Should members of the committee overseeing the city’s remediation process receive benefits from the fund if they qualify?
With the first housing grants coming out last week, City Rules Committee members weighed this issue at their January 19 meeting.
The seven-member Reparations Committee – which includes three current board members (Peter Braithwaite, 2nd district; Bobby Burns, 5th district; and Devon Reid, 8th district), a former board member (Robin Rue Simmons, 5th district) and three citizens – was created in October 2020 to oversee the city’s Reparations Fund.
The group’s responsibilities include evaluating applications and recommending funding allocations for housing and economic development programs that address historic discrimination by the city.
Committee members held a random draw on January 13 at the Fleetwood-Jourdain Community Center, distributing the first $25,000 in housing grants to 16 recipients of 122 eligible applicants who qualified as “Ancestors.”
Under the direction of the Reparations Committee, funds currently available for the Restorative Housing Program will be prioritized for the Ancestors. According to guidelines posted on the city’s website, an Ancestor is defined as an African-American or black individual who was an adult resident of Evanston between 1919 and 1969.
Generally, members of public bodies cannot receive gifts, such as money or fees, related to their government services, Nicholas Cummings, the city’s Corporate Counsel, wrote in a memo to the Rules Committee.
“This would create a barrier for members of the Reparations Committee who may be eligible to receive benefits from the city’s reparations funds,” he explained. “Currently, there is at least one Committee member who would be eligible to receive benefits as an Ancestor.”
Cummings recommended that council members change the city code to allow members of the Reparations Committee to receive benefits.
In discussion at the Rules Committee meeting held virtually, Braithwaite thanked the team for raising the issue. He pointed to Carlis Sutton, a citizen member of the Reparations Committee, as someone who would be affected if the restriction was maintained.
“The value it brings [as an Ancestor] is really appreciated on the committee,” said Braithwaite. “He is wise in his words and brings a high level of legitimacy to the work he does because he brings that senior perspective. So I would hate it because of the color of his skin and any other reasons why, based on our rules, we create a barrier for him.”
Reid also supported the change, noting that the rule, if applied, “would exclude nearly every black person in the city from serving on the committee, or they would have to stop being remedied.”
As a precautionary measure, however, Braithwaite suggested that officials check the state code to ensure there are no barriers at this level.
Clare Kelly, a member of the First Ward Council, said she was “a little uncomfortable”, however, with the position the city was taking.
She said the rules shouldn’t “prevent Mr. Sutton,” already a member of the committee, from receiving benefits, but the city may want to consider a different policy for new members.
a matter of urgency
Cummings said the matter “really just came up with some urgency because of last week’s draw,” with the 16 recipients receiving prize notices.
He pointed out that the Reparations Committee at its next meeting could vote to say, “These are the 16 people who were drawn. We still need to send it to the City Council to approve the payment. We still don’t know who it is [the recipients] and could include Mr. Sutton, for example,” he said.
Sutton, a long-time resident of Evanston who is active in city affairs, could not immediately be reached for comment on Thursday, Jan. 20.
Cummings said he was open to suggestions to improve the process. He said the proposed change was an effort “to say that this award is not a gift under the code of ethics, period. Like them [Reparation Committee members] must be able to participate and [the award] it should not be considered a gift or a conflict of your duties. Because we want people who are really impacted or have been impacted [by past racial policies] have some say in how that money should be spent serving on the committee.”
A ‘random process’
Burns underscored this view, saying it is “fundamental” that individuals affected by past racial practices “play a role in determining the harm and in determining how the program is implemented.”
“I think one thing that’s also different,” he added, “is that the selection process hasn’t been done by the committee so far – it’s been a random process.
“Committee members didn’t select individual recipients,” he said, “and I’m not even sure the committee has to officially approve recipients, because the process does. I don’t think they officially approved of what happened in Fleetwood. I think this could really go straight to the board.”
Rules Committee members did not vote on the matter, supporting Braithwaite’s suggestion to review the matter at their next meeting.
