|
|
|
|
FAIR HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMISSION
|
NOVEMBER 15, 2004
ATTENDANCE: Heather Rodin, Acting Chair;
STAFF: Margaret Suib, Fair Housing Officer
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
** HEATHER RODEN WAS ELECTED AS ACTING CHAIR IN THE ABSENCE OF A CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The rules were suspended to take the agenda out of order.
DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF FY 2005-2006 BUDGET APPLICATION
Ms. Rodin said that the name of the organization is the Fair Housing Office.
She questioned Ms. Suib about the job description. Ms. Suib said that it is
the one dated 1996. She explained that the problem is that she has the job description
that she always had. The City and the NAACP agreed to another one, but it has
not been implemented. But it should be with this budget. The job description
has significant additional duties. It also will create an addition in operational
costs due to significant studies, and reports.
Ms. Rodin said that she had to disagree with Ms. Suib. She said that job description should be implemented and there is no requirement as far as a consent decree to wait for additional funding. Funding has historically been determined by the Redevelopment Agency. There is no doubt in the mind of the NAACP that the job description that should be implemented is the one in the consent decree.
Ms. Suib said that the Redevelopment Agency does not fund the position. Ms. Rodin said that they determine the salary. She said that they have to decide what they are asking for. She asked if they are going to take the position of which job description should be implemented or will they go on the basis of what the Redevelopment Agency bases the salary.
The current job description shows a 4% increase, which is what the newspaper said the unions received. She is not asking for a 25% increase. Ms. Suib said that Mr. Sheehan agreed on the salary numbers. It is an estimate and he will have the functions of the new job description value the position. He guessed the salary based upon their discussions and believed upon belief that this is what the job would be worth.
Ms. Rodin said that she has a problem putting a guess amount into the budget of 25% until there is a firm number. Ms. Suib said that there has to be a number in the budget for Friday.
Ms. Rodin suggested sticking with option A subject to Redevelopment. Ms. Suib said that Redevelopment chose to go with both options A and B. If the second amended consent decree job description is to be implemented it has to be funded.
Ms. Rodin said that it was not necessarily true. Ms. Suib said that someone has to fund it. She said that the consent decree said that the city shall fund.
A member said that when they put in the consent decree the City always came in with less. She said that if they go in with a 25% request, the City may decide not to give them anything. Previously the Redevelopment Agency had a schedule for salaries. Ms. Suib said that does not exist any longer.
Ms. Suib said that the Redevelopment Agency gave her the figures for salaries and personnel costs. Ms. Rodin said that it is not good enough. She suggested going with option A and they could later amend the item. Ms. Suib said that as they go through the budget process it is almost always impossible to get more than they ask for.
Ms. Rodin said that the issue is that the current job description is the one from the seconded amended consent decree. She asked why it has not been implemented. Ms. Suib said that it is because there is no funding. She told Ms. Rodin that Mr. Sheehan has told Ms. Rodin that directly. Without funding it will not be implemented. Ms. Rodin said that the NAACP position is that Mr. Sheehan cannot say that. Ms. Suib said that she cannot implement something that is not funded.
Ms. Rodin said that this is a discussion that is going on between the NAACP, Mayor and the City. She said that they should not get into this. She said that there is no doubt that the current job description is the one and they have to decide what they are going to put in for the salary figure or a narrative of how that is to be determined.
Ms. Rodin suggested going with option A with the caviat that pending the study that is being done regarding the personnel costs.
Ms. Suib said that the numbers reflect both what she thinks is needed to do the job, depending upon which job description is funded and what the Redevelopment Agency said they need to support the position.
In reviewing the budget, Ms. Rodin said that the $500.00 request is, in her
opinion, not Fair Housing expenditure. A member said that the Redevelopment
Agency is determining standards for everyone.
A member recommended Option B and that the current salary of the Fair Housing Officer prevail until they receive the studies. Ms. Suib asked if the Redevelopment Agency would set the salary. She was told that they would. Ms. Rodin said that option B is that there is an increase in line items of 25%. Ms. Suib said that last year they had zero increase. It is 25% because there are more studies and all kinds of things she needs to do that she will need paper, supplies, etc. for, including dues and subscriptions. Without funding things can’t get done.
Ms. Rodin said that she does not feel they have enough information as far as personnel costs and it is incumbent that the study gets done before the Redevelopment Agency puts anything in. Ms. Suib said that is why this number would go in as an estimate with a note, pending something more official. Or could put in nothing and would get nothing. Ms. Rodin said that she would put in the figure in option A with the caveat that a study is being done by the Redevelopment Agency that could have been done in the past year and a half. The Redevelopment Agency can amend the salary because that is under their purview. Ms. Suib noted that they then they would not be asking for an increase in operating expenses. Ms. Rodin said that the other option is whether or not the Commission wants to put in an additional more than 5% in the operating expenses. Ms. Suib said that if they don’t ask for enough in salary they won’t get it. Ms. Rodin said that she could not ask for a number like that without having background details and having the Redevelopment Agency sign off. Ms. Suib said that the Redevelopment Agency signed off on submitting them, feeling that it was a reasonable estimate.
Ms. Rodin asked why she was asking for 25% more. Ms. Suib said that is because it is a different job.
The City and the NAACP say that this current job description is the approved job description. This discussion about implementation is not a valid one, because it should be implemented according to the NAACP.
Ms. Suib said that when you increase an employee’s duties, the employee is entitled to an increase in pay. She said that the Redevelopment Agency is her employer.
Ms. Rodin asked what budget figure they want to use. She said that she has no problem putting in a figure coming from the CBIA, but they don’t have that. Ms. Rodin said that with a caveat on the salary part that it is pending the results of the study that the Redevelopment Agency determines what the salary is. This would have to be amended during the budgetary process.
The total funding request was $85,274 for option A. Ms. Rodin said that they are not funding the 1996 job description, but Ms. Suib said that there is an approved job description that has not been implemented.
Ms. Rodin said that she has no problem with the pay scale that was developed by the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, but she has to have those numbers.
A member suggested approving option A for $85,274 with the provision that they get clarification for option B. A member suggested crossing out option B.
Option A in the salary part will have a caveat stating that the final draft of the salary depends upon the Redevelopment Agency coming out with their salary schedule.
Ms. Suib said that portions of the job description have not been decided upon including the salary and the funding. Ms. Rodin said that the job classification has been signed off on by the NAACP.
Ms. Rodin said that on the first page, the footnote should say that in the event, that the Redevelopment Agency determines the salary for the Fair Housing Officer, this budget request will be amended to include that amount. A member said that she would like to see backup for those figures because the NAACP needs to know the salary.
The Commission members discussed and made recommendations to the budget request.
** MS. RODIN MOVED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOI COMPLAINT
** MOTION SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
When the Commission members came out of Executive Session a member reported that they made a motion while in Executive Session to meet with Corporation Counsel regarding the difference they are having with an individual next week. Ms. Rodin said that she will make the contact.
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 2004 MINUTES
** A MOTION WAS MADE TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING
** THE MOTION WAS SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S MONTHLY REPORT
** A MOTION WAS MADE TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING
** THE MOTION WAS SECONDED
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business discussed.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
There was no further business and the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rosemarie Lombardi
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |