Farías on data aggregation and direct communication for LGBTQ+ identification

And then I, you know, I just, I don't know, I've kind of been wrecking my brain here about like the data aggregation, the data collection.

I understand to what you stated earlier around the sensitivity with not having to force anyone to identify just because of a potential resource or anything like that.

I do think.

As a city, we should be more of the direct communicator, whether it's with the outreach or the encouragement to get people

to be encouraged to identify as soon as we can, because that's like the early, that is the way we can have early prevention or the earliest prevention marker.

So whether we're being aggressive or having direct communication, I do think it should be from us because the worst outcome that could happen is that people still choose to just not, you know, check that box or, you know, self-identify.

And I'd rather us not be the, we want to consider.

The sensitivity of it and rather just be really, really direct in that communication so we can get people the services that they deserve.

And really, I think the point I wrote for myself was at the end of the day, bureaucracy really is centered around

data aggregation and whether it's through 301 data that we're aggregating and in a local community or whether it's for you know serving our LGBTQ plus neighbors

with direct services and resources I really just want us to think about

how we're going to make a generational shift for the next generation with the time that we have in front of us now through the services we're providing or through the budgetary fights that we're trying to

gain every budget cycle or through readapting our data aggregation because it is the point that we use to

to fund and operate everything in the city.

So I just really would appreciate you folks thinking more about

that and creating generational shifts.

Yeah, just to comment, and there might be other comments as well.

I mean, I agree, and I think just to separate the two things, the survey itself is not related to people's care and accommodations.

I'm sure you know that, but I'm certainly open to partnering

with folks in the community across this city to think about how we might

otherwise, in a safe and effective manner, understand the population that we're serving better because this is not yielding that kind of information such that we have to have other information to augment it.

Yeah, and I'll just add, I think, a part of this, and I sort of mentioned this in my testimony and sort of assessing current agency data practices and gaps in research that's needed, because ultimately, I think, in terms of the ideas that I have in advancing

rights and resources, I think, across the spectrum, it really is heavy in data.

I think about, especially when you think about it from a litigation risk and litigation perspective and how we move legislation.

But one component I think that certainly needs to be assessed and is something that I'm trying to make time to do is looking at our privacy laws.

I think with the NYU-Lingon situation, we've now come to understand sort of the reach the federal government can have, even if it is.

Hopefully will be held unlawful as it has in 20 other instances, 21 now I believe.

But I think we need to examine the extent that both our state and

our city privacy laws, the ways in which we can use them to protect the kind of information that we need whenever it's used for a hostile purpose specifically.

I think that's well within the powers of the state and within the city, you know, through, well, at least as I understand the law.

And so I think that's something that both city council and I think the mayoral administration would certainly be looking into and something I've prioritized amongst my ever-growing priority list.

Yeah, I appreciate your responses.

Thank you.

I'll now pass it over to Councilman Berners for questions.