Government Accountability Project (GAP) analysis and summary of the Extension Request document prepared by the Community Reparations Commission (CRC) approved 7/15/24.

The CRC is asking for a six-month extension of their deadline with the City for two primary reasons: (1) their work has been significantly delayed by circumstances beyond their control and (2) important work remains that cannot be completed in the time allotted to them.

1) Delays:

• • Project Management and Staff Support. The CRC had to deal with two different project managers in the span of just 18 months, and then had no Project Manager for most of the past year. The CRC has also had to work with two different County lead staff people and two different City lead staff people. All of these shifts have slowed the process.
    • Project Managers: The original project manager, Debra Clark Jones, was awarded a City contract in September of 2021, but had already accepted a high profile and demanding position at Duke University a few weeks before. With her attention split, she wasn’t able to provide the level of leadership needed, but it took the City over a year to reassign the contract to Christine Edwards in November of 2022. (It’s worth noting that the Reparations Commission was not consulted on this decision.) Ms. Edwards provided project management for the next eleven months, but formally stepped back in October of 2023. Rather than bring in another Project Manager, project management was distributed between staff and contractors who were already involved.
    • Staff leadership: When the process began, the County’s Chief Equity Officer was Rachel Edens, who had been hired in November of 2021. She left within a year, and her replacement, Dr. Noreal Armstrong, wasn’t hired until March 2023. The City hired Brenda Mills to be its Equity and Inclusion Director in November of 2021. When she retired in January, 2024, Sala Menaya-Merritt was hired to replace her. Ms. Menaya-Merritt was already facilitating two of the Impact Focus Areas for the Reparations Commission, and she continued in those roles along with taking on her new role.
• Delayed Data. The CRC had to wait long periods for data they requested from the City and County, which created significant delays in the process.
  • • The Commission made dozens of requests for data from the City and County over the first eighteen months of their work, and the response rate was extremely slow. In the summer of 2023, over a year after the Commission’s work began, Buncombe County hired one additional staffer in their Special Collections Library Department. No new data requests were permitted for a period of time. Eventually, staff were able to catch up and clear the logjam.
• No professional historical research provided
  • • Local reparations processes in other parts of the country (in the City of Providence, Rhode Island and the State of California, for example) began with a professional study of the history of harm inflicted. Asheville and Buncombe County did not commission such a study, which meant that CRC members had to do their own research in order to explain and justify the recommendations they were making. (The CRC did recommend that the City and County perform a professional audit of current harms, which resulted in the Cease the Harm report. So far, no attempt at a thorough inventory of past harms has been performed.)
  • Limited and Late Community Engagement
    • The City and County initially promised to lead community engagement around the reparations process, but no significant process was launched. Eventually, the CRC realized they would need to drive such a process, and they did so, starting earlier this year. This means that direct engagement of the Black community only began six months ago, and has so far only reached a tiny percentage of the population. Because the process began so late, when the Commission was nearing the end of its process, community members’ feedback was limited in the influence it could have – the Commission had no meaningful time to integrate that feedback into the large amount of planning and analysis they had already conducted.

2) The Work that Remains

• • Community engagement
    • Only 151 community members have participated in the CRC’s feedback survey. Most community members have not had a meaningful opportunity to engage with the process. The CRC wants more time to be able to engage with the Black community to ensure that they have that opportunity.
  • Full Commission engagement with the Final Report
    • A working group of the CRC has been drafting a final report (with City staff support).
      Once completed, each of the Impact Focus Areas will need time to discuss and offer feedback on this report before it is finalized, which is a process that requires time and intention in order not to undermine the recommendations being made.
  • Creation of an Accountability Council
    • The Commission has successfully recommended the creation of a new ongoing Commission that would oversee the implementation of Reparations. The work of the CRC, which was primarily focused on developing recommendations, will be handed off to this new Commission, which will hold the City and County accountable to fulfilling Reparations. A complete and effective handoff (and continuity) of the work of the CRC requires this new Commission to be approved by the City and County and then formed before the CRC ends its work.
  • Additional Recommendations
    • The CRC has additional recommendations that have not yet been voted on by the full Commission, and so additional time is needed to complete that work and ensure the final report includes all of the recommendations the CRC has agreed are necessary for local Reparations to be meaningful for Black residents.