So I'll be listening in to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission meeting tonight. I sat in on the first and read the minutes for the second. At this point, things still seem to be not quite defined.

And I still want to know what an etiquette officer is.
#iowacity

Alright, we appear to be getting started.

The usual beginning of meeting stuff. Approval of minutes, etc.

JCAHC offering aff housing "training sessions" for commissioners to get caught up on salient housing issues.

Meeting etiquette. Now I guess I get my etiquette officer explanation.

Traore giving a rundown of how commissioners should address each other, simple parliamentary procedures, refrain from "name calling or outbursts."

Is there a real threat of a commissioner lashing out?

Mission statement.

Harrington clarifying differences between draft mission statement and council remit. Statement meant to be an "elevator pitch," not... something. Thought wasn't followed through.

Hamad has objection to mission statement in current form. Agrees with earlier criticism of being too narrow. Wants the process to slow down and have broader participation in the drafting process. Seems she wants some more directly confrontational language (re: institutions).

Seems to also want the statement to be more specific and direct regarding the issues on the ground. Wants "bolder action" and to expand upon the council's existing mandate.

I personally appreciate Hamad's attempt to push through the vagaries that have ruled the day so far.

Porter seems... not happy; says it's not just about IFR. "We don't need to spend a lot of time on a mission statement." Also worth noting she addressed Hamad by her first name, not commissioner.

Ali makes the point that this statement is just meant to be short and sweet.

Harrington believes that people from the entire surrounding area should be allowed to participate.

My note - the council themselves actually envisioned broader community participation. For instance, you didn't have to be an IC resident to be on the commission.

Traore agrees with a little of column A, little of column B. Feels broader participation would be good, especially given behavior of... um... certain former C-ville council members. Wants him to speak to the commission. (how would they convince him to do so?)

Potty break, sry.

Harris: "we cannot start out by putting inflammatory words" in the mission statement. Thinks including "white supremacy" is a bridge too far.

Hamad notes that her draft is no longer than the current one and that the words "white supremacy" do not appear in it.

My perspective on this is that they're not really arguing about the statement. It's just a proxy for arguing about what they plan to actually do in their work.

Looks like they're tabling the mission statement until the next meeting, so they have time to look at Hamad's draft.

Next item: terms related to racial justice, so that everyone is on the same page about they mean.

Traore wants to add "truth," so that everyone can be clear as to what they mean. Favors a subjective definition.

I'd also add this is the largest attendance of a commission meeting I've ever seen. You don't get this many people showing up to Planning & Zoning.

Next: choosing a facilitator. Suggest: Jesse Case, Eduardo Gonzalez, and Annie Tucker.

Hamad wants a broader and publicly announced application process.

Traore is not opposed but notes they'd have to get on top of that to meet the deadline.

Harrington worries application call might fail, then they'd be right back where they are now.

Hamad in general wants things to slow down and for there to be more deliberation. Which is great in theory, but they are up against hard deadlines.

Porter asks Hamad to throw a name in, but Hamad commits to having an open application process.

The shade is real, folks. I don't know if my comments make that clear.

I'm kinda with Hamad here. The deadline is real, but the whole "let's pick somebody we know" is part of the problem with how these commissions often work.

Currin emphasizes the time crunch.

Hamad believes the work is too dire to rush things. Reiterates previous statements.

Traore believes the facilitator only needs to be willing to do the work, regardless of their race. Porter agrees.

Currin doesn't quite suggest that certain people are behaving improperly.

The way people are going to bat for their personal faves actually makes me suspect those faves more than I did.

My thoughts so far:

Everyone else seems to want Hamad to put a name forward in the same way, but she's been pretty consistent saying it should be an open application process.

Harrington opposed to application process.

"The names have come forward." That's one way to describe it.

Currin seems to think they can't do an open application, that the process of nominating and choosing is a done deal.

A lot of talking around what obviously is at issue.

Bowers notes there was consensus to use a nominating process but not a vote. So it's not set in stone.

Aside from Hamad, there seems to be little will to go back and start the process over.

White people getting a lot of love tonight. Surreal.

Public comment wonders if it's normal for a city commission to hire staff without a call for application. More general questions about the process.

Bowers notes most boards are staffed by city employees like herself but also the unusual nature of the TRC.

Porter thinks choosing the facilitator and a job description for the position are two [unrelated?] things.

Ffs, people, just use your given names. It's literally how every other commission works. This whole title thing is just getting bizarre, and you can't even stick to it.

Next: procedural rules and attendance

Harrington throws out 6 absences as threshold for removal from the commission. Emphasizes how everyone knew there'd be a commitment.

Navarre-Jackson wants some consideration for the circumstances surrounding absences.

Some discussion about distinguishing between excused and unexcused absences. Not clear how you'd even make the distinction.

This is, like, some elementary school discussion of absences. Are they gonna call the commissioner's parents too?

Next: local court decisions and impact on black people in JC

Porter wanted this to be put on the agenda regarding the man who ran into protesters over the summer. She's very opposed. (N.B. - IFR actually opposed him being punished more harshly)

Clarification: Porter was not okay with him being released, but IFR took a stand saying abolition is abolition and that everyone should be free of the penal system the way he is.

Kill the cop in your head, folks. You can't say ACAB then be fine with them when it's your enemies.

Ali recounts a current situation regarding a black man who's currently being unjustly held. Wants more focus on prosecutors, which is justified. I too am baffled how the county has escaped criticism.

"Punishment for your crimes." Wow, we have a long way to go, friends.

There's a lot of wanting vengeance by proxy in this discussion, so I honestly don't want to repeat it.

Yes, there's a double standard, but not a single commissioner has mentioned THE VICTIMS of what happened, who agree with the IFR position.

Maybe we could get Hamad's opinion, since she was, you know, actually there that night, unlike anyone else going off right now.

Okay, now she's explaining the IFR position. Not sure she'll get a sympathetic hearing.

Porter glad IFR wrote their op-ed, even though she disagrees.

Traore notes the disconnect between all the people who had so many opinions about the protests but not about what happened regarding Stepanek's release.

Porter's claim that "nobody's saying anything" isn't exactly true. Sure, maybe not as much as over the summer.

I'm frustrated with this whole discussion. Aside from Traore and Hamad, they're mostly discussing hypotheticals about double standards. Which is true, but they're not addressing their own desire to subject others to the same form of punitive violence our system visits on POC.

And commissioners shouldn't be discussing the relative virtues of political campaigns, especially in service of the fucking JC Democratic party.

They're going to discuss a news release in the next meeting regarding the Stepanek release.

It's telling to me that they want to solicit testimony from the JC attorney but not from the people who were the actual victims of what Stepanek did. So much focus on process and very little on making them whole or hearing them out.

I'm honestly sick.

Also, in case people aren't aware, Porter is a JC Supervisor, so hauling a JC attorney before a commission she chairs is a massive conflict of interest.

If your boss asked you to attend a panel where you'd be grilled, would you be free to say no?

Hamad wants the commission to be clear about what they want to get from people who testify before them and what they mean by accountability.

I'm losing track, because... I dunno what to say.

Commissioners are making announcements, and like I said, I lost track.

Bowers reminds commissioners of basic procedures and to make sure she's doing what they need of her. Notes program at AA Museum on Buxton, IA.

Meeting adjourned.

I'll keep the rest of my opinions to myself.