HomeMy WebLinkAboutTRC Transcript - February 15, 2024[00:00:00] [00:00:06]
Commissioner Dillard.
[00:00:07]
Here.
[00:00:08]
Commissioner Gathua.
[00:00:10]
Yes.
[00:00:11]
Commissioner Kiche.
[00:00:12]
Yes.
[00:00:13]
Commissioner Johnson.
[00:00:14]
Here.
[00:00:15]
Commissioner Crips.
[00:00:16]
Here.
[00:00:17]
Commissioner Merritt.
[00:00:18]
Here.
[00:00:20]
Commissioner Simmons.
[00:00:21]
Here.
[00:00:22]
Commissioner Tassinary.
[00:00:23]
Here.
[00:00:25]
Thank you.
[00:00:26]
There's someone online?
[00:00:27]
Not yet.
[00:00:30]
Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and read the Native American land acknowledgments if you want
to.
[00:00:35]
Yes.
[00:00:36]
Go ahead.
[00:00:39]
We meet today in the community of Iowa City, which now occupies the homelands of Native American
nations to whom we owe our commitment and dedication. The area of Iowa City was within the
homelands of the Iowa, Meskwaki and Sac, and because history is complex and time goes far back
beyond memory, we also acknowledge [00:01:00] the ancient connections of many other indigenous
peoples here. The history of broken treaties and forced removal that dispossess indigenous peoples of
their homelands was and is an act of colonization and genocide that we cannot erase. We implore the
Iowa City community to commit to understanding and addressing these injustices as we work toward
equity, restoration and reparations.
[00:01:26]
Thank you, Commissioner Merritt. Next I will go to approval of the meeting minutes. Do I have any
motions to approve?
[00:01:35]
I move approval.
[00:01:36]
Second?
[00:01:37]
Seconded.
[00:01:38]
Thank you, Stefanie.
[00:01:42]
All those in favor say aye.
[00:01:44]
Aye.
[00:01:46]
Anyone opposed? Any abstention? Then motion carries eight, zero.
[00:01:54]
Next. Thank you. I will move for any [00:02:00] public comment of items not on the agenda for
anyone in the room. Any would you like to make any public comment?
[00:02:08]
I would. Sometimes I feel like I don't know when I can speak. It just dawned on me that I could speak
at this time.
[00:02:17]
It's not on the agenda then that's yes.
[00:02:19]
There we go. I just encourage you whenever the consultants are here or even when they're not here
to just ask the questions or ya-butts or how are we going to do this. Please use them. I get five
minutes, so I actually have a list. I went to a CWJ meeting last Wednesday and it was about the anti-
immigrant bills that are before the Legislature. The part that I wanted to share with you is that it was
so powerful to be in a room where [00:03:00] no matter who spoke, they were interpreted to the
other people who did not speak their language as a primary language. That was happening the whole
time. There are very few native English speakers there, mostly speaking Spanish. What I began to
imagine was maybe you have an event which is not based on content necessarily, or the area of harm
that happened. The part of the system in which they were harmed. But people from a language
community getting an evening to share what's up for them. Because we have a lot of different
language communities and it was just so powerful to be in that space. I just wanted to share that
image with you because that's really a possibility, and that would enfranchise people in this process. I
know it's not a new [00:04:00] idea, but it was so powerful to have everything to be translated no
matter who said it. The other thing is I just want to remind you that our sense of what was put in one
of the proposals to the city was that there was a full time position that was devoted to doing
supporting the work that you do. The outreach, maybe some of the actual work, setting up the events,
doing things. You have two staff people who are doing great work for you, great work and they
already have full time jobs. Probably, if we counted it up, the work they do is more than full time
anyway. I just want you to know what if you put together a job description? What if it took three
months to hire someone? What if that didn't start till [00:05:00] March 1? You would have someone
from June to through December. This is us hearing you, heard you ahead of time and still hearing you.
That your job is major, it's large, it's overwhelming, and that's one thing that can be done, and there
is still time for that to be effective. I am not an HR person for the city, but I would imagine that
something could be done even if it was just like temporary job. The other piece. Different places
where we speak, we see the timer go down, so I'm not.
[00:05:45]
Let's give you about a minute.
[00:05:46]
About a minute. The other thing is when I was first noticing what people were being paid, this is way
before anything got accepted. I was really agog. [00:06:00] What's been clear to me is what it says,
their hour, like the amount of money that is there in the budget for each hour, that is actually partly
going to their organization and partly going to them. That's not their hourly rate. People who do
contract work, money goes to their organization and then some of that is paid to them. I know that
that's a big issue. You guys aren't paid. I happen to be a consultant and so I'm paid. I'm glad to talk
with you about what I actually get for the hourly and the different things that come up like paying for
hotels and stuff like that. I'm glad to be transparent about what's happening, at least in my end of
that, because I know it's a [00:07:00] sore point and if you want to talk about it, I'm glad to because I
do think it's a disparity and it's problematic and I'm glad to be transparent. It's good to see you all.
Thanks.
[00:07:14]
Thank you. Next I will move on to agenda Item Number 5 which is correspondence. Stefanie, I am
forgetting what that one would be for specific.
[00:07:24]
Letter from Marie.
[00:07:26]
We'll do that one right now?
[00:07:28]
That's what it's listed as is under correspondent.
[00:07:33]
Well, I wanted to share with everyone that I'll be resigning from the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission due to my lack of capacity to serve to what I consider to be a good member of the
commission. Last fall, my life changed a lot very quickly, and at the last minute entered a Master's
program with the University of Iowa [00:08:00] and I helped a lot with my grandson who's five. The
nights and things have been a little more difficult for me and I want to have this spot available for
someone who can really fully commit to the Commission and do this work. I want to say that I really
appreciate being a member of the Commission. Everything that I've learned, I can't really imagine
leaving the Commission in better hands and I really I'm excited to watch you guys make history. Also
I'll be at public events, so you won't get rid of me, all the way. Well, I want to be the first one to say,
thank you so much for everything that you've put forth and dedicated over this, how long has it been?
A year and a half for you. We're going to miss the perspective and the energy that you've brought.
Thank you so much. [00:09:00] Anyone else? Well, I also want to take this time to welcome a new
Commissioner Amos to our team. We're looking forward to the perspective you'll be able to give us on
this side of the table. Thank you for being here. Were you going to say something?
[00:09:23]
Yes. My name is Amos Kiche. I've lived in Iowa City for 34 years. I came here from Kenya to graduate
school in the business school. Did economics there up through MA, and still working on other things
beyond that. But in Iowa City, I've been engaged in community research and I also own facilities
maintenance business specializing in cleaning. I have a family here, two of my children are here. One
is a teacher, [00:10:00] one works with the computer company. I want to thank the Commissioners.
Some have left already, but the ones who are here today for the encouragement that you've given me
to be part of you, and I really dearly appreciate that. Also want to thank the Iowa City Council for
deciding to give me an opportunity to join my friends here and make a change for our community
here. Other than that, I have been here and I just want to continue in the same path probably better.
Thank you very much.
[00:10:49]
Other side.
[00:10:51]
Thank you Amos for joining us and I know you won't be asking for time to catch up. [00:11:00] You are
the most caught up person I know with TRC work. Thank you for joining us as a Commissioner. I'm sad
Merrit you're I don't do well with ends, but it's good to hear. We'll continue working together in the
community. Of course, I'll be following you on FB. Thank you for providing even very serious subjects
in a very humorous way. It's not goodbye.
[00:11:44]
Not an end, it's a transformation.
[00:11:49]
I yield.
[00:11:52]
If there's no other comments, I'm going to move on to the next agenda item for discussion on racial
preferences [00:12:00] with City Attorney. Welcome, Eric Goers.
[00:12:03]
Thank you For those who haven't had the pleasure of meeting Ji yet. My name is Eric Goers. I'm the
City Attorney for the city of Iowa City. I think I've been before you a few times, but I'm looking forward
to your questions tonight.
[00:12:17]
Thank you. I know there was a few questions from some members if anyone would like to go forward
with the question.
[00:12:28]
Mr. Gores, I sent you an email with a question and I'll just read a part of it. There have been several
times that the Commission has wanted to have authentic conversations regarding race in a meeting
or at a public forum. These conversations may invoke feelings of fact that may be triggered by
individuals who have been deemed as gate keepers or individuals who have greater access to
systems than other members [00:13:00] of the group. What are the guidelines that the Commission
should use when expressing their feelings or thoughts as it relates to race in achieving our charter?
[00:13:12]
Well, so let me make a couple general comments in response, and then I'll look forward to the
conversation with all of you to work through any issues you folks have. First off, of course, I need to
recognize the limitations of advice I can give you in a public setting in which we are now, but given
the parameters that have been described to me thus far, I think will be okay. Second is that I want to
draw the distinction between First Amendment rights, which of course we all have, whether we're
employees or officials of a governmental entity or not, and official action, city action, that is, if a
person goes to a demonstration, speaks [00:14:00] their mind, that's okay. There's a case that has
city in the title that speaks to official or employees free speech rights they're not unlimited. If their
jobs are to make statements on behalf of an entity, a government for example then they don't have
the same free speech rights as everyone else. It is not part of their job to be offering commentary on
behalf of the entity, and it's a matter of public interest. Then they're free to say whatever they want
without any opportunity for censorship or retribution, anything that for you folks as you have your
discussions about race, which of course they need to be. That's the whole point of your charter, is to
take on these challenging topics and have uncomfortable conversations. [00:15:00] That's fine. You
can absolutely do that. It when it crosses over that line into city action, you all city officials as
Commissioners, that that's where it gets more interesting. That's when we need to talk it through.
Those are the broad strokes of how I would respond. But Commissioner Simmons, I assume that the
specific part I want to make sure I'm navigating what you wrote here correctly. I'm focusing in on
these conversations may invoke feeling or facts that may be triggered by individuals who may be
deemed as gate keepers or individuals who have greater access to systems than other members of
the group. I'm reading into that, and I hope you'll correct me if I'm reading into it wrongly, is that the
presence of some people or members of particular groups might make authentic candid [00:16:00]
conversations more difficult. What you're getting at.
[00:16:05]
A part of it. When Louis came on board, there was a conversation that happened that said that people
were saying, I'm triggered. I feel uncomfortable about you being on board and then you sent a
response.
[00:16:17]
Yes.
[00:16:17]
Based on that. It isn't that it may be it may be the individual creates a trigger or that the perception
that they may have greater access and then how does one that have that discussion regarding that
trigger in an environment where people can feel comfortable in talking about that?
[00:16:42]
Well, I guess my response would be, let's just say, for example, that the trigger is the presence of a
white person. You could say, it is difficult for me to have conversations or to be open, or to be candid,
or to be unguarded in [00:17:00] the presence of a white person. Let's just say I fill in the protected
class. It could be whatever. That's fine. I think you could say that. I don't think that's a problem where
it would potentially be a problem is what might be the next step, which is, and I would like no white
people to be present for this conversation. Well, now we've excluded based on race, and that's a no,
we can't do that, that's illegal. You can, of course, recruit from groups in the hopes of encouraging
participation of various groups to be fully represented. That's fine. But it's really that hard line
exclusion that that's too much, so that crosses the line. I don't know if that answers.
[00:17:50]
That's close. I appreciate you've gotten close, so let's get a little closer. We're going to make a shift.
Let's just say hypothetically, [00:18:00] we have a situation where we do have someone we're
practicing and we're working on our truth telling. Within the truth telling, we're part of the
commission. Many members of the commission are part of the truth telling and someone tells us that
they have been, in essence, treated unfairly within the work environment or they've been treated
unfairly by the city. They then decide that they are going to sue the city because they believe that
what the case was, that it was related to some type of discrimination, because others haven't been
treated that way. Here's the question. You ready?
[00:18:40]
I think so. I'm already ready to jump in, but I'll wait for your question.
[00:18:44]
Here's a question for you. If we have decided that they, who have already been created a lawsuit
against the city, would like to be a part of the public truth telling process and we believe that their
story [00:19:00] is something that in essence should be told. Would you recommend or would you
advise us that we could continue to include them? Or would you advise us that because of some
additional risks that maybe including someone who has filed a lawsuit against the city, considering we
are city officials, should not be included in the process?
[00:19:24]
Well, I'll offer two responses. One is that, as Stefanie knows, if there is a complaint made to the office
of the Iowa City Office of Civil Rights and so forth, if it's against the city, just for the, appearance and
to make sure we don't have a conflict of interest, we send that to the State. We don't want to be seen
investigating ourselves. That that's in no one's best interest. That's part one. But part two speaks to
or in order for me to answer better than I think I'm going to be able to tonight, I would need to better
understand [00:20:00] what the truth telling process looks like. What the fact finding process of this
commission looks like. That is if the intent is to give people voice and making sure that they have an
opportunity to be heard. Perhaps uninterrupted about the struggles they feel they've faced, be it at
the hands of the city or anywhere else. If we as city officials, if our role is simply to facilitate that
conversation, allow them to be heard, and say thank you for your thoughts and your comments, then I
don't know if I have too many concerns about that. If instead you folks are being asked to essentially
make findings of fact or basically investigate the city as city officials, then for the same reasons I
mentioned before, I would say that's probably not appropriate. But again, I don't fully understand
what the process is for [00:21:00] truth telling for your commission. Could you help me a little bit
about what you folks see as the process?
[00:21:08]
Or is that still being worked through?
[00:21:10]
What is the process for truth-telling?
[00:21:12]
Yes.
[00:21:13]
It is still being worked through. But we're trying to also navigate how that works within the
parameters of what you're talking about right now. How I see that we have been talking about how
we'd like to do is we would love to sit down with individuals. Have them tell their truths, whether it be
someone has had a poor experience with the law here, which is against the city, or something that is
involving racial injustice in the community. They would sit down with us. They could talk to us in a
public setting, they could talk to us in a private setting. We are tasked, [00:22:00] what do you call it?
Our charges state that they could do all different public things like poetry, theater productions, those
type of things. What we're planning to do next month is more of a public setting where we will invite
select individuals to share whatever their truths are surrounding public safety. We're still in the
beginning stages of that. I know that in a couple agenda items, we'll talk a little bit more in-depth on
what that looks like.
[00:22:29]
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were maybe going to add.
[00:22:30]
No, I was going to add. I was just to say but my concern is this more but the lawsuit. The lawsuit is
filed against the city. Does that have an impact on what things can actually be done?
[00:22:44]
Done by this Commission?
[00:22:47]
A part of it is fact-finding and truth-telling a part of it is reconciliation.
[00:22:52]
Oh, I see. Well, certainly the reconciliation part seems fraught if we are engaged [00:23:00] in
litigation with the hypothetical individual you're describing. Certainly, we wouldn't want city officials.
We would tell any city employer or city official probably not to be communicating with a litigant suing
the city. I understand that your charter is a little different, it's unusual. What you're describing is
precisely as I understand it, what you've been asked to do. I think you folks are exceptional in that
way, and I would certainly want to treat you as exceptional. But if you get to the point where as part
of any of your process, you felt like you needed to become a witness against the city, let's say, or take
sides against the city. [00:24:00] That too, would be difficult. That's not to say that you folks can't
express opinions. Let's say I'm disappointed in the way the City Attorney's Office has handled this, the
City Police Department has handled this. City Manager's office. Name your department a city entity, I
think that's fine, so long as it doesn't reach more concrete conclusions, or again, that you find yourself
being put in a position of being a witness. It would be easy if you opined publicly. I've concluded that
the City did wrong in whatever fashion. It would be easy to imagine you being subpoenaed and now
you're a witness. Now you're raising your right hand in a court of law and being asked to explain why
it is that you've concluded that the city did wrong. That's [00:25:00] not ideal from most people's
perspective.
[00:25:03]
Oh, sorry.
[00:25:04]
Real quick, I just got a text from Larry who was on there just I don't know if this is helpful, but he said
the TRC will likely be making general findings, not specific findings, about any person's case, if that's
helpful, the chances of being subpoenaed would be slim based on that, what are you saying?
[00:25:20]
Well, that would depend on the attorney representing a state litigant might be less slim than Dr.
Schooler thinks. I don't know, it depends. When you say general conclusions, I'm not sure what's
meant by that.
[00:25:36]
Well, if we could promote him, he can go ahead and explain what he means by that. Larry, can you
hear us?
[00:25:46]
I can hear you. Can you hear me?
[00:25:48]
Yes.
[00:25:49]
Hey, good evening, City Attorney. I didn't mean to intervene in your purview, but just in the
experience that I've had with other commissions, [00:26:00] it would be unusual for the Commission
to issue in its findings, a specific case that was testified about in a truth-telling matter. The truth-
telling part of this and the fact-finding part of this are typically meant to help construct the narrative.
There may be reference made to what someone said in a truth-telling event or what was found in fact-
finding. But I don't think I've ever in studying commissions seen them say, we are directly holding a
particular party responsible. Now, Greensboro was a little bit unusual because they were investigating
a specific incident, but that's not what Iowa City is doing. Greensboro was set up just to look at one
shooting. Iowa City is set up to look at, discriminatory behavior and patterns of it. I just mean to say
that I can't foresee this commission making recommendations about Joanne [00:27:00] or Joe Smith's
claim against the city on any particular matter.
[00:27:07]
It would depend on what those general conclusions are. For example, if Joanne Smith, to use your
example, I forget the other person you met.
[00:27:17]
Joe.
[00:27:19]
If Joe and Joanne Smith sue the city and they make allegations against the police department. The
TRC's fact-finding results in a general conclusion that the Iowa City Police Department, over the last
couple of years, within the statute of limitations of this litigation, have frequently acted in a racist
way. Let's just say that's the conclusion. Well shot now you guys are the best witness out there for
every litigant who wishes to sue the city and allege racial discrimination. You would certainly find
yourself subpoenaed all over the place. I'm not sure that's what you mean. I certainly appreciate the
[00:28:00] significant difference between that and saying that I think Officer Smith of the Iowa City
Police Department acted in a racist way when he interacted with Joe and Joanne Smith. No relation on
a single event. That would certainly be worse. But I'm not sure the general conclusion would be ideal
either.
[00:28:26]
It could present a pattern, which is what potentially could be used in a pattern. Pros evidence which is
exactly what we're looking for with some.
[00:28:37]
Sure. Let me be clear. You folks would be ideal witnesses from that perspective. Let me get this
straight. You're a commission whose sole cause was to investigate the allegations of racism within the
city of Iowa City. Who could be better qualified? You can just imagine how you would be built up as
witnesses for plaintiffs. Of course, your report would have exhibit stickers all. [00:29:00] Let me I'm
not trying, I'm hearing myself talk and I feel like I'm fearmongering and I don't mean for that to be the
case, but, Commissioner Simmons asked some questions specifically about litigation, and obviously
that's a strong purview of our office. I just want to make sure you folks are fully informed where your
work may lead you if you are engaged with folks who are actively litigating, which as I understand
your hypothetical with the city.
