March 14, 2006 Minutes (City Commission Room, City Hall)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Ed Brunt, Katherine Dinsdale, Jane Faubion, Kim Gouge, Helen Hartnett, Phil Hemphill, Loring Henderson, Barbara Hogue, Shirley Martin-Smith, Robert Mosely, Sara Taliaferro |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Lesley Rigney and Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Hubbard Collinsworth, Wes Dalberg, Hilda Enoch, Saunny, Norman Scraper, Bill Sims |
Henderson called the meeting to order at 8:35 am.
Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
Approval of the agenda and the February 14, 2006 minutes
Henderson asked to add an Item B under the LCS agenda item regarding the future of the LCS.
Martin-Smith moved to approve the agenda with Henderson’s addition. Faubion seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Martin-Smith moved to approve the February 14, 2006 minutes. Brunt seconded the motion, which passed.
LCS UPR
Staff handed out the memo from Dave Corliss regarding the loitering policy for LCS.
Henderson advised the public that the Committee invites public comment before a vote but otherwise public comment will occur at the end of the meeting.
Hartnett said they received communication from Oread Neighborhood Association (ONA) and recommended the group respond with a short note thanking ONA for the letter. It was received too late to incorporate into discussions but the group does not want them to feel overlooked. We would be glad to consider any correspondence in the future if received before the vote (ie. when placed on the agenda.)
Hogue and Gouge joined the meeting.
Henderson said Hartnett, Hemphill and himself were present at the last City Commission (CC) meeting where the UPR was the first item on the agenda. Four people spoke strongly in opposition of the shelter and of an extended use permit. They strongly criticized the CCH, the LCS, LCS guests and Henderson personally. There was a negative tone concerning homelessness; it was not a constructive meeting at all. The memo from the CCH to the CC was totally ignored. It was not referred to or discussed until the very end. There was brief mention and it was not incorporated into the final vote. It was a disappointing evening. There were many erroneous statements. Henderson noted that he did not speak and that was a mistake. It was disturbing that there was no consideration of the CCH work. The item they struggled with at the end was the item on loitering, which is on the agenda for tonight. There is no city ordinance on loitering. It is Henderson’s position that people cannot be loitering on LCS property, since it is a drop in center. The Mayor has asked LCS to require guests to be out of sight, in back of the property. This memo was drafted by Assistant City Manager, Dave Corliss, who agreed to put option 2 – “all reasonable efforts.” He sees two distressing things – not a constructive meeting and the action of the CC in not recognizing the CCH.
Martin-Smith asked about Hemphill’s reaction. She stands behind the recommendations. Did they not at all pay attention to the CCH recommendations?
Hartnett said it seems to be that way. She remained silent as well and maybe she should not have. The CC knew that she and Henderson were present and they asked no questions. It got really ugly and she did not want to appear defensive. There were comments made that the CCH is unethical and had done the city a disservice. Henderson’s name was mentioned over and over again. The public had problems with the fact that Henderson was co-chairing when an issue directly concerning him was at hand.
Henderson said that a comment was made that he stepped aside as chair.
Hemphill said he was one who was negative about the CCH and negative toward Loring, because he felt he should be, based on the problems he has been living with for ten years. The CC expected a great deal more out of a three-month time table. They expected to see some truly meaningful ways that the CCH and the LCS would control anti-social and unlawful behavior. What we sent forward was inadequate. We did not say we were going to do anything to solve the problems. This was after 2 1/2 years on the TF and all of the stakeholder meetings and none of the requests being put into action and then to form the CCH and be allowed to go back to the drawing board and still not incorporate any of the requests. The reason for the attitude of the CC is that the recommendations did not contain any solutions. It did not give any actions to be taken to solve problems.
Martin-Smith said she thinks everyone is dysfunctional. If the CC does not have any more faith in the CCH, then they should disband and the CC should start over with the homeless issues. CCH members are intelligent, but they cannot own what has been going on for the last 10 years. They can own what has happened since December. This City is not going to move forward. She has heard enough. It is discouraging and disrespectful. The CCH should have requested a meeting with the CC and talked it through so they would have understood what the CCH was thinking regarding the UPR. We are talking about the future of the homeless and we cannot get there. LCS is such a minor issue and we cannot get past it. She is considering submitting her resignation. People have tried to bring the community together. They have the best of intentions, but it is not going to make anyone happy. She got on the TF to deal with homelessness, not make neighborhoods happy. She is embarrassed to live in Lawrence – do we talk about human beings that way?
