City of Lawrence, KS

Community Commission on Homelessness (CCH)

January 10, 2006 Minutes (City Commission Room)

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Ed Brunt, Katherine Dinsdale, Jane Faubion, Kim Gouge, Helen Hartnett, Loring Henderson, Phil Hemphill, Shirley Martin-Smith, Robert Mosley, Sara Taliaferro
MEMBERS ABSENT:	Barbara Hogue
STAFF PRESENT:	Lisa Pool, Lesley Rigney and Margene Swarts
PUBLIC PRESENT:	Jeanette Collier, Chris Collins, Hubbard Collinsworth, James C. Dunn, Mary Easterday, Hilda Enoch, Chris Ford, Richard Hagerman, Mari McCleerey-Janssen, Emily Meissen, Robert Oderkirk, Saunny Scott, Norman Scraper, Bill Sims

Henderson called the meeting to order at 8:35 am. He announced that there would be a Town Meeting on Homelessness at Trinity Lutheran from 3-6 pm this afternoon. It is one piece of a string of events spreading awareness about mental health and homelessness.

Hemphill suggested moving agenda item seven to the front, since that is why the public is present.

Hartnett stated that her preference is not to discuss that issue until the plan is presented because the presentation will set the context for the discussion.

Henderson stated that regarding public comment, the meeting will be conducted loosely similar to City Commission (CC) meetings where the group will invite public comment before a vote. However, the group is able to be more flexible with procedures and he wants to be sure that everyone gets a chance to make comments. As long speakers are recognized by the Chair and respectful then a more open conversation can take place.

Introductions

Members and staff introduced themselves.

Approval of the agenda and the December 13, 2005 minutes

Martin-Smith moved to approve the agenda as written. Taliaferro seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Taliaferro moved to approve the December 13, 2005 minutes. Mosley seconded the motion, which passed.

Current Task Force Plan – Summary and Discussion

Taliaferro went through a PowerPoint Presentation that summarized the recommendations of the Task Force.

Henderson said that he was still willing to escort a group through homeless services for a day and he would like to do it soon.

Faubion asked if it would be better to take individuals or a group.

After a brief discussion, it was decided to take a group.

Hartnett suggested organizing it via e-mail.

Update on National Coalition Study

Henderson notes this was a joint study between the National Law Center and the National Coalition on Homelessness and the results will be released tomorrow on the criminalization of homelessness. The number to call to listen to the 9:00 am press conference is 888-338-7820 code: 504892.

Hartnett received the press release and it has been forwarded to local media.

Henderson said the National Coalition released the information to local media.

Update on Case Management RFP

Swarts said there is a meeting of the review committee in the NR Conference Room January 19. She named committee members – Kim Gouge, Jane Faubion and Sara Taliaferro from the CCH; Victor Torres, Lesley Rigney and herself from city staff; and Charlotte Knoche from the LDCHA. There were four applications received and she is hopeful that there will be a recommendation after the meeting Thursday for the CC. It should be on the CC agenda the first week of February.

Henderson clarified for the public that it is for the RFP that the City released for case managers. Funding is for case management for the community at-large but the team will be housed at one agency.

Consideration of Policy Statement on Conflict of Interest

Henderson said he had two reasons for putting this on the agenda. One is to establish guidelines for speaking on behalf of the CCH and the other concerns the actions of those who serve on the committee who stand to benefit from its actions. He suggested tabling the discussion until a future date, but that it would be a good idea to discuss CCH policies.

Martin-Smith said the Ethics policy is very clear and Henderson is always very clear about who he is speaking for. Therefore, she is not concerned with it at this time.

Hartnett said she agrees with Martin-Smith, but regarding the last CC meeting – the CCH found out with less than 24 hours notice and when she spoke at the meeting, she identified herself as a member of the public, but Commissioners asked her about the CCH.

Martin-Smith said the group has to trust the current and future Chairs to ask the CC to give us the work without the group’s consent. Rather than conflict of interest, it is procedure the group needs to address. Chairs should be empowered to speak on behalf of the CCH to governing bodies.

Swarts said that it has happened twice now back to back and the realization is probably there now that the CC can send these issues to the CCH before public policy decisions are made. Other things may come up suddenly and there is probably no problem with acknowledging that Chairs are empowered to speak.

