MAY 19, 2003

ATTENDANCE: Heather Rodin, Acting Chairman; Bernadine Tatem; Mary Corcoran;

Steve Papadakos

STAFF: Margaret Suib, Fair Housing Officer

______________________________________________________________________________

I. CALL TO ORDER

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

AUGUST 26, 2002

Ms. Rodin said that last month the August 26, 2002 minutes were tabled for the third or fourth time so that Lori could present her objections. So the question is, whether the Commission should table it again. It is up to the Commissioners. Mr. Papadakos asked what Lori’s objections were. Ms. Rodin said that she did not say. She had a whole list of objections but had not gotten them organized. Ms. Tatem said that the Commission should wait and see if Lori attends the next meeting.

** MS. CORCORAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

APRIL 21, 2003

Corrections:

Under corrections in the April 21, 2003 minutes, where it says "Page 2, amend the motion….", it should be "correct the motion." Also, "Page 3, amend the motion…" should be "correct the motion."

Page 4, Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 & 7, change spelling of "McGhee" to "McGee."

Page 4, Paragraph 4, change…recently at a charitable function…" to "recently at a forum sponsored by charitable foundations."

FHAC Meeting

May 19, 2003

Page 1

** MS. TATEM MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 21,

2003 AS CORRECTED.

** MS. CORCORAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

III. FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S MONTHLY REPORT

Ms. Suib referred the Commissioners to a memo from Nathaniel Shipp, Esq., Chairman Fair Housing Advisory Commission to Tim Sheehan, Executive Director, NRA, dated May 13, 2003 regarding budgetary expenditures that the Commission approved in the April meeting. The Commission requested that this memo go to Mr. Sheehan. Mr. Sheehan approved expenditures for copying anti-predatory lending flyer and the expenses as listed for the National Fair Housing Alliance Conference.

IV. BUSINESS

Ms. Suib said that in reference to anti-predatory lending, she and Heather Rodin spent the morning of May 2, 2003 along with volunteers from the AIC Program at NEON (4 volunteers and 2 staff people) distributing flyers. She said they distributed somewhere around 900 flyers door to door in 2 ½ to 3 hours. They went down South Main Street, Woodward Avenue, some side streets on the waterside of Woodward Avenue, including Lexington Avenue and Lexington Avenue Extension. It was a very large geographical area. Ms. Suib referred the Commissioners to a thank you letter in their packets from herself to the AIC Volunteer Coordinator and the AIC Director. She said they both said that they would be happy to do it again, so as soon as the Commission has more flyers they will have some people willing to do some walking. It was a great first effort. She said that she had not received any calls as of yet, but they are getting the word out. Ms. Rodin pointed out that the conference that Ms. Suib will be attending on May 30, 2003 in Washington, D.C. would include workshops on anti-predatory lending. She asked if there were other flyers. Ms. Suib replied no, she is still waiting for the Spanish version. Mr. Shipp is supposed to e-mail it to her. Eleven churches and synagogues had the flyers in time for the last weekend in April to hand them out during various services. Ms. Suib said that she was contacted by Grace Episcopal Church in relations to another matter. She said the church is starting something called Open Doors, a social service aspect to their church. They wrote her and asked if she would be on their Advisory Board. She told them that she was interested, but did not commit to it not knowing what they were about or when they met or what they did. She told them that she would be interested in meeting with them and finding out those things. She did go to their meeting at the end of April. Ms. Suib said they had not heard about anti-predatory lending until she explained it to them. Mr. Papadokos asked Ms. Suib to tell the Commission a little about Open Doors. She said that basically they are trying to become a social service provider. Open Doors started a food pantry and a clothes closet and in the month of May they are doing a series of lectures on parenting. They are really trying to have an outreach arm to the

FHAC Meeting

May 19, 2003

Page 2

community. She said that they started about a year ago as a new element to the church, so they

are still defining the areas they want to go into. Ms. Suib said they are interested in housing. She said that it was a productive meeting and wants to pull them into anti-predatory lending. Ms. Tatem asked where the church is located. Ms. Suib replied that it is on the corner of Mott Avenue near the main branch of the library.

