Housing Matters
Refusing to Be Silenced:
President of Resident Council
Fights Illegal Recall and Is Reinstated
Last year, Octavia Anderson fought a battle with her housing authority that
she never thought she would have to fight. She filed a lawsuit against the
Miami-Dade Housing Authority for illegally removing her as the President of
the Scott Homes Resident Council because of her vocal opposition to the
housing authority’s plan to demolish her development.
What leaders like Ms. Anderson quickly learn is that housing authorities
threatened by opposition to “their” plans—especially HOPE VI plans—use
divide-and-conquer strategies to undermine resident leadership. There are
laws, however, to prevent such abuses and Ms. Anderson went to court to
enforce these laws.
When Did Things Go Haywire?
In December 1999, Octavia Anderson was elected to a three-year term as
President of the Scott Homes Resident Council. Several months before, the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had awarded the
Miami-Dade Housing Authority in Florida a $35 million HOPE VI grant to
demolish the more than 850 public housing apartments in the Scott Homes and
Carver Homes developments. The housing authority’s plan was to replace these
850 units with only 80 public housing apartments and 135 units of “rent to
own” housing and 247 units of homeownership, unaffordable to most of the
current residents.
Ms. Anderson, together with her resident council, began work immediately
after her election to inform the residents about the details of the HOPE VI
plan and to consult with the housing authority about implementation of the
plan. HUD’s HOPE VI demolition and revitalization program requires that
residents and resident councils play an integral part in the develop of HOPE
VI plans from beginning to end.
Ms. Anderson, as President, held regular monthly meetings in the Scott Homes
community space. She met on numerous occasions with housing authority staff
about the implementation of the HOPE VI grant. “It all went haywire,” said
Ms. Anderson, “when I began to advocate that the residents should have a
right to return to the site.” In addition, Ms. Anderson raised the concern
that the number of units being replaced was woefully inadequate to provide
enough new units for all current residents who wanted to return. These
concerns were met with hostility by the housing authority and residents who
worked closely with them.
Secretive Oustings Begin
In January 2001, Ms. Anderson, with the assistance of Florida Legal Services,
complained in writing to HUD, as well as to local and federal elected
officials, about these concerns. From that time forward, the housing
authority began to exclude Ms. Anderson from planning meetings, while at the
same time including other residents who did not voice such opposition from
the jurisdiction-wide resident council
Then in February and March 2001, the jurisdiction-wide resident council held
several meetings with the residents of Scott Homes, but did not notify Ms.
Anderson about the meetings. At these meetings they announced that Ms.
Anderson had been “removed” as President of the Scott Homes Resident
Council.
Ms. Anderson and her attorney, Charles Elsesser from Florida Legal Services,
complained to the housing authority about this. The housing authority
rejected the first illegal effort to oust Ms. Anderson. But after the second
attempt, the housing authority informed Ms. Anderson that it had no
obligation to review the recall “election” and would go along with the
effort to remove her.
Filing a Lawsuit
In May 2001, Ms. Anderson filed a lawsuit, challenging the removal process
because it failed to fulfill the legal requirements for a recall
election—requirements that set basic standards for fairness and democracy.
There was no recall petition. No notice to residents of the recall
“election.” No debate. No discussion. No democratic voting procedure. As Ms.
Anderson’s court papers stated:
The irrefutable evidence demonstrates that Ms. Anderson was removed
without so much as a wink to any required regulatory procedures. . . .
HUD’s rules are designed to prevent exactly what occurred in the present
case, the secretive and hasty ousting of a resident leader by unhappy
dissidents."
Within months of filing the lawsuit, the case was settled and Ms. Anderson
was reinstated as the President of the Scott Homes Resident Council. In
exercising her rights, she successfully refused to be silenced. “The
lawsuit;” said her attorney, Charles Elssesser, “had a profound effect on
the housing authority because they had to realize that they had a
responsibility to manage the election process.”
Forging Support with Organizations
Ms. Anderson was not alone in her struggle on behalf of residents. The Miami
Workers Center helped her get flyers out. Neighbors to Neighbors helped
residents open up businesses. Faces of Light, a youth enrichment program,
helped by providing her with meeting space. And Florida Legal Services made a
commitment to represent resident leaders in public housing.
“A lot of residents supported me,” said Ms. Anderson. “When we had meetings,
80, 90 residents turn out. Last year, we did a protest and had a busload of
people who went to a town hall meeting. Right now we are in litigation to try
and ensure that the current residents have the right to come back. I know
what public housing had done for me. It has provided me with a stable home,
and despite all the obstacles that I have to face, I have a place to raise my
kids, and that motivates me to continue to speak out.”
Researched and Written for HOUSING MATTERS by A.R. Duke
November 2002
Return to top
Establishing a Resident Council?
What Are the Rules?
HUD’s federal rules provide for the election, recognition, and recall
procedures for resident councils. These rules can be found at 24 Code of
Federal Regulations 964 (or 24 CFR 964).
Right to Organize and Participate
Residents have a right to organize and elect a resident council to represent
their interests.
As long as proper procedures are followed, the housing authority must
recognize the
duly elected resident council.
Role of Resident Council
The role of the resident council is to improve the quality of life and to
enable residents
to create a positive living environment for families in public housing.
Resident councils may advise and assist in all aspects of public housing
operations.
Resident Council Requirements
A resident council must adopt written procedures such as by-laws or a
constitution.
These procedures must provide for the recall of the resident board by the
voting membership.
