City of Eugene Human Rights Commission

City of Eugene Human Rights Commission Human Rights Commission Meeting 6-19-18 Packet Contents Draft Agenda Page 1 Draft Minutes from 5/2018 Page 3 Budget Update Page 13 Public Comment – Richie Weinman Page 14 Public Comment – Ralph Duncan Page 16 Beyond 13th Report from Receiving HRC Funding Page 21 Second Quarter Hates Crimes Update Page 34 Office of Human Rights & Neighborhood Involvement | City of Eugene | 99 W 10th Ave | Eugene OR 97401 | (541) 682-5272  City of Eugene Human Rights Commission The mission of the Human Rights Commission is to promote implementation of universal human rights values and principles in all City of Eugene programs and throughout the wider community. To carry out this mission the commission shall affirm, encourage and initiate programs and services within the City of Eugene and in the wider community designed to place priority upon protecting, respecting, and fulfilling the full range of universal human rights as enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To support and promote human rights, the commission will: provide human rights education, be proactive in human rights efforts, address human rights violations, ensure active public participation, be transparent and open, be publicly accountable for human rights progress. Human Rights Commissioners: Edward McGlone (Chair), Joel Iboa (Vice Chair), Ibrahim Coulibaly, Ela Kubok, Ibrahim Hamide, Andrew Thomson, Bonnie Souza, Aria Seligmann, Julia Johnson, Aimee Walsh, Councilor Emily Semple Equity and Human Rights Center Staff: Jennifer Lleras Van Der Haeghen, Katie Babits The Human Rights Commission meets on the third Tuesday of each month. Tuesday, June 19, 2018 5:30 – 7:30 PM Meeting Sloat Room, Atrium Building, 99 W 10th Street Contact: Katie Babits, 541-682-5177 katie.e.babits@ci.eugene.or.us ITEM _______________ACTION______ TIME 1. Agenda/Minutes Review and Approval (Chair) Discuss/Vote 5:30 - 5:35 (5 min) 2. Public Comment (Chair) 5:35 - 5:40 (5 min) 3. Support Request (Chair) Discuss/Vote 5:40 – 5:50 (10 min) 4. EPD Liaison Update 5:50 – 6:00 (15 min) 5. Homelessness Workgroup Discussion 6:05 – 6:15 (10 min) 6. HRC Retreat Planning 6:10 – 6:30 (20 min) 7. Items for Mayor and City Manager Meeting with HRC Leadership 6:30 – 6:40 (10 min) 8. Work Group Lead Updates 6:40 – 6:50 (10 min) 9. Council Update 6:50 – 7:00 (10 min) 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 |ehrcenter@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 1  10. Commission Liaison Updates 7:00 – 7:10 (10 min) 11. Staff Update 7:10 – 7:20 (10 min) Upcoming events, activities or meetings of which the HRC needs to be aware: 6/15 5-8:30pm – Loving Day Celebration. Park Blocks. 6/17 3:30pm – Father’s Day Celebration – Chamber Music, Amici Players. Historic Mims House. 6/19 2pm – We Are Neighbors. UO Osher Life Long Learning Institute. 6/20 6pm – We Are Neighbors. First United Methodist Church. 6/21 5:30pm – Beyond Toxics presents: Bee Jazzy. Sylvan Ridge Winery. 6/23 4pm – Refugee Purgatory: Escaping from Syria, Languishing in Greece. Downtown Eugene Public Library. The Eugene Human Rights Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting location is wheelchair accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM-assistive listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours’ notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours’ notice. To arrange for these services, contact staff at (541) 682-5177. La Comisión de Derechos Humanos agradece su interés por participar en los asuntos de esta agenda. El local de la reunión tiene acceso para personas en silla de ruedas. Para las personas con dificultades auditivas ofrecemos sistemas FM para ayudarlo a escuchar, o intérpretes de lenguaje de señas. También ofrecemos intérpretes de español. Si necesita cualquiera de estos servicios por favor solicítelos con 48 horas de anticipación, llamando al (541) 682-5177. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/hrc 2  City of Eugene Human Rights Commission MINUTES Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:30pm – 7:30pm Meeting Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 W. 10th Avenue, Eugene Present: Human Rights Commissioners: Edward McGlone (Chair), Joel Iboa (Vice Chair), Ibrahim Coulibaly, Aria Seligmann, Aimee Walsh, Ib Hamide, Julia Johnson, Ela Kubok, Bonnie Souza, Councilor Emily Semple Staff: Jennifer Lleras Van Der Haeghen, Katie Babits 1. Agenda/Minutes Review and Approval E. McGlone: We have a request to amend the agenda to discuss the HRC Succession and Election Planning after the public comment item on the agenda. Motion: Move to approve the amended May 2018 agenda. Made by: J. Johnson Second: I. Hamide Vote: Unanimous I. Hamide: I am not listed as present, could my name be added to those who attended? Also under page 6 toward the end, there is a phrase that reads “no on” which should be changed to “no one”. B. Souza: I was listed as there but I was not present, and the meeting date was the 17th, not the 20th. Motion: Move to adopt the minutes as amended from April 2018. Made by: E. Kubok Second: I. Hamide Vote: Passed B. Souza abstain 2. Public Comment E. McGlone: We currently have not received any forms for public comment. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to speak for public comment who was unable to fill out a form to speak tonight? E. McGlone: Seeing none, we will close the public comment period for the May 2018 meeting. 4. Succession/Election Planning K. Babits: You all have some supplemental additions to your packets; one titled HRC Chair and Vice Chair Eligibility and one titled HRC Chair and Vice Chair Election Options. The addition referencing HRC Chair and Vice Chair Eligibility is in response to questions our office has received over the past couple of years regarding voting for new Chair and Vice Chair roles. We identified future eligibility for Chair and Vice Chair roles into the future and if and when there would be predicaments in the future with low numbers of people being eligible for the Chair position. This became an issue in the past when a Chair position was vacated outside of the regular termination period, and there is potential for the issue to be resolved if the Commission works toward voting for Chair and Vice Chair in the fall or winter, as opposed to holding the elections in late spring and early summer. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 |HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/HRC 3 If you look to the next supplemental addition titled HRC Chair and Vice Chair Election Options, you will see that the front page has the portion of the bylaws specific to Officers and Duties: Article IV. Specifically Section 6 addresses the Chair and Vice Chair roles. The second page identifies some options you may want to discuss tonight. Option 1 is that you could vote for the Chair and Vice Chair in May or June. The new Chair and Vice Chair Elects could take over immediately or you could designate a date for them to take over. Option 2 is that you could take no action in May or June and allow the current Chair’s term to expire after June 30th, resulting in the Vice Chair becoming the Chair until elections are held at the HRC Retreat. J. Johnson: If we choose Option 2, will the new Commissioners be able to vote? K. Babits: Yes, the new Commissioners will be eligible to vote as soon as their term begins on July 1st. A. Walsh: Is the current Vice Chair willing to serve until the HRC Retreat? J. Iboa: If that is what the Commission would like, then yes I am willing. J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen: You could choose Option 2 and then choose HRC members to support planning for the retreat. Having a retreat planning committee has not happened in the past but it does not mean it cannot be something you entertain for the future. B. Souza: Can we see who would be interested in the roles? I. Coulibaly: I would be interested in Vice Chair J. Iboa: Who else would be interested in Chair? A. Seligmann: I have been approached by some Commissioners about Chair, and I would accept the nomination. J. Iboa: I would also be interested in running for Chair. E. McGlone: We could vote now, we could vote in June, or we could vote at the retreat. J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen: I can see that right now it is helpful because you have a lot of options of people who are eligible for the Chair position, but in the past it has been difficult because you have not had as many options. Should you hold a vote in August, the Chair elect could remain in the role for one calendar year. This would allow the next Chair to begin in September 2019, and it could provide the potential to move voting for leadership positions back to the fall, which would provide the time for you to have more Commissioners eligible for Chair for future election cycles. J. Johnson: Does this decision have an impact on bylaws? J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen: It is within bylaws and would remain within bylaws for future decisions to be near the January deadline. B. Souza: Does the Chair elect begin performing their duties immediately? J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen: That depends on how you word the motion. B. Souza: I was not here for the last meeting and the minutes were a bit confusing around this portion being designated on the upcoming agenda. E. McGlone: This agenda item was regarding the retreat, I wanted to make sure we planned out the meetings throughout the term to have enough time for discussions of the work groups being involved in the retreat. K. Babits: Jen mentioned the option of a retreat planning committee. This would be basically a number of HRC members who have ideas for how they would like to see the retreat play out, and they could all contribute to the format so that the planning does not land on one person. The idea would be that those on the committee can bring forward the bulk of the needs and wants from the Commission and the work groups to make sure that the retreat reflects what is wanted by the Commission as a whole. A. Thomson: I think having a retreat planning committee is a good idea. I think there is some value to holding elections when the new members can vote, but having leadership in place to plan the retreat would also be good. I am going off of the Commission, so really it depends on what you all want to set up for your future. E. Kubok: Option 2 allows us to set up better for the Commission’s future and gives us leeway in case other issues come up, such as losing members part-way through their term. I think that improving the process is beneficial, especially since we are currently impacted by how the processes affect our work. I would also like to see a committee to help plan the retreat. A. Seligmann: I like what you said, and if we do vote tonight, I want to see the leadership roles not take place until July 1st. I would also like to have feedback from Edward regarding the retreat to receive input on what 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/HRC 4 worked and what did not. It is also important to have a spokesperson