|
|
|
|
FAIR HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMISSION
|
JUNE 13, 2005
ATTENDANCE: Jeffrey A. Ingraham, Chairman; Cesar Ramirez; Heather Rodin;
Bernadine Tatem; Lori Torrano
STAFF: Margaret K. Suib, Fair Housing Officer
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Ingraham called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MAY 16, 2005 MINUTES
The following changes to the minutes should be noted:
Page 3, paragraph 2, all phrases reading “Section VIII” should read “Section
8”.
Page 3, paragraph 3, first sentence, “Ms. Suit” should read “Ms. Suib”.
Page 3, paragraph 3, second sentence “Foreclose” should read “Foreclosure”
Page 4, paragraph 2, “Ms. Suib said she would be taking her vacation at the
end of June.” should read “ Ms. Suib said that she would be taking a
few days of her vacation at the end of June.”
Ms. Rodin raised some questions regarding the protocol for abstentions and
requested
that Ms. Suib check a copy of Roberts Rules of Order.
** MS, TORRANO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.
** MR. RAMIREZ SECONDED
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS (TATEM, RODIN)
Ms. Rodin asked if there was a meeting concerning the developer on Highland Avenue who was limiting the development to only adult residents.
Ms. Suib replied that she has attended the Zoning Public Hearing. She explained that in public hearings that audience asks questions and the questions are noted and after all the questions have been noted, the committee or presenters answer. Ms. Suib did not hear any mention about seniors or no children by anyone. Based on this, she asked two questions, the first regarding the newspaper article quote saying that the development would be for “empty nesters” and if that is the intent; and the second, since the Fair Housing Act accessibility laws don’t apply because they are single family housing units, that the ADA does apply, in which case, how is that utilized in the common area designs. The issue of “empty nesters” was addressed in that the developer had no problem with families and the units contained four and five bedrooms. However, the marketing research indicated that people were “down sizing” from Wilton and Weston, which might give that impression. Ms. Suib was careful to note that this was only market research and whoever applies, applies. If the HUD testing program is still running when the development is build, then a test can be done to see if they are indeed welcoming families. In regard to the questions regarding ADA accessibility in the common areas, the developers stated that they would be in compliance with the ADA. Ms. Suib stated that she will be looking at their plans to note how this might be done.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON AND DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION ANNUAL WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006
Ms. Torrano distributed copies of the report titled “Fair Housing Advisory Commission’s Program Plan Fiscal Year 2004-2005. It was noted that the Fiscal Year should read 2005-2006. Ms. Torrano stated that she, Ms. Tatem and Ms. Rodin had met to review the work plan and came up with some modifications to the plan. The categories are basically the same. The categories of Affordable Housing and New Affordable Housing Development have been consolidated into one category. The primary difference is that the Commission would like to have Ms. Suib come back to the Commission with specifics, such as how success can be monitored, what would be the most effective way to address some of these issues, and what would be feasible over the course of a year. Ms. Torrano said that in regard to Item II, the Testing Program, the Commission would like to see something by the end of the year regarding developing a program that could be implemented. Ms. Torrano stated that the description of the information on the Lending Study should have included the number of total applications and the number of minority applications received. The goal of the report should be to look at the overall results vs. ranking the lending institution based on our perception of their performance.
Rev. Ingraham summarized the Plan in that the Commission would not be putting in timelines and that Ms. Suib would be giving specific input on the various issues.
Ms. Tatem stated that the Commission would like an article in the newspaper about Predatory Lending to keep the people abreast of this issue. She expressed concern about the elderly population who were more susceptible than anyone else to these practices. There are instances where the elderly go to the banks, sign on the dotted line for loans and lose their house.
Ms. Suib replied that in the past the newspapers have wanted articles on different topics rather than one focused topic.
Ms. Torrano requested that Ms. Suib contact the newspapers and find out what the editors will accept, the type of format and how viable this may be. The goal is to have visibility and outreach for people to have awareness of what is against the law.
** MS. RODIN MOTIONED TO ACCEPT THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
ON AND DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION ANNUAL WORK PLAN FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006
** MS. TATEM SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Rev. Ingraham thanked the subcommittee for their willingness to serve and the time and effort they put into this task and report.
DISCUSSION OF THE FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S JOB EVALUATION
Rev. Ingraham opened the discussion of the two job evaluation forms that the Commission had received. Ms. Rodin explained that the second, older evaluation had been used in the past. Ms. Suib explained that the evaluation titled “Section 2” was the form that Redevelopment developed and used last year. Concerns were expressed as to whether the older form complied with the current law. Strengths and weaknesses were noted in both forms, particularly in that there were day to day observations that were required that would not be possible since the Commission only see Margaret monthly.
A question was raised as to whether the Commission should develop its own evaluation. Ms. Rodin explained that the Commission actually had a whole year to do that, but had not been able to do so. Unfortunately, the evaluation is due next month. The “Section 2” form could be utilized by marking the inapplicable portions as such.
