Remarks by Susan Cunningham
47 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 2
OK, next up we have Disability Voting Rights Week. And I think we have Adam Rizzoli from Rev Up Virginia here. More than 40 million Americans with disabilities are eligible voters. Disability Voting Rights Week reminds us that meaningful civic participation is crucial for having their voices heard. We observe this year from September 14th through the 18th, Disability Voting Rights Week is a non-progressive national effort led by the American Association of People with Disabilities and REV UP, which stands for Register, Educate, Vote, and Use Your Power. It brings disability advocates and…
It's in fact vestigial, but I'm very excited for the work that the team is doing here and a big thanks to our liaisons for taking on this one.
So one question I had, well, first of all, huge, huge thank you. That was not just a lot of slides and a lot of information, but an enormous amount of pre-work to help ground the whole community in an understanding of how we've balanced these decisions over time and how conditions are shifting a little bit, and so we keep rebalancing. So thank you for that. I also want to elevate the bearing of the lead way back at the beginning, which is we have had no reported misuse at all, which is tremendous. So thank you to all of you and to all of our previous boards and to each and every one of our…
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
yeah I think I would just add that we are we will continue to be in a very fluid time and I think what is reassuring about the work we just went through and all the many many many hours of conversations we've had as well is that in the conditions that have existed we have made really good decisions about guardrails about balancing risk and reward and we will always have to keep doing that and in this particular federal administration the the conditions may change quickly more quickly than in in other times and so I would just keep that as the frame I think your intent I understand and I think…
I will just say it's been about a decade since I first kind of stumbled into this building to meet with Mary Hines about a number of things. And I don't know if it was the first conversation, but it was surely not long after that I was working on housing issues with our church and trying to figure out how to make a difference and how to bring the wealth of our community forward. And Mary heinz was talking about 10 club or various other things of for those of us who can let's just do it let's just invest and little did I know you guys were already a third of the way into the retirement project…
Well, I'm not getting the podium in it. All right. One, two, three.
Could I just go back and ask a couple questions? When you first had these discussions in January, were you aware of the time period? Did you guys talk about, hey, this will probably be before the board in X date? Were you aware of it being three months or one month or 25 months? Was that discussion part of the conversation?
OK. And staff, would that have been something you would typically share expectations around?
Okay, but your recollection is you did talk about it in April. I guess that would be your late March that it would be a three-month process, but that's not your recollection.
So this is where my disconnect is coming from. And I know there's sort of three different folks on their side, and some emails may not have been opened. But can you clarify? Because I think we do endeavor to be clear about what the timeline is going to be.
Is there anything you wanted to clarify?
And so it sounds like you were, was there a date before the April 16th that they were trying to meet originally for, I guess, the April board meeting?
But then there was a violation, although the violation wasn't.
All right, who's, go ahead. So then can I ask just one last set of dates? When was the application submitted? When was it invoiced? And when was the invoice paid?
And when was it invoiced to them? Is it automatic when you submit?
And when did they submit the application?
Yeah, so I think there's a lot of layers here and unfortunately the non-compliance is making it harder to see through some of the layers but the, It sounds to me from those dates that there was no way they were gonna make the June or July meeting, because if technically they needed to be in by the 16th, but we didn't invoice them until the 17th. No, no, no.
And do we know was it just one signature that was missing? How many bounces did it take to get there?
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
I just, I'm not sure how to do this except just discuss it, so feel free to rein me in as needed, but since the board can bring this back on our own motion, is there any chance of agreement of how quickly? There's no chance of an agreement.
Okay, just to follow up on the hours consistency. I appreciate the conclusion that having them staggered wasn't beneficial in its own right and to go to some more standard. But I think what we've heard from community members is that the location of the building, the materials of the building and the behavior can all contribute to more pain for those residents of all ages trying to sleep or live their lives. So how do we respond to that? Like I get the argument in the board report like why it's we've shifted from staggered to consistent, but why wouldn't we also for something that has a…