Residents and advocates press Erie County Council over reentry program takeover, transparency and appropriations

Several residents and community advocates used the Erie County Council public-comment period to challenge the county's recent decision to assume control of a community-run reentry program and to question how related funding and procedural steps were handled.

Michelle Dovishaw, who identified herself as an Erie resident, said the Erie County Reentry Services and Support Alliance had been run outside county government and that the council's February action moved the program into the adult probation department with an appropriation of $175,484. "This is a problem and a conflict of interest, to have this program under the same people that decide if they're going back to prison or not," Dovishaw said, adding that the ordinance appeared to have been read and approved on the same day without the usual two-read process.

Kendrick Tate, another commenter, urged the council to explain why it bypassed normal procedure and to clarify what presentations or evidence persuaded the body to take on the program. "Why there is no record of the presentation that convinced council to take on the responsibilities or discussion about the presentation," Tate said, asking for justification for creating a county bureau under adult probation rather than keeping the program in the community.

Cindy Triber presented what she described as documentary evidence showing erroneous information at a February personnel meeting. Triber said the council approved a budget she described as $371,219 for a not-yet-staffed program and alleged past funding for the reentry effort from the Erie Community Foundation, PCCD and the district attorney's office. "When we're talking about this funding, we're talking about a wage package that was already approved before they even came and saw you," she said, urging transparency about the program's prior funding and staffing.

In response during committee reports, a council member supporting the county's decision said creating a bureau signals a commitment to reentry work and that the county and City of Erie are now contributing local support; the speaker also said the program historically ran on a patchwork of grants and lacked a sustained local contribution. The council member added that the county's move was intended to make reentry efforts more sustainable.

Separately, Younte Cooley used public comment to press the council on access to recording devices, citing the Sunshine Act and past closed personnel sessions. "We should be able to record ourselves," Cooley said, arguing that attendees should have the same ability to capture meetings from their own devices.

What happened next: council members continued to new- and old-business items on the agenda, and the meeting record shows motions and votes on several unrelated ordinances, appointments and a property sale. The council later recessed to an executive session and returned before adjourning.

Why it matters: public commenters said the reentry program had established community trust and results while being run by nonprofits and the Y; they argued moving administration to probation could discourage participation and create real or apparent conflicts because probation oversees compliance and sanctions for some participants. Commenters also raised process concerns about whether the council followed standard reading and voting procedures and about the availability of recorded meetings and minutes.

Next steps: commenters asked for documentation (presentations and minutes) that justified the council's decision and for further transparency from administration and council about funding sources and the program's staffing and governance. The transcript does not record a formal reversal or a follow-up vote on the program during this meeting.