The Champaign City Council vs. Everybody
Have you ever wondered why the Urbana City Council receives so much activist attention, but the Champaign City Council seems to go unnoticed? I sure have. It’s frustrating. The question was the pebble in my shoe in my 3-years serving as chair of the Champaign Citizen Police Review Subcommittee (CPRS). After some reflection on my time in that role, I think I have an answer.
First, context. Serving on the CPRS was a privilege and honor. The Subcommittee exists because of the legacy of Kiwane Carrington. The Subcommittee is tasked with community police relations, over the years we built a strong working relationship with both Champaign Police Department and the community. Pursuant to the ordinance that governs the CPRS, my election to the Champaign County Board meant I could no longer serve on the subcommittee. I believe this is a good rule. I couldn’t be more confident in my fellow commissioners’ abilities to take the next steps forward.
My election and subsequent resignation from the CPRS came at the right time. I can offer a dozen metaphors to explain why: I needed a relief pitcher. Nothing was left in the tank, I was running on empty. I was writing checks my heart couldn’t cash. In short, I was worn out and discouraged.
Here, I’m reflecting on my time on the CPRS to spotlight a pattern of Champaign City Council practices that clothesline attempts at making things better and grind down activists. In doing so, I’m also hoping to offer a new sketch on the way we think about and use public participation opportunities.
If you’d like a portrait of my time as chair of the Champaign Citizen Police Review Subcommittee…
It’s the cancelation of a harm reduction presentation planned in November 2019. I failed not because of opposition from Champaign Police administration but because of the Champaign City Council.
Why harm reduction? It’s is a necessary topic for the Citizen Review Subcommittee because substance dependency shapes community and police relations. Drug users are a hard-to-reach and under-served population. Champaign Police officers are often the first to reach a victim after an overdose.
Further, harm reduction is a widespread but unaddressed community problem. An estimated 22,500 Champaign County residents struggle with opioid use disorder. Approximately half of prison and jail inmates meet DSM-5 criteria for substance abuse or dependence, and significant percentages of state and federal prisoners committed the act they are incarcerated for while under the influence of drugs. Data from a national study in five major American cities shows that at the time of arrest, 63-83% of arrestees had drugs in their system. Between 2000 and 2013, the percentage of arrestees with opiates in their system increased, with significant increases in opiate presence, as well as methamphetamines. Death by overdose is the most common cause of death for those returning to life after incarceration.
The Harm Reduction Presentation
In August 2019, I met with harm reduction specialist Joe Trotter of the C-U Public Health Department to discuss harm reduction efforts in Champaign County. I met with him in no specific capacity although I hoped to get community insights that might inform my campaign platform. In that conversation, Trotter revealed his clients had concerning experiences with Champaign Police officers that fell within the jurisdiction of the mission of the Citizen Review Subcommittee.
Trotter explained he regularly hears from his clients that CPD officers practice discretion in a way that could conflict with new laws, including confiscating naloxone kits and clean syringes. Trotter also pointed out ways CPD officers could reduce the impact of drug use. Shifting into my role as the chair of the Citizen Review Subcommittee, I asked if he would be interested in connecting with CPD administration on this topic. Trotter had participated in a town hall in Monticello on 9/7/18 in a similar public education setting, this was not a new task and well within his job description.
After some discussion, the City Community Relations Manager and I decided to invite Trotter to speak at a public meeting. We discussed that this was clearly within our jurisdiction as outlined in the 2017 ordinance. We also agreed that expert testimony would be appropriate to ensure what was disclosed was accurate and open for public comment. We scheduled the presentation was scheduled for November 13.
In preparation for the presentation, Trotter and I drafted a summary of our meeting and what he would disclose in that public forum. Trotter approved this summary in early August via email after some revisions. I sent this summary to the City Community Relations Manager and to the Chair of the Human Relations Commission in the following week.
Harm Reduction Specialist Trotter had planned to discuss four topics:
- CPD Officers have confiscated naloxone rescue kits. This practice conflicts with a new law protecting syringe exchange programs.
- CPD Officers have confiscated clean syringes, even in numbers that do not exceed 100. This makes syringe exchange programs more difficult. A recently passed state law that protects syringe exchange programs from police intervention.
- The way CPD Officers apply discretion at a scene involving drug use creates a climate of fear and suspicion among drug users. This barrier between community/police relations can lead to problematic and chaotic drug use that precipitates public health problems like Hepatitis C and HIV outbreaks. Two examples: (A) Residents are hiding, collecting, and reusing syringes and discarding the used syringes in public spaces quickly after use for fear of arrest and prosecution. (B) Champaign residents hesitate to call CPD after an overdose because officers may target those at the scene for arrest. Good Samaritan laws protect the person who notified law enforcement, but doesn’t apply to bystanders. The decision to arrest bystanders, however, is up to the discretion of officers.
- CPD officers aren’t required to carry naloxone. CPD’s proposed budget for 2019/2020 and the previous budget for 2018/2019 does not include naloxone kits as a budget item. This prevents long term planning.
One month later, I announced Trotter’s presentation at the September CPRS meeting which is an open meeting and televised. My announcement gave an overview of what he would discuss and briefly described harm reduction. View that at the 18 minute mark.
My statement:
I’ve invited specialist Joe Trotter to present to the CRS at this meeting.
Mr. Trotter CU Public Department of Health to present to the CRS regarding the Overdose Prevention and Harm Reduction Act, which went into effect last month.
Mr. Trotter will offer guidance on best practices Champaign Police officers and supervisors should take to support drug overdose prevention programming. He will also offer information that will be useful to CRS Commissioners considering a case involving drug use. In particular, police policy on officer discretion in a scene involving drug use (CPD Policy 1.2.7). It’s my hope that Mr. Trotter’s presentation can make room for a community-wide discussion on harm reduction.
As an approach, harm reduction does 4 things:
1. Asserts that the voices of drug users and those with a history of drug use ought to be central in deliberations of policies and programs that policies designed to serve them.
2. Affirms that drugs users are the primary agents of reducing the harms of their drug use, and seeks to empower users to share information and support each other in strategies which meet their actual conditions of use.
3. Recognizes that the realities of poverty, class, racism, social isolation, past trauma, sex-based discrimination and other social inequalities affect both people’s vulnerability to and capacity for effectively dealing with drug-related harm.
4. Does not attempt to minimize or ignore the real and tragic harm and danger associated with licit and illicit drug use.
To my knowledge, this is a new topic to Champaign. So, I’d like to insert an additional public comment opportunity that gives audience members a chance to respond and ask questions about Mr. Trotter’s presentation. I’ve also corresponded with Chair Young of the Human Relations Commission about adding a presentation from Mr. Trotter to their agenda.
In making this public statement, I now realized I had also notified the City Manager’s office and the Mayor. I also opened the presentation to news media. This is where things got unexpectedly sticky.
The Push Back
Soon after I announced the presentation, the News Gazette reported that City Council members had objected to the role and responsibilities as performed by of the CRS: “We put [the CRS] together because they’re supposed to be the process, not to tell the chief how to handle complaints.”
These comments were prompted and encouraged by direction from City leadership, particularly the City Manager and Mayor Feinen. On October 15, the Champaign City Council put action to words. A request to review all commissions and committees was circulated and approved in a meeting that night. The stated intention in the review is to merge the CRS with the HRC, ultimately disbanding the subcommittee. Again, upon further discussion with Champaign City Council members, these comments and actions were prompted by City leadership.
I was very vocal on about this review and several local news outlets reported my concerns. In response, the Champaign City Manager issued a press release that offered an alternative explanation that contradicted the reporting of the the News Gazette. The release describes the local reports from the News Gazette as “misinformation,” however no one had reached out to the reporter to challenge the factual basis of the claims.
In October, the City Community Relations Manager and I again discussed final preparations for Trotter’s presentation, including expectations for a slide show presentation and when to offer opportunities for public comment.
The Cancelation
The presentation was canceled by the Champaign City Manager’s office days before the November meeting of the CPRS. The City Community Relations Manager notified me of this via phone; that the Assistant City Manager had spoken with the Champaign Urbana Public Heath Department administrator and canceled the harm reduction presentation. I asked one-of-three board members of C-U Board of Health via email, they confirmed they had not heard anything about the cancelation via email. It did not come to a vote on the Board, and the decision was made by staff.
The explanation relayed was that the CPRS was not the proper forum, and that Trotter was supposed to work directly with CPD on such issues. I asked if the presentation could continue if the reduced the scope of the presentation was reduced. The City Community Relations Manager said they would ask the City Manager’s office.
Days after the cancelation, I asked a City Community Relations Manager for a written explanation of the cancelation from the City Manager’s office to share with residents and fellow Commissioners. I wrote via email:
“Could we get a statement from the City Manager about the decision to cut Joe’s presentation? I announced the presentation at September’s CRS meeting, and it seems necessary to give some kind of explanation. It seems appropriate to read that statement during correspondence.”
Note for clarity: Joe refers to Joe Trotter.
The City Community Relations Manager communicated that request was denied by the City Manager’s staff via phone call on November 1, 2019. I was floored. It made no sense to me. The City was going to great pains to avoid putting things in writing. The CCRM offered no explanation or justification. They also seemed confused.
The Cover-up
On Halloween, the News Gazette reporter who had been following the cancelation of Trotter’s upcoming presentation on harm reduction was told by the Editor that his story had been stopped by request of Mayor Feinen.
I was told that the City Manager’s office had a meeting to discuss my relationship with this reporter and how to stop the story from continuing. This is called a Preliminary Information Exchange (PIE), and it’s not subject to the Open Meetings Act. There are no records of these meetings other than the short briefing documents. There is also no obligation to share anything discussed in a PIE meeting with other City Council members.
This information made feel queasy. I felt I was missing something or simply being gas-lit, but hoping for the former. I went to visit C-U PHD in person to meet with anyone related to harm reduction to discuss the cancelation. I was told that Trotter was out of the office. I spoke with Trotter’s counterpart instead, who confirmed that public presentations are indeed within the job description of specialists. I again reached out to a CUPHD Board Member to communicate my concern, who reached out to Julia Pryde and another division head via email about the cancelation. Neither were available and no one attempted to contact me.
Hours before the November meeting, the City Community Relations Manager informed me that the presentation won’t continue at the CRS, but may be introduced at the Community Coalition. They explained the reason had not changed, and that the City would make no public statement about the cancelation.
To placate me, City Community Relations Manager announced C-U PHD will present on harm reduction at the Community Coalition meeting hours before our November meeting. The presentation was billed to focus on harm reduction efforts, particularly ongoing syringe exchange programs. It is of a smaller scope than the agenda planned for the CRS meeting.
In reality, the presentation was no longer than 60 seconds, focused on the importance of naloxone, and in no way resembled the information Trotter had originally intended to present.
Burnout
The 2020 CPRS Annual Recommendations were my final task as chair. After the murder of George Floyd, we had a moment where we had community attention. We could make big asks. I threw myself into the work, but I prepared myself for the brick wall that is the technocracy of the Champaign City Council. For that reason, the 2020 Recommendations began by detailing the crowd-friendly commitments the Council had made in the months past:
Champaign City officials are in agreement that change is required. In the News-Gazette, Mayor Feinen promised that the city would “review policing policies and strategies, economic opportunities and education,” she stated that she “the Champaign City Council is ready for the opportunity for change.” Similarly, Champaign police Chief Anthony Cobb has acknowledged “I don’t think there’s anything off the table; we’re going to make some significant changes.” “We’re going to have to,” Chief Cobb continued, “that’s the direction we’re getting from our council, from the public, from our mayor.” Both Mayor Feinen, Chief Cobb, and several City Council members have been photographed taking a knee at recent local Black Lives Matter protests to honor the need for change.
The Champaign City Council will soon consider alterations to the bargaining agreement between Champaign Police and the City. I know the City will do the bare minimum to avoid public push-back. I will always feel somewhat responsible for that outcome, I think about it often.
With the success of those recommendations in mind, I participated in the City of Champaign’s listening sessions on policing. My comments were raw and contained more emotion than usual. I pointed out that although Chief Cobb and fellow CPD because of Champaign Police administration or city staff, but because of the Champaign City Council. A WCIA reporter reached out soon after for a quote. “I am confident Chief Cobb will make use of the public comments offered in these listening sessions.” The reporter omitted the other half of my sentence: “… but I have little confidence that the Champaign City Council will honor their half of the bargain,” I continued.
Lesson: The Champaign City Council is a technocracy. We should plan accordingly.
Democracy requires community input for decision-making, but without standards. Public input opportunities are almost always offered at the very start or the very end of the lawmaking process. If you’re reading this, I’m betting you’ve spoken at such an opportunity. In contrast, public deliberation is the collaborative process that occurs throughout within institutional spaces through planned events and rules of order. Boards and commissions like the CPRS are made up of appointed citizens, but as in my case, can easily be ignored.
We have a public participation problem- not due to a lack of community interest, but active suppression from the Council. Today, I look at three years of my work and know that even if I rally residents to speak up in public participation opportunities for change the City Manager and Mayor will (a) find some way to justify inaction, (b) use official communications to gaslight and confuse, and then (c) pacify residents with a listening session or 60-second presentation at a Community Coalition meeting.
Elected officials need constituents to believe that a consensus of their neighbors support them. Consensus, in other words, means that some collective action (e.g., popular vote, constituent input) has given that body a mandate for action. Here’s the key- consensus is perception based. It’s not inherent, it’s created by elected officials and constituents. We’ve been gaslit into thinking the Council enjoys widespread public support by default. “If only you really understood the institution of local government,” the logic suggests, “then you’d understand you’re wrong.” Press releases counter constituent experiences, comments to reporters are censored, and public input opportunities are cut short.
The term technocracy basically means “the management of society by technical experts.” Sounds ok, in theory, but can also be used to disregard constituent voices. Champaign City Council leadership finds ways to foreground technical reasoning and deemphasize the imperative of public buy-in. The norms of the government body often come before community needs. In other words, a government body can fail to meet community needs, but if they succeed an institutional sense (i.e., an efficient meeting), then they’ve earned their paychecks.
Conclusions
The Champaign City Manager Dorothy David has way too much power for an unelected official. Full stop.
I don’t have many answers or suggestions, just observations. I do know that public input is an elected body’s means of legitimizing their work. Maybe we should try the reverse- pushing back on the toxic institutional culture by delegitimizing their reasons. PIE meetings are “the room where it happens,” neither council members or voters can hold Mayor Feinen to account for what decisions are made in those meetings.
Elected officials might have legal authority, but the weight constituents give their words depends on their perception of them. If you need evidence, reflect on the public perceptions of the Champaign County Executive. Kloeppel’s public credibility relies on her ability to work with the County Board, not on her legal authority alone (background on this example here). A bipartisan majority of the County Board fact check in meetings, and it has worked.
Finally, any Champaign City Council-hopeful needs to promise to shake up the institutional culture of the Council. It’s a prerequisite for my vote and I plan on asking for specifics.
