|
|
|
|
FAIR HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMISSION
|
OCTOBER 17, 2005
ATTENDANCE: Rev. Jeffrey Ingraham, Chairman; Hope Boone, Rahoul Dupervil,
Lori Torrano.
STAFF: Margaret Suib, Fair Housing Officer.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Rev. Ingraham called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 15, 2005 MINUTES
The following changes to the minutes of August 15, 2005 should be noted:
Pg. 4, paragraph 4, - “Mr. Rivera said” should read “Officer Ramirez” throughout
the paragraph.
** MR. DUPERVIL MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 15, 2005
AMENDED MINUTES.
** MS. TORRANO SECONDED.
** THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
Rev. Ingraham announced that Ms. Rodin had submitted a resignation to the Commission and has moved to North Carolina. At the present time, Ms. Corcoran is preparing to move out of state, but has not currently submitted a resignation letter to the Commission. He introduced Ms. Boone, who is the new member of the Commission as a Mayoral appointee. Ms. Suib explained that the agencies nominated, the Mayor appoints and the Common Council approves. It was suggested that perhaps that a letter to the agency directors of the NAACP and the Connecticut Legal Services requesting the names of Commission nominees be sent. Ms. Suib offered to draft a letter from Rev. Ingraham to the appropriate directors.
Ms. Suib reported that the fiscal budget would be arriving before the end of the month. She stated that she would prepare the budget and then submit it to the Commission for approval and changes. The budget is due in early November. This was agreeable to all.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
1. FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S JOB EVALUATION
Rev. Ingraham stated that he had met with Ms. Suib on September 6, 2005 to
discuss the review. He explained that wherever a mark of “meeting expectations”
or “exceeding expectations”, the comments were not included in the discussion
notes. After the conclusion of their discussion, Ms. Suib signed the evaluation
but also opted to file a response to the evaluation. A copy of that response
was distributed to the Commission members. He summarized Ms. Suib’s response
points for the Commission as:
The Commissioner’s comments were not limited to the time period for which the
actual evaluation was set to cover;
The Commissioner’s comments about Ms. Suib’s disrespect, attitude and
so forth, were extremely subjective.
No specific examples of the negative characteristics were given.
Ms. Torrano felt that the statement “...many of the comments focused on the commission’s perception of my feelings as opposed to my actual behavior or work product.” was actually observed behavior, which has direct bearing on the Commission. She stated that she thought it was relevant and that it needs to be addressed. Ms. Torrano listed the areas where being cooperative, being courteous, and having a good attitude were mentioned. Working cooperatively is a major part of the whole thing, Ms. Torrano stated.
Ms. Suib replied that she was commenting on statements in the document that were preceded by the words “It appears that Margaret feels...”. Ms. Torrano immediately stated that those were observations. Ms. Suib questioned Ms. Torrano’s ability to observe her feelings. Ms. Torrano stated that if someone was raising her voice or slamming things on the table, then that would be her observation. Ms. Suib stated she did not raise her voice or slam things on the table. Ms. Torrano stated that this was the collective opinion of the people who were present. Ms. Suib stated that this was her response to the document. Ms. Torrano replied that it was regrettable that Ms. Suib did not receive some of what she was hearing in the document. Ms. Suib stated that she had heard it from Rev. Ingraham during their discussion. Ms. Torrano stated that she felt the Commission was a group of people who were not political and represent many agencies. She stated that there was a consensus of opinion, that she personally felt, she would want to hear and proceed forward in a positive manner. The answer, Ms. Torrano stated, was not that Ms. Suib would say “I did not do any of this.” but it was Ms. Suib’s choice how to respond. She pointed out that there would be a fresh start with new Commissioners to work with and that Ms. Suib was “exceedingly qualified” to do her job. However, the other part of it is working cooperatively with other people and not just saying “The Consent decree doesn’t say that’s my job.”
Ms. Suib responded by stating there were people at the table who would say that she does work cooperatively, was polite, and did not slam things on the table. She stated that she had asked for specific examples that Rev. Ingraham could give because it was a discussion between two people. Ms. Suib said that if Rev. Ingraham had come up with any examples, she would have strongly considered them. However, Rev. Ingraham did not have any and thought this may have come from years ago.
Mr. Dupervil said that he has observed the Commission a perception of the way that when Ms. Suib responds to a question, it is taken as defensive. He suggested that perhaps this was the she was expressing her view on an issue. As far as cooperating with the people, he has not seen any problems. The only thing, he reiterated, was that people were taking her statements as defensive. As for disrepectfulness or inappropriate remarks, Mr. Dupervil has not observed any.
