep into the election process to try to increase participation.  I know we really struggle in New York City, you know, with participation in voting.  I know we had some initial challenges when we did the preregistration for 16, 17‑year‑olds in New York State, it was a lot lower in other states.  So I know people are kind of delving into the process to try to get a higher percentage for the pre‑registration, outreach getting letters of support, agency letters of support and then recommendations on how to make a campaign a more visible and active campaign throughout New York City.  So that would be about it for now. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Thank you so much.  That's so awesome.  Do focus have questions, comments, thoughts or suggestions?  
Thank you for coming. 
>> Audience member:  Thank you so much for hearing me out and I look forward for a possible collaboration in the future. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  I actually do have a question for you. 
>> Audience member:  Yes?  
>> Chair Sayeed:  I think, you know, in principle, expanding the voter ‑‑ oops.  Expanding voter participation to younger people, you know, it seems to be a good thing particularly for allowing them to register earlier ages.  I'm just curious, like, what are the arguments against it?  Is there anyone arguing against it?  I'm just wondering. 
>> Audience member:  Right.  So the principle argument I've encountered so far in the new ideation is that 16 and 17‑year‑olds are just not interested in voting.  And it's similar to the arguments I hear that 16 and 17 year‑olds are not interested in civic engagement, that they are just too self‑involved and too isolated.  And I agree with the isolated part.  You know, teenagers in general, but especially 16 and 17‑year‑olds are very, very segregated communities when it comes to opportunities for civic engagement.  
So you have organizations like Why Vote New York?  Are people interested ‑‑ aware of Why Vote New York?  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yes. 
>> Audience member:  So they've gone out and sent surveys to thousands of students across the city and kind of narrowed them down to preferential issues.  And one of the major issues that they raised is it's not that teenagers are not interested.  It's that they are not invited. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Yeah. 
>> Audience member:  They are not aware of the process.  And if you go to other cities like you have communities in Maryland including Tacoma Park and just recently Burlington Vermont, what they have found is once they introduced voting to 16 and 17‑year‑olds, the rate of turnout in that age bracket is actually much higher than 18, 19, and 20 year‑olds.  And that's not to do a knock on that age group. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Right. 
>> Audience member:  Because they have serious things to contend with, going to college and starting families and the whole nine.  So what the argument is, is because high school students are much more stable, they are still in school and they have access to resources where they can really focus, this could be part of the reason why in certain studies they turn out at four times the rate of 18 and 19 and 20‑year‑olds.  It does fall off across subsequent elections, but even after three or four election cycles, they are still coming out at twice the rate of 18, 19, and 20‑year‑olds.  
So the argument is developing a habit of heart and also having dedicated resources within the high schools to assist in the voting process.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Thank you.  
>> COMMISSIONER JAHAN:  I love all of what you just mentioned.  I'm a college student and board members for generation citizens.  I'm glad you had the opportunity to connect with us.  I didn't have any notion of how I could be engaged until I was in the classroom my junior year of high school.  So that's like what we were talking about, how can we expand civics education and make sure our young people our youth have an idea of how they can be active participants in their communities in many different shapes and forms.  I definitely feel like moving forward as part of the Commission just otherwise that's a big priority of ours is that young people at a young age elementary, middle, making sure they know again basic civics education also how they can empower their communities. 
>> Audience member:  Thank you.  I just want to make note that part of the legislation is to have eight hours of mandated electorally related civic education for every high school student in New York State.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Interesting.  That's interesting.  Yeah, we can look up those bills and share them around.  Thank you for coming to present and sharing the information.  
>> Audience member:  Okay, thank you for listening and thank you for all your work.  
>> Audience member:  We did have one more person sign up, but I think she left, Maryland Joseph. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Okay.  And was there anything in the e‑mail?  
>> Audience member:  No.  
>> Chair Sayeed:  Okay.  Okay.  So if there is no other comment in person or online, I think we can work towards ending the meeting.  
>> Move to adjourn. 
>> Second. 
>> Chair Sayeed:  All in favor?  
(A chorus of ayes.) 
>> Chair Sayeed:  Any opposed?  Okay.  I think we will unanimously adjourn.