Author Archives: David Ehrens - Page 14

This could have been predicted

This is a story that could have been predicted in 2010.

On April 4th, Diante Yarber was gunned down in a hail of bullets in a Wal*Mart parking lot by four Barstow policemen. Yarber was killed and two others who were sitting in the car were seriously injured. The Washington Post added Diante to its growing list of police victims for 2018, noting that we are already ahead of last year’s figures by 26 fatalities.

Police claimed Yarber had stolen the car he was driving; it turned out to be his cousin’s. Police claimed he rammed two of their cruisers; but Yarber’s car was not found to have been in a collision, though it was destroyed by a fusillade of bullets. Police offered no reason for trying to kill four black passengers for a supposed property crime. But then nothing about the police account of the story makes much sense.

I’m asking you to sign a petition to demand District Attorney Michael Ramos charge the four Barstow police officers with murder.

As an elected official with the sworn duty to pursue justice, DA Ramos must indict Jose Barrientos, Vincent Carrillo, Matthew Allen Helms – and Jimmie Alfred Walker, who screamed racial slurs and threatened Diante’s life just before murdering him.

Walker has a history of racially motivated violence. In 2010 sheriffs were called to the scene for a disturbance in Hesperia, San Bernardino County, and after their arrival Walker used racial slurs in their presence. After an initial plea deal, Walker was charged with assault and a hate crime, and then fired.

And that should have been the end of Walker’s license to kill. But following arbitration the racist officer was rehired and paid nearly $200,000 in back pay — only to escalate his hate into murder eight years later.

Enough! There must be a reckoning for Diante Yarber’s death.

Chris Markey’s Wiretapping Amendment

Dartmouth (MA) Rep. Chris Markey’s Amendment #1174 to H4400 (the FY2019 budget) was written to broaden wiretapping in the Commonwealth because — he claims — rising crime rates make it necessary:

The general court further finds that within the commonwealth there has been an increase in violence, with and without weapons, that has taken the lives of many. Such acts are not the product of highly organized and disciplined groups. […] Therefore, the general court finds that the use of [modern electronic surveillance devices] devices by law enforcement officials, as it relates to investigations of violent offenses, must be conducted under strict judicial supervision and without the need to prove that a highly organized and disciplined group committed such violent acts.”

But Markey’s amendment is based on fiction. Crime in Massachusetts is not increasing. It is actually falling and has been since about 1992. Last September the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety released figures from the FBI showing that, once again, Massachusetts crime had fallen by 6.3%. The MetroWest Daily News dug into the FBI’s figures and showed that, while violent crime has risen nationally, it remains static in Massachusetts with rates significantly lower than national averages. For example, the national murder rate is 5.3 per 100,000. In Massachusetts that number is 2.0. In 2016 the Commonwealth (with a population of almost 7 million) had 134 murders compared with 486 in Tennessee, a state with roughly the same population.

But worse than being dishonest with the public about crime rates, Markey’s amendment lowers the bar on legal requirements for wiretaps and electronic surveillance. Surveillance today rarely target only the suspected offender. Cell tower dumps, for example, compromise the privacy of everyone who has connected to the tower. Stingrays, WiFi and packet sniffing are also pretty indiscriminate.

Markey’s amendment, and Republican Bradley Jones’ companion amendment #515, are efforts to sneak bad legislation into the budget — legislation that police and district attorneys have long wanted. The ACLU notes that “prosecutors in Massachusetts can [ALREADY] obtain all of this information and more without any judicial oversight. And a recent ACLU investigation shows they’re using this power extensively, and largely in the dark.” Markey’s legislation does nothing to improve judicial oversight. But it makes surveillance much easier for prosecutors to abuse.

In filing his amendment, Markey reveals that his old law enforcement buddies are his true constituents — not the average citizen who is getting damn tired of having everyone from spy agencies to socal networks violating his privacy every minute of the day.

MA FY2019 budget not all about money

Progressive Massachusetts is asking voters to call or email state representatives to preserve the best — and reject the worst — of a lengthy list of proposed amendments to the FY2019 House Budget.

Most of the amendments are quite positive — funding for recently-passed criminal justice reforms, education, environment, and for the state’s most vulnerable citizens. Many amendments reflect policy changes needed in education, immigration, policing, transportation, the environment, and public assistance. You can find a full list of the amendments here.

But Republicans — and one Dartmouth state representative — have sneaked in policy amendments which either gut or damage civil rights and civil liberties protections:

  • Amendments 113 (Lombardo), 227 (Diehl), and 347 (Lyons), which would would create even broader authority for police to detain immigrants or punish the 31 cities and towns that have adopted measures to limit police participation in immigration enforcement.
  • Amendment 508 (Jones), which would attempt to pass Governor Baker’s unconstitutional proposal to overturn the Lunn decision via the budget.
  • Amendments 515 (Jones) and 1174 (Markey), which would expand state wiretap powers to “listen in” on a wider range of personal communication.
  • Amendment 979 (Howitt), which would curtail the right to free expression, namely the use of economic boycotts against foreign governments (recall the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa). This legislation was originally co-sponsored by several local state representatives who should be asked to repudiate their previous support for it.

Unfortunately Dartmouth Democratic Rep. Christopher Markey uniquely joins Republicans Diehl, Howitt, Jones, Lombardo, and Lyons in Progressive Massachusetts’ rogue’s gallery.

The House votes on the amendments next week — so it’s critical you call or email your representatives ASAP:

https://www.progressivemass.com/fy2019_house_budget

Article I, Section 8

If Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on civilians, add it to a long list of atrocities and injustices perpetrated daily on this planet. To this same list we should also add Israel’s Passover massacre of civilians in Gaza, the genocide of the Rohingya, and dictatorships at work in Turkey, Venezuela, Egypt and dozens of other countries. To crimes against humanity we should also add our own “surgical strikes” by drones and missiles which have killed thousands of Syrians in our never-ending “War on Terror.”

But America is focused on Assad — not because we really care about Syrians or any of the other victims of brutality around the world — but because “regime change” is part and parcel of bending the Middle East toward American interests. It’s the height of hubris — playing god by remaking the world in our own image.

I have rarely known a year when the United States was not throwing its weight around, invading another country, murdering its citizens — sometimes by the hundreds of thousands or millions in the case of Viet Nam. If Americans really want to stamp out malign evil I suggest we start by looking in the mirror.

Start with the Boltons who advocate for war, the Hampels who torture in secret prisons and conceal the evidence from even Congress, the Trumps who use American military power for political dog-wagging, the Mattises who manage slaughter like a CEO rolling out a new product, and the many sociopaths in Congress who funnel national wealth away from the care of citizens into a vast war machine. We delude ourselves if we think the United States is the greatest force for good in the world. Quite the opposite. We are the most homicidal nation on the planet.

Which is why no one in their right mind would give one man — especially a volatile racist with dementia — sole power to wage war. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is quite clear that it is the responsibility of Congress to do the dirty work of waging wars:

  • To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
  • To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Our unhinged president is sufficient example of why Congress must take back this grave responsibility from the Executive Office and must wield it responsibly and only with great reluctance.

Of Jailers and the Jailed

Today Susan Tordella at End Mass Incarceration Together (EMIT) wrote about putting prison employees to work implementing rehabilitation programs for inmates. Tordella reminded us that more rehabilitation correlates strongly with less recidivism and wrote that European prisons have markedly lower rates than the United States because they focus on change, not punishment. Only about 2% of the governor’s $640 million Department of Corrections budget is earmarked for programs for incarcerated people — and much of this is outsourced.

So as long as the state has money for guards, Tordella asks, why not utilize all the skills of corrections officers? She suggests CO’s could “serve as [rehabilitation] program officers who share a skill and/or knowledge with the people in their care. The program can be practically anything — culinary, GED preparation/tutoring, plumbing, carpentry, writing, running a small business, yoga/mindfulness, college or high school classes, computer repair/programming, job skills, trauma awareness/healing, or sales and communication skills…”

What a great idea. And why couldn’t the same thing be done at the county level? We looked at pay stubs for all county prisons from the Comptroller of the Commonwealth for the first quarter of 2018, determined the number of employees, and extrapolated annual costs for each county. The state only publishes prison capacity figures for DOC facilities but someone pointed us toward county overcrowding reports from 2015 — the last year reported — so we at least had a reasonable snapshot of inmate counts for each county as well.