Martin-Smith moved that the CCH empower Chairs to speak on behalf of the CCH in order to request that issues be sent to the CCH. Taliaferro seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Consider recommendations to CC on the LCS’ UPR

Henderson gave a history of the issue. He reminded the group that the 90 days began on 12/13, so they have only 60 days left to deliver the report. He noted that the CCH has been asked to place special emphasis on the special conditions that were sent forward by the Planning Commission (PC). He also called attention to two police reports provided by Chief Olin.

Hartnett clarified that all of these documents had been provided to members so that they would be able to consider everything that the CC and the PC had access to.

Martin-Smith asked for Henderson to articulate the list of documents that members should have received.

Henderson said there are eight documents: PC Minutes including the conditions, staff recommendation to the PC and CC, three police reports, LCS site plan, LCS aerial photo, CC Minutes including public comment.

Enoch asked why the Community Cooperation Committee (CCC) is not dealing with this issue.

Henderson said the group is not yet formed since the CCH is so new.

Henderson asked if the group wanted to establish a subcommittee to deal with this issue or to deal with it as a full body and meet more frequently. His preference is doing it as a full body.

Taliaferro concurred, but said that CCC needs to be formed. Throughout the course of the CCH, people need to have recourse to resolve issues outside of the public process. In order to get the group up and running, it is going to take more time than the group currently has. Can the CCH try to form a new group now and ask them to join in the current discussion and then cut them loose after this issue has been addressed.

Martin-Smith said that is too much to do in too short amount of time. She agrees to put it on the agenda and to establish a timeline but the group has not even considered who should be on the committee. That group will be the go-to for all issues early in the process.

Faubion suggested inviting neighborhood representatives to the meetings.

Henderson stated that they were present and introduced Robert Oderkirk, Downtown Lawrence President; and James Dunn, Oread Neighborhood President.

Easterday, LCS Boardmember said it is important to have meetings with neighborhoods. Representatives from the shelter, the CCH and the NA should meet regularly to discuss issues.

Martin-Smith said she agrees, but unless we convene some more meetings fairly quickly, it will be impossible for that group to consider this particular issue.

Hartnett says once the group is formed, it will have the role of mediating issues before they become public policy. The CCH role is to deal with matters of public policy, which this issue has become.

Taliaferro said that regarding item E of the PC conditions, develop a method for resolution for problems created for neighboring properties, the CCH recommendation would be to form the CCC so that ongoing conversation can happen.

Hartnett suggested focusing on the process first.

Henderson said the group is inviting public comment before a vote. If there is not a vote, please wait until the end of the meeting for public comment. He asked for suggestions on how to proceed.

Mosley agreed the group should move forward as a full body and stated that with so much on their plate, it is important for the group to be aware of what is happening.

Henderson said to cover the issues, members need to review and understand the documents. One approach is to take the six conditions and go down the list. That will open up other discussion.

Hemphill said it was always a part of the UPR that there is not supposed to be loitering and he questioned if there was not enough staff on hand to control it.

Henderson suggested discussing the conditions in order.

Swarts noted that on PC recommendation was a one year UPR. Maybe the group should address the PC’s four main points instead of only considering the sub-points of item 4.

Henderson agreed.

Hartnett said she would suggest answering questions, but not launching into the actual discussion until everyone has a chance to review documents. Part of her concern is tackling this issue without having all of the information. She does not want people discussing the issue based on gut feelings.

Dinsdale asked if placing conditions upon UPRs was an appropriate way for the city to address these issues. She thinks TF recommendations need to be addressed, but questioned the use of addressing them through UPRs.

Poole stated that conditions are common, but specific social conditions such as those placed upon the LCS are rare. Per her research, conditions usually address issues concerning hours of operation, occupancy, record-keeping, etc. She clarified that even though it may not be common for the PC to place social conditions upon an agency, the Code clearly allows for it.

Hartnett said that it still does not answer the question about whether or not it is appropriate.

Martin-Smith questioned whether agencies ever comply with these kinds of “soft-conditions” (social). Having served on the CC, it seems that these are laws that you decide are important at the time, but they never get enforced. This current problem is here because the CCH did not previously exist – no one was dealing with the issue. Just because it has happened in the past does not mean that it needs to continue.

