The Boston City Council on Nov. 20 approved a revised ordinance to create a community advisory council and an 11‑member steering committee within the Mayor's Office of LGBTQIA2S+ Advancement (MOLA), a measure sponsors said codifies community input and accountability for services affecting LGBTQIA2S+ residents.

The move replaces an earlier proposal for an independent oversight commission after the committee on government operations identified conflicts with city charter sections governing executive authority. Councilor Colette Zapata, chair of the committee, presented a report summarizing hearings on June 26 and a Nov. 13 working session that negotiated changes to reporting requirements, nominations timelines, and the inclusion of a quality‑of‑life study. Zapata told colleagues the new draft "preserves executive authority, maintains flexibility, but still ensures robust community input and accountability."

Councilor Julia Mejia, an original cosponsor and lead sponsor in the chamber, framed the ordinance as the next step after Boston's sanctuary declaration for LGBTQ+ residents. Mejia said the measure "builds long‑term infrastructure for accountability and representation" and thanked the coalition of more than 40 community partners who pushed the proposal forward.

Community advocates and activists who testified at council proceedings urged prompt and full implementation. Activist Giselle Byrd told the council: "Vote yes on this ordinance," and said a local measure would send a message to other cities and provide tangible protections for transgender residents.

Key provisions in the adopted new draft include replacing a proposed independent oversight commission with a broader community advisory council housed in MOLA, an 11‑member steering committee appointed by the mayor (with council nominations), monthly meeting requirements, annual reporting tied to a quality‑of‑life study, and an effective date set six months after passage to allow for nominations and onboarding. Members of the advisory bodies will be designated as "special municipal employees" under state ethics law.

Councilors acknowledged the administration's concerns about potential overlap with existing programs and limited resources, but committee members said the revised structure was carefully tailored to avoid charter conflicts while preserving the community‑driven intent of the proposal. Councilor Zapata told the council the administration had been consulted and that nominees and a nomination timeline would be in place within 60 days of enactment.

The council accepted the committee report and passed docket 0969 in a recorded roll‑call vote with 12 affirmative votes; the ordinance will take effect six months after final enactment to allow for nominations and implementation steps.

The council did not specify an appropriation tied to the ordinance in today's action; MOLA officials and council staff previously discussed shifting MOLA resources toward implementation while preserving existing service delivery work, according to the committee report. The next procedural step is enactment and the mayoral signing process and subsequent nomination period as detailed in the ordinance.