The table below does not represent all the costs of running a prison — technology, infrastructure, vehicles, power, maintenance, food, medical, education, or rehabilitation — much of it outsourced. But the table paints a good picture of how expensive just the corrections officers are. Looking only at salaries, the price tag is $42,474 per year (in jailer costs) to throw someone in a Massachusetts county jail. Far more if you include the rest. With this obscene amount of money being spent, shouldn’t taxpayers be trying to have fewer repeat offenders, more education, and effective rehabilitation?

Here in Massachusetts we spend half a BILLION dollars on just the jailers for our county jails. There are 6,629 men and women who put handcuffs on another 11,480 men and women in 14 county facilities and leave education and rehabilitation to others. There are very close to 2 prisoners for each staff person — or 6 per shift — which makes one wonder why more of these employees couldn’t be put to work implementing rehabilitation program services.

County Inmates 2015 Staff 2018 Salaries 2018 Staff / Inmate Staff $ / inmate
Barnstable 423 352 $24,831,868 83.22% $58,704
Berkshire 288 256 $15,977,226 88.89% $55,476
Bristol 1,247 639 $38,167,809 51.24% $30,608
Dukes 19 45 $2,823,685 236.84% $148,615
Essex 1,653 621 $52,388,455 37.57% $31,693
Franklin 256 220 $13,860,675 85.94% $54,143
Hampden 1,492 1,066 $71,928,106 71.45% $48,209
Hampshire 282 202 $13,866,411 71.63% $49,172
Middlesex 1,212 704 $57,705,963 58.09% $47,612
Nantucket 7 $380,814
Norfolk 622 340 $25,380,325 54.66% $40,804
Plymouth 1,199 546 $41,969,366 45.54% $35,004
Suffolk 1,664 1,009 $88,321,192 60.64% $53,078
Worcester 1,123 622 $39,996,161 55.39% $35,615
TOTAL 11,480 6,629 $487,598,058 57.74% $42,474

Fact Checking the Sheriff

Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson spends a lot of time out of the office, organizing anti-immigration rallies on the Rio Grande, making appearances on right-wing talk shows — so frequently that he’s dropping the ball on keeping his inmates safe. Hodgson has the highest suicide rate in the Commonwealth and is now swimming in wrongful death and abuse suits. But that’s not the sheriff’s only problem. He also has some of the highest rates of recidivism — former inmates returning to prison. In fact, twice in the last five years Bristol County’s recidivism rates have topped all other counties.

The sheriff likes to tell voters his “get tough” prison policies discourage repeat offenders and keep the public safe: “Our firm, demanding approach to corrections works well,” he promised in one 2010 campaign ad. “Jail is not a country club. That’s why once you’ve done time in the Bristol County House of Corrections you won’t want to come back.”

Except for one problem — it’s completely untrue.

The Massachusetts Department of Corrections began compiling comparative statistics on 3-year recidivism rates for each county prison in 2012 — right about the time the sheriff made his dubious claims. Twice in the last five years Tom Hodgson has actually had the highest recidivism rates in the Commonwealth and when he’s not leading the pack he’s never far behind.

In 2009 the DOC began adding county data to prison releases. In 2012 it was ready to issue its first 3-year recidivism report. Of those released from county jails in 2009, after 3 years Bristol County had the highest recidivism rate of all counties (49%). Of those released in 2010 the county was 4th highest (of 13) with a rate of 44%. Hodgson maintained his 4th-highest ranking again with 2011 releases, scoring a 3-year recidivism rate of 38%. For 2012 releases Bristol County again had the highest recidivism rate in the state — 43%. The last figures we have from the Massachusetts Department of Corrections are for releases from Bristol County jails in 2013, showing a 3-year rate of 34% — Hodgson’s lowest in the last five years but still higher than the state average of 32%. You can view the reports yourself at https://www.mass.gov/lists/research-yearly-reports#three-year-recidivism-rates.

While recidivism surely involves individual choices, high and persistent recidivism is also typical of inadequate rehabilitation programs, bad prison policies, neglect, and abuse of inmates. Tom Hodgson’s punitive approach consists of overcrowding, deprivation, starvation, overuse of solitary confinement, denial of effective drug treatment programs and family visitation, and gouging inmates for canteen and phone calls. Unfortunately this abuse actually ensures that offenders leave prison without ever acquiring the necessary skills and treatment to stay out for good. And the number of hours the sheriff spends weekly promoting his racist immigration views — while shirking his real duties — seem to distract him from running his facilities humanely and efficiently.

Somebody needs to chain the sheriff to his desk so he can get prison suicides and recidivism under control. Hodgson’s abuse of prisoners isn’t doing anybody any good — neither the inmates nor their families, nor taxpayers footing the bill for legal expenses and award settlements resulting from his incompetent and cruel practices.

Bad call

September 4th seems a long way off, but the Massachusetts Democratic primary will be here before we know it. Voters have a choice between three decent Democratic challengers and a Republican governor whose positions on taxes, criminal justice and immigration are squarely, and terribly, Republican.

From the sound of it the Democratic Governors Association has already conceded the November election to Baker, as an article by Joshua Miller at the Globe suggests. It also appears likely that the DGA will close its purse to whomever wins the Democratic gubernatorial primary. As if that were not bad enough, a recent statement from one of the challengers now threatens the criminal justice omnibus bill just passed by the legislature.

Last week former Newton Mayor Setti Warren wrote a piece in Blue Mass Group spelling out his objections to the omnibus bill now awaiting governor Baker’s signature: “I had to tell my friends in the legislature, many of whom I admire greatly, that I would have vetoed their bill if I were governor. I could not in good conscience sign any bill that creates new mandatory minimum sentences. They are discriminatory, ineffective, and lead to mass incarceration.”

Blogger “Hester Prynne” replied to Warren, “how would you intend that your veto be received by the overwhelming majorities who voted in its favor (including every member of the Democratic party) and who would say your veto throws the baby out with the bathwater?” — to which Warren replied, “I want people to know that there are some lines I just won’t cross in the name of ‘compromise.’ We know that mandatory minimums target black and brown people. Even though we are only ~20% of the population of Mass, black and brown people make up 73% of those sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences.”

Other responses to Warren’s posting included:

  • “I have to admire the instinct that says, no. Really no more at all.”
  • “No user is going to be selling 10 grams of fentanyl to other users, given the strength of fentanyl. This undermines Mayor Warren’s position that this mandatory minimum targets communities of color, as the person being targeted for this crime is selling a substance that, when cut, could kill hundreds of people suffering from a substance abuse disorder.”
  • “It really does sound like you are getting the perfect in the way of the good. […] I fear more people will suffer under current mandatory minimum laws than [under] the proposed changes.”

A single dose of pure fentanyl is less than 2 milligrams and costs between $20 and $30. Ten grams represents 5,000 doses or $100,000. Even cut 10-to-1 or more, the number of doses would still be in the hundreds.

My own view of the controversy is that Warren is right about the evils of mandatory minimums — but he’s wrong to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Even with new minimums for a limited subset of fentanyl trafficking, the legislature’s criminal justice reforms address many current problems with sentencing, prisons, probation, young offenders, decriminalize offenses and raise the threshold for others, create diversion programs, and should result in a substantial net reduction in mass incarceration. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater was not just a bad call, but irresponsible, because Warren sent the Republican governor a message of support for a veto of long-awaited and much-needed reforms. And Baker is now signalling that he wants more law-and-order changes.

After meeting Warren last year, I really wanted to like the guy. But his positions, or rather, his “adaptability” in changing and holding conflicting positions, really makes it difficult. Warren has had consistently progressive views on civil rights, abortion, energy, education, immigration, and revenue. But raising revenue shouldn’t involve corporate giveaways — and in 2011 he supported permanent R&D tax credits and reductions in business taxes. Now, in 2017, he’s singing a different tune. In 2011 Warren, who never misses a chance to talk about his family’s relationship to the military, was all for throwing anything and everything at terrorism; in 2017 he’s in favor of drawing down the many U.S. wars of choice.

