Community Relations Commission Meeting – March 12, 2026

The Rockford Community Relations Commission met on Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 5:30 PM in City Hall. The meeting included the approval of previous meeting minutes, public comments regarding the Flock AI surveillance cameras, discussion of proposed ordinance revisions, review of the commission's action plan, and extensive commissioner reports on affordable housing, community outreach, and internal processes. Two commissioners were absent (Scott Garwick and William Martin). The meeting adjourned at 6:38 PM.

Consent Calendar

• Journal of Proceedings - January 17, 2026 (26-00283): Motion by Commissioner James McDowell, seconded by Commissioner Mary Kaull. Unanimous voice vote in favor. (Garwick and Martin absent)
• Journal of Proceedings - February 12, 2026 (26-00284): Motion by Commissioner Jurea Crudup, seconded by Commissioner McDowell. Unanimous voice vote in favor. (Garwick and Martin absent)
• Communications: Chairman Eric Brown welcomed new Commissioners Zsa Zsa Johnson and Shimere Shanklin. Announced Mayor's "Open Door" meeting hours for Commissioners on March 27, 2026, from 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM. (Item 26-00352 and 26-00353)

Public Comments & Testimony

• Steve Delap (representing Eliminate Racism 815): Thanked the commission for its insightful work. Stated he supported a recommendation made at City Council that the commission hear public comments regarding the Flock cameras. Invited commissioners to a two‑day presentation by David Couper (former Madison Police Chief) at the Rockford Public Library Nordlof Center on March 25 and 26.
• Steven McMaster: Questioned the Mayor and City Council for passing a contentious measure on Flock AI surveillance cameras without referring it to the Community Relations Commission for public feedback. He supported the referral. Noted the City Council vote was 7–7 and the Mayor chose not to vote, which he viewed as the commission being treated as a "political move" rather than a body that can impact change.

Discussion Items

1. Community Relations Commission Ordinance Revision – Draft Language Discussion

The commission discussed proposed revisions to its ordinance, including:

• Requiring at least one member aged 18–24 at the time of appointment to ensure youth perspectives.
• Supporting youth advisory and mentorship opportunities (beyond the appointed youth member).
• Shifting from an annual report to a quarterly report submitted to the Mayor and City Council, with the Mayor directed to disseminate it to relevant administration. The goal is more regular engagement and clearer advisory role.

Commissioners emphasized the need for a structured quarterly report format (summary, action items, recommendations) and considered forming a subcommittee to reduce burden on the chair. No vote was taken; commissioners were asked to review the draft and send additional feedback for future discussion. Concerns were raised about clarifying the commission's advisory boundaries with City Council, especially after the Flock camera debate.

2. Action Plan Review

The commission reviewed its living action plan, focusing on affordable housing, workforce development, and new youth engagement strategies. Key points:

• Speakers and timeline: A housing program manager is confirmed for April; a workforce development roundtable is scheduled for June. Commissioners were encouraged to suggest and schedule additional speakers.
• Youth engagement: Ideas included hosting listening sessions (on‑site or off‑site) and incorporating input from new commissioners.
• Affordable housing: Commissioners Bravo and McDowell reported meeting with city staff (Sarah Lees and Rudy Marino) and found that while the city has active initiatives, developers often prefer more profitable neighboring areas. Public awareness was identified as a major barrier.
• Focus vs. breadth: Commissioner Crudup recommended narrowing the commission’s focus to three impactful areas to avoid spreading efforts too thin and ensure tangible results by year’s end.
• Direct action: Commissioner Borrero urged the commission to move beyond information‑gathering to direct action that reflects community lived experiences, citing delayed housing permits as an example. She stressed the need to incorporate community voices rather than just city leadership reports.
• Listening sessions: Commissioner Pakiela proposed immediate informal listening sessions at places like the YMCA, without waiting for a “perfect” plan.

The commission agreed to take initiative on outreach and use city resources. Michaela Harris (City Contract and Compliance Officer) supported this approach and clarified the formal memo process for documenting issues and resolutions.

Commissioner Reports & Operational Discussions

• Commissioner McDowell: Reported on the affordable housing meeting with city departments; identified public awareness as a key issue. Suggested the commission increase visibility by wearing official lanyards, creating a plain‑language “one‑pager” of the ordinance, developing “stock verbiage” for describing the commission’s role, and obtaining official business cards.
• Commissioner Kaull: Shared a recent incident where she assisted a resident with the City’s Lead Pipe Replacement Program by contacting Public Works/Water Department directly, which resolved the issue quickly. Asked whether a formal memo was needed for such cases.
  • Michaela Harris clarified that quick resolutions can be shared verbally during meetings, while formal memos should be reserved for complex investigations or issues received via the CRC email.
• Commissioner Crudup: Repeated the need to focus on a few priorities.
• Commissioner Borrero: Emphasized the importance of following up on specific issues and ensuring community voices are heard.
• Commissioner Johnson: Appreciated efforts toward inclusivity, suggested flexible meeting times, and highlighted the importance of the 18–24 age demographic. Noted the connection between affordable housing and workforce development (e.g., housing first vs. job first).
• Visibility and outreach: The commission discussed a “reintroduction” campaign using a one‑pager, business cards, social media posts (including commissioner bios/photos), and potentially a video. Michaela Harris offered her office number as a central contact point for residents.
• Relationship with Aldermen: Commissioners discussed how to engage aldermen without stepping on toes; consensus was to make “warm handoffs” to the relevant alderman when constituent issues arise.
• Flock cameras and Mayor: Several commissioners expressed a desire for clarity on why the Mayor did not send the Flock issue to the commission. Options discussed included asking the Mayor via memo or during open‑door hours. Chairman Brown agreed to reach out.

Key Outcomes

• Consent items (journals and communications) approved unanimously by voice vote.
• Ordinance revision – no vote taken; commissioners to review draft and submit feedback to Chairman Brown for future meeting.
• Action plan – direction given to proceed with scheduling speakers (April housing update, June workforce roundtable), plan listening sessions, and incorporate youth engagement ideas. Staff to follow up with the Mayor on reintroducing the commission to City Council.
• Memos and follow‑up – clarified process: quick resolutions shared as commissioner reports; formal memos for complex issues received via CRC email.
• Adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Norma, seconded by Commissioner Kaull, unanimous voice vote. Meeting adjourned at 6:38 PM.