[00:29:34]
Now, of course, that's not the city.
[00:29:36]
There might not be any number of people who are considering litigating against the city but haven't
yet filed and you folks would have no way of knowing that. I get that. But that, again, is one of the
main reasons why, if you like, with Stefanie's work, if it's an allegation against the city because of
conflict issues, we just send it to the state so that everyone, means just better for all parties
concerned.
[00:30:00]
Can I ask Luten? There has to be some way to thread the needle here because I know you said you're
not fearmongering, but you open the door in the way. I was thinking someone might not even be
considering litigation. They come through here and we listen to them and they go damn, I have a
case. Now they litigate the way you've constructed this. We're still potential witnesses.
[00:30:37]
Well, again, that comes down to what the fact-finding process is. If your role is to listen, to give voice,
like I mentioned before, then, no, I don't think you're as attractive as a witness because you're not
opining, you're not taking a stance making a conclusion [00:31:00] one way or another. It's when you,
make a statement written, oral or otherwise, that, makes a conclusion contrary to the City's interest,
that you become an attractive witness for plaintiffs, either specifically or generally.
[00:31:20]
Well, that's not but there's no way come December, there won't be a report, and there's no way that
report won't have in it some conclusions.
[00:31:32]
Yeah. This is my first experience with Truth and Reconciliation. Let me be clear that I don't know what
to expect out of your report.
[00:31:40]
Mr. Attorney if I could, I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, but I just want to make sure that we're all
tracking that the experience that the commission is having here is not necessarily all that different
than a number of different other appointed or elected bodies in municipal government who receive
routinely various [00:32:00] forms of public testimony as a matter of course, meaning that, I don't
know how it works in the city of Iowa, city at the council. But certainly in the city of Austin, a person
can come at noon on a council day, and for three minutes, they can sing a song, they can talk just
about anything that's not on the printed agenda. It feels a little bit unusual for the conclusion to be
that the contents of that testimony would of necessity make the city council or any other advisory
body witnesses in a potential future litigious matter. That therefore, there shouldn't be a testimony-
gathering process. Just to underscore what I think Commissioner Tassinary might be saying, the
council has directed this body to conduct truth-telling activities. If the city attorney's advice is that
any conducting of those activities could result [00:33:00] in you all being subpoenaed as witnesses,
then that could be a direct contravention of what it is that the council has instructed this commission
to carry out.
[00:33:12]
I think part of the issue, though, one thing is if somebody at the beginning with the public comment
when we don't respond, we're just listening. You just said anybody could come in and talk about
whatever they want to and that's it. We're not responding about it, but when we have something on
the agenda when somebody brings up something and then we are having discussion based on what
we discuss and requests of either some
[00:33:38]
fact-finding and whatever else.
[00:33:39]
That's the part where things start could get tricky based on what we conclude of from our discussion. I
would hope that we're well enough to know things that might be considered in a gray area where
before we decide to say, well, let's do this, or this is what we're concluding from whatever facts we
find [00:34:00] if it's something that is an active litigation situation. If it's something that's not an
active litigation but has the potential and we should start knowing when we start getting certain facts,
I would think that before we make a conclusion as a commission, we would involve the city attorney's
office and say, [LAUGHTER] before we step into this, this is what is coming up and having an active.
[00:34:31]
I just have to push back against that because that's the opposite of what we're here for. I mean, I
really want to know you are doing your job. You're telling us what could happen, but are you telling us
we can't do any of this? What are you saying we can do and what we can't do?
[00:34:47]
Well, before you answer that. Before he answers that.
[00:34:50]
Okay.
[00:34:50]
But I don't know if you want him to answer that quite yet.
[00:34:54]
Okay.
[00:34:55]
But let me just ask you all just to consider because this gets into our recommendations [00:35:00]
that we're going to make. But the question really is, is the commission the way that it is currently
[OVERLAPPING] operating under the guidance of the city council able to provide the full truth,
unadulterated. The attorney has traditionally provided us information about how to manage risk in
these situations, and I would assume he will continue to provide us guidance about managing the risk
for the city, which for us is us. But the work we're doing is deeper than that. Do you understand what
I'm saying? So [00:36:00] we have to think through what we're trying to do, even when it comes to the
recommendation and how we continue to move forward. The only thing I would have you to think of
Facebook and all these technological companies got on TV to talk to the Congress about their systems
which are designed to keep people to continue to use and watch their systems. The Congress was
saying, but some of these are addictive. Some of these are creating behaviors and you all aren't doing
enough to monitor it. They're saying, hey, we're doing stuff, but they also have a responsibility to
their shareholders. So they're only going to do so much. How does one solve the problem when it's in
conflict with who it's supposed to be able to support?
[00:36:55]
I got a quick question. We can just resign and still support it, correct? And there would be no issue.
[00:37:00]
I'm sorry, I missed your question.
[00:37:02]
We could just resign from the commission and still support. Correct or no? Are we just not allowed to?
[00:37:11]
You certainly would be allowed to do that. That's certainly not what I'm encouraging you to do.
[00:37:17]
Just if something that you really believe in and you feel like it's now contradicting and getting in a
way, then that is something that you can easily do.
[00:37:28]
You mean as a commissioner.
[00:37:29]
Yeah.
[00:37:29]
Sorry. Well, I don't want to tell
[00:37:32]
a commissioner what to do.
[00:37:34]
It's not telling him what to do, it's just clarification on our rights.
[00:37:39]
Sure. If you are no longer a city official and no longer involved as a commissioner in the work of the
TFC, you are free to do whatever you want. The city would have no control over what you say or do.
That's certainly true if that's your question. Circling back to the more general principle. To get back to
Doctor Schooler's question, I think [00:38:00] it's the question is more about the difference between
listening and/or commissioner Merritt touched on this. We do have folks who show up at city council
meetings and speak for up to three minutes at a time about any topic they wish, and at the end, the
Mayor says thank you and welcome to the next person. If you were to do something similar to that, I
would have no concerns whatsoever whether you make your own conclusions, make your own factual
findings and so forth. And then place a flag, take a side make a legal conclusion or even a factual
conclusion that is at risk. It's at risk whether you're talking about allegations against the city, when I
think you would be a highly valued witness for plaintiffs, or even against private individuals or private
entities who might be interested in pursuing defamation claims. We've talked about that in past.
[00:39:00] Or if the allegation well, or whether you would be valuable as a witness in support of the
plaintiff's claims in those cases too. If you've independently investigated and made your conclusion
that whatever illegal discrimination has taken place, I could easily imagine you being attractive
witnesses for that.
[00:39:24]
Can I just follow up quickly if, in some sense none of us on this Commission are experts. We've all
been brought together. We all have fair degrees of integrity. We've been asked to do a job when we
go through the process of truth telling and fact finding and all that. No one here is a professional
researcher, investigator. No one here is a professional attorney. There's no legal process here. We're
listening, [00:40:00] we've got some information from consultants and we're putting together a report
that will go back to the city. Then something else will happen after that. What I'm struggling with is
that why would we be great witnesses? Because if I was someone who wanted a great witness, I
would get an expert witness who would get on the stand, who would say things like, I've done
research on racial discrimination for the past 40 years and there's a lot of it going on in Iowa City and I
can swear to God. That's not here. We're not following up with the individuals who would talk to us to
verify in some legal sense that they are telling us the truth. We're accepting what they're telling us
because you want to know what they're feeling, what they believe, and we're documenting that.
[00:40:56]
That's good for me to understand. I wasn't really sure whether [00:41:00] you would be investigating
or looking into the claims or if you just take everything at face value you presented and pass it on. Is
that kind of the ladder?
[00:41:10]
I think I've never heard us talk about following up with a particular individual to do anything.
[00:41:18]
I think the follow up would be led by the public. We would provide our healing circles as one form of
reconciliation, but part of our recommendations might be like, this is what we've heard, this is what
people want, our strategic doing sessions like that could be a follow up to anything that's heard,
where people come and brainstorm. That's the extent that I see it as of right now.
[00:41:45]
I don't think there's going to be an issue with truth telling. I think that fact finding could be a problem
because I guess I view us looking at data objectively and gathering data objectively. Now, if it turns
out that it doesn't look good [00:42:00] for the city, then I don't really know what to do about that. So
I think that to me, would be problematic. I don't know if necessarily they could put us on the stand,
but it's going to be, well, this is data that we found. We're not investigating the city, we're just
gathering data. Does that make sense?
[00:42:20]
But we are investigating in some situations.
[00:42:23]
Are we?
[00:42:25]
Let me, and I think this is probably the closest example in the state of Iowa, the city of Davenport. I at
one time served as an affirmative action officer for the city of Davenport. In that role, we conducted a
disparity study, which to my knowledge, is the only study of that nature that has been done in the
state since and had been done before. In that, speaking in affirmative action language, it was also
very precarious for the city because part of being [00:43:00] able to take on affirmative actions,
particularly race conscious programming, the city had to basically say that they had played a role in
some form of, we used the word market failure, or basically discrimination in the marketplace and
that the city knowingly or unknowingly had participated in that. There was some openness to some
liabilities to be able to do some extraordinary programming. We had an affirmative action committee.
They did not take live testimony, so that's one thing that is different. But there was a consultant that
did gather information. I like that we're starting to move to the words recommendation and not
conclusion, because that was one of the things you didn't want to draw conclusions, but we certainly
could and did make recommendations. [00:44:00] So an example, although the Affirmative Action
Committee had listened to tons of testimony from small business contractors about their experiences
in the construction industry, and often names were being used in specifics and the recommendations
is very general. So an example, if I couldn't get a loan from Wells Fargo, for example, there was no
recommendation that says work with Wells Fargo to improve whatever, whatever. But there was
language like create small business programming, those kind of things that will assess small business
with capital, whatever, those things. I say that study right now is available on the status of African
Commission at the state level because the [00:45:00] state participated in the funding of that study
and you can just go there and look at how those recommendations were laid out, the resources, the
quantitative and qualitative data gathering that was used in that study and just look how that was
handled. I would just say gathering words like gathering, no problem interpreting and concluding, I
think is where the city attorney is saying that that could be problematic. Making recommendations on
the information that's been gathered is what I think your purview will be.
[00:45:47]
I think it's always been my understanding that you folks are more interested in the systemic than the
individual case and that's where I think the value of [00:46:00] your conclusion can really lie. That is,
if you have a bunch of folks to come in and say, I've been discriminated against in finding work,
particularly in this industry or that industry or something. Then I could easily imagine you folks
concluding, well, based on what we've heard from people who appeared before us, we found it
difficult for people of color to get jobs in the restaurant industry. Let's just say, whatever it is. I don't
have many concerns about that because it would be hard for any single plaintiff to pull up, and the
TRC concludes that all restaurants are racist. Well, that's not really what you guys said. Certainly
there are exceptions to every rule. I'm not so worried about that. Commissioner Crips, you mentioned
that you're talking about objective data. Well, my
[00:46:50]
understanding is that much of what you're going to
[00:46:51]
do is hear people's subjective truth. Those are not the same, of course, a large part of what we do is
we deal with [00:47:00] claims all the time, and then we investigate the claims and find maybe they're
frivolous, maybe they're not, maybe they have merit. But we, of course, can't just take everything as
truth.
[00:47:13]
So there two separate pieces? There's truth telling with the people and the data collection is the fact
finding. So it's not all one thing, just to clarify,.
[00:47:25]
So if your conclusions and the end report are based on your fact finding and the objective data that
you gather and so forth, that's great. Frankly, whether the targets or the conclusions are the city or
other fields. Again, for the defamation reasons I've described previously, I'd be concerned to use
Redmond's example if you concluded that Wells Fargo? I'm not saying that Wells Fargo or an
individual, [00:48:00] Joe Blow, is a terrible human being for these reasons. But if it's about systems
and broad business fields or just the difficulties that folks have navigating, government or whatever,
I'm less concerned about that.
[00:48:22]
So there are two additional questions and I'd like to.
[00:48:25]
May I jump in before we go to the other thing, Commissioner Chad?
[00:48:31]
Yeah, Mr. Gores, I think we've really tried to keep with the language of the TRC, the resolution that
constituted the TRC.
[00:48:45]
The words I've also been hearing from even Dr. Schooler and Eduardo is reports from the fact finding
and truth telling and then also the wording [00:49:00] of providing recommendations at the end.
Actually, this is the first time I've had conclusions from you. From the resolution, there hadn't been
conclusions. It's providing recommendations at the end of it. But as you talked when you talked about
writing, after listening something written, I was feeling, was this a set up? The city set up the
resolution appointed which created a commissioners, and then that puts you in some point where you
are in danger subpoenaed, but the language and the language that we've used all along are those of
the resolution [00:50:00] ending with providing recommendations to the City Council.
[00:50:07]
I'm looking at paragraph 14 of the resolution. Maybe that's what you're looking at too.
[00:50:11]
The summary on these which we've been working with, since the constitution of the TRC.
[00:50:21]
Recommendations to City Council for Institutional Policy reforms and systemic racism opportunities. I
don't have any problems with these things. I think these are fine. I hear what you're saying, that I've
used the word conclusion, and either that's maybe different than what you folks were planning on to,
which I say great because I was a little fearful that you folks might take the truth, and submit them in
a conclusory fashion in which some, maybe deliberately or inadvertently would take them to be
[00:51:00] findings of objective, and well investigated truths or facts, and that would be used against
you or the entity against whom the allegations have been made, and that's when you would be
attractive witnesses, perhaps for those plaintiffs. But yes, if you stick to the resolution language about
making recommendations, and describing opportunities and measures to enhance the autonomy,
security, and sovereignty of communities of color and mitigate disparities, I have no problems with
any of those things. I think those are all fine.
[00:51:32]
I think that's what Commissioner Louis was referring to saying we are not experts, so the City went
with our recommendation and we have facilitators who are especially led by Doctor Gonzalez and
Doctor Schooler and those teams who are experts in the fact finding and truth [00:52:00] telling and
the language of the final report. At some point, it's something I'm interested in, in also how to write
the recommendations in a way that we don't end up putting ourselves into, like you said, having to
swear into a space like that or being subpoenaed.
[00:52:27]
I understood the question from Commissioner Tassinary about, well, good heavens, we're not PhDs
and I don't know even what the right field would be, why would we be considered experts? I think the
answer is twofold. One, you're free frankly, and two, particularly if the material sought in the
subpoena is against the city, you would be attractive as witnesses against interests. That's a legal
term. It's actually a hearsay exception. Good heavens. If someone actually says something against
their own penal [00:53:00] interest, they must be telling the truth. Because why would they say that?
Otherwise, your city officials, if you say something against the city, good heavens, why would you say
that? Unless it was rooted in truth and you believed it, and it was well researched. Those are the
reasons I think you folks would be attractive witnesses, particularly in claims against the City.
[00:53:21]
The other thing between this meeting and our last meeting, we did get asked for notes after the
preliminary fact finding presentations. I just thought about that in connection with everything that
you're saying. We did get asked for any notes or if you didn't make any notes to say so.
[00:53:43]
Those notes were requested by the attorney of someone who is suing the city. Since those are open
records, we have to comply. But that's a flavor, that's a little taste of what might come.
[00:53:59]
I'm [00:54:00] thinking we should have had Mr. Gores here, right at the very beginning. Before we
begin, I'm not saying I'm running for the heels, but I would really have up. It's beginning to feel like
that.
[00:54:17]
That Chad was going to say something.
[00:54:21]
The rest of the hypothetical was it said, if we are to doing our work of fact, finding the truth telling,
and going through our process, if we are to write notes and we are to have notes because we're going
to have conversations about who we want to choose and the individuals who we have written notes
about based on them going through our process, sue us in the situation I've said. Then all of those
notes that we have in essence they could be requested by the attorney in essence for them to have
access to that. Would that be accurate?
[00:54:54]
They could be requested by anyone. Those would be open records unless they fall under some
exception that it's not [00:55:00] immediately apparent to me.
[00:55:01]
Thank you. Mr. Jones, the question for you then is that when Davenport did their report, who was
responsible for putting the document together and presenting it?
[00:55:14]
It was the consultant that was hired. Yes.
[00:55:18]
Thank you. The challenges that we have in our situation is that we do not have coverage, we do not
have protection because we are a part of the city. The work has to be done within the community. It
has to be done within organizations like WACP or other organizations where they, in essence, can
have the type of conversations and the truth telling and the fact finding they don't put them in
essence at risk.
[00:55:43]
We put ourselves the way we're structured right now, we put ourselves at risk. But I don't worry about
us so much, because we're not going to create the type of revolution, we're going to have to have
problems. What I am saying for us is, is that when we think about our [00:56:00] march experience of
what we're trying to put together, it's probably best and we're not the ones who are actually running
it, that we're coordinating and giving guidance. But that we actually we have community partners
that are part of actually doing the work. That is where I think that we should be working on. The
consultants is supposedly working on the process of making sure everything is fine. But when we start
pulling people together to have these conversations, it should be these organizations that have
investigators that have people that can do that, so that we're not put in situations where we're being
requested to ask for certain things.
[00:56:40]
Then ultimately as the Commission certain recommendations, we can come from that and ask maybe
more training in this area.
[00:56:49]
More training in these area, or based on the information that they've given us. Here's what they're
saying, here's what the organization is saying to us, where here's where some of the things that we
[00:57:00] need to be able to work on.
[00:57:01]
Exactly.
[00:57:02]
Excuse me. I haven't talked for a while and I just need an opportunity here.
[00:57:09]
As when you guys started the commission, I'm going through the training. One key thing that I picked
from Doctor Gonzalez was that we are not an investigative body. That was key to me. So any moment
we are partnering with any organization which is involved in investigation, it is we who are putting our
legs where they should not be. We are trapping into other areas. We are setting ourselves for trouble
intentionally and volunteer. The key thing we avoid that. We work with people where can we just get
information. But when we start working with maybe NWACP and they're engaging that, we are now
just killing ourselves. But we can probably get information from them that is useful to us. They have a
lot of data also on patterns, but not maybe [00:58:00] we're working with this individual, we want to
bring him or her to the commission to get. That's my key. Another question, this is the only
opportunity then the tone is here today. You rarely come in here. Very good you're here today. You
can help me answer this, probably part of the answer might come for you, part of it might come from
the consultants. We are going to be engaged with the gate keepers commissioner Simmons talked
about. They're very powerful people. They can easily say that dialogue we want with that, that
discussion we want with that, we are not going to do it. We feel it is a very sensitive area we want to
hear from them. They made a decision somewhere, a public policy decision, systematic decision, not
as an individual. How do we do that? How much power do we have? What are the protocols we're
going to use to probably be successful in that endeavor because I believe that endeavor is provided
for in our roles here.
[00:59:00]
I want to make sure I understand your question. What power do you as a commission have to criticize
systems or to advocate for change in systems within Iowa City. Am I understanding your question
correctly?