Warren endorsed 5 of 8 pieces of Our Revolution’s “People’s Platform” — single payer, free college, $15 minimum wage (minus the cost of living increases), abortion, and automatic voter registration — but Keith Ellison’s “Inclusive Prosperity Act,” a revenue tool which taxes Wall Street transactions and would raise $300 billion in revenue — that was a bridge too far. Likewise, Warren refused to support Jeff Merkley’s “Keep it in the Ground Act,” which prohibits coal and oil field giveaways. Most telling, Setti Warren refused to support Bernie Sanders’ “Justice is Not for Sale Act of 2015,” which would have disentangled the U.S. government from the private prison industry.

After all this, it’s only fair to ask — does Warren really support criminal justice reform or not?

For me, this latest kerfuffle is a symptom of the bad judgment that comes of trying to hold inconsistent views simultaneously. You can’t be a centrist and a progressive at the same time. Setti Warren is a case in point.

A nation of savages

On April 4th both houses of the Massachusetts legislature passed long-overdue criminal justice reforms. A huge omnibus bill now awaits Charlie Baker’s signature and Democrats will soon learn how moderate a Republican the governor really is. If the bill is signed and reforms make it into law, then next steps in fixing abuses of the criminal justice system should include police accountability and prison reform.

American courts are filled with brown and black and poor people guilty of relatively minor economic and drug offenses. Offenders are processed by zealous DA’s and the courts move them efficiently along a carceral assembly line greased by plea deals. Following often long and severe jail time devoid of any rehabilitation, a prisoner’s remaining rights and dignity are stolen. Former inmates can’t vote, they can’t find jobs, and they frequently have nowhere to live. The Pell Center described this irrational and costly mean-spiritedness:

“Americans are imprisoned for crimes that may not lead to prison sentences in other countries such as passing bad checks, minor drug offenses, and other non-violent crimes. Also, prisoners in the United States are often incarcerated for a lot longer than in other countries. For instance, burglars in the United States serve an average of 16 months in prison compared with 5 months in Canada and 7 months in England. [And] with an emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation, U.S. prisoners are often released with no better skills to cope in society and are offered little support after their release, increasing the chances of re- offending.”

On April 3rd WGBH’s Greater Boston ran a segment on one prison reform measure that could return a little rationality to the American criminal justice system. Investigator Cristina Quinn looked at Middlesex Sheriff Peter Koutoujian’s program for youthful offenders focused on rehabilitation, based on German practices recommended by the Vera Institute, and first pioneered at Connecticut’s Cheshire Correctional Institution.

According to Quinn, German prison reforms are based on a post-Holocaust Constitution which affirms human dignity. In addition, Germany’s 1976 Prison Act specifically defines prison as rehabilitation and tries to make the experience useful for both prisoner and society. The Prison Act’s first principles state:

  • By serving his prison sentence the prisoner shall be enabled in future to lead a life in social responsibility without committing criminal offences (objective of treatment).
  • Life in penal institutions should be approximated as far as possible to general living conditions.
  • Any detrimental effects of imprisonment shall be counteracted.
  • Imprisonment shall be so designed as to help the prisoner to reintegrate himself into life at liberty.

Cruel and pointless punishments are expressly prohibited.

Even municipal laws in Germany protect prisoners. In 2008 Berlin passed a Juvenile Detention Act which gives special protection to young offenders. Berlin’s 2010 Remand Centre Act protects those in detention who have not [yet] been convicted of a crime. A 2011 Berlin ordinance governs how prisoner data can be used. A 2013 Preventive Detention Act rules that inmates kept in preventive detention beyond their sentences (such as sex or violent offenders with psychiatric problems) have the right to extra housing and treatment options.

The incarceration rate in the USA is 8-9 times higher than in Western Europe. At present ours is 666 per 100,000 citizens. In contrast, Canada’s is 114; Germany’s 77. Berlin, with a population of 3.5 million, has 2,800 inmates in its 8 prisons (a rate of 80 / 100,000). In Bristol County, with a population of 561,000, the county jail has 1,400 prisoners in 3 facilities — an incarceration rate of 250 / 100,000. Bristol County has a recidivism rate of 34% in a state with an average recidivism rate of 32% over 3 years.

A 2005 study conducted by the Justice Department tracked 400,000 offenders throughout 30 states and calculated a national recidivism rate of 76% over 5 years. A 2005 U.S. Sentencing Commission study found that almost half of all federal offenders were re-arrested within 8 years. One way to look at it is that 2.5 million incarcerated Americans form a small nation of hopeless savages. Or so the law-and-order types tell us.

But a contrarian view held by William Rhodes argues that the reverse is true — that, nationally, two-thirds of all offenders never return to prison and only 11% return to prison more than once. The problem with the Justice Department statistics, Rhodes writes, is that “offenders who repeatedly return to prison are like frequent mall visitors — they are overrepresented in samples used to estimate the rate at which offenders return to prison.”

“Locking up the same people over and over points to failures in the American penal system,” as one study noted. But whatever the precise percentage of recidivists, the fact remains — American prisons don’t spend much effort on rehabilitation. Norway, with an incarceration rate of 75 per 100,000, invests in rehabilitation and socialization and does not torment its offenders for life. As a result Norway has one of the world’s lowest recidivism rates — 20% compared with 52% in the United States. It is not surprising to discover that one of Norway’s maximum security prisons, Bastoy, with a recidivism rate of 16%, is run by a clinical psychologist and its guards receive three years of training.

Even in more traditional European prison settings one does not find the deprivation, starvation, isolation, and brutality of American institutions. An English-language brochure from Berlin’s Department for Justice and Consumer Protection describes their focus on helping inmates: “Taken as a whole, the Berlin prison system views it­self as a system of enforcing therapy and treatment designed to address both the deficits of prisoners and their competences.”

Since 1980 a massive prison services industry has developed in the U.S. and segments of it serve even states without private prisons. Inmates are gouged at prison stores or for usurious telephone and video conferencing schemes. Outsourced medical, drug, and psychological services of questionable quality may be provided or denied at whim. Food throughout U.S. prisons is often substandard or insufficient. Abusive corrections officers, arbitrary solitary confinement, and overcrowded facilities are all too common hallmarks of American prisons. In some institutions prisoners are denied family visits.

In a German Justizvollzugsanstalt (prison), or JVA, cells are open during the day, inmates cook for themselves, and the law guarantees family visits. Inmates wear their own clothes, live in dorm-like clusters with other inmates, may receive gifts from their families, and obtain outside psychological and drug treatment services. Of course, prisoners are still locked up — but they don’t forget, or they learn, the importance of getting along in society.

Programs like this — and corresponding legal protections for the incarcerated — are necessary so long as we deprive shocking numbers of our fellow citizens of their liberty.

In The House of the Dead Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” If Dostoevsky was right, then the jailers — and not our incarcerated neighbors — may be the true nation of savages.

Police Accountability Now!

Math and language are both quite clear what “all” means. If some parts of a whole are missing, overlooked, undervalued, forgotten — or routinely shot by police — then it’s nonsense to say that “all lives matter.” The hundreds of black people — many unarmed — whose lives are ended by police each year is a testament to how little black lives really do seem to matter — and the severity of a national crisis that demands comprehensive police reform and accountability.

Tanisha Anderson, Sandra Bland, Rumain Brisbon, Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Stephon Clark, John Crawford, Ezell Ford, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Akai Gurley, Eric Harris, Laquan McDonald, Dante Parker, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Alton Sterling. And now, most recently: Saheed Vassell.

The names just keep adding up. In 2015 a Guardian headline reported the scope of this carnage: “Young black men killed by US police at highest rate in year of 1,134 deaths.” The Guardian found that young black men are nine times more likely than any other American to be killed by police. Brittany Packnett, a member of Obama’s White House task force on policing, called the killings an “epidemic.”

Fast forward to 2017 and we now have a very different White House. When fielding a question about the 2016 killing of Alton Sterling by two Baton Rouge policemen, Trump’s spokeswoman called the killing a “local matter.” When pressed on the president’s responsibility to deal with an epidemic of police murders, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president’s role was to keep Americans safe from immigrants, to “grow the economy” and to avoid divisive issues. Meanwhile, Trump’s Justice Department, led by an unrepentant segregationist, wants to return to failed “broken windows” policing.

But we can’t blame everything on Trump and the Republican Party. For decades Americans have had better things to do than deal with police abuse.