Rev. Ingraham stated that Ms. Suib had the option of responding to the evaluation and she chose to do so. He stated as the Chair of the Commission, he hoped to move ahead and would not want to see that this situation come to a point where everything had to be documented because she asked for specificity. Ms. Torrano said that Ms. Suib’s comments invites such type of documentation. Rev. Ingraham said that this was a fresh start and the Commission needed to take advantage of it. Ms. Torrano stated that it was her personal feeling that defensive was not acceptable. She asked others if they would put up with defensive from people who were working for them. Mr. Dupervil restated that this was a perception that people had.
Rev. Ingraham informed the Commission that the final part was the filing of the report and the response. He said that in his conversation with the Fair Housing Officer, regarding whether it needed to be filed with both the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Suib requested that the report only be filed with the Redevelopment Agency as opposed to being filed in two places.
Ms. Torrano stated that it would have to be checked with Sara LeTournier, the Director of Personnel for the City. Ms. Suib stated that her request was covered in the consent decree. Ms. Torrano restated that it should be decided by Ms. LeTournier. Mr. Dupervil stated that the reason was he believed there they need to go along with needs to be done and there has been some misunderstanding as far as Margaret’s position with the NAACP and the City of Norwalk. He felt that this needed to address that issue and know exactly what has to be done. Rev. Ingraham stated that based on the response, if Ms. LeTournier says that if the report needs to be filed with the City, Rev. Ingraham should go forth and file it or wait until Ms. Suib can voice her objections at the next meeting. Ms. Torrano stated that Ms. Suib has already objected. Rev. Ingraham stated that Ms. Suib’s preference was that it only be filed with the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Torrano stated that if it also has to be filed with the City, then the Commission needs to comply.
Ms. Suib stated that it was not a preference on her part, but that she had been asked what the consent decree said in regards to where the document should be filed. She went to state that she had checked after the meeting. The consent degree states that the job evaluation goes to the Redevelopment Agency. It does not say anything about it being filed elsewhere.
Ms. Torrano stated that they needed to have a copy of the consent decree on the table in front of them. Rev. Ingraham said that he did have a copy with him and would like to resolve it now, if in fact that is the language of the decree. Ms. Torrano insisted that it be presented to Personnel because normally performance evaluations are part of the City files. Ms. Suib said that she is employed by the Redevelopment Agency, not the City of Norwalk. The City does not have a Personnel file for her, only the Agency does. Ms. Torrano replied that it would not hurt to ask. Ms. Suib replied that it is a Personnel matter and should not be distributed to places other than the Agency.
Rev. Ingraham gave Ms. Suib a copy of the consent decree and she located the language which stated, “...the complete evaluation will be placed in the Fair Housing Officer’s personnel file along with any comments concerning the evaluation by the Fair Housing Officer.
Ms. Torrano pointed out that it said “personnel file.” Ms. Suib replied that her Personnel file was with her employer who is the Redevelopment Agency. It is not in the Personnel Department for the City of Norwalk. Ms. Torrano said that she would speak to the Director of the Redevelopment Agency tomorrow about this issue.
V. DISCUSSION OF “BORROW WISE” - TRAINING OPPORTUNITY
Ms. Suib stated that she had received this information from the Mayor’s office and that it was a program that would educate the people who would be working with those who are seeking loans. If a group does the program, they are considered “partners”, which involves setting up a meeting which presents information on loan programs for the general public.
She also informed the Commission that a number of years ago, CHRO had a luncheon. Afterwards, some members of the Commission expressed concerns about the fact that a bank was sponsoring loan workshops. The question was referred to the Corporation Counsel and that the opinion was that it was in fact a conflict of interest. Ms. Suib said that she informed the Mayor of this and gave him all the appropriate paperwork.
After some discussion, it was decided that Ms. Suib should draft a letter to
the Corporation Counsel from the Commission about working with the Bank of America
on the “Borrow Wise” program.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Suib distributed copies of the Norwalk Fair Housing Office Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 to the Commission.
** MS. TORRANO MOVED TO TABLE THE REST OF THE AGENDA
ITEMS TO THE NEXT MEETING.
** MR. DUPERVIL SECONDED.
** THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The following agenda items were tabled until the next meeting:
III. FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S REPORT BACK ON FHAC’S PROPOSED
WORK PLAN.
IV. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION’S FY 2005-2006 WORK PLAN.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
** MR. DUPERVIL MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
** MS. TORRANO SECONDED.
** THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |