Who's The Criminal?

APD Infiltrates Occupy Austin in the Name of “Public Safety”

Our friends at the ACLU-MA are as appalled as we are, and have already provided the linear version of events here.  A more detailed account by Jordan Smith of The Austin Chronicle is here…and the first to break the news is an active Occupy Austin participant, Kit O’Connell, blogging here at FiredogLake.com, which includes the most relevant portions of the transcript of the hearing in Houston last week that brought to light these activities.

Today in a Harris County court, a judge will rule to proceed forward or move to dismiss, essentially by suppressing much of the prosecution’s evidence against the Occupiers.  We Austinites also happen to be in the midst of passing our city budget, including the proposal for more patrol officers to be hired.

CointelPro – Coming to a City Near You!

Across the United States, urban police departments prioritize the drug war and the so-called “war on terror” over simply rooting out violent criminals. The war on drugs targets non-violent, low-level users for the most part, in an effort to log higher arrest numbers such that it appears they are doing their job. The war on terror, formerly the purview of federal entities, and now being done in conjunction with them, takes many forms including: data-mining, spying on people with no prior cause, infiltration into activist groups (many times acting as provocateurs) and the use of military tactics to chill free speech: all in the name of oppression of dissent.

The average violent crime clearance rate is under 50% nationwide, while non-violent people account for over 60% of the nation’s jail and prison population.  Seven of ten non-violent offenders end up back in jail, while the white-collar drug lords sit confidently back and count their money. Expert groups like the Police Executive Research Forum recommend an increase in investigator pools, as well as increasing civilian support, as opposed to increasing field officers.¹ Police chiefs and sheriffs – and their respective law enforcement unions, on the other hand – convince their respective purse holders that they must fund more beat officers, lest they be seen as “soft on crime.”

This dynamic occurs even when violent crime goes down: police claim responsibility for the downturns, yet cite external factors when there’s an upswing. They can’t have it both ways. Politicians still go along with building up police presence on the streets (but not necessarily patrolling neighborhoods) despite knowing that perpetuating the cycle does nothing to reduce crime. For police to justify their largesse, they must keep a steady flow of crime happening…or at least keep up the appearance that it is.

Meanwhile, outrageous acts by police against the population seem to be on the rise (based on YouTube evidence), yet district attorneys refuse to prosecute cops and police chiefs refuse to fire them. We “reward” this pattern by throwing more money at them with no accountability strings attached.

Let The Sun Shine In!

So when we get a “rock star” police chief as in Austin, an energetic charmer with the gift of gab and a love for the camera, it’s hard not to get caught up in his promises of change. A little over five years ago, Chief Acevedo stormed our liberal enclave in an otherwise conservative state and promised to clean house and bring the department into the 21^st century. He produced results in some ways: a few bad apples were fired, some policy was cleaned up, a long-awaited “disciplinary matrix” was instituted (he even joined us at the legislature to oppose “secure communities” which targets undocumented workers) and he eagerly began building bridges with the community. ²

But those bridges were made of straw. On one hand, he worked with us to pass “cite and release,” ³ but then he turned right around and proposed officers get trained as phlebotomists to draw blood in DWI cases – sacrificing the public safety in the name of collecting evidence (ACLU-TX helped squash this effort). His handling of the first major police shooting death under his watch (Nathaniel Sanders, II) proved there would be no real change. Then it was cinched that he would protect his officers in any deadly shooting, no matter how atrocious, after the shooting death of Byron Carter, Jr.

While there is no comparison between unjust killings and curbing of free speech, our last bastion of hope rested on his many promises of protecting the 1^st.  He made great speeches before Occupiers — even raising his fist in solidarity!  He also got himself in a spot of trouble with the nationwide blue shield when he posed for a photo with a gentleman holding a “Shame on NYPD/God Bless the APD” sign, alluding to the nasty actions of NY officers during Occupy events…and crediting APD’s promises of not doing the same.

Empty Words

Then he showed his true colors by using excessive force in shutting down the food tables at the occupation, and at the questionably-legal eviction last February (a federal court ruling is pending that will inform what happens with the eviction arrests and possible civil action). 

As if that wasn’t enough, despite his promises to ACLU-TX representatives and other community leaders, he ordered infiltration of the occupation (he had previously promised, “I’m not going to waste precious resources…”). No, it’s not surprising, as it’s the model nationwide⁴ and he’s not one to buck the system in any meaningful way, but it is disappointing; our last glimmer of hope sizzling out.