In 1956 J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI set up the COINTELPRO program which, among other victims, targeted black dissident groups. It was inconceivable to White America that African-American unrest could be a response to second-class citizenship. Instead, dissidence was seen as a product of “outside agitation” by Communists and COINTELPRO was intended to “disrupt” and “neutralize” the agitators. In 1969 the FBI and Chicago police took “neutralization” to extremes when they murdered two Black Panthers, Fred Hampton and Mark Clay, in their sleep during a pre-dawn raid. Besides African-American groups, the Justice Department and FBI also launched attacks on indigenous rights groups, the peace movement, and numerous organizations on the left.

In 1967 Lyndon Johnson commissioned the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, otherwise known as the Kerner Commission. The 1968 Kerner Report chastised White America for its racism, though the word “racism” only appeared in a summary of the full report. Its dismal prediction was: “Our Nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white — separate and unequal.” The Kerner Report was attacked from both right and left and its recommendations were generally ignored.

Chapter 11 of the Kerner Report (“Police and the Community”) looked at the toxic relationship between police and African-American communities and offered a number of recommendations including: reviewing police operations and eliminating “abrasive” practices; improving security in black communities; countering “dual standards” in law enforcement; establishing avenues for grievances and police accountability; adopting policy guidelines for community policing; developing community outreach programs; recruiting more African-American police officers and ensuring equal promotion; and funding “junior police officer” programs for young people in the community. It never happened.

In 1998 the Heritage Foundation re-examined the Kerner Commission’s recommendations and concluded it was hogwash concocted by a “Who’s Who of liberal elites.” The real problem, the foundation’s white Conservatives decided, was that poverty, drugs, and crime were symptoms of liberal coddling: “The greatest barrier that the poor face is not racism; it is elitism.” And, specifically, the second-class citizenship of Blacks was the result of their own moral failure: “The crisis we face as a country is fundamentally spiritual, and its answer lies in supporting the moral centers of influence that exist in our communities.”

Fifty years later White America still won’t face reality. If Rodney King didn’t show us that something was seriously wrong with the LAPD in 1991 — or if Amadou Diallo didn’t demonstrate how savage the NYPD’s racism was in 1999 — or if revelations of the existence of racist torture centers run by the Chicago police didn’t shock us — then Michael Brown’s murder in 2014 couldn’t possibly faze us either. None of the shockingly routine murders of black and brown men and children we see on YouTube ever seem to prick our consciences or lead to meaningful police reform.

The United States is swimming in badges and guns. To whites the nation increasingly feels like a police state, though it has long been such to African-Americans. New York City, with a population of 8.5 million, has 35,000 officers — down from 40,000 in 2000. The U.S. has between 200 and 241 police officers for every 100,000 people. That’s about three quarters of a million officers. Many these policemen are armed with unprecedented military and surveillance gear. SWAT teams regularly deliver simple warrants or conduct raids for small amounts of marijuana. We’ve seen armed personnel carriers and tanks in city streets. And when police show up at a demonstration nowadays, they’re dressed and armed to kill.

Since 9-11 more than 2 million Americans have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Justice runs a program called COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) which provides grants to communities to turn “vets to cops.” In 2016 the DOJ handed out $119 million to help pay for approximately 900 policemen. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has created a recruitment guide for veterans, and veterans can use their GI Bill benefits while attending police academy. America increasingly says “thank you for your service” to its warriors by re-deploying them domestically.

But programs like these, and hiring practices that favor ex-military, have a serious downside. By prioritizing military experience over diversity, police departments put communities at risk. For example, the San Jose Police Department, a force with serious racism problems, sees veterans as naturals for the police “because we have a paramilitary structure, [and] military veterans often times can easily integrate.”

Then there is the residue of war. Ellen Kirshman, a psychologist who works with police officers, says that between 19% and 34% of all officers show some sign of PTSD: “This is pretty alarming. An officer with PTSD cannot think clearly. Is probably hyper vigilant, has a short fuse, may not be sleeping well because of nightmares, might be policing in a reckless manner…” And this is precisely what one frequently sees in videos of police encounters with black citizens.

One of the recommendations of the Kerner Report was what we might today call “community policing.” But this is a vague phrase that often translates to “public relations.” Citizen ride-alongs, walk-alongs, Police Athletic Leagues, toy drives, and pretty blue coffee mugs (like mine) are substitutes for real citizen oversight of hiring, management, and holding sworn peace officers to account.

But community policing has always been a vague buzzword — from the 1968 Kerner Commission to the 1970 Knapp Commission. Vague or not, last year Senator Jeanne Shaheen sponsored unanimously-adopted resolution S.288 recognizing “National Community Policing Week.” America may be a little hazy on what community policing actually entails — but we’re crystal clear that it shouldn’t involve oversight or accountability.

In 1991 Rep. William Edwards introduced H.R.2972, the Police Accountability Act of 1991. The bill made it “unlawful for any governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of their constitutional or statutory rights, privileges, or immunities.” The bill had only 10 co-sponsors and never made it out of committee.

In 2000 John Conyers Jr. sponsored H.R. 3927, the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2000, which sought to impose national standards on law enforcement as we currently do in education. It had only thirteen Democratic co-sponsors and never made it to a vote. In 2015 Conyers again filed H.R.2875, this time with 48 co-sponsors. But again it died.

In 2015 Rep. Henry Johnson Jr. sponsored H.R.1102, the Police Accountability Act of 2015, which had 15 co-sponsors and died. The bill amended “title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for assault or homicide committed by certain State or local law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.” Again in 2017 Johnson filed H.R.4331, with 8 lonely co-sponsors. Again, it died.

In 2017 Rep. Gwen Moore sponsored H.R. 3060, Preventing Tragedies between Police and Communities Act of 2017, which required that police departments receiving federal funding train officers in de-escalation techniques. The bill had only 24 co-sponsors and died in committee — having also failed in 2016.

In 2017 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee sponsored H.R.47: Kalief’s Law, which sought to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for the humane treatment of youths in police custody. The bill had only one co-sponsor and there was never a roll call vote.

Whether a majority or minority in Congress, police accountability has never been a priority for Democrats or Republicans. E. Tammy Kim, in an excellent piece in the Nation (“What to Do About the Police”), writes that, “as it stands, the three branches of government are unwilling to regulate the police. Mayors and governors defer to police chiefs and union presidents; judges make cheesecloth of the Fourth and 14th Amendments; and legislators vote again and again to increase law-enforcement budgets.”

In a 2015 ruling the Supreme Court gave police broad latitude to shoot at citizens recklessly and with impunity, when it rejected a suit against a Texas police officer who fired into a car with a high power rifle from an overpass, paralyzing a driver. The officer joked: “How’s that for proactive?” Just this week the Supreme Court again ruled 7-2 in Kisela v. Hughes that police officers can not be sued for arbitrary and unnecessary shootings — effectively granting law enforcement a different set of Constitutional rights than the average citizen enjoys. In dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling another sign of “unflinching willingness” to protect rogue cops and wrote that the decision “transforms the doctrine [of qualified immunity] into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers.”

White America may have no appetite for dealing with the racism at the heart of so much police abuse, but we could still hire cops who better represent communities and hold the bad apples accountable. The National Urban League has proposed ten Police Reform and Accountability Recommendations and the ACLU and NAACP have proposed reforms as well.

If the Supreme Court sees police as above the law, then it is incumbent upon Congress to clarify the responsibilities of, and punishments for, sworn officers of the law. But this may be a long way off — or even impossible to achieve in many states. For this reason it is up to municipal voters to select district attorneys and mayors willing to investigate and prosecute police misconduct. It is up to municipalities to create oversight boards with real powers to conduct independent investigations. It is up to state attorneys general to conduct automatic investigations into any police killing. Citizens must know that they can observe and film officers doing their work and not be arrested for exercising their Constitutional right to do so. And yet some states have actually passed laws that limit police accountability.

America needs to begin taking its epidemic of police murders seriously and pass tough reform legislation. Voters need to start choosing politicians willing to take on the root causes of this epidemic. With one exception, every piece of reform legislation mentioned above was sponsored by an African-American. And that ought to tell you something — that if citizens really want police reform with teeth, then maybe we ought to vote for more candidates who have a personal stake in actually making it happen.

MA prisons deny effective drug treatment

Felice Freyer at the Globe reports that the US Department of Justice is investigating violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in Massachusetts jails. But Freyer adds that the investigation does not extend to county jails. Prisoners in county lockup basically undergo forced withdrawal (“cold turkey” treatment) because prisons “do not provide the two main medications to treat addiction — buprenorphine and methadone.”

Instead, “Massachusetts prisoners nearing discharge are offered a shot of Vivitrol, a drug that blocks the high from opioids for up to a month.” And that’s it. Vivitrol made news recently because the Trump administration’s opioid treatment plan is typical of his style of crony capitalism — “a single drug, manufactured by a single company, with mixed views on the evidence regarding its use.” Vivitrol will be the only drug treatment given federal prisoners.

Alkermes, the manufacturer of Vivitrol, works just like a real drug dealer. Through an “Inspiration Grant” Alkermes gave to the National Sheriff’s Association, prison staff and contractors get a “taste” of the drug, then are allowed to buy more with taxpayer money. No wonder that Vivitrol CEO Richard Pops says “the best days of Vivitrol are still ahead of it.”

It is unconscionable that our criminal justice system incarcerates people with drug addictions and then — instead of offering real treatment — administers a questionable drug upon leaving prison for the benefit of a single-source vendor. The Globe’s piece only confirms what ex-inmates have told BCCJ. Despite a quarter of a million dollar grant from the Feds for drug treatment, Bristol County is either squandering or simply pocketing the money. The main occupants of our county prisons are substance abusers — and their time spent in these harsh facilities always ends without meaningful drug rehabilitation.

Again, we implore state investigators — the Attorney General, the State Auditor, the governor, anyone who will listen — investigate the mis-treatment and non-treatment of people in our county prisons. Prison should be a place for rehabilitation, not abuse.

Dayenu

Tonight is the first night of Passover.

This is a night for celebrating Jewish liberation from slavery with friends and family. Jews first came to Egypt during a famine and lived as guests a short while, but then in a bitter turn became slaves under Pharaoh. Only after generations of suffering, and only by miracles and plagues demonstrated to Pharaoh and his sorcerers and military, were the Israelites able to gain their freedom. A final miracle — clearing a path for the Israelites across a dry sea bed — brought forty years of wandering in the desert before the establishment of their own kingdom.

This, in a nutshell, is the story told at Passover. It is both a story of liberation and persecution (“In every generation they rise up against us)”. For many liberal Jews there’s far too much of the supernatural and too much about one peoples’ story. For this reason many of us prefer to see our story as the universal struggle for freedom. In our family we sing “Go Down Moses” as poorly as we do “Dayenu.” In years past we’ve had an orange to signify gay liberation. We’ve had an olive for Palestinian freedom. When conducting a seder, in fact, innovation is a requirement. What always brings life to Passover is the truth that — in every generation they rise up against someone.

Dayenu — literally “enough” — is a song with fifteen questions that begins by asking if it would have been enough for god to bring us out of Egypt, to part the sea, to provide manna, and it ends with the building of the temple. The grateful answer to each question in turn is — yes, this would surely have been enough even without all the other gifts.

But one question Dayenu doesn’t ask is what would have happened if the Israelites had met immigration agents in the desert. What would the arc of history have been if we were sent back into Egyptian slavery?

Dayenu doesn’t ask what the descendants of the Israelites would be expected to do with 40,000 African refugees who — just like their own ancestors — travelled thousands of miles across deserts to Israel and now sit in detention centers awaiting deportation. Or Palestinians, who have lived under martial law almost twice as long as the Israelites wandered the desert.

Dayenu doesn’t ask what kind of society we are obliged to create to treat fellow human beings better than we were treated by Pharaoh — an especially relevant question this year as the number of police murders of black men is exploding. And at a time white Americans still continue to rise up against African-Americans, even after centuries.

Dayenu never asks, but the seder certainly points at, the seemingly endless procession of new Pharaohs emerging on the world stage — strutting dictators surrounded by their modern-day sorcerers and charioteers. A plague on all of them; they certainly do rise in every generation.

Dayenu doesn’t ask, but the implication seems clear to me, that those who have found their freedom are now obligated to help others realize their own liberation. After all, didn’t the Israelites take the mixed multitudes with them out of slavery?

For some it is enough to recognize persecution and victimization. Dayenu. For others it’s enough to recognize persecution and demand liberation. Dayenu. But for liberation to be truly realized, as the Passover story reminds us, injustice and cruelty must be directly challenged and crushed.

Chag pesach sameach.

Town Elections 2018

Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home.

Unfortunately, your home town doesn’t make it easy to participate in local elections. Did you know that your town election is in about a week? Can you find it listed prominently on your town’s website? Did a town clerk post a sample ballot? Do you even know who or what is on the ballot?

I can’t help you with much more than the dates, unfortunately. Call your town clerk for the rest.

Brothers and Sisters

We Boomers lament our waning powers if not the short time left to us. Many of us also shed tears for what might have been — changes that could have truly made the world a different place. But history won’t be kind to us for our failures and omissions. Today the world we’ve savaged is in worse shape than ever.

Of course, numerous impediments to change have always stood in the way — money, power, law, religion, capitalism, ignorance, apathy — for starters. Yet all of us either jumped whole-heartedly or dipped a reluctant toe into the system, inevitably playing our part in preserving injustices that have afflicted the nation right from the start. When we are finally gone I suspect we won’t be greatly missed.

Whether it’s just a fleeting hashtag or something greater, something like a movement is growing following the slaughter of seventeen high school students in Florida — a movement some have called a Children’s Crusade, one the religiously-inclined see echoing the words of Isaiah 11:6 — “and a small child shall lead them.” The sentiment has its appeal — a pure, new beginning.

But the children of the March for Our Lives movement — these sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters — are no ordinary children. These young victims of school shootings have acknowledged gun violence throughout our society. They seem to recognize intersectionality that never occurred to many of us. These young people are well-informed and fierce, and they promise to be a political force to be reckoned with. At least one hopes.

Yesterday our group of mostly older activists piled into a school bus headed for March for Our Lives in Boston. There was a distinct feeling we were there to support their efforts. It was clearly their movement, their moment, their debut. For me it was a poignant, bittersweet moment — one generation passing into irrelevance as another took up its challenges.

I also felt that these were no longer simply children to be protected. These were newly-forged Brothers and Sisters in one of a number of long-simmering national struggles.

Better than a hashtag, a moment, or a movement, I hope this represents a generational reset. As these young folks grasp political power they will need to consider all the insidious institutions they have inherited, recognize the links between violence in our communities and the violence American militarism wreaks throughout the world, and the racism and violence inherent in growing American authoritarianism.

These young Brothers and Sisters — and all who come after them — must not merely hold politicians accountable but reform the political and economic systems at the root of so many problems. And as these younger activists fill the ranks of political institutions the aging leadership must also gracefully, and rapidly, make way for them.

Our generation may not be finished yet. But our time is up.

* * *

Photos from yesterday’s march in Boston:

Feet to the Fire

Bristol County Massachusetts is in the midst of a prison suicide epidemic. At this point nobody is doing anything about it although there is mounting alarm at the growing body count.

Yesterday WGBH News ran the first of two reports on prison suicides in the Commonwealth. The report, written by New England Center for Investigative Reporting (NECIR) reporters Jenifer McKim and Chris Burrell, took Bristol County sheriff Tom Hodgson to account for fudging details of his self-investigation into the death of Michael Ray on June 10, 2017. According to the sheriff, who deflected blame for failing to monitor Ray, “we have very high standards here and we’re constantly looking for ways to improve.”

Hodgson blames his suicides on the opioid epidemic — though Ray had been in custody for almost two years and drugs should not have figured into the death. The fact is, Michael Ray was not getting the help he needed for depression. “If something happens to me, I want people to know that I’ve been getting no help, no matter how many mental health slips I’ve put in,” Ray wrote shortly before his death.

A month before Ray’s suicide, the same NECIR reporters ran an article in the Globe asking, Why Is The Suicide Rate In Bristol County Jails So High? Scarcely a month later Ray was dead. Even if Hodgson was preoccupied by his busy talk show schedule, the Globe article should have sent a signal that things needed to change at his facilities.

But on June 1, 2017 Tom Hodgson was having brunch with the Mass Fiscal Alliance, a group that promotes anti-immigrant rhetoric like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, where Hodgson sits on the advisory board with its white supremacist founder, John Tanton. Nine days later Michael Ray was dead.

Two weeks after Ray’s death, on June 28th, Tom Hodgson was back selling anti-immigrant xenophobia at a far-right hate group event called “Hold Their Feet to the Fire.” Hodgson appeared with gay-basher Sandy Rios, xenophobe Dan Stein, conspiracy theorist Michelle Malkin, white supremacist Tom Roten, white supremacist congressman Steve King, Muslim-basher Robert Spencer, and real-life fascist and anti-semite Sebastian Gorka. Rather than running jails humanely and competently, Hodgson had better things to do.

Despite Tom Hodgson’s denials of responsibility for a suicide rate twice the state average, we tend to agree with Governor Charlie Baker: “Look, any time anybody kills themselves in a prison, something clearly went wrong.”

Something clearly is going wrong, and it’s time public officials hold Hodgson’s feet to the fire.

Thirteen Democratic Senators

I’ve written about this before and it is now closer to becoming law. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S.720) is a piece of legislation promoted by a foreign nation that will violate the civil liberties of Americans. It joins recent laws in Turkey and Poland criminalizing “insults” to a nation. But it is fundamentally a form of thought control that has no place in a democracy.

S.720 is co-sponsored by 51 U.S. Senators. To their shame, thirteen are Democrats: Michael Bennet (CO); Richard Blumenthal (CT); Maria Cantwell (WA); Christopher Coons (DE); Joe Donnelly (IN); Margaret Hassan (NH); Joe Manchin (WV); Claire McCaskill (MO); Robert Menendez (NJ); Bill Nelson (FL); Gary Peters (MI); Charles Schumer (NY); and Ron Wyden (OR).

S.720 criminalizes speech and forbids political expression. The Anti-Israel Boycott Act is basically a Sedition Act in disguise which punishes any American joining a boycott to oppose the Israeli government’s occupation of Palestinians with a fine of up to $1 million or imprisonment up to 20 years.

S.720 wants to have it both ways — doing the bidding of a foreign nation (Israel) while punishing Americans from following boycotts suggested by a foreign entity (the UN and the still-stateless Palestinian people).

Whether the bill is eventually successful or not, the ACLU notes the harm it has already done:

“On its face, the bill appears to directly prohibit boycott activity that is protected under the First Amendment. Even if the bill could be interpreted more narrowly, as some of its supporters claim, its broad language could still chill protected expression by scaring people into self-censorship. Either way, the bill would impose serious First Amendment harms.”

According to S.720’s subsection (a)(1) the bill criminalizes even gathering information about companies doing business in Israel or in occupied Palestinian territories. You post an inquiry on Facebook — for example, does Sodastream manufacture its products in the West Bank? The next thing you know, you face arrest or a fine.

Besides violating the rights of Americans, S.720 is a perfect example of the sort of foreign meddling that Democrats claim to hate. S.720 is promoted by numerous pro-Israel groups like AIPAC whose single focus on promoting Israeli interests should require it to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Even Canada is obliged to register its lobbyists but no such limitations apply to AIPAC, which literally pays American legislators to work for Israel’s interests.

Imagine if Russian lobbyists did the same — worked through a group we’ll call ARPAC — the American Russian Political Action Committee — to create legislation to criminalize sanctions against Russia and its oligarchs. Or imagine ATPAC — the American Turkish Political Action Committee — buying support to keep Americans from mentioning the Armenian Genocide or protesting Turkey’s treatment of Kurdish people.

What’s especially galling to Americans is that the Senate is telling us we can’t take political action against a foreign country knee deep in corruption — a country with a prime minister about to be indicted for criminal conspiracy. A country in which the former prime minister went to jail for bribery and influence-peddling. The Senate needs to be reminded: Israel is not our 51st state.

S.720 echoes laws in Israel which have already criminalized the BDS movement in “the Middle East’s only democracy.” The Senate bill also joins a growing list of American “gag” legislation written for agribusiness, anti-abortion zealots, and pipeline companies. The Trump administration now seems eager to join its authoritarian counterparts in China, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Poland, the Philippines, and elsewhere in policing the views of its citizens.

And thirteen Democratic senators, including Chuck Schumer, are just fine with that.

Guns in schools

Tired of

Images of policemen shepherding children to safety

It’s not the fault of the FBI

It’s not even the fault of local police, who were notifed over 20 times

Those same policemen who tighten a perimeter aroudn the school, show up in APCs, in SWAT teams, are sometmes the ones to train children in using weapons

Hodgson sued for wrongful death

In 2015 Brandon St. Pierre committed suicide while in custody at Sheriff Thomas Hodgson’s Bristol County prison. St. Pierre’s suicide was one of a growing number of suicides at the facility — one of fourteen county jails in the state that accounts for a quarter of all suicides. St. Pierre’s name was mentioned in a number of articles published by the New Bedford Standard Times, the Boston Globe, WGBH, the Huffington Post, and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, which won an award last fall for its reporting.

On February 28th Tom Hodgson bent the ear of a reporter at Dartmouth Week, patting himself on the back for all the positive changes that have supposedly been made at his facilities. But the Dartmouth Week piece was mainly a report on Hodgson’s own investigation of himself — in which the sheriff cast blame on the inmates’ mental health and drug issues for their own deaths.

It was another piece of a pre-emptive public relations campaign from the wily politician — pre-emptive because, once again, Tom Hodgson is being sued for violating prisoners’ Constitutional rights. A new lawsuit against the Bristol County sheriff joins two others within the last year.

On February 21st Barbara Kice, Brendan St. Pierre’s mother, filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court [docket number 18CV00189]. Kice’s lawsuit alleges that Sheriff Hodgson, Corrections Officer Dylan Bedard, and an unspecified “Jane Doe” violated St. Pierre’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by improperly caring for a person known to be suicidal.

Click here to view the lawsuit in PDF format.

We especially appreciate the ongonig reporting from the Globe and NECIR. And there is a lot more for journalists to cover than a whiskered personality who thinks xenophobia is his day job. It is more critical than ever that the public is informed about the ongoing suicides in our community and the systemic abuses behind them.

The suitcase under the bed

The suitcase under the bed

What would you do if immigration agents came for you and separated you from your children? Breaking apart families was never a central mission of previous Republican and Democratic administrations, but with Trump many parents are now faced with having to plan for unimaginable cruelties of a racist deportation machine. It may not be 1935 but, if you are someone sleeping with a packed suitcase under the bed, it sure feels like it.

On Thursday Helena daSilva Hughes of the Immigrants Assistance Center and Corinn Williams of the Community Economic Development Center, both in New Bedford, hosted a workshop given by the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute’s (MLRI) Emily Leung. Roughly 40 attendees represented a spectrum of local social service, academic, health care, and legal organizations and they had come to learn about legal tools immigrants can use to protect the welfare of their children if they face deportation.

Leung discussed the Trump administration’s “shift in enforcement,” which was a diplomatic way of describing ICE’s shift from deporting dangerous individuals to going after the easiest people to round up. The MLRI attorney discussed adaptations to, and the function of, the Caregiver Authorization Affidavit and Temporary Agent Appointment documents, both already in use within the Commonwealth. Neither of these legal documents grants guardianship of a child to another adult — a last resort if a child is young and the deportation is irreversible — but they permit a caregiver to make important decisions for a parent who can no longer advocate for her own children.

It was a lively meeting with many questions asked and answered. Leung dispensed practical advice on storing and collecting identity and travel documents — and ending by stressing the importance of committting important phone numbers to memory. By the time you need to make that phone call you’re already in ICE custody — and they’ve got your phone.

For more information go to the MLRI website or to Mass Legal Help. You can find workshop resources in English and Spanish — and more translations would be welcomed.

Attorney General Maura Healey’s office has published a similar Emergency Planning Guide for Families in English, Portuguese, Spanish, and Haitian Creole.

* * *

The Immigrants Assistance Center (IAC) and the Community Economic Development Center (CEDC) both perform important work of helping immigrant families — whatever their status.

Check out the Benefit Concert for the IAC at the Greasy Luck Brewpub, 791 Purchase St., New Bedford, MA 02740, on Saturday, February 24th, from 5-8pm. Buy your tickets here.

And please support the work of the CEDC by making a donation.

Defend the Defenders

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the court…” — Miranda warning

Everyone’s heard the Miranda warning and the promise of public counsel. But few know how precarious the system is, how overworked public defenders are, or that the funding of public defenders is really just an afterthought — in even the most liberal of states.

