Story and photos by Pete Shaw

Local housing justice activists will go on trial in June for their attempts to help keep a foreclosed family in their home during an eviction in which police used pepper spray against protesters.

In October 2012, deputies from the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and Portland police evicted Patricia Williams and Darren Johnson from their SE Portland home. When deputies arrived, a call was put out to the Rapid Response Network, and soon a crowd of over 50 housing justice activists and foreclosure resisters appeared to  try and help Williams and Johnson remain in their home. Some of the crowd were pepper sprayed and warrants were issued for three of them.

Those three–Dustin Hawks, Itztli Nexcoyotl, and one who requested anonymity–later voluntarily appeared for arraignment and have been charged with interfering with a peace, parole, or probation officer, obstructing governmental or judicial administration, disorderly conduct in the second degree, criminal trespass in the second degree, and assault in the fourth degree. On Tuesday April 23 they appeared at a pretrial hearing. Another pretrial discovery hearing is set for May 21 at 9 a.m., with the trial beginning on June 24.

At the pretrial hearing, over 30 people accompanied the trio into the Multnomah County Courthouse, packing the courtroom and spilling over into the hallway. Following the hearing, they convened in Lownsdale Park for coffee and snacks and a brief rally provided by We Are Oregon.

“None of us by ourselves have much power,” Nexcoyotl told the crowd. “That’s why we need solidarity.”

The most obvious display of that solidarity occurred on May Day last year nearly when over 200 community activists helped Alicia Jackson take back her home. Since then, twelve homes have been defended, and eleven of them are still being defended. People have risked arrest and chemical attacks by police because their neighbors are being evicted from their homes while the banks that caused the housing crisis make profits from foreclosed houses.

The movement has been persistent; the eleven home defenses are proof of that. Keeping people housed in the shadow of  powerful state and banking interests is no mean feat. It requires many dedicated people. As in the case of the Williams and Johnson home, activists have not been willing to suffer defeat. Not long after Williams and Johnson were evicted, activists helped them take back their home. They remain in it today.

Commenting on the effectiveness of community supported foreclosure resistance, Nexcoyotl said, “When we get together like this–when we take collective action–we have an effect. Together, we can build a movement.”

The housing justice movement has highlighted a vital difference between liberal politics-as-usual and direct action. The former involves petitioning, protesting, making phone calls, writing letters, voting and other approaches that are predicated upon reforming the social, economic, and political systems by using the tools of those systems. These are certainly worthwhile activities and goals, but the people who are losing their homes do not have time to wait. The housing justice movement takes matters into its own hands. Doors open as well as close, and people forced out of their homes can also be returned to them. With over 1,500 people on the Rapid Response Network, any attempt by a bank or mortgage company to kick homeowners to the curb can be met with swift and stiff resistance.

It is because of this community response that values people over profit that the police and courts have been more violent toward home defenders than other kinds of protesters. The home defenders subvert the system. While politicians like Portland Commissioner Nick Fish search for solutions that seem tailored to satisfy the business community more than the needs of people, the housing justice movement sees a few hundred vacant houses that can–and should–have people living in them. They believe housing is a human right, not a market from which to cull a profit. If there is to be a sit-lie ordinance, it should be that all people must have housing in which they can safely sit and lie.

Housing activism is not new. During the Great Depression the same thing happened in cities across the country. Police would remove people’s belongings from their home and and then neighbors would return it. In the end, there was little the authorities could do, given the high level of resistance from communities refusing to let their neighbors become houseless.

A year and a half after Debbie Austin–the first publicized evictee–began resisting foreclosure, it is clear that housing justice is a movement, not a few isolated events. Actions are well-coordinated, and behind the scenes of every foreclosed house there are many people doing the often invisible and thankless work of organizing. More and more people are joining the movement out of recognition that the system is continuing to funnel money upward to the rich, leaving them to orchestrate their own redemption.

Hawks, who is facing jail time for his housing justice work, understands the greater scope of the movement. “This is a struggle for land. Working class communities, especially communities of color, are being decimated by business interests and government police forces that take our land for the ruling class. This isn’t new; it’s a story that has been repeated throughout history. If we want to change the course of this history, we must work collectively to create and implement new forms of resistance. This is the only way to ensure that land and resources are in the hands of the people.”

To join the Portland Liberation Organizing Council’s Rapid Response Network, send a text message to the number 23559 and type @Ploc-openrrn — you’ll get alerted when a community home defense takes place.

For more information on foreclosure resistance, including how to become a home defender, go to weareoregon.org.

Story and photos by Pete Shaw

Columbia Grain locked out ILWU Local 8′s grain handlers on May 4 in Portland, accusing them of “engaging in inside game’ tactics, including slowdowns, work-to-rule, and demands for repeated inspections of the same equipment – all designed to negatively impact Columbia Grain’s operations.”

Late the next day, twenty of the union members along with local supporters gathered at the entrance of Terminal 5 in protest of the lockout, which comes a little over two months after United Grain locked out ILWU Local 4 grain handlers in Vancouver, Washington.

Since last Fall when the Pacific Northwest Grain Handlers Association began contract negotiations, Columbia Grain has had at the ready union busting company JR Gettier & Associates. Columbia Grain, along with United Grain, is seeking to impose upon the Locals 4 and 8 grain handlers the same contract that was signed by the grain handlers in Longview’s Local 21, a contract widely perceived to have given away too much to the grain companies.

Gettier’s “Team Strike Force” is at the Port of Portland. Photo from Gettier’s website.

The charges leveled by Columbia Grain against the ILWU deserve scrutiny.  For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that equipment be inspected every day and that equipment not working up to OSHA standards must be repeatedly inspected and tested until it conforms to OSHA regulations. What Columbia Grain is calling a work stoppage is a case of workers following OSHA guidelines. “It’s clear they don’t want to follow labor laws or OSHA,” said a longshoreman, “when they think that safety inspections are inside game tactics and that they can lock out workers who are there to work in a safe and effective manner.”

As the morning shift left the terminal, protesters stood in front of the caravans with scab laborers on board. Earlier the Portland Police, claiming an interest in both the rights of the union and the grain companies, allotted protesters five minutes to delay entrance to and egress from the terminal. Around 5:40 pm two vans with seven scabs, all covering their faces, arrived for the evening shift. Security provided by JR Gettier constantly filmed the five minute encounters.

According to a few ILWU members, Columbia Grain says it negotiated with the union to allow members and supporters to park and set up picket lines as they did. “We are supposed to be under the impression that Columbia Grain, out of the goodness of their heart, allowed us to park here,” said one longshoreman.

According to one protester, when the police enforced the five minute rule, they said they had to take into consideration the rights of the property owners, that is, Columbia Grain. However, Columbia Grain does not own the property which is part of the City of Portland and currently classified as vacant land.  In most picket lines not on private property, protesters, while not allowed to stand in place, can walk in file, a tactic that can disrupt traffic for more than five minutes.

When a truck driver arrived from Jubitz with fuel for the portable lighting near Gettier’s security gate, he was confronted by protesters and, feeling sympathetic, called for advice. He soon turned around, making him the second truck driver that day who did not cross the line. The first, from Ferrell Gas, honored the picket line earlier in the day. These were small but notable victories, and could prove pressure points that the ILWU and its community supporters can exploit. Companies like Jubitz do not want to get involved in a union dispute that could result in Teamsters choosing to fill up elsewhere.

As with previous disputes along the docks, the overarching question that arises is: who owns the port? Columbia Grain wants the public to believe it owns Terminal 5, but the ports are funded with taxpayer dollars. Columbia Grain, as with United Grain in Vancouver, has taken citizen tax dollars funding the Port of Portland and is now repaying them by trying to force local workers to accept a contract that will harm these workers, their families, and the community.

Story and photos by Pete Shaw

Joining the growing ranks of students and teachers protesting standardized testing, over 60 Grover Cleveland High School students walked out of their classes on Thursday April 18. The students, who are members of the Portland Student Union (PSU) see the tests as an unreliable way to evaluate their actual knowledge, as well a useless stick for measuring students, teachers, and schools. They urged their classmates both in Cleveland High School and the rest of Portland’s high schools to “opt-out” of taking the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS).

Flanked by banners reading “Education Is Not a Commodity,” “Think Outside the Bubble!” and “I Am A Student, Not A Test Score,” Cleveland junior Ian Jackson said, “We will not stand by as the arbitrary, biased, and bigoted tests assess our knowledge, evaluate our teachers, and determine our education.” Jackson connected the PSU Opt-Out Movement with the Indiana University students who went on strike in April to protest rising tuition costs, the teachers at Garfield High School in Seattle who refused to administer state tests to students, and students in Colorado who staged a test walkouts. “Education will not be standardized,” Jackson said. “Nor will we let them turn it into a commodity.”

The Cleveland walkout, which included students of all grade levels, occurred on the same day juniors were taking the science portion of the OAKS. Though the OAKS has no effect on students’ grades, it is a graduation requirement. PSU has been trying to work with Portland Public Schools (PPS) to allow other proficiency tests, such as the SAT and ACT–which do not take up class time–to be used as substitutes for the OAKS. According to PPS, students may only opt-out of the OAKS for disability or religious reasons.

For years, standardized tests have been used to evaluate students, teachers, and schools. The Bush era No Child Left Behind,meant a dramatic increase in testing and created no shortage of controversy. Cleveland senior Pele Warnick said that, while she has had to take numerous standardized tests that are supposed to judge her education, she has “never once been asked genuinely what I thought of my education system.” Warnick believes that standardized tests have built-in racial biases, reflect white middle class cultural values and uphold the social and economic status quo while penalizing those not so privileged. “It’s flawed–it’s as simple as that,” she said. “We must realize that these tests are inequitable.”

Warnick also reminded the assembled students that standardized tests were not befitting of people, whose gifts and talents are not so easily measured. “At this point in time with these tests and the way our education system is continuing on bombarding us with systems that do not show the true merit of an individual and the capabilities that our brains and our bodies have,” she said, “I am starting to lose hope for this generation. And I don’t want to do that. I love us. And I want us to grow and I want people to see what we truly can do as a people, as students.”

After the rally, the students and 15 community supporters marched through the neighborhood around the school. Walking up SE Franklin Street, the students appeared to try and go back to school through a side entrance. They were immediately confronted by two security guards, one of whom screamed that they were not allowed back into the school. The students responded by chanting, “My parents pay taxes!” and “Whose school? Our school!” The security guard then explained that the students were not allowed into the school while parading with their banners. The students then continued marching and held a brief meeting just off school grounds.

The OAKS is soon slated to be replaced with the Common Core Standards which will not allow students to substitute a work sample for the test. Common Core, according to Jackson, will “be even more devastating to our educational system than OAKS and No Child Left Behind have ever been.” Jackson emphasized the importance of setting the table so that this year’s freshmen, who will be the first class required to take the Common Core Standards tests, will not start their fight from scratch. “We’re really building a foundation for you guys,” Jackson told the students. “We’re building a foundation so that the first year that test is in here, you guys can squash it.”

Too often students, like other people in society, do not realize the power they have. Earlier, Warnick roused her fellow students by reminding them of that power. “This is our education,” she said. “We’re the ones that there are thousands and thousands of. There are so many of us and we are great, great test takers and great pencil sharpeners, and we know how to sit in a chair like nobody’s business. But we’re done sitting. It’s time to stand up.”

Story and photo by Pete Shaw

The Portland City Council unleashed a torrent of community activism last September when it unanimously voted to fluoridate Portland’s drinking water. Within a month, anti-fluoridation group Clean Water Portland delivered more than twice the necessary signatures to refer the issue to the ballot, where, on three previous occasions, Portland citizens have defeated water fluoridation attempts. In December, City Council – in a move widely condemned as a circumvention of public process – moved the vote up to May, a time of year when low voter turnout could swing toward those favoring fluoridation.

On April 10, a Multnomah County Democrat-sponsored debate drew a crowd of over 200 to the Matt Dishman Community Center to listen to representatives from Clean Water Portland and pro-fluoride Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland field questions on this contentious issue.

The debate featured introductory and closing statements and two sets of questions – one from Multnomah County Democrats and a second from the audience. The answers themselves disclosed little new information to those who have been closely following the story; however, it was interesting to watch the strategies on display. Distilled down, the debate centered around pro claims that the science is on their side, while the nays say that emerging science suggests there may be serious health concerns associated with water fluoridation.

Mike Plunkett, Dental Director for Care Oregon and Neighborhood Health Center, and assistant professor of Community Dentistry at OHSU, began with a story about treating a young girl with an abscess who had been unable to eat on one side of her mouth for two months. Plunkett cited the tale as just one of many stories that prove to him that water fluoridation would be helpful. He then asserted that among the underlying issues of this vote are whether or not Portlanders are “willing to implement solutions that benefit the entire community” and if “we respect science.” Plunkett’s message was echoed by Alejandro Queral, Program Officer at the Northwest Health Foundation, and an appointee to Oregon’s Public Health Advisory Board.

Like Plunkett and Queral, Kellie Barnes, founder of Core Physical Therapy and a doctoral candidate in orthopedic manual therapy, and Rick North, the founder and project director of the Safe Food Campaign for Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, say they too believe in respecting science and creating healthy community. The pair do not, however, agree that fluoridating Portland’s water supply shows a respect for emerging science, and that it may possibly create a sicker community.

Plunkett and Queral often referenced the numerous “trusted” (trust, as a parenthetical expression, is often cited in pro-fluoride literature) authorities – the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – that support fluoride. Their other main strategy was to cast aspersions upon Barnes and North for standing in opposition to these groups. At one point Plunkett commented on Barnes’ reference to “new emergent science,” questioning if it was valid science. He then told the audience that he was “not going to listen to a physical therapist,” but rather to experts.

Plunkett’s argument to leave it to the “experts” seems obfuscatory in light of the 2006 National Academy of Science report Fluoride in Drinking Water, that, while noting the beneficial effects of fluoride in dental health, also raised concerns about other potential effects, including increases in bone cancer, severity of some types of diabetes, endocrine disruption and negative effects on brain and thyroid function.

Plunkett later alluded to these concerns as cherry-picked, but this is not a fair assessment. A more accurate reading of the NAS report is that most concerns against water fluoridation are associative and need further study, particularly because, while the NAS report examines fluoride studies, those studies do not particularly address fluoride added to drinking water.

For example, on diabetes the report says, “The conclusion from the available studies is that sufficient fluoride exposure appears to bring about increases in blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals and to increase the severity of some types of diabetes.”

On kidney function: “…it is important to consider subpopulations that accumulate large concentrations of fluoride in their bones (e.g., renal patients),” and also notes “From an immunological standpoint, individuals who are immunocompromised (e.g., AIDS, transplant, and bone-marrow-replacement patients) could be at greater risk of the immunologic effects of fluoride.”

On cancer: “Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate and promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed.”

On brain impairment: “Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. Today, the disruption of aerobic metabolism in the brain, a reduction of effectiveness of acetylcholine as a transmitter, and an increase in free radicals are thought to be causative factors for this disease. More research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain.”

The article supports one of the primary and most powerful rejoinders from those against fluoridating Portland’s water: If the science points to the possibility that fluoride has deleterious effects on people, why should it be added before we know for sure, if at all. In other words, do the citizens of Portland want to be guinea pigs? Plunkett is correct when he asserts the science – proof, not association – is not there for people opposed to fluoride, but it would be incorrect to state that opponents are using scare tactics devoid of any scientific basis.

This point was underscored when Plunkett asked Barnes and North for a study that showed the effect of fluoride on people with “chemical sensitivity,” a point that Barnes and North hit upon throughout the debate. Barnes responded that she could not provide a study because, as noted in the NAS article, no studies have been done, and that deficit is precisely why it is wrong to artificially introduce fluoride into Portland’s water supply.

One audience member asked both sides to respond to the observation that only 22% of Oregonians have access to fluoridated water, yet some states with higher rates of water fluoridation have higher rates of tooth decay. Plunkett responded by saying children were susceptible to dental decay for many reasons, such as income levels, so he suggested comparing Seattle, which fluoridates its water, with Portland. Seattle area children have less incidence of decay than those in Portland. But North called the comparison unfair, because Seattle’s health care system reaches more kids. Plunkett responded that more dental problems are treated in hospitals in Portland than in Seattle, which he said takes a more diagnostic approach to dental hygiene.

Plunkett and Queral were clear that fluoridated water is but a “cornerstone” of a program that includes the usual regular flossing and brushing, and the privileged visits to the dentist. All four agreed that it was important to advocate for increased access to dental health care, a fight certainly worth taking up once the ballots are counted.

It appears that a major problem facing pro-fluoridation groups is that they have focused much of their energy on the importance of fluoride to children. Groups opposed to fluoride have been able to turn this around by spotlighting possible health ramifications that not only affect children, but adults and other lifeforms. After all, animals and plants consume water too. The sense that their ace in the hole was being used against them appeared to be a point of frustration for Plunkett and Queral, who were forced to repeatedly affirm what seemed to them irrefutable.

While the hard science on fluoride as it pertains to teeth may be on the side of those supporting water fluoridation, it is this group that appears to be “pushing the river”. As noted, Portland’s citizens have thrice rejected fluoridation and it is a common boast that our community has the purest water around. Furthermore, while pro-fluoride talks dental health benefits, those opposed can point not only to the contamination of our pristine supply of water, but also to the numerous potential hazards fluoride may wreak on human health.

By debate’s end, it appeared that if any gains were made, it was on the side of those who want to maintain fluoride-free water in Portland. At the end of the day they may just have the easier job: cast doubt. It was a strategy Barnes and North were effectively able to deploy during the evening and, while it may not be good science, it seemed to be a winning point.

To view the debate, please visit, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxGiG8zHBngpOoXVD_v6Uww

Photo by Paul

By Mark Vorpahl

On April 11 over 400 people packed the third public Portland Budget Hearing, which was organized by the City of Portland and which left many spilling out beyond the room where the hearing took place. More importantly, for the City Council there was an unexpected critical outpouring from the vast majority who attended. For the first time, the City Council and Mayor Charlie Hales began to lose control over their attempts to sell austerity.

This was in sharp contrast to business as usual. Portland budget hearings are generally tightly controlled, polite affairs. What are the reasons for this movement towards a more charged polarized event?

Like many U.S. cities since the onset of the Great Recession in 2008, Portland, Oregon has faced several consecutive years of budget cuts at the cost of lost jobs and its communities’ livability. While the politicians promoting these cuts said they were necessary squeezes for a prosperous future, they have only led to more austerity in the subsequent years.

Now the City Council and the newly elected mayor, Charlie Hales, are not only promoting more of the same — they are threatening Portland’s citizens with the most severe cuts yet. We have been told that there is a $21 million hole in the city’s General Fund, according to latest estimates.

Mayor Hales has asked each city department to submit proposed budgets with 10 percent less revenue. These include already underfunded housing programs, community centers, funding for parks, after school programs, youth employment services, and many other services and jobs. It is no exaggeration to say that many lives and Portland’s future are being left to precariously dangle in the wind as the City Council goes through its process of demanding austerity cuts.

The myth that Portland is broke and that “sacrifices have to be made” is meant to leave those facing the austerity ax powerless and divided. However, the deficit in Portland’s General Fund is not an accounting problem. It is a political issue.

This latest budget crisis poses the question of “who does Portland’s elected leaders serve, the city’s majority of working class communities or big business and the wealthy?” So far, while the 99% have been suffering with all the belt tightening, Portland’s 1% have been left to grow fat.

With such results, it is only a matter of time before increasing numbers of people start concluding that “enough is enough.” The city government’s narrowly constructed and carefully controlled austerity narrative, meant to divide and weaken Portland’s working class communities, is beginning to create the opposite reaction to its intended effect. That is, we are seeing the beginnings of a potential united social movement against the actions and threats of the city government that privileges the corporations at the expense of Portland’s communities.

The Hearing

Those attending the public hearing on April 11 included representatives from the Metropolitan Youth Commission, Laborers International Local 483, Portland Community College, Portland Safety Net, SUN Schools, Eastside Action Plan, Elders in Action, AFSCME Local 189, COPPEA (City of Portland Professional Employees Association) and numerous others. They came with prepared testimonial statements, t-shirts and signs defending the programs they need.

Also attending were members of Jobs with Justice, the People’s Budget Project, and the Solidarity Against Austerity Committee (SAAC). These groups saw the hearing as an opportunity to begin building unity among Portland’s working class communities to oppose all cuts.

Pulling this off required that attendees knew the moment they walked in that the hearing was not going to be business as usual, and that a collective approach towards defending all the programs facing cuts was to be encouraged. A colorful banner over the doors to the hearing room read, “Communities United To Stop Cuts!”

Laborers International Local 483 passed out so many red t-shirts reading “Community & City Workers’ United” that once everyone put them on, it looked like the hearing had transformed into a political rally in Venezuela. Hundreds of stickers were passed out reading “Communities United to Stop Cuts” and “Raise Revenue Not Unemployment,” as well as dozens of placards with the same messages.

In the testimonials, the first volley against the City Council’s austerity rationale was fired by Professor Robin Hahnel, a Portland State University economist. In a calm manner he made several powerful points, including:

When there is still much too much unemployment and no imminent danger of inflation, fiscal austerity is insane! Economic theory predicts it. History proves it. And any competent economist who is not in the service of the 1% will tell you as much.

The City Council’s attempt to cut off Professor Hahnel resulted in a loud protest from the audience. At the end of his short presentation the room erupted in approval, with spontaneous shouts to the City Council of “Go get the money!” In other words, tax the rich. This was the first of several such moments throughout the evening.

Most of the many testimonies of the evening consisted of community members passionately defending the programs they depend on. There were also a large number of statements exposing the myth that Portland is broke. These speakers pointed out the city tax breaks handed out to corporations that, if eliminated, could create enough revenue to close the General Fund deficit and provide an economic stimulus for Portland’s communities.

They argued for raising the rate of Portland’s business license fee for those who are making millions, which is currently only 2.2 percent. They also advocated moving money from the city’s Internal Service Funds (ISF) to the General Fund. The ISF has grown from $68.8 million five years ago to over $106.7 million today, with little transparency about what it is used for. (The U.S. Public Interest Research Group gave the Portland Budget a D- grade for transparency.)

Despite what the council and mainstream media claim, there is no shortage of money in Portland or in Oregon. We live in the richest country in the world, one that has huge concentrations of wealth at the top,” said school counselor and SAAC activist Steven Siegel. “Please do your job and represent the people. Go get the money! Raise revenue! Enough cuts!

Several speakers turned around to directly address the audience, asking them to raise their hands or stand up if they were against all cuts. From this writer’s vantage point, not a single person refused to respond approvingly to the requests.

Moving Forward

Far from the passive theater meant to maintain the appearance of democracy, the public Portland Budget Hearing last week transformed into a movement-building event. This was because of a union/community partnership that refused to sacrifice its independence in order to gain favor from politicians. Rather, its aim was to draw out, in the broadest way, the understanding that those threatened by cuts can stand strongest when they stand together. Solidarity is the foundation of the 99%’s strength and it is our only hope towards reversing austerity and the corporate agenda behind it.

As if to underline the urgent need for this development, the next day it was learned that the City Council has been meeting with Nike. Over $80 million in incentives were reportedly being offered to Nike to expand into Portland. Considering that these politicians are threatening the city’s communities with potentially devastating cuts, it is hard to imagine a sharper confirmation that their priority and allegiance lies with high capital. It will take a power stronger than Nike’s billions to set things straight — and that power is visible when our communities’ numbers are united.

Mayor Hales is scheduled to announce the initial detailed budget proposal on May 1, and May 16 will be the last public hearing. On July 1, the final budget is scheduled to go into effect. There is much grassroots work that needs to be done to promote a people’s budget that will turn austerity around. But we are off to a promising beginning.

And the potential impact of developments in Portland has a national scope. As cities across the U.S. face similar cuts, with both major political parties lining up to cut Social Security and Medicare, it is clear that only we, the people, can save ourselves and reverse the direction the country is going. In Portland, there is a chance to wage a comeback that can win. And any such example could prove infectious.

Mark Vorpahl is a union steward, social justice activist and a writer for Workers Action and Occupy.com. He can be reached at Portland@workerscompass.org.

Multnomah County Sheriff Staton speaks with members of the ACT Network. Photo by Doug Yarrow.

Story by Pete Shaw

Multnomah County Commissioners unanimously supported a resolution on April 4th revising the Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) plan for handling Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immigration detainers. Under the new rule, which goes into effect on April 15th, the MCSO says it will only honor ICE requests to hold prisoners it believes to be without documentation if an individual has been charged with a Felony or Class A Misdemeanor, or if ICE can prove a person without documentation has a criminal history that makes him or her a public safety threat.

Currently, the Sheriff works with ICE on all hold requests. MCSO makes no distinction between an ICE request for a person pulled over for a speeding ticket or a person arrested for murder, although the vast majority of detainer requests are for people committing misdemeanors, such as speeding or driving without a license. The policy has been a source of controversy within both the immigrant community and the community at large. Detentions have torn apart families, made people distrustful of their local government and reluctant to report crime. According the the Agenda Placement Request filed prior to the board meeting, the new policy was crafted after Sheriff Daniel Staton worked with “community advocates, service providers, and the Multnomah County Chair’s Office” to balance “the public safety needs of the county, the preservation of scarce county resources, and compliance with prevailing constitutional standards.”

Staton, who for some time has been wrestling with how much leeway he has when dealing with ICE, has now concluded that ICE detainers are requests, not obligations. He made clear that this change in policy was not “the Sheriff’s Office picking and choosing laws to enforce,” but rather a decision arrived at after meeting with various state and federal officials. The shift represents an about face on Staton’s part. At a meeting with community activists in December 2012, Staton expressed reservations about spending time in his own jail for breaking the law should he fail to honor ICE hold requests. In an email sent out ten days later he wrote that after consulting with various officials, he found ICE hold requests to be “mandatory.”

County Chair Jeff Cogen intoned about the need for “strong, trusting relationships” between government and citizenry if there is to be a truly safe community. Both Cogen and Staton emphasized that this eroding safety was not just limited to the direct effects of ICE holds on detained immigrants and their families, but also to its effects on other immigrants and the community as a whole. Cogen noted that some immigrants feared getting government services, such as vaccinations for their children, because it might put them at risk of being whisked away from their families. In turn, the unvaccinated children could be a threat to the health of the community.

When ICE began implementing the Secure Communities program, it created a backlash in many communities. People whom neighbors had come to know, respect, and love were suddenly missing, leaving behind families just as confused, and often without a breadwinner. Though the vast majority of those detained by ICE were guilty of misdemeanors such as speeding or driving without a license, ICE began crafting the caricature of the immigrant without documentation – always understood to have brown skin  - as a drug dealer, rapist, murderer, or similar purveyor of violent crime.

Guillermo Maciel, Cogen’s Policy Advisor, said he had spent the past two and a half years “listening intently to our community members” and had heard too many “anguishing stories”. That suffering in the immigrant community led many community activists to push for the MCSO to completely abandon its cooperation with ICE – a position Cogen supported. Maciel worked with both activist groups and Staton’s office to keep the conversation going until finally Cogen and Staton found a middle ground that provided for public safety while decreasing the impact of ICE holds related to civil immigration laws. Maciel noted that the new policy was not “an unmitigated ‘no’” to ICE detainers, but rather, a compromise involving complex issues that “shows a way forward for other law enforcement agencies” that seeks to strike a balance between “public safety, justice, and human rights.”

Supporters of easing ICE detainers testify in front of the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners. Photo by Pete Shaw.

Another factor in the decision is prison space. Staton said the county’s 1,310 jail beds do not meet capacity, leading to the premature release of 913 inmates in 2012. When ICE requests the MCSO hold a prisoner, that means she or he must be detained up to another 48 hours, all without compensation from the federal government. Cogen noted that the ICE Detainers force the release of prisoners convicted of “higher, more dangerous crimes.” Instead, Cogen said his office and the MCSO decided the Obama policy of using “prosecutorial discretion to focus on people committing dangerous crimes” would become the guide.

While the new policy is certainly a good step, some activists see it as a work in progress. Francisco Lopez, Executive Director of CAUSA, saw it as a “good first step, a great beginning” and expressed his appreciation to Staton, the county commissioners, and Maciel. Kayse Jama, Executive Director of the Center for Intercultural Organizing, acknowledged the compromise will “help a lot of families.” He expressed the importance of a monitoring task force, as well as an annual report to see how the policy is working.

Nicole Brown of the Center for Intercultural Organizing and Ricardo Valero of the Oregon Dream Activists, both expressed concern about the level of collaboration between the MCSO and the community. Like Jama, Brown noted the need to establish a task force on oversight where the community can give input about the new policy’s implementation, while Valero said there needed to be a “clear way the undocumented community can give input” as to how to make an even better policy.

Marco Mejia of Jobs with Justice noted this “very good step forward,” but added that it is only “one step forward.” Both he and Romeo Sosa of the VOZ Workers’ Rights Education Project reminded the MCSO and the commissioners that passing the resolution is easy, but the real work will lie in restoring “the trust that’s already been broken.”

Maciel noted that the next steps for the Chair’s Office is to promote information regarding the Board’s action and MCSO’s changes in policy. “Hopefully we, the County along with our community advocates and service providers, can promote the actions the Board of County Commissioners and the Sheriff have taken, and help people understand the facts… help them understand what this policy change is and what it is not; so folks can make up their own mind on what it means for their community,” he said. “As someone who grew up without my father because of deportation, as someone who has been deeply affected by immigration policy, I am fairly confident that when our community learns about these changes at the County, they will know that progress has been made, and an alternative now exists for other jurisdictions around the country.”

Reverend Lynne Smouse Lopez of the Ainsworth United Church of Christ brought forth a larger point surrounding ICE holds and subsequent detentions, regarding the rise of the security state and its attendant private security apparatus that extends from police to for-profit prisons. According to an article on Grassroot Leadership’s website, David Venturella, a former assistant director at ICE, was responsible for many emails promoting strategies that would increase the number of ICE detentions.  Venturella is now Executive Vice President for Corporate Development at GEO group, a private prison corporation whose profits are heavily dependent on federal immigration contracts.

With an eye only toward profit – a profit that comes from prisoners filling their jail cells – these private corporations have a deep interest in lobbying for laws that increase the number of people who can be classified as criminals.  In that respect, Lopez noted how this resolution is a step in the right direction, and that “any way we can separate ourselves from law enforcement is a good thing.”

Photo by Pete Shaw

Missing from the resolution was any mention of why people immigrate to the US. Since the issue of people without documentation is largely focused on immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America, the resolution would have had greater clarity had it mentioned the trade arrangements such as NAFTA and CAFTA that compel people to come to this country. People do not willingly give up family, friends, and community, but the dire results of these Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) has created a mass of people whose only rational economic choice is to take the risks involved with crossing into the US in order to try and support themselves and their families.

Ultimately, the question still remains as to why the MCSO is working with ICE. This agreement, while a step forward, has no legal meaning, and the MCSO can repeal it at will. Considering that ICE has deportation quotas that it considers unmet, despite a record number of deportations during the Obama Administration, this compromise should be taken with many grains of salt.

Claire Flanagan, organizer for the Portland Central America Solidarity Committee (PCASC) which both is a member of ACT and has for many years organized against FTAs, said, “This policy shift is a direct result of the work of the ACT Campaign over the past five years to organize, mobilize, and demand change. We recognize this shift as a product of this campaign and small step in the right direction. The Sheriff has stated that he ‘will continue to honor holds against felons’ which means people will still be locked up and families torn apart. The fact is that he doesn’t have to honor any hold. Until Staton has severed all ties with ICE, this campaign will continue. It’s clear to us that continued community pressure against positions of power is the only way to end deportations in the county and ensure justice for our communities.”

For more information see:

MCSO’s I-247 Immigration Detainers Protocol – FACT SHEET

http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/chair/documents/mcsos_protocol_for_i-247_detainers_-_fact_sheet.pdf

Multnomah County Board Resolution

http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/2013-032.pdf

Story and photos by Pete Shaw

The Oregon DMV currently allows driver’s licenses to be issued only to documented US citizens and immigrants with work permits under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) a 2012 executive order issued by President Obama. Various immigrant rights groups and other groups supportive of immigrants’ rights have been pushing the Oregon legislature to craft a bill that would make all people eligible to earn a driver’s license if they pass the required tests.On the afternoon of March 26th, 70 people gathered on the steps of the state capitol in Salem to demand that all people without documentation be allowed the right to drive.

In particular, the rally attendees were demanding a driver’s license free from discrimination. There are currently two ideas for legislation being floated. One is a single driver’s license, issued to anyone who qualifies. The other is a special driver’s license that would be issued to people without documentation, although not limited to immigrants. That license would bear some mark designating that it is different from a driver’s license issued to a person with accepted documentation.

“We don’t have to be discriminated because we are undocumented people,” said Oregon Dream Activist Ricardo Valera who helped emcee the event. “We are workers. We are parents. We are students. So we have to have the same driver’s license.”

Throughout the 90 minute rally,  immigrants without documentation spoke about how driving is an integral part of their lives. Whether to go to work, stores, church, or to bring their children to school and the doctor, it was clear that – as is the case for many US citizens – not driving is often not an option. The difference of driving without a license between those two groups, however, is stark. If an Oregonian who is a US citizen, or perhaps more accurately, who appears to be a US citizen, is caught driving without a license, she will be fined.

But a person who is not a US citizen or appears not to be a US citizen – which in today’s charged climate effectively means a person with brown skin – may end up being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Likewise, a license that reveals a driver’s immigration status puts her at risk of being racially profiled and arrested by police and later handed over to ICE. During the Obama Administration, over 1 million people have been deported. About 80% of them were detained by ICE because of misdemeanors such as driving without a license. The effect has been to tear apart families, as well as make immigrants without documentation wary of reporting crime.

Kassandra, who was born in the US, described how scared she gets because her father, the only breadwinner in her family that also includes her four siblings, drives without a license. She knows that if he is pulled over, she may never see him again.

Gregoria, an immigrant without documentation from Mexico, came to “the land of opportunity” to get a good education for her four children. “Every day we risk being detained, deported, and jailed,” she said. “Not having a driver’s license affects me very much. I’m very stressed. Every day I wonder if I’ll be able to come back to my house. Am I going to lose my house because I am going to be detained because don’t have a license?”

Many immigrants, particularly those from Central and South America, are compelled to come to the United States because of so-called free trade agreements such as NAFTA that reap profits for corporations by depressing wages, ignoring environmental impacts, and flooding markets with heavily subsidized farm produce, such as corn. Theoretically, FTAs hold a country’s labor force hostage, demanding that workers either accept low wages and minimal, if any, benefits, or be unemployed. No rational person is going to watch her family starve. Immigration is simply a rational, if not necessarily desirable, economic decision, but unlike capital, which is allowed to flow freely across national borders covered by FTAs, labor is expected to respect those lines.

“That line in the dirt that is between this country and our neighbors to the south is not made by God,” stated Mira Conklin of the Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice (IMIrJ). “That’s a line that’s made by humans and it’s a line that tries to tell us that a person born on one side of that line has more value than a person born on the other side of that line. And we know that is not true. We know that we all have value as members of the human family, of God’s family.”

Co-emcee Marco Mejia of Jobs with Justice emphasized the importance of bringing to Oregon’s politicians the reality that people are often forced to immigrate to the US because of forces beyond their control. “We are here not because it just occur to us to migrate to the USA for fun,” he said. “We are here as a consequence of the foreign policies and the free trade agreements implemented by the united states. Legislators here in Salem and in Washington, DC need to understand those root causes of migration before they develop any policies. They need to understand that people are running away from poverty, political violence, persecution, environmental destruction, and that all these are caused by the exploitation of our cheap labor and natural resources. We are victims of this system and we deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”

Some speakers pointed out that it was unfair that the state was not willing to issue them a driver’s license, but was willing to take their taxes. Samuel, who came to the US in 1994 and brought his family here ten years ago said, “I pay my taxes like anyone else. The government doesn’t discriminate my taxes. In the same way, I ask them not to discriminate my rights.”  Valera stated, “We are humans. We are taxpayers. We contribute to this economy.” In 2010, in Oregon, families headed by immigrants without documentation paid a little over $99 million dollars in personal income, property, and sales taxes.

According to the Urban Institute, contrary to the myths often told by anti-immigrant groups, when refugees are excluded, “immigrants of working age are considerably less likely than natives of working age to receive welfare.” In fact, immigrants without documentation are ineligible for little public assistance save for “emergency medical care under Medicaid and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program benefits” and according to many studies they contribute more money in taxes than they cost in social services.

Sindy Avila, an Oregon Dream Activist whose family came to the US to escape poverty when she was two years old, tied together many of the threads running through the rally. “If it weren’t for free trade agreements and all of these economic things that cause displacement, my family wouldn’t be here. A lot of families wouldn’t be forced to migrate here. And so today we stand together in solidarity as parents and as valuable members of the community to let our politicians know that we need drivers’ licenses. This is a necessity that we need to go to work and to provide food for our families and to contribute to our communities as valuable people of our communities. We’re here to say that we’re undocumented and we’re unafraid and we’re not gonna stop fighting until we achieve having dignity and justice for our undocumented communities because it goes beyond just a legal title. It goes toward taking care of our communities.”

Joanne Hardesty led a march for police accountability last April around City Hall. Photo by Kendall.

By Pete Shaw

Jo Ann Hardesty, a local activist and tireless voice in the struggle for police reform, was the featured speaker at a recent Justice Social Happy Hour. The March 12 gathering, hosted by the McKenzie River Gathering Foundation (MRG) at Portland’s Queen of Sheba restaurant, included a discussion on the movement to hold the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) more accountable for its actions.

Hardesty began by talking about the death of Aaron Campbell. In January 2010, Campbell, whose younger brother had died earlier in the day, was in a NE Portland apartment, distressed and possibly suicidal. According to his aunt, Campbell was in possession of a gun. The apartment was soon surrounded by police, but Officer James Quackenbush appeared to have defused the situation, convincing Campbell to come out. Campbell emerged, hands behind his head, clearly not a threat to himself or anyone else.

Apparently due to a lack of communication, one officer fired six bean bag rounds at Campbell, who proceeded to run away. A police dog was released after him and then Officer Ronald Frashour killed Campbell with one shot from his AR-15 rifle.

Following Campbell’s killing and the lack of accountability for Officer Frashour and other involved officers, the Albina Ministerial Alliance (AMA) formed the Coalition for Justice and Police Reform (CJPR). The purpose of the CJPR was not just to hold Officer Frashour and other police who had killed under questionable circumstances accountable, but to change the culture of the PPB. At best, the City of Portland and the PPB deal with personnel problems by focusing on bad apples. CJPR demanded a deeper look, knowing from years of experience that the problem with PPB is not a few rogue police, but a rotten system in desperate need of overhaul.

In June 2011 – fed up with the inaction of the City and the PPB – the AMA asked the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to investigate the PPB as it related to race. But when the report was issued a year later, it focused primarily on how police interact with people suffering from mental health issues. Not surprisingly, it found a PPB that performed poorly in encounters with the mentally ill and was held unaccountable to the people it is supposed to serve. Further back in the report was mention of the PPB’s poor relations with communities of color.

Following the report came a proposed settlement between Mayor Sam Adams and the Justice Department, one that Hardesty described as supposed to be rubber stamped. That proposal would have dedicated $26 million dollars over five years to build up a mental health unit in the PPB. Hardesty and the AMA found this preposterous. “They’ve shown they’re not the people to show up when people are in distress,” she said, adding that the money instead should be put to the mental health system.

The agreement was filed in federal court, but the AMA disputed it, saying the Justice Department did not represent the community. The judge in the case, Michael H. Simon, then gave the AMA limited standing and advanced amicus status, allowing it to take part in mediation as well as file legal briefs and participate in oral arguments. Hardesty said the AMA now is in mediation with the Department of Justice, City of Portland, and the Portland Police Association, but she was not confident that all four parties will agree on a settlement.

One of the recommendations put forth by the AMA is that the police record all “community contacts.” Earlier in her talk, Hardesty described a recent police encounter she and her husband witnessed on Killingsworth Street. Two black men were making an exchange near a convenience store. A police car pulled up, and two cops emerged. They began questioning the men. Very quickly, five more police cars pulled up, and suddenly there were twelve officers, including SWAT, surrounding these two men. As it turned out, the exchange involved fifty cents so one of the men could buy some cigarettes.

Even if the two men were involved in an illicit exchange, the police response was clearly excessive. While such events do not always bring out so many police, acts of police intimidation, particularly in communities of color, are common. Though black people are half as likely to be carrying weapons as white people, in Portland they are 2.5 times more likely to be stopped by police and are frisked twice as often.

Profiling of this kind flourishes due to a lack of accountability. Hardesty said that if a person consents to a search, it will take about ten minutes. But if a person exercises her rights, the affair can last several hours. Often, people choose to consent to the search rather than spend so much time being harassed. It’s a millimeter from coercing a person to give up her rights, and it sends a message that the police are free to act with impunity.

Hardesty said the AMA is pushing three pieces of legislation in Salem toward holding police more accountable, particularly after controversial shootings. The first bill would change the accepted standard of use of force from an officer believing the suspect would injure herself or others, to what a reasonable person would do. The current standard is difficult to disprove. All an officer has to state is that she thought the suspect was reaching for a weapon, and thereby the shooting was justified. Whether or not the suspect had a weapon, or that weapon legitimately posed a threat, does not enter into the equation. The current standard means the PPB is a gang of potential George Zimmermans and each person is Trayvon Martin.

The second bill would require that the investigation of an officer-involved shooting would be done by a neighboring jurisdiction. In theory, this would create less conflict of interest than an in-house investigation.

The last bill would require the grand jury to make public the testimony of police it calls in the aftermath of a police shooting. Currently that is optional, but according to Hardesty, every time she has been able to read grand jury testimony, it has shown a disconnect from what police officers say they did and what they are supposed to do.

When people see a police stop, Hardesty urges them to observe and record the interaction in a safe, polite and respectful way that puts police on notice they are being watched. “Nothing makes a community member safer than when community members are watching,” she said. “If you’re not watching, bad things can happen.”

Hardesty also noted that because there has been so little accountability, the PPB has become an institution where superiors protect their underlings, ensuring the replication of a good-ol’-boy system. She believes that  “unless we get a police chief not from Portland whose goal is to be a transformative leader” it is improbable that PPB culture will change from within.

Hardesty also emphasized the need for police to learn “community norms” and work with the community, though she said the PPB has proven reluctant to let civilians have any real say on police interactions with the public.

An audience member brought up the new training center being built for the police, describing it as resembling an award from the city to the PPB. What matters, of course, is not the quality of a training center, but the quality of both the training and those providing it. “You’re killing unarmed people and we’re rewarding you by building a new training center,” said Hardesty, echoing his concern.

The settlement between the City of Portland and the Department of Justice contains great possibility toward reforming the PPB; however prospects are dim if the solution is to target the actions of individual officers rather than the PPB as whole. We do not need the usual pabulum of public officials once again patting themselves on the back for a job not done, replete with assurances that, having reigned in its rogue officers, the PPB can get back to its mission of serving and protecting.

“We have a police force,” said Hardesty, “that even when they act egregiously, the culture of the PPB is to protect these individuals.”

By Daniel Hong

Occupy Portland is moving, out ­­ but it’s not for certain where they’re moving to. Their last day with St. Francis Parish is April 15th, with plans to move on this International Workers’ Day, May 1st.

While it might seem rushed, it’s actually been a long standing collaborative effort representing several months worth of work. The “St. Francis Working Group”, created in the summer 2012, has engaged in a continuous dialogue with St. Francis’ pastoral administrator Valerie Chapman on current issues and larger vision. Info Team (the office receptionists) and Friends of Occupy Portland (FoOP, the movement’s 501(c)4) made numerous presentations to General Assemblies and Spokes Councils, providing them the support and autonomy they needed.

The church offered a quick transition for the post ­encampment period late December 2011, with one of the most affordable rents for 800 square feet of space, but it ultimately became clear that it was not an ideal situation. Language was agreed upon in the arrangement with the church to safeguard against the office becoming a competing environment with the the Dining Hall as a resting/dignified space for the homeless and poor. It proved to be a policy difficult to enforce as individuals exploited it in just such a manner. Many found the location challenging to find, due to a lack of ­­ available parking and limited visibility. It’s always been the intention of FoOP to downsize so funds can be more evenly allocated to protests and social projects.

Consensus has yet to be reached on where exactly the new office will be. Occupy Portland is currently open to tips about spaces to lease within the Portland metropolitan area, and options remain open.

If you have a tip that you are interested in sharing, call (971­) 258­-1006 or email at occupyportlandinfo@riseup.net. Check out the most recent post at the website for more information.