Los Alamos task force narrows final‑report format, sets deadline for working‑group inputs and weighs becoming permanent board

Members of the Los Alamos Inclusivity Task Force met to settle the format of their final report, set a short deadline for outstanding working‑group inputs and debate whether the group should transition into a permanent board.

Facilitator (identified in the transcript as the primary meeting speaker) opened the meeting by saying the session would focus on "the format of the final report" and on collecting evidence‑based materials from each working group so final recommendations are grounded in methods and data. The facilitator asked working‑group leads to describe their data collection methods, the needs identified, proposed remedies and the challenges they encountered.

Several members urged using existing documents as a baseline. One member recommended expanding the midterm report and the approved work plan into the final template so each working group would report in a consistent structure. The facilitator agreed, saying they would pull the midterm presentation and the work plan together as a starting point.

On data collection, members described a mix of methods. The facilitator explained that data could include formal surveys, site visits and "soft" qualitative community conversations and presentations. The facilitator also noted that some groups had limited formal data: "Now the justice working group just imploded," the facilitator said, adding that the justice group's lack of produced data is a task to resolve going forward.

Members proposed organizing working‑group writeups chronologically (by planning phase) and using simple visuals to show where each group sits in the process and how much work was completed. Another suggestion was to reframe working groups as time‑limited, project‑oriented teams (for example, a safe‑parking working group or a utilities‑assistance project team) with clear deliverables and end dates.

The group discussed whether to recommend that the task force become a permanent board. The facilitator described how a permanent board would be established—through a charter, application process and terms similar to existing boards such as the library or parks boards—and noted that the county would set limits and liaisons. Some members favored a permanent board to preserve institutional knowledge and allow multi‑year learning; others cautioned about burnout, limited public engagement and constrained county resources.

Council scheduling influenced timing. A council liaison read potential presentation dates (the 3rd, 17th and 31st of the month), noting the 17th is a work session and the 31st coincides with spring break; members discussed asking the council chair to waive rules to allow a presentation at the work session so action could be considered sooner.

For next steps the facilitator said they would send a list of questions to working‑group leads and asked that leads return answers by next Monday. The facilitator will compile responses, identify common themes, draft a template and present consolidated summaries at the next meeting for the group to finalize recommendations.

The meeting concluded after members moved and seconded adjournment.