In Massachusetts the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) provides legal representation to indigent people in criminal and civil cases and administrative proceedings in which there is a right to counsel. CPCS attorneys, social service advocates, investigators, secretaries and other professionals, also known as MassDefenders, work on behalf of poor people on criminal, juvenile, child and family, mental health and other civil commitment cases.

MassDefenders work hard for the most disadvantaged people in the Commonwealth. But CPCS staff have been working for years without a voice in the terms and conditions of their employment. Although public defenders receive some of the benefits provided other state employees (pensions and healthcare), they do not currently have the right to collective bargaining.

In 2004 the Supreme Judicial Court addressed a shortage of lawyers due to stagnant rates of compensation that hadn’t changed since 1986, noting the rates were “among the lowest in the nation.” Today there are signs that Massachusetts is again approaching another crisis.

On Monday, March 6th, starting with an early morning rally outside Superior Court in Fall River (186 S. Main St.) at 8:15am, Massachusetts public defenders will again demand their collective bargaining rights.

Later in the day, at 4:30pm, MassDefenders will attend a public hearing at Superior Court in Taunton (9 Court St.) organized by CPCS management to hear from the public on rate increases for bar advocates and other appointed lawyers. Like CPCS lawyers, bar advocates are attorneys contracted to represent poor people and do similar work as public defenders.

Public defenders and bar advocates are often the first to hear about injustices visited upon those in county and state prisons. Strengthening public defenders’ rights strengthens opposition to prison abuses, mass incarceration, solitary confinement and the systemic racism in the “justice” system. Defenders with the protections collective bargaining confers can also be powerful advocates for the lawful and humane treatment of people detained in immigration cases.

Defend the defenders.

For more information contact Ben Evans at ben.c.evans@gmail.com or at 401-258-4239.

Not allowed to escape his past

Last week social networks were buzzing with reports that UMASS Dartmouth had rescinded the 2017 acceptance of a black student who had been honest about prior gang affiliations. Right after Martin Luther King day, and right in the middle of Black History month, a young black man had new options snatched away by nervous administrators at a campus in a lily-white community. At a campus meeting on Monday angry students voiced concerns about racism and fairness.

The university for its part shed absolutely no light on the issue. According to a campus spokesman, “We’re just not going to be engaged in a conversation about an admissions case about an individual student.” Whatever the actual facts, the university’s ham-handed refusal to discuss circumstances or safety concerns — or to engage in a “conversation” with students or the wider community — will with good reason be interpreted as a coverup of some good-old-fashioned racism, and less as the well-intentioned effort to keep students safe. The university might as well have invoked “national security.”

UMASS Dartmouth is a public university. Many of us studied there. Many of us know students, employees, faculty, ex-faculty, and regularly attend campus events. Before it joined the UMASS system it was very much a local university, and it still is. In every way it is our university. And the public is entitled to some answers. The administration must open up about the circumstances and reasoning behind changing its mind about this student. And it must publicly and transparently deal with concerns that this was racism again rearing its ugly head in the age of Trump.

Universities are full of people with all sorts of baggage. The UMASS university system was once run by Whitey Bulger’s brother. Despite suspicions he knew where his fugitive brother was hiding, it never seemed to keep William Bulger off a campus or prevent him from becoming president of the Massachusetts Senate. Plenty of white students have had offenses expunged from their records. But this particular student never had the same courtesy extended to him. Despite his best efforts to take a different path in life, this young black man has now been barred from the university for a past that men like him are never permitted to escape.

Law, Order, and Apathy

We are distracted by so many simultaneous assaults on human and civil rights today that it’s easy to forget those caught up in America’s massive prison population — the largest in the world. This includes people who need to stay away from the rest of us for a long, long time. But most of those languishing in American prisons today are guilty of lesser offenses — usually drugs and theft to support their addictions. Once they enter the “system” America’s Puritanical instincts kick in and we brand them with a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives. And if we don’t forget them completely, we banish all thought of how prison abuse will scar them — and society — for decades to come. Lock ’em up and throw away the key.

Unfortunately, the criminal “justice” system runs without oversight by elected officials who have the thinnest of mandates.

In September Massachusetts voters will select primary candidates. Forget gerrymandering, forget voter suppression, forget Russian hackers. Massachusetts itself inflicts the most damage on its own democracy through apathy and patronage. In the last state election only 34 of 160 state House races had challengers from more than one party — an uncontested rate of 79%. With this level of apathy, voters truly get the democracy they deserve — patronage, careerists or grandstanding politicians. And a substandard, inhuman, expensive prison system.

Southeastern Massachusetts has three Trump Republican sheriffs who participate in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 287(g) programs. Bristol County’s sheriff sits on the advisory board of a group the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a hate group. County Democrats elected a Republican, Thomas Hodgson, over a Democrat in the 2010 sheriff’s race. Hodgson’s facilities are known for horrific conditions, health and safety violations, abuse of solitary confinement, and abnormally high suicide rates. Yet Bristol Country voters haven’t tried to hold the sheriff accountable, nor have state and local agencies. It will be up to voters to replace him in 2022.

But Hodgson ran unopposed in 2016 — like a majority of sheriffs that year.

If the school-to-prison pipeline ends in overcrowded, unsanitary cells or solitary confinement, a critical junction on that line is the DA’s office. Nationwide, elected district attorneys have enormous latitude to prosecute (or not), lay on trumped-up charges (or not), send the accused to lockup (or not), set bail (reasonable or not), negotiate plea deals, and seek jail time or diversion programs.

Often outright enemies of civil liberties, Massachusetts district attorneys have destroyed lives, in many cases defending tainted convictions with tainted evidence, and nine out of eleven state DAs staunchly opposed criminal justice reform legislation. Nationwide, district attorneys have discovered that running on a “law and order” platform — going after the weakest and most vulnerable in society by labeling them “superpredators” — is a winning election strategy.

In Bristol County, for example, DA Thomas Quinn used the full force of his office to come down with vengeance on a troubled teenager who encouraged an equally troubled friend to end his life. Mercifully, a judge gave the defendant a fraction of the 12-20 year sentence the DA wanted. Though Quinn says he likes the idea of drug courts, he wants to extend incarceration without bail for super “dangerous” individuals from 120 days to one year. Quinn already bears considerable responsibility for the miserable overcrowding in the Bristol County jails he has filled, whose inmates are subjected to abusive conditions by the sheriff.

Quinn was appointed by the governor after his predecessor’s resignation — and then ran unopposed in primary and general elections in 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVPIsuVp9X4

Very few voters know who their county DA is — much less anything about his handiwork. The ACLU recently announced an initiative called What a difference a DA makes. Since a district attorney is an elected official who can potentially do a lot of damage, the ACLU’s message is — “buyer beware!” By late summer voters should have a scorecard on their district attorneys. But this still won’t solve the problem of uncontested races. And it’s a little late for this election cycle.

In Massachusetts judges are selected, not elected. Selection is the responsibility of the governor and the Governor’s Council, a body composed of representatives from the state’s eight Senatorial districts and chaired by the Lieutenant Governor. Besides selecting judges, notaries, and justices of the peace, the Council considers pardons and commutations. In Bristol County the previous Councillor for the First District seemed to alternate between two brothers — Democrat Oliver Cipollini and Republican Charles Cipollini. Voters didn’t seem to notice which brother stood for election or care that the race was uncontested.

Today, representing the First District (Bristol, Plymouth, Barnstable, and Duke counties), we have Joseph C. Ferreira, former police chief in Somerset, a former Assistant DA, and now a lawyer at Lynch & Lynch. At the Democratic caucuses on February 11th Ferreira and his signature collectors signaled he was running on a “law and order” platform — tougher judges, tougher sentences. In a 2015 interview with the Fall River Herald, Ferreira spelled out one of his rules for selecting judges: “You never want to see someone lean to the left too much.” Whether you like Ferreira or not, this is what the Democratic Party is currently offering.

If 2018 is anything like 2016, Joe Ferreira will run another uncontested race in both the primary and general election.

Prepare for the 2018 MassDems convention

Massachusetts Democrats are getting ready for the 2018 convention in Worcester. The following information might be useful if you are thinking of jumping into the Blue pool.

The MassDems Convention

The 2018 Massachusetts Democratic convention is an Endorsing Convention — which means that state primary candidates will be vetted at the convention. To appear on the Democratic primary ballot on September 4th, candidates need 15% of the convention delegate vote, so you may have noticed that candidates are scrambling to contact party activists. This year’s convention is also considering charter amendments — changing the rules by which the state party operates. Action Together has a good writeup on what will go on at the convention:

Action Together also has a good summary of how you can jump in:

First things first

Start by attending your Democratic town caucus. You can’t be a delegate if you’re not attached to a local committee. Today was the first day of the caucuses. Check to see when yours is being held:

A little light reading

The rules for delegates, alternates and “add-on” delegate selections will leave you with heartburn and a headache. In general, there are an equal number of male and female delegates and alternates. There are also a number of “add-on” delegates, also gender-balanced, who represent various identities: minority, gender, sexuality, disabled, etc.

You must be registered as a Democrat at the time of your town caucus to be elected as a delegate or alternate. Add-on delegates can register as Democrats at the caucuses. Delegates must be present at the caucuses unless they are serving in the military, and they must not have publicly supported non-Democrats within the last 2-4 years. There may be some exceptions for absences at the caucuses if prior notice has been given in writing to the local chair. Consult your local chair and familiarize yourself with the Convention documents and the various forms and registration deadlines. And don’t show up late for your caucus!

In case you missed the email

You may find additional information in an email the MassDems sent to all town and city Chairpersons:

Get on Richard’s list

Richard Drolet is a good guy to know if you’re a SouthCoast Democrat. He is the Chairperson of the New Bedford Democratic City Committee, which arranges a bus to the convention for Democrats from New Bedford and neighboring towns. Get on Richard’s email list to be advised of City committee meetings (which are open to members of neighboring towns) and plans for travel to the 2018 Convention in Worcester.

Courageous

Few people who listened to Donald Trump’s first State of the Union speech could fail to miss his remarks on minorities and immigrants. This is a demagogue playing to a far-right base by expanding a deportation machine. This is an unrepentant racist who now makes it clear he doesn’t want even legal immigration if it involves brown people.

In New Hampshire since last summer American citizens on I-93 have been stopped at roadblocks in Thornton, forced to show their ids, and had their cars searched in violation of what’s left of the Fourth Amendment. In Fort Lauderdale last week, agents stopped and boarded a Greyhound bus and again demanded to see everyone’s id. A video of the spectacle provoked widespread condemnation.

This is not a sign of a healthy democracy, nor is it an America most of us want to live in. It’s a little too reminiscent of the pogroms of Germany of 1935. And this is why we need the Safe Communities Act, now before the Massachusetts legislature.

State legislators want to protect the public, and they also want to provide law enforcement officials with the tools to do it. Anti-immigrant organizations like FAIR, and spokesmen for FAIR like Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson, would have us believe Trump’s claim that an overwhelming number of immigrants from Latin America are rapists and cartel members. Those who know the immigrant community know that this is complete hogwash. But some legislators fear making the wrong call.

Hodgson and his former segregationist friend Jeff Sessions claim the Safe Communities Act is a “sanctuary” bill that prevents immigration agents from doing their job. Sessions, like Hodgson, even wants to arrest mayors of cities who won’t deputize their police as ICE agents.

But nobody’s stopping ICE from doing its work. The Safe Communities Act now moving through committee simply says that Massachusetts taxpayers aren’t picking up the tab for federal policing, and we’re not going to go out of our way to deputize our police and prison officials as ICE agents. The bill also says “no” to registries of Muslims, Latinos — or anyone else on the wrong side of the president.

Fear merchants like Tom Hodgson are hoping you won’t read the legislation and will believe whatever they tell you about it. But the Safe Communities Act is 154 lines double spaced, and it’s not difficult to read or understand.

An important calculation the legislature must make when voting on “Safe Communities” is whether the risks to democracy of expanding the president’s deportation machine outweigh any benefits of getting rid of what the president calls “bad hombres.” Most of the deportees we’ve been hearing about recently are guilty of 20 year-old DUI’s and other low level offenses. Expanding a police state to go after them will have only negative consequences.

Let’s leave the determination of dangerousness to local cops and DA’s — and not willingly join the president’s pogrom against brown people. Encourage your legislator to pass the Safe Communities Act. The quality of our democracy literally depends on more states passing courageous legislation like this.

Baker selling Trump’s ICE Deportations

There is a great piece in the Massachusetts political blog HesterPrynne about the Trumpian evil lurking beneath Charlie Baker’s popularity with the legislature. For starters Baker funnels money to the national GOP, hardly a troop of Boy Scouts. And now there’s Baker’s ICE bill, entitled “An Act empowering law enforcement to cooperate with the United States to transfer custody of convicted criminals.”

As anyone familiar with 287(g) agreements knows, prisons participating in ICE agreements do not exclusively transfer custody of “convicted criminals” but instead any undocumented person who ends up in jail for even minor offenses. Baker’s bill capitalizes on his bizarre popularity with Democratic legislators to sell Jeff Sessions’ and Donald Trump’s racist immigration policies.

HesterPrynne points out that ICE handovers should already have been settled with the Supreme Judicial Court’s Lunn decision. Baker’s bill is an attempt to neuter its provisions:

On Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the immigration bill the Governor filed in August in response to a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court. That decision, which held that no authority exists to allow Massachusetts law enforcement officials to detain persons who are wanted only because of civil immigration violations, has barred police in the state from assisting with the President’s deportation agenda by holding such persons until ICE can come pick them up.

She also notes that if Baker’s “bill were to become law, he’d be the one to enlist our State Police in Trump’s reprehensible cause.”

The Joint Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled hearings in Boston on Tuesday, January 30, from 1:00-5:00 PM in Room A-2, to consider the governor’s bill. Written testimony can be submitted at the hearing, to the Committee on the Judiciary in Room 136, by mail, or by email sent to Philip McLaughlin. If you would like to travel to the State House for the hearings, let us know. Maybe we can organize something.

Reminder:

On January 29th Bristol County for Correctional Justice is holding a meeting at 105 William Street, Suite 26, at 6:30pm. Please try to make it. We have several important issues to discuss.

Get Involved

Democrats:

You will be voting in Massachusetts primaries in 223 days and midterm elections in 286. If the Democratic Party really wants to win back the House and Senate, local Democratic town committees need to get up out of their recliners. Registering new voters, introducing primary candidates, getting out the vote, and giving the electorate a reason to show up on Election Day are what you do if you want to win. Just ask Alabamians.

Elections coming up this year include: U.S. Senator (Warren); U.S. Representative (9 Districts); Governor (challengers to Baker); Secretary of the Commonwealth (Galvin); Attorney General (Healey); Treasurer (Goldberg); Auditor (Bump); Governor’s Council (Ferreira); State Senator (Montigny); State Representative (Markey); County Commissioners (Kitchen, Mitchell); District Attorney (Quinn); Register of Deeds (Treadup); and Clerk of Courts (Santos).

The gubernatorial race and five of nine Congressional District races will actually have primary challengers this year. But so far only a handful of candidates have actually visited Southeastern Massachusetts.

Each Spring the Massachusetts Democratic Party holds its caucuses. This year’s have already been announced, among them the following towns and cities:

  • Saturday, February 3 – Wareham & Brockton
  • Wednesday, February 7 – Barnstable
  • Saturday, February 10 – Fairhaven, Fall River, Taunton, Bridgewater, Somerset, Dartmouth
  • Sunday, February 11 – Falmouth
  • Thursday, February 15 – Seekonk
  • Saturday, February 24 – Westport & Mattapoisett
  • Sunday, February 25 – New Bedford
  • Thursday, March 1 – Attleboro
  • Saturday, March 3 – Plymouth & Middleboro

Last year I wrote about work town committees could easily do. But Democratic Party membership has been stagnant since about 2000 and too many Massachusetts town Democratic Committees are basically defunct. So it’s been up to political clubs and activist groups to do what MassDems ought to be doing themselves.

In Bristol County Democrats didn’t even bother to challenge a Joe Arpaio wannabe sheriff in the last election. For that matter, neither MassDems party chair Gus Bickford nor the huge Democratic State Committee seem worried by the trend toward pro-Trump sheriffs — in Bristol, Plymouth and (most recently) Barnstable counties — that signals the vulnerability of local Democratic Party institutions.

So, Democrats — show up for your town caucuses and get involved. Committees especially need younger, more diverse, and more progressive members willing and able to get things done.