The Buck Stops -???

The big question is: did Acevedo order or approve the entrapment? There’s no doubt that it happened…one of the undercovers⁴ proudly admitted it in a court hearing last week. He pushed for activists to “step it up” and suggested building lock boxes – a riskier action than simply linking arms to block a roadway. The problem is, participants didn’t know it was “felony” risky! Never before had this action brought more than a misdemeanor charge, but some “clever” assistant district attorney in Harris County found a way to bump it up by claiming the lock boxes could have been hiding explosives (these are people committed to non-violence, or at least the non-police officers were).

As farfetched as that claim is, lockboxes can, in fact, be harmful to the participant depending on how public safety officials choose to remove them.

So, those in charge of our public safety not only lied about who they were and  encouraged riskier actions than were being initially  planned, but they bought the materials, assembled them and delivered the “criminal instruments” to the activists: “instruments” that would put them at risk. ⁵

It would also, in APD’s mind, quell the public’s fortitude in dissenting against its government in the future. People would think twice before attending another action – or even a protest. In doing so, they hope many would wonder, could I end up with a felony charge…putting my future at risk in a very serious way?

In no way did this activity by APD protect anyone from harm. In fact, it created it.

This is what we are paying the highest-per-capita salaries in the nation for?6

Notes:

¹Most violent crime isn’t pre-meditated, but of that that is pre-meditated, they are perpetrated by the same, small handful of offenders. “Best Practices” emphasize this, but police lobbyists downplay it.

²Aptly summed up, on Acevedo’s day of hire in 2007, Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said: "Today, the sun has shined on the city of Austin, with the hopeful promise of a new era for relations between the police and the city's minority communities…The selection of Chief Acevedo honors the many good officers in the police force and honors Austin's diversity and Austin's efforts to respect the human rights of all its people."

³a policy in conjunction with a state law passed meant to encourage participation – which provides for not spending the night in jail for minor offenses (like small marijuana possession, driving with an expired license, etc), in exchange for showing up in two weeks to “walk through” a booking, facing the same legal consequences)

⁴For more, watch the documentary, “The Miami Model”

⁵ Dowell, the only APD infiltrator currently named, is a $95,000/year narcotics detective. The war and drugs and the war on terror are inexorably linked; not that they are looking for drugs at peaceful protests –and not that free speech should be treated as terrorist activity, but that they treat peaceful protestors like hardened gang-banger/drug dealers (which is how they view all potential arrestees in a narcotics investigation). Narcotics is where some of the most questionable police tactics, and police corruption, can be found in any department.

             

⁶Why spending money elsewhere in the city’s budget improves the public safety: “Bloated Police Budgets Do NOT a Safe Community Make”

PEACEFUL STREETS PROJECT: We Promote Peace

 

Last weekend, Antonio Buehler was targeted and arrested a second time while filming police activity. This set in motion a storm that put APD on notice for their attempted curbing of a constitutionally-protected activity. The APD and APA retaliated by mischaracterizing what Peaceful Streets Project does.

 

"Antonio Buehler asserts that filming cops protects people from false arrest. For this, he was falsely arrested. We know he was falsely arrested because someone filmed it.”  ~Sam Frank, filmmaker

 

The Peaceful Streets Project (PSP) is an all-volunteer, grassroots effort uniting Austinites in ending the institutional violence taking place on our streets. Through community organizing and direct action tactics, the Peaceful Streets Project seeks to support Austin communities in understanding, exercising, and standing up for our rights.

 

PSP works towards its mission through regular “cop-watching” (video-witnessing police activity to assist those who may have been the victim of police misconduct), training, education, coalition-building, solidarity with similar groups nationwide and through its ongoing “Police Complaint Department” (collecting stories of police abuse at events and set locations throughout the city – see example stories).

 

While many APD officers tolerate and even welcome PSP’s presence, APA’s Wayne Vincent’s allegations against PSP are baseless. There is no evidence of PSP negatively affecting the public safety, and his scurrilous charges against a group dedicated to peace of “inciting violence against police” smacks of the very problem PSP was formed to address.

 

"It's called PEACEFUL Streets Project for a reason...we don't engage in, or encourage, violence, disruption or intimidation. We keep a respectable distance and are not responsible for any officer’s engagement of us just because they don't like our witnessing their actions." – Monica Savant, PSP

 

In fact, while PSP’s sole tactic is passively observing via videotaping, some APD officers have engaged in: intimidation, yelling in close proximity to a PSP member, shining flashlights in member’s eyes, giving contradictory orders to create confusion, physically pushing members and on two occasions, using horses against members (a long-time tactic of APD, dating back to at least April, 2001, in which a lawsuit was won to curb this activity).