Taliaferro said that they are not documented. Her question is concerning the legality of the conditions and if there are questions about how to enforce these conditions can the group invite other staff to address those.

Brunt asked if her concerns were regarding constitutionality.

Taliaferro said yes and also confidentiality considerations. What is the legality of enforcing a circumference that includes private property?

Henderson asked for any more questions.

Oderkirk stated that he had to leave, but wants to be involved with this process. He distributed business cards.

Dinsdale asked how to keep from pinning the larger problem on this one site.

Hemphill said the reason that it is left to LCS is that they had initial conditions that were not met.

Henderson asked for input on scheduling additional meetings.

Collinsworth said that 5:30 pm would be fine for shelter residents.

The group agreed to meet Thursday January 19 at 5:30 in NR Conference Room.

Loring instructed the group to review the documents.

Current Community issues

Camping Ordinance – Henderson read the agenda item and gave a history of the amendment. The purpose is to extend the current ordinance to cover downtown and defines camping as sleeping or making preparation to sleep. The CC approved the amendment on first reading but referred the issue to the CCH for three weeks before the item is back on the agenda for the second reading. He believes they will approve it.

Hartnett said she spoke in opposition to the ordinance and the CC asked her if the CCH could respond. CC stated that the CCH could respond if they so chose. The CC voted in favor of the ordinance 4-1 so it is not likely that the group’s comment will change the outcome.

Henderson said there are two things to respond to – one is the content of the amendment and the other is as members have said – this is opportunity for the CCH to remind the CC that the commission is in place and this is a situation that the CCH needs to be involved with before it gets to a CC meeting. Commissioner Amyx felt that it was an amendment of some urgency and he did not want to wait. He asked how the group wished to respond.

Hartnett clarified that the fine for violating the ordinance is $1000.

Henderson noted the fine amount was not new.

Martin-Smith asked for the full text of the ordinance.

Hartnett said she talked to Assistant City Manager, Dave Corliss and when the CC was looking at ordinances this fall, the only ordinance that did not pass was the camping ordinance regarding public property. Amyx had heard several complaints in regard to the downtown area and camping.

Taliaferro moved to remain neutral on the camping ordinance, but to request that in the future for CC to use CCH as a recommending body before proceeding to CC. Mosley seconded the motion.

Hartnett disagreed with taking a neutral position and suggested not commenting on the ordinance, but using it as an opportunity to request to receive these issues. This ordinance targets certain individuals and a certain area. She would object to Taliaferro’s motion.

Henderson opened the meeting for public comment.

Collinsworth agreed with Hartnett and stated that this body is new and definitely needs to stand on its two legs and to get out the message that anything concerning homeless should come before the CCH first to be addressed and to send on recommendations to CC or PC or staff. This is the body to address issues concerning homelessness.

Enoch said the group is following the TF that gave constructive positive things to alleviate homelessness. She is concerned that the whole morning has been spent dealing with fighting fires instead of addressing the issues. There is an emergency situation and the question is not camping. The CCH has been diverted and the CCC needs to be in place to deal with this stuff so CCH can deal with the task of finding homes for the homeless. This ordinance is the criminalization of homelessness, which is what the National Report is referring to.

Collins said that Enoch is correct about the group being diverted. Right after the founding of the CCH the CC is throwing two things at the group that they were not supposed to deal with. He wants to point out the legal ramifications for the City – the wording of a number of people where they use a singular term and the fact that the ordinance is confined to the downtown district. This is a human rights issue and could be a mess for the city. He can understand where they are coming from and stated that for people who have no money, this is no deterrence. People will go to jail as an alternative to the weather. Jail is not a deterrent.

Brunt said that jail is definitely not a deterrent – they will go for food, bed, medical care, etc.