Hogue said that if LCS is closed, homelessness is not going to go away. It is going to happen. If it is not at your (Hemphill’s) property, maybe it will be okay with you (Hemphill).
Martin-Smith said as long as they are dealing with this kind of detail they are never going to figure out proper housing, this has so distracted us.
Dinsdale said that is the reason for no results in three months. They all recognize there are problems that need to be dealt with.
Taliaferro said the CCH has done a patchy job up to this point. All stakeholders are unhappy. All she sees is an escalating unhappiness and name calling is not helping. She was a neighborhood advocate and has seen how people focus on one issue and how to solve it without considering the cause of the problem. Closing a service provider does not solve the problem. It has been a problem for the ONA for 10 years. Henderson is drawing the heat that some organizations have drawn in the past and been shut down. There are a variety of problems that led to it – funding, community support, etc. We could carry this out – there will not be loitering on LCS property but it will happen somewhere else. The other problem she has is if they are going to stop loitering, they have to do it community-wide – at the Lawrence Arts Center, bars, on campus, churches, etc.
Faubion asked if it was the moral equivalent of a Jim Crow law.
Hartnett said this is all around a UPR – it goes way beyond a UPR. It is telling a 501c3 how to operate and that is dangerous. Other organizations are going to be up for a UPR and now are they going to make all people of different agencies stay in back. The fear and anger she heard from public comment was scary and hard to listen to. People believe it is a zero-sum game and they are not seeing how we can come together.
Henderson said for clarification of facts, he does not think LCS will close down. What he wants to talk about is how to deal constructively with the issue. Also, the CDIC has not been there for ten years – it has been there for six years. Part of what we are dealing with is recognizing that the homeless are here to stay and homeless have a role and part of the discussion. It is not just giving neighborhoods what they want but considering the needs of homeless too.
Hemphill stated he does not want LCS to close and he does not want it to move until they have an appropriate place. Behaviors can be modified and changed through actions and consequences and it is going to take work on the part of LCS, police and neighbors. These can all aid in enforcement – he is not talking about penalizing homeless for being homeless but for unacceptable behavior. He explained actions and consequences at the meeting and the CC did not pick up on it. There are ways to change the public image about what is going on.
Henderson said he appreciates Hemphill staying with the conversation, but this is where the conversation breaks down. Actions and consequences are enforced and people are banned. He asked Phil if he thinks LCS does not enforce actions and consequences.
Hemphill said it would be reasonable to have an informal arrangement between neighbors and downtown and to enforce that if a guest trespassed on private property they could lose services for two weeks. It is the same with children.
Taliaferro said we are not talking about children, we are talking about adults. We cannot talk to other adults that way. If she came to sit on the porch to discuss an issue, they might solve the problem to everyone’s benefit. If you sit down in a group of people and a neighbor says I’m tired of this happening and I feel disrespected, someone in the group who deals with homelessness says I’m tired of it too. It is amazing how people start supporting each other. It happened during the TF. This is a community and it does not feel right to be doing this. If you want people to be a part of the community – she sees people throwing trash and cigarettes, people standing in line for clubs and sometimes they are friendly and sometimes they are not. As long as we have been fighting rights and consequences – it has not worked so far, why would it start working now.
Hemphill said it has not even been tried yet.
Taliaferro asked if people are going to stand elsewhere.
Hemphill said trespassing is the biggest problem. Day in and day out shelter guests are trespassing on private property and crossing through yards and nothing has ever been implemented to try to handle it. In a lease he has rules and he enforces them. If someone gets services suspended, won’t it change behavior?
Faubion said Hemphill can only reliably enforce rules on his own property with his own renters.
Mosely said this whole thing is overwhelming – this body was hand-picked by the mayor. The main thing he wants to say is that he joined to help the city find solutions to homelessness. He is a citizen, a veteran – he has ended up here in this city that is asking people to come in through the back door. It always starts with that – it is oppression. Start taking people’s rights a little bit at a time. This city is not concerned with us doing our job; we are not doing what the CC wants us to do. This body as a whole is not going to do what they want us to do. We are here to help everybody.
Hemphill asked if it was fair or ethical for a group or agency to list what they are going to do and then disregard it. No one says they cannot use the front door.
