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.

Item 51: A Primer on Public Input

Item 51 on this week's council agenda has caused some concern, based solely on what one uninformed activist has been publicly saying about it. It's important, as always, to actually analyze the language and to put it in legal and historical context for full comprehension.

Texas law (the Texas Open Meetings Act/"TOMA") allows for governmental entities to provide the public opportunity to give input on items on their meeting agenda. Entities may also grant a citizens communication (or "open forum," "open mic" etc.) portion of their meeting, to allow the public to speak on any issue of concern, apart from what's on the agenda. There are categories of items the entity will define as qualifying for public comment, such as public hearing items, items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion by either councilmembers/legislators OR the public - but not usually for things like presentations given by staff or third parties, or for "consent agenda" items. All these stipulations and processes are spelled out in the entity's policy (as in our City Charter/Code of Ordinances).

To be clear: TOMA doesn't MANDATE that entities give the public opportunity to speak on any matters on their agenda. It ALLOWS for it. "The Act does not entitle the public to choose the items to be discussed or to speak about items on the agenda." (TOMA handbook, pg. 40). Most, if not all, entities do make these allowances; some are more liberal with input than others. The fact that almost all entities do -or to the degree in which they do- is a product of how engaged each particular constituency is. That engagement is key to maintaining a transparent, accountable government. Let's hear it for democracy!!

The "consent agenda" consists of items that are thought by the chair of the meeting to be simple/non-controversial/housekeeping, etc. such that they can get those out of the way, by voting on them favorably in one fell swoop, in order to get to the items that qualify otherwise. Council members/board members/legislators are allowed to "pull" items from the consent agenda to be put on the table, so to speak, for further discussion. They can do this on their own accord (entities decide whether it takes only one member to request it or more than one member) or sometimes they do so in response to a constituent's -or a multitude of constituents- request prior to the meeting such that it avoids being placed on the consent agenda in the first place. The law allows (not 'mandates') entities to devise a process for the public to pull items...as has the City of Austin.

Before Leffingwell was Mayor, it was not standard practice to allow speaking on consent agenda items unless enough people signed up on it to get pulled for discussion. Mayor Wynn did make exceptions if one speaker really wanted to, but not consistently, and Leffingwell picked up on this exception as a matter of habit. Again, this is not something he has to do by law - but is allowed to do in his capacity as the chair of the meeting, so it's considered a "courtesy," not a given.

Despite this gimme towards public input beyond mandates in the law, Leffingwell began curbing citizen input in other respects, most notably by limiting how many times a person can speak on agenda items (his limiting how many meetings a year someone can sign up to speak at citizen communication is concerning, too, but not as legally questionable) and his actions are debatable as to whether they fully comply with our ordinance in place prior to this change, and more symbolically, whether they comply with the "spirit" of the 1st Amendment.

In response to the controversy, Councilmember Morrison (with Councilmember Spelman's assistance)* led the charge to codify some of these questions around citizen input. The Mayor has been somewhat resistant to this effort, as he feels like he gets to run the meeting the way he sees fit; which, frankly, he does as Mayor from a legal standpoint--but it could theoretically cost him politically, if only a smidgeon considering things like F1 and WTP4 will weigh much heavier at the polls.

Item 51 provides for more opportunity for public input during council meetings than we've recently had. The Mayor's changes limited people being able to sign up to speak on more than three items on the consent agenda - and limited speaking on those items to a total of three minutes (instead of three minutes each). To his credit, soon after he became Mayor, he lowered the number of people it took to pull items off the consent agenda for discussion from five to two (five was the standard before his administration). Item 51 improves this slightly to include counting a person who signed up not wishing to speak, but wanting to donate time to another speaker, as the 2nd person which would trigger it getting pulled for discussion.

The ordinance clarifies what the Mayor's practices have been by codifying that a member of the public, along with a second person, cannot participate in pulling more than three items from the consent agenda (those three items pulled would be the first three items that appear numerically on the agenda; i.e., if you sign up on consent items #4, 9, 18 and 42, you will only get to speak to 4, 9 and 18). But where it really improves on the Mayor's changes is that a person is not limited to speaking on items pulled from the agenda otherwise. That can happen by council members pulling items (remember, one can lobby a council member to do that) and by others signing up in pairs to get additional items pulled.

So no longer will the rule apply that you can only speak on three items at a single meeting. Between items pulled otherwise (other than yourself pulling three from consent), and items not on the consent agenda already, the potential to speak on items is essentially back to where it once was before the Mayor imposed his questionable rules. So if you really like hearing yourself talk and want to speak on 25 items at a council meeting, you can again. Is that an effective way to influence policy-makers and make change? Well, that's another blog...

On the items that get pulled from consent, speakers get a full three minutes to relay their concerns on each item...as opposed to items NOT pulled (where you are the only person signed up on a consent item), where you get a combined three minutes to speak on those items. But remember, by law, they don't have to let you speak on these items at all...or anything, for that matter, as strange as that may seem in a free society and since we take for granted we are given the opportunity to do so.

The last piece of this policy attempts to deal with a housekeeping issue: where the City Clerk has been having a hard time administering the speaking list due to a 3rd category in which you can sign up on an item. There's the "Yes, I wish to speak" choice, the "No, I don't wish to speak" (but wish to be on the record as for, against or neutral) and "No, I don't wish to speak unless Council has questions" option. It's made for a little confusion at meetings, so the proposal was to scrap the second "no" option, and Council can simply ask any "no" person to the dais if they feel the need to.

I attribute the confusion to a technical/programming issue - Council doesn't know how to distinguish between the two "no's" while at the dais. I think they simply haven't formatted the system to that level of detail--they're just looking at a compiled spreadsheet of the sign-in system. I spoke with Councilmember Morrison's office about the importance of keeping what seems an innocuous third choice...as in my experience as a school board member, I recently called up a teacher to answer a question on an item he had first-hand experience with (he uncomfortably obliged me), and was corrected by another later that his unplanned speaking might have raised some eyebrows by his superiors, putting him in a tenuous position. We as policy-makers should be sensitive to these issues and not put people on the spot like that. Lesson learned.

Since we don't have the the final version yet, I'm not sure what they did exactly, but I think they were set to just get rid of it and have the Clerk find a technical solution to allow for less confusion. It really didn't need to be codified.

I mention that last, mostly unimportant piece mainly because as part of the rich rumor mill this week, it was put out there that this bit allowed the Clerk to go into the meeting's database and change what people actually signed up on. I.E., if you signed up "yes" to speak on an item, she could change you to a "no" (or perhaps the rumor-monger thought she could also change which item you signed up on-it was hard to tell where the conspiracy ended). That's simply not what the language says...and yes, that would be illegal if that were the case, but it's not. It's merely about changing the format of the system people sign up on before the next meeting in January.

And to the last odd issue of thinking that the 1st is impacted by having a rule that people sign up prior to 15 minutes before the meeting starts...huh? How can you run a meeting if you don't have time to organize what is/isn't going to come off consent, since that's done at the top of the meeting? Seems someone's never facilitated a meeting.

The catch in all this is that it is a pilot program, so to speak, an "interim rule." The resolution puts these rules in effect for only two month's worth of Council meetings. The Mayor will decide if it works for him, with Council's input, before considering codifying it "permanently." Even if that happens, the next Mayor/Council can come in and change it all up...so don't get too used to it!

*Click on Item 51 -at 7:20 in- to watch the sponsoring Councilmembers' comments explaining the policy.

The Buck Stops Here

Below is my unedited speech today to Austin City Council (go to "Citizens Communication" 14:25 in/watch my friend Richard Franklin following me too); three minutes is just never enough time to relay all the concerns!:

Twelve years ago, we formed a task force to develop a civilian oversight system for APD…in trade for having accountability…as if there NEEDS to be a trade-off. We agreed, not the task force, but behind closed doors where the task force recommendations were watered down…to pay our officers top dollar; in fact, the highest pay grade in the nation, per capita. While monetary reward should have been granted AFTER accountability had been achieved, it was expected that APD would follow suit.

This high pay grade was supposed to relieve officers from taking moonlighting jobs for extra income, so they wouldn't be working so much overtime and wouldn't be tired and prone to mistakes on the job, making them a public safety hazard. Take the recent example of one Officer Mark C. Lakes who attacked and punched a young woman in the stomach while she was already laid out on the ground at Barton Creek Mall last Saturday in their effort to break up a peaceful demonstration (people "freezing" in place holding bags with messages on them for 5 minutes) and prevent people from filming the action and incidents occurring in the police riot (filming in public/filming police activities is perfectly legal). This officer works full time at APD, part time (perhaps 20 hours/week) at CapMetro, and was working on APD overtime during this incident.

Since the implementation of civilian oversight, we’ve continued to have unjust police use of force. In 2007, we hired Chief Acevedo who brought to the department new life…new policies and many promises of further change. While we’ve seen improvement on some levels, we’re not in two important aspects: profiling and lethal use of force. We continue to beg for the Preservation of Life standard to be implemented in policy – to which you are all aware of the details. It says, in part, "[o]fficers will plan ahead and consider alternatives which will reduce the possibility of needing to use deadly force."

