By Anne Levin

At a public hearing on Monday evening, January 22, about its proposal to consolidate the Civil Rights Commission, the Human Services Commission, and the Affordable Housing Board into one single committee, Princeton Council voted 5-0 to follow through with the ordinance despite three hours of testimony — nearly all of it opposed to the restructuring.

Emotions ran high at the meeting, both on and off the dais. Council members voted at the beginning of the hearing to amend the ordinance, changing its name from the Community Services Advisory Committee to the Advisory Committee on Affordable Housing, Human Serivces, and Racial, Social, and Economic Equity; the number of members, and how the chairperson would be selected. They also apologized for the way the ordinance was rolled out without committee members’ knowledge.

“Many of you took the news as a slap in the face, and the repudiation of the years of effort you have put in,” said Councilwoman Eve Niedergang. “That was not our intention, nor is it our intention to move away from improving the lives of our residents who most need our support.”

While sensitive to the comments being made, Council members maintained their view that consolidating the two commissions and one board into one committee would be more efficient in dealing with issues of equity, homelessness, and racism.

The idea of consolidation was first broached in a memorandum to Council by Deputy Administrator/Director of Health Jeffrey Grosser, saying the current configuration represents “an outdated paradigm, where boards, commissions, and committees are siloed and compartmentalized within narrow focuses that attempt to address complex, multifaceted problems without taking into consideration the broader range of influences and variables which underpin them.”

“It is a bold step, and change is never easy,” said Councilman Leighton Newlin. “But we cannot continue with the status quo when it is not serving our community. We must prioritize the well-being of those we represent, even if it means challenging the existing norms.”

Members of the public, many of whom have served for years on the three entities under discussion, complained that the

ordinance was introduced (at the January 8 Council meeting) without any previous notice to them. Some said they were insulted by the action.

“This ordinance is not the correct way,” said Lance Liverman, who has served on all three entities as well as on Council. “I was hurt, along with others, and didn’t want to receive your apologies. I felt very disrespected. I’m asking you to suspend or defeat this ordinance
tonight.”

Affordable Housing Board Chair Kate Warren said she took exception to calling the current system “an outdated paradigm.” Civil Rights Commission member Walter Bliss challenged the notion of efficiency.

“We do not cost taxpayer dollars, so why should we be eliminated in the interest of efficiency?” he asked. “Shrinking the three all-volunteer boards ensures conflicts of interest. These critically important policy areas warrant independent oversight. Let’s talk about it. If there are problems, let’s fix them. There has been no such conversation to date. Please rethink this ordinance.”

Human Services Commission member Larry Spruill pointed out that the Civil Rights moniker “has a lot of power,” he said. “I don’t think it’s something we should play with.”

Former Human Services Commission member John Heilner said the ordinance was “very short-sighted despite its intentions. I’m especially distressed that the Civil Rights Commission would no longer exist on its own. It provides a small group of trusted residents, who are not town government employees, to whom those with discrimination complaints can turn.”

Veronica Olivares-Weber, chair of the Human Services Commission, listed several initiatives and collaborations that have addressed under-represented communities. The boards and commissions do have issues, she said, but they should be addressed via conversations among members, elected officials, and municipal staff. In the end, “we all want the same thing, a community that thrives and embraces its diversity.”

Speaking before taking a vote, Newlin and Council President Mia Sacks said the controversy over the ordinance was the most difficult issue they have faced as members of the governing body. Sacks said the new committee is “a floor. There is a lot more that we need, but we need to get started with that. There are many objectives the CRC would like to accomplish. Some things have happened, and some have not. We have an unfortunate tendency in Princeton to talk for years on end and not take action, and I would like to take action tonight.”

Niedergang said, “The current structure has existed for 50 years, and we’re not getting the job done.” Newlin added, “At the end of the day, what we have right now can work better. To the people in here that may think that I’ve turned my back on my community, I really hope over time that you will search your hearts, because the people in here have known me most of my life. I would never disenfranchise the least of us.”