in place over the summer so we do not have a gap in who is able to represent us in the media. I. Coulibaly: I think work groups are very important, I think their work should be in mind when we are planning the retreat, and having the new Chair in place is very important. I think that voting tonight is the option I would choose. E. McGlone: I have heard a broad spectrum of input tonight, and like Andrew I think the decision is on those who will remain on the Commission. I think the question to ask yourselves is that if you are walking in the door for your first retreat, would you a) feel comfortable running for Vice Chair, and b) would you feel informed enough to vote for Chair and Vice Chair. It sounds like the issues with planning the retreat will benefit from having a committee. E. Kubok: I have a recommendation. I think that we should take another poll to determine all those interested in working on the retreat planning committee. Motion: Move to take a poll of all those interested in leadership positions, and have those interested serve on the retreat planning committee. Made by: B. Souza Second: I. Coulibaly Discussion: I. Hamide: Would people who are not interested in running for leadership still be able to be involved in retreat planning? E. McGlone: Yes, anyone can participate in retreat planning, so long as there is not a quorum. A. Seligmann: I would like to move to hold leadership elections for the HRC tonight, with terms beginning on July 1, 2018. E. Semple: I agree. Then the decisions would be final and we could focus on other issues moving forward. B. Souza: There is a benefit of having the Chair in place to plan the retreat. J. Iboa: It is my opinion that we should wait until after July to get us back on track to not having election issues in the future. E. McGlone: On July 1st, the elected leadership would become effective for one year. If the motion does not carry, my term would expire, Joel would assume the role of Chair until the vote takes place in August during the retreat, then the new Chair would begin their term at the September meeting. J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen: Yes, you are in a bit of a time crunch. The vote would need to happen in August because that was Edward’s first meeting as Chair. A. Walsh: We could have elections earlier but have them not take effect until August, is that a viable option? J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen: That would essentially be the same, they would begin in August. However, should there need to be a spokesperson over the summer, it would default to the current Vice Chair. If the vote is for them to not go into effect until August, then Joel would serve as the Chair until the August meeting. J. Johnson: It seems we continue to come up against this issue. This is the third year I have come across it and it takes a lot of time and discussion every year. I would be apt to vote tonight only if it aligns with a timeframe to get our voting schedule back on track. J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen: That will get you one month closer, which means the chair would begin at the retreat in August and Joel would serve as the interim Chair until August. Amendment: Move to hold elections tonight for the Chair term to commence on the date of the August retreat, with the Vice Chair serving as interim Chair until the date of the retreat. A. Seligmann: So the retreat planning would take place by the committee and current leadership. Vote: Unanimous E. McGlone: We will now commence the process of leadership elections. Per the bylaws, Article IV, Section 2: Any commissioner may nominate a candidate from the Commission for the position of Chair or Vice Chair. Nominations need not be seconded. B. Souza: I nominate Aria Seligmann. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/HRC 5 A. Seligmann: I accept. J. Johnson: I nominate Joel Iboa. J. Iboa: I accept. Motion: Move to close nominations for the Chair of the Human Rights Commission. Made by: E. Kubok Second: B. Souza Vote: Unanimous E. McGlone: We customarily allow for the nominees to speak to their nomination, I would offer you each 90 seconds to share your visions for the role should you be elected the Chair. A. Seligmann: I am honored that I have been nominated. Part of the reason I am interested is due to my experience in working with advocacy groups, including advocacy for people experiencing homelessness, poverty, youth, and those experiencing discrimination. I have worked in media and with community volunteers. I have lived in Eugene for 27 years and worked closely with allies in advocacy work. I plan to work with transparency with everyone on the Commission. J. Iboa: Thank you for nominating me for the position. I am born and raised in Eugene and the child of immigrants, and I turned 27 last week. I went through the 4J School District, graduated from the University of Oregon, and I have worked on immigration rights and environmental justice. During my time on the HRC I have worked to increase a quality relationship with the Mayor and City Manager. I have brought some successful items before the Commission, especially when securing $10,000 for DACA recipients, which the largest amount is ever granted coming from an HRC recommendation, and other issues especially concerning those who are the most marginalized. E. McGlone: Being Chair of the Commission is a great honor, a privilege and also requires a great deal of work. We now will call for a show of hands for each candidate. Vote for Aria Seligmann: Ibrahim Coulibaly Ibrahim Hamide Aria Seligmann Bonnie Souza Vote for Joel Iboa: Julia Johnson Aimee Walsh Andrew Thomson Edward McGlone Councilor Emily Semple Ela Kubok Joel Iboa Joel Iboa is selected to serve as HRC Chair. E. McGlone: We will now move to the position of Vice Chair. Under the same format as the Chair process, any commissioner may nominate a candidate from the Commission for the position of Chair. Do we have nominations for Vice Chair? J. Johnson: I would like to nominate Ibrahim Coulibaly. J. Iboa: I would like to nominate Ela Kubok. E. McGlone: To those nominated, you may accept or decline, but you may not withdraw in favor of another member. I. Coulibaly: I accept. E. Kubok: I accept. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/HRC 6 Motion: Move to close nominations for the Vice Chair of the Human Rights Commission. Made by: A. Seligmann Second: J. Johnson Vote: Unanimous E. McGlone: As we gave time to the nominations for the Chair, we will also give 90 seconds to each of you to speak to your visions for the role should you be elected as Vice Chair. I. Coulibaly: I am interested in serving as Vice Chair because I want to increase our focus and commitment to the work groups. I think they are a big apart of what we do as a Commission. I want to support the work groups and bring them out to the communities, and I have seen value of the interaction of work groups with community groups through my work with the NAACP and the WeCU work group. We have an opportunity to impact our community and bring the concerns back to City leadership. I want to focus my activities as Vice Chair on work groups and identify areas where we need to encourage Commissioners to create work groups or how we should present those concerns to City leadership. E. Kubok: The reason why I am on the HRC is to serve the community. I feel if I am nominated, I should accept because others see value in me taking a leadership role. I share your point of view, Ibrahim, and it is important to think about our engagement and planning for our work groups to address key issues in our community. If I can be of help I would love to do that. E. McGlone: We now will call for a show of hands for each candidate for the Vice Chair position. Ibrahim Coulibaly: Julia Johnson Aimee Walsh Andrew Thomson Edward McGlone Councilor Emily Semple Ela Kubok Joel Iboa Ibrahim Coulibaly Ibrahim Hamide Aria Seligmann Bonnie Souza Ela Kubok: None Ibrahim Coulibaly is selected as HRC Vice Chair. E. McGlone: With that, we now have the HRC Chair and Vice Chair elected, and they will begin their terms at the HRC retreat in August, 2018. 5. EPD Liaison Update Sgt. Vinje: We have seen some hate graffiti recently, there were a total of 4 case numbers related to recent swastikas and other hate graffiti. One witness was an intoxicated gentleman who witnessed to teenage individuals applying graffiti. There has also been a potential crime in the Fox Hollow area and we are working to determine if it within our jurisdiction. J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen: Sgt. Vinje gave Chief Skinner a briefing on all of the crimes on the Chief’s first day, I am grateful to Sgt. Vinje for being able to bring him up to date so quickly. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/HRC 7 B. Souza: So are there no leads regarding the recent rash of swastikas? Sgt. Vinje: We have canvassed the areas and only have been able to locate a footprint to go on. E. McGlone: Thank you for your attention to this issue and bringing the information to our Commission. Seeing no other questions for Sgt. Vinje, we will move on to the next agenda item. 7. CDBG and Council Housing Discussion Updates Stephanie Jennings: We are here today to talk about the use of the CDBG and Home funds. Each spring we go through an allocation process. Before the process, it is important to revisit the consolidated plan. The consolidated plan is reviewed every 5 years then priority needs and strategies are adopted. This document sets boundaries and goals for the upcoming years and guidelines for the allocations that go before Council. You have the executive summary of the consolidated plan in your packet. We do it with Springfield, we receive Home funds as a consortium with Springfield. We focused on the needs of renters, specifically low income renters and low income home owners. These are non-homeless special needs populations, and there is a range of groups with needs in the community. We call them out in the plan. We recognize that we need to create jobs that are available to low income people. Low income neighborhoods are the target of the funds. Strategies which City Council adopted in 2015 including identifying housing opportunities, providing human services and creating economic opportunities. This included evaluated existing housing options, funding repairs to those with low income, and removing barriers for people to access affordable and fair housing. These funds come from the CDBG and Home grants. These resources are geared toward capital investments. Up to 15% may be used toward human services operations. The City allocates $350,000 to the human services commission for core homelessness special needs and services. We also fund human service capital facility services. The City has a business development fund, which is a self-supporting fund. It remains included in this process, but it is not receiving new money. One requirement is that they must create jobs for low income individuals. This funding also supports micro enterprise training offered through NEDCO and Fertilab Thinkubator. J. Iboa: Is there any part of this that includes