 

"Because recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties is protected by the First Amendment, policies should prohibit interference with recording of police activities except in narrowly circumscribed situations. ...Officers should be advised not to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an individual from recording police officer enforcement activities or intentionally block or obstruct cameras or recording devices." - Department of Justice (DOJ)

 

PSP has never “interfered” in police activities and we know this because the law is clear.

 

"...speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it amounts to actual obstruction of a police officer’s investigation – for example, by tampering with a witness or persistently engaging an officer who is in the midst of his or her duties." – DOJ

 

There has been no “actual obstruction” of anything…no tampering or “persistently engaging an officer” by PSP. The only time a PSP member speaks to an officer engaged in a stop is when the officer has spoken to her/him first. There is no evidence of PSP obstructing police activity or threatening the safety of others.

 

APD will not, and can not, pass any law or policy that is both unconstitutional and unenforceable. Any rumored 50-60’ rule is just that, a rumor. It’s clear that some officers, certainly not all, need training and/or clarification; so if there is policy to be implemented, PSP’s coalition partners have an example policy they will bring before APD (attached).

 

PSP will move forward from these case-in-point injustices brought against them and engage in a mass cop-watching action tonight. Activists will meet at 10:00pm near 6^th St., train/review as to our peaceful, observatory tactics, form affinity groups and venture out to protect the liberties of Austinites.

APD's ANTONIO BUEHLER 50 FOOT POLICY

A message to the media, following coverage of the second arrest of Antonio Buehler for videotaping police officers...Buehler is already facing charges for the same several months ago, prompting a national outcry.

---  "Because recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties is protected by the First Amendment, policies should prohibit interference with recording of police activities except in narrowly circumscribed situations....Officers should be advised not to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an individual from recording police officer enforcement activities or intentionally block or obstruct cameras or recording devices." - Department of Justice ---

Media...ask yourselves:

--Does this new APD policy of having to stand 50-60' away to record any police activity AFFECT YOU? 

...Police across the nation are increasingly confiscating news media cameras -and trying to delete video- in an effort to hide their just-caught actions. (I witnessed APD throw an Occupier's -our livestreamer- computer to the ground to break it during the OA eviction -- I was standing directly next to it - about to get cuffed myself). THIS HAPPENS-all over the country, arrests for videotaping, and destruction of video evidence, despite the complete legality of videotaping. APD's been moving in this direction for some time now, despite their platitudes of "we welcome it!"

--Does media get an "exemption" from this new rule? Who is "media"? Do you have to get permits to distinguish yourselves from us lowly bloggers and livestreamers? If so, would that be in the spirit of the 1st? Is that a slippery slope you support? Besides, we kinda have some case law around here (I was a plaintiff-remember the 8 Klansfolk at City Hall?) that they won't be able to do that--not that they won't try.

--How will APD enforce its distance rule? Tape measures? If random bystanders are 10' from a detainment, as they often are without ANY concern by LEOs, are they going to be arrested if officers are also planning to arrest a videographer 30' away? If not, why? How is someone holding a camera further away MORE of a danger than someone closer, without a camera (with their hands free)? What kind of lawsuits would come from that (there's plenty across the nation to draw from, almost all in favor of the videographer/photographer)? How much pubic safety & legal energy/resources will be spent on "dealing with peaceful videographers"?

WHAT IS 50-60' & IS IT "REASONABLE"?

Videotaping police is completely legal, according to SCOTUS (covering 1st, 4th & 14th amendment rights).ACLU even has an app for that! At question, supposedly, is keeping a "reasonable distance."

Having some experience with the measurements of 6th St. (a side job is working a certain festival twice a year...and I know the 10x10 tents, back to back, take up half the road, leaving 10' on either side, meaning the road, curb to curb is about 40')...essentially, you'd have to stand against the wall of one building to videotape a police detainment directly across 6th St. on the other sidewalk, and THEY'D have to press up against that building to get 50' between you. You'd have to walk 10 feet down on your side to get 60'. And can you even get any video through all those heads?

