Short Week Monday Morning Round Up

Edgewater free round up . . .

CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MIA
So, where is our Economic Development Commission, our Economic Development Director and city leadership? With all the talk of jobs and the economy, wouldn't you think buying local would have been a top priority this shopping season?

NO WONDER THERE IS SO MUCH SHERIFF'S OVERTIME
What kind of management is this?

The biggest change in the Sheriff’s Office this year that reduced overtime was reversing a policy that allowed deputies to take whatever vacation days they wanted. In the past, the “red zone vacation days” — June, July, August and holidays — would have so many deputies out that the department had to schedule seven deputies on overtime each shift.

Holy crap, that's just irresponsible. Check out what Moody's has to say about it:

When Moody’s Investors Services downgraded the county’s bond rating — an indicator of the county’s financial health — in September for the first time in decades, the analyst pointed to the overspending in the Sheriff’s Office as one of the reasons why the county posted a $10 million deficit in 2008.

What bothers me even more is that I've heard County Board Supervisors defend the Sheriff by saying, "its what all the other sheriff's have done, so we can't blame Mahoney". I'm not sure I blame Mahoney, I blame the county board supervisors with that attitude.

WSJ AND SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION WANT YOU TO RUN FOR OFFICE
I wonder what they would have to say about the above?

CLASS BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
I found this article interesting. This isn't a new idea by any means, but its interesting to see people talking about it.

SEE A PROBLEM HERE?
The city kinda screwed up and as a result, some of the poorest people in the city had a huge rent increase with little to no notice. Months later, they have not been made whole. Now, it add insult to injury, if the city gets money from the federal government here's what they are going to do with it:

If the city gets the extra money, it will be distributed to landlords, who will be required to make refunds to tenants whose rent was increased, said Rachel Strauch-Nelson, spokesperson for Mayor Dave Cieslewicz.

Does that make sense to you? Sounds like a recipe for disaster as the tenants fight to get their money back. Why not give it directly to the tenants? How can we be sure they actually get that money back and that the landlord doesn't get paid twice?

GRINCHOR A SIGN OF HOW DESPERATE THE TIMES ARE?
Nobody likes to see this. I think it's a sad comment about how desperate some people have become.

IS OUR WATER SAFE?
This was a good recap of the issues. More here.

COUNCIL BLOOPERS
I've heard people talk about doing this for years, kudos to this rookie class for finally getting it done!

DO OVER
Without the racism this time. I missed the Hip Hop discussion at ALRC, but I have to say, I didn't have high hopes. I can't wait until they come out with best practices for County music. Or Jam Bands.

WHERE CAN YOU RECYCLE YOUR PLASTIC BAGS AND HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
Cost first? Nothing? Or waste of resources? This article has two points of view:
From the Business Commmunity we have this:

Brandon Scholz, president and chief executive of the Wisconsin Grocers Association and an early critic of the program, said Thursday the program was an ineffective use of city resources because many private companies in the city already offer the same service. He also predicted the city's outdoor bins would be hard to keep clean and difficult to monitor for misuse.

From City Staff we have this:

Dreckmann said the plastic bag recycling bins would be emptied about every two weeks, depending on their level of use, and the program wouldn't pass any new costs onto taxpayers.

Which do you believe?

Second, when I first read about the new plastic bags recycling program, the options seemed really limited and seemed to lack downtown locations, but it turns out the list is much longer than reported on channel 15.
Here's the list.

City of Madison Self Help Drop Off Centers
- East 4602 Sycamore Av
- South 1501 W. Badger Rd
- West 402 South Point Rd

Other City Sites
- Glenway Golf Course Waste Oil Site
- Monona Golf Course Waste Oil Site
- Warner Park Community Recreation Center

City Program Participants
- Aldi Stores - 3925 Lien Rd & 8222 Watts Rd.
- University Bookstore - 713 State St
- Williamson Street Co-Op - 1221 Williamson St.

Other Plastic Bag Recycling Sites
Capital Center Foods - 111 N. Broom St
Copps Food Stores
- 3010 Cahill Main
- 620 S. Whitney Way
- 1312 S. Park St
- 2502 Shopko Dr
- 6540 Monona Dr
- 3650 University Av
- 261 Junction Rd.
- 6655 McKee Rd.
HyVee - 3801 E. Washington Av
Kohl's Department Stores - 2602 East Springs Dr. & 7401 West Towne Way
Metcalf's Market (Sentry) - 726 N. Midvale Bl
Pierce's Northside Market - 2817 N. Sherman Av
Sentry Foods - 4602 Cottage Grove Rd.
Trader Joe's - 1810 Monroe St.
Wal Mart - 7202 Watts Rd & 4198 Nakoosa Trl
Whole Foods Market - 3313 University Av.
Woodman's - 3817 Milwaukee St & 711 S. Gammon Rd

On a slow week, its a good thing I still have 20 - 30 more emails labled "blog topic" in my blog folder. Expect some more, perhaps more stale round up tomorrow.
Read more!

The Friday Snarkarama

I have about 30 blog topics in my queue that I haven't gotten to, I might not have snarky comments about all of them, but somehow, by Friday, some people just inspire me.

ARTICLE ON THE MAYOR
Yawn. Can you imagine what the article might have said if Kristin could have gotten people to speak "ON THE RECORD", that would have been much, much more interesting. Here's a bit of that truth posted to a listserve:

. . . there was nothing about the most recent Property Tax issue. I saw the brief letter he sent out thanking everyone for their work on this issue especially Mario, which is surprising because there was nothing about how his office totally supported what had caused this and what we had been meeting with him for a year trying to get his staff to stop pursuing the tax exemption. Some kind of leadership there and no vision at all of what this policy would create. Late and only supportive when there was political pressure and even then he seemed upset that we were questioning his commitment.

PARKING RATES GOING UP
Rate went up, kinda. Over the next 6 weeks. I usually just keep plugging money in til I get the number of minutes I need, but those who need to know how much they are paying per hour might want to read the meters.

HOUSING DIVERSITY COMMITTEE
Hmmm . . . I find out that when they say they will meet in August for the first time, that what they really mean is the last possible date in August, August 31st. After my blog post, however, there was a scramble to try to get them to meet in June. I wonder if they will be successful. I just love these committees that the council approves and the mayor stalls in appointing and then don't meet. Why bother setting report deadlines if they don't even meet until after the report is due. It says volumes about the Mayor's priorities.

TALK ABOUT PRIORITIES
1. Apparently, the Mayor doesn't care about historic preservation, even tho he says he's a strong supporter. Anyone, EVER, seen any evidence of that? Ever? Worse yet, what about the impact that not filling positions has on staff.

2. Too bad the Council can't weigh in on these priorities - just get the information if they request it. (How about making it truly available and emailing it to them when the statements are written and then putting it on the website?)

3. Most importantly, I've talked to a few staff who are suffering from the lack of support in their units. There are some staff who are working very hard, are very stressed and there doesn't appear to be relief in sight. I didn't hear the Mayor mention the impact on staff in his blog, or that this was part of the decision making process. It makes me really sad to see how hard some of our staff work without recognition and then get insult on top of injury by the Mayor not at least acknowledging it is tough on them. Next time you see some of the hard working staff, not the ones with the high ranking names and titles, but the people who do the work, be sure to thank them!! Our staff is one of the City's greatest assets and it is not being appropriately supported or appreciated, IMHO.

CRIME IS DOWN
For the second year in a row. Go figure. It seems only FEAR is up.

LOBBYIST SPECIAL INVITE

There will be a briefing by city staff on the Zoning Code Rewrite on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 201, CCB (before the Council meeting that evening).

Rick Roll from the Planning, Community & Economic Department will be briefing alders.

Carol Schaeffer and Brian Munson will also be present to provide their perspectives/observations on the Zoning Code Rewrite.

An agenda will be sent out later this week.

Hmmm . . . why just Carole and Brian? Hmmm . . . .

DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE WEEK
Mike Verveer. I hate it when it is one of your own! Emily Mills is thoughtful as usual. However, its a free speech, right to assemble, right to use public spaces etc etc etc issue. Street musicians should not be charged! Bad Mike.

WHO KNOWS?
Alder Rhodes-Conway shared and email from someone trying to get some information from the city. This is just embarrassing.

I tried to find out what percentage of City employees live in Madison. The Mayors office didn't know. The city human resources office didn't know. The comptrollers office offered to run some kind of search. The State Journal didn't know but said that they would contact the comptroller and let me know the results. It seems like a valuable indicator of some sort.

For those of you wondering the answer. 61%

THAT'S ALL?
$10,000? My guess is that the city is very, very lucky. I always wondered what was in that envelope that Baumann handed Cieslewicz when she left office - from the looks on the faces of the folks in the room, it was pretty grim. My guess is that, from the rumors I have heard, it should have been more women complaining and more money shelled out!

ITS ABOUT FREAKING TIME!
Jason Joyce from the Isthmus has been a staunch defender of his whiner neighbors and the hiring of 30 cops based on their "whites only" meeting they had. But, he finally caved, and is seeing that maybe, just maybe, there's more to the issue and perhaps some are over-reacting. Now, if we could just get him to support an inclusive neighborhood discussion of the issues going on (instead of a press opportunity) and a discussion about what the solutions, beyond policing, might be! I call it progress, but there's a long way to go in resolving issues that we're sure to keep hearing about as the police look for new "tools". Perhaps, the tools shouldn't come from the police department?

That's it folks, the blogging queue is still quite long . . . but the day is too nice to keep sitting at the computer on a day off!
Read more!

Friday Round Up

Due to the short week, lots of topics left to cover, so little time, so here's a recap of some important, some snarky, items I haven't had time to get to.

TASERS
In the important category. Anyone surprised that minorities, especially blacks, get tasered twice as much as whites compared to their arrest? Anyone? This article makes me sick to my stomach. I'd say its "worthy of closer study"!

CLEAN ELECTIONS
Also important, there was a first of its kind public hearing on overhauling Supreme Court races and election disclosure laws. Here's an update from the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

At a rare joint public hearing held by Senate and Assembly committees in Eau Claire and Madison, citizens and advocacy groups were given a chance to put in their two cents on the Impartial Justice bill overhauling state Supreme Court elections and the Electioneering Disclosure bill closing the "issue ad" loophole in state law. To read the Democracy Campaign's testimony, go here.

The hearing made history as it marked the first time a legislative public hearing was held simultaneously at the State Capitol and a satellite site via teleconferencing.

USELESS LOBBYING ORDINANCE
In response to my blog post about the non-public meeting held by Alder Schumacher, I got this list of questions among many:

I'd like to know too who hired Organizational Skills Associates, and how much that contract is worth. Was it large enough to trigger competitive bidding? If not, did anyone at least shop around? Who's even paying for the facilitator, and why was a facilitator needed, particularly if this was a meeting of a city committee which after all, does have a chair?

Sadly, those questions should be answered in lobbying reports if the facilitator was paid for by the lobbyists. But I think we sufficiently gutted our lobbyist law so that we will never know because they generally don't have to report on lobbying on a piece of legislation. And only having reports every six months makes the information so much less accessible in a timely manner.

"A BIT OF A DICK"
On the snarkier end of things, who's a bit of a dick? Last time I posted something unflattering (but true) about the dick in question, he posted this up at his house so that while sitting on my porch you can't help but see it - he happens to live kitty corner from me.


(Sorry, bad picture, but its a Maniaci sign that "the dick" made sure faced my house instead of the street during the election and reappeared in a more obvious taunt to me when he got mad at me, I think over something that I posted in my blog, but what exactly his anger towards me was about was unclear since I'm no longer his alder. He pretty much can't say anything civil to me.) I gotta say, I'm glad he didn't support me, I wouldn't want to win with supporters like that.

BUDGET GLOOM AND DOOM
I haven't forgotten or ignored the Mayor's latest budget gloom and doom reports over the past week or so, just haven't gotten to it yet. I'm a little reluctant to help spread "the fear" (best read while imagining a loud deep booming voice) without having more time to analyze what is being said and especially when we keep getting relatively good news.

WHO'S THE MEANY?
I had wondered why, for the first time in years, the forensics team didn't perform in front of the council. A blog reader explained:

At the CC meeting on Tuesday, I was sitting with the Memorial Forensics team and Mark Clear came over just before the start and told them there wouldn't be time to give a presentation since the meeting was going to be so long. You want to talk about disappointed and ticked off! They had two people scheduled to do a joint presentation which was supposed to be very good. Oh well.

Seriously? I wonder if this was his decision, or for whom (ok, I'm pretty sure I know) was he carrying water?

That's as much snark as I should probably share for a Friday . . .enjoy the weekend!!
Read more!

Last Public Hearing: Racial Disparities & Criminal Justice System

The last hearing is tomorrow night! Your input is needed!

Dane County Task Force on Racial Disparities
May 27th, 2009
5-7 pm

Warner Park Community Center, 1625 Northport Drive, Madison.

For Immediate Release
DATE: May 19, 2009
Contacts: Celia Jackson and Laurie Mlatawou, Co-Chairs, Dane County Task Force on Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System
• Celia Jackson (608) 266-1623
• Laurie Mlatawou (608) 345-5710 or (608) 255-9455
• Colleen Clark-Bernhardt, Office of Equal Opportunity (608) 266-3022

Dane County Task Force Holds Last Public Hearing
Warner Park Community Center is the site for the final listening session

The Dane County Task Force on Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System will hold its last public hearing--designed as a listening session—at the Warner Park Community Center, 1625 Northport Drive, on May 27, 2009. The Task Force is made up of Dane County citizens working to identify strategies to reduce the racial disparities in Dane County’s criminal justice system, and is staffed by the Dane County Office of Equal Opportunity. Upon hearing from many residents in the first three hearings, the Task Force hopes to continue to hear from a large, diverse group at Warner Park.

Wisconsin has consistently ranked near the top in the nation in its rate in its disproportionate representation of people of color in the criminal justice system. Dane County’s disparities are among the highest in Wisconsin. Racial disparities occur in the number of arrests, cases charged, sentences and probation and parole revocations. The task force is made up of individuals from law enforcement, community-based organizations, corrections, and the courts.

The Task Force has heard many of Dane County residents speak about their personal, and occasionally organizational, account of racial disparity. Each public hearing was highlighted by a high level public interest, comments and involvement.

The Public Hearings will be a part of the data gathering process the Task Force is currently achieving. The Dane County Task Force on Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System’s vision is to “recommend evidence-based best practices to eliminate racial disparities in the adult criminal justice system of Dane County”. Public involvement is critical to this vision.

The public is encouraged to attend the final public hearing--an opportunity to listen, speak and learn about racial disparities in the Dane County Criminal Justice System. Come share your thoughts and experiences with the Dane County Task Force.

May 27, 2009 5-7 pm Warner Park Community Center
1625 Northport Drive, Madison, WI

Spanish translation will be provided.

Read more!

CC Recap - Chronic Nuisance Ordinance

The Equal Opportunities Commission was shut out of the original process, promised that they could have their say and asked to report back to the council, then when it comes back, people decide its not the right time. How does that saying go "justice delayed is . . ."

EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT
Carousel Bayrd came to the meeting, she was supposed to home on bed rest, but here to talk about the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance representing the Equal Opportunities Commission. They had 7 recommendations, 4 are not contested and affirmed by city attorney.

- (3)(a)6. and 3(b)3.b. When landlord has to come up with remedies to solve the problem, they can only evict if there are no other alternatives . Can't evict if there are feasible alternatives.

- (6)(a) Expands retaliation protection beyond those (and their families) who are evicted, but also to those who are not evicted. The protection is for those who call the police or on whom the police were called but are not evicted and continue to live on the property..

- (6)a. Removes the language that allows the landlord to non-renew in retaliation. The removal of this language just says that the landlord can non-renew a lease for any reason except retaliation or discrimination.
Other pieces

Carousel also talked about one of the changed that she felt was important that the city attorney opposed:

- (3)(b)2. - She says that there should not be an exception that allows discretion to decide if domestic abuse cases qualify as a nuisance action. She says it will have a chilling effect. She says the loophole is a problem, not necessarily with this staff, but it could have a chiling effect.

[Note: Carousel testified early, the council dealt with several other issues and then they went back to this issue.]

MOTION
Jed moves to place on file.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Tom McKenna - Orchard Ridge
Says the original ordinance has real teeth to go after bad landlords. The bad landlords were not proactive in going after violence, prostitiuion, drug deals. There has been no misuse of the ordinance. It has only been used 8 times. Says if you must tinker with the ordinance, please follow the report of the City Attorney's office. [Making policy again!] He says she makes a persuasive argument of what to change and what not to change. Use that as your guideline. Points out the ordinance repeals itself 5 months from now. Asked them not to spend alot of time on this now, do an up and down vote and more on to more important things.

Lisa Subeck - In opposition
Opposes amendments, lives on SW side of town, struggles with challenging situations, dealt with incredible challenges and credits the ordinances, plus other factors for changes in the neighborhood. Landlords have something over thier heads and it is changing their behavior. She says she looked at the changes as a resident and someone who used to be a landlord who dealt with challenging populations. Extremely hesitent to have actual charges by DA, this is about behavior, doesn't care if filed charges, what she cares about is the police calls. Talks about an apartment by her and says it was a nuisance and made her feel unsafe. Multitude of police calls shows a pattern of behavior. She says she thinks EOC is trying to protect people with a criminal background. This isn't about innocent until proven guilty. This is about problems in the neighborood and this ordingnace gives teeth to that. If they require charges it may mean waiting months. Domestic Violence issue is a tough one for her. She thinks people should feel comfortable to call police, doesn't think this ordinance changes that - doesn't care if it is Domestic Violence or other noise, if the police are called its a nuisance. She says, as her grandma says "If it aint broke don't fix it."

Nancy Jensen, AASCW registered but I didn't hear if it was in support or opposition. Likely opposition.

DISCUSSION
Solomon - Wants to set the record straight about the EOC and says people are re-writing history. Reminds people what happened. Mayor came to EOC and asked them not to act, because the ordinance was still under review and getting redrafted. The final draft came out and EOC didn't get to act, they never got to see the ordinance. Solomon pushed for referral back to EOC for that reason. EOC is getting their chance to look at the ordinance. He says the reason it took so long is his fault. He met with City Attorney's office and tried to figure out language to address needs of both sides. [What? Negotiating with the city attorney's office on a policy to come up with something they can agree to? Anyone find that odd?] He says an effort was made. EOC would have had it done months ago. This is not EOC rewriting history - they should have had this opportunity in the first place.

Solomon talks about the three concerns that the city attorney's office has:

- (2)(a)2. EOC wanted a higher burden of proof when determining that a property is a Chronic Nuisance Property. He said there should at least be charges filed instead of just an arrest or police call. He says if there is a reason why charges aren't filed, might that not be a reason not to make the property a Chronic Nuisance Property? He says we should use the same standard.

[Note, the city attorney's memo says that this higher burden of proof is problematic because "The judge has to be presented with sufficient facts and must have a substantial basis for believeing that probable cause exists." Pesky facts, who need 'em? Apparently not the city attorney's office.]

- (2)(c) Required charges to be filed Second change, arrest or referral of charges with no charges filed. City Attorney concerned about enforcement by an independent agency. Flip side is the same arguement he just made. He wants the ordinance to be a useful tool. But it should be parallel to our justice system standards.

-(3)(b)2. Domestic Abuse issue. He says Carousel spoke well to it. Doesn't know why you'd have that exception. Talks to Allied Drive residents about safety and security and lots of people are afraid to call the police. Why would we have that chilling affect, its already a problem. These three changes are reasonable, understands why City Attorney has concerns, but he reminds people EOC didn't tear this apart, they supported it.

Schumacher - supports place on file. Sunset is chance to revisit. Was initially skeptical of ordinance but used it in his district. A new owner of property that had problems and he said just raising the fact that there was an ordinance made them realize that the city has become more serious about these issues. Urges people to keep it as is, changes don't add value and when it comes to filing charges, DAs office is understaffed and many crimes don't end up with charges being filed and doesn't want community to lose out.

Bruer - Solomon deserves battle pay. He shares history [or at least his version]. This ordinance was considered d.o.a., former alder who said that it could never come back from the dead, another said it would be nothing short of a miracle if it passed - (Palm says he was a little more blatant than that) Bruer agrees but says he was being tactful. He says that they went through a number of meetings - 2 - 3 in support in the beginning but ended up with overwhelming support at the end. Appreciates that EOC didn't get to say what they wanted. Neighborhoods are in support of this. Apt Assoc in support. Protections built in. Domestic Violence groups said they ere ok with it and in support of it. He says this protects the quality of life of the constituents and neighborhoods. There were concerns about how it would be used, said if even remote undercurrent of abuse it would be repealed. He says the sunset was there for a reason and says they can talk about it at sunset time. He says there hasn't been one complaint on how this is being used. Said he would bring it back if he heard complaints [guess I need to talk to Alder Bruer] He says he could have filled chambers wilth supporters but discouraged people from doing that. He says in due respect to EOC, vote to place it on file and it will come back in 60 to 90 days and EOC will be able to respond then and be in the process. He says we'll bring in the community at that time. He says they built in the protections EOC wanted - some of the things they were asked to address were in the original framework. At the end of the day, what is the problem with waiting 90 days and we can assess and evaluate. If there have been downsides, he'd like to see them and hear them. Support placing on file and looks forward to working together to work with committees, commissions and board and take it up later. Don't amend and tinker until all committees have had a chance to look at again.

Sanborn - wants to make sure people know how important this is. There is a sunset. We can address concerns then. Some of the provisions recommended severely water down the ordinance, but some others water it down in lesser ways. In response to Alder Solomon, why not have the same standards? the answer is because the chronic nuisance isn't targeting them for trial and jail time, they are going after the owners and the poor job they are doing and that is why we have a different standard. Says it is an important difference. We have a criminal code and we wouldn't need a chronic nusiance ordinance if that took care of the problems. [i.e. the police can't jail people, so lets take away their homes instead? And we can do it with less effort.]

Clausius - supports place on file, with due respect to Solomon. No criticism or complaints on the ordinance. Dramatic testimony about how well it works. Says there was a subtle inference that it will lead to discrimination. Ask if any complaints - Lucia Nunez says they submitted a report to Mayor and leadership in November or October, no matches with housing complaints. Just took a look at additional properties and no new cases on that match the properties where it was used. [That's crazy, if there were complaints, they likely would not be filed with the EOC - plus people are notorious for not filing complaints in housing because they are too busy looking for new housing.] Clausius says if sunset in 5 months, just place on file.

Palm - unsure - one thing we could do is re-refer to committees then use the ordinance with the recommended changes as the basis for considering the changes and the sunset at the same time. Presumes that we will continue with the ordinance. No one is talking about any other changes. Why not have this as the basis for the future change that we have. Would not throw out what is already done. No need to recreate and put back through the committees - it would be more logical to refer to different committees with changes to sunset provision and then come back as the reauthorization.

RHODES-CONWAY SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Rhodes-Conway - On the principle placing it on file is adding insult to injury. We did injure our public process when we ignored the EOC. We did get something good with the ordinance, where applied the ordinance was done well and had a positive impact. We specifically asked EOC and told them not to worry and said that we would listen to them. Its insulting to the committee to ignore them now. Open to Palm's suggestion to refer and use this as a basis for future work.

She moves a substitute to accept the four changes that the City Attorney has no objections to. [Should be non-controversial right? Wrong.] She suggested that the other three recommended changes should be discussed with sunset and that they could introduce those three changes at the next council meeting.

SANBORN AMENDMENT TO RHODES-CONWAY SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Sanborn amends it to take 2 of the 4 amendments out. The 3(b)3.b. and second 6a change. Says he is ok with the retaliaiton issue, just not when it comes to automatic renewals of leases.

Kerr asks for clarification. Mayor says city attorney understands it.

City attorney says - The montion not is the 7 recommendations by EOC, minus the three that the City Attorney's office had issues with, minus (3)(b)3.b. removed and the second (6)(a) provision. Confusion ensues again . . . Kerr says its crazy . . . basically, 2 of the seven changes are to be approved (3)(a)6. (eviction) and the first change to (6)(a) (retaliation).

Sanborn speaks to amendment. He thinks the two he picked out waters down the ordinance. Many reasons why you wouldn't renew a lease. Also, second change takes choices away from the landlord. Other changes are worthwhile and don't water down the ordinance.

Solomon - doesn't agree. Asks them to read (3)(b)3.b. carefully. Wants eviction to be the last possible strategy. Still supports the ordinance. Eviction just creates another problem. Its not like people just disappear from the planet, creates homelessness or makes parents drag children around place to place. If eviciton is the sole remedy, do it. If can't find alternative, do it. Reminds them that the city attorney's office is ok with this change. Doesn't agree that this creates a standard that failure to renew is automatically considered retaliation . . . it just doesn't speak to it at all, leaving it up to the courts to decide. Both of the changes are good additional protections but don't water down the ordinance.

Schumacher - will support the amendment to put this to rest, otherwise won't support substitute. Still not clear what problem they are trying to solve. No EOC problems, police say that it works - why are we changing something that is working well and we have a sunset. Its just an ideaological issue. Still want to place on file and wait for sunset.

Cnare asks if the two issues make a difference - City attorney says ordinance as it exists works. 4 changes didn't think made a substantial difference. Adopting 2 of the 4 also doesn't make a substantial difference.

Bruer - says this is a solution chasing after a problem. In reality, in next 90 days we'll go through the whole committee process. People are worried about due process, can't appreciate shear numbers of people who support this across the city. The accusation was that it would be wholesale use of the ordinance, but says that the proof in the pudding. Says landlords have had a change in perspective or change in approach to dealing with issues. Part of him says to vote against, in reality it doesn' t make any sense. Not trying to fix anything. Going after a ghost, closeted ghost when it came forward. Changes are inocuous, why are we doing this at 10:00 tonight without a broader discussion? EOC was punished for taking too long. Solomon battered and beaten on this, at the end of this, and if vote down the and then plac eon file, istn' that more rational as public process. We talk about due process and the fact that the report is before you speaks to the hard work - many of us are supporters of civil rights and social economic justice - sunset there so they can come back so it can be evaluated. No negative impacts, deterance factor, and downtown alders I'd be sensitive to the issues to the decay of housing stock in central city and seeing alarming trends starting to emerge and not surprised if we won't see this used in the central city. A solution chasing after a problem. Vote down both, place on file, extend a olive branch, understands whyeoc concerned, had legitimate concern, why change it tonight at 10:10. Vote down both. [Ugh, you kinda just got his stream of consciousness there cuz I didn't feel like taking the time to clean it up and make it readable. It is essentially what he said.]

Kerr says this is a rare moment where she agrees with Bruer not Solomon. She says she is a strong support of EOC getting a crack at this, but agrees the process was bad. Vote both down, then interested alders can bring it forward after the sunset. Vote it down, but is expecting that next time this comes around EOC is a full participant in the process. Lets not repeat the mistake.

Sanborn, supports placing it on file, only offered the amendment to the substitute. Preference is yes on amendment, no on subsitute, yes on place on file. [Again, good signaling to those who might not be paying attention.]

Rhodes-Conway - asks the City Attorney if underlying motion were to pass tonight, how long before can bring back the same language. He says 60 days. She concludes that the proper motion is to place on file without prejudice.

Pham-Remmele - Is frustrated, says they are looking for more problems, remembers when working on it alot of time, discussion and revision and is in the works, so i know that we are collecting data for neighborhood indicators there is no reason at this time to stop and change and modify. Speaks on behalf of the renters, landlords, homeowners and families who are being affected by negative activities in the neighborhood, a tool like this is not perfect but it helps enforcement but it makes people see there needs to be respoect. In 1975 was a mother with child with little income, all she could stay at was Cypress and even at that time it was infested with cimrinal activites and it was painful to see my 4 year old child see bad behaviors, room vibrating above her. This can make quality of life better, those who can afford move into a new place, move, but those who cannot have to put up with this daily. So when she sees that attempt to weaken and change the ordinace, they panic, we are trying to make people comfortable, does respect city attorneys and police officers and landlords who are working very hard in cooperation with us to provide service of housing to help us. Talks about a bag of beans, one might be rotten, need to separate the bad to protect the rest - don't waste more time, sunset and wait til then, move on.

Roll Call on Sanborn Amendment to Rhodes-Conway Substitute
AYE: Cnare, Compton, King, Palm, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore
NO: Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Clausius, Clear, Eagon, Kerr, Maniaci, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
Bruer originally passed, but voted No.
Fails 7 -13

No further discussion.

Roll Call on Substitute by Rhodes-Conway
AYE: Solomon, Verveer, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
NO: Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, King, Maniaci, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore.
Fails 5 - 15

They were back to the main motion to place it on file. Rhodes-Conway amends it to place on file without prejudice so they don't have to wait 60 days to consider the EOC amendments.

No discussion

Roll call passes 18 0 2 with Rhodes-Conway and Rummel voting no.

[This was painful to watch, there were so many misunderstandings about the criminal justice system and tenant-landlord issues. Not to mention the butchering of the history with the EOC being snubbed in the first place and then calling this a due process issue. Yes, it was adding insult to injury.]
Read more!

Council Recap - Curfew (#102)

They really should have moved this item up on the agenda. They didn't get to it until after 10:00 . . . and many of the young people there to speak had gone home to do homework. However, instead of making the curfew stricter, they ended up loosening up the rules and making exceptions to the current ordinance.

Alder Bruer moved adoption of the curfew ordinance “for purposes of discussion”. That's usually code for "I'm not voting for it, but I'm making the motion to get it on the table and allow the discussion.

PUBLIC COMMENT
There are 20 people registered. Mayor reminds people they have 3 minutes. (Several people have been going over their time tonight.)

Schumacher brings up the irony of getting to this so late. Tries to make a joke, but not everyone thought it was funny.

Bill Patterson – Talks about work in South Madison and reminds the Council that we all talk about how great Madison is, but we forget not everyone feels that way. He talks about how people in low income neighborhoods migh have a different view of how great Madison is for them. Some might call this ordinance racial profiling. He reminds people that kids are dropping out of school. He says that there are economic effects of kids not getting education and that impact is bigger than the current recession. He says we aren’t fixing the basic problems in the communities, police can't solve the problems alone. He says we might need police, but we aren’t addressing the underlying issues. He tells the council about a Children Defense Fund report – Cradle to Prison pipeline. He says the people who did the report would consider this ordinance something that aids in that process. He talks about the Dane County Task Force on Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System. He says that in Dane County the number of non-white to white people arrested is 21 to 1. He reminds people that once someone has been in in prison hard it is hard to get a jobs. He says that he has learned from his work with young people you really need to reach them one on one. Need to address the basics of poverty.

The next person called has already gone home.

Rosemary Lee spoke in opposition. She says she sent an email to council members. She is worried about programs not sponsored by the schools not being exempted. Agrees that it will lead to more racial profiling.

Ed, a younger adult, agrees with Schumachers joke. He tells the council that they are debating something tonight that half the peope in the audience won’t be able to be in the building if it passes. He says he went to the Council session last week and one thing that struck him was that the fact based approach was discussed, but with a fact based appeal there is no need to change the ordinance. He says the police said that they enforce curfew on a common sense basis. When they see someone walking down the street they deal with it on a case by case basis. He says that highlights his juvenile memory – when he heard that he just wanted to shout and cause a scene but he didn’t because I’m an adult now. He says when he was young enough to be impacted by this ordinance he would have gotten himself in trouble. He says the kids are not alright. He says he knows that the Council is concerned about this, but he says the kids are never alright and it’s the natural condition of youth to not be alright. He asks the council to not do more to set the police at odds with youth. Please remember what that is like to be young.

Bert Zipperer – Clarified that he was partially speaking for EOC, and partially as an individual. He said EOC had a public hearing, that they strongly unanimously opposed the ordinance. He said that age is not a crime, action is.

Speaking for himself – he feels that we ahve a problem in the City with disproproptionate racial problems. He says we're in a big hole, we can start now. He says that there were youth in the room tonight and the council sent a serious message – they had to go home cuz had school work but really wanted to be here. He said they saw swine flu get moved up, but not their issue. He also said that they wanted to engage with you and talk to you and they didn’t get that opportunity. He urged us to work on this together and said that criminalizing another hour of the youth's time – for people who might not have a basement with an xbox was unfair. He urged them to do away with extra hour and get to the real issue affecting youth.

2nd person who went home was called.

Andrew (Bange?) – Dane County Youth Baord – He's and 18 year old home schooled high school senior who won't be affected, but this will affect his 15 year old little borther. He asked that when issues of youth are discussed, that they could please talk about it earlier and he noted several people went home. He said what strikes him most is that it is disrespectful to the youth. He said trust breeds trust. He said if you treat us like criminals we’ll act like criminals, its human nature. He pointed out that there are only a few youth commiting crimes and you have laws to deal with them, you don’t need a blanket law criminalizing many youth.

Greg (Bange?) – He spoke briefly and said he was worried about the law of unintended consequences. He told the council that as a parent, he just wanted to right to parent his kids the way he say fit and he thinks this law infringes on that.

(Erika Fox?) – She is a senior at Shabazz. She says that as a citizen she wants her tax dollars well spent, including police force. She said she feels a lot safer knowing that police force is spending time on real criminals, not people her age being outside. She says its not a pervasive problem, that there were only 125 tickets per year. She said an extra hour is just more time to write more tickets – that this new law breeds new criminals. She said if people are commiting crines or drinking or vandalizing, are they really going to stop when the curfew comes up. She said that this makes criminals of people who are outside not creating problems. She says the kids are not all right.

3rd person called who went home.

4th person called who went home.

5th person called who went home.

6th person called who ent home.

County Board Supervisor Matt Veldran speaks. Tries to make some jokes, there's some banter between him and council members about how its good to keep a County Board Supervisor waiting, unless their pregnant (Supervisor Carousel Bayrd was also there but went home.) and he urged them to be nice to staff (his wife is staff to the Common Council). Once that was all over . . . He said he would have preferred that the kids had been able to speak. He pointed out the irony of discussing this at 10:30 and that those who are affected are not here. He pointed out the letter from youth commission opposing. He said he doesn't disagree with with why they want the ordinance, for safer neighborhoods and he understands the frustrations of the community – but this isn’t the correct means. He points out that there are a variety of reasons to be out and none of them are bad. He talks about youth who ride the bus and walk home and those who don't have the luxury of geting a ride in a car. He says the youth board tried to create a standard in Dane County . . . time had to be extended for him . . . He said that he has two middle school kids and he has concerns about the amendment about the two age categories and how that will be enforced. He's concerned about the message this is sending and he urged them to vote no.

7th person went home.

Eric Gunther – from the ACLU. Pointed out that even tho he has a tie, he wasn't from the liquor industry (referring to all the guys in ties there for the alcohol discussion). He's the president of the ACLU board representing 9,000 Wisconsites and the student alliances. They oppose curfew across the board. He says that laws should have association with wrongful conduct. He also points out that if convicted it makes it hard on applications for schools and jobs. If they ask you if you have you ever been convicted of a crime, you can say no. If they ask if you have been convicted of anything other than traffic violation, then the answer is yes. He points out that kids can't go to a late movie, attend a council meeting that goes late, or have their [ick] 4th meal at Taco Bell. He says the police have all the tools they need. There are ordinances on the books for disorderly conduct, smoking, alcohol, noise, aggressive panhanding, lighting a sparkler in a park, throwing stones, etc. He says that this ordinance is walking a constitutional tightrope and that it is more strict than some that have been struck down in other states and even in Wisconsin. He says that we have a choice between Rockwell and Orwell. We can have the nice painting of a kids with an icecream cone being helped by a police officer (Rockwell) or we can have the 1984 Orwell version of the perception of police where power is arbitrary. He doesn't want to indoctrinate youth at a young age that police are not someone to turn to when they witness a crime or are a victim of a sexual assualt. Part way through, he also went over his time - the Mayor didn't even wait for someeone to make a motion to give him more time - he just say "yah, yah, keep going" - apparently giving up on limiting people from saying what they came there to say.

Paul Terranova said it was past his bedtime, but he's the father of two boys and uncle. The kids participate in soccer, drama & violin. He points out that many activities might not be organized by the school. He said that an ordinance that is not enforced across the board without ridiculous results should not be passed. He said kids should not be harassed or be afraid of being seen by a police officer. He said if its enforced selectively – then it will result in even more problem for people of color. There were audible sighs from some alders and he acknowledged their reaction and then went on to say that white kids don’t get police called. He says this isn't going to solve the real challenges. He asked what is the city's approach to idisconnected youth. He asked if the city is going to push them away or engage with them. He talked about the Dane Count Youth Resource Network - people who work with these kids and noted that they were also against the ordinance. He acknowledged that police are often expected to do more than they should be expected to do. He pointed out that youth workers follow kids year after year - know kids at 2nd grade and 8th grade and high school and these are the folks that are advocating for the kids in court and to help them get jobs and they know the kids well and asked the council to listen to the advice of these workers.

13 others in registered in opposition not wishing to speak

QUESTIONS OF STAFF
They said the motion wasn't clear, so they made another motion to adopt - even tho Bruer already did that.

Solomon asked questions of the police chief. He apologizes for not being at the WEdnesday briefing (that was called very late so alders couldn't attend). He asks, at a high level, what does this ordinance address? Chief says this was proposed and discussed by officers in the field and they see it as a solution to quality of life issues. He says its a question of community standards. If the council believes 10:00 is time for neighborhood to settle down, then they should support the ordinance, especially if they think it is a problem to have unsupervised kids out at 10:00. If you think that is ok that they are out until 11:00 then don't support the ordinance.

Solomon asks questions about the problems that occur with youth (noise, etc) and how they are handled before curfew. Chief says that neighbors can still call the police and the police can still address the situation. However, he says its slightly different with curfew ordinance. At the earlier times they would just ask them to be quiet, but the same activities later (playing tag) might get a different response because of the hour of the disturbance.

Solomon asks about what happens to kids now? Chief says there are about 125 tickets. He says the department is exercising excellent discretion now. [Maybe they should ask someone other than the Chief?] The Chief talks about racial profiling and says that they don't need that extra hour to do racial profiling. He says that if an officier is going to engage in biased policing they can do it now. He says that racial profiling happens when exercising discretion. [OK - WAIT A MINUTE - first he says they are exercising excellent discretion and then he says that is when racial profiling happens. I wish someone would have asked about that!] He says that 72% of the tickets were for were secondary offenses, that they were originally called to the scene for other reasons. [OK, WAIT A MINUTE - if they are called for other reasons 72% of the time, why do they need an ordinance at all?] The Chief then talks about disparate impact and says that this is an issue that needs full and undivided attention form the council, but we already have it so we should discuss it just in the context of the curfew ordinance. [My head nearly exploding now. It's so hard to listen to that crap.]

Solomon asks when the 125 tickets are issued. Chief says most tickets are issues between midnight and 1 am and 2 am to 4 am. He said between 11:00 and midnight there were only 18 citations. He has a chart but its hard to see because he's in the back of the room. He points out that the shift change is at 10:00 and they don't anticipate many tickets being written between 10:00 and 11:00 if the ordinance is changed because they typically only answer emergency and priority calls. He says they'll use the 10 - 11 time period to give warnings to kids to start settling down and that it is a community standard issue and that they will still do what they need to do to quiet down the neighborhood with or without the curfew ordinance change.

Solomon says won’t put words in Chief's mouth (Chief says "if they’re good I’ll take them) but he talks about band aids and he sees this as one. He asks if there are other tools that would better equip the police to deal with these issues. Chief says they were asked to back away from this ordinance change but they decided to keep moving forward because officers say there is a problem with disconnected and unsupervised youth. He says while they can give a ticket to the parents now, officers don't want to take the time to find the parents and ticket them and they only gave 3 to parents last year. He notes that there is a disparate and disproportionate impact in low income communities and he thinks we should "take teen court to scale" and have the best teen court in the country. He says they'd like to have a process where the 1st arrest for curfew could be held open instead of convicting and then work with the parent.

Sanborn asks if the ordinance is intended to ticket the kids that is jogging at night or getting milk. Chief says that is not what this is about. Sanborn says it would be nice to craft the perfect ordinance but we rely on polie discretion. Chief says officers don’t like enforcing curfew, its labor intensive and not something they like engaging in. Typially they only enforce it on the outlier, the kid who sticks out gets the ticket. [Making my blood boil again.]

Sanborn says we already have tools to address the behavior and asks if this is a way to have cops give a ticket when they can't get the kids on the underlying behaviors. Chief says yes, this is a tool to do that. [Holy crap - did he really say that?]

Compton asks how many officers did you have to discipline for racial discrimination. Chief hems and haws and looks thoughtful. At first he says "not many". Then he says he "doesn’t recall". Then he says that there was nothing specific but some were for a "related issue". [I wish I knew what the real answer was there!]

Maniaci asks if they have data on where kids are from that are given these tickets. He says they mapped it and didn't find trends. Says people can look at the one map they have, but then doesn't pass it around. Hands it to one of his officers instead. She asks how the UW police and other depeartments handle curfew since lots of kids come to UW events. Chief says he can’t comment on it. He thinks they are addressing it in the same way. Says we need a universal time in Dane County but we don’t have that. She asks if tickets were for Madison residents residents and Chief says he doesn't have that info.

DISCUSSION
Pham-Remmele – hopes the Council members will have an open mind. She's sorry Matt Veldran went home, (its 11:10 now). She says as a parent, educator and community members, when we bring up racial profiling, we are more enlightened and we don’t need ot go back to the sixties . . . please accept people by behaviors not colors – race issues kept poeple from doing their job. [Yikes she's saying alot in unconnected sentences that I'm afraid I don't clearly understand.] She says that a kid is a colored kid and so the teachers don’t do their job because they are a person of color – colored kids not being held to the same standards as others so they are being short changed. She says every child has a mother, the father may be unknown, but every child has a mother – and there is a saying that when your daughter is at home under the roof, you feel peace – but when child is out at all hours something is wrong. [OK - so these phrases aren't connecting in a meaningful way for me, but this is what she is saying in the order she is saying it. And I don't think I understand what she is saying enought to type it any better.] She says she is 61 years old – why are kids so difficult – shouldn’t you feel good that someone is worried about you. She says kids might not like people looking out for you. Tells story of crossing street with mother and at age 50 her mom yanked her arm cuz car coming. She says that when students come here and say that we don’t trust them – she says she trusts the kids, just not the dark side [that is what she said] of the community. She talked about Milt McPike and how he said that its up to the kids to make decisions about if they show up. She talked about marking a kid absent if they don't respond after three attempts to call roll, even if they are in the room. She asks to please look at the real problem. She says she is not trying to harass kids or take away freedom, but certain activities require certain maturity such as voting, consensual sex, etc. She asks why the council is so reluctant to say that they should be inside at 10 or 11. She says its not about the the noise, or disturbance, it’s the future of the community. Then she talked about how Walgreens won’t go afte the shoplifers to protect employees. She said it is always harder to say no than yes. Share the responsibility – years from now looking back . . . [I don't know . . . I got lost . . .]

Bidar-Sielaff is in opposition. She said trust breed trust, respect breed respect. She apologizes to youth that came here to speak. She says the ordinance is arbitrary and that there is no reason to have curfew at 10:00 instead of 11:00. She says we should listen to the youth and we failed tonight. She said if people in the alcohol industry deserve respect, so do the workers who work with the youth. She said the discussion last week was productive and would like to work on other solutions to get youth to participate in good acitivities. She suggests some youth might like to get together with friends and watch a council meeting til 2:00 while eating popcorn. She said we need to listen to and support the youth.

Rhodes-Conway said we shoudl not criminalize a time period or age. She noted that they started the meeting by honoring the basketball team and they were likely out after hours and that those types of activities are the kinds we want to encourage even when they are not associated with the schools.

Rummel echos Rhodes-Conway about not criminalizing a time period or age. And notes that if this is about community standards, she hasn't had anyone contact her about it being changed.

Compton was going to support the change because the areas around her district all have curfew at 10:00. She talked about the anti-loitering ordinance. Then she said the issue has nothing to do with color or poverty. She said she doesn't have any sympathy for the parents who have issues, but she does for the kids. She said she felt chastised by Bert Zipperer. She talked about seniors in her area that have been threatened by kids and the kids respond by asking “what are you going to do, call the police”. She asks if these are the kids you are protecting? And she says "no they aren’t'. She says police arrest people based on behavior and we need to stop emphasizing differences and we "need to love people for who they are". She said we should look out for the best interests of the kids. She said she came in supporting the changes, but changed her mind after talking to the chief, Bill Clingan and Shiva Bidar-Sielaff. [I have no idea where she ended up!]

Sanborn – uncomfortable looking for new laws – partents not doing responsibility – 13 year olds have consititutional rights – that’s not the issues – probalbme sin wooedman’s parking lot – yes we do criminalize time and age (drivers licenses and bar time) wants consistencey - in response to the joke its 11:30 and we already have a curfew and that probel would not have been avoaided – racial profiling should not be thrown around lightly – Should kids 15 and younger be out a 10 without a purpose – if a 14 year old wants to meet firend ot watch council meeting – they aren’t going to get a ticket – it’s a decent tool and should do it – have faith in police and not going to catch kids odin tpositive activies –

Eagon said that as a young person he could give the council plenty of anecdotes. He said that on the last issue that were looking at alcohol is the root of the problem and here they are looking at the youth as being the problem. He said that the youth are not the problem. He was concerned about why the council should be defining what is a good or bad purpose to be out at night. He said that 75% of citation are secondary to other activities and the ordinance doesn’t seem necessary or beneficial. He said it creates more problems with already strained relationshiop between youth and police. Doesn’t see this as beneficial looking at either the data or anecdotes.

SOLOMON MOVES TO REPEAL ORDINANCE ENTIRELY
Solomon – sees why people might think it is helpful. Keeps coming back to an hour change but is bothered by the entire idea. He says that they are taking something bad and making it worse. He moved an amended substitute – to repeal the ordinance entirely. Kerr or Bidar-Sielaff seconded it. He asked if the police will not enforce or cite certain cases – why do it at all. [I think I missed a little bit here, as I was still in shock from his motion.] He said this is a band-aid. He also said it was discriminatory. He said that "we’re attacking people for being young." He asked if we really think the ordinance as it exists now or as it is changed stops anyone from doing anything? He said 40 municipalities in Dane County don’t have an ordinance and this puts the City in sync with them. He said that we should get to the behavior that is criminal and he supports those tools to do that. He doesn’t want kids to threaten seniors at 4 am or 4 pm. He then points out that the Who said "The kids are alright". He asks that they not ignore the real problems. Then, somewhat sheepishly, apologizes for dorpping that amendment on them at 11:45 at night!

Many people in the room start clapping. Mayor pounds the gavel and asks for some decorum.

Clear doesn’t support the motion.

Palm echos Clear . . . talks for a long time but I stepped out of the room, several minutes later I came back and he was still talking . . . he said he was going to vote against the change but he's not willing to wipe out the entire ordinance. However, he said it should seriously be discussed. He wants us to trust our kids, family structure and schools. He wants us to see that youth can postively contribute and not set them up for failure. Then he moves to refer the whole item after some questions about if he could move to refer the substitute. He then withdraws and says Schumacher is going to fix it.

SCHUMACHER SOLUTION
Schumacher doesn't support Solomon or the original change. He moves another substitute. His motion goes back to the 11:00 time period and makes an exeption for work and school activities and then adds community and faith based group activities.

Maniaci likes the substitute and supports repeal but says repeal requires more consideration. Says her constituents don’t support the proposal.

Schmidt does alot of talking to say he doesn't want to talk. It's getting late and they're getting punchy.

Compton supports the substitute. Talking about tools and loitering ordinances and maybe I'm starting to lose it, but I don't know what she said. She says don't repeal the law.

King supports Schumacher version. Says he speaks for silent majority that thinks taht 10:00 is the quiet hour. We close our parks at 10:00. Say PSRB wouldn’t support repeal. Says youth groups deserve to be heard and should have listened to them earlier in the night.

Rhodes Conway asks about exceptions – May there are none in the current version. Says the ordinance goes back to 1969 and that at the time it had a companion ordinance that people under 18 can’t play pool. Rhodes-Conway says she supports making exceptions.

Clausius says it should be uniform.

(I missed some comments – I think it was Schmidt and some Solomon)

Brian continues to fight for repeal. Says we’re polishing a turd – we’re making exceptions so we don’t punish people who aren’t doing anything wrong. He talks about 6 kids who do something wrong, but 20 kids are standing around, will they all get tickets because some did something wrong?

Kerr sticking with Brian. Doesn’t support curfew ordinances in general.

Sanborn – tells people how to vote (smart!) repealing curfew deserves some discussion in the community. And it talks about how police exercise discretion by not arresting someone for going 56 in a 55 mile per hour zone.

Passes on a voice vote. They voted to make the substitute the main motion, but never actually voted on the main motion, but everyone assumes that the ordinance is passed. The audible "nos" were Solomon and Kerr, but I think there were several others.




Read more!

Why lowering the Curfew Time is a Not Such A Good Idea

Thanks to Tariq Pasha and the Steering Committee of the Dane County Youth Resource Network for the following information and analysis. Could Madison end up with the strictest curfew in Dane County for youth over 16?

I'd recommend: Voting against! See Dorothy Borchardt's recommendation (in agreement) below.

Another perspective on this is here.

THE FACTS IN DANE COUNTY
For curfew for people under the OVER the age of 16:

Out of 17 municipalities

10 - have no curfew for youth over age 16 (Town of Madison, Stoughton, Verona, Cambridge, Sun Prarie, Blooming Grove , Shorewood, Oregon, Deforest & Waunakee)

Of the 7 remaining

Curfew for youth over age 16 is 11 p.m. or later on weekdays and 12 a.m. or on weekends (or later) (City of Madison, Cross Plains, Monona, Mt. Horab, Mcfarland, Fitchberg, Middleton)

None of the 17 municipalities has a curfew as early as the proposed change to the curfew in the City of Madison for youth 16 yrs +

For those UNDER 16:
Out of 17 municipalities

2 - have 11 p.m weekday and 12 a.m. weekend (City of Madison & Fitchburg)
5 - have 10 p.m. weekday and 11 p.m. weekend (Middleton, Mt. Horab, Stoughton, and Monona)
2 - have 11 p.m. all 7 days (Cambridge and Waunakee)
4 - 10 p.m. all 7 days (Town of Madison, McFarland, Oregon & Deforest)
2 - 12 a.m. all 7 days (Verona & Shorewood)
1 - 10 p.m. weekday and midnight weekend (Sun Prarie)
1 - no curfew (Blooming Grove)

7 of the 17 currently have no curfew or a later curfew than the proposed change to the curfew in the City of Madison for youth under 16 years

CONCERNS REGARDING PROPOSED CURFEW ORDINANCE
(From Mary O'Donnell from the City of Madison Office of Community Services)

The following is a summary of concerns regarding the proposed change in the time of curfew for juveniles under age 16 in the City of Madison. Sources include: background documents and public comments provided at meetings of the Community Services Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission, Dane County Youth Resource Network discussions, and input from parents, youth and youth service providers

No evidence or validated reasoning to support a change
- No local data on increased police calls, disturbances, youth being victimized
- Data shows the problems w/ curfew violations are much later at night
- Reasons given for the need for the change (i.e. noise, trespassing, disturbing the peace etc.) are covered through other laws
- Most curfew tickets are given in conjunction with the above violations

Ineffective as policing tool
- Review of major research indicates that there is either no effect or that they are unable to document the effect of curfew on juvenile crime or victimization. Some communities have claimed an impact but none have data that has been validated through further examination.
- No evidence from any study that curfew impacts “quality of life”

Change will place Madison curfew in conflict with countywide legislation and many other municipalities in Dane Co.
- Curfew in Dane Co. is 10 p.m. for youth under 15 yrs Sunday – Thursday this could cover ~40 municipalities that do not have their own curfew and all other unincorporated areas of the County
- Nine municipalities have curfews that would be out of sync with the new Madison curfew either by age requirements or the curfew time. These include several communities that share borders with Madison (Middleton, Verona, Fitchburg, Maple Bluff and Blooming Grove)

Many youth can legally be out beyond the proposed curfew because many school athletic and arts activities end at 10 p.m. or later.
- All of these youth would be subject to proving their age and the reason that they are not home.
- Youth, especially those who don’t yet drive, do not carry proof of age.
- How will police determine validity of a youth’s reason for being out?

Potential to increase the disproportionate contact between law enforcement and justice system with youth of color
- Currently high disproportionate minority contact with curfew citations.
- Policy change is primarily being pushed by neighborhood that has recently undergone significant racial demographic changes.

Potential to increase the contact between law enforcement and the justice system with low-income youth
- Only low-income neighborhoods in Madison have neighborhood officers and these neighborhoods also have increased patrol presence.
- Youth driving cars may be less likely to be contacted solely for a curfew violation versus youth on foot.
- This interaction may build mistrust between youth and law enforcement.

Respectfully submitted - Mary O’Donnell, Youth Services Coordinator

If that didn't convince you, read this about curfew from . . . Dorothy Borchardt!

It should be uniform. Kids move around and can't be expected to know the different curfews. I understand that it is a tool to get kids, fifteen and under, off the streets in at risk neighborhoods but it should be uniform through out the county. Work with our county supervisors and support a curfew change the right way.
db

Read more!

Sheriff, Commissioner: Wasn't Me.

Sometimes, its hard to know what to believe. However, this press release I posted apparently had a mistake in it. See below for more details. Looks like the Sheriff's department erroneously let the Court Commissioner take the blame for calling ICE. IWU apologized to Commissioner Hanson (see below). But the problems remain and as a result Dane County Board Chair Scott McDonell called for a prohibition on running background checks in family court. Also below is the court commissioner's thoughts on why he used the system he used, along with the city's policies when it comes to dealing with ICE and immigration issues.

IWU Holds Candlelight Vigil for Immigration Justice
From: Immigrant workers Union (IWU)
29 E. Wilson St #202
Madison, WI 53703
Contact Alex Gillis 608/345-9544, Yvonne Geerts 608/335-0357

The Immigrant Workers Union (IWU), in conjunction with a number of other community organizations, held a candlelight vigil at the Dane County Courthouse Monday night to bring attention to the plight of a Honduran family unjustly targeted by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

Around three dozen community members and activists braved the rain on the steps of the courthouse, holding signs and candles while listening to speeches about the injustice which occurred there last week. "We are here to protest the continued cooperation between local government officials and ICE, cooperation which has led to a brutal enforcement of an unjust national immigration policy here in Dane County" said Alex Gillis of the IWU.

The basic facts of the case are as follows. Last Wednesday, a Dane County resident originally from Honduras, went to the Dane County Courthouse to fill out the paperwork necessary to change her children's last names. While she was at the courthouse, court officials became aware that this woman had an outstanding immigration warrant from 1996.

Subsequently, someone at the courthouse notified ICE about the woman's presence, leading to her arrest and interrogation by ICE. As a result of this interrogation, ICE then arrested the woman's mother, and began searching the woman's home for any information which would lead them to other undocumented individuals.

Who exactly notified ICE is still the subject of much debate. Originally, the Dane County Sherriff's office falsely let on that Court Commissioner Jason Hanson was solely responsible for the notification. This inaccurate information is what led the IWU to originally unfairly name Mr. Hanson as the primary instigator of the notification. However, the IWU later learned that it was not the Court Commissioner which notified ICE, but rather the Bailiff, who is under the supervision of the Sheriff's office.

"In attempting to set the record straight, the IWU would again like to apologize to Jason Hanson for the misinformation we originally received and inadvertently spread. We now know we must be far more discerning when making sense of any information obtained from the [Dane County] Sheriff's Office" Mr. Gillis said at the rally.

Mr. Gillis then called for a full investigation into exactly what procedures did lead to the notification of ICE, and what local policies can be enacted in the future to end such cooperation. The IWU recognizes that Mr. Hanson was acting within common court practice by letting the Bailiff know about the outstanding immigration warrant. As such, the IWU echoes Dane County Board Chair Scott McDonnell's call for a prohibition on running background checks in family court.

Others at the rally connected what happened at the courthouse last Wednesday with Dane County Sheriff David Mahoney's ongoing policy of reporting all non-citizens taken into custody to ICE. "Last week's egregious actions by ICE prove once again why our County officials must end all cooperation with this agency. While this case is an especially troubling example of the consequences of such cooperation, we must remember that this type of reporting goes on everyday in the Dane County Jail" said Adam Porton of Progressive Dane.

Several attendees also held up signs reading "Sheriff Mahoney Has Got To Go!," to express their displeasure with his continued cooperation with ICE and the resulting terror such cooperation has caused Dane County's immigrant community.

Here's a statement from an email from Court Commissioner in response to my question about his methodology of checking for warrants.

There are multiple tools and databases available. I used a system other than CCAP because I have been specifically trained in its use and because it contains information from outside of Dane County. This has, in the past, resulted in arrests on outstanding warrants from other counties and states for various offenses, including domestic violence, other crimes of violence, and weapons offenses, among other things. Upon performing the record check, I received an entry indicating a valid federal arrest warrant for the person in question and notified the Dane County Sheriff's Office. A deputy performed the arrest.

My record search was done on all individuals on my calendar for the day, without regard to race, ethnicity, or immigration status. The database itself does not give information regarding a person's immigration status. It merely provides information on existing restraining orders and warrants. In this case, I alerted the Sheriff's Office to the existence of a valid federal arrest warrant, just as I would have had the database said the person was wanted for forgery in Arkansas.

I have never had a reason to ask a litigant their immigration status or otherwise investigate their status. In the course of conducting hearings in various matters, individuals have volunteered their immigration status on countless occasions. I have never done anything to report that information to anyone, except in the case of the active federal arrest warrant in this case.

fwiw, CCAP has information for the entire state, not just Dane County, but it wouldn't have information for other states. I remain convinced McDonell is right, there is either a way to get the information they need in court without calling ICE or they can use some discretion. Additionally, I like the way the courts are using this as a way to get more money in their budget instead of looking for a more simple solution.

For those who are wondering, here's the City's policy:

9-600 Enforcement of Immigration Laws
The Madison Police Department recognizes the values and the diversity of the community it serves. The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance to our officers on this issue and to ensure equal protection and fairness is afforded to all persons, regardless of the immigration status.

The Madison Police Department will cooperate with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as it would with any other law enforcement agency. However, it is the policy of this department that its officers shall not arrest or detain any person solely for a suspected violation of immigration laws, except upon request of ICE. All requests by ICE for this purpose will be directed to the Office in Charge (OIC). The OIC will immediately notify the Chief of Police or one of the Assistant Chiefs of Police for further direction. In the absence of the Chief of Police or Assistant Chiefs of Police, the senior Captain available will be notified.

Officers are required to obtain approval from their commander or the OIC prior to arresting or detaining any person solely for a suspected violation of immigration laws, even if requested by ICE.

Madison Police Officers have a responsibility to investigate and contact any person they believe is involved in suspicious activity. If on investigation probable cause to arrest exists, unrelated to the person’s immigration status, officers may effect an arrest for that specific violation.

Immigration Documents
Officers shall not ask any person to produce an Alien Registration Card (Green Car) or other immigration document except when assisting the ICE. This does not prohibit an officer from considering an Alien Registration Card as a form of identification if an individual offers it as such. Immigration documents identified as evidence ina criminal investigation may be seized according to State Statute 968.10 (Search and Seizure) and State Statute 968.11 (Search Incident to Arrest).

Read more!

Important Vigil For Honduran Family

The Dane County Courts are no longer safe for immigrant families seeking legal remedies in family court.

There will be a vigil tonight:

Where: at the court house
When: Monday, Feb 9th from 5pm to 6pm.
Immigrant community and allies prepare to follow up on this outrageous harassment against immigrant families.

Here's the press release about the situation:

Contact Alex Gillis 608/345-9544, Yvonne Geerts 608/335-0357

IWU asks for immediate court commissioner' s resignation

In this press release you will learn about:
• Last update on the Honduran mother of a autism boy arrested in a family court
• Who did call ICE
• Vigil for family justice in the family court

More light on the Honduras Family harassed by ICE

Yesterday, a Honduran mother (initials D.E.) went to family court for a minor process to remove her husband (now in Honduras) form her children custody. The female did not have a criminal record; neither is she right now in any charge, trial or any other issue related with justice.

When she approached the Family Court she was asked to talk with some officers who informed her that she has an immigration warrant from 1996 for a court date that she did not show up, the Mather of 3 (2 1-year- twins, and an 7 years old autism boy) never got the court notification. She was put into local jail under ICE custody.
When the Immigrant Workers Union learnt about the case referred the Honduran mother to a local conscious lawyer (S.T.) who did all the processes to get her out of jail under supervision. The Honduran woman spent the night in jail and yesterday morning she was released from local jail handcuffed under ICE Custody.

When ICE agents drove the woman to her house, her mother (SE) and brother (JE) opened the door to welcome her relative, then ICE agents decided to get into and take over the house. With the excuse to get D.E. to sign some paperwork. Once ICE was in the house they rejected the intervention of several social workers, they rejected the IWU petition for a Spanish translator and proceeded to raid the house or legal assistance, they called relatives in the address book and keep forcing the family to collaborate with them or they would handcuff all the family at this time: the mother, her mother and her brother and the 3 kids and put them in jail.
Finally, ICE agents decided to arrest the grandmother of the 3 kids as they could not arrest the mother because early lawyer intervention.

Despite the tens of messages of support of the family and demanding for local leadership to do something about this terrible situation, little or nothing has been improved. Scott McDonald and Sheriff Mahoney have been calling ICE to advocate for the two women, however for what we know the grand mother is still Dodge County Prison.

Despite the rumors of good news announcing the release of one of the women, the facts shows that it was the lawyer who released the first woman and the situation is quality escalated as right now, the mother is release under supervision, the grand mother is in prison and the brother is cited to a future immigration trail. ICE fulfilled through force and deception their original goal with is to engross their capture and deportation numbers, last year close to 200.000 people.

IWU was able to contact the mother D.E. who is just dealing with a very difficult situation, she said upset "my older kid (with autism) was dramatically affected when his father was deported, even today he wakes up in the middle in the night asking for him, if I got deported they are killing both, my son and me, in my country there is not program related with autism at least you can afford a private institution that is way over my possibilities, the kid can stay in USA but he will not survive without me it is going to kill him, and it is killing me, I cannot sleep in the last two days I do not what to do, who to call, what to expect"

IWU DEMANDS JASON J HANSON' RESIGNATION
Sources inside court pointed that apparently Commissioner Hanson had contacted ICE about our Honduran mother prior to her hearing before his Court. This confirms the turn of local justice and enforcement on the immigration issue. In this case, we do not think Sheriff Mahoney is responsible as he does not manage the Court. However, it is the same tactics, as we can see a mother of 3 with no criminal record being the plaintiff for a family matter ended up screened by a local court staff and reported to ICE, exactly the same than in the book process in Dane County Jail.
One local lawyer was very clear on the issue, "why would you go as a mother to claim child support for maybe $200 per month when actually you can be arrested and then you have to pay me $5000 to take your case, it is better to lay low and not to show up in the downtown area as ICE is everywhere"

Court Commissioner JASON J HANSON, Jason.Hanson@ wicourts. gov, is suspected to been profiling Latino names and screening in the immigration warrant system and notifying to ICE. We demand his resignation and full investigation on what, how and why this procedure is in place. Mean while, for IWU opinion there is not enough information to be sure that cases like DE mother of 3 case will not happen again and therefore we call all immigrant to be extremely cautious to initiate any court procedure and let alone to present in the court house, recommending to get a lawyer assistance and using if possible a writing trial instead attend to court, when the law permit it.
Vigil for Family Justice on the Family Court

Immigrant community and allies prepare to follow up this outrageous harassment against immigrant families. IWU and other groups will organize a vigil on the court house this coming Monday, Feb 9th from 5pm to 6pm. And major actions are schedule in the next weeks as more information develops and the community decides how to address this lack of respect to the human rights and family values.
###

Read more!

Dr. King - Still, oh so relevant today.

I bolded some eerily-relevant-and-similar-to-today portions of his speech below. Thanks to Eugene Farley for passing this along and the websites that make his works so accessible. And reading this makes me think that those of us who fail to introduce the impeachment resolution tomorrow should hang our heads in shame. You'd think we could find one Democrat on the Common Council to step up . . . just one. The Progressive Dane votes are there, but not enough on their own.

"Beyond Vietnam"
Address delivered to the Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, at Riverside Church
4 April 1967 New York City

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it's always good to come back to Riverside Church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit.

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement, and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance. For we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people?" they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment, or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.

Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years, especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, "What about Vietnam?" They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957, when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes, I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!

Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read "Vietnam." It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that "America will be" are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954.* And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances.

But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men -- for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

Finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place, I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. Because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them. This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954 -- in 1945 rather -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of a new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.

Unquote.

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

* Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

* Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

* Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

* Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

* Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement. [sustained applause]

Part of our ongoing [applause continues], part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary. Meanwhile [applause], meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. [sustained applause] I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. [applause] Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. [applause] These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [applause], and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. [sustained applause] So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." [applause] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [applause], we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [applause]

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [sustained applause]

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. [applause] War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy [applause], realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low [Audience:] (Yes); the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I'm not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another (Yes), for love is God. (Yes) And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word." Unquote.

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on."

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message -- of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever `twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet `tis truth alone is strong
Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. [sustained applause]


* King says "1954," but most likely means 1964, the year he received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Read more!