MWBE’s? S. Jennings: Yes, many of these include supporting MWBE’s, through housing, business loans, etc. Teresa Kennedy: Using the CDBG funds, we have a grant through the Fair Housing Council of Oregon. This includes five fair housing trainings per year. We have finished four and have one remaining. So far we have reached tenants who were community members, students and families, the Latinx community, human services agencies and housing providers. In two weeks there are 45 people signed up to attend a training session. They have a hotline that people call and they will investigate and advocate on behalf of the caller, and they provide materials in English and Spanish. In collaboration with HRNI, we have been able to offer and co- host training sessions with the Equity and Community Consortium, the Latinx Alliance, the Integration Network, the Human Services Board and affordable housing providers. When we provide training at regular meetings have had great attendance. Other activities we have provided included the UO housing fair, story time with the Mayor, and the Mayor proclaimed April as Fair Housing Month. If you have any suggestions on groups or populations we could offer trainings to, we would love to hear from you. S. Jennings: There is a yellow sheet in your packet, which is not adjusted for actual numbers, but will receive about $50,000 more. The resources come from a new grant which focuses on programming for business development fund. There are proposed uses, we don’t have enough money to fund every activity every year so we alternate between years, and it can take more than a year to implement some activities. The draft recommendation does not allocate for land, however last year it did and we are still looking for a site for affordable housing, so if you know of a site please let us know. One activity has been the rehabilitation of Ya- Po-Ah Terrace for very low income seniors, 210 units in that building. Regarding the $350,000 allocated for human service operations mentioned before, we want to make sure we have enough funding to implement the scopes of work. Funding also goes toward administration and project delivery, pay for fair housing services and Teresa Kennedy’s time implementing that out of this category per HUD requirements. J. Iboa: Does the funding still provide down payment assistance? 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/HRC 8 S. Jennings: The funding used to include proposed down payment assistance, however it is no longer feasible due to the market. The amount that we would be able to provide for down payment assistance is no longer enough to make an actual down payment. We are hoping to alter this to make it a more feasible use of funding. J. Johnson: Do you work with organizations only or can people access these funds in other ways? S. Jennings: It depends upon the program. For home repair, we have staff assigned to administer the program who could help individuals. J. Johnson: Does this funding include existing housing? S. Jennings: If a low income home owner needs funding for these services, they can access them. Sometimes it’s an emergency like roof repair or electrical needs. A. Walsh: I appreciate the continuum of options for folks, and the piece of accessing services and funding help people who cannot always meet their basic needs. Catholic Community Services works on getting food into people’s hands and it makes an amazing difference. The CDBG Committee had a thorough conversation on Ya- Po-Ah Terrace about the use of those funds. The loss of that number of subsidized housing units would have been critical and it was great to be able to direct funding there. I. Coulibaly: A business loan for Tacovore is one great example to keep that business going. It helps people in need. Olive Plaza also received money from CDBG which provides meals to low income seniors. I would recommend Ela to be included in those meetings because her work and passion aligns with the topic. S. Jennings: The group meets three times and then tours community areas within a year. It helps to see the recipient’s participants. The information is also discussed at Housing Policy Board meetings. There will be a 30-day written comment period on the CDBG advisory on Thursday. I. Coulibaly: And everybody is invited. S. Jennings: If you have ideas for fair housing trainings, please let us know. We want to reach as many audiences as possible. Every member of our community is a member of one or more protected classes. A. Walsh: Some staff of mine attended the human services forum and came back with benefits they didn’t even know existed and gave them concerted actions and steps on how to support families. The trainings are very good, I highly recommend you all attend them. Councilor Semple: On page 16 it shows a total of homeless individuals who were served. How is the number so different from the PIT count? S. Jennings: Those are two different statistics. The Point In Time count is from one night. The county tracks every person who is served throughout the year who experience homelessness. The PIT count can flip 80% from one year to another. The number is so much different because of that nature. E. Semple: This is a horrifying statistic because we don’t hear about this. If people experience homelessness for any period of time, it is critical that they can access services. S. Jennings: When the PIT counting is done, it should include this number in the report that will be released. I. Coulibaly: I have a questions as an HRC member. The kids with disabilities cannot use the equipment on the playgrounds. Is there a way that the funds can have one park where there is a swing that can use a wheelchair? I have seen them in other cities. Can we make one park friendly for people experiencing disabilities? S. Jennings: CDBG funds are declining over time. Since it is a federal resource, and the more the resource is cut into smaller pieces, there is more time spent trying to allocate the money within the constraints of the federal requirements. Now there is a bond where 10% of the money is reserved for bike and pedestrian improvements. Options are available for the future, there is still need for low income neighborhoods and what is a best fit for resources. A. Walsh: There is an accessible playground in the city. S. Jennings: Capital improvements are being used to preserve accessibility in facilities. I. Hamide: What percentage of folks eligible for services are aware of those services? S. Jennings: Regarding home repair funding, we do outreach to manufactured home parks and senior service agencies. If someone is interacting with a social service provider, they should be finding out about these resources. If you have ideas of where we can distribute these resources, please let us know. Our staff person is bilingual bicultural as well. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/HRC 9 6. Homelessness Working Group Needs E. Kubok: Aimee and I both attended the meeting last Tuesday. It helped us align how we run the meetings and the future of the work group. We have a large number of housing advocates. They want to make an impact on homelessness. The capacity of what needs to be done on that issue in our community exceeds our capability to be a successful group with feasible outcomes oriented around a plan. It is hard to focus the work the group does. We told them we want to have an outlet for the work group, to bring the information back to the HRC to advise City Council. We did an exercise for members to share what one issue they would like to focus on individually, and the outcome when all were combined could be grouped into two main issues: 1) shelter and feasibility; 2) car camping and decriminalizing sleeping. Since January, we have alternated meetings between two HRC members. We have seen a huge benefit when additional Commissioners join the meeting, it runs smoother. It is not feasible for the two of us to continue leading this work group. It’s a big lift to manage for the two of us. We want to work toward something that is tangible and I do not think that is currently possible. A. Walsh: It has been a frustrating experience for both of us and I understand that is not a new experience. It does not necessarily align with the work of the commission. There is a crossover of their ideas and the Commission’s work, but there is not specific direction on how the work group actually falls within the guidelines of an HRC work group. They have a lot of frustration in feeling that nothing is showing results. I am encouraged to hear that applicants for the Commission had interest in homelessness. E. Kubok: We do have ideas of how to move the dial forward. We will meet with Jen, Stephanie and Regan to introduce people to ongoing work that is in process. Our role as an advisory board limits what we can do, the frustration that comes from the group is understandable but some of those acts are outside of our purview as the HRC. It is an issue in our community, but the work plan needs to be more focused so that it reflects feasible actions to be achieved out of a work group. A. Seligmann: Thank you for doing everything you are doing with the group. This can be a focus in retreat planning, maybe have less work groups but more Commissioners involved in work groups, with subcommittees in work groups. E. Kubok: We started that idea, but without having a larger goal to work toward, the group expects us to do something we cannot accomplish due to capacity. One subgroup was successful in promoting the movie. I urge you all to go home and think about what we can do as a Commission to change our approach to be successful in addressing homelessness. I. Hamide: I attended on behalf of the HRC and I wonder what those folks can do to be in collaboration with other groups in the community where they might have more success in taking action. E. Kubok: That is what we are trying to forge out in a plan. They have expertise in housing issues and social work. We both have experience in facilitating meetings and like to be productive and we don’t feel like it is currently possible to be successful in this work group. A. Seligmann: Many who attend this work group are doing other work in the community and come together to share their information in the work group. E. McGlone: We send information up through the HRC. We need to determine how it flows from this group, and if there can be process improvements. E. Kubok: They receive a copy of my report for the HRC every month. The work group meets so often that many attend infrequently. B. Souza: You said they receive a report every month? E. Kubok: Yes, it includes what Councilor Semple has shared. It includes what we talk about at HRC that pertains to human rights and housing. Or if the HRC made an ask of Council. Or if they asked me to ask a question I will bring back answer. B. Souza: Criminalization definitely seems like a human rights issue. Is there a document that addresses laws which are applied or need to be changed? A. Walsh: They are working on a criminalization forum. They want to include it in the work plan. E. Kubok: The group has good intentions. I talked with Aimee about this and it is harder for them to get to outcome delivery. A. Walsh: They need more capacity from Commissioners to see results and more successful meetings. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/HRC 10 B. Souza: The problems around homelessness are monumental. E. McGlone: There should be framed up questions for the retreat to address work group needs. For those of you leading work groups, ask them how this is working well and ask to identify areas of improvement. Also think about what they want the work plan to reflect and specific areas to focus on in the work plan. I. Coulibaly: Also we should include addressing public comment. Currently we just listen but we do not address right away. E. McGlone: Thank you both for the work you have put in on this. 8. Police Commission Liaison Role E. McGlone: The Police Commission is an advisory body to Mayor, Council and Chief of Police. Major issues have been police code of conduct, unmanned aerial drone policy, body cam footage policy, use of force and de- escalation policy. The Chief is there every month, and the new Chief intends to be there each month as well. They provide a report on trends in crime, and there could be a joint meeting with us to talk about hate crimes. Meetings are on the Thursday before HRC meetings, from 5:30pm to 8:30pm. The HRC liaison is a voting member, and we are the only Commission that has a seat as a voting member. I asked if there is an interest in reciprocity, and there was interest in a Police Commission member being on the HRC but it may require a code change. J. Iboa: I would be interested in being the liaison. Motion: Move to nominate Joel Iboa as the HRC liaison to the Police Commission. Made by: E. Kubok Second: J. Johnson Vote: A. Thomson abstained due to HRC term ending, all other HRC members voted in favor. 9. Universal Representation Update J. Iboa: The City of Portland just approved $500,000 annually for three years to fund Universal Representation. Edward sent a letter of support to Council to recommend the City of Eugene contribute to the fund, which requires a total of $1,000,000 annually from all jurisdictions combined. 10. Work Group Lead Updates E. Kubok: The homelessness working group has two specific asks. Motion: Move to support homeless work group showing of the movie Under the Bridge instead of the $150 allocated to the criminalization forum. Made by: E. McGlone Second: J. Johnson Vote: Unanimous Motion: Move to allocate $20 to purchase two copies the film to have available for check out of Office of HRNI. Made by: E. McGlone Second: J. Johnson Vote: Unanimous B. Souza: The WeCU update did not appear in the packet. We are in planning stages to discuss work in motion for work groups and we will be setting our goals for the next year and we are planning that for the July meeting. We are meeting with Jen at end of month to talk about City status for recommendations from the report. 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/HRC 11 12. Council Update E. Semple: There is an SB 1051 update coming up, as well as a community justice update tomorrow. The downtown update was last night, there have been some great outcomes from the work the City has done. The dog licensing discussion is also coming up. B. Souza: What is the community justice update? J. Lleras Van Der Haeghen: It is a comprehensive look at the whole community justice system, including community court, jail beds, police FTE, to review the full range of community justice work the City offers. It will be in Harris Hall at noon tomorrow. E. Semple: Fireworks will be allowed on July 3rd 4th and December31st. Monroe Park will have Thursday night art and figure drawing this week. We discuss barriers to housing on the 30th. The SDU housing work session is on Wednesday. Many issues are wrapped up in affordable and low income housing. 14. Staff Update K. Babits: The only thing we have not covered today is to find out if you all prefer to do the retreat as two half days or on full day retreat. Consensus: Full day retreat. 15. June Agenda Preparation E. McGlone: What items do folks want to see on the June agenda? Homelessness work group Retreat planning E. McGlone: I will send out email about Mayor and City Manager meeting and retreat planning. Also, on May 30th at Municipal Court there is a trial for a hate crime. There was someone harassing workers at Market of Choice, and they have requested support from the HRC. If you can be there, the trial is at 9am on Lincoln Street and 11th. The family is asking people to attend. We would like to show strong support as the HRC. B. Souza: Please read what was sent out as liaison from CRB, it is very important. A. Seligmann: 350.org is holding a training on decolonizing your activism, it is an incredible training. Motion: Move to adjourn the May 2018 Human Rights Commission meeting. Made by: A. Walsh Second: I. Hamide Vote: Unanimous 99 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 116, Eugene, OR 97401 541.682.5177 | HRNI@ci.eugene.or.us | www.eugene-or.gov/HRC 12 Human Rights Commission Budget Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) DATE REQUESTING GROUP EVENT OR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT BALANCE 7/1/17 $4,500.00 SPONSORSHIP 11/20/17 Leah Reidlinger Lunch Match Request $200.00 1/26/18 Archaeological Legacy Inst. TAC Film Fest $200.00 1/16/18 Our Bodies, Our Voices Our Open Mic at Tsunami Books $200.00 4/17/18 SURJ Film Showing of 13th $300.00 4/17/18 CALC Anti‐Semitism and Islamaphobia Training $100.00 SUBTOTAL $1,000.00 WORKPLAN EXPENSE 8/1/17 Anti‐Discrimination Workgroup Marginalized Voices Printing $400.00 9/19/17 Homelessness Working Group Oregon Coalition on Homelessness and Housing Conference $275.00 10/17/17 WeCU International Human Rights Day $1,000.00 11/20/17 All Workgroups $150 each for workgroup meeting refreshments $450.00 4/17/18 Homelessness Working Group Funding for Work Group Forum $150.00 SUBTOTAL $2,275.00 TOTALS $3,275.00 $1,225.00 13  Richard (Richie) Weinman 55 W. 31st Avenue Eugene, Or 97405 richieweinman@gmail.com 541-912-1767 May 26, 2018 City of Eugene Human Rights Commission ℅ Kaie Babits, Human Rights and Equity Analyst 99 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, Or 97401 Dear Commissioners, Regarding discrimination against renters I am asking that you add a housing issue to your current work.plan. A current issue in front of the City Council is amending the local ordinances that allow “Secondary Dwelling Units (SDU)” (also known as Accessory Dwelling Units). This is partially to comply with recent state land use directives. SDU’s are one way of encouraging small affordable housing units while also meeting state and local goals for compact urban growth and infill. After attending a recent City Council public hearing and then watching a City Council work session on May 23rd, it is clear to me that our code has a systemic discrimination against renters and it is very much a form of red-lining. There seems to be a prevailing opinion on the City Council to keep a discriminatory practice in place. A provision of the current code only allows an SDU to be built if one of the housing units on the property is owner-occupied. This historical provision is not based on any data or evidence that renters are inferior to homeowners in such a situation. There is no evidence that two rentals on a standard R-1 neighborhood lot will negatively impact a neighborhood. Rather, the existing law is based on a historical bias from those who are elected and those who serve on advisory committees because they are overwhelmingly homeowners (often 100%). As a result they look at situations through familiar filters that favor home owners. This is is no different than laws passed by whites that once excluded African-Americans and particular ethnicities different from their own. In those cases personal biases became codified. Half of Eugene’s residents’ are renters. They are overwhelmingly lower income than owners. There is a severe rental shortage -- especially of lower-cost housing units. Decisions are almost always made by owners. This is a fact, not an opinion. The state has directed an end 14 to this discriminatory practice, but it is still up to the City Council to do so. This practice does not exist in many Oregon cities including Portland and Springfield. In many cases (if not nearly all) SDU’s are created for a family member who has a special need. It might be an aging parent or a sibling or child with special needs. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have direct experience with this issue. My wife and I are currently constructing an SDU for our son to live in. It is on an alley-access lot behind a rental house that we own in the Friendly neighborhood. To comply with the law David is becoming an equal owner of the property with us. Because of his special circumstances, including Social Security Disability income, his ownership is actually not an ideal situation for either of us. But, our overriding goal is create a home that will always be affordable for him. Unfortunately, should he become unable to live on his own at some time and needs to move out, we will find ourselves out of compliance with the law. This very issue was identified by the state of Oregon. It creates an unfortunate and essentially unenforceable situation. I staffed housing issues for the City for 25 years. After I retired I was twice appointed to the Eugene Human Rights Commission before voluntarily stepping down. Based on my experience I feel rental housing availability and institutional discrimination against renters is very much a human rights issue. I encourage the Human Rights to promptly take this up. I would be happy to attend a meeting and discuss this further. Sincerely, Richard (Richie) Weinman 15 From: Ralph Duncan To: BABITS Katie E Subject: Re: LTD transit security abuses Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 8:21:14 PM Hello Katie I am forwarding this email to let you know that there are issues of human rights violations with LTD. I am not the only one. This story is mine, it is an EXAMPLE of how LTD operates. I am not the only one. I would like the HRC to examine how LTD operates and violates human rights. It is not about intervention. I obviously cannot attend your meetings. That is why I am forwarding this email to you. Thanks! Hello Human Rights Commission, I would like to bring something to your attention. I am not really sure what your purview or powers are in Eugene. However, I feel that my rights have been violated in the city of Eugene by a city agency, LTD. Apparently LTD employs an outside security agency to police the buses. In my opinion, only the city should be in the business of enforcing transit rules and fares. Militarizing the transit system leads to abuses. In particular, it abuses any poor or marginal looking person who rides the bus. Bus drivers know that if they are "made uncomfortable" by a passenger, the passenger's arrest or banning from the system is only a phone call away. In addition, the buses video and audio record passengers, and track the movements and activities of passengers outside the bus. This video can be used to track and arrest people, but it