Is that reasonable? At all? Picture ALL the other people gaily strolling on the sidewalk, right next to officers detaining someone. They aren't a threat...but THOSE GUYS, WAY over THERE, in the red t-shirts with the peace signs, and the videocams - yeah...THEY are a threat.  :-p

WHAT'S BEING MISSED RE: "INTERFERENCE" & BURNING QUESTIONS:

"A person may record public police activity unless the person engages in actions that jeopardize the safety of the officer, the suspect, or others in the vicinity, violate the law, or incite others to violate the law." -Dept. of Justice

--Buehler was quiet -except for coordinating comments amongst PSPers - up to the moment he was standing on the spot the 1st officer engaged him (read: "OFFICER engaged BUEHLER"), that officer concluding the spot was fine. The officer who arrested him just happened upon the scene and decided to change that previous agreement (not exactly in line with policy--officers already on a scene are supposed to be deferred to).

"...speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it amounts to actual obstruction of a police officer’s investigation – for example, by tampering with a witness or persistently engaging an officer who is in the midst of his or her duties." - See video/see any of that?  For Buehler to be guilty of "interference," it would have to be proven that he intended to "obstruct the activity or threaten the safety of others."  See any of that? Buehler didn't even comment on the activity...which wouldn't matter, either. "Nor does an individual’s conduct amount to interference if he or she expresses criticism of the police or the police activity being observed."

--Since when does a suspect get to decide whether another person, exercising their 1st amendment right (upheld by SCOTUS), gets arrested? Is that even legal - or within policy? It's at least completely irresponsible of the officer to delegate HIS authority to a SUSPECT. 

--Did you know that the suspect apologized to Buehler in jail that night? 

--Did you note the warning the officer gave Buehler --was a whole 1/2 second to comply?

--One outlet reported: ..."That's when things got out of control." REALLY?? Who was out of control? Buehler was the calmest one there. He only spoke to the 1st officer about where to stand, and complied completely when the 2nd jumped him with his 1/2 second of warning.  I wish police officers were as IN control as Buehler was in that video.

--APA says WE are an endangerment. With our cameras. Getting in the way. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE EVER CAUSED ANY ISSUES (ask next time, please); caused a cop to trip or a perp to get away?  Isn't paying attention to those paying attention to you doing your job what's endangering your job? Being distracted? Doesn't THAT harm the public safety? It's not the guy witnessing you being distracted from your job....

--Also ask APA why they insist on engendering violence against PSP and Buehler - the death threats didn't start until the news cycle this evening...due precisely to APA's 'outrage' against us peaceful videographers.

--They can get away with homicide of unarmed youth of color by saying they "felt" threatened. NOW they think they can get away with not being recorded by pushing us 50+ feet back, because that's where they "feel" safe. Notice a pattern? A whole lot of "feelings" involved in the rules and practices of police work...a lot of discretion...very little quantifiable accountability.

IN SAD CONCLUSION:

So, you see, all this talk of "distance" is a distraction. It has nothing to do with the number of feet, and everything to do with your ACTIONS - and whether you are physically, intentionally interfering, according to the courts and the DOJ. Standing aside quietly, at a "reasonable distance" proscribed by one of the officers until another one suddenly decided that was not "reasonable," does NOT "interference" make.

Remind me again how Chief Acevedo was our change agent; intent on bringing us a better department - ?  Seems like such a long time ago...all that hope we once had.  And where has Mr. Everywhere been lately...anyone? ...Buehler?

The Significance of Laura Pressley's Ron Paul Support: Next to None

Re: Austin City Council Election, May 12, 2012: PLACE 2 RACE

Mike Martinez's main talking points on why he should stay in office is that: while the gentleman's agreement is racist, we should still keep this Hispanic in 'his place' AND that his contender shouldn't be trusted because of who supports her (the local Republican party*) and whom she supports as a presidential candidate - as if that has anything to do with the local issues...which she's obviously winning on...or he'd not have to resort to this.

After Martinez' letter about Ms. Pressley being an evil Republican b/c of her Ron Paul support was forwarded to the Austin Neighborhoods Council (ANC) listserve, I followed with this response:


Truly sad.  The incumbent can't run on his own merits - all he has is partisan politics? Which are NOT supposed to play into council elections...but no one seems to remember our Charter.

Republicans in this town have also supported the 10-1 plan (as has ANC...as has Martinez!); does that make the 10-1 plan automatically suspect? "Bad"?

ANC endorsed Pressley - does that make her a member of ANC? No. Does that make ANC Republican because TCRP also supports her*? No. Hispanic groups are endorsing Pressley - does that make her Hispanic, or ANC Hispanic?  No.  Neither does Republicans supporting her make her "Republican." She's voted in Democratic primaries and until this past year, only given money to Democratic candidates.