[00:59:16]
At the end we might criticize that, but we are talking to gain information from some power bodies,
authorities, let's say somebody in charge of a banking system. We just want to talk, we want to know
how well do you work with our people when it comes to giving mortgage loans, other things like that?
Are you making some effort? Just in a good gesture. We are not even accusing them. Then I was
asking, what are the right good protocols? I've not received that from the consultants. I asked that
question from the other side. But now probably I'm going to insist if there is or it is just an open thing.
I just decide as a Commissioner, I'm going to walk there and ask them.
[00:59:58]
This commission does not have [01:00:00] subpoena power. For example, if you wanted to get
information from banks to use your example, you could certainly ask them for data on their loans and
loan applications or whatever it is that you're seeking from them, but you would not have the power
to compel them to give it to you if that's your question. Certainly you could look for what data is filed
in SEC filings and other national level documents to see if you could gather their loan practices from
that other information. Maybe that's the data gathering that Commissioner Crips was talking about.
But if your question is could you go to banks or any other I think you characterized as powerful
entities in the city and demand of them information, I think the answer is no. You do not have
subpoena power.
[01:00:57]
When they say they are not willing to discuss we just leave [01:01:00] them alone. What if that person
is within or department is within the city? I'll give an example. I'm not saying that we're going to do
that. Maybe a commissioner of the police. There are some good things that they've done in the
community, a lot of changes that they made that are really been useful. I've lived here for 34 years so
I know where we started from. I know the good things that have happened around in here. Some
might be lingering. We might want to talk to him, whereas we see their visions, how well the
improvements are being made. That is good. It assures the community that somebody is really
thinking of good stuff for us, so we can do that. Is it that going to be very difficult to talk to a
Commissioner and what if he or she decides no? I'm not.
[01:01:49]
When you say talk to a commissioner, do you mean talk to.
[01:01:51]
Sorry, the Police commissioner?
[01:01:53]
Police Chief.
[01:01:54]
Chief yes.
[01:01:55]
You guys are commissioners. I'm sorry. That's why.
[01:01:59]
Do you [01:02:00] have the power to compel the Police Chief to answer your questions? No, you do
not. Is it likely that the Police Chief would be willing to cooperate with you and answer your questions?
I think yes. But you can't force him to, I don't want to put him on the spot, any other department to
give you data short of or to answer your question I should say, because of course, commissioners like
any member of the public can ask for open records and if there's data that's being kept on that, our
police department, for example, already keeps track of stops by race and look for disparate impact
and disparities and stops and so forth. That kind of thing we're already keeping track of. Certainly I'm
sure he would gladly give you that information because he'd give it to anyone who asked. But if your
question is, can you force the chief of police or any other department head to answer your questions,
the answer is no.
[01:02:57]
The final one. [01:03:00] In the event that I'm engaged in this exercise of trying to gain some
information and I'm getting a lot of a pattern rejections.
[01:03:07]
Of what sir?
[01:03:08]
A pattern in which the persons I'm trying to talk to are not willing to talk to me. Can I put that in the
final report, that these are the people we try to talk to and this is their response, this was their
perspective, this is how they look at things they do not want to share or of a dialogue with us. We are
still in trouble even though we're trying to make a change. They are not very open. We're working
towards tooth and reconciliation and they already put bridges on us. Can I put that in a
recommendation because I might start taking statistics on. I go to the school district, I go to this
place, this place. I'm trying to talk and they're saying, no, we don't have time. I will be recording that.
[01:03:52]
Yes.
[01:03:52]
Can I put that in the final recommendation?
[01:03:57]
Yes. You could absolutely report the answers [01:04:00] that you got from anyone you asked for.
[01:04:03]
Rejections and acceptance.
[01:04:05]
Sure. If you approach folks and they are not willing to engage with you, can you report that they
refused to engage with you?
[01:04:13]
Yes.
[01:04:14]
Thanks. Commissioner Johnson, is there any way to compel them?
[01:04:19]
To compel City Department heads?
[01:04:22]
Anybody. If you're trying to get information and they're withholding it and it's important information
to make change, is there any way to apply any pressure?
[01:04:32]
Yes. You could talk to the city manager or the Mayor to try to. The Mayor only in that he's the
representative of the city council. But the city manager directs almost all staff. I say almost because
outside of his chain of command is the City Clerk's Office, the City Attorney's Office, the library and
the airport. [01:05:00] Those entities all have a different chain of command, but everyone else
answers to the City Manager so if you can get the City Manager to come around to your where you're
thinking, then you'll get the information.
[01:05:15]
I see that Leo has his hand up. Did you want to say something, Leo?
[01:05:21]
Yes, thank you. I just want to provide a little bit of clarity and hopefully get us grounded into the main
focus, the mandate of this commission. You have fact finding, truth telling and reconciliation with the
healing circles. The purpose of the charge of this commission is to gather voices, uplift the voices of
community members and through the recorded hearings that will generate transcript and then you
then code the transcripts to [01:06:00] uplift different recurring themes that come out. Then you write
the report, discerning recommendations based upon the truths that were shared and then you submit
that report. So it's really easy to get stuck in the fear based hypotheticals on what if, what could be
and so it's important to remain grounded in this three part charge for the commission of fact finding,
truth telling and healing circles, reconciliation and you will be receiving the updates in later agenda
items. I just really want to encourage us to come back to that point that the recommendations are
going to be coming from the voices of the people. Through the truth telling hearings that will be
replicated according to the discretion of this commission, it will be uplifting the voice of community
members, collecting that testimony, highlighting themes and connections, sharing those findings and
[01:07:00] recommendations based on those findings to the city. To Commissioner Simmons' point of
protecting potential truth tellers, that will likely also come up later as well of utilizing community
partnerships. Partnering with community organizations because it's not an investigative process. I
also want to circle back there, pull the investigation word out of this. This is not a carceral body. This
is not an investigative process that through this, you are the community partners if this is the
pathway that the commission wants to take, then community partner organizations would be going to
hear people. So as the pre hearings, the prep work, the conversations before the truth down hearings
are for development of trust and fielding questions, answering whatever concerns
[01:07:56]
potential truth tellers might have,
[01:07:58]
sharing what protective [01:08:00] mechanisms there are going to be for that hearing so that people
can know that they will be welcomed, they will be held, they will be heard and their voices will be
uplifted. It's not a matter of an investigation happening beforehand, but making sure that potential
truth tellers are best prepared and comforted in preparation for the actual hearing itself.
[01:08:27]
Thank you.
[01:08:32]
Just a couple more follow ups, a little bit different. To go back to the issue of what has to be revealed
through Freedom of Information Act requests. I was somewhat surprised when I was asked for my
notes. The reason I was surprised is that I'd spent a long time in academia at a state institution, and
we [01:09:00] would do lots of confidential things related to hiring, and tenured decisions, and
everything else. It was always the ruling that came from those attorneys that until we put together
the final report, the final document for a tenured decision or a hiring decision, these were all working
documents. They were not available to anybody at any time, and we were free to erase those until we
produced the report that was to be released. Why is this so different?
[01:09:39]
So there are about 75, and I mean that literally about 75 exceptions in Chapter 22.7 for confidential
records. What may have applied in academia, or anything involving student records. You mentioned
about evaluations of other faculty or staff. I can't remember the phrasing you used, but that would be
related [01:10:00] to a personnel decision, also protected. You've mentioned draft documents also
protected. If there are draft versions of something that will eventually become a final version and
then the final version is put forth, that needs to be made public. The problem with your notes is you're
probably not making a final copy of your notes. Those notes are, that's final. You're not working on
improving the notes from the February 15 meeting of the TRC Commission. Those are what they are.
So when we got that request and we've gotten, 23 or 24 requests from that particular attorney
representing that particular client. We go through every time and look to see what's responsive and
what is protected as confidential and what's not. Upon that request, we concluded that no, those
notes would be fair game. We sent out the request.
[01:10:57]
It's because that they're considered to be the final [01:11:00] version of themselves.
[01:11:01]
Right.
[01:11:02]
I got that. The next question I had is, you talked earlier about some issues that came up with respect
to excluding people based on race. But I want to be clear. There's nothing that would prevent us as a
commission. If there's someone who comes forth and wants to tell their truth, and they said I feel
totally uncomfortable with Commissioner Tassinary being here. He doesn't look like me. He doesn't
sound like me. For me then saying, I'm okay with that. I can leave for this. There's nothing that
prevents that?
[01:11:41]
No. If that's your choice and the only hesitation I have is I don't know what follows. For example, if
that's a city council meeting item and someone were to come forth and say, hey, I'm not comfortable
[01:12:00] with council member Tassinary being present because of his race. You say, okay, I
understand. You would be able to speak your truth and you leave. That's fine. But then is the city
council going to be voting on this issue based on what this gentleman just said?
[01:12:14]
I completely understand. This is in the context of truth telling, and trying to create a safe space so
that somebody can tell their truth.
[01:12:24]
Yes. In that circumstance, you can absolutely just step out. That's your choice. I'm speaking more
about whether you could be forced out. In my answer, that's no.
[01:12:35]
I know. I understand that part. I just wanted to make sure that as long as that it's still possible for me
to make the decision.
[01:12:43]
Yes.
[01:12:43]
Can I ask a question on that? If we switch it from race to gender, is there a different rule? I know that
Eduardo gave us an example where in other past, there had been truth telling, and it was sensitive to,
I'm just going to say issues of rape or something like that, [01:13:00] and a woman would come and
say, I'm not comfortable with men being in the room. So could we force men to leave?
[01:13:07]
My answer would remain the same based on any protected class you were to give me.
[01:13:12]
Even if it would create a safe space, which is what we're tasked to do, we're not allowed to protect
the people that we're supposed to serve.
[01:13:19]
I would phrase it in the opposite way. I would say you're not allowed to discriminate based on a
protected class.
[01:13:26]
But we could make the decision?
[01:13:29]
Voluntarily, yes.
[01:13:33]
They can ask anything.
[01:13:34]
But that's just us. If there's anyone in the room, we couldn't say the same thing to them.
[01:13:44]
You can ask if they want to voluntarily leave.
[01:13:48]
But what if they?
[01:13:49]
Well, that gets a little touchy. That is, if you have someone come forth and to use your example, a
tear dealer, someone who wants to talk about an experience [01:14:00] of rape, and they say, good
heavens, I'm looking around this room, there are lots of men present. I'm really uncomfortable with
that. I sure would appreciate if all the men present would get up and leave during my testimony. If the
men choose to do so voluntarily, great. I hear what you were saying, Commissioner Merritt, about
saying well, you don't have to, gentlemen in the room leave. But if you suggest it, then that really
feels governmental action to exclude based on a protected class. So I would not do that. I would let
the person's request speak for itself.
[01:14:40]
Could we get up the leave. I can get up and move to a different space with that person. If they said
they were uncomfortable, could we do that?
[01:14:48]
Oh, and then do the work somewhere else? Is that what you mean?
[01:14:52]
Well, hypothetically, let's say we have everything else is in place to make sure that we're following
[01:15:00] the rules.
[01:15:01]
Open meetings, yeah.
[01:15:02]
Could we get up and go to a different space? Would that be possible?
[01:15:04]
Assuming that would not violate open meetings rules. That's a pretty significant cat guys. Then sure.
The only other hesitation, because there's more just did you take a quorum to a private setting? But
also did you notice up a meeting that's going to take place here and now it's not here, now it's in the
Dale Helen conference room, or something like that. Assuming you no longer have an open meeting,
you don't have a quorum of members talking about business that's been noticed up. Then sure. If you
folks have set it up such a listening post, if you will, there's going to be three or two commissioners
here, and two or three commissioners here, and two of them are men and one of them is women,
sticking with your hypothetical. The person comes forth and says, boy, I'd really like to do this without
any men present. Then [01:16:00] could the female commissioner go with that other person? Sure.
Elsewhere? Yeah.
[01:16:06]
Doctor Schooler.
[01:16:08]
I only want to mention, and this may be better for Leo or Dr. Salazar, Melinda Salazar to speak to. But
I would just say that it's important to remember for the attorney and for others, that the truth telling
can be both public and privately conducted and received. We've been talking a lot about public
events at which people speak their truth. The think piece folks who are helping the TRC get ready for
truth telling events have envisioned a significant process that leads up to them testifying publicly. But
in most TRC cases, a lot of testimony is gathered privately, whether by a staff member of the TRC, or
a TRC commissioner, or a community volunteer, or what have you. We're spending a lot of time
thinking about circumstances in which testimony is given [01:17:00] publicly, and I just want to make
sure that we understand that you all could decide to receive a lot of your testimony in another way.
I'll just leave it at that. I don't want to belabor it, but it is important to understand the distinction
between public hearings and privately given testimony.
[01:17:21]
I also think that as a commission, we would have a duty to anybody who is going to provide a public
truth, the expectations of the environment, and what they could potentially have, so they're prepared
as much as possible. I don't think that it would be good of us to know if somebody is coming to give
some truth and knowing that the potential trigger might even be in the room kind of thing. We
wouldn't be doing our service of something in that environment.
[01:18:00] [01:18:01]
Agreed.
[01:18:04]
Needs a hand up, Leo. Oh, go ahead, Leo.
[01:18:10]
Thank you. I just wanted to flag that we do have the update which for the concept note as well as the
truth telling hearings manual that will directly breaks down step-by-step what needs to happen in
preparation for the hearings. I believe that a lot of the concerns that are being raised at this moment
will be addressed later.
[01:18:36]
Thank you, further reminder. Do we have any more questions or concerns to discuss with City
Attorney, or thoughts?
[01:18:53]
Thank you. I really appreciate your comment. I know that you have a very busy schedule, but it was
very much needed. Thank you.
[01:19:00]
Yes, thank you.
[01:19:01]
Thank you.
[01:19:01]
Thank you very much.
[01:19:02]
Thank you. Also you made my thoughts go to the direction, might I need some legal insurance at
some point down the line? Thank you.
[01:19:14]
Thank you. Do we have any further discussion amongst ourselves on this?
[01:19:28]
Oh, are you still thinking?
[01:19:31]
I am thinking, yes. I just thinking I want us to be careful. That's all.
[01:19:40]
Okay.
[01:19:44]
I want us to be careful anything that we are deciding and the way we want to go about things can be
used on the flip side, and I'm just I'm thinking about [01:20:00] that. That's all so before I make any
more comment, I would like to thank you all.
[01:20:05]
Anyone else have any other comment on this before I move on to the next agenda item?
[01:20:11]
I do think we do need to have some further discussion about reconciliation. I don't think we're on the
same page.
[01:20:17]
You want to do that now? Would you like to talk about that?
[01:20:19]
We can wait. We have an agenda and I'm totally fine just waiting. But I do think that we're not on the
same page. If I'm not on the page that many of you all are, I do not believe just having a listening to
people's story or allowing people to speak and tell their truth is sufficient and will meet the needs.
[01:20:47]
Stefanie. For the next meeting, we'll have an agenda item. That'll be discussion further on
reconciliation.
[01:20:58]
Please.
[01:20:58]
I think that's appropriate.
[01:21:00]
Yeah, I mean, you know, I think it would probably be okay under item 12.
[01:21:08]
Under item?
[01:21:09]
What it has to do with phase 2 which is coming.
[01:21:12]
We can come back to it on item 12. Is there anyone else?
[01:21:17]
Yeah. Just on agenda 6 because it was bringing up the issue of racial preferences. I'm just sitting and
wondering whether the dynamics changed when we got a Caucasian commissioner. Whether the
dynamics change and also a change in a negative way for the work that we are doing, [01:22:00] and
I still continue being curious and wondering as we move forward, especially when we come to public
hearings, and I'm thinking I'm getting ahead as far as that is concerned, whether Leo and his team,
we'll address that those are impacted negatively by the presence of symbolism of the racial
discrimination or racial social injustice that we the Commission is made for making better. I just
wonder whether the work is made much more difficult in any way. Those are the thoughts that have
been running my [01:23:00] mind since that happened. Even for ourselves. There is a challenge I
yield.
[01:23:12]
Any other thoughts?
[01:23:14]
I'm going to go I felt uncomfortable when we went anywhere near excluding people out. I had a real
problem with that because it goes back to me thinking, okay, what if this was flipped on the other
end. Now there's a group of a bunch of white people who decided to say, well, I'm not allowed to come
to something because I'm who I am that feels super uncomfortable, and I feel like that is exactly the
wrong way. If we're not careful on how we are managing things, then we are almost shooting
ourselves in the foot. That's how I felt about it to exclude anybody. That's why this is supposed to be
uniting people together, no matter who they are, where they're from, or anything like that, because
truth is universal and uncomfortable. We [01:24:00] already knew this was going to be uncomfortable.
But to start saying, well, I don't feel comfortable because this person's here. I don't feel comfortable
because this person's here. Well, we're going to be uncomfortable. But if we do that, we are giving
power to somebody else doing the exact same thing back, and to me that's super worrisome. I don't
know that's what's been struggling around my head. Even way back then. It was and now I'm like I'm
hearing this and I hear what he's saying about. Well, no, you can't because if you do certain things,
you're excluding people out and that can be a problem. Well, we really got to walk in delicate line
that, because I feel like that is the biggest pathway of okay, now the opposite side is deciding to say
this, and now they're going to play that game that could get ugly quick. Truth is hard, but us talking
together and [01:25:00] persevering through it will be better than saying, well, I don't feel
comfortable with this person being here because of this, and that and the third, that's just my own
personal opinion. That's what I'm struggling with. Definitely open area thoughts.
[01:25:13]
I have thoughts, I hear what you're saying and I understand where you're coming from and it makes
perfect sense. Also, I don't look at it as excluding people. The way I look at it personally is giving
space for people who have historically, for hundreds of years, been excluded. It'd be really cool if
people just would respect that space for that person. I don't know how to work around that because I
understand what you're saying. We're like if we were to just say, y'all got to go and at the same time,
how do we hold space for that person who may have been [01:26:00] traumatized and don't? It'd be
like dealing with an abuse victim and then we're like, you have to go in the room with your abuser.
Like, you know what I mean? I know that's kind of a apples and oranges, but not really somewhat of a
similar, there's power structures involved, and so it's not we're kicking them out of their home and
running their family out of town. We're just asking for space for people to tell their stories. But I also
definitely, we want to bring everyone forward. We don't want to say we're lifting up certain people
and leaving others behind. Is that what you're saying?
[01:26:42]
One thing and aren't we the comfort blanket aren't we the people to make sure that they feel
comfortable and they can come and speak. Then we have people who are involved that can help
them further feel that comfort, even if they're adversary is in the same vicinity, [01:27:00] they
should be able to come here and feel comfortable with us and speak freely. But my fear is that once
again, if that is flipped onto the opposite end, like let's say you have the good people and then you
have the bad people. If the bad people are deciding to do that again or do the same thing, then then
we really got a problem. Because now we are losing a voice and that's how they're going to look at it,
and they can use that to flip it back at us. That's the way. We're just using good, bad people to make
it very simple.
[01:27:35]
I think there's two things. There's one of providing the safe space for them to tell their truth and if that
requires a specific environment. But once they've told the truth, then we are the voice to tell what
their truth is. We divide the space of whatever where it's safe for them to provide it. We take that
information and then we [01:28:00] send out the message. Then we are the messenger.
[01:28:05]
Another thing I was just thinking, when you were talking. There are truth telling situations in which
people are going to tell us truth. Maybe one on one or maybe two Commissioners go into the
community and speak with people. From what I understand that it's not public record because it's not
a quorum, it's not a meeting we're talking about people.
[01:28:33]
Anything that's written and recorded can be subpoenaed at any time.
[01:28:41]
If they were to request women come out into the community, so you and I could go to that person for
example, we could have a conversation. We're not excluding people, they've simply requested
women show up, and so we're going to go. Now when it comes to the public hearings, when
[01:29:00] we're vetting our people for the public hearings, we can disclose to them. Again, just
giving an example, you may feel uncomfortable around white bodies. White bodies are going to be
there, they're going to be speaking, we can disclose that, and then they can then say, well, I'm out. Or
they could say I'm in.
[01:29:26]
But again, they don't have to be the one to provide the information in the public setting, and I think
it's going to get touched on later is that there's many ways to provide the truth and then different
avenues to get the message out. The end result is still the same, it's just that the methods can be
done differently.
[01:29:49]
That's a good point. You have more. Cliff, I see you thinking.
[01:30:00] [01:30:02]
Anyone else?
[01:30:03]
Yes, on the Cliff's point, I just want to note that we might be creating ourselves other problems on the
way. There's some forms of information, like the example I gave when the attorney was here, where
information is going to come from people who are not looking like us. They might be the ones who
hold that information and so yes, the case we don't want to really want to be engaged with them
either as Commissioners or as other bodies we're partnering with. We will really be getting into a lot
of selection procedures which are probably just creating problems, and defeats the purpose of the
commission, and one of them is healing and reconciliation. If we can't even show that we're willing to
dialogue with people who maybe having information could be white people, heads of departments,
and probably the information [01:31:00] they have could be helpful to us, not that we are telling them
that they've done a bad thing. They're just telling us, it could be within the University of Iowa, there is
a department there doing evolutions of professors. This is something I've heard myself from, or some
professors who are minorities that probably when it comes to counseling, advising students, students
have problems with how those resources are allocated, they are not comfortable with some people.
But then we also have a situation where we might find student evaluations. We have minority
professors in here and the student evaluations, the majority of the students are white. What if the
situation where some faculty fall in the holes, black minority fall just because of student evaluations?
One professor told me one time all this, I'm grading, getting a five out of six and I'm really scared
because of students. What if the university puts more weight to that, and not considering that the
students interests. The person who we're going to talk to, [01:32:00] what conductors give us the
data, it's going to be probably somebody who is not like me. Probably more likely and the university
to agree to do that for us we have to talk with those people to protect the faculty that are minorities.
At that time, I felt really free to talk to somebody who's not like me because that person is really
helping me. Either in the Commission here or out in the community. I thought we closed this chapter
when Commissioner Tassinary came the day you gave a good speech. I do not feel like we need to be
going back. Think we are round and round again. To me this is personal. I feel like we should be
inclusive and that's the voice I'm bringing here today again. Because all of you gave your opinion
about that earlier that day today, and I was sitting on the other side and I want to give support to
that. I will accommodate [01:33:00] opinions engaging with other people, whatever. It is very painful,
even in the family I have kids who doesn't like one another and I can't choose, but they are the same
race same mother.
[01:33:14]
Cheers. I agree. I support that and I would like to hear from you, fellow Commissioner, on how you
might have felt in the situation that before. I mean, how did you felt? That's your truth as well too. I
understand that, this is so uncomfortable. This is one of those uncomfortable moments, don't mean to
put you on a spotlight. I felt like this has been festering around inside me. Because I am also a person
who definitely believes in inclusivity and making sure that everybody feels comfortable because I
understand what our job is. I understand what we're trying to go for, and I know exactly what we're
here to do. However, [01:34:00] there are a lot of people along the way that are not just, they are not
against you. There are people that can be used to help move a situation forward, and they might not
look exactly like you. I definitely know that. However, I don't like putting everybody in one category,
into another. Every time we start putting everybody in certain categories. That's how we got here, I
feel like in the first place. It just makes way more sense to understand that not everybody is the same
and some people can definitely have value, no matter who they are and their opinions, no matter how
different are helpful. Because we need as many people as possible to join in, on making things better.
[01:34:47]
I can't help myself in one sense, but look forward. That's just who I am constitutionally, but [01:35:00]
the past is huge and it has led to all kinds of things that create the current reality. As much as in my
head, I completely resonate what you're saying, Cliff. I also understand where other folks are coming
from. At least I try to. I just think to make this work, it takes all willing hands. I guess that's the best
way. That's the best way I can say it.
[01:35:44]
I agree. Good to go.
[01:35:48]
If there's no other comments looking at everyone, I'm going to move on to the next agenda item. But
first, I'm going to open it up to public comments. If there's anyone online that would like [01:36:00] to
comment on our agenda item number six that we just had, please raise your hand. If there's anyone
in the room, please come to the stand. Otherwise, I will move forward onto agenda item number
seven, Legislative update by Deputy City Manager. I know you've been waiting to give this discussion.
I'll let you go ahead and do it.
[01:36:27]
Ordinarily, having so many opportunities to come before you, this should be the most polished
presentation that I've ever given. But it's absolutely going to be just the opposite of that. Because
every time I came, I add more notes and I have so many notes on top of notes that is, I can't even
hardly understand what I was writing so if I'm kind of fumbling through some of these points, please
forgive. Because I'm trying to trace my train of thought through several [01:37:00] different weeks of
iterations. Anyway, I had brought this up as an issue primarily based on a lot of conversation that the
Commissioner has been having, particularly in the world of what the Commission might look like,
should work continue after December.
[01:37:28]
I was thinking along the lines of some areas where feedback or some functionality
[01:37:36]
could actually assist.
[01:37:38]
What the city is trying to do in one of those worlds is some of our legislative priorities, particularly in
the area of galvanizing community voices to try and influence the legislature. [01:38:00] I had some
experience in Davenport. We touched a little bit on it and frankly, there were laws that had gotten
created through that effort, particularly in the area of social justice, in the rural industry of
construction. That ultimately generated the state to break down large, big state contracts into smaller
contracts or smaller businesses can participate in some of DOT projects at the local level. No banking
was talked about. The city created something called a deposit link program which required banks that
have to do CRA [01:39:00] reporting to actually produce those reports to the city and have the city
compare that data to its corridors of which they wanted to invest in or be areas that were under-
invested or divested in through the lack of lending through mortgages as well as business loans and
things of that nature. All that conversation happened through engaging the legislative process, the
legal policy-making process. I've talked to folks that are very interested in social justice but wouldn't
spend a dime or a penny on the legal apparatus, [01:40:00] but I'm one of the folks that believe that
Brown versus education means something, that Civil Rights Act of 1964 means something, and that
some of the goals that I believe that I here resonate on the Commission can be achieved through the
legislative process. That's the reason why I suggested that. I spent a little time talking to the
Commission about what the city does in that area and just to plan to seed on how potentially the
Commission might view its role in assisting further some of the Council's strategic plan and I've spent
a little bit about what exactly that is and why that should be important for this Commission. With that
being said, [01:41:00] prior to every state legislative session, the City Council traditionally adopts,
through resolution, its set of legislative priorities. What goes into that is a number of things, but really
primarily is the city strategic plan and other city council priorities. I'm holding this up. You probably
have seen this colorful circle before. It's an illustration of the council's strategic plan this year is a
little bit different. It's the same topics, but the council thought it would be important to identify it
through values and impacts. Values that are [01:42:00] the pillars of the strategic plan. Racial equity,
social justice, and human rights leads the way in values followed by climate action and third would be
partnerships and engagement. Right off the top that feels like something that the Commission might
be interested in, obviously racial equity, social justice, human rights. That goes unsaid, but climate
action. I come from Cleveland, Ohio, where environmental racism was the topic when I was coming up
and how environmental rules weren't noticed or attempted to address in certain areas of the city and
that happened to be [01:43:00] those areas where a lot of minorities had lived. That over time, maybe
not on purpose, but that created situations
[01:43:12]
where health disparities
[01:43:15]
and other things would manifest itself. I think climate action certainly could be certainly part of that
and then partnerships and engagement, that's what we've been spending all of our time talking
about, those are the City Council's values. I sometimes wonder why there's so much of at least
perceived disconnection because on one time I spent tons of time with the City Council, really
painstaking developing these things, and they really believe these things, but yet in the community,
there seems to be a disconnect like they don't really want us to [01:44:00] be successful or those. I'm
quiet, I sit there and I like man, just like a disconnect. I just bring that up because I really believe and
I've been around the industry of city management for a while, so I get a chance to see a lot of city
councils. This is really a genuine, authentic council that wants to take on these issues. I think there's
different approaches, and we can all have different ways of how we think the best way to go about
that, but I think at the core, these values are shared. I think the Commission has an asset in the City
Council because of that. Then surrounding those values are impacts. Housing in neighborhoods really
big with the City Council. Affordable housing, if we had a nickel for every time those words [01:45:00]
were mentioned in the chambers, we probably could afford to buy tons of investment in affordable
housing because it's constantly spoke of mobility fare-free, that doesn't come overnight. That's
something that council is really strong about and I feel very confident even though we haven't figured
out how we're going to be paying for it after the pilot project, that there's going to be a way found
because I know it's that important. Safety and well-being. I know that's where we're talking about our
policing and community issues, and I know that's where there is constant discussion on how that goes
about and how that can be better, but we certainly have guide link, and those projects that aren't
reflective anywhere else in the states happening right here in Johnson County because I think there's
belief in these core values and then obviously economy is important, [01:46:00] which is a double sort
because everybody wants to move into Iowa City, that's why the prices are so high. Obviously, we're
doing something right, but now we've got to try and figure out that it should be open to everybody
and everybody at multiple different socioeconomic levels should be able to have and live Iowa City.
This is what is behind the legislative priorities. With that, I wanted to take a moment to go through
our legislative priorities. I want to go over them quickly, but I do want to spend some time in some
areas where I think definitely we can use some help and a group like this could certainly be helpful in
that area. With that being said, starts [01:47:00] off with strategic plan value. Then under that value,
there's a number of legislative priorities starting out with climate action.
[01:47:12]
Excuse me, Redmond, is there any way to get a visual or?
[01:47:17]
I didn't put one together but I can certainly get something to you. Absolutely, I sure can. Then also,
whatever I'm covering right now is old news because there's been a full resolution that has been
passed and this stuff is laid out, but I'll make sure that the Commission gets through the packet, if not
for next time or part of the minutes for this meeting.
[01:47:46]
Strategic plan, value climate action, support for climate action initiatives. The City climate action has
an adaptation plan that's been passed and accepted. [01:48:00] The city, Iowa City encourages the
state to adopt a 2021 International Energy and Conservation Code. That is certain amendments that
we're looking at to allow our citizens to have invest in their properties, certain ecological efforts like
solar and things of that nature. If the state has a little more flexibility in the International Energy
Code, so those things can be pursued. That's a priority that we're looking at. Another priority under
that same climate action value would be support legislative changes that allows investor owner
utilities like Mid America to have or implement community solar projects. [01:49:00] Now what
community solar projects would do would essentially allow folks to install solar panels on our homes
and be a part of getting tax credits for that almost like a lot of times you'll see tax credits for
corporate investors doing things that I was a part of, one with the Herbert Hoover Foundation, if they
made donations, they could get tax credits from their corporate, well, this would extend that activity
for regular citizens and allow them to do things like solar investments in their properties. That's
something that is a priority for the City Council. Another priority is continued enhancement and
protections with funding from what we call [01:50:00] REAP. Those REAP grants are particularly
focused on natural resources, park areas, and open spaces in the community. I don't know, I shouldn't
know exactly how many parks we have, but I know it's 60 plus parks that we have in Iowa City. Open
space parks, really important and certain asset in dealing with some of the areas like I talked about
with my experiences in Cleveland, Ohio. Continuing on, to the next strategic value, this is the
advanced social justice, racial equity and human rights. Right on top of that list is the support
legislation protecting the rights of manufactured home residents. This issue we've gotten tons and
tons of complaints of [01:51:00] manufactured home residents who have lived in manufactured
community. It changes ownership and prices overnight or rents overnight, have jumped three even
four times more than their last rates, and there seems there's no cap. We support things of having a
cap. A lot of times some of this happens without notice. We support legislation that would allow a
proper notice to the residents I spent yesterday up at the Capitol. Amazingly, and one of the
challenges with legislation priorities that come from Iowa City is we're a little bit of like a liberal hub
or a blue seed in the sea of red. Sometimes the things that we say that we're wanting to do,
[01:52:00] some folks will vote against it just because of that. There's a little bit of a strategy to sit
back, try and introduce ideas or at least work with the opposite party to try and bring some of these
things forward, at least to their comfort levels. Well, this particular issue at least has some traction,
and I'm really excited about it. Yesterday I was in a subcommittee where Republicans said, we need
to do something, and so at least they're looking a tax relief plan. It doesn't have the caps and
everything we want, but we're hoping to get some of that through amendments. But at least we have
the basic bill, so there is hope out there to get some things done. Even though we hear about all of
the other wild and crazy things that come out of the Legislature, there's ways to still work within that
system.
[01:52:53]
Redmond, I'm sorry? I did.
[01:52:54]
Yes, go ahead.
[01:52:55]
I didn't quite understand it. I think you were referring to something that I would [01:53:00] have
heard in my past as homes where there are trailer homes where the people can rent the home, but
they also have to rent the space in which the home is owned.
[01:53:18]
They can own the home, but there's also a lot rent.
[01:53:21]
Yes.
[01:53:21]
That is what has been going up.
[01:53:23]
Yes.
[01:53:24]
There's this feeling that people, even who do not live in the Sea Blue, that they understand that there
are many folks that live in the Sea Red that are impacted by that.
[01:53:38]
Absolutely, right on point there. Continuing on. Next priority is the continued use of federal funding
supporting residents and businesses in recovery of COVID. As you know, I've reported [01:54:00] on
some of the programs that the city has pursued with the use of its ARPA dollars. At least rumored of
there still being some state dollars out there. We're pushing to get those dollars if they are still
available. Next priority support reform measures to reduce racial disparity in a criminal justice system
and to address systemic racism. That's one of their legislative priorities. One of those things, there's
two areas I wanted to really focus in on that. One is the Governor's focus committee on criminal
justice reform. Governor Reynolds, one that we probably wouldn't say we believe in a lot of the things
that we work on created a committee to focus in on those issues. For the most part I went through.
For the most part, there's been [01:55:00] some pretty significant ground being made up here that we
don't really understand or hear very much about. One of the things was getting citizenship rights
restored for Felons that are re entering into society. Governor Reynolds did get that done through
executive order, which is great but that can be changed at any whim of another governor or Governor
Reynolds for some reason has a change of heart.
[01:55:37]
The goal here is to get this manifested into actual law by getting the Senate and the House reps to
basically get on board and say these rights should be protected beyond just one governor's
administration. But we're happy that that process is happening, but no one talks about that and
everyone assumes [01:56:00] that it's protected and it's not going to go away. Another thing in
employer outreach, so there was a house file 650 that was passed which basically reduced the
liability for businesses that hired folks with criminal records. What that plays out is if I hire someone
that was involved in some type of theft, and I am a financial institution or something like that, I would
have more liability should that person be involved in some mishap or inaccuracy or what have you.
But what was happening before, if that person was involved in theft and they were a delivery driver or
something that had nothing to do with financing that was being held against him. At this point now,
and this was also [01:57:00] supported in the house file that passed now, only if it is directly related to
whatever that particular business thing is, would there be extra liability. That's huge and that has
passed and that has been done. I don't want to go into all of them, but there's a lot of things in here
that has been achieved. The city is saying, we want this list to continue to be moving forward and see
some actions to continue. Not everything has been done in there, but we are saying we would like to
see more work being done in that area. Another one is, and this is the city's priority by unanimous
decision, law enforcement agencies need to expand legal avenues for addressing hate-related acts.
Currently, the state hate crimes provision, the Iowa Code Chapter 729A [01:58:00] enhances the
penalty for certain crimes when they are committed because of a person's race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability. But harassment
and trespass with the intent to harass are not. We're actually saying we need a warrant to have that
added to the State Code. That hasn't been done yet. Obviously something I think that the Commission
could be a big part in galvanizing, communicating, educating the folks and say, hey, this is not
moving and people need to be asking why not. Continuing, next priority, reinstate voter-approved
public library levies. This was huge. I talked [01:59:00] a little bit with Vice Chair at the beginning of
this meeting so the city as well as every other city around the state is trying to deal with the
aftermath of the last session which House filed 718, known as the Property Tax Reform Bill had
passed in that bill essentially where cities and counties are allowed to have special levies identified
that it is a part of your overall tax rate. There are certain things that are earmarked, goes to those
spots. Well, the legislature decided to collapse many of those levies, and one of those was the library
levy. This was for a long time thought of as a sacred cow. No one thought that this will ever be
[02:00:00] openly attacked. But on the back end of a lot of the book issues and critical race theory
issues, it just so happens that now libraries, one of the places where freedom of learning and
educating and all that is under somewhat of attack and there's a little commentary on my end on
that, but essentially that's what's going on, and so now that levy for, even though it was voter
supported, those levies are clearly by every community saying, hey, we want these dollars to go to
our library that's gone. This year we're trying to figure out levy that used to bring in roughly two
million dollars. How that's going to get funded. [02:01:00] Now that's getting thrown into the general
fund with everything else that the city has to prioritize. That's a big deal. Some think that those were
unintended consequences, that maybe this bill was signed without every legislator totally
understanding what was in it. We've been working to say, hey, let's deal with the unintended
consequences. That's a big issue I think has a great impact for the Commission, could have impact for
the Commission. Another priority would protect and support the freedom of movement of people
using public transit. This is moles mostly in the issue of security and we've been seeing particularly
we've had a couple of situations with more people getting on the bus, which is great. [02:02:00] But
sometimes they come with some of their own behavioral, mental, and viewpoints that might threaten
others. One of those issues in particular, our bus drivers raised the concern of folks coming in with
weapons. Obviously we have some very friendly, open carry, those kind of things coming on the bus.
