The meeting saw the committee members deeply engaged in discussions about the formation of the ABRC. The central question was whether to form a full successor body or to integrate the reparations efforts into an existing committee. Deliberations touched upon the practicality of a standalone committee, with arguments made in favor of a more “nimble” body that could potentially convene bi-annually or annually. The committee considered the number of voting members, debating between five and seven, ultimately leaning towards five for greater agility.

One of the more pivotal discussions centered around the draft charge of the ABRC. Members scrutinized the charge line by line, considering how the language would influence the committee’s ability to not only implement the recommendations from the AHRA report but also to potentially expand beyond those recommendations. Concerns were raised about language that might restrict the committee to the report’s initial recommendations, with members advocating for a broader mandate that aligns with the council’s goals of advancing racial equity and social justice.

The committee discussed the term of appointment for the ABRC, with some members suggesting a three-year term, after which the appointments could be revisited. Another area of debate was the composition of the committee, particularly whether race or ethnicity should be considered when selecting members. The need for legal opinion on certain language and the inclusion of desired characteristics in the composition was also highlighted.

Discussions extended to the role of liaisons and non-voting members, with the committee eventually deciding to strike the line about having liaisons and non-voting members from other committees. The potential benefits of having a council member as a liaison were weighed against concerns about excessive influence and the impact on the council’s other priorities.

Additionally, the committee deliberated on the term of appointment for the ABRC, considering the feasibility and priority of the items in the AHRA report. The possibility of prioritizing certain items in the first iteration of the committee was discussed, as well as the idea of revisiting the appointment after an initial three-year term.

The committee members also tackled the challenge of defining the purpose of the ABRC. They debated the wording of the mission statement and the level of specificity in the charge to ensure the committee’s effectiveness. The wording of the purpose statement was contemplated, with suggestions made to align the committee’s mission with the council’s broader goals and provide flexibility for addressing new issues.

Beyond the discussions about the ABRC, the committee voted to recommend Bernie Kuback and Tom Porter for one-year and two-year terms, respectively, as non-voting members to the finance committee. The members expressed their appreciation for the applicants’ interest and carefully considered their qualifications before making these recommendations.