If previous actions are any indication, the Cohen Barnes administration would like to get rid of DeKalb’s Human Relations Commission, but apparently doesn’t have the votes required for repeal. So it’s decided to undermine the commission instead.
DeKalb’s next city council meeting will include consideration of changes to three city commissions that have not met for months or even years. They are the Economic Development Commission, Landmark Commission, and Human Relations Commission (HRC).
The three are still on the books, the ordinances that created them unrepealed. The mayor just decided at various points not to appoint members to them anymore and the council let him. It’s passive-aggressive, yes, but effective: HRC hasn’t met since December 2023.
Staff are now recommending what they call “minor revisions” to the ordinances that govern these commissions before reactivating them. They aren’t really minor, though. One would change meetings to an “as needed” basis instead of maintaining a regular meeting schedule. (Note: Landmark Commission already meets “as needed”.) Another — which applies to HRC only — would make a switch from appointing city residents of various backgrounds to building a membership from DeKalb’s social service leadership community.
The “Professionalism Card”
From the March 23, 2026 city council agenda:
…When the HRC was active, the membership was patronage appointments by successive Mayors with no prior qualification than residency within one and a half miles of the City of DeKalb…the staff proposal is to identify certain local professional organizations notable for their human service focus as standing members, with full-time professionals from these organizations representing those agencies on the Commission.
We should remember this dig — as in, message received that staff detest HRC — but the insult falls flat. Most of DeKalb’s boards and commissions are “patronage appointments” (as defined in this agenda) in that they don’t have specific requirements for membership except for residency. That’s what local citizens’ boards are about. But do, also, give mayors credit for matching these volunteers’ skill sets with board missions as best they can. I don’t know any who haven’t.
City administrators, meanwhile, sometimes play a “professionalism card” to try to get their way. It’s what they’ve used to argue for switching from an elected clerk to an appointed one, for example. What they really want is more control over persons, offices, and processes.
Just look at the history. When Mayor Barnes shut down Economic Development Commission, he said it was redundant because the city manager had all the answers he needed. Finance Advisory Committee used to be quite active, but under this regime has been pared back to three meetings per year to reduce the odds that someone will break the code of silence about the mounting pension problem. And with HRC, the mayor’s sudden refusal to appoint enough members to meet followed a disagreement between them about how to handle complaints of housing discrimination.
However, the most concerning problem with this proposal is that it would intentionally inject money where it never was before, creating a new conflict of interest for the sake of a bit more leverage.
The Conflict — and How to Fix It
Staff have named in the agenda the following organizations they want to rebuild HRC with: Hope Haven, Family Service Agency, Safe Passage, Elder Care Services, and RAMP. But the city already patronizes these groups with generous grant funding. Mixing grantees with HRC business would attach strings for the administration to pull whenever HRC views might conflict with the administration’s — a violation of ethical standards that would compromise HRC’s 60+ years of credibility and effectiveness.
I would be surprised if any of these organizations would agree to participate as standing members for this very reason. In fact, part of me thinks admin is pulling our leg with the idea, just to see how far the council will entertain it. That’s how ridiculous it is on its face.
Regardless, the proposition has been plopped onto the table and must be dealt with. An ethical alternative would be to recruit established, reputable local social services not-for-profits that don’t accept city grant money. But I’d be hard put to name a half-dozen that meet the criteria. How about you?
So what should happen? DeKalb’s Citizens Environmental Commission has provided an excellent model for decades. In addition to six resident standing members, Enviro has four nonvoting ex officio members, each representing interests and/or expertise that enrich discussion. The city council could create space for disabilities advocacy within HRC, for example. Council dissolved its Disabilities Commission several years ago with the intention that HRC pick up this mission; a nonvoting ex officio HRC member from RAMP or a similar organization would undoubtedly enhance this area of focus. HRC’s reactivation, handled properly, could make it better than ever.
Lastly, I also don’t think council should go along with meetings “as needed.” It allows the mayor to throttle whatever issues he believes would risk a difference between public opinion and his own, such as data center development or Flock Safety. Make meetings bimonthly or quarterly, and/or rule that they must meet such-and-such minimum number of meetings per year. Ensure HRC doesn’t slip back into mothballs.
Have an opinion on this? Please tell your city council members, and maybe sound off in the City Barbs Blog Facebook Group, too. The timing is good: it’s still early, with no formal amendments as yet presented.