We'd like to have a little more protections like they've done with airports and airplanes that people
should be able to transport without having to worry about some of those safety issues. We understand
that's a tough ask because if it involves guns, typically that's been a big sacred cow that you can't
touch. But we've gotten some room and been hearing some positive potential [02:03:00] for knives
saying, you shouldn't be able to be flipping knives around and stuff. We've had that before. Anyway,
that's also important. Going to the next value, our last value that I'll be covering is partnerships and
engagement. Priority there is working with the university students to help them with their rent
protection proposals. One of those protections they were looking at having move in checklist and we
had some movement on that last session. Made it through the House, didn't make it through the
Senate and have some support from the landlord association. We think there's some ground there
essentially that would create a list that the property owners and the tenants could go over to give
some clarity to the deposits that [02:04:00] they put in. There's been issues where there's an issue
found and the whole deposit is kept in that return and so trying to get the handles around those
issues. The other is to support and continue excellence in the primary, secondary, and higher
education institutions and advocate for additional education funding.
[02:04:28]
Thank you.
[02:04:32]
There are certain associations like the League of Cities, the Metro Coalition, which is made up of the
larger cities around the state. There's been a constant challenge to home rule, and we've been
pushing back to say communities should have more say in what happens in the communities. That's a
traditionally back-and-forth [02:05:00] process. Certainly that's part of our priorities as well. I can go
into a more detail, but I figure probably just save some room for questions and I'll certainly get
information to you in a visual form so you can, can follow some of this. I think one also I didn't note,
but there is a bill that I think could have huge importance. It started out Senate File 457, changed to
Senate File 2325. When it makes it out of committee, sometimes that happens, it's a civil service bill
particularly focused on police and fire, but within that bill, it does away with the community police
review board. There's an attempt to [02:06:00] disband the community police review board. It's made
it out of committee. One of the things is trying to determine if it's a pretender or a contender, and it
appears to be a contender because it's going to make it to further discussion on the floor. But that's a
big one.
[02:06:23]
It was Senate File 457 and now it is?
[02:06:27]
Senate File 2325.
[02:06:38]
This was the funnel week so there's really two funnel weeks, but this is the week where most of the
bills go through. The second funnel is mostly on financial bills. We're still trying to get a handle what
made it through funnel week and probably have better clarity [02:07:00] on what that looks like. But
that's what we're trying to figure out and that's what we're working on right now.
[02:07:08]
Question. Another question or comment on the area of housing and protections for grants and other
deposits, things like that. This is talking from experience and usually a lot of foreign students,
immigrants, refugees, when they come in here, they have problems with the house. Not sometimes
because there's no house or they can't afford. But the landlords, we know that the first deposit is
usually agreed. Everyone knows that you have to pay a deposit. But some landlords, or housing
owners or entities, do you require that, from the way you look, from the way you talk, that you put in
a two month deposit, sometimes three, and even add additional [02:08:00] protections security.
Whom do you know out there that has money that is going to guarantee you that? I believe that
reality, I wanted to use that word, I can't pronounce it, but it really harms that population in a way. It
could be Hispanic population, it could be African population. The way they talk, like you see me here
and they're not talking, they just know this is a foreign guy. He just came here the other day and he
or she does not know anything about our laws so I'm going to subject him or her to that. You end up
not getting a house and that is really hurting our people. I don't know if the city has at one time
considered that as part of something to discuss in an ordinance, or in any way, and you can relate
that to what's happening there too.
[02:08:51]
I can share that. We're very aware of that dynamic. The problem is it's considered to [02:09:00] be a
private contract. I know Stefanie, he probably works more in getting those, there's very limited things
that we can do as a city in that arrangement. But I think there's a huge opportunity for education and
providing resources to maybe some non-profits like the Center for Work of Justice and folks like that
that can delve into that and make sure that people are aware of their rights. But that is something
that we constantly have come across and heard. I know I've been in meetings with the Mayor and
listening to some of those horrific stories.
[02:09:53]
Is there any way in those situations for the city to offer an incentive that would help? What I'm
thinking is, [02:10:00] if there was an independent brokerage for matchmaking between people and
housing, if the city said to landlords, if you play with us, you get something. I don't know what that
would be. That might be a way to incentivice landlords to play nice and to not engage in these kind of
practices.
[02:10:28]
Well, I think you raise a very interesting point, and I can't speak to everything that's been attempted
to do. But I do know that there has been innovative approaches taken in the past that then, the folks
and the more they hear about it and then create a law just to disallow it. It's a challenge sometimes
that if it's successful and the more they finds out about it, they then zero in legislation to disallow.
[02:11:00] There's a bit of give and take and Stefanie, if you have any examples, you probably might
be more familiar with actual examples. But I know that that's happened.
[02:11:15]
Minimum wage. That was one that they put the glash on. Yeah. I was just thinking this might fly a
little under the radar because on the surface it's the landlords who are benefiting. They're getting a
little extra something so then you shift.
[02:11:41]
I don't know.
[02:11:41]
Not really.
[02:11:46]
I don't want to make it a Soapbox about our budget walls but one of the challenges in 2014, the state
thought that it would be great to view all of our apartment [02:12:00] buildings and everything as
they were considered to be businesses. It's rightly so, they're offer very much more like a business
than a landlord or even a duplex or something. These are corporations. A lot of them are out of state,
those kind of thing. Well, they essentially said, well, we're not going to allow those to be considered to
be commercial entities anymore. We're going to let them become residential entities which are a
much lower tax rate. If you look at our tax rate, commercial entities are taxed than the 90 percentile,
whereas homeowners residences are taxing around 50-60 percentile. We lost all of that revenue. They
knew that and so they decided, they says, well, we'll give you some backfield. We talked about
backfield. The problem with that, they can take it anytime they want and [02:13:00] then they just
start to phase the way and then you're stuck with all of the things that translates into having ladders
in your fires. Being able to deliver services to high rises is a lot different proposition than residential,
but we don't have the ability to have that tax rate. This latest system of reform comes on the heels of
that. It's just like, stick a pen in something, but it's a challenge.
[02:13:45]
I had a quick question. I think you said before the legislative session, the city puts together this list of
legislative priorities. When is it [02:14:00] historically, what time of year?
[02:14:02]
Sure.
[02:14:02]
So if we wanted to get voice. Exactly. When would that?
[02:14:09]
Usually it's the last meeting in December of the calendar year when the council approves it. But they
often maybe even work session that, that information or at least it might show up in the information
packet of the Council which just covers all the things going on in the city. They may want to talk about
it or may not usually in November. So if, say the Commission wanted to chime in or have some input
into that process, November would be the time to do it and maybe even participate in a work session
to maybe take a deeper dive into any of these particular issues.
[02:14:53]
Either if we wanted to propose something, not knowing whether it is one of the priorities [02:15:00] or
find out that this is maybe something they're thinking about and we want to throw our opinion or
whatever else.
[02:15:07]
I usually organize that process. I will start taking things from departments in October.
[02:15:16]
October?
[02:15:17]
Yes. Internally, we also set up a pre session meeting with our local delegation and we usually try to do
that somewhere around the end of November, beginning of December. Sometimes that's a public
process. We've done it where it's been a public process and other times it's just been being in a
conference room hammering out things. It just depends.
[02:15:53]
Thank you.
[02:15:53]
Are there any [02:16:00] other thoughts?
[02:16:02]
I just want to add to the effort that maybe as an individual, but I think here I'm supposed to talk like a
Commissioner, we appreciate getting that information. It signals to us where the city is heading,
responding to our needs, which we have not expressed fully, but some have been expressed before in
different forms. You give us a proper way in which we can channel those, I would call it complaints or
suggestions to you. There seems to be lack of communication. I think our communities that are not
well engaged, and that's an area that I believe we will work on towards the recommendation on how
well to build our communities to be engaged in different ways so that others don't feel like they don't
care about us. Actually, the city would give [02:17:00] us a forum in which we can engage with them.
That report you're talking about now, I can't remember it's name, the colored one. I believe there's
some input there, but it could have really been good, if small communities are also involved in the
sharing into that report really, so that all they wait for is to see, did the city respond to those things
we talked about. We need to work on ways in which we engage with people. I believe in our African
communities, the churches play a really big role. We need to engage with the other people, the
pastors and other people, and other community leaders so that when we recommend things we
should know well. The City is also thinking that and maybe they're willing to. Some are going to be
difficult. But I appreciate that as a Commission to know that there is room for that and there's a plan,
a strategic priority plan in which we can fit in things that Commissioner [02:18:00] Mara has just
mentioned. Thank you.
[02:18:06]
Well, I'd like to thank you, Redmond, for bringing this to our attention. Really appreciate you just
having this discussion with us. If there's no further questions, I'm going to move us on in our agenda
and open it up to anyone online or in the room that would like to comment on this last agenda item.
At this time, since it is past nine, I'd like to skip to agenda item 10, concept note because I believe
that will be a big discussion and I'd like to give Leo and I think Melendez, online, an opportunity to talk
about the concept note with us.
[02:18:47]
Melendez is no longer on.
[02:18:51]
Melendez is no longer on? Okay.
[02:18:58]
I have to change one of the names. There's [02:19:00] not two Dr. Schulers on.
[02:19:01]
I see it. [inaudible 02:19:02] The concept notes, I Think Peace would be leading this discussion.
[02:19:16]
Yeah, I was wondering if Eduardo might be in the queue. Otherwise I'm happy to walk through it.
[02:19:30]
No, he's not on the queue right now.
[02:19:35]
Chair and Leo, this Larry Schooler. Could I just interject for one second before Leo jumps in?
[02:19:39]
Okay.
[02:19:41]
My only role in terms of staying on was to see if there were any changes or corrections to the list of
things that came out of the February 1st fact finding discussion. And while I want Leo to jump in, I
thought that that would be pretty short. [02:20:00] I just wanted to either I can share it on screen if
folks need it or it's in the back up. That was, I think, part of the agenda, but it's really just to make
sure that we accurately captured everything that y'all wanted us to work with staff to run down as
part of fact finding. Sorry. I apologize for jumping into this, will be a quick item.
[02:20:25]
We can back up to that agenda item number 9, fact finding.
[02:20:30]
If Stefanie could give me screen share for just a second, I was just going to put the notes up on the
screen for everybody's point of reference. But as I said, we basically, Laurel Cohen, who by the way,
sends regards. She's off to get married this weekend, so it's just me for the next week or so. Laurel
did her best to capture [02:21:00] the inventory of things that you all were interested in and so that's
what's reflected on this document that's up on the screen. Really, we just wanted to make sure that
there wasn't anything that we misunderstood or something glaringly missing that we needed to try to
run down. I did just want to publicly acknowledge both Redmond and Stefanie. Redmond has helped
to put together a bunch of data that will help us to respond to these requests, and Stefanie has had
conversations with both Sioux City and Coralville at the suggestions of Commissioners Nobis and Vice
Chair Merritt. Just want to thank the Commissioners for the suggestions, and Stefanie and Redmond
for the help. At any rate, if there's any changes or corrections, let me know.
[02:21:48]
Thank you, Larry.
[02:21:51]
Of course.
[02:21:51]
It doesn't look like there's any comments on this, but I believe that all of us can get in touch with you
if we have any [02:22:00] further discussion outside of the meeting.
[02:22:03]
Sounds fine. Yeah, if there's anything that's missing, let us know and obviously we're just driving
towards a report on March 14. Sooner the better, but we'll just keep plugging away.
[02:22:15]
Thank you so much for staying on.
[02:22:17]
No problem. Over to Leo.
[02:22:23]
Now I'm going to go back to agenda item number 10 for the concept note.
[02:22:31]
I would you like to share my screen and walk through it?
[02:22:34]
Yes.
[02:22:37]
If someone can please give me the ability to do so. Is that Stefanie?
[02:22:43]
Yes, she's working on it. One sec.
[02:23:00] [02:23:06]
Thank you very much. The entire team has been coming together to put this comprehensive
walkthrough of community encounters. We also want to acknowledge that we heard you around the
terminology of culminating events, that this is very much a touch point moving forward. That this is a
grounding showing that this is what the work can look like moving forward, and then it being up to
you folks to carry on this work at the transition point after the end of March. Kearns West, Think
Peace, Healing Native Partners have each contributed to this document and so [02:24:00] this three
community encounters are around fact finding, truth seeking and reconciliation grounded in
Resolution 20-228, Article 11 as you know quite well. These encounters are opportunities for a
necessary and transformational dialogue on racial injustice in our midst. We are looking at, from a
thematic perspective, prioritizing three aspects in which we believe racial injustice manifests itself in
our community, law enforcement and safety, economic development and education. Acknowledging
that many other facets of historical and structural injustice exist, the focus for this and this document
is going to be around these first issues. Fact finding component, first scheduled for March 14 by
Kearns and West going [02:25:00] over a complete dataset and then followed by facilitated exercise
on the following Monday of March 18. This should all be incorporated in the calendar that was
presented to you last meeting. From there, there will be two truth telling and incorporating healing
circles, events on the 20th and 21st, to be confirmed. Working on the logistics of location and making
sure that potential truth tellers will be well cared for and supported in the truth telling in the healing
dialogue portion of it.
[02:25:52]
Leo?
[02:25:53]
Perfect. Yes, please.
[02:26:00]
I'm sorry, help me understand. You're talking about what happens in March which is more of the
public. Help me understand the private that happens between now and March, where we're at.
[02:26:20]
Sorry, go ahead.
[02:26:22]
Where we're actually having conversations with individuals.
[02:26:28]
This concept note is specifically around the actual events themselves and we also have a truth telling
hearings manual that is prepared for you, should be in your hands copies there. And so that is the
preparation work that covers some of that there, but with the [02:27:00] capacity.
[02:27:03]
It starts on page 6.
[02:27:10]
Thank you. We want to honor the capacity of the Commission and leave room for you all to decide
how you want to go about doing that work, especially with the complexities around the open meetings
laws and the whole discussion earlier around what is public and what is publicly available, and so
leaving room for you to engage with potential community partners for some of that pre hearing work.
[02:27:49]
Where on page?
[02:27:50]
What is covered in that? That is also linked to the trauma and from truth telling and witnessing
document [02:28:00] that covers it in more detail. In the Hearings Manual that you have is connected
to the protocol that Melinda Salazar presented a few meetings ago.
[02:28:21]
It's on page 6 and 7. I see how do you outreach the identification process? Formal invitation
recommendation, support follow up to answer your question.
[02:28:34]
Scrolling down, please excuse the speed. It's connected here under participants, each of which is
linked to the Trauma-informed, Truth-Telling & Witnessing Protocol.
[02:29:00] [02:29:17]
I'm sorry. I do something to deal with this as a 50,000 foot level and just make sure we have been
provided the information that tells us to process, in essence to be able to do the private truth telling.
That's what Page 6 it's supposed to be.
[02:29:48]
I'm seeing under tasks, like what are the tasks from here to the event to insureds realization. That's
where I'm seeing what we need to do starting now.
[02:29:58]
We're responsible for planning [02:30:00] the process of doing the private portion of the truth telling
before we get to that.
[02:30:06]
I wouldn't say planning because the plan is in front of us on how we do it.
[02:30:09]
I'm sorry. I'm not really talking about the process of how we do it. I'm talking about really the process
of getting the people.
[02:30:16]
Yes.
[02:30:16]
We're responsible for getting the people to be able to pull this together.
[02:30:20]
We've always been responsible for that.
[02:30:22]
Just curious how do we do that?
[02:30:24]
Well, we need to discuss how to do that now.
[02:30:27]
I think that's been one of the weakest parts of our game, has been about pulling the community to do
the type of work that we need to do and considering that we have 30 days to be able to pull that
together, then that's what I have some concern about.
[02:30:45]
I would agree with you. We have a short timeline and there's a lot of stuff to do.
[02:30:50]
I just don't know what that is of the stuff to do. You see, I'm saying what is that stuff to do?
[02:30:57]
To me, it looks like we need to identify [02:31:00] who we want to sit down and talk with. To me, it
looks like all the people that over the years with past Commissioners and everything, we need to sit
down and talk with them. We need to talk to the list of organizations that we know already have
people. That's the work that we need to do from our end because we're in the community. That is
what I see. We have the manual. We have what the next steps are. We have to be the ones to identify
the people.
[02:31:33]
There was a list that's already been started, if I remember correctly.
[02:31:35]
There's a list in here. We need to do the outreach piece.
[02:31:44]
To my understanding, you have the list of community organizations with whom you have various
relationships and so with this outline of showing how to go about the actual preparation work, how to
go about the actual hearings themselves. [02:32:00] Then this can help alleviate whatever concerns
will come up in those conversations with these organizations on who they have ready to speak and so
using those community connections to do the outreach to bring the people in. These events are
around maybe having half a dozen people in this first go through come through and share their
testimony. If you are imagining a massive thing where dozens of people are coming through and
sharing their testimony, that is not what this is. This is a strategic outreach for the connections that
you have for people who you know, people who have already come forward, other organizations who
are out there who you have connections with and saying, who do you have in your community who
has raised these issues around racial injustice and police violence? Are they ready to engage in some
public truth [02:33:00] telling and then you would have the conversations, again, for you all to
determine whether you would do that individually without taking notes or taking notes, or having your
community partners do the outreach and having the conversations and then welcoming those people
into the truth telling hearings.
[02:33:21]
I just need maybe you can give me a big picture view of how that is supposed to happen. But I'm lost
on how we think that we're going to do that.
[02:33:33]
Are we going to get people to come or how we're going to find people? Just so I understand what
you're asking.
[02:33:41]
There's a process that is supposed to happen before we get to the public process. It's supposed to
bring in people in so that they can have conversations with them. I assume that we share some
information with them. We figure out who they are, they come in and they have these conversations.
We determine based on the conversations, we build [02:34:00] a story that then they share publicly
and that's what we share in March. I'm asking privately, how do we gather and build the
conversations with people in such a way that we can then make a determining.
[02:34:14]
How do we decide who is going to be the one speaking?
[02:34:18]
How do we even get people to come and be a part of the private portion?
[02:34:27]
That's a great question. I think that's what we need to discuss and talk about. I know that I've heard
from almost everyone on this Commission past and present, that we know people that are ready to
talk. We know people that want to be involved in this and I think this is the time now for us to
outreach to those people and talk to them, tell them this is what we're doing. This is our time to
showcase what we want to share with the community, our idea that we've come up with, how we can
move forward with truth and reconciliation. [02:35:00] When you're asking how do we do this? I can
talk to people that I work with those people or I can talk to people I know at my church, or people I
know, my friends in the community that have experienced the topic that we're focused on and ask
them if they want to sit and talk. Then from there, when we have these events, would you be willing
to talk more in front of other people and then work together to get to that?
[02:35:37]
Are we going to set is there a deadline that once we've assigned that, guess who's going to be talking
to whoever give them a deadline as to when that supposed to happen?
[02:35:48]
We haven't talked about it, so no, there's no deadline yet.
[02:35:52]
Are we going to get to set that today?
[02:35:54]
Yes, if we decide to. I'm not in charge of making all this. We [02:36:00] are in charge of all this. This is
not my project. This is our project.