Ms. Suib said that the Fair Housing Association of Connecticut Annual Conference was held at the end of April. She is still on their Board. She said that each year it is growing. She said that another hot issue is voice identification over the phone. Ms. Suib said that they had a piece on 20/20 and World News on the subject about 6 months ago. It has to do with people on the telephone identifying your race and deciding whether or not to call you back when you are seeking an apartment. She said there is a case going through the courts in California, which is probably the first of its kind where a Mexican American looking for an apartment called a place about 40 times and no one returned his call. When White customers called they returned the call immediately. Ms. Suib said there is a Linguist in California who has made this his area of expertise. He is teaching and studying and becoming an expert on this issue. She said that these cases are popping up all over the country but it is very difficult to prove. You really need a Linguist to explain this to a Judge and jury. She said that the court is still awaiting the first final case where a Judge accepts this as a theory of discrimination. Ms. Rodin said that she was confused as to why this would be a difficult legal question. Ms. Suib responded because it is new and has not been accepted a provable element of discrimination. The court needs a Judge to say that this is a form of housing discrimination. Ms. Corcoran said that she does not think it would have to have the nomenclature of voice identification if 40 people called and only 1 call was returned. Ms. Suib said that it is because voice discrimination is still new and as with anything in the law you need expert witnesses at first, eventually it becomes accepted. Ms. Suib said that what the expert witness shows in his data/research is that we all actually do it. We do not all discriminate but we identify people by their voice and come to conclusions such as are they young, are they old, are they educated, are they not, are they northern, are they southern. We all conclude these things.

Ms. Rodin asked Ms. Suib if she had received this kind of complaint. Ms. Suib said that yes she had, but it is very difficult to prove. She said her biggest problem is that by the time she would try to test it the apartment would be rented. She said that until the market slows down it is hard to even test. Ms. Rodin asked if someone went to the CHRO directly what would they do with the information. Ms. Suib said that would depend on the investigator. They would do as much as they could. She said that the CHRO subcontracted the investigation aspect to the Fair Housing Center of Connecticut in Hartford. Ms. Suib said that which cases would be investigated and which would not would be up to them. Ms. Suib said that she has not had many discrimination cases come in lately due in part to the fact that there are no new Section 8 vouchers going out. There are just not a lot of people moving. She said that the Housing Authority is at 110% capacity, which means it is 10% more than are funded for by HUD.

FHAC Meeting

May 19, 2003

Page 3

Ms. Suib said they are not handing out any more vouchers in the future because they have more vouchers than money. She said Danbury and Waterbury are still under 100% and that people in Norwalk are going to Danbury and Waterbury to get on that list and then coming back to Norwalk to use them. She said the vouchers are portable. They can be used anywhere they want. Mr. Papadakos asked what happens if that happens year after year. What happens to the monies for the program. Ms. Suib responded that the parliament that voucher comes from has the option of continuing to administer the voucher or transferring it over to Norwalk. She said that Norwalk would not have to accept the administration of new vouchers. Ms. Suib said that the people that don’t have vouchers yet are probably in for a long wait.

Ms. Tatem said that the federal government is coming up with a plan in Washington where you stay in public housing for only 5 to 6 years and then you must move out. She said, as you know, Fairfield County is one of the riches counties in the world, where would the people go. She said they figure that public housing is only supposed to be there for you to have a leg up, not for a permanent basis but it is just not possible in Fairfield County. Mr. Papadakos asked if the vouchers ever expired. Ms. Suib said no, as long as you stay within the income guidelines and follow the rules.