We further continue to call for accountability in individual lethal force cases. Under Chief Acevedo, we hoped that we’d get VALID and VERIFIABLE information as quickly possible after a police shooting. Instead, we get false information at the get-go that then drives the investigation and disciplinary action. (MEANWHILE: the Chief tells the community not to make unfounded assumptions until all the facts are in!).

Sanders – there was no struggle with a gun; Contreras – he did NOT fire his gun; Carter – the car was NOT used as a weapon.

There was no struggle in the Sanders case as we know from expert testimony filed in the civil suit, which follows what KeyPoint extrapolated. The Chief, hours after this shooting, said it was a “good shooting” as he did after Contreras – going on camera to say Devin shot the gun and when I posed the question in front of media at the scene, “did you see the video yet?” he said no. He simply believed the officer’s tale. The Grand Jury did not see fit to indict the driver in the Carter shooting – and the story changed from using the car as a weapon to the car hitting a parked car…which the driver likely didn't see, much less have time to consider, the officer being on the other side of.

The Department of Justice left here three days before the Carter shooting-death, claiming there wasn’t a pattern of abuse under APD (under Acevedo, it is insinuated). It only took them 4 and a half months to return – three cases now does make a pattern.

We all suffered through KeyPoint Gate where y’all claimed you couldn’t interfere, you couldn’t have access to the report that was meant for the public. We can’t do that again. The buck stops here at council. You DO have the authority to advise the City Manager –who you are the boss of - to advise the Police Chief –who the Manager is the boss of. You have a responsibility to do that. We need to know PUBLICLY that you are doing so.

The Chief claims he must wait for the Grand Jury to decide how he should respond from an administrative standpoint. Remember after the Sanders shooting he promised a quick resolution, that he wouldn’t take 180 days, and in fact, sped it up to half that – now he wants to drag it out. Meanwhile, both officers have been returned to duty and are on the streets with no resolution as to whether they are a public safety threat or not.

LET’S NOT SEE THE QUINTANA SLOW MARCH AGAIN. Check out the chief’s new policy he wrote last August – after the shooting. In 902.5.3 (see the Policy Manual), he expands on the meet and confer contract about his right to ask the AG for an extension beyond the 180 days. In the contract, that only applies to cases of arbitration. In the policy, however, it is said he can only do so IF he is planning on indefinitely suspending an officer and if the prosecutor asks him to. Is he planning on firing the officers? His comments in media say no – he’s still sticking to the “car as a weapon” story.

This would mean if he doesn't fire the officers, he is in violation of his own policy.

ASK QUESTIONS. DEMAND ANSWERS. GET AHEAD OF THE SCANDAL TO AVOID ONE. You are our elected officials.

COVER UP = CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP.

The buck stops here.

Acevedo's Body Count

Byron Carter, Jr.'s unjustified homicide by APD is a make or break case for Acevedo's reputation as a change agent.

How many more young African-American and Hispanic men must die before our city leadership acknowledges that we –still– have a problem in our police Department?

How many more contentious, community-splitting debates and public payouts to bereaved and injured families must occur before our Police department changes its shoot to kill policy?

How many more complaints, protests, speeches, community coalitions, letters, feature stories, resolutions, town hall meetings and memorials must occur before the demands of our citizens are finally acknowledged and acted upon?

I say not one more. Let Byron Carter, Jr.’s unnecessary death finally be the catalyst for real change.

Acevedo must decide within the next 72 hours whether Carter’s killer will be held accountable from a departmental standpoint (a Grand Jury has not yet considered whether legal charges will be brought). Will he fire him for unjustifiably shooting an unarmed youth, or fire both officers for lying…as it’s becoming clear that both are? Acevedo is on record - before he was hired - saying he would fire any officer for lying.

DOJ SPOKE TOO SOON

The Department of Justice (DOJ) came here four years ago to study why we had proportionately high unarmed youth of color dying at the hands of our police. They closed their use of force investigation three days prior to this shooting, but this incident may well have made a distinct difference in their response. Instead of breaking down critical incidents and assessing which were and weren’t justified, as the community understood they were going to do, in addition to a few final recommendations, they closed out the last segment of the inquiry by specifically noting the improvements at APD.

It’s likely the DOJ thought that between the one very questionable shooting death (Sanders) and the somewhat “cleaner” one (Contreras had a gun even if he wasn’t aiming it at anyone), there wasn’t enough evidence of a pattern under him, although, we thought, their charge was to look at the past 15-20 years of shootings. It’s likely that because he was so responsive to the policy recommendations, they granted him something of a pass…or a vote of confidence. Much like Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize as an “incentive” to end a war or two.