[02:36:04]
Our chair and that's what I'm just asking our chair for this, a better understanding from a guidance
perspective, 30 days that we have in essence to be able to pull some of this information, I assume
that there has to be a meeting or a location that has to be set. We have to invite people to come to
that meeting. We have to be able to be prepared to share information. We set a timeline for the
public. But we did not set anything up. Judge, I can understand specific timelines for the private, and
I'm just trying to figure out what our plan is for the private and the reason I brought up the issue that I
brought up earlier was is that depending on how you do it, how you set it up from a commission
perspective, you can call it what you want. I call it, putting ourselves at risk. I'm an expert, so I don't
mind people wanting to call me to testify for stuff. But the concept is, is that if we write stuff down
and we put stuff together, then we then [02:37:00] that information then can be shared. We have to
check if certain people we can't talk to right now because they have a lawsuit against people which
but they have legitimate issues of what we would want to bring up. But we can't talk to them or spend
any time with them. We have systems that are in place that are preventing us from even doing some
of the basic things that we want to do. We have 30 days to come up with a plan that we have no plan
for before a public session that we have. I appreciate this, but I'm really now trying to get to how we
get down to the meat of it. What I'm hearing you say and you have to correct me if I'm wrong, eeny,
meeny, miny, moe talk to the people that you know and then see if they will talk. Then once we can
identify whether they will talk, then we will figure out a meeting that they can talk to us at.
[02:37:53]
I don't know about this meeting. The private meeting [02:38:00] would be with you or like if you go
with another Commissioner. There wouldn't be like we need a schedule a private place unless we
decide after us as Commissioners, like me and Laurel, talk to a person that person's agreed to already
want to talk publicly. But if you and let's say Cliff, go and talk to someone and that person like you just
get the gist, you give them the information and they want to do the private session, then we schedule
that and we decide how they want to do it. They want to talk in front of a camera or something, and
maybe that's after the March public events.
[02:38:37]
But the person that Cliff and I talk to is trash. They're just speaking off the top of the head. They really
don't make any sense about what they're saying. We recommend them and they don't. Since no one
else has heard them, you're relying on us?
[02:38:54]
Yes, because you are Commissioners and we can't all be in the same room.
[02:38:59]
If you're trying [02:39:00] to get a group to tell a story, then you want the group to be able to
somehow make sure that it's consistent.
[02:39:09]
I think I'm missing the story part.
[02:39:11]
I don't know what they would be up there telling.
[02:39:14]
Their truths about their experience with racial injustice around public safety.
[02:39:27]
If I could step here, excuse me.
[02:39:31]
I appreciate it, but not right now. What I'm just asking is that if there's a theme that is running
through the story. Just as if there was a theme that's running through the story there. If the
Commission is talking about the 9/11 Commission or talking about the January 6 Commission, there's
some theme that they're trying to show. We are responsible for that theme.
[02:39:58]
Our theme we've decided [02:40:00] is racial injustice. Sub theme is public safety. That's the theme.
We've already decided that from my perspective.
[02:40:09]
But what does that mean?
[02:40:12]
That means that if-
[02:40:14]
Are we saying that the people that are going to speak are going to just speak their truth, even if it's
it's joined?
[02:40:21]
Yes. That's how I see it. Clearly, we see it differently. How would you see it? Because you're right, we
have 30 days and we're testing this out. We don't have time to create a theme, but we can give
people an opportunity, bring them together, and if there is a theme that comes up, we can do it
again.
[02:40:46]
I agree with that. This is a testing ground.
[02:40:49]
I'm seeing if we refer to the concept, Page 1, the last paragraph, that's what we are on, if I'm not
wrong.
[02:41:00] [02:41:01]
I'm curious as to what your idea was as well.
[02:41:13]
You're wanting more of like a narrow focus. For example, police brutality by a certain group or
something of that nature rather than just having a wide general kind of topic.
[02:41:28]
It could be police brutality, maybe it's related more, let's say towards housing, police breaking and
how they approach giving search warrants. Everyone is talking about how they receive their search
warrants and how that is inappropriate or it could be police brutality or just police interaction as
relates to traffic stops and how it happens when there's the traffic stop. Things that I may have
learned is just that I never stop in the middle of the street or I never stop on the side of the street. I
always go to where there's lights and [02:42:00] how I was discouraged not to do that even though I
felt it was in my best interest from a safety perspective. That's going to be the theme that's going to
be around that. It isn't that one person is going to talk about how they did a search warrant and the
other person here is going to talk about how they did the police traffic and another person here talked
about how they treated them as an employee.
[02:42:26]
You're saying we should categorize it and try to make it a little easier.
[02:42:31]
Of more narrow focus.
[02:42:32]
What you want to do is when you go to the community, you want to be able to share a theme of this is
what the story is that we're getting at, the very common. We have these different interactions with
these folks. Some people do a very good job of communicating and feel comfortable communicating,
some people don't. But we may find that there's some type of theme that they all have in common or
something that we want to share that is important.
[02:42:58]
Is that something that we should split up as a commission [02:43:00] or we all take a certain upset
and then go out and try to look though.
[02:43:07]
I hear what you're saying and that would make sense if we've already done the community outreach
and we knew what those topics are, but we don't. This is an exploratory process still. For us to do that
would be us deciding what people want to talk about. We already have people that have said that
they want to talk about something that's not police brutality or public safety. Because of what we
chose, we need to move past. They don't get to speak this time. If we narrow it further, in my opinion,
we're further pushing away people's voices in this community.
[02:43:45]
You can call it whatever you want on that one, pushing it away, or you can call it. I'm just simply
saying that if you go and you do an outreach to the community, you say, here are the things that
we're interested in hearing from you about. Give them the themes and then they [02:44:00] come to
us with these things. If they have something else they want to share, then that's fine. They can come
and share whatever they want to share. But if we find their commonality based on these themes and
we want to share those things based on the themes that we told them we want to talk about, then we
know that A, on this situation that it may be an issue and B, we can build a story. The public session
isn't really practice for us. It's gain time, it's time to be able to say what we've done has some value.
It may not be perfect. We may not be exceptional in everything that we do. But it's a outwardly public
thing that we're saying we want you to be a part of it to hear of the work that we've been doing over
the past three years.
[02:44:54]
You want us to like have a message for the community with these [02:45:00] sessions that are, what
I'm hearing you say well thought out and I guess I'm thinking we're not there yet. We're still trying to
figure out what the message is. But we do know that public safety, police brutality is part of that
message. We're inviting people who we've heard already to come and talk a little bit more, which will
build discussion. But if you think there's a way to get more like focus is what I'm hearing you say. I
could be misunderstanding. I'm all ears, I just don't know how we do that in, like you said, 30 days.
[02:45:36]
That's what I've been concerned about. It's our communication plan of how we're going to get it out to
the world. That's why I don't really support the, any mind anymore, pick the person that you know. I
really recommend more of here are the themes. Come and talk to us if you have concerns about this,
this is what TRC is here.
[02:45:55]
I think I'm now understanding what you're saying. You want us to reach out to people with what
[02:46:00] we want, which I thought we were already going to do. I think I misunderstood that. Like if
we're going to find people what you just said, in Meenie Miney Moe, we would still be presenting what
this is, the things that we're looking for. We'd also be reaching out to all of the non-profit
organizations or the community groups that we can work with to help us find those people as well
with that information that you're saying. We wouldn't just be like, hey friends.
[02:46:30]
Just just out of curiosity, just tell me, for example, how will we work with the non-profits? Give me an
example of what we do in working with a given non-profit. Make sure I better understand.
[02:46:44]
Two years ago, it's been a while, we all reached out to the contacts that we had at local nonprofits
and we said, hey, when we're ready, would you be willing to partner with us? Meaning, when we're
ready, will you help us find people that are wanting [02:47:00] to share their truths about racial
injustice in this community? Let's say we go to a non-profit that work let's say inside out re-entry and
they work with previously incarcerated people. Maybe they know someone that has a specific story
that they have been wanting to get off their chest and tell everyone. They already know those people
and they can talk to us, they've already vetted it. They can tell us a little bit what it is and we can
work with them to prep for that, is what I'm saying. This is going to be a lot of work, but it doesn't
have you by ourselves. This is the community outreach part that I think that everyone has been
saying for months that we need to be doing. We have the plan for it. That's how I see us doing this
next part. Like Cliff said, I think we definitely need to split up in the very beginning. Cliff, you
remember we had subcommittees. We didn't know what we were doing. Now [02:48:00] we can do
whatever the splitting up is to figure it out. I know that Amos and I have had conversations. He knows
people in the community. Commissioner Gathua, everyone knows people. But I wouldn't say just pick
your best friend, pick people that you know that will make a meaningful testimony or someone that
really needs their voice heard and they need someone to tap on them to be able to talk is how I'm
seeing it. But again, all ears, if that's not making sense or I'm thinking about it differently.
[02:48:36]
On that note, I'm curious as to what Leo was going to say if you don't mind.
[02:48:49]
Sure, yes. Essentially that reach out to the head of the organizations, reach out to whatever
community contact you have at them. [02:49:00] Because again, as it has been shared, each of you,
some of you have relationships with these organizations where people have come forward. You've
been having these conversations and so there are people who are waiting, waiting to be heard. It is a
matter now of reaching back out now that you have the clarity. Because at the bottom of page 1, that
members of the community will be able to share their experiences positive and negative regarding
public safety and criminal justice. Specifically, participants will have an opportunity to indicate how
racial injustice impacts concrete communities and individuals and to reflect on what is needed to
transform these conditions. It is a matter of uplifting the voice of community members without a given
agenda. That yes, you have the theme of public safety, criminal justice, police brutality. [02:50:00]
This forum is for community members to finally be heard and for you as Commissioners to receive
that, to hold them in that sharing and encourage them to bring a support person to, whether it's
family, friends, chosen family. The healing partners have assured again also it is in the concept note
of having a community crisis response there to make sure that there is that supportive mechanism. It
is welcoming community members in. It is welcoming people from institutions who need to hear this
truth and bringing community members together to hold that. This is the beginning of being guided
by the community on what needs to be changed in order to address the systemic harm that they're
experiencing.
[02:51:00] [02:51:03]
Thank you.
[02:51:08]
How's does it feel for me to carry on with the concept note, should there be further discussion first?
[02:51:17]
I think you can continue. Thank you.
[02:51:21]
Thank you.
[02:51:26]
We do the brief overview of the purpose of the fact finding, the two dates where there will be the fact
finding and sharing. Then March 20 and 21st, again, working out the logistics on location to make sure
that all of the special needs are going to be met. Then there will be the truth telling hearing portion,
and then those will be followed by the healing circles led by native partners and healing partners.
Then we have some key definitions [02:52:00] on reconciliation addressing again, grounded in the
mandate of the TRC shall provide opportunity for and facilitate direct conversation among and
between community members of color, white community members, and representatives of various
sectors. In which people of color, experience discrimination and injustice. Create a replicable model
that provides a structure for enabling these conversations throughout the city, again, this is the
beginning of that. Make available opportunities for a broad cross section of the community to learn
about discrimination and racial injustice in our community. Part of why these hearings are going to be
recorded, to start generating that public record, and identify and recommend to the City Council
institutional and policy reforms, new social practices, expectations, protocols, and so forth. Again, that
is to be guided directly by community members. In the truth telling and witnessing protocol. There
[02:53:00] are some example questions on how the flow of this will go, where there is explicit
guidance on the flow of each one of these sessions. Reconciliation, in the context of this work,
involves a coming to agreement about truth. Here, engaging in TRC, in truth telling processes in the
US, supports opportunities for oppressed and the oppressors to come to agreement about the original
sins and perpetual harms of these sins, ie, theft of life, liberty and land, Jim Crow, redlining,
gentrification, police violence, and other forms of structural racism. Along these same lines, truth
telling processes involve coming to agreement about the ways to support healing and repair related
to the consequences of those harms. It is in this way of uplifting the voice of the community,
[02:54:00] and rectifying, being guided by community voices on what needs to be done to rectify
these wrongs. Going towards the reconciliation and the repair work that needs to be done. After the
truth telling portion, then we'll have the healing circles, where native partners will be offering healing
circles as the reconciliation process and space to the commission and the community. I see Monape
with us here, and so I would like to invite you if you'd like to share a piece of that.
[02:54:42]
Can you guys hear me?
[02:54:48]
Yes.
[02:54:50]
This first paragraph just talks about some of the takeaways that this group is going to receive, and
[02:55:00] I think initially we were thinking about training folks in the city and that shifted to just
taking full responsibility for it. This talks about the benefits of why healing circles are important to
prepare for reconciliation, and to help people through the process of telling their truth. I don't have
control. Yeah, scroll down just a little bit. These are safe spaces for people to come in, and just
prepare their heart and mind for their truth, and I say that as in, we have options on how to utilize
these circles. One option is preparation for truth telling, [02:56:00] another option is I don't know I
guess I would use the word dusting off from a truth telling, or getting recentered. It takes a lot of your
spirit and your emotional strength and physical strength to push through trauma, push through the
pain. But in these spaces, we're able to provide a collective wisdom that would help encourage
somebody forward through that. We can utilize these spaces to do conflict resolution. In here, they
used the word intervene. Intervene is one of the terms that we used in. We'd like to think that if we
don't see eye to eye on some things, we can create connectivity between opposition. [02:57:00] We
feel like that helps resolve any hard feelings but also at the same time pushing forward with whatever
the issue is, the problem is. There are times where we might hear something that we don't like to
hear in those circles. There's a teaching that goes along with it about whatever's in our heart and
mind when we come to the circle. Whatever troubles might be going on at home or even more
national issues as opposed to local issues. But in those moments, we might hear things that might
cause us to set down whatever we come to the meeting for and address conflicting things within the
circle. [02:58:00] At the end of those circles, we still have to deal with that thing that original intention
that you had brought, maybe it never gets addressed. These are spaces to encourage the community
to utilize their words and to help them through those emotions. Hopefully get to an understanding, or
even if we get to a place where we agree to disagree, we have a little more respect then maybe not
knowing a person at all. This generates that connectivity even though you can have opposing views.
There's a lot of healing pieces to this. In the objectives it covers all that. It's an eloquent way of
covering these different dynamics that I've talked about. [02:59:00] Keep scrolling down a little bit.
The components, the timings of these events. It sounds like we might be called upon to maybe do the
opening of this space. We are also tasked as facilitators to generate some topics or things that people
might cover either during, or after their truth telling events. We're also working with a couple other
people here, and abroad that have data and have input on how this impacts communities in a positive
way. [03:00:00] The participants down below that, who will participate, obviously there's a little
vetting process to invite people to those spaces. Most of these are generally open, but I do
understand that there is a desire to maybe have more private ones with particular people. A lot of this
can be a primer for the truth telling event. Some of this can be after care. Keep rolling down. Tasks, so
in here this overlaps with the fact finding and things, plus with the data that we can come up with on
how this impacts communities, you would be able to start gathering data [03:01:00] to demonstrate
how successful all this can be good. Keep scrolling down. Yeah, formal invitations. Those will go out
and we will be in communication with the event planners and commission were are trusting folks out
of the people that are invited, there's an invitation for them to choose the options of interacting with
indigenous methods or preparing them for their truth telling event. Then of course we'll be supporting
and following up with those that are involved. [03:02:00] Yeah, I'm not worried about that. [inaudible
03:02:02] We have to sort out where we'll do this at. There was a piece in here that describes how
this will go down. I can't remember how far. Yeah, location, we ain't worried about that.
[03:02:51]
Well, basically to cover what we've been doing as far as what we're willing to offer. I know Terry
Medina had typed up. [03:03:00] We call him T. He's another one of the native partners. We did a
method that I had learned on doing talking circles and the next day we did his method. We're asking
for the trust to be able to determine spontaneously which method to utilize in particular situations.
Terry has a lot of wisdom with dealing with folks in reactionary situations. I really trust him and praise
his ability to communicate with people. The method that I utilize help center people and [03:04:00]
helps each other understand the next person. Maybe somebody is in mourning and we didn't know it.
Those things really should help us build compassion and empathy towards one another. I think
anybody that's going to be standing in their truth and offering that truth, it makes them stand
stronger, picks them up, makes them stand a little bit straighter. A lot of folks walk with shame. My
method pulls some of that information, not the information but about about themselves, who they
are, where they come from, and what they're grateful for and them being able to stand in beauty like
that, those two methods. Then at some point, I want to introduce a Lakota woman that works
[03:05:00] for the University of Iowa that has data on the positive impacts of talking circles with
indigenous communities and thereby extension Iowa city when we utilize these techniques. Maybe
that's another discussion for another day but I think calling her a little late into the game, but I think
what she has to offer is really valuable for us all. I think that's about it. Any questions?
[03:05:34]
Yes, Commissioner Laurel.
[03:05:36]
Yeah.
[03:05:38]
We only have one more meeting before this all happens, that's three weeks from today. I would hope
that at that meeting we'd be able to have an idea of, there is a general idea, who are the people that
are going to be presenting, [03:06:00] are going to be talking, doing the truth and stuff. What should
we do as commission set for the next three weeks?
[03:06:09]
It's a great question. Can we go through the concept now and then move on to Phase 2, next steps.
That's a great question on what we should do. Is there anything else, Leo, that you wanted to go over
before we dive into that discussion?
[03:06:25]
Yes. Thank you for the question. This recommendation is in here twice because it's really important
Commissioners, that could each of you please spend time with the trauma informed truth telling and
the witnessing protocol before any initial interviews with community members or potential truth
tellers. That document was very carefully put together and it really outlines how these hearings can
be structured in a way that hold people well and take care of their needs mentally, emotionally,
physically, spiritually. [03:07:00] It's really important to spend time with that and with your
preparation work here to Commissioner Simmons's point. It is really important. Chair Chastity Dillard,
if you could also to your point around setting - maybe it was Commissioner Lauren about setting a
date to work backwards. You have the date set for when these events are going to be and then work
backwards from there amongst yourselves for what feels like a feasible time frame for the outreach.
Because again, you already have the community connections, so it's a matter of making a phone call,
helping out email, sending a text or doing WhatsApp. I don't know about WhatsApp, that's not
something I've had access to, but apparently it's a thing. Whatever your best means of
communication is with these organizations who you are connected with, do that initial outreach with
[03:08:00] this more clear. Figure out what your clear message is from this, what your focus is which
is outlined here. Share that and welcome in those 4-6 people who are at that point in readiness to be
able to share their truth openly and publicly around the theme of public safety, criminal justice, and
racial injustice, police violence.
[03:08:32]
Thank you, Leo. Did you have any other things? Otherwise, we'll move into discussion.
[03:08:40]
Yes. Very briefly. Sorry.
[03:08:45]
Sorry, you're good to go.
[03:08:49]
Thank you. The 4-6 people could include 1-3 community members who have been either mistreated
by police or experienced a situation that was escalated. This is at [03:09:00] the top of page 5. It
outlines who those 4-6 people could be so that ideally, there is a diverse representation, not just of
community members but also potentially a council member who is active on the topic of law
enforcement and public safety, or a city government official who could speak to the topic, or maybe a
retired or active law enforcement member who has experienced this from the inside. I yield. Thank
you.