The recall procedures must set a minimum “threshold” number or percentage of
the voting membership necessary to “petition” to hold a recall election.
This threshold shall not be less than 10% of the voting membership in order
to prevent secretive oustings.
A resident council must have a democratically elected board elected by the
voting membership.
Voting members must consist of heads of households and other residents at
least 18 years or older whose name is on a lease for the units in the
development that the council represents.
Eligibility for Resident Council Membership
Any member of a public housing household whose name is on the lease and who
meets the requirements of the by-laws is eligible to be a member of a
resident council.
Any qualified voting member of a council who meets the requirements described
in the by-laws and who is in compliance with the lease may seek office on the
council’s governing board.
Election Procedures
A resident council must use an independent third party to oversee elections &
recall procedures.
Housing authorities must monitor the resident council election process.
Each resident council shall adopt and issue election and recall procedures in
their by-laws.
All procedures must assure fair and frequent elections of resident council
members—at least once every three years for each member.
All voting members of the resident community must be given ample notice—at
least 30 days—for nomination and election.
The notice should include a description of the election procedures,
eligibility requirements, and dates of nominations and elections.
If a resident council does not meet HUD’s minimum standards for fair and
frequent elections or fails to follow its own election procedures, HUD shall
require a housing authority to withdraw recognition of the council and to
withhold resident services and resident participation funds.
Compiled for HOUSING MATTERS by A.R. Duke
Return to top
June 8, 2002
Williams Leads Charge In
Public Housing Battle
By Gary G. Toms
Ed Williams, President of Everywhere and Now Public Housing Residents Organizing
Nationally Together (ENPHRONT), a national watchdog organization that addresses
issues of public housing and its residents, has been traveling across the
country during the last several months. Williams is trying to inform the public
about recent developments in Washington with regard to public housing, which he
feels will have a major impact on those struggling to survive in low-income
areas.
"All of us should remember Newt Gingrich and the 104th Congress’ "Contract With
America." From that radical agenda, we have Welfare Reform, Immigration Reform,
and Public Housing Reform. The 1998 Public Housing Reform Act, which was
authored by then Congressman Rick Lazio, became law on October 1, 1998," said
Williams.
Williams makes this point to illustrate the fact that the "Contract With
America" is in full effect, and he has been waging a battle to save public
housing and the rights of those living in them.
"When I made presentations about the pending reforms, people said that I didn’t
know what I was talking about. Then, on May 22, 2002, the New York City Housing
Authority sponsored over 20 buses to transport public housing residents from all
five boroughs to Washington. They went to ask the New York City Congressional
Delegation for a no vote on all of the proposed housing bills, which many
believe, myself included, will have a devastating impact on the future of public
housing and the 200,000 families waiting for conventional housing, and another
250,000 waiting for Section 8. I won’t gloat by saying, "I told you so."
However, I will note that I am very proud of the leaders and residents who
boarded the buses and made the trip to Washington. We all should applaud and
thank the New York City Housing Authority for providing the resources that
allowed us to do that," he continued.
According to Williams, Washington is looking at a proposed cut of $417 million
in the Capital Fund, which will have serious consequences for three million
residents within the public housing system. He also points out that the cuts
will make it more difficult for NYCHA to provide decent, safe and sanitary
housing for New York City residents.
ENPHRONT recently testified at a number of hearings of the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity; opposing H.R. 3995 (the Housing Affordability For America
Act of 2002). In April, ENPHRONT was one of the panelists at the Conference on
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Reauthorization and Housing
Policy, sponsored jointly by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the
Brookings Institute.
One of the major topics discussed at the hearings involved a bill known as "The
Super waiver." The bill, part of the TANF reauthorization bill H.R. 4700, which
was introduced by the House leadership on May 15, 2002, contained a proposal to
grant sweeping authority to the Executive Branch to waive, at a governor’s
request, most of the provisions of authorization and appropriations law related
to a range of low-income and other domestic programs. In transferring such
authority to the Executive Branch, the super waiver provision would allow any
Administration, in conjunction with one or more governors, to make unilateral
policy decisions that Congress may or may not decline.
"Although the Super waiver has been modified several times, the changes address
only a few of the fundamental concerns outlined in the proposal," said Williams.
Some of the other proposals in the Super waiver include the following:
*It would allow states and local public housing authorities to waive various
protections in federal law for low-income, elderly, and disabled families living
in public housing developments, and enable governors to seek more control over
public housing resources.
*It would impose time limits on residents in public housing, a step Congress has
declined not to take because it could result in an increase in homelessness,
causing significant harm to poor children.
*It would be used to override federal rules that residents pay 30 percent of
income for rent and to raise rents to higher levels.
"These are just a few of many devastating proposed changes in laws that are
aimed at eliminating the oldest affordable housing program for poor people in
this country. Now is the time for all public housing communities to connect,
stay informed, and register to vote. NYCHA is demonstrating their support for
its residents by continuing to work with us. I urge you to continue to support
your local Congress member, and provide him with the tools to fight for you in
this battle. I will close with ENPHRONT’s rallying cry: Early to bed, early to
rise, work like hell and organize!" said Williams
If you would like more information on ENPHRONT, or the proposed changes slated
for public housing, you can contact Ed Williams at his Washington office, (202)
339-9306, or at (917) 577-1368.
Gary G. Toms is an award winning investigative journalist. He was the Associate
Editor of The Wave newspaper in Queens, New York, and he is currently working as
a freelance writer for various news media outlets.
Return to top
|