Unfortunately, much like the Nobel committee’s charge isn’t to award peace prizes based on the potential for peace, the DOJ’s charge isn’t to judge excessive force by the potential for it’s curbing.

As it stands, for all the good brought to APD, we still have unarmed youth of color being killed by police officers.

THE PREDICTABLY SHORT HONEYMOON

Art Acevedo swooped into town in the spring of 2007 and charmed us all. Upon his hiring that summer, he gave us our long-sought disciplinary matrix! He got rid of some dead weight. He made policy changes. He made improvements in training and set a new tone for a more responsive, less brutal department. He got out and about in the community at every opportunity. The gains were measurable; the signs, hopeful.

Kevin Brown was shot by Michael Olsen just prior to Chief Acevedo taking leadership, but he did get charged with disciplining Olsen, and did the right thing in firing him. Had Stan Knee earlier fired Olsen for the 2002 brutal treatment of Jeffrey Thornton, as captured on the Texas Lottery videocameras on 6^th St., Brown would still be alive today. It seemed clear with the 2007 firing of Olsen that unlike Knee, Acevedo wasn’t going to put up with excessive force under his watch.

But since then, there’s not been one firing for unjustified lethal force, much less excessive force – in his four and a half years of leadership. There was his public exposing of video of an officer unjustly tasering an African-American motorist he pulled over on Mopac, admonishing him and setting an “example” for all to follow…but the Chief considered that humiliation his discipline.

There’s been firings for lying, investigative failings, drugs, alcohol/DWI and hanging out with prostitutes, but none related to abuse of power/racial profiling or unjustified force, and that’s what still pervades the force and continues to foster distrust with the community. Profiling and force have not decreased under Acevedo.

There’s been four incidents in his tenure where it isn’t disputable someone pointed a gun at officers, although one or two of them might have been averted had key family members been brought in to talk someone down or specialists (psychologists or conflict resolution experts) to mitigate the situation before SWAT bust in. When someone is holed up in a home alone with a gun…time is on your side, but patience is not APD’s greatest virtue.

The point is that, under his watch, Chief Acevedo hasn’t disciplined any officer over, or even questioned circumstances around, any lethal force. He has yet to see a shooting death he didn’t like.

He wants so badly to have a “clean” record as Chief as far as the dead bodies go, that he can’t fathom a lethal mistake….except the one that happened just before he got here…where it was Knee’s fault.

MR. I’M STICKING TO IT!

And while I’m getting my Psychology 101 on, his bigger problem is that he makes up his mind from the get-go. Before seeing all the evidence…before seeing how eventually-revealed evidence completely undermines his officers’ initial stories, he decides exactly what happened, and by God, he sticks to it.

Hours after Nathaniel Sanders died, Acevedo said, on camera, it was “a good shooting;” that there was a struggle for the gun. There was not, as expert opinions via KeyPoint and civil suit discovery shows—there were only 4 seconds between his waking and the first bullet that took his life; it took that long for Quintana to stumble back behind the car. Also, there were no fingerprints on the gun. But the “struggle” scenario would be the story forevermore, despite the evidence and the City’s first-ever wrongful death settlement where the officer wasn’t fired for it.

Hours after Devin Contreras died, still at the scene, Acevedo said the officer did the right thing and when I asked if he had seen the video yet, he said, “no, I haven’t made it back to the station yet.” My jaw dropped. He simply took the word of the officer that Contreras shot his gun first and went on camera saying such. So that became the public story…but it was too late, despite the evidence that showed Contreras didn’t shoot his gun.

Byron Carter is another victim of his faulty, prejudiced when it comes to lethal actions by his department.

Of course, all these fictions APD creates include loudly touting any criminal history of the deceased. If they paint them “thugs,” people won’t care if they died. It’s de-facto justified, so they think. Too bad for them that’s not the way the law works…hence the civil lawsuits – and the settlements.

Ace’s boss, Marc Ott does nothing to correct this, much less our elected officials who are the boss of Ott. In fact, there’s much evidence, especially in Ott’s case, that they enable it by not disciplining him, and going so far as helping him, if not leading him, to cover it up. Keypoint-Gate, anyone?

GOING HOME TO GRANDMA

This time, there's no excusing the death because of any gun in the car, much less in the hand, much less an excuse of previous wrongdoing/probable cause – despite what was initially put out in the media, yet again…

The officers said they saw the victims, 19-year old Byron Carter, Jr., and his 16 year old friend, "casing cars," but lost them and then supposedly found them later getting into a car--which was their own—despite what APD reported to media in the days following.

But, as always, the truth seeps out well after the false story is planted in the public consciousness.

