Despite overwhelming support from advocates of the Oak Park Regional Housing Center at a village board meeting last week, trustees said they are not inclined to continue to fund the organization because of its troubling financial issues.
Trustee Susan Buchanan called the center’s situation a “financial quagmire” and “unacceptable” at the meeting.
But what does this mean?
To Athena Williams, OPRHC’s executive director, it means that unless the village continues its funding, the Live in Oak Park program, which helps foster racial integration in the village, will be shut down 30 days from that June 18 meeting. It means three full-time staff members will be laid off, along with one part-time employee, and their hours have already been cut.
“After a year of no funding, I cannot continue to fund the program,” Williams said. “I would like to not see it go.”
To Trustee Lucia Robinson, she hopes it means Williams and housing center staff will take the time to self-assess their financial problems and to take corrective action.
She quoted a statement from a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development report that said the housing center does “not appear to be financially capable to perform and administer the grant in compliance with all [regulations].”
“There are serious, serious financial challenges faced by this organization,” Robinson said.
The village began debating whether to continue support for the housing center for several reasons, including because it received an “inactive” status with HUD in 2023 after it delayed staff salaries, and because it received an inconclusive financial review from a village auditor. Williams has disputed allegations that she has mismanaged the organization’s money and said a lack of funding contributed to the problems.
Both sides appear to be standing their ground with tough decisions ahead.
Supporters push for resolution
At the meeting, every public comment ahead of the trustees’ discussion regarding the housing center was vehemently supporting the organization. Commenters, including longtime residents, OPRHC board and staff members and an Oak Park landlord said its mission should continue in the village, with one person calling it “inconceivable” that the board would “walk away.”
The 52-year-old respected center’s mission is “to achieve vibrant communities and promote intentional and stable residential integration throughout Oak Park and the region.”
Daniel Lauber, who has served on the OPRHC board in the past, said he’s witnessed how other villages have lost fostered integration after closing their respective housing centers. He said he doesn’t want to see that happen in Oak Park.
“Oak Park didn’t get here by accident,” he said. “It took considered efforts that I’m afraid a great many members of the village staff seem to be unaware of.”
Rob Breymaier, a former executive director of the OPRHC, said Oak Park is an open and inclusive community because of the dedication to achieve that. But that work is ongoing, he said.
“It’s this partnership that has profoundly advanced our culture, our commitment to the values of equity, inclusion and justice,” he said. “Separate can never be equal.”
Michael Stewart, an OPRHC employee, said he’s worked under six executive directors. They all have strengths and challenges, he said, but Williams has an abundance of skills and expertise in the field. Without village funding, Stewart said larger management companies could take over small housing providers and increase rent prices.
Lauber and others accused Village Manager Kevin Jackson and village staff of unfair conduct, adding that the village does not appear interested in maintaining the housing center.
“Is it at all possible that the village manager’s lack of specificity in his expectations of the housing center has anything to do with your [trustees’] lack of expectations of him?” resident Ralph Lee asked.
But Village President Vicki Scaman, along with other trustees, refuted the claim that Jackson or any staff acted unfairly.
“Any accusations that our staff have been anything but professional or fair is completely uncalled for,” she said. “We do share the same goal. Comments that we do need to remain intentional, in order to remain integrated, I completely agree with.”
Defending her record?
Williams kicked off the discussion at the meeting with two requests: that the village staff participate in an informative session about nonprofit budget allocations and a monthly meeting between her and Jackson.
“This is not a one-size-fits-all, nor a situation that can be resolved overnight,” Williams said.
But she did not present what the board considered a comprehensive corrective action plan at the June 18 meeting, and board members did not appear pleased.
“I don’t know how we move forward from here, how we would simply greenlight funding from here when what I don’t see is an actual plan,” Trustee Brian Straw said.
Robinson pointed out a litany of concerns, including a deteriorating relationship between the village and the housing center, that Wiliams delayed staff pay and that no accountability measures were taken. No plan to prevent the financial woes happening again was presented, she added.
Scaman said she expected a corrective action plan to be presented June 18. She said the community should hold Williams accountable for “what could potentially be the loss of a 50 plus year relationship” between the OPRHC and the village. She also said housing center staff may be “threatened because of poor management.”
“You are disappointing your staff,” Scaman said. “You are disappointing this community.”
Williams did not directly respond to Scaman’s comments at the meeting. However, she told Wednesday Journal that “everybody has a right to express themselves.”
Trustee Ravi Parakkat said he moved to Oak Park with the help of the housing center, so he understands the impact it has. But as a fiduciary, he was not in support of funding the housing center now. The OPRHC needs full compliance with HUD regulations, a financial audit and increased oversight, he said.
Many of the board members have allocated time and effort to help the housing center, Trustee Chibuike Enyia said, but it hasn’t been enough.
Buchanan also pointed out that if the village board were to fund the housing center with Community Development Block Grant funds while it is on “probationary” status with HUD, and if the organization is declared inactive in October, the village would be liable to repay those dollars.
Williams countered by saying the organization does have an “active” status, and is not on probation.
Williams’ plans
Williams told Wednesday Journal while procedures she and staff lead at the housing center have proven to be sufficient, she may have to review or make adjustments. She also said that she already implemented a finance committee and might add more oversight to meet trustees’ requests.
She said she believes she did her due diligence. For example, she pointed out, when it became apparent pay would be an issue due to cash flow problems, she spoke to a human resources consultant and a payroll consultant.
Williams was presented with options, including to lay staff off or to delay pay and make staff aware that it would happen. She said she then spoke to the housing center’s board, who told her if staff was OK waiting for pay, she could do that. Williams said her staff told her they were.
But when funding from the village ceased in 2023, she said she had to pay staff salaries from other funds. The agency also took out lines of credit to perform basic operations, funds that have to be paid back.
“[Village] funding has been paused for almost a year now, and I’ve continued to run the program without fail,” she said.
But village officials have said the OPRHC ended the fiscal year 2023 with a deficit of about $356,617. Williams argued that’s an operating loss, not all deficit.
Because the Live in Oak Park program will now have to close, Williams said she’s considering fundraising to at least pay off the associated debt from 2023. But since the COVID-19 pandemic, she said fundraising efforts have been difficult.
But for now, the program will have to be shut down if there’s still a lack of funding at the end of the 30-day period Williams budgeted for. Some say the lack of work to foster racial integration could be detrimental to the community.