She's supporting a Republican candidate for president because he's right on foreign policy, because he's the only one else in the primary race to deride the wars/occupations - no DEMOCRATS have been doing that (now, however, are 2 candidates running outside of the major parties doing that: Rocky Anderson and Gary Johnson). No candidate during the primaries besides Paul has been talking about the drug war...at all. Some people believe these to be their major priority issues, and are willing to look past differences on other issues. Does that make them a member of the party that candidate belongs to? Nope. Giving your money to the party and/or voting in that primary consistently does (or it does in Texas, anyway).

Has anyone heard of being an "independent"? I'm one. Ms. Pressley's one. In fact, a third of this country considers themselves independent-and frankly, I'm much more trusting of independents in office than partisans. Independents don't buy into a football mentality in politics. "Us" v. "them." If anything, it's "us" - the people...v. "them" - those in power screwing the people. Party matters little when policies are crafted to keep us poor and hungry.

Parties matters little when their respective platforms are constantly being upended. They've made themselves irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as the argument Martinez poses about his opponent.

Some people in this town want better government...that's why they are endorsing Pressley. Some people are tired of giant corporate giveaways (which have become a staple as much, if not more so, by Democrats: take Pressley's opponent, for example). Some people are sick of not only the anti-neighborhood/anti-community votes by the incumbent, but of his tactics as well - name-calling....bullying, etc. Some people want a responsive councilmember in that place. That's why all walks of life, from the most progressive east Austin Democrats-of-color to the moderate Libertarians to even the (gasp!) northwest, semi-conservative Republicans support Pressley.

Unless Pressley has indicated she wishes to stem the flow of undocumented workers, get rid of environmental protections or infringe on our right to choice (NOT!), there is no basis for alluding her support of Paul will 'infect' her policy decisions on Council. We know where she stands on the issues that affect us on a day to day basis (which local politics do) and we know she's a more responsive, courageous person that isn't afraid to tackle the status quo.

So come to think about it, although I don't support Ron Paul, Pressley's support of him is actually significant.  It shows she isn't beholden to party politics, that she takes courage from her convictions and isn't afraid of the heat she knew she'd take on this matter in her campaign.

That's why she's my gal :-)

*as are many progressive groups: http://www.betteraustintoday.org/  and Democrats and more...

Pressley's website: http://www.pressleyforaustin.com/home
PS: I'm also endorsing Brigid Shea for Mayor: GO VOTE SATURDAY!

Hell Not Weird Enough for Leslie; Decides to Stay Put

"It's not what happens to you, it's what you do with it that counts." - Leslie Cochran

Two weeks ago today, Leslie fell in a parking lot in south Austin (S. 1st and Johanna St.) and was taken to the hospital. He regained consciousness briefly, then showed signs of brain hemorrhaging, and yet again (the 4th time in 30 years) underwent brain surgery - having a scar starting at the front of his hairline back down the ridge, swooping down around the back of his head almost at the neck, then darting forward towards his temple, ending above his ear - with approximately 100 staples suturing it closed.

His seizures since the Oct. 2009 incident have caused him not only neurological issues, but subsequent physical ones as well. The chances of falling and seriously injuring oneself are compounded.

Yesterday morning, Leslie's doctor relayed to his local legal proxy as well as his sister in Miami that things were looking pretty grim, in large part due to the length of time he had been semi-conscious, especially given his physical/neurological history. Other bodily ailments weigh in as well...those common to patients in such a sensitive state.

Several of his close friends, including myself, were summoned to the hospital believing they were about to be helping Leslie pass on. The doctors had opted to remove Leslie's respirator; which was merely supporting him as he was breathing on his own...but still a risky proposition in Leslie's situation. There's only so long a patient should remain in stasis; and so long that medical intervention can reasonably be provided. It was a "do or die" situation - and the outlook leaned towards the latter.

By 4:00pm, 10 of his friends (many not knowing the others previously) were packed tightly around his bed swapping Leslie stories and speaking to Leslie directly, simultaneously joking and relaying loving messages. "Hey, Leslie, can I bum a cigarette? Can I borrow $20??" "Hey Leslie, tell me a dirty joke!"..."Those are the only jokes he knows!" "Leslie, you have to wake up...who am I going to argue with?"

One close friend shared with us her appreciation for Leslie's lessons regarding what "home" means; when asked where his home was, he'd say "Austin." But Leslie is a philosopher. He'd teach others that the traditional idea of "home" is limited. He said people put up "walls" when thinking in these terms. Leslie helped many among us break down those walls a little.

He had already been stirring by this moment, responding to the many familiar voices in the room relaying their love. Lo and behold, he woke up. After 13 consecutive unconscious days, he regained consciousness.

He responded with hand squeezes to questions. He looked at people as they spoke to him. He held our hands (with his right one, his left is still mostly asleep). Then when we explained they were preparing to take the breathing tube out, he lifted his arm and gave us a big "thumbs up!"

WOW! Tears turned to cautious smiles and the prospect of removing the tube became increasingly joyous instead of frightening.

While still awaiting the order by the doctor, another friend joined us: John Kelso (AA-S). Leslie was not only a fitting muse for Kelso, but a kindred "Keep Austin Weird" spirit. He sweetly thanked Leslie for all he has done for Austin; beautiful words which only he can adeptly relay in his column, if he so wishes.

Then the time came and we all held our breaths during the traumatic procedure of extracting tubes from deep within the body. Leslie clearly wanted it gone, though, and toughed it out...his face bright red by the end of it. After the nurses finished tending to him, he fell fast asleep... exhausted.

After celebrating and relaying more well wishes to him, we discussed the emotional roller coaster ride we were dizzily departing. Then we went for food and beer...raising a toast to one helluva guy!

He remained asleep into the night, waking periodically to cough up the residual fluid in his lungs and acknowledge nurses tending to him. He will be moved out of ICU to a regular room, but remains in critical condition, receiving "comfort care."

PROGNOSIS: There isn't one at this juncture. There are too many variables. It's up to Leslie in many respects. (I later got a text from my friend Jonathan Cronin who remarked, "Marching to his own beat to the end!")

ASK OF THE COMMUNITY: SEND THE LOVE, Y’ALL! Keep him in your thoughts. Talk about him to friends. 10 friends in his room ushered him out of unconsciousness. 812,500 people in his city can do much more!

--------------------------------------------------------------

Join us at: “LOVE FOR LESLIE!” @ Facebook

BookPeople is starting a donation collection for Leslie, Friday, March 2: $10 or more gets you Leslie refrigerator magnets!

A Hybrid District System for Austin is Unconstitutional, Part 2

10-1 is the Winning Plan

Now that the Charter Revision Commission (CRC) has voted on a geographic representation plan for November's ballot, we're one step closer to having true representation in our City. The CRC voted to endorse the independent citizens commission Austinites for Geographic Representation (AGR) incorporated into its plan, with a few minor additions in terms of the qualification process.

Seeing that "Eight Isn't Enough," the CRC saw fit to vote on a 10 district plan. The contention came in on the question of having a hybrid system. In the end, they voted we shouldn't; and endorsed a straight 10 districts + a mayor ("10-1"). One of the commissioners voting for a hybrid ("10-2-1" with 2 at-large seats), remarked she didn't think the voters wouldn't support those two additional offices, yet oddly voted for that plan anyway.

What Council will do with the CRC's recommendation remains to be seen. They could accept it as is - but have almost always, in the past, put something different on the ballot. A handful on the commission and in the public, however, are still married to the concept that we can't have "bold change" - wanting to maintain the status quo to a degree. They want to keep some at-large seats, and will continue to lobby council to do just that. If another plan is supported by council in the end, that will mean two plans will be presented to voters in November, assuming AGR gets enough signatures to put the 10-1 plan on the ballot.

But as it stands, a majority of the community and CRC commissioners involved in these efforts, to date, support the 10-1 plan with an independent commission. Councilmembers wanting to be re-elected would be fool-hearty to go against that. Two options on the ballot means votes will be split, and we'll fail yet again to get representation.

Case(s) in Point

Maintaining at-large seats won't pass a legal challenge here - and MALDEF has already promised that challenge. Since 1990, in Texas, we've seen two critical court cases on hybrid systems go to the federal district court, be ruled unconstitutional, then upheld at the appellate court level as such.

In some instances, like with Austin ISD, hybrid systems do make sense and don't dilute the minority vote. In other cases, like in Houston, the hybrid system was put in place long before legal precedent was set that it does dilute those votes, and/or there are other major factors that change the equation (like Houston not having zoning). The Memphis example often referred to in the 8-4-1 proposal (where "4" are "superdistricts" - or at large for one region of the city, like east or west of I-35) works because Memphis has a 64% African-American population! This simply cannot be compared to Austin's 7.4% where drawing an African-American majority district is not feasible (although at 10 districts, drawing an African-American "opportunity" district is).

