Alameda County reparations commission chooses regional in-person listening-series with hybrid options

Leticia Henderson, facilitator with Exceptional Community Connections, told commissioners the goal of the meeting was to ‘‘have a robust conversation about the community listening sessions’’ and to end with decisions and budget guidance for upcoming Commission action.

The working group considered four models for community listening sessions—(1) a regional in-person series, (2) thematic topic forums, (3) a hybrid pop-up series that pairs formal meetings with booths at community events, and (4) a virtual series with in-person anchor sites. Sean Johnson of Exceptional Community Connections summarized trade-offs for each: Model 1 prioritizes local, in-person engagement and community partnership; Model 2 enables deep, topic-focused conversations with experts; Model 3 reaches people at festivals and pop-ups; and Model 4 maximizes accessibility for schedules and remote participants.

After a gallery-walk and dot-vote exercise, the commission discussed feasibility, representation and costs. Commissioners raised concerns that purely in-person sessions ‘‘might not be representative’’ of busy or tech-limited residents and urged adding virtual options and pop-up outreach to broaden access. Johnson gave an illustrative per-session budget range of $2,500–$4,500 (roughly $15,000–$27,000 for a six-session series) and emphasized costs for trauma-informed facilitators, childcare, food, outreach materials and stipends.

By consensus (with a tie resolved in the discussion), the group approved using Model 1—the regional in-person series—as the base approach, with the following agreed parameters: six sessions (one per supervisor district plus a countywide session as proposed), built-in hybrid/virtual access for at least some sessions, and use of pop-ups/community events for outreach to drive participation. Commissioners set the target completion for the listening sessions in November to allow broader outreach and more inclusive scheduling.

The working session also reported a separate ad-hoc budget discussion that produced a draft budget request in the $150,000–$300,000 range to support facilitation, consultant work, outreach and related costs; facilitators and county staff advised that an itemized budget and a board letter will be routed through the listening-session subcommittee and the ad-hoc budget process for the Commission's June meeting. Director-level staff and several commissioners emphasized the need to decide whether commissioners will lead facilitation or whether funds will be used to hire trauma-informed professionals; the consultant team recommended dedicated facilitators to avoid placing facilitation burdens on commissioners.

Next steps assigned to the listening-session subcommittee include: finalize an itemized budget and scope of work for facilitators and consultants, draft outreach and accessibility plans (including ASL/translation and technology supports), and prepare a budget letter for the ad-hoc committee so the full commission can act at its next meeting. Facilitators reiterated that the subcommittee should return a line-item budget in time for budget deliberations in early June.

The meeting closed with brief reflections from commissioners and an adjournment by the facilitator. No formal ordinance or regulatory action was taken; the session produced a policy framework, budget parameters, and implementation tasks to be completed by the subcommittee and staff.