is available only to LTD security and can be used selectively against the chosen target. None of this is necessary. As we all know, the crime rate is down. Therefore less abuse, fare evasion and bus violence is happening (I have never heard of a violent offense towards a driver in Eugene actually) and so the private security that LTD has hired has a mandate to FIND abuses whether or not they occur to stay in business. This development of hiring private security to patrol the movement of people who need transit, who tend to be poor, mirrors the use of private contractors who run government jails and prisons. Does Eugene really need to be on this bandwagon? I am a handicapped person on crutches. I boarded my usual bus one day, in order to meet a friend to take me shopping. Like I said, I am on crutches. So my friend nicely offered to meet me at a halfway point and take me shopping in her car. When I got to the UO station, the bus driver turned to me and say authoritatively, "OK, YOU are getting out here. " He gave no reason. When I, incredulous, stated I wanted to go on, and had paid my fare, he went into panic mode, acting as if I had disobeyed a direct military order. I offered to upgrade to a day pass, and take another bus to my destination, and he did not respond. I then asked if he could let me get off on the return route, naming the stop, because I am on crutches and it would be easier to walk to a place to meet my friend from there. He inaccurately told me that stop was not served. He at the same time was preventing new passengers from boarding the bus, treating the situation as an emergency without explanation. He then called security, again giving no reason. After several minutes when he would not either drive the bus or let me buy a day pass to get another bus, I wrote the driver off as irrational, exited the bus and had my friend pick me up at the UO. Several weeks later I encountered this same driver, while still obviously on crutches. I bought a day pass and then calmly explained to him that I was handicapped and had to pass the UO station to a stop beyond UO get to work. Once again, he chose the UO stop to call security without explanation, after setting into a round of verbal abuse. Since he would not stop when I asked, saying that today was a different day and we could have a different interaction, I again left with my day pass. The next day I had an urgent doctors appointment, so I had a friend arrange to pick me up near my usual bus stop to take me directly there. While I waited, and not AT the stop but only nearby, an LTD security truck suddenly parked. Feeling unsafe, I decided to cross the street, and two more trucks suddenly appeared across the street, with the agents jumping out to corner me and refuse me the ability to walk further. Three armed security agents surrounded me, with one behind me for backup. Let me point out that this stop is a secluded spot, the stop area which is paved provides a a place for a car or bus to pull over, but the strip of pavement itself is seven or eight feet long. I was at the long end of this strip away from the stop, which is essentially just a pole. How can it then be construed that I was trespassing on LTD property? I thought the public pavement 16 belonged to the PUBLIC that paid for it. Further, it is not as if I was downtown or in another area trying to provoke LTD security or interfering with its service in any way. Does it not alarm the common citizen that three LTD trucks with security plan ambushes on US citizens go about their daily business? These four men, all being paid for by local citizens, spent possibly hours staking out this spot in order to ambush me when I came by to wait for my friend. Isn't this kind of thing a little extravagant, both morally and financially, against a defenseless person trying to get around to daily appointments? I was told that I was banned from using LTD "indefinitely," which I assume means forever. They threatened me with criminal charges.However, since I did nothing to the bus driver that was not possible Meanwhile my friend was waiting patiently to pick me up to take me to my appointment. She had driven up about 30 seconds after I was surrounded by four armed men. Why is this intimidation and tracking of US citizens permitted? I have free movement as as US citizen. The treatment of the driver towards me, a handicapped person, in telling me to get off a bus at a stop I did not choose, is a human rights violation. I was not on a bus or trying to board a bus when they tracked me. Indeed, I had made other arrangements because the treatment I received on the bus was intolerable. There were no criminal accusations against me, yet I was tracked like an animal while trying to live my daily life, as I repeat, NOT INTERACTING AT ALL WITH LTD. As a result of the treatment of this bus driver, I did not make it TO WORK on the day I had to exit the bus the second time. I made it to my appointment only with the help of a friend who had a day off, and I was fifteen minutes late as a result of standing on crutches surrounded by armed men interrogating me while my friend waited. I cannot shop now, because I cannot walk the several miles to the nearest store. Essentially, my life is now threatened because I cannot carry on daily activities that I cannot do otherwise on the bus because of my problems walking. I cannot arrange for others to take care of my work, medical and shopping needs. I ask you how this is not a human rights violation. Eugene needs to stop using private security and surveillance on its own citizens. I was profiled for my appearance, and I had paid my fare on both occasions. Further, if LTD wanted to know what happened on those rides it could, but it chooses not to listen to audio in order to build a case against me. I now have random or zero access to food, medical treatment, and my workplace. As a result I must leave Eugene. Again, I have to state that this is a human rights violation. In Canada, transit has been declared a human right. That is because without transit certain people can die. That is why depriving people of it is a human rights abuse and should be done only after a severe, criminal incident. Not because a handicapped person refuses to get off at a stop he did not select. I would ask that you please discuss this at your monthly meeting and bring it up with the city. It seems pretty clear to me that I seemed an easy target. I do not look like an urban professional or a student. I am handicapped. And worst of all, I do not allow people to command me to get off of transit and strand me on crutches away from my location. In short, I have a little bit of dignity. Transit is also a human right, whether or not Eugene thinks it is, and if upper middle class people were the main purveyors of it LTD would not be "cleansing" it of the unwanted and unsightly for the approval of the gentrified class it obviously covets. My suggestion to LTD would be that once they actually increase service, that will be the answer to ridership problems, not ''cleansing'' it of unsightly or handicapped people. I have witnessed an LTD driver screaming violently at a man with Down's Syndrome who boarded early in the month and who did not yet get his new bus pass. It was abusive. I paid that man's fare for him that day so he did not get thrown off. I doubt that is the only other case besides mine. The only problem with LTD security is caused by the Stasi who patrol the buses, not the passengers. And lives are being ruined in the process. Thanks, Ralph Duncan On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Ralph Duncan <ralphduncan11@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Human Rights Commission, I would like to bring something to your attention. I am not really sure what your purview or powers are in Eugene. However, I feel that my rights have been violated in the city of Eugene by a city agency, LTD. Apparently LTD employs an outside security agency to police the buses. In my opinion, only the city should be in the business of enforcing transit 17 rules and fares. Militarizing the transit system leads to abuses. In particular, it abuses any poor or marginal looking person who rides the bus. Bus drivers know that if they are "made uncomfortable" by a passenger, the passenger's arrest or banning from the system is only a phone call away. In addition, the buses video and audio record passengers, and track the movements and activities of passengers outside the bus. This video can be used to track and arrest people, but it is available only to LTD security and can be used selectively against the chosen target. None of this is necessary. As we all know, the crime rate is down. Therefore less abuse, fare evasion and bus violence is happening (I have never heard of a violent offense towards a driver in Eugene actually) and so the private security that LTD has hired has a mandate to FIND abuses whether or not they occur to stay in business. This development of hiring private security to patrol the movement of people who need transit, who tend to be poor, mirrors the use of private contractors who run government jails and prisons. Does Eugene really need to be on this bandwagon? I am a handicapped person on crutches. I boarded my usual bus one day, in order to meet a friend to take me shopping. Like I said, I am on crutches. So my friend nicely offered to meet me at a halfway point and take me shopping in her car. When I got to the UO station, the bus driver turned to me and say authoritatively, "OK, YOU are getting out here. " He gave no reason. When I, incredulous, stated I wanted to go on, and had paid my fare, he went into panic mode, acting as if I had disobeyed a direct military order. I offered to upgrade to a day pass, and take another bus to my destination, and he did not respond. I then asked if he could let me get off on the return route, naming the stop, because I am on crutches and it would be easier to walk to a place to meet my friend from there. He inaccurately told me that stop was not served. He at the same time was preventing new passengers from boarding the bus, treating the situation as an emergency without explanation. He then called security, again giving no reason. After several minutes when he would not either drive the bus or let me buy a day pass to get another bus, I wrote the driver off as irrational, exited the bus and had my friend pick me up at the UO. Several weeks later I encountered this same driver, while still obviously on crutches. I bought a day pass and then calmly explained to him that I was handicapped and had to pass the UO station to a stop beyond UO get to work. Once again, he chose the UO stop to call security without explanation, after setting into a round of verbal abuse. Since he would not stop when I asked, saying that today was a different day and we could have a different interaction, I again left with my day pass. The next day I had an urgent doctors appointment, so I had a friend arrange to pick me up near my usual bus stop to take me directly there. While I waited, and not AT the stop but only nearby, an LTD security truck suddenly parked. Feeling unsafe, I decided to cross the street, and two more trucks suddenly appeared across the street, with the agents jumping out to corner me and refuse me the ability to walk further. Three armed security agents surrounded me, with one behind me for backup. Let me point out that this stop is a secluded spot, the stop area which is paved provides a a place for a car or bus to pull over, but the strip of pavement itself is seven or eight feet long. I was at the long end of this strip away from the stop, which is essentially just a pole. How can it then be construed that I was trespassing on LTD property? I thought the public pavement belonged to the PUBLIC that paid for it. Further, it is not as if I was downtown or in another area trying to provoke LTD security or interfering with its service in any way. Does it not alarm the common citizen that three LTD trucks with security plan ambushes on US citizens go about their daily business? 