Brunt said this is the problem – the group has not addressed any of the actual problems and that is why we are all at odds. There is a Phil camp, a LCS camp, a homeless camp. He wants to know what the main concerns of each group are.
Henderson said his concern is to not have the loitering condition attached to the UPR. He is looking for care for the people.
Brunt asked Hemphill if he was concerned about criminal and nuisance behavior. He would assume that the concern of the homeless is not to be treated as second-class citizens. The same thing is happening with KU currently – the city is trying to make them responsible for off-campus behavior. Is it right for Phil to have someone trespassing on property? There is some common ground – we may not all be perfectly happy, but we need to identify problems and proceed from there instead of from “opposing camps.” Until that happens we are going to talk and talk and nothing is going to happen.
Hartnett said this good neighbor agreement is about sitting down and figuring out a common strategy and that is why it is in the original recommendations, but that is a solution that is broad-based and does not dictate a solution to an agency or neighborhood.
Brunt said it is impossible to dictate any of that – who enforces actions and who gets it enforced. We have to look at the overall picture first and can then enforce specifics.
Taliaferro said that is the CCC’s job and that is where these discussions need to take place and the CCH can start doing a better job implementing the plan – it should not get worked out here.
Dinsdale said she understands public frustration. The TF and now the CCH has been working on this for three years and it has taken us that long to write the plan and convene the CCH. It was extremely difficult to get consensus on the TF and she asked if Hemphill saw value in the Plan.
Hemphill said yes.
Dinsdale said the City cannot ditch the plan. If the CCH walks out on it, the community is back to square one. They have seen a lot of emotion and a lot of inappropriate comments but they have to walk forward.
Martin-Smith said citizens are appointed to help get through the issues. It is the CC’s job to agree with their appointed boards who took the time to go through the issues. If they do not have faith in this group, they need to rethink what they are doing. The CC has to decide if they are committed to letting us do our work, that they will respect what we say.
Enoch (member of the public) said members needed to be at the CC last week to say what they are saying now and they need to be there this week to say it. They need to get the CCC going.
Taliaferro said her recommendation is that, since all CCH members are serving until at least November, she wants the group to write a formal letter to the CC about deep seated concerns for reasons for the group being in place. To do our job, we need the trust of the CC. We need to have value. Then she would suggest having a meeting with the CC and say that we want to proceed but we do not want to waste our time. It is possible that they still are not thinking of us as a legitimate body. We need to have their attention and have them state their intention for us. They may realize they need to proceed differently. She also suggested forming the CCC. The worst that can happen is that a few people talk through the issues, make some connections and get nothing done. She does not think that will happen.
Swarts said to consider that the UPR issue is on the CC agenda for tonight so if the CCH wants to have any bearing on the outcome, members need to talk about a strategy. If the CCH wants to have a Study Session with the CC, staff can arrange it. A Study Session would be here in the CC room and she envisions a conversation between the CC and CCH discussing the future role, with the CCH talking about the Plan and having some of this frank conversation. She said there is a lot of frustration and she encouraged the group to figure out a method for going forward.
Henderson said it needs to be more concrete – the CCH needs to ask “do you want us and do you want to listen to us.”
Swarts clarified that there are two important issues currently – the UPR and the ongoing role of the CCH.
Henderson urged CCH members to come to the CC meeting tonight at 6:30 and speak out about the UPR.
Hartnett asked if the CCH should have an official voice because it has been a struggle to speak on behalf of the group without speaking on behalf of her personal viewpoint.
Henderson said they should ask staff to set a Study Session date.
Swarts said she would research that.
Henderson said regarding appointing a formal speaker – should no other members speak?
Hartnett said part of it is to say this is our position and that any member of the CCH has to support it. She said there needs to be agreement.
Taliaferro said obviously this is not something we can resolve in one meeting. Do we all have enough faith in each other to forego reservations about any part of the plan we put forward for the moment and allow one of us to make statement on behalf of group to say we are disappointed that we were appointed and now we are being ignored. Then proceed by giving statement about recommendations. The rest of us can show up, but only one person should speak.
Martin-Smith asked what the goal was.
Taliaferro said to restate recommendations and to say that we, as an appointed body, would like to be recognized. Some of the things Martin-Smith said need to be said to the CC, perhaps a diplomatic version would be more appropriate.
Faubion said she feels that this is a time to speak only to the process – we were set up as a Commission and we should be independent and we are very much in need of having our independence and having our recommendations listened to. We all have better things to do with our time.