Sims stated that the name of the ordinance amendment is being referred to on the street as Simon’s Law. There is a large number of people who are offended by homeless people because they do not wish to see them. That needs to be understood. He is concerned with public/private property issues – how do people know what is what. The C3 zone includes the Methodist Church, UCC Church, and the Episcopal Church. There was an attempted homicide at the Episcopal church and people camp there. Do churches have rights of sanctuary or not on their own property because he knows they have to conform to other local laws. The 150 foot zone includes the alley way to Vermont. That is a C3 zone. If someone is sleeping in a car in the parking lot, does that make LCS responsible for calling the police because someone is in a public city lot? If they want to talk about 150 foot zone, why not have the Christian church have a 150 foot radius for folks who come to LINK. Is that allowed by LCS’ conditions, for banned guests to go to LINK? LCS cannot patrol this area. He has real questions about the law. It is taking responsibility from Bert Nash, LMH, law enforcement and others and foisting them all upon LCS. LCS has expertise in mental health, substance abuse and more – what other expertise does LCS need to have? There is concern about how SA treats mentally ill and the city is treating Simon, which is a mental health issue, like a camping issue. The city has opened up a big can of worms and people in the mental health community should be screaming.

Henderson brought discussion back to the CCH.

Taliaferro withdrew the motion and Mosley the second.

Henderson asked for CCH discussion.

Martin-Smith asked Helen to restate an earlier comment regarding the TF.

Hartnett said this ordinance amendment is not in the spirit of the TF plan. This is in response to an individual’s behavior. The TF is about creating broad solutions.

Martin-Smith said she does not have anything in writing but Simon’s Law as she hears it is not in the spirit of the TF. If there is an amendment to be made, should it not be a community-wide issue and solution?

Hartnett said she is opposed to it at all but it is sending a message that a part of the community is protected and others are not.

Taliaferro said that at one of the retreats they spoke about hypothetical situations and one was similar to this and as a group they talked through all of the different options and found out that it was very complex. It could not be resolved by an ordinance and they talked about individual rights and process. The TF wanted to review ordinances but it was their responsibility to take part in the review, not to write them. Do we want to make a statement about the ordinance itself?

Henderson asked if the group is uncomfortable with the ordinance and the process.

Taliaferro stated it appears the group is not convinced that this will contribute to a solution.

Mosley suggested the CCH speak out against the ordinance.

Hemphill said the group is ignoring the other side of the fence which includes people who want to stay in business.

Mosley said it is not about money. He stated that regarding Simon being out there – no one likes to see the homeless laying out in front of their place, but he needs help and to remove him does not remove the problem. He does not see the CCH condoning this ordinance as part of the group’s task.

Hemphill said he is not in favor of the ordinance because it is just going to move the homeless out of downtown and into the neighborhoods.

Taliaferro moved that the Community Commission on Homelessness oppose this ordinance amendment, which is very narrow in scope and does not contribute to solving the greater community problem of homelessness. In the future, in the spirit of the Task Force recommendations, the CCH would like such issues referred to the group first for review and comment so that an appropriate response that reflects the interests of the entire community, may be forwarded to the City Commission. Martin-Smith seconded the motion.

Enoch said the CCH is supposed to support the needs of homelessness. They need to come out strong and not be wishy-washy. The CCH needs to let the CC know that they are off base.

Dinsdale said to add that in opposing the ordinance, we see the need to address concerns of business owners but we feel that there are other ways to address the problem.

Faubion suggested adding that the group is looking for more community-focused solutions.

Faubion suggested looking at the TF Plan for wording and saying that the group is not comfortable with ordinances being used to address issues affecting homeless. The city has a budding process to handle these issues and having it referred to us first is in the spirit of the Plan.

Dinsdale said this ordinance does not take into account all interests in the matter. This particular ordinance does not adequately address the scope of this problem.

The wording of the motion was finalized. The motion passed unanimously.

Public comment

Scott said regarding the UPR, the PC and others refer to the previous UPR, but LCS has never had a UPR and it should be a new consideration. (The former UPR was for the Lawrence Open Shelter and the Community Drop-In Center – now combined as the LCS.)

Easterday said the LCS board is concerned and has already been addressing the six points and would like to be included in the conversation.

Collier applauded the group and invited the group to contact her to learn of services ECKAN provides to homeless families. She said to contact one of the groups she serves on including the Coalition for Homeless Concerns and the Inter-Faith Alliance.

Dunn said that the ONA Winter meeting is January 23 at 7:00 pm and Commissioner Hack is presenting on New Urbanism.

Enoch said there are some other meetings the CCH has to attend and she named the upcoming mental health awareness events. The six points can be dispensed with if you allocate them to the LCS board. The loitering condition is unacceptable.

Adjourn

There being no further business, Hemphill moved to adjourn the meeting. Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 am.