18 These four men, all being paid for by local citizens, spent possibly hours staking out this spot in order to ambush me when I came by to wait for my friend. Isn't this kind of thing a little extravagant, both morally and financially, against a defenseless person trying to get around to daily appointments? I was told that I was banned from using LTD "indefinitely," which I assume means forever. They threatened me with criminal charges.However, since I did nothing to the bus driver that was not possible Meanwhile my friend was waiting patiently to pick me up to take me to my appointment. She had driven up about 30 seconds after I was surrounded by four armed men. Why is this intimidation and tracking of US citizens permitted? I have free movement as as US citizen. The treatment of the driver towards me, a handicapped person, in telling me to get off a bus at a stop I did not choose, is a human rights violation. I was not on a bus or trying to board a bus when they tracked me. Indeed, I had made other arrangements because the treatment I received on the bus was intolerable. There were no criminal accusations against me, yet I was tracked like an animal while trying to live my daily life, as I repeat, NOT INTERACTING AT ALL WITH LTD. As a result of the treatment of this bus driver, I did not make it TO WORK on the day I had to exit the bus the second time. I made it to my appointment only with the help of a friend who had a day off, and I was fifteen minutes late as a result of standing on crutches surrounded by armed men interrogating me while my friend waited. I cannot shop now, because I cannot walk the several miles to the nearest store. Essentially, my life is now threatened because I cannot carry on daily activities that I cannot do otherwise on the bus because of my problems walking. I cannot arrange for others to take care of my work, medical and shopping needs. I ask you how this is not a human rights violation. Eugene needs to stop using private security and surveillance on its own citizens. I was profiled for my appearance, and I had paid my fare on both occasions. Further, if LTD wanted to know what happened on those rides it could, but it chooses not to listen to audio in order to build a case against me. I now have random or zero access to food, medical treatment, and my workplace. As a result I must leave Eugene. Again, I have to state that this is a human rights violation. In Canada, transit has been declared a human right. That is because without transit certain people can die. That is why depriving people of it is a human rights abuse and should be done only after a severe, criminal incident. Not because a handicapped person refuses to get off at a stop he did not select. I would ask that you please discuss this at your monthly meeting and bring it up with the city. It seems pretty clear to me that I seemed an easy target. I do not look like an urban professional or a student. I am handicapped. And worst of all, I do not allow people to command me to get off of transit and strand me on crutches away from my location. In short, I have a little bit of dignity. Transit is also a human right, whether or not Eugene thinks it is, and if upper middle class people were the main purveyors of it LTD would not be "cleansing" it of the unwanted and unsightly for the approval of the gentrified class it obviously covets. My suggestion to LTD would be that once they actually increase service, that will be the answer to ridership problems, not ''cleansing'' it of unsightly or handicapped people. I have 19 witnessed an LTD driver screaming violently at a man with Down's Syndrome who boarded early in the month and who did not yet get his new bus pass. It was abusive. I paid that man's fare for him that day so he did not get thrown off. I doubt that is the only other case besides mine. The only problem with LTD security is caused by the Stasi who patrol the buses, not the passengers. And lives are being ruined in the process. Thanks, Ralph Duncan 20 From: Rose Wilde Subject: Beyond 13th/Mass Incarceration Event Follow Up Date: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 1:50:16 PM Attachments: Actions from Beyond 13th.docx Questions from Beyond 13th event.docx Letter for Cahoots.docx Good afternoon Friends, Allies and Co-conspirators, Last month, Showing Up for Racial Justice hosted, with sponsorship from Temple Beth Israel Tikkun Olam Committee and Eugene Human Rights Commission, Beyond 13th an event focused on the local and state impact of racialized mass incarceration, and what we can do about. Many of you contributed your time, money, energy, and advice to the development of this community presentation and conversation - thank you again for this advice and support - AND for your leadership in issues that matter, which gave me the chance to learn so much from your wisdom and experience. I am writing to share an update on how our event unfolded, to inform you of the next steps Springfield-Eugene SURJ will be taking, to invite your participation in SURJ hosted events, and to determine how you (and the organizations you lead or engage with) would like to be involved. SURJ may have a designated liaison for you group, and that person will continue to be your primary point of contact, but I am also happy to sit down one on one to listen and come to a shared agenda. At SURJ, we are very conscious that when we work on issues that affect people of color, we must center our action around their voices and leadership - I hope you will help hold us accountable to that vision. First - the event! About 140 people attended the event on May 9th. As they arrived, we ran a slide show acknowledging those who helped with the event and sharing some SURJ history. Thanks to at least a dozen food businesses, and the labor contributed by Network Charter School culinary students, we offered a full meal including vegan and gluten free options. Temple Beth Israel was very accommodating in the use of their facilities and kitchen. Jerrica saved my bacon a few times helping make sure the AV and sound worked and putting out little fires! As people settled in, Rabbi Ruhi began the event singing, and welcomed the group. I covered some housekeeping and background of our project, and then Kate Gonsalves gave the first keynote presentation, "Disrupting Mass Incarceration at the Local Level", highlighting some of the lessons more deeply explored in the guidebook here. She summed up actions people could take to make a difference with the simple but challenging action: Start collectively organizing around an issue and hold your elected officials accountable. She follow up with these 6 ideas: 1. Donate a meaningful amount (especially to organizations led by people of color and formerly incarcerated) 2. Vote by May 15th Pay attention to down ballot races. 21  3. Become a member of an advocacy organization/contact your electeds 4. Attend the upcoming Eugene Budget hearing on public safety on May 23rd 5. Download OJRC Disrupting Mass Incarceration report: Find one issue to collectively powermap ideas for change 6. Volunteer/mentor 1 hour a week contact Joel Smith at Sponsors to sign up David Rogers, ALCU, next spoke on the topic "The Most Powerful Person n the Criminal Justice System", a summary of topics covered in more detail by tge ALCU's They Report to You website. David emphasized the importance of the District Attorney, an elected prosecutor who determines with very little oversight or accountability who to charge with crimes. DAs are critical to changing mass incarceration - who is elected in that role matters a great deal. After some table discussions, the event shifted to a panel discussion moderated expertly by Paul Solomon. We heard from Ayisha Elliot, a survivor of police brutality and excessive force, related to a mental health crisis experienced by a relative. Ayisha, in her first public speech about her experiences, told such a compelling story the audience was moved and outraged. She illustrated how her race impacts every aspect of her life, not only how police respond when she is seeking help. Senator James Manning roused the audience discussing the legisative wins accomplished recently, as well as the need to address Oregon non-unanimous juries, which all conviction for certain crimes with only 10 out of 12 jurors voting to convict. Both a veteran AND a former member of law enforcement and prison work, Senator Manning had particularly relevant experience and insights. Congratulations to Senator Manning, who recently won the primary election for ALL three major political parties in his district! I look forward to your next act, Senator! Just Leadership Fellow LaMonte Morgan, a formerly incarcerated addiction treatment specialist working at Emergence, spoke on the topics of how prison impacts inmates during their incarceration and afterwards at re-entry. How explained how white supremacist gangs attempted to recruit him with threats in prison, as well as how having a criminal record impacts his life almost 20 years after his last arrest. Paul Solomon last spoke about the role of Sponsors, Lane County's housing and support program for people re-entering community after incarceration. The housing, employment, treatment, mentoring, and wraparound support services offered by Sponsors are so critical to preventing recidivism that we should offer those services to everyone leaving prison, if only we had the funding and support. After the panel concluded, audience members had a chance to ask a few questions. The conversation could have continued all night, but we had to clean up and go home! Many 22 questions were not answered. I have attached those for you to see the themes. Many focused on the district attorney and how we could influence our local elected DA. What's Next Because of the strong interest among the participants at the event, SURJ will spend the next two meetings creating a campaign plan that focuses on mass incarceration, and more specifically on engagement with our local district attorney (who has invited community members to contact her and engage with her around any topics of concern). David Rogers also has offered to return to follow up on his speech in the coming months to address more concrete action around state legislation, and possibly local DA advocacy. SURJ meetings will be this THURSDAY, June 7th, 5:30pm orientation, and 6:30pm general meeting/campaign planning; and THURSDAY July 5th (TBA if date will change due to holiday, but in general we meet the first Thursday). Please do not post the location publicly (we meet at St. Mary's Episcopal Church at 13th and Pearl). Any/all are invited to join us this Thursday. Understanding that SURJ is not the only player, we will plan how our own organization will help, support, and when appropriate, lead, different actions to disrupt mass incarceration. On Thursday we will determine a tangible goal. Afterwards, we will research our chosen goal to understand more deeply the leaders involved in key decisions impacting mass incarceration, and how to influence their decisions. We will determine the best steps to follow up on this at the second campaign planning meeting (likely July 5th). Based on the level of interest in the influence of district attorneys, this will likely be a focus of our effort, but until we meet tomorrow, it is an open topic! Invitation SURJ is creating a new workgroup/committee dedicated to this campaign, so please consider getting involved either by attending a SURJ meeting or by inviting a representative of SURJ to engage with your organization/group. Collectively, we can move mountains, and we can certainly move elections, laws, and policies. We are creating a private Facebook group to support our communication - if you would like to get involved with that, please reply and let me know your Facebook "name". How Would you like to engage? Moving forward, would you consider personally, as well as for your organization, how would you like to be included in this work? Some options include: 1) joining the effort and attending SURJ meetings related to campaign (starting tomorrow at the general meeting if possible) 2) joining the effort as a partner organization and developing a common agenda with SURJ, with clear roles for each organization (either attend the meeting tomorrow or let me know you would like to have a conversation about how to engage with your organization - we can come to YOUR meetings instead). Other members of SURJ leadership will help facilitate these connections. 3) Giving advice/insight - perhaps you/your organization has a full agenda and cannot expand at this point. If so, we honor your priorities and hope you will share your advice and feedback on our plans. 23 4) Stay informed but inactive on project - I will send you periodic updates about our actions 5) No thanks - I won't take it personally - if you know you will not have energy to contribute and would rather not get updates, let me know. 6) Your creative ideas - I'm somewhat new to this form of community organizing and mobilizing, let me know what works for you! I am attaching three documents that I think will be of interest - the questions written down by participants at the event, the actions brainstormed by the participants at each table, and Ayisha Elliott's recommendations for how to improve the police response to mental health crisis and engagement with Black families. Please forgive any errors - aside from Ayisha's letter, these are not polished documents, but they show a good deal of what people came away with, or wondering about, from our event. Last, SURJ continues to be actively "Showing Up" and has been invited to support efforts in Springfield to end the contract between the city jail and ICE which allows use of the city jail for immigration related holds. Members plan to attend the next meeting on June 18th at Springfield City Hall to show support for this related ​effort. Thank you again, and please let me know if anything is not clear or other questions/concerns this work may bring up.I am always learning and growing, and your feedback helps, so please share it with me! Rose Wilde Beyond 13th organizer Showing Up for Racial Justice PS: (Personally, with my connection to local school boards, I would like to continue to build my knowledge and expertise on prevention practices that disrupt the school to prison pipeline. I know some great work happening in local schools and at Lane ESD that directly addresses these issues by creating better support systems for youth of color and educating and supporting school stakeholders in practices such as restorative justice, eliminating bias from disciplinary systems, engaging all students (especially youth of color) rather than pushing them out of school, etc. My service at Lane ESD gives me a window on this work, but the experts are those actually doing the work, our partners in LCC, NAACP and the ESD and local district staff). 24 Actions from Beyond 13th notes General advocacy Lobby progressive urban leaders Support good initiaitves Vote Choose one issue to pursue Follow Shaun King (twitter @shaunking) Get comfortable with uncomfortable topics – organize and really do something, not just talk Advocate for reform at school board, county commission, sheriff department, mayors, city councilors, DA office, law enforcement Support progressive county commissioners Focus on state and local criminal justice matters Focus on law enforcement policy makers and elected officials Police officers: support police officer mental health; train them to deal with mental health community/mentally ill people provide culturally specific training. Collaboration Find information to coordinate campaigns Build support from local organizations and influential individuals Attend First Fridays Communities of Color Organize focus groups in your own community and friends for further action Give money Donate, especially to POC led organizations and formerly incarcerated City of Eugene advocacy Track and lobby for use of Eugene public safety budget (5/23) Support successful re-entry 25 Volunteer at Sponsors, or be a mentor Advocate for expungement – Sponsors legal clinic Support Sponsors Support housing for ex-felons/people re-entering society after incarceration Lane County District Attorney Advocacy Pay attention to DA policies and elections Encourage people to run for judge and DA positions x Ask judges and DA to share their policies and goals How do we influence Patty Perlow? How do we get other people to run for DA? Must have real opposition to DA election and public debates and forums Invite Patty Perlow to speak at TBI and other churches about DA system Follow and support ACLU campaign Theyreporttoyoucom DA’s most powerful – 8/10 run uncontested Focus change on policies, politics, and practices Support drug court/substance abuse programs How to make my efforts in Benton County support other counties where needed? Host a candidate;s forum for prospective Das Create a Scorecard for District Attorney Include local county data from Criminal Justice Council report on racial disparities and charging practices Include data on juveniles charged as adults Compare to statewide and national data Recruit candidates for District Attorney who support criminal justice reform Open Dialogue with DA Judicial elections 26 Ask judges to share their policies and goals Mandatory minimums take away judges discretion Support Oregon’s Santuary Laws Oppose IP 22 (protect Oregon’s 30 year old sanctuary law) and other law enforcement cooperation with ICE Work with CAUSA and One Oregon to protect Oregon’s immigrant families State level advocacy Remove conviction record for non-violent offenses (but not for violence or abuse) Support mental health support programs Measure 11 takes away judge’s discretion to give lower sentences Nomoremoneybail.org Help formerly incarcerated people re-integrate by working in the movement to repeal prohibitions against voting. Talk to legislators De-felonize drup possession How can we get more alternative sentencing? Influence legislation for alternative sentencing for all drug offenses Reform jails – shouldn’t be used to house people with addictions or mental health disorders Educate yourself, share with your networks “Vera Institute” Become a member of advocacy organizations Download OJRC’s disrupting mass incarceration at the local level Educate yourself about historical legacy of racialized mass incarceration Watch Bryan Stevenson – Ted talks Raise popular awareness Attend First Friday Communities of Color and Allies Network events Send videos from “They report to you” to Facebook friends 27 Country Fair – educate people College age and 15+ education Show the movie 13th in your circle or community Educators Watch Adam Foss Ted Talks 28 Questions: General How can we publicize events like this for maximum turnout? Regarding District Attorneys Who can ran for DA? How does the community support the process of getting someone to run who will be responsive to what we’re looking for? Is there a term limit for District Attorney’s? How do write ins work? Who wants to join me in mobilizing Lane County residents to help DA Patty Perlow behave better regarding the Oregon DA’s Association and criminal justice reform? Steve Dear, 919-622-1739; Oregonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty What do we know about DA Patty Perlow’s policies? How accessible is she? Why don’t more DA Lawyers run for DA position? What’s the process to get in line for the job? x How do DA candidates get selected? Are they affiliated with or promoted by political organizations or self-selected? How to get more candidates? Why don’t more people run for office of DA? How would we go about recruiting a DA candidate? What kind of experience should they have? Who pushes back, discourages on DA’s who make progressive proposals? What is a good/best resource to understand my DA’s (Benton) politics on immigration, race, and hate crimes? Is there a way to directly lobby DA’s? Is it effective for voters to call/write their offices? How is Eugene’s DA? Has she run uncontested? Can the ACLU sponsor a write in candidate for district attorney? Are there people of color or LGBTG Das? What are the qualifications for DA and how can we run a successful campaign to get progressive and concerned about racial justice, restorative justice Das in office? Is the ACLU campaign nationwide? Is that the plan? How does any citizen get to have a meeting with the DA? Who are the lawyers out there who would be an improvement over our current batch of DA’s? How can we learn and understand the DA system better? 