[03:09:34]
Cliff.
[03:09:35]
I want to say I appreciate your approach Monape, that's all. I really do. Everything you're saying
sounds like it'll be fantastic. Sorry my voice sounds a little weird.
[03:09:47]
Thank you very much.
[03:09:52]
We've heard the concept note and Laurel, our Vice Chair had a great question. We want [03:10:00] to
set a date to have all the people solidified. I believe you suggested by our next meeting, which is in
three weeks. What is everyone's immediate thoughts? I do so understand Leo, you're saying for these
two days we should have 4-6 people each day? Is that what I heard?
[03:10:22]
Yes.
[03:10:23]
Just making sure I understand that. Not as many people as we might think at first, but the private
meetings will still happen before and after the people. That feels to me less daunting for 30 days.
[03:10:45]
How do we want to move forward or does anyone have initial thoughts on what we've just learned or
want to talk about anything specifically?
[03:10:55]
I still feel like this is testing ground to a degree because we're learning as we go. We do [03:11:00]
have a lot that we have to get it done and accomplish, but I don't mind the smaller groups that I feel
like that's more digestible. If we can work that out, I feel like that's perfect. Where do we go from
here? That's a good question. Do we want to break things up into groups and categorize and tackle
you guys, want to do?
[03:11:28]
A good question. I think my brain is starting to not work as much you guys.
[03:11:40]
I believe that's a good suggestion. We break up into groups and some of us have already have
contacts with people and then we have to put that together. I don't know whether there's another
meeting, maybe a work session. See whose names are, whose names are already there. Do we have
sufficient number or not? But I'm saying that [03:12:00] from tomorrow, that's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to start seeking for other people to see. We just need to coordinate this. Give the names to
the chair person, vice chair, the names that you have and then an arrangement can be made. I don't
know who facilitates that on vetting and then setting up a date to hear from them before they go to
the event. Then from there it's just short listing. But we have to do this very quickly. Some of the
commissioners [inaudible 03:12:38] some people already, in their way they've probably heard from
those people to a good degree, that they can now tell, I think this is a good person.
[03:12:49]
Maybe we should take stock of what leads we have, how many leads we have, and go from there.
Because maybe you have somebody that you know [03:13:00] for sure is solid, maybe you have
someone you know is solid. How many people do we have currently who are on board that are willing
to do this moving forward? Then we can decide how many people do we need to try to outreach and
break it up from there?
[03:13:26]
I think that great idea. One thing I want to mention is that we probably do have to think about how to
manage expectations. Because if we're going to be reaching out to some people, a number of them,
we're not going to ask to come forward in the public meeting. I don't know how to do that. How do we
manage that? That they still feel heard, but they don't feel slapped because they weren't chosen.
[03:13:55]
That's a great question.
[03:13:57]
I think we need to have a concise message [03:14:00] when we're reaching out to these groups.
Basically one for the public. I'm assuming that some of these people already have people in mind
because they've been sitting on this for the last couple of years and also have the ones that will want
to speak in private. Right now, I'm most concerned about the public ones because right now we're
putting the cart in front of the horse. We don't don't know who the people are. We have three weeks
till the next meeting. I would hope that at least in the next 15, maybe by Monday the 26, which
basically is the rest of this week, or just tomorrow, all next week, and then maybe by Monday. I know
either by email or something else we get.
[03:14:56]
That's too soon. That's only two weeks to do what?
[03:15:00] [03:15:01]
To find out of the definite and the ones that they they already know that yes, they are willing to do
this and get those people. Then from there until, we'll give us another.
[03:15:28]
I see Leo has his hand up again. Did you want to say something, Leo?
[03:15:33]
Sure. Just a quick suggestion on pacing for outreach and preparation. See how it lands, see how it
feels, make whatever adjustments feel good to you. But my initial recommendation would be to do
initial outreach by 2, 22, by next Thursday, so just on a one week basis from here to the 22nd.
[03:16:00] Initial outreach to whomever you're going to be reaching out to, who have people ready,
and then have a pre meeting with that person by 2, 29. Again, if this feels feasible, beautiful if not,
adjust accordingly. Then you can make your selections on three, seven, March 7 at your next
meeting. To your concern around setting expectations, it's really important to be straightforward, of
letting people know that we have a maximum of 12 spots for this. We want to be as clear and
comprehensive in how we do this as possible. We are not going to be able to select everyone. We're
not going to be able to welcome everyone in on this first round. We want to hear you. We want to
honor your truth, honor your story, honor your experience. This might be the only opportunity that
[03:17:00] you have in this present moment to share your truth, and we want to hold that with you in
preparation for this. You might not be one of those who engage in the public hearing in this round.
Point forward towards your plans, moving forward of having another round. Again, not making any
promises, but letting them know that this is the beginning, beginning of the building momentum of
this work. Honoring the fact that they are willing to sit down with you in the first place, and being
transparent about the fact that you're not going to be able to hold space for everyone in this one
event, but we are really holding these hearings as a starting place, whereas a next step forward,
because you've been doing this work for too long to call anything a starting place.
[03:17:51]
We're not dismissing anybody. We're saving anything. Any information that we get. We could just take
it to another time, right?
[03:17:59]
Yes.
[03:18:00]
Just to clarify that. Good.
[03:18:04]
Thank you.
[03:18:14]
I think that's a great idea, Leo, to make it more paste in that way, do our initial outreach. The way I
see it is, again, from who everyone I've talked to, if you know people that you think might be willing to
share publicly, we speak this week with them, and we share just a little bit about what we're looking
for. If they express interest, then we can all send it to Stefanie and share with us all together, and
then we can move into next steps which would be pre meetings. I also think another initial step would
be to reach out to partner organizations, especially the ones from this list. Some of us have our names
next to ones that [03:19:00] we've already agreed to be liaisons for, and maybe if other people have
connections to unassigned ones, we can move in that direction as well to get assigned. Maybe there's
organizations or businesses, or someone in this community, or entities in this community that's not
represented, that you do have a connection to, we can add that to the list. I could work with Stefanie
and Leo and our consultant team on some good communication for an email, but I think we all agree
that this is going to be best in person conversation or over the phone versus simply sending out an
email as well. That might be the initial talk. That's my initial thoughts, and then move into the week
after the 22nd, [03:20:00] which I believe you said is the 29th, where we're focusing on how we do
those pre meetings, where if we're working with let's say, nonprofit organization, they've already
vetted them and then we talk to that person. That can could probably be done individually. If it's
talking to the person that is going to be doing the testimony, we should definitely talk in pairs. That's
what the recommendation has been from facilitators and from Deputy City Manager, and then move
to the next week when we have our final meeting, and we bring up our suggestions, where maybe
some guidance from think piece would be to talk about it without identifying everyone and just
sharing the stories and decide which ones we want to do which might give us the opportunity to build
that story as Commissioner Simmons has been suggesting from the beginning.
[03:20:58]
I have a question. Did I miss something [03:21:00] or did we come across any type of advertising at
all?
[03:21:04]
Advertising for this?
[03:21:06]
Yeah. To get this out there for people. Am I missing something or do we not come across something?
[03:21:13]
I don't know if we've put out any advertising, but I believe everything's been fully solidified this week.
[03:21:22]
What's the likelihood that we could put it on versus everywhere? Literally it's something that's big
bold that's out there. That's press release.
[03:21:30]
I know that Stefanie has been working on press releases and things like that.
[03:21:36]
Things that drive around.
[03:21:38]
Signage, for people to attend or speak their truths or both.
[03:21:43]
For both. Here's the reason why. Just tonight, when I was at the gym, again, speaking with the guys
there. I have a lot of new people that have come in and they are all stead. They're from different
places, different countries [03:22:00] everywhere but here now, living in Iowa City, and the one thing
they all said was, I had no idea about anything that's going on with this. I don't even know what the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission is. Wow that's amazing, and you know what? I got a lot to say
here. Those are the things that I keep hearing from people who are just brand new coming in here.
When I hear that, I'm hearing, nobody has a clue about what we're doing. How are they going to ever
show up? We need to make sure that there's something out there that is always available for them to
see as they walk by. That's the whole reason why I brought up the whole billboard thing a long, long
time ago. Because, sometimes you got to walk by something a million times before you see it, and if
we had it on buses like those print ups, those could get done at a print shop somewhere pretty fast. I
don't know how to contract would work, we're getting it on the buses and everywhere else, but that's
driving around. Even if it's in your peripheral, that goes a long way, and [03:23:00] one day when
somebody will say, you know what, I do have something to say today, or I didn't know this existed, so
let's move forward with it. To make it attractive too is, that's why we got all these symbols and all this
good stuff is to get people to say, "You know what, what is that? I'm curious about it. Now I want to be
a part of it. If we could get it out there before this is tight, I get it, but that's the only way I really feel
like.
[03:23:27]
I think you've been saying it for a long time Cliff, and I do hear you. I think that's a great idea. I think
we're finally in the right space because we know a little bit more what we're doing. Stefanie, would
you be able to help us just figure out what that process might be to put flyers on the buses?
[03:23:46]
From what date?
[03:23:48]
Just like a flyer that showcases all of the events for that week. Or a flyer that showcases, this is the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission, [03:24:00] would you like to share your truth, this is how you
reach out to us.
[03:24:03]
We're a highway campaign banner. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, we're not allowed to have
billboards and stuff like that in Iowa City.
[03:24:17]
Isn't there a billboard?
[03:24:18]
Can I add something? The listening posts that were done by the council that preceded the constitution
of TRC, really brought people out. Stefanie, I don't know how that was done, but I know for me I read
it somewhere. It what brought people out. But one of the things I noticed on that, and I voiced that to
the mayor, that for example, the one at Master Park and Weatherby Park, [03:25:00] somebody
looking would not tell that they are bypark people in Iowa City. It did reach a lot of people and people
attended. But, even if you go back right now and look at the pictures that were taken there, not really,
you just think that Iowa City is just Caucasian. Using that how people are reached and then may have
that consideration. Also because our own communication, for example, for whatever we've done and
we've invited the public, we somehow, for some reason we've not been very successful. I think, Cliff,
that's where you're coming from with this, of doing something different other than doing the same
thing. But it worked pretty well. For example, the healing [03:26:00] circles, not having a lot of people.
But we need people to come out because we really have a short time to get to March 20 and 21st.
[03:26:11]
I feel the students are somewhere the first and foremost, the ones that might join in the most, and
then if we have things that are throughout the city limits, throughout the entire city just to let it be
known.
[03:26:29]
I think these are all great ideas. I also think we should, what's the right word? Think about our
expectations for this first event. Are we thinking about this as a big event? It seems it's going to be
smaller and intimate. It says 50 people. We definitely want to fill it but this isn't going to be, as of
right now, the only event that we're going to do. This is the first event. [03:27:00] We have
opportunities before and after to continue gathering truths, to continue outreaching. It's going to get
warmer out, there's going to be lots of more opportunities, like for example, the diversity market to do
those things you're talking about, to continue getting people to these events should we decide to
continue doing it after this first initial event and we learn what we need to tweak or do differently. I do
see that Leo's hand is up again.
[03:27:32]
Sorry. Just for clarity, on page 8, I believe you referenced the 50 people. There's a list of some
resources of important pieces to make sure to put together in preparation for this event, preparation
for the space, the transcription software to take care of the recording, [03:28:00] therapeutic
materials around.
[03:28:05]
Especially for the recordings, it is helpful to have a backdrop printed with the logo of the Commission
in the name of the event. We have that on there as something not necessary, but could be very
helpful moving forward. But yes, communications outreach is the second to last. It would be important
to have a press release, possibly a media conference, and invitations for media to show up to this.
[03:28:34]
I think we're underestimating this, and I think we're thinking too small, and I think if we continue to do
that, it's going to be at our own demise. I don't believe that there's another one to do after this one,
but let's just say that there is. You still want this one to be the best because it's where we have the
majority of the resources at. I would recommend that you try to make sure that this is on social
media, that you [03:29:00] make the press release. I think that we get on the Steel Report and we
have a conversation on the Steel Report that we're talking about.
[03:29:06]
The what?
[03:29:06]
The Steel Report.
[03:29:08]
I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with that.
[03:29:09]
I understand. But there's a TV show that's called The Steel Report that comes right after Meet the
Press. It happens on Sundays. That we do commercials, that we invest our money to make sure that
this is the most well known event. Then if we get 50 people, fantastic. If we get 100 people, even
better. But whatever the number is.
[03:29:34]
I'd rather turn people away.
[03:29:36]
We want to turn people away versus not have enough people.
[03:29:39]
That's how you get synergy. Yeah, I agree.
[03:29:41]
Then you want to make sure that this is a production. That the event that happens in March is a
production. It's like you were put on a plate. You don't want to just, small time. You want the sign that
says, TRC. You want some videos that may show people having [03:30:00] some of the conversations
so you can explain to people what the process is. You want to make it something so that when they
get out of it, they just don't hear people's truths. They really understand what we were trying to,
attempting to achieve and why this process is so important. It's the main marketing tool that you have
and it's a thing that you will use, in essence, to move the City council to do something different.
[03:30:25]
I think making it bigger makes it more comforting, as weird as that might sound, because it's saying
it's okay. It's drawing people in.
[03:30:35]
You want there to be something in the newspaper article about this. You want to have conversations
with people. You can do preparation for the next two weeks, but you really want to Blitz starting in
March with everything that we're trying to do for that two weeks. This is what's going on, this is why
we're doing it. We want you to come out. Space repetition. Get on the radio team [03:31:00] on
shows. This is why we're doing this. This is why this is important. I understand some of you all are
from Cedar Rapids, but here's why it's important to all of y'all. This is why you want to be a part of
this. This is what we're doing. In the world where there's no more diversity and inclusion because
that's being pushed to the side. This is why these conversations are important, because if we don't
have the conversations now, we're going to have the conversation a very different way later.
[03:31:25]
We're having two levels of invites. The 12 spots that Leo talked about about the people who are truth
telling and then I guess they're the invitation of people coming to listen.
[03:31:41]
You want people to come to your main event, whatever that is, you say you may have 12 people, you
may not want as many people there. But you want to make it engaging and you want to be able to
communicate what's happening and why this is important. I say yes, you want around 100 people
there, [03:32:00] 50-250 people.
[03:32:02]
We're talking about participants as well as the audience.
[03:32:05]
You want the audience to be there and then you want to put on a show for the audience about why
this is important.
[03:32:10]
Word of mouth goes a long way.
[03:32:12]
Going back to up to 12 slots or how we are going to do to start, first of all, getting those, about 12
people.
[03:32:26]
Like we said a little bit ago, we're going to reach out to the people that we already know over this
next week and by next Thursday, bring it back to our team here who we've decided that we are going
to move forward in our vetting process.
[03:32:48]
When we say bring back by next Thursday, how is that bring back?
[03:32:53]
Email Stefanie and Stefanie will forward it to all of us.
[03:32:57]
Okay.
[03:32:59]
Stefanie, [03:33:00] a quick question. Who is in charge of the website, the current TRC website?
[03:33:09]
What do you want? Let me ask that.
[03:33:11]
That's a perfect place for us to put the advertisement for this event, be the easiest one to manipulate,
and then from there, we can share the link on social media, whatever else to get the word out. It's the
City's website. That's perfect place where we can actually put the advertisement about this project as
things come up, if we have video to add to it, we can add it in there. But once we get it on that page
and then that's the link that we can share on social media. Who is the person we would talk to about
that?
[03:33:48]
I think if you have an image or a flyer, if you get it to me, then I can make the change if that's
answering your question. I [03:34:00] make the change and then it goes to somebody in a different
department and they approve it.
[03:34:06]
Okay.
[03:34:09]
Are we all clear for the 12, how we're going to move forward in trying to gather those? Do we have
any questions right now about how to do that?
[03:34:20]
We have the location sets for the March event.
[03:34:24]
Vee and Annie are working on solidifying the final locations, and with Stefanie, we're looking at
something a little bit more inviting right now.
[03:34:34]
Like what?
[03:34:35]
Not this one.
[03:34:36]
Like what?
[03:34:37]
I have no idea, but I can get you the information they've been working on that.
[03:34:47]
I'm thinking one place could be Terry Trueblood. That's where the Henry Harper event is going to be
in [03:35:00] at the end of February. Roy Ann's Soul Food Dinner for the whole community.
[03:35:04]
It's Friday, it's a week from tomorrow.
[03:35:06]
But what I mean is, so the community is going to be there soon. Why don't you tell me where you
think is good. I was thinking Terry Trueblood.
[03:35:16]
Terry Trueblood is not accessible via bus transportation everything so that the acoustics are terrible
there.
[03:35:23]
I was thinking something that's more in this city.
[03:35:25]
Good. Tell me what you're thinking. Here's one thing. Some of the places like the library, that was the
place that Sikowiss suggested when I called and said there was going to be smudging. They were like,
no. I'm taking notes right here and I will call all the places you tell me.
[03:35:46]
Your place.
[03:35:52]
I have no problem with my place at all. I have literally [03:36:00] no problem with using my place
anytime. But I was thinking in the city, it makes it the easiest for everybody. It's the central point. And
then if it was somewhere that was a little bit nicer, that's a little bit more attractive. I was thinking
even, but time frame wise, I know we threw the golden gloves over there at the graduate. The
graduate was huge, it was beautiful, it was nice, it fit a lot of people. It's easy access to getting food,
everything like that. It's easy access for everybody through transportation. Other than that, do we
have friends that are alike at the Englert?
[03:36:34]
That's what Englert, Greenfield.
[03:36:39]
Those places are stages that are made for it so.
[03:36:44]
There's parking.
[03:36:45]
Parking easy and you don't even need parking, you can catch a bus hop on it. That's what I'm thinking
of. This is getting mad I'm all alright. Let's go keep where we should be.
[03:36:56]
Great ideas. Any other ideas? Because I'll just make calls tomorrow.
[03:36:59]
University [03:37:00] has their university willing to work with us and given us their auditoriums or
anything else?
[03:37:07]
IMU or even Panther. It's a beautiful place. Very good.
[03:37:22]
I've not been there yet.
[03:37:27]
What else is downtown? Any of the hotels?
[03:37:36]
Coralville. Are we thinking about Coralville at all?
[03:37:38]
I think since we're a city commission here, we need to stay here.
[03:37:42]
That's fine. Just thoughts.
[03:37:47]
But yes, if we found somewhere that wasn't downtown, would there be a space that was on the bus
line still?
[03:37:59]
Let's think about [03:38:00] the bus lines then. What's on the bus lines that are easy accessible town?
Always could use my place, but that's I would think something like Marcus theaters.
[03:38:12]
A theater.
[03:38:14]
Great.
[03:38:15]
Yeah.