According to the lawsuit, it looks as if the officers saw two African-American youth, mistook them for the earlier car casers and tried to stop them from leaving by shooting up their car. Then they crafted a tall tale realizing how seriously they just screwed up. (It should be noted Austin police have a union contractual right the rest of us don’t enjoy: they don’t have to answer to investigators for 48 hours following a critical incident.) But it seems 48 hours is still not enough to cover your tracks…see below the story, “FACTS AND HOLES.”

What’s not in question is that either one officer or both fired four shots into Carter’s body.

Now that the truth is coming out, it certainly looks like these young men saw two guys in the dark (in dark clothes) running toward them, guns pointed at them, right after they got in and started their car. There is no evidence that officers identified themselves. The young men, naturally, high-tailed it out of their parking space as gunfire poured into their car—whether they did that before gunfire started or after is irrelevant, they thought they were in danger. Whether they hit a car that rolled into one of the officers that they couldn’t see at that point (being that the parked car was obscuring his position), is irrelevant too, as officers are trained to position themselves safely in these situations. They were trying to simply stay alive; they didn’t have TIME to use the car as a weapon.

THE OLD SWITCHAROONIE

The Grand Jury DROPPED CHARGES on the surviving 16 year old, the driver. This is frankly remarkable – Grand Juries do not fail to find fault with African-American youth charged with attempted murder of a police officer, EVER.

Funny thing is, His Chiefness loves to call me on the phone or get in front of news cameras to gloat when Grand Juries fail to indict his officers over something, as if that means something. It doesn’t when the reason for that is the D.A. withholds key evidence that would allow them to legally indict – so she can get her next police union contributions. Yet in this particular case, he’s gone on record to paint the Grand Jury as either incompetent or biased towards the 16 year old (as if there is any precedence to that) by saying they had plenty of evidence to do so, but chose not to.

This, of course, insinuates HE has plenty of evidence to defend his officer…hence the concern he isn’t planning to do the right thing and fire him (or both).

But the Grand Jury hasn’t addressed the officer yet, and they almost always have him cleared well before the police Internal Affair report is done (don’t ask how they can judge something not yet investigated—that just seems to be accepted across the board).

But if the Grand Jury doesn’t indict the officer (Lehmberg hasn’t met an officer she wanted to indict in her tenure as District Attorney), then we have a serious problem. There’s a dead body with 4 bullet holes in it and no one’s at fault? It was an accident???

And similarly, if the Chief doesn’t fire the officer(s), but the officer(s) gets indicted, then what? How will he explain that away?

BOTTOM LINE:

No matter what these young men were doing prior to getting in the car, and no matter what they were doing as the car was moving, shooting the passenger 4 times all over his body was in no way, shape or form justifiable. Shooting the passenger neither prevents the car from hurting an officer or prevents the car from leaving the scene (although shooting to prevent someone leaving is not justifiable, by law, unless the person poses an imminent threat to the public safety and casing cars doesn’t).

Nelson Linder of the NAACP-Austin told the Citizen Review Panel a week ago, the officers “should be fired, no questions asked.” He said the shooting was indefensible and the most disturbing case of police brutality that he'd seen in a decade.

Bryon was going home to Grandma. He called her 15 minutes prior to being shot (while he was “casing cars”?) and said he’d be home soon, having no idea what was about to prevent that from happening. No idea, of course, because he wasn’t doing anything that would threaten his own demise.

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

FACTS AND HOLES

Basic Facts:
--5/30/11: 2 APD officers on foot shot at 2 African-American youth in a car that belonged to the driver
-- Byron Carter, Jr., 20, was an unarmed passenger and was shot dead with 4 bullets to his body from a wide range of angles
--the 16 year old driver (name not released) was shot in the arm, and survived
--the 16 year old drove to Disch-Faulk parking lot and walked home where he was apprehended

(read III.B “Night of the Shooting” in the civil lawsuit)

Officers’ Version:
--they say they thought the youth were casing cars earlier; that they tried to follow them but lost them
--they then spotted and ran towards two African-American suspects getting into a car, and were certain these were the same two casing cars earlier, in fact, they were certain that the car they were in was stolen (it wasn’t) and that was the sole reason they were attempting to detain them in the first place

--they said they were attempting to escape and used the car as a weapon against the officers
--the police said one of the officers got pinned between two cars (and this is where it gets fuzzy: at first the story was between the suspects car and the adjacent parked vehicle…then the story was that it between the adjacent parked vehicle and the parked vehicle adjacent to that
--the officer that got hit got hit fell to the ground

--Officer Rodriguez hurt his ankle…suffering a “ruptured Achilles tendon” –one account said both officers were injured, but didn’t mentioned how Wagner was inured