These federal cases, staged in Texas, tell us that given our population mix and history with a lack of acceptable opportunities to elect minorities, we can't have hybrids and keep them even if they're voted in. Since the DOJ won't "pre-clear" a ballot measure, we have to make a good faith attempt to avoid a lawsuit.

The first case of note was in Dallas, TX in 1990 and the other, in our very own back yard: the Del Valle ISD case in 1992/93 - which shares much of eastern Travis County with the City of Austin, so we're dealing with many of the same communities of concern.

Del Valle ISD

In Del Valle, the school board previously served fully at-large and the district was over 75% African-American and Hispanic population combined. Those communities filed a lawsuit and the district's response was to propose a hybrid system (5-2-1). The courts ruled that it was unconstitutional to continue the at-large system's practice of "diluting the minority vote." A straight 9 district system was chosen as the correct solution. (Disclosure: I am the Trustee for Single Member District 2).

Dallas' Gentleman's Agreement

In Williams v. City of Dallas, a federal court ruled that the three at-large seats in the Dallas City Council’s mixed system diluted the minority voting strength and therefore violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Under the "8-3 system...no African-American and only one Hispanic had every won an at-large seat, although at the time, Dallas was 42% minority." The court investigated Dallas' version of the gentleman's agreement – where minorities were elected, they wrote, "only with the permission of the white majority..." (sound familiar?).

They also noted severe racial tensions relating to police brutality and other issues as being indicative of "some of the white at-large councilmembers simply ignoring the minority areas of the City." It held that because of "substantial economic disparities between white and minority residents," it was not possible for minority candidates to raise the large sums of money from their own communities that are necessary for competing in at-large elections.

Attorneys Warn Austin

Besides Luis Figueroa of MALDEF telling the CRC they plan to sue if a hybrid system is put on the ballot and voted in, other attorneys have weighed in, including Dave Richards and Terry Meza, from Arlington, TX. Ms. Meza submitted a letter and had a colleague verbally present her warning to the CRC that Austin shouldn't head down the "same path of heartache" as Dallas did with a hybrid system.

See Jacob Limon's testimony, at 27:00 minutes in on "Item 3A, Part 1 of 2." He tells us this is still active case law and of the successes with a straight district plan in Dallas. Depiste Vice Chair Ann Kitchen's assertation the letter doesn't provide enough information, it does. It summarizes precisely what cases the court would consider in ruling on a legal challenge here. It clearly explains Austin would likely waste a great deal of money in defending a hybrid system.

Central Texas - Majority Straight District

San Antonio put a 10-1 plan in place in the 1970s, almost 20 years prior to the federal cases. The same aspect of voter dilution weighed into that decision then. They saw the writing on the wall.

Since the federal cases, smaller communities across the state, and in central Texas, like Kyle, Georgetown, Taylor, Cibolo and Boerne have switched to straight district systems, knowing that any hybrid plan would cost them money they don't have on a legal challenge.

Let's hope Austin City Council is as wise.

A Hybrid District System for Austin is Unconstitutional, Part 1

The debate in Austin about how to elect our City Council has recently shifted from, "should we change from an at-large to a geographic districting system?" to "which districting system should we put on the ballot this November?"

Most everyone seems to agree...the Charter Revision Commission (CRC), the City Council itself, and the majority of the community...that it's inevitable - finally - after all these years and six botched ballot attempts to pass geographic representation to end the racist, at-large, "gentlemen's agreement" system.

The question now is: how many single member districts do we need, and do we need to keep any at-large seats (beyond the mayor's)?

On the table are plans ranging from 6 to 10 districts, with many incorporating at-large seats, which are referred to as "mixed" or "hybrid" systems.

Eight Isn't Enough

6- and 8- seat plans very likely won't pass Department of Justice (DOJ)/Voting Rights Act (VRA) muster. In Austin, the two minority communities the VRA will address are the African-American and the Hispanic communities.

After this last census, with our incredible growth (we have 150,000 more people since last we voted on a plan: 8-2-1 in 2002) AND our combined minority percentage now topping 50% (the minorities are in the majority), but where African-Americans have seriously declined in population (7.7% now), a map simply can't be drawn to create one viable, non-gerry-mandered African-American voting opportunity district with less than 10 districts.