Martin-Smith nominated Hartnett to speak.
Hartnett said this goes along with electing new co-chairs. She is reluctant to take it on because maybe they need a new fresh voice.
Henderson said he will be speaking as director of LCS.
Brunt suggested having a formal speaker but allow others to get up and offer support.
Martin-Smith said it goes back to the TF and that if 70% of votes were cast in favor of a decision that is how it was. We did not get up at a meeting and say “I really don’t like it…” She does not know but if they are going to get behind a speaker, she suggested asking for a show of hands present at the CC meeting.
Taliaferro said she was willing to make a statement tonight, but she is unwilling to be the chair because she wants to be involved with the CCC.
Henderson said the CC meeting starts at 6:35 pm.
Swarts said the regular agenda generally starts by or before 7:00 pm.
Henderson clarified that Taliaferro would speak and the CCH will attend.
Swarts said the next two available study sessions are April 13 and April 27 at 9:00 am. The new mayor will likely be current Vice-Mayor Mike Amyx. The CCH meets April 11. The Study Session agenda needs to be set one week prior to the Study Session.
Henderson suggested requesting the April 27 date.
Martin-Smith said there is some urgency. She wants to try for April 13. The issue needs to be resolved. The CCH could do a conference call to establish an agenda. The agenda is fairly simple – they either want us to move forward or they do not, they want our input or they do not.
Dinsdale suggested making a statement and writing a formal letter and asking for an endorsement in return.
Hartnett said she sees value in the Study Session and meeting face-to-face.
Faubion said she is for meeting April 13.
Brunt is the only member who cannot make the Study Session on the 13th.
Swarts said staff will review notes and send something forward to the CCH for comment.
Faubion asked if they should sign a letter for tonight. She thinks that letters get attention and are kept.
Swarts said Taliaferro could provide a written form of what she is going to say and it will become part of the record and that is common.
Taliaferro asked for clarification; the statement is to be made during public comment?
Hartnett said yes.
Henderson said they need to decide whether or not to extend this meeting. He suggested extending it to 10:15.
Members agreed.
Elect Co-chairs
Henderson clarified that he and Hartnett would not be co-chairing after this meeting.
Martin-Smith said they talked at the last meeting about considering that no one person should bear the burden alone. If the CCH continues to exist, it would be beneficial for everyone to serve as chair. She wants to nominate Hartnett for an additional three months and Faubion as well and then a new person can join Faubion after three months.
Taliaferro said they could even have someone come in and do a presentation on board service.
The group agreed that it was a good idea.
Hartnett said it makes sense but she does not want to continue.
Martin-Smith said that Hartnett has taken a hit, but the group needs her there. What is important about Hartnett is her real-life experience with the issues. She has touched solutions and members can learn from that. We will be up to speed quicker if she is in place. She moved to elect Hartnett and Faubion as the new co-chairs.
Hartnett said she would like to decline, but she will feel guilty. She clarified that there is no way she will have to do it again after these next three months.
Faubion stated she is willing to participate.
Taliaferro seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
CCC
Henderson said letters have been coming in.
Swarts read the names of applicants.
Henderson said Lynn Dawson with KS Legal Services will be submitting a letter. The CCH is eager to appoint the body, but do they want to just appoint everyone who has applied?
Taliaferro said since this is a community based group, do we want to set a cap or do we want to accept everyone who is interested? The willingness to show up and talk is more important than credentials. They should set parameters about reporting back to the CCH and the initial meeting should include the CCH.
Martin-Smith said it is helpful to have as many people involved as possible, but there have been some stakeholders who have been identified and we are short on stakeholders. There are no business owners and she is afraid that perhaps communication with the group would be difficult if it gets too large, but maybe it would be okay.
Taliaferro said it is her vision for it to be less formal than the CCH. They could set an upper limit of 15, but unlike the CCH, unless we need to become formal, they are going to take group consensus. Some meetings will be that everyone is documenting concerns and voting. There does not need to be hierarchy. She recommended going with the people who stepped forward in the beginning and then they will invite other people and try to get people committed to the issue. They can make certain that all stakeholders are present.
Mosley said he agrees that they should let everyone serve; some may drop out as issues change.
Martin-Smith said they would need an executive committee to work with staff. It is too big. How will people know how to work with the CCC?
Taliaferro said there will be ground rules to establish formal sessions of the committee and informal. At any given time, they are constantly having more people in the room who are active participants during the meeting unless the new committee determines that formal procedures are necessary.
