Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Organizations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Era Cleveland says officials ignored requests on 'John's Law,' alleges blacklisting of organization
Summary
At the Jan. 13 meeting, New Era Cleveland leaders urged action on a proposed 'John's Law' to reform juvenile and family-court practices and said the organization faces alleged pushback and blacklisting from city sources and funders.
Leaders of New Era Cleveland used the public-comment period at the Jan. 13 Cleveland City Council meeting to press the council on a proposal known in testimony as "John’s Law," and to allege that the group has been marginalized by city actors and local funders.
Austria Everson, president of New Era Cleveland, told councilmembers she was “deeply disappointed in the lack of engagement and action regarding John's Law,” a concept she described as addressing systemic challenges in juvenile and family court by focusing on family stabilization rather than punitive responses. Everson said she had reached out to council offices and that no one had followed up.
Everson also alleged that New Era Cleveland had been subject to a pattern of being “discredited and obstructed,” saying organizations have been told not to fund, allow to speak or partner with New Era Cleveland. "Why are we reliving this history? Why do administrations continue to alienate and blacklist organizations that have the capacity to elevate our city?" she asked.
Everson urged council to collaborate with community-led organizations and said New Era Cleveland seeks to address root causes of violence and instability through local programming and family supports. She said the organization is motivated by community service rather than money and noted her background in the U.S. Marine Corps and prior nonprofit involvement.
No formal council response or vote on “John’s Law” was recorded during the meeting. Separately, Fahim, representing Buckeye Wood Hill and New Era Cleveland, gave remarks on Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy earlier in the public comment period; those remarks focused on historical context and nonviolent protest rather than legislative specifics.