With the Hispanic community, only 10 offers enough percentage of the council seats to get us near the Hispanic percentage of our city (35%) with 3 districts viably being drawn for Hispanic opportunity districts...while that only accounts for 30% of the dais, an 8 district plan would only offer 2 opportunity seats, which is 25% of the dais: the DOJ will accept a 5% window, but likely not a 10% one.

The VRA relates to "opportunity" districts though...not a straight population percentage. This means the "opportunity" for an African-American or Hispanic to be elected with more than the single constituency working together to elect them.

Simply put, anything under 10 may well be tossed out by the feds after-the-fact, no matter what the public voted on.

The straight 10-1 plan with a rider for an independent citizen's commission is supported widely (a petition drive is in the works to certify it be put on the ballot). All other plans floating out there fall short and lack the caveat for the citizens, NOT the politicians, to draw the maps.

To Hybrid or Not to Hybrid?

Keeping at-large seats is being argued as necessary because A. it will be a "relief valve" for those constituents who aren't getting proper response by their district representative/that these at-large folks will play "referee" to the district members who supposedly will pit their needs against each other -and- B. it will allow for "slower change" - a way to "step up" to a straight single district plan, later in our future.

The real reason it's being argued for by liberal, central city Democratic party power brokers is they want to maintain their white, liberal, central city power base - their "two district" plan, where one small section of town elects and houses almost all of our local representatives, and the rest of the city, the "other" district, can continue to fight for scraps.

Their publicly-stated reasons are merely cover, and lack credibility, at that.

"Relief Valve" For Whom?

The "relief valve" argument is a red herring. In what universe would another district councilmember not be approachable if yours wasn't on any given issue? None. Politicians and power brokers alike all know the whole community can organize around any given councilmember, and get the vote out for them OR for a challenger in that district, even if only a segment of that community can cast a vote for them. We do that now and will continue to do so on campaigns in other districts for the greater good (i.e., I live in Travis County Precinct 4 but am working hard on a critical Precinct 1 campaign).

All members vote on everything before them, so you have to seek all their votes anyway. Like at the state legislature, rarely, if ever, does a lobbyist approach only their geographic representative on an issue, and sometimes they never even see them. You go to the representative(s) who has/have sway on a particular committee related to your issue.

Oh, and if your rep. won't respond to your need or votes against it, then you spend the next campaign season working to replace her, and rally all your friends in your district AND other districts to help pound the pavement. That's democracy.

Bored with Wards

As a Del Valle ISD school board trustee, 98% of what I do/what I vote on relates to the district as a whole: none of us on the board see our districts as "wards." I'm merely specified to represent a portion of the district as an initial "go-to" person for those folks or a watchdog, of sorts, for anything cropping up in my little corner that I should then bring to the whole board.

I campaign District 2-wide, but I communicate with and represent parents, teachers, staff, students and fellow board members Del Valle-wide.

Raul Alvarez, former city councilmember, spoke last week at the CRC meeting and said as much...that there's very few "ward" issues out there, and they're minor, comparatively. Sidewalks are not what representatives fight over, because they need sidewalks in their districts too. They fight over the need for water treatment plants, on whether to give police pay raises, on if incentives should be given to a certain corporation looking to move to town and how to change their own elections!

Mini-Mayors

These at-large seats will merely be mayoral stepping-stone positions ("mini-mayors"). They'll embrace you just like you are embraced now by any given member on the dais (how's that werkin' for ya?). They'll be too busy catering to city-wide power brokers like developers and the Chamber for their mayoral run to listen to your little pot hole problem. They'll be useless; a waste of taxpayer dollars, at best.

Whose Team Are You On, Anyway?

The irony here? Many of those pushing for hybrids have long fought for geographic representation. The main reason we've lost at the polls in the past was because the monied interests who fought it did so with the "ward politics!" scare tactic. The district proponents squared off with the bastards and said "that's not how it works!" and called it "poppycock."

Now, it seems they've fully embraced the "ward politics" mantra by touting a hybrid system. "We have to have a few at-large seats to combat against it!" they say, with no sense of irony.

These at-large seats will merely perpetuate the same problem we are working to solve.

"Slow Change" = "No Change"

"Ease" into full geographic representation by getting halfway there now and maybe all the way there later? We've worked for 30 years to get geographic representation. We're supposed to work for 30 more because a few are afraid of "too much change at once"? Those afraid of "bold change" (as a CRC 10-1 advocate termed it) are really afraid of sharing power equally across the city.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Stay tuned for Part 2, describing two federal district court cases staged in Texas that show us precisely why a hybrid system in Austin would be unconstitutional.