HOLES:

--Rodriguez getting hit by this parked car and falling to the ground was actually rarely mentioned in the media stories…it is unclear if the car made physical contact with him at all or if he just fell on his own trying to get to safety or trying to get to a better shooting position

-- it’s clear by the statements Wagner didn’t see Rodriguez fall, he just saw him after he was already on the ground, as Acevedo noted in the press conference: “Wagner heard Rodriguez scream as he fell;” Wegner said about Rodriguez he “feared he was pinned” or was “afraid he was trapped”; it’s unclear what Rodriguez reported himself – that has not been mentioned in media - conveniently.
--there’s no explanation of how Rodriguez would have been "pinned and being dragged under the car" when the car he was supposedly “pinned” by was a parked car in between him and the moving vehicle. If Rodriguez was hit so hard by this parked vehicle, such that Wagner thought he’d be drug along the street by a parked vehicle, then why are there no other injuries to Rodriguez above his ankle where a fender would make contact?
-- the uninjured officer shot at suspects "through the windshield" – so how did Carter get a bullet to the back of his head? Did only Wagner shoot at the “suspects” or did Rodriguez shoot too? If so, why was this not reported? If Rodriguez was shooting, then how did he do it while on the ground, being drug by a parked car?

--where is mention of training issues where officers shouldn’t try to apprehend suspects in a moving, or a soon-to-be-moving vehicle by placing themselves in danger of being hit by the car? OR training about stopping a moving vehicle and aiming for the DRIVER?

F1: Gentleman, Stop Your Engines

Don't Say We Didn't Tell Ya So

We were duped. At least many racing fans who never questioned the public subsidies and the decision-makers were, sans the two dissenting members.

It wouldn't be the first time Richard Suttle strutted into City Hall on behalf of out of town developers and promised the moon, the sun and the stars and city leaders became all googly-eyed, only to find out not a sunspot, a moonbeam nor a starlight were actually on the table.

But in this case, where the public actually got wind before Council voted on the "risk free" deal, we had a couple of shots to convince them that supporting F1's lust for public monies was not the best thing since sliced bread. Many, many people brought many, many well-researched facts before Council showing there was plenty of reason to slow the train down.

Council, except for two (Cmbrs. Morrison and Tovo), chose not to listen to reason...to caution...to the public. $250 million of Texas public funds are on the table, spread out over 10 years (plus $4 million in a local contribution, which Circuit of the Americas, "COTA," says they'll pay--we'll see). With $15 billion in budget cuts this past legislative session, one would think the City of Austin wouldn't so foolishly jump into an arrangement putting all Texans in harm's way.

Besides some community members dismantling many of F1's "facts" and figures, it should have been evident something was going to blow up in our face based solely on who we were dealing with: Bernie Ecclestone, for one, who loves him some "efficient" Hitler --and is fond of bribing folks to avoid paying taxes. Local attorney and former Judge, Bill Aleshire, said: “Those of us trying to convince our state comptroller not to pay the $25 million F1 Texas tax kickback recognize the sad irony that Mr. Ecclestone testified that he bribed a German bank official with $23 million in order to avoid a tax audit.” Painful irony.

Hiring Richard Suttle as their local go-to man should have been Clue #2 this was a shady deal, and that all their "hurry hurry hurry! offer ends soon!" b.s. was just that: b.s. to get their hands on public monies before anyone was the wiser.

Jabs from Jersey

As we are finding out, a New Jersey race in 2013 had long been secretly in the works and that it was being negotiated for June that year. We were never going to have a June race in 2012 or any year thereafter (yet that was the reason Council had to quickly approve contracts that weren't yet written), and it's now questionable we are going to have a 2012 race at all, as noted by Autoweek: "There might not be an F1 race in Texas in 2012, and there might not be a track for the series to race on."

With the internal strife in COTA and Hellmund's bitter departure, delays in construction, rumors of construction workers going unpaid, the track may not just be delayed - it may not be built. If I were an investor, I'd be pulling out right now. (If it goes unfinished, should we rename it the "Intel Memorial Racetrack"? Maybe we can turn it into a dirt bike park.)

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is laughing at us right now...laughing all the way to the bank...for our promising millions in public funds to these people. He knew he didn't need to offer any giveaways to get his race, and pointed that out in his F1 announcement as a not-so-subtle jab at Texas. So unlike the deal we agreed to, NJ isn't using any public money to pay F1 fees and they are getting reimbursed for public expenses and they are keeping any and all sales tax proceeds.

If only we had skilled policy makers like that around these parts.

Meanwhile, we were negotiating investing much-needed state dollars under the false premise that we'd have the exclusive rights to the only F1 race in the US, such that we'd be rolling in tourist dollars. Ooops!

Don't Worry!

Steve Sexton said their "funding is secured..."

Ehhh...not so much. The METF money isn't in the bank quite just yet. They haven't turned in their application to the Comptroller's office. They can't, as they have to do it within a year before the event (November 18th would be the earliest they could, IF anyone still believes at this point the event will happen at this time next year).

It will be in December that the World Motor Sports Council votes to formalize the dates of races - so they shouldn't apply until after that happens.

All that aside, it may not be legal for the Comptroller to grant them the METF money if there's a competing event in the US - which there now is. If they go after it, and Combs grants it, and somene sues over it, that too will cost us all money we don't have.

Never Too Late to do Right

Although we spent $13.5 million on water/wastewater (and were duped on that too), and we spent a good deal of staff time and energy on this deal with the devil, it's not too late to fix this.

The City has not yet signed, that we know of, the "events support contract" (it should have been in a publicly announced COTA meeting) that would officially sanction F1 being eligible for funds from the state coffers, as they need a local host. That doesn't address other requirements, however.

Now is the time for us to cut and run. Cancel the interlocal agreement we signed, and let COTA figure out how to pull this off. This should not be on the public's back.

Now is the time for LEADERSHIP. Wipe the egg off your face, Austin officials, before it hardens into a permanent, smelly mask.

Del Valle ISD: Let the Healing Begin...?

THE INVISIBLE DISTRICT

The huge swath of a district that exists between Austin ISD and Bastrop ISD, Del Valle ISD, has gone unnoticed by many Austinites for quite some time. With nearly 50,000 residents and 11,000 students spread across 14 schools, it's often ignored by entities from HEB, who still hasn't built a grocery store, to law enforcement, who can't decide which entity should respond to many calls.

Del Valle is built off of historically rural communities now incorporating those gentrified out of east Austin or families related to jail residents (some languishing in County lock up for years at a time). Most are working class, lower-income and minorities.

DVISD is the only governmental structure covering this territory, shy of the Travis County Commissioners Court who hasn't exactly funneled our share of resources eastwardly. There are small community local government entities, like Creedmore, but as a whole, DVISD has long been the sole entity looking out for the entire region.

With no real oversight as overarching governmental entities pay little attention and until the last two years, there was only a small cadre of community activists since many families are working two to three jobs to make ends meet and many parents in the district don't speak English...the board has been ripe with issues, spawning complaints filed with the County, State and Feds (none of which have been acted on to date). Then came the board denying the community formation of a PTA. Well, that did it. If you ever want to organize a community quickly, deny them a PTA. Many were pleased when some major housecleaning was conducted.

INTERIM NO MORE

Dr. Kelly K. Crook. She's smart as a whip...cute as a bug...inspiring in her work ethic...savvy politically and administratively. I already consider her a trusted colleague, even a friend, but can I be sure she's the best choice for leading the 5-A district of 11,000 students that I just became the newest board member of?

I wish I could say I am...but by no fault of her own, I can't be entirely sure since I don't know what the competition looks like.

Following is a statement I sent out to the community explaining my position on this.

Trustee statement on Dr. Kelly Crook's appointment as DVISD Superintendent

Thursday night at the DVISD Board meeting, a split board named Dr. Kelly Crook our new superintendent (or the effective "lone candidate" to which we wait 21 days for formal appointment), after failing to pass a motion to conduct a superintendent search. The board voted against a search, 5-4, and voted for Dr. Crook to be appointed 5-3-1 (I was the abstention).

Several of us thought we owed the community & the students a search, despite the positive gains made under Dr. Crook's leadership since last June. A search would cost less than $1/student (around $9,500) and is the most important decision a Board of Trustees makes - and could have served to bring both the board and community together in light of recent issues. While experts over at the Texas Association of School Boards say that many districts choose not to conduct a search, but hire within the ranks, they say that's usually smaller, less-accredited districts, not 5A districts like Del Valle.

Some individuals and groups, like LULAC, contend that because our district is heavily minority-based (+/- 93%), we had a duty to open the search to people of color.

Some in the district are concerned about some past problems not being resolved by someone who was part of the "old" administration. Some are concerned about continuing on too much longer in "limbo" and that the search would undermine the positive changes in the works under our interim. We are all ready for healing to begin, but some question that the lack of a search, a lack of looking at other qualified candidates, in and of itself, will negatively impact that.

Personally, I wanted the search, but abstained to appoint Dr. Crook, not because I don't have faith in her abilities, but because I don't know if she is or isn't the best person for the job for lack of a search. Despite this, I offer my congratulations and want to publicly state she will have my full support as we move forward. I expect she will continue, as she has proven to date, to bring more transparency to the district, make structural improvements and build trust and cohesiveness amongst board, staff, students and community alike.

In community,

Debbie Russell,

member, SMD2, Del Valle ISD Board of Trustees

Got Districts?

EVENT on SATURDAY:

Austinites for Geographic Representation will hold a kickoff rally Saturday, Oct 22nd at Mexitas Restaurant at 12th Street and IH-35, from 3-5 PM. Free food will be provided and there will be a cash bar. Everyone in Austin, from across the political spectrum, is welcome.

Why Districts? Why Now?

Did you know Austin is the largest proportionally representative municipality in the country? Each "at-large" Councilmember represents all 812,500 Austinites - more constituents than most US Representatives answer to! Having to appeal to all of the elected leaders to see who might help you with an issue in your part of town, where no one is specifically accountable to you, has caused a major democracy gap in our City. It has eroded trust.

At the City of Austin's Charter Revision Commission meeting last week, former state Senator Gonzalo Barrientos and chair, quipped that "there ain't a lot of faith right now" in our local council government. While this commission's still developing what plan to recommend our Council, and considering this Commission's recommendation can be easily ignored by them (it has on this matter in the past), the community is moving forward as they don't trust politicians protecting their own interests to "do the right thing."

At a noon press conference Wednesday at City Hall, the broad-based grassroots coalition Austinites for Geographic Representation announced a petition drive to amend the Austin City Charter to elect 10 Council members by geographic districts and the Mayor citywide. The proposal would also create an Independent Citizens Commission to draw the Districts.

"We have worked with over 30 organizations and dozens of individuals since March to devise a plan that is fair, reasonable, legal and in the case of the commission, one that will be free of political manipulation," said Charlie Jackson, an AGR spokesman.

"We are initiating this petition now," Jackson pointed out, "because of the Council's vote for a May election. We would prefer a November Charter vote. However whenever the City Council asks the voters to decide on amending the Charter, May or November, this proposal for 10-1 and an Independent Citizens Commission will be on that Ballot!"

Jackson went on to point out that since 1971, the idea that Austin has elected Mayors and Council members by "at large" elections has been an illusion. "In fact we have elected our City officials from two Super Districts" he stated, " We've had one Super District (West and Downtown) that has about 10% of the population but has elected 50.5% of the councilmember and 15 of 17 Mayors and a second Super District to represent the rest of the City (about 90% of the population and has elected 49.5% of the Councilmember and 2 Mayors)."

Most mid to large cities around the nation, with the exception of four others, have geographic representation, as do almost all our school boards, county commissioner courts and state and US representatives. Many cities in our size range have 9-11 districts.

Roger Borgelt, Vice-Chair of the Travis County Republican Party stated, "After seven months of work our coalition has a 10-1 plan that is far more equitable than the super district system we have now. The plan we have also will meet Department of Justice scrutiny in that it will provide the opportunity to elect an African-American and therefore does not commit retrogression as other plans will." Further Mr. Borgelt pointed out that, "the independent commission we propose will avoid City Hall politics, provide an open process and have members who are informed and interested but who are not tied to City Hall faction or interests."

This independent commission, tried successfully in other states and locales, will be the major difference from our previous ballot measures, likely being the key factor in garnering enough support for it to pass this time around. Understandably, people were wary about voting for it before because our heavily influenced politicians, or their hand-picked representatives, did draw or would have been drawing the maps after the vote.

Stan Coleman, who serves on the Board of the NAACP-Austin, reminded everyone that two federal judges have said we are the only city in Texas and the nation that lets at least one African American and one Hispanic get elected under current two Super District system. However, Mr. Coleman pointed out, "too often the minority Councilmember is is chosen by non-minority voters. Therefore, in reality the minorities are represented in appearance only, not in fact. It is time to end the two Super Districts system ratified by two judges that has condemned Austin minority voters to four decades of apparent, but no real, representation."

Eliza May, Democratic Party leader and former Hispanic Chamber of Commerce President, pointed out that Austin is one of the largest cities in the nation without geographic representation. May pointed out that "every level of government from the school board to the legislature to the U.S. Congress, has geographic representation except Austin. "You have to remember," she concluded, "that geographic representation was the original idea of such 'ward healers' as James Madison, Ben Franklin and George Washington, so we are hardly the first to support it."

Thanks to Richard Franklin for contributions to this post.

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

Austinites for Geographic Representation, PAC

6705 Hwy. 290, West, Suite 502, #173, Austin, TX 78735

512-554-2710