[03:38:17]
We need two spaces, one for the true telling, one for the circles.
[03:38:22]
Really excellent question. I was thinking that we did, but in a meeting that we had on Tuesday
morning with Eduardo and Melinda and Monape, they were saying that it would happen in the same
space. All of a sudden, auditorium seating doesn't look so great. But in film scene, there are rooms
that you could get that are not. In the Graduate there are.
[03:38:50]
Plenty of spots. Honestly, I think the Graduates wanted the best we were able to. We had places for
people to train, places for people to have discussions, all of the above, [03:39:00] and the big
Ballroom. It all depends on their availability. They usually to be told ahead of time, but I'm pretty sure.
[03:39:08]
Call them first tomorrow.
[03:39:09]
The first thing tomorrow, and if the got the time,.
[03:39:11]
We'll do.
[03:39:12]
Pretty sure it will work with it.
[03:39:13]
Were you downstairs?
[03:39:14]
Yes.
[03:39:16]
It's a great space down there.
[03:39:17]
Absolutely.
[03:39:18]
Okey doke. You've got my email address, you can email me with like I woke up in the middle of the
night. What about this?
[03:39:26]
Annie, you're working on that, and Vee is working with you on that as well, or this is your task.
[03:39:36]
We just found out that it was both days. We wanted to hear from you that that was okay before we
really launched.
[03:39:43]
We already agreed that we wanted to do both days.
[03:39:47]
Midweek.
[03:39:49]
We'll both work on it. If they can work on it, that'd be great.
[03:39:53]
Who's more familiar with the angler? Are you guys all? Are there a lot of spaces that are in there that
are.
[03:40:00]
They have an upstairs space.
[03:40:02]
They do have breakaway places where you a can possibly [OVERLAPPING]
[03:40:10]
You have to go up some stairs.
[03:40:12]
It's the same.
[03:40:14]
I'm thinking is that place is famous.
[03:40:16]
That's easily accessible though we're talking about there's not an elevator.
[03:40:20]
There is an elevator.
[03:40:21]
Is there?
[03:40:22]
Didn't you come up the elevator?
[03:40:24]
No, I walk up the stairs back.
[03:40:27]
But there was an elevator.
[03:40:28]
I don't remember there being an elevator actually.
[03:40:31]
There was someone in the balcony who had a really serious walker and I just can't imagine he went to
upstairs.
[03:40:37]
That's right.
[03:40:38]
I feel like there's an elevator when you first come in. I could be wrong. My memory's not always there.
[03:40:44]
Wait a minute.
[03:40:45]
We need to find that out first.
[03:40:47]
Actually now I think about it last time we were there was a nutcracker, I think.
[03:40:51]
Because I felt like somebody was like yeah.
[03:40:53]
Yes, there is. There is a little bar and stuff.
[03:40:55]
He stood up there.
[03:40:57]
You're right. I looked out the window out there.
[03:40:59]
I know that [03:41:00] you just said that we would be in the same space, but I guess.
[03:41:02]
It could be in a separate space.
[03:41:06]
I imagine there'd be multiple circles maybe running because if we have, we we're not going to have
50 people on one circle.
[03:41:14]
It's interesting, what's being thought of for the circles now is primarily for the speakers and their
support people as opposed to people who are witnesses, who are re-traumatize themselves. If it were
just those folks, maybe it's 20, but there could be other people added.
[03:41:37]
I feel like its a missed opportunity to not give people in the community an opportunity to experience
that at the same time.
[03:41:45]
Help me, I'm lost. Help me.
[03:41:52]
I'm not talking for you, but I think to observe and get to understand might make you feel a little more
comfortable [03:42:00] and joining in.
[03:42:03]
I think for the circles, having a smaller group and having a more, I could be wrong, I don't want to
speak for monopoly and the native partners. But I feel having like 50 people going around speaking
would be pretty, and we would be there. You feel like next week, the week after that.
[03:42:24]
That's not the purpose. The purpose is for people who have spoken and started reliving a trauma, a
harm, that this is a space for them to debrief, to reconnect with themselves.
[03:42:43]
It might still nice to have one area, because obviously if you are people who are listening, and they
get triggered. But I would say that might be more of a larger group in place where they go or
something like that. Then [03:43:00] going to the same place where the person who spoke.
[03:43:05]
I think I talked about that. If I remember, we said they were going to, I don't want to say what people
said. I felt there was something that came up about having folks available.
[03:43:22]
The community has the mobile crisis people. If you read the concept paper, it talks about having at
least two bipark mobile crisis people, and so like that. The other piece that I want to add in, and I'm
taking in what you're saying. We don't assume that we're the only ones with ideas or good feels for
what should be happening. But one thing you want to think about too is, when Eduardo was talking
about, he said, you want people at the door greeting people. You want people [03:44:00] helping
people know where to put their coat, where sitting is, what's going on. That's part of your potential
partners too. You're looking for folks who are like, I want to support this, I want to be part of that
team. Then it seems like you would have at least an email. If not, they come early and somebody tells
them what to do. I don't know that it would be a meeting ahead of time, a week ahead of time to be
trained. But do you understand what I'm saying? You need extensions of yourselves. Extensions of the
community to welcome folks.
[03:44:36]
What you're saying is, is that we need to create a welcome and warm environment.
[03:44:40]
Yes.
[03:44:40]
In order to do that, that may need to be more than just the.
[03:44:45]
Absolutely. That is exactly thank you.
[03:44:47]
That we ultimately need to then prepare them for what that means.
[03:44:50]
That's exactly right.
[03:44:53]
Again, I'm just trying to get back to the seriousness of this, is that, this is the whole presentation
[03:45:00] of this is significant work that needs to be done. I wouldn't do the healing circles. The
healing circles are for those who need some support and additional help, who are primarily the ones
who are speaking.
[03:45:13]
Exactly.
[03:45:14]
There may be some others that may be triggered, so that we can then direct them a place to go, but
it's primarily for the ones who are speaking.
[03:45:21]
That's what I was really thinking about.
[03:45:23]
But it's not really the public partner. It's really the checking in at the end to say, how are you feeling?
Do you need some time to sit? Do you want us to engage with you? Really make sure that that person
is all right before they walk out the door.
[03:45:44]
Chad, actually, I want to encourage any Commissioners who have not sat in circle, a lot of you have,
there were three of you at the one on Saturday. There's one coming up on Saturday, from 1-4 at Right
House of Fashion.
[03:46:00]
We have one at Right House of Fashion. I think this one upcoming is at Dream City.
[03:46:04]
No.
[03:46:05]
They're having them both at Right House?
[03:46:06]
Both. You're thinking of the first email version that went out. The second one. Sorry. No, it's really
good that we're clarifying because it turned out that smudging was not going to work there. Even
though it had happened before, just on double checking. That changed things. Yes to what you're
saying, and there will be a format that is like a circle. People are sitting there, the talking piece is
passed to them. There are certain questions. Anyway, Monape can talk a lot more about it if you want
to hear about it, but so it will be both.
[03:46:48]
I just want to make sure that I'm more crystal clear on this. I'm sorry I get more driver when I'm trying
to make sure I'm clear.
[03:46:55]
It's fine.
[03:46:56]
I think it is the intention. First [03:47:00] question is how many of our team members as a consultants
are going to be there?
[03:47:06]
Dave and Melinda. Dave Ragland and Melinda will be there as the MCs for the truth telling part.
Monape, and T, and Danielle and V and I will be there for the healing circles. We'll all be there, and
those are the roles we're doing. We can also be helpful with as greeters if you want, but I've said
multiple times if you don't want me front facing, I'm fine.
[03:47:43]
We'll have the two people there that will be a part of the presentation. They'll be on the stage doing
the introductions, bringing in the next person.
[03:47:50]
Exactly.
[03:47:51]
Pretty much working through the flow of that.
[03:47:54]
Exactly. Good.
[03:47:55]
We as the Commissioners are not a part of that, or we're part of that [03:48:00] as much as we want
to be a part of that is what I'm hearing you say.
[03:48:02]
I don't have a visual, so I'll have them write to you.
[03:48:07]
I can help with that, that's my jam.
[03:48:11]
I just want to.
[03:48:12]
You want to be in communication then with Edward about that? Cool. Great.
[03:48:18]
I'm down with that. The strategic doing is not a part of this.
[03:48:24]
That's right.
[03:48:25]
That's not a part.
[03:48:26]
No, not for this. No, not at all.
[03:48:29]
The public facing piece is really the fact finding of sharing the information.
[03:48:35]
The truth telling. We would say truth telling.
[03:48:38]
Well, there's a fact finding.
[03:48:44]
I personally don't know how much of that they'll be. There is that as a zoom thing on the 14th, which
is the previous week, and then I think Monday is the 18th. Larry will be in town to do that. He's not
here to say what it is.
[03:49:00]
Larry's not going to be at the main session of the.
[03:49:03]
The truth telling. No, he's going to be a different night.
[03:49:07]
He's going to be here on that Monday and that Tuesday.
[03:49:11]
Who's going to be at that Monday and Tuesday session?
[03:49:14]
Larry.
[03:49:14]
Larry.
[03:49:15]
Larry.
[03:49:16]
Who's the population that's going to be attending that session?
[03:49:20]
Anyone that we invited. That week public is invited to come listen to.
[03:49:25]
We're inviting them to participate. To hear different sections of it over a four or five day period of
time?
[03:49:35]
Yes.
[03:49:37]
I just want to make sure. I'm sorry for getting driver, but I'm not sorry for what I'm asking. They're
going to come in and they're going to hear the fact finding on Monday and Tuesday.
[03:49:48]
Sorry Thursday. He's going to do a zoom because we said that we wanted him to do that.
[03:49:55]
The week before.
[03:49:55]
The week before on the 14th. Then that Monday on the 18th, he's going to be [03:50:00] here to do
that presentation in person for fact finding. Then I believe it's not until the 20th, and the 21st when
we have truth telling.
[03:50:10]
Yes.
[03:50:11]
Where we decided we wanted to also have the healing circles on those same nights.
[03:50:17]
The healing circles, if we're going to separate that, that's really just forward to make sure the people
that they're participating are fine. There is no strategic doing.
[03:50:27]
No.
[03:50:27]
How long do you think the fact finding is going to be?
[03:50:32]
Maybe an hour. He has to do the presentation, and then he's going to do a guided discussion. People
ask questions hour or two.
[03:50:43]
Then how long do you think the truth telling?
[03:50:47]
I believe they have it for an hour and a half or an hour and 45 minutes.
[03:50:53]
I can look at it. The whole evening is. I saw something that was 5:30-9:30.
[03:50:59]
Yes.
[03:51:00]
We're thinking of the same thing.
[03:51:01]
That's what they're looking at for those two days. I don't have the paper in front of me, but it's one of
the things that we can click on in the concept note that they sent out.
[03:51:13]
I just want to sit through a 5:30-9:30.
[03:51:20]
It's the two events. The truth telling is probably a couple of hours and then the healing circles is an
hour and a half.
[03:51:32]
Remember the healing circle is apart for the individuals that are participating and going through it's
separate,.
[03:51:39]
Separate and after.
[03:51:41]
I'm talking about the crowd.
[03:51:42]
Yes.
[03:51:43]
They wouldn't have to stay for healing so they can leave after truth telling is done, they can take off.
[03:51:48]
Yeah.
[03:51:48]
I'm talking about the crowd, so I'm talking about the audience, not the participants.
[03:51:53]
Yes.
[03:51:54]
The audience we expect to come two days. In the first day spend two [03:52:00] hours for the fact
finding, and then spend another two hours for the truth telling.
[03:52:06]
The first day, yes.
[03:52:09]
I imagine people can come to what they want to. If they wanted to come to the truth telling but not
the fact finding, they could. Or if they wanted to see what the truth telling is about and not come.
[03:52:20]
You can also watch online for the fact finding if they don't want to come in person on that first day.
[03:52:27]
It wouldn't be like mandatory that you better be here every day.
[03:52:31]
My suggestion is to package it together as if it's a movie where everything is in the movie.
[03:52:38]
But we made this decision two meetings ago.
[03:52:42]
I understand that we made the decision based on the best information we had at that time. If you
want to go with what the plan is, then it is what it is. My suggestion is, is that you're not going to have
people that are going to come multiple days to sit through this experience.That what you do is that
you have [03:53:00] one show and you can show it like a movie multiple times, but it is one show.
Then they can come to the show and experience everything.
[03:53:10]
We get to start with a short period of truth telling. Not have a discussion, but just have them do the
presentation. I'm sorry, not truth telling, presentation of fact finding. They get that taken care of.
That's done, we move into truth telling and then the people who have gone through the truth telling
and would like to stay for the circles, we take care of them. Also, we have community on board to help
with folks in the crowd who might be triggered.
[03:53:40]
You do a two-hour experience of fact finding, the truth telling.
[03:53:43]
That's correct.
[03:53:44]
That's not going to work for this time. We've already made the decision. The flights have already been
booked. We have to do it the way we've already decided.
[03:53:51]
We don't have to. If that's what you're saying we're going to do, then I'll.
[03:53:57]
I don't see how there's a choice but you can enlighten [03:54:00] me how there is.
[03:54:01]
There is a choice. There are consultants. You want to package it together to just be able to provide
the experience instead of having people try to come for a week of this experience of experiencing
different pieces. It's just my suggestion from a success perspective.
[03:54:20]
I hear you. I wish we had the suggestion two weeks ago.
[03:54:23]
I understand.
[03:54:26]
I think also we need to keep in mind we've got two different narratives running through here. One
narrative is, this is the pen ultimate or ultimate extravaganza. The other narrative is that it's a pilot
test. It's not going to be both. It will be some combination of both, but it's just that it's not going to be
perfect so we don't know how it's going to turn out. So however we do it, we're going to learn from it
and people are going to get something of value [03:55:00] out of it and we'll change it the next time
we do it.
[03:55:02]
Listen Louis, you can believe that and I'm totally fine that you believe that. I'm fine with that. This is
the only time that we're going to have to chance to do it with our consultants. That's it. Then we're
going to have to present whatever we present. Depending on what we present depends on what else
we're going to get or not get. I'm trying to bring to reason the politics of this whole thing versus what
we think is perfect. We have to make sure that this at least is presented in such a way that we truly
get some benefit of it. That's all I'm recommending.
[03:55:40]
I'm just saying we're going to get some benefit either way. Either one of them is going to get the
benefit.
[03:55:45]
Believe what you want on this one but I'm really trying to press on this one, is that again, when it
comes to us trying to put this together, like I said, we're not even, I'm fine.
[03:55:59]
I think [03:56:00] what you're saying is like first impressions is like this is setting the tone for the
community and for everyone.
[03:56:09]
What I'm saying is that most people only know of the chaos, if anything, of what we've gone through.
They don't know what it took us to get to this place. They just know the chaos. We're going to go
through here and this is the communication of it all. This is it. This is what they'll ultimately see. Even
they will only choose to come back to experience it again if they think that this is something that was
worthwhile.
[03:56:40]
They're valid points, definitely.
[03:56:45]
Doing it separate and you write, hey, I should have brought it up. Let's say doing it separate, it is
what it is. If it's not tight, then it's going to be a problem for us.
[03:56:57]
I want to respond to it's not [03:57:00] a pilot, it's a phase, it's a stage of carrying out the TRC
charges. It's our first piece. It was voted for as the first topic, especially on public safety, law
enforcement. Especially because it's the most closely related to George Floyd death what led to the
creation of the TRC. It's not a pilot, it's just the first fact finding fact topic that we're working on truth
telling and reconciliation. It's not a test, it's not a pilot. It's just the beginning of working the first topic
that we are working on.
[03:58:00]
I'm just trying to tell you, it could be the end.
[03:58:03]
I think that's a good place for us to finish off on. I think we all made our points, but it is 11 o'clock
guys. We probably should wrap it up a little bit.
[03:58:13]
Here's what I'd like to say in listening to that. What I'll do is see if there's a way to bring some fact
finding in at the beginning that you're right, the flights and everything has been booked so doctor
Schooler is not going to be here most likely. But I will see if there's a way to integrate some of that
information into the 20th and 21st as well.
[03:58:38]
Okay.
[03:58:39]
I just want to add that in the facilitation, we may have folks who need language translation, Arabic
and and the other ones. We don't know who we're going to get and probably can facilitate, find a way
in which that could be incorporated if it's needed. [03:59:00] Our folks who do translation don't do it
for free. They don't volunteer that they charge some money.
[03:59:07]
There are definitely still machines and apps that can help us out with that too.
[03:59:10]
We have funding.
[03:59:11]
Okay.
[03:59:12]
We can pay people, especially our people.
[03:59:15]
Perfect. What I'm used to is people in real time doing it and I'm having trouble having someone speak
in English and then someone speaks in Spanish, and then someone speaks.
[03:59:28]
No, that's not what I meant.
[03:59:29]
Yes.
[03:59:30]
That's in the public ones maybe. But if possible, leave to the committee.
[03:59:34]
In the truth telling moment, six people, seven people, some of them could be somebody who does not
speak English very well.
[03:59:40]
Exactly. How do we accommodate?
[03:59:44]
I think this is a conversation we can move outside of the meeting because it is 11:00 o'clock.
[03:59:48]
Great. Thank you very much and I'd be glad to talk to you Amos.
[03:59:51]
I'm going to assume that we don't want to move onto any other agenda items and we want to move
forward and maybe our facilitators can send an [04:00:00] email with all the updates that they
wanted to provide. I will say from this moving forward, I'm going to need a lot of help. If you have
ideas on how we should design this communication plan, I'm going to need help. I can do it by myself.
We'll be working with the facilitators, but we definitely are going to have to have some outside
meetings between now and the 7th. I'll try to reach out to people and if people can reach out to each
other and let's get that scheduled so we can move forward.
[04:00:36]
Can we use Zoom meetings? Zoom meetings will be easier.
[04:00:39]
Yes. Zoom meetings are definitely possible.
[04:00:42]
Can we at least get a flyer?
[04:00:47]
I think that a flyer is in the works. I believe that's the last thing I heard. Can we move to adjournment
or do we need to go to announcements?
[04:00:59]
Only [04:01:00] announcement I have is my next show is called Combat Corruption because it's
important. I will advertise everything that we're doing here during that show because Combat
Corruption is exactly what it means in multiple different way, shapes and forms. I deal with it on a
constant basis, in multiple different ways. I just don't bring it up here yet. I'm waiting to tell my truth,
trust me. But that's all I have. It'll be March 9 it's when it's supposed to be so I have to.
[04:01:30]
Is this a box?
[04:01:32]
Yeah, it's a box.
[04:01:33]
Okay.
[04:01:35]
With that being said, that's all I got.
[04:01:37]
If there's nothing else I want to say once again, thank you so much Marie. We're going to miss you.
Does someone ask motion to adjourn? Is there a second?
[04:01:46]
Second.
[04:01:47]
Okay.
[04:01:48]
There you go.