29 What do accused give up when choosing not to go to trial? Who do we need to put pressure on folks who enforce how trial decisions are made? Who determines pleas bargains? Who determine treatment for drug offenses? What are the criteria? How are decisions made? Based on alternatives sentencing? How do DA’s facilitate alternatives to incarceration? How closely are Das expected to work with school boards, housing groups, drug treatment centers and other supports in the community? Where will “they report to you” ads be shown? What specifically could you ask Patty Perlow to do? Prisons Are Oregon’s state prisons for profit, private institutions? If so, how can we address tat economic motivation for incarceration? Does Oregon have any for-profit prisons? Comment on influence of industrial prisons on mass incarceration? How can we take more responsibility as individuals to employ restorative practices in our own (parenting) and other personal practices? How was California able to reduce rate of incarceration? Please address the privatization of jails and prisons? For profit organizations need to have more “customers” so it’s ludicrous to expect them to offer rehab or training. Recidivism pays! Prevention (Schools, behavioral health services) Have there been any positive developments in the legislature to keep people with mental health issues from getting caught up in the criminal justice system? Please expand on the pattern of school to prison pipeline (Wayne Martin) Municipal policing 30 Do we know of any specific issues that should be raised at the 5/23 Eugene public safety budget meeting? Militarization is affecting actions of those wearing the gear and carrying the weapons. If they are strongly armed and geared up, they expect and look for situations to cause use of their equipment. Did police auditor or oversight committee examine Ayisha’s case? I think it is totally problematic that Cahoots is called via the police non-emergency line, not a direct line of their own, like through White Bird. We may have more auditing power in Eugene soon. What criminal justice data should we ask for? State level issues How can we get a ballot measure to abolish M11? How can we negate the non-unaimous jury verdict in criminal cases? Wondering about judges since they are elected? What is LEAD? What is happening with those serving time for possession of marijuana – given that it is no longer a crime in Oregon? 31  He is my son. I was given the opportunity to write a letter to explain my experience the night I requested help from CAHOOTS, and got EPD instead. This was before CAHOOTS was available 24/7, and my phone call was received just 15 minutes before they were to go off shift. The dispatcher made the decision to route our call differently. That night, my son was in the middle of his second ever psychotic break. At the time, he was a college freshman. He wasn’t born with this condition; he developed this secondarily from a head injury sustained the previous year during basketball practice his senior year. When the police officers knocked on our door, I answered it, and quickly told them the story I just laid out for you. I told them who I was and that he was inside the house. They asked if I was in danger, and I said, “I am not.” I informed them we had called for CAHOOTS and my son was waiting inside. They requested I get him. Primarily he stood behind me in the doorway at first, confused about who was at the door, and then we both came outside together. I should first say, my name is Ayisha. I am a Family Coach with the State of Oregon; I have a Bachelor’s of Science in a behavioral science and a Nursing degree, and I am a mother of 3. I have extensive training in crisis intervention and de-escalation. I facilitate and practice diversity trainings and trauma- informed care practices within District 5 for the State of Oregon (Lane County). Besides my son now living with “well controlled schizophreniform,” my youngest daughter also experiences Epilepsy. I say all of this because it is relevant to what I brought to the table on this particular evening of July 15, 2015. The officers wouldn’t PREVIOUSLY know or rightfully assume knowledge of the person they approach in any situation. HOWEVER, knowledge was key here. We had the opportunity to share information, and they had opportunity to decide if I had knowledge or experience to share and assist regarding my family member, my son. Information was given to the officers prior to my son coming outside. I was a key component to calming and controlling my son; matter of fact, not working with me escalated my son more. A good amount of family members will know what their family member is like in these situations: Are they violent? Have they appeared this way before? What calms them down if anything? What escalates them? Engaged family members will readily say if they can help or if they cannot. I implore you to utilize their experience with their family member you come across in crisis. Anything other than that, when not requested, is traumatizing. Time was an issue on July 15th. The officers seemingly had an agenda and a time frame in which they previously decided this particular call should take. With any mental episode, time cannot be an issue. Your approach cannot be rushed. I cannot reiterate enough, if EPD isn’t knowledgeable on what different mental breaks look like, they should use, listen, and follow the lead of the person who does. Inexperienced, well-intended officers will mistake these mental episodes and behaviors as aggression, which would equate with or progress to violence, though this is generally not the case. I guarantee you, if this is historic, someone within their family, their therapist, and the specialists will know the person’s tendency. When family is there and willing and able to assist, use that link. All episodic breaks are not violent, even when they are loud. They pace, and they are scared, they feel hot, or really cold, they are confused, but they are still human. They are someone’s family. We are African American. This is relevant. There is a fear we carry, and one of the reasons I came outside BEFORE my son, and explained the situation to ease the officers’ minds about his condition; to brief them, so we were all on the same page. Basic generalizations are made about us, we know that. The officers that evening said they were surprised when I asked my son to come outside and he did. He 32 stands 6’1”, and is muscular (217 lbs at the time). They described him as “huge.” At the time, he was 19, an athlete, and a scholar. He was taller than one of the four officers who showed up, but he was ABSOLUTELY not “bigger” than any of them. I guess, I’d have to ask-- how culturally aware were the officers when they approached my door? How culturally aware are you? It is relevant. It’s knowledge to work with. African American kids are generally bigger than their counterparts, but not any more dangerous than their counterparts. African American kids are generally more attached to their parent’s/elder’s direction than their counterparts are; it’s cultural. I believe whole heartedly if the officers that night utilized this knowledge in their approach, it would have eased their apparent fear, and the result of our Ill-fated interaction would have been different. My actions as my son’s primary care giver came from a point of experience, not only as his mother. I was under pressure too. I have experience in personal crisis--remember my youngest daughter also has Epilepsy. I’ve worked alongside of emergency room physicians. So, I fell back on my training when it came to a necessary space to facilitate his care needs. I called CAHOOTS because I recognized they would have been the best fit for this situation. As EPD arrived, I expressed the need for CAHOOTS to escort him. The urgency EPD works under worked directly against us. It works against de-escalation, and against winning the trust of a scared young man. Remember, I wasn’t scared of my son. I feared who would take care of him when I wasn’t there. Whatever the protocol, I have had it explained. I urge the department to reconsider. Attempting to control anyone who is under duress and is not violent will end in more trauma for that person. Utilizing Tasers on someone in a mental episode is not only ineffective, it elevates the situation, in my son’s case, his fear. He has had 2 more episodes since this one. He has NEVER been hospitalized or contained for the time frame or in the manner he was contained after this interaction. EPD left him in isolation for 10 days! That’s the longest anyone had been held in the previous 10 years. It is believed that this interaction DIRECTLY affected how he recovered. Each episode BEFORE and AFTER this interaction has never risen to this level of delirium or post trauma. All other factors were the same. I’m a professional, and my family is a family of predominant civil leaders in the community. I work with EPD on calls for Child Welfare, rallies, and marches that we create and/or attend, with unsafe clients when necessary. HOWEVER, in our personal lives, my family and I have come up with scenarios where we will never call upon EPD to assist. It’s a shameful reminder of elements- such as training protocol- that are seemingly out of control of us, the citizens, and the officers who attempt to conduct themselves within those parameters. I implore everyone…go beyond what the protocol says and learn about your community. Learn about cultures other than your own, conditions you face, reach out to know more about these populations where your training hasn’t met the need. I believe you all know where that is. I pray no other family goes through what we did that night. I pray no other officer must try to justify a situation he was under-prepared or under-qualified to assist in. Deep down I know the officers that night aren’t bad people, but our experience that night has left us attempting to reason why we were left with a lifetime of unnecessary trauma, PTSD, chronic physical pain, and ongoing emotional grief. Ayisha Elliot 33 Human Rights Commission Hate and Bias Crimes Update Second Quarter April 1st 2018 – June 10th 2018 From April 1st, 2018 to June 10th, 2018, a total of 14 hate or bias crimes were reported to the Human Rights and Neighborhood Involvement Office by the Eugene Police Department. By comparison, in the 2nd quarter of 2017, 15 hate crimes were reported. Crimes reported in the 2nd quarter of 2018 targeted the following communities: Community Second Quarter 2017 Second Quarter 2018 Race 7 9 Religion 5 1 Ethnicity 3 1 Sexual Orientation 0 3 Disability 0 0 Gender 0 0 Political Affiliation 0 0 Total 15 14 Some of the Second Quarter crimes included:  A number of crimes reported during this quarter were classified under Race, which were related to the rash of graffiti reported in the end of April. Due to the nature of graffiti, such as swastikas, “1488”, “white pride” and “14 words”, these grouped together represent language from white supremacist groups. Swastikas by themselves would be categorized as anti-Jewish. However, the accompanying numbers and phrases indicate discriminatory language against other races, and thus have been categorized as anti-multi-racial.  An African American cab driver requested an inebriated white patron pay up front for their trip. The patron refused and when the cab driver dropped them at their previous location, the driver was slapped by the patron, yelling racial slurs and telling them to go back to their own country.  A bartender received a phone call at work from someone upset about service received. The suspect made racial and gender slurs, and threatened to come in the bar shooting and continued with racial slurs. In the second quarter for 2018, 5 crimes were vandalism, 6 were assault and 3 fell under different types of crimes. In 2017, 5 were due to vandalism, 2 were assault, and 7 were threats, criminal mischief or another type of crime. Office of Human Rights & Neighborhood Involvement | City of Eugene | 99 W 10th Ave | Eugene OR 97401 | (541) 682-5272 34