Martin-Smith said what they do not want to do is set a group up to fail, but she has a lot of confidence in Taliaferro to make it a manageable approach.
Dinsdale moved to accept nominations received, to appoint Taliaferro as interim chair and authorize her to proceed with staff in establishing the CCC. Taliaferro seconded the motion.
Taliaferro said that the plan gives CCH authority over the CCC and they could delegate authority to her and she is willing to do it.
Henderson invited public comment.
Sims said he does not perceive the problem. If someone is chairing who knows how to chair and if the agenda is short and sweet – they are going to be fine even with 15 people.
Hartnett recommended a friendly amendment to actively look for remaining spots based on gaps. Neighborhoods are most angry and they are not a part of this. They need to target the remaining gaps.
Swarts asked if someone from The Salvation Army would be submitting a letter.
Dalberg said he was planning to submit a name.
Dinsdale said she agrees with Hartnett. They are going to have to solicit some additional representation.
Taliaferro said they could fill the two remaining spots with neighborhoods and business.
Swarts suggested allowing Taliaferro to meet with staff.
Enoch said she thought if they were going to solve anything they need to round out the committee and better balance the body. It feels to her if they are really going to look for communication, Taliaferro is going to need to hear from all parties involved and then they can start solving problems.
Taliaferro said it is confusing to try to tackle this but they have pretty good representation. The meetings are going to be everyone, just because there is one ONA representative sitting on the committee, everyone present can be heard and can have a voice.
Scraper said the idea of 15 is a good idea, some of the initial 15 will drop out and then they can balance it out. They need to get started and as the community can see it is working, there will be more involvement from those who have not submitted letters of interest. It will balance out naturally.
The motion passed unanimously.
Case Management Team Update
This item was deferred.
Current Community Issues
This item was deferred.
Misc./Calendar
Swarts said she has been in contact with the City Manager’s Office and there is a realization that there will likely be a budget request for funding for the Case Manager team and maybe other items for the 2007 budget. It will be okay to have something ready for the next CCH meeting. The Case Manager team is on the consent agenda to approve the contract and that program can be rolled out. Someone from Bert Nash can attend the next CCH meeting to discuss the plan. If the CCH wants to be part of the upcoming budget process, they need to talk about it at the April meeting and can address the CC at the April 13 Study Session.
Public comment
Sims said he has two issues, having served on a religious body where nine members would vote and they had to support the decision of the body. Decisions of this body have to be supported by all members. Also, that body had committees and it does nobody any good to appoint committees and to not take the recommendations of the committee. There is no reason to appoint committees unless they are going to take recommendations. ONA needs to be in the CCC and they need to be here today. Otherwise they are going to show up to CC meetings only and homeless are not homeowners – they hold no power. He is miffed at the CCH because they are going from crisis to crisis and homelessness is only cured by giving homeless people a home. One of his issues is violence – he does not like being on red alert 24/7 because he cannot get away from the violence. He does not like the violence that goes on at all service providers around town. If you want to criminalize a cigarette break, there is room to put the homeless up in jail. The only open shelter is the jail. Until the CCH is willing to accept that, the other two shelters are emergency shelters. He had to sit in line today to get a 2 inch mat on the floor. Violence leaks onto the streets and comes back into where people are gathered and is played out on Mass Street. Not all problems are coming from LCS. LCS is being blamed for everything that happens in that neighborhood. Are they going to enforce loitering at LINK? He would like to see LCS have more staff – at least monitors if not case managers. These issues are not important to homeless (loitering/UPRs).
Mosely said he does not think the goal of the CCH is to find or give a house to anybody. Their job is to help enable the homeless to transition out of homelessness.
Saunny said she does not understand how a case manager was cut from the RFP.
Hogue said Lynn Amyx would be speaking at the Coalition meeting at 3:00 at the library.
Enoch said she appreciates that a number of CCH members will be at the CC meeting. Loitering is not the issue. Homelessness is the crisis and if they do not get by this one – if they do criminalize the homeless for being in their own front yard, the problem is not going to be solved. The CCH needs to make it clear that the CC is pulling the carpet out from under them.
Henderson clarified that Martin-Smith agreed to continue to serve on the CCH.
Martin-Smith said yes.
Adjourn
Martin-Smith moved to adjourn the meeting. Mosely seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 am.