C. DISCUSSION ON MONTHLY BUDGET REPORT

Ms. Suib referred the Commissioners to Financial Statement under Expenditures. She said that it was $958.00 for her new computer system. She said that it was really necessary because the old one crashed and she was doing everything by hand. Ms. Rodin asked if the budget showed the expense for that Washington, D.C. trip. Ms. Suib said that it did not because she has not spent them yet. Ms. Suib said that roundtrip airfare is around $165.00 and the hotel is $150.00 per night for two nights in Washington. The registration is also $165.00. Ms. Rodin said let’s figure $800.00 to $900.00 when we figure in meals and incidentals. She asked what this would do for the projection for the end of the year. Ms. Suib said that technically in operational they were at negative $14.50. She said that if the Commissioners look at the Personnel line of the budget the Commission is at $21,672.00. The personnel costs will be closer to $19,000.00 so there is a little wiggle room, around $2,000.00. Ms. Rodin asked if it showed the $300.00 for the flyers. Ms. Suib replied that it did not. She said that this shows what is actually spent, not projections. Ms. Suib said that she mentioned it to Tim Sheehan that there was wiggle room in that line and he said that medical costs were higher than they had budgeted for. She said that she would ask Mr. Sheehan again this week how accurate the $2,000.00 is. Ms. Rodin said that the $958.00 for the computer is an extra it was not budgeted. She said that she was concerned that Commission would not have enough for what was authorized. Ms. Suib said that is why she needs to speak with Tim Sheehan to find out how accurate the figure is. Ms. Papadakos said that the computer should come out of Re-development. Ms. Tatem said that last year it came out of Fair Housing’s budget. Ms. Rodin said that what has happened historically is that they have funded equipment with the money that they are now paying as a salary for the Fair Housing Officer. Ms. Suib said that the money should be budgeted for a new computer in 4 to 5 years whether it is working well or not because the useful life of a computer is about 4 to 5 years. Ms. Rodin said that the point is

FHAC Meeting

May 19, 2003

Page 4

that if the Commission does not spend it they cannot keep it. Ms. Suib said that it is a good chance that by the 4^th or 5^th year the computer will show signs of dying but if it doesn’t just budget it for the following year. Ms. Rodin referred Ms. Suib to the Dues & Subscriptions line of the budget. She asked if the balance of $64.50 is firm. Ms. Suib responded that all of these numbers are firm. She said this reflects what is spent, not projections. Ms. Suib said that what hurt the Commission in operational is the computer. She said they had $940.00 but the purchase of the computer brought them to negative $14.50. Ms. Rodin asked if there were any other questions concerning the budget.

** MS. TATEM MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE BUDGET.

** MS. CORCORAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Ms. Rodin said that the Norwalk Hour did an anti-predatory flyer twice as a courtesy. Ms. Suib said that when the Commission has another walk around event she would get the press to cover it. Ms. Corcoran asked Ms. Suib if she was aware that when you send a Press Release to the Stamford Advocate now that they have a separate section that says Norwalk. They also have an office on West Avenue. She said that she believes they are trying very hard to put the Hour out of business. Ms. Suib responded that the most active reporter that was at the Hour who would cover what they did, Brian Lockhart, is now with the Norwalk Advocate.

V. OLD BUSINESS

Ms. Rodin asked Ms. Suib if she had sent out the letter to corporation counsel regarding the issue of the outstanding $600.00 to Fairfield Savings Bank for a luncheon they previously sponsored. She said that she had not sent it but she has drafted it for Mr. Shipp to look at. She said hopefully this week she would speak with him about it.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

Ms. Tatem said that each year the paternity of police officers call and ask people to give so much money towards their police fund for the widowers, mothers and children. She asked them how much of this money would go to the widower. They could not tell her. Ms. Tatem suggested that the Commission put out something that says do not send money to people that solicit funds over the telephone because more or less they are paid solicitor. The money will go to them and not to the widowers. She said that many people do not know this. Ms. Rodin said that it was something that people should be concerned about but was not sure it came under the Housing Commission. Ms. Suib said that Ms. Tatem could talk to the Police Commission about the concerns. Ms. Suib said that right after 911 a man called her supposedly from Norwalk Fire Fighters. He said that they would be coming door to door in her neighborhood. She said that when he came he was not wearing a uniform. She asked to see his fire fighter identification because she was ready to make a donation. She said it turned out that he was not a Norwalk Fire Fighter. He was from a soliciting organization. She said she called the Norwalk Fire Department

FHAC Meeting

May 19, 2003

Page 5

and asked if they were aware that people were going around doing this. The person she spoke with said no, they did not know about it and advised her not to give them any money because it was not coming to Norwalk Fire Fighters. Ms. Suib said that the person she spoke with said that the Norwalk Fire Fighters do not have any means of accepting money as a donation to the Fire Department. Ms. Suib said that there are some legitimate soliciting organizations but there are a lot of scams as well.

** MS. TATEM MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.

** MS. CORCORAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Custis

Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page

Business & Ecomomy

City Departments

City Services

Government

Living in Norwalk

City Calendars

How Do I ?

Job Openings

Tourism & History

Other Sites

Feedback

Site Outline