After some discussion, the Commission decided to utilize the more current form, titled “Section 2” with acknowledgment of its shortcomings. Ms. Rodin reminded the Commission that when the job evaluation was done, six Commissioners must be present.
Rev. Ingraham informed the Commission that the FOI Consent Decree states that the Commission will convene in executive session unless the employee requests an open session. Ms. Suib requested an open session.
There was some discussion regarding the dates for the review and the availability of the Commissioners to ensure a quorum. August 8th was agreed upon and it was decided to have a special meeting at 11:00 AM. The evaluation can be prepared at the special meeting and later voted on at the regular meeting, if necessary Ms. Rodin stated that six commissioners need to be present for the evaluation but only five need to vote. In the event that Ms. Suib can not get firm attendance commitments from the other commissioners for the 8th, then it should be the only thing on the agenda for the regular meeting on the 15th at 11 AM.
FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S MONTHLY REPORT
Ms. Suib stated that she had already summarized the concerns covered in the zoning hearing for Highland Avenue. She reported that the Fair Housing Commission Luncheon last week, went well. The speaker was very good and informative. Following the luncheon, a prominent architect and developer in Norwalk came up and asked questions to clarify a point. He realized, that based on the speaker’s answer, that there were two buildings designed for Norwalk that were not in compliance. The following day Jack Burrett from Redevelopment Agency reported to Ms. Suib that he had attended a development meeting and the architect from the luncheon was also present. Mr. Burrett stated the topic of conversation at the meeting was the changes that needed to be made to the two building designs based on the information learned at the previous day’s luncheon.
Ms. Torrano said that she would have liked to have seen a greater turnout. Ms. Suib agreed and reminded the Commission that Tim Sheehan had written a cover letter for the invitation, which was sent to the architects and the firms that the City does business with.
Another outcome of the luncheon is that Bill Ireland, the Chief Building Inspector for the City came up and said that he would like his people to be more technically trained and that there needs to be cooperation between the two departments. This is a very large step forward as the Housing Act law currently does not require building officials to enforce the law. It is not in the State building code, it is a Federal law. Architects and developers think “code”, they read “code” and frequently they don’t know Federal law. The Connecticut code is scheduled to be amended in the early part of 2006. This Federal law was enacted in 1988 and effective as of 1991. The Federal government left it to the States to adopt the law, and the States are just beginning to do so. Ms. Rodin asked Ms. Suib for information on contacting the appropriate parties in Hartford to support this bill.
Ms. Suib also stated that the plans for Pepperidge Farm were on the agenda
for Zoning for Wednesday night. She did, in fact, look at the plans, and called
the architect to clarify some points. She will meet with the architect tomorrow
morning to review the plans.
She stated that she will not be signing off on the plans, she is merely asking
him to show the elements covered by the Fair Housing Act on the plans.
In conclusion, Ms. Suib said that she thought it was remarkable to see the degree of impact that had already been made just based on this single two hour event.
A situation developed with a disabled man who received Section 8 assistance recently needed some assistance. A few years ago, the complex allowed him to move from a second floor unit to a first floor unit because of his disability. He has a very good relationship with his landlord and during the move, the landlord went well above and beyond the call of duty. This gentleman has been paying below market rates on his rent. The landlord recently sent a letter to inform him of a raise in his rent. Normally, this would be fine, but HUD has frozen rental increases because of funding cuts. A call was made to the Deputy Housing Director with a letter as well, explaining the situation. The situation was easily resolved, after checking with HUD about this variance. The tenant was very pleased that was resolved.
Ms. Suib was requested to participate on the Advocates Group Reading and Ranking Committee, an umbrella group for the Norwalk Social Services organizations. This group was organized in response to HUD’s requirement that in order to get SuperNOFA funds from HUD, Some of the organizations include Family and Children, the Norwalk Emergency Shelter, Keystone, Mid Fairfield AIDS Project and the Department of Mental Health. Originally this group was called “Advocates to End Homelessness”, which is how the Fair Housing Officer became involved. She still attends occasionally to give talks. Almost 100% of the funds have to do with housing and services. All the applications have to do with housing and/or services.
The presentation at Keystone was focused on landlord/tenant issues. There were various degrees of understanding in the audience about the landlord/tenant relationship. The population at Keystone would be one that would be likely to experience discrimination.
There was some questions about the honorarium that the speaker at the luncheon received. Ms. Suib said that she did not know what dollar amount the speaker received.
** MS. RODIN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S
REPORT.
** MS. TORRANO SECONDED
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
OLD BUSINESS
Rev. Ingraham mentioned that some of the Commissioners have expressed concern about Ms. Suib’s business cards and the continued connection with the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency. Rev. Ingraham stated that as chairman, he was aware the attorney for the NAACP is in the process of addressing this issue and that some kind of communications should be forthcoming. This issue has been discussed earlier. Rev. Ingraham stated that he had seen the letter of hire that issued by the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency and Ms. Suib’s W-2 form, which was also issued by the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency. Rev. Ingraham stated that he believes the attorney representing the NAACP who was responsible for the settlement needs to give a ruling on this for the satisfaction of the chairman. Rev. Ingraham stated that there may be a need to speak with President Curtis to see when the attorney will be sending the correspondence. Ms. Rodin stated that the attorney has already seen the card and was disturbed by it.
Ms. Suib stated that her business card was generated by the Redevelopment and is the same for everyone who works for the department. She was asked to verify her name, job title, phone number and email. She did not design it or choose it.
Ms. Rodin stated that Ms. Suib’s business card on the tables at the luncheon would have been absolutely fine if it was strictly a Fair Housing Officer’s business card.
Ms. Tatem pointed out the Redevelopment Agency logo and stated that there had been previous discussions about both the letterhead and the business card, which should say Fair Housing and her name.
Ms. Rodin asked if Ms. Suib’s card was issued to her by the Agency. Ms. Suib replied that it was indeed and reiterated that she had only been asked to verify her name, job title, phone number and email.
Ms. Torrano asked if Ms. Suib had opted to put the department on the card. Ms. Suib replied that she had put her job title on the card. Ms. Torrano stated that had not been her question, that she wanted to know if Ms. Suib had put the department on it or whether Tim had said that the department must be on there. When Ms. Suib stated that the department was on everyone’s cards, Ms. Torrano reiterated that she was not asking if it was on everyone’s card she was asking if Ms. Suib opted to put it on her card. Ms. Suib stated that she did not opt to do so. Ms. Torrano then went on to ask if the NAACP attorney says that the preference that it is not on there, and Rev. Ingraham speaks with Tim and Tim agrees that it can come off, you will be in agreement with that. Ms. Suib said that she would not necessarily be in agreement. Ms. Torrano wanted to know why Ms. Suib would have a problem with that. Ms. Suib said that with all due respect to NAACP’s attorney, she did not think he was like a judge where he hands out a decision. Ms. Torrano repeated that her question was if Rev. Ingraham speaks with Tim and Tim agrees that it can come off, Ms. Suib would agree to this. Ms. Suib stated that she probably would as this was who was her employer and wondered why her card should be different from her co-workers. Ms. Torrano questioned Ms. Suib as to if her employer did not have a problem with this, why she would. Ms. Suib said that she would discuss it with her employer. Ms. Suib went on to state that she had difficulty believing that in light of the number of positive things that had happened because of the luncheon, that the Commission would have a problem with her business card.
Rev. Ingraham stated that his only concern was that the Fair Housing Officer does need to be lodged with a city agency and he was unsure how much difference there would be if she was lodged in the Mayor’s office. Ms. Tatem reiterated that she thought the business card should just say Ms. Suib’s name and her job title.
Mr. Ramierz asked what the objection to having the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency logo on the card. Ms. Rodin said that the issue is whether or not Margaret is an employee of the Redevelopment. It is the NAACP’s position that she is not. Ms. Tatem repeated her opinion that the card should just have Ms. Suib’s name and job title on it.
Ms. Suib stated that the NAACP may take the position that she is not employed by the Redevelopment Agency, but that she is, as have all her predecessors.
Ms. Rodin stated that the Agency cuts the check, but the City reimburses the money to the Agency.
Ms. Suib replied that she has Redevelopment benefits and that she reports to the Redevelopment Agency. She was also hired by them. She stated that she was not a City employee and never have been. For twenty years they have had Fair Housing Officers in Norwalk and they have always been employed by the Redevelopment Agency.
Ms. Rodin stated that was not true. Ms. Tatem said that when Roseann was there, it was not like that.
Rev. Ingraham retirateded that the NAACP will be directing some correspondence and he hopes that the President will be sending a copy to the Mayor as well to make it official. He stated that he understood the tension because the Fair Housing Officer was lodged in the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Rodin qualified that with as long as the City and the NAACP want her there, otherwise she will be moved.
Ms. Suib reiterated that Rev. Ingraham had seen her hire letter and her W-2 form, both from the Redevelopment Agency. When Rev. Ingraham stated that the money came from the City, Ms. Suib reminded him that there are employees at the Redevelopment Agency whose salary money comes from HUD. It’s just funding sources, not employers.
Ms. Rodin asked Ms. Suib if she had found out what the Mayor was referring to when he said he was giving two hundred thousand dollars to affordable housing. Ms. Suib replied that she had not yet received an answer.
Rev. Ingraham stated that he wanted to review page two of the minutes which has to do with the Fair Housing Officer’s Annual report, in terms of making certain there is a correct understanding that the Fair Housing Officer would write an annual report and that the Commission would respond in writing. The language seemed to give her quite a bit sway in terms of what she could do.
Ms. Rodin asked if this could be tabled until the next meeting. This was agreeable to all.
** MS. TATEM MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MS. TORRANO SECONDED
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |