Worcester Fights Against Racist Deportations of Donald Trump and President Obama

                                  courtesy future focus

Not one more Deportation Rally

April 5th we deliver a resounding and unified message: 2 million, 2 many! Not One More Deportation with cities all across the US.

Please join us for an afternoon of solidarity! There will be scheduled community speakers, artist and information sessions! We are looking for local Worcester support! If you or your organization would like to be a speaker, sponsor or participate in anyway please contact one of the folks at the bottom of page. We really want to make this a community event!

Everyday more than 1,000 people are deported. It is predicted that in April 2 million people will have been deported by the Obama Administration. Amidst Congressional inaction, President Obama and his Administration must understand that our community cannot continue to wait. We won’t continue to wait - especially when the President can take concrete, bold and necessary actions TODAY to turn back the deportation dragnet.

Please join us on April 5th, share this information with your networks.

Today, Saturday, April 5
at 1:00pm - 3:00pm
federal Court House 570 Main Street, between the federal court house parking lot and the Hanover Theatre

“Secure Communities” is Wrong for Worcester

The Secure Communities program (S-Comm) automatically checks fingerprints of every arrested person taken at booking against Immigration databases. Based on these database checks, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) then transfers people suspected of being deportable straight into the detention and deportation system from the criminal justice system.

In the deportation system, people are often sent far away to remote detention centers— with no loved ones or even lawyers to help defend against deportation. ICE claims that this program is intended to remove only the most violent criminal immigrants, but the majority of people affected by this program have no convictions, or have committed only low-level misdemeanors.

Worcester is a city built by immigrants- Secure Communities is Wrong for Worcester!

Speakers and Co Sponsor of May Day 2012

1. Worcester Immigrant Coalition
2. East African Community Outreach
3. Carpenters Union Local 107
4. Neighbor to Neighbor
5. Pleasant Street Neighborhood Network Center
6. Worcester World Cup / Cultural Exchange Through Soccer
7. Worcester Roots Project
8. EPOCA
9. Progressive Labor Party
10. Stone Soup
11. Worcester Unemployment Action Group
12. Mosaic Culture Complex
13. Occupy Worcester
14. Southeast Asian Coalition’s Youth Effect group
15. ACLU of Massachusetts
16. Education Association of Worcester
17. The Committee for Progressive Legislation
18. African CDC
19. Comite de Vecinos of the Cleghorn Neighborhood Center
20. Iglesia Cristiana de la Comunidad / Christian Community Church
21. Worcester Interfaith
22. African Community Education

Stop Worcester's Bosses War on the Poor

                                                       photo by Kevin Ksen

Stop the Bosses War on the Poor

In November 2015 the Worcester bosses’ war on the poor was dealt a defeat. The Federal Appeals Court ruled that both of Worcester’s ordinances designed to curb panhandling were unconstitutional.  Panhandling or the asking for help in public is a form of speech and is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Worcester ordinances were championed by Mayor Joseph Petty and Vice Mayor elect Michael Gaffney.  

Mr. Bill Coleman, the other mayoral candidate, did not advocate the use of state power against the poor. Sorry Bill, but you and I know that nice guys and those who speak truth to power don’t usually finish first.

This is the ruling regarding begging on a traffic island by Judge Hillman (Federal Appeal Court)

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. the City of Worcester’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 79) is denied; and

2. the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 82) is granted as follows10:

a. The City of Worcester Revised Ordinances of 2008, as amended through September 1, 201511, ch. 9, § 16 (Aggressive Begging, Soliciting and Panhandling) is unconstitutional in its entirety; and

b. The following provision contained in City of Worcester Revised Ordinances of 2008, as amended through September 1, 2015, ch. 13, § 77(a)(Crossing Ways or Roadways) is unconstitutional:

“No person shall, after having been given due notice warning by a police officer, persist in walking or standing on any traffic island or upon the roadway of any street or highway, except for the purpose of crossing the roadway at an intersection or designated crosswalk or for the purpose of entering or exiting a vehicle at the curb or for some other lawful purpose. Any police officer observing any person violating this provision may request or order such person the remove themselves from such roadway or traffic island and may arrest such person if they fail to comply with such request or order.”

Judge Hillman made it plain that he did not want to rule against the City, but his bosses in Supreme Court remanded it back to him with instructions to look at the Supreme Court ruling on the Lowell MA anti panhandling ordinances. The Lowell MA ordinances were copied from Worcester ordinances. Even down to the “typos”. Judge Hillman tried to give the City some wiggle room when ruling the ordinance as unconstitutional. He said he could rule on a more restrictive prohibition of anti-handling, such as no panhandling or sign holding on the rotary (that did not have crosswalks). Newton Square and Washing Square were specifically mentioned.

Please note that connection of the free speech of panhandlers and when they could be arrested by the police is now void. This lack of police and City authority will likely present a problem for Judge Pellegrino, DA Early, and the City Manger in the Kelly Square 4 case. It might be time for DA Early to think about dropping the charges.

This war on the poor in Worcester goes back at least 10 years when City Council wanted to penalize people who helped the poor and make the beggars go somewhere else. A group called “Real Solutions” who had Kevin Ksen as its main driving force was formed. Its slogan of “Target Poverty and Not People” is still relevant today.  It is not a surprised that Mr. Ksen was retaliated against by the City for his activities with BlackLives Matter.

I am sure that the bosses who hate the poor, the beggars, and the dark skin people will continue with their schemes to deny us our constitutional rights using the pretext of safety or beautification or something else. There is some talk that City Council bosses will go into close session to discuss a new war on the poor. I hope this does not happen.  There is no need for a closed session.  Just stop this war on us. Stop sending us to jail for frivolous reasons and unconstitutional pretext.

Court, Protesters, Panhandling, and Speech

The Courts, Kelly Square, Free Speech, and Panhandling

About fifty people came out to the Worcester County Courthouse today and gave support to the Worcester 4 Kelly Square protesters. Most stood outside the Courthouse holding signs regarding BlackLives Matter.

The trial Judge hearing the case of the protesters said several things of interest. He said that no one in the court could wear a shirt with a message on it. Apparently one of the defendants had a sweat shirt with “Black Lives Matter“written on it.  A bailiff brought this to the Judge’s attention.  There was an objection raised by several of the defense attorneys. The Judge then said to be fair he would allow policemen to wear suits and ties.  It is not clear how this is equivocal or perhaps he was joking.

The same Judge seemed to be surprised when the defense attorneys present up to forty preemptory jury questions in a process called voir doire.  The judge did not like some of the questions, especially questions regarding BlackLives Matter, race, and the Ferguson Effect. Although he seemed biased against allowing the issue of race in the voir doire, the Supreme Court of the United States in this 2015-2016 session will hear arguments whether race is a legitimate preemptory question.  Prosecutors in several states have opposed Black jurors and impaneled all White juries.

The trial judge said that he would review the questions and give a ruling on which questions he would allow on December 15, 2015. On that date the jury will be selected. There was agreement that 50 to 60 potential jurors would be needed to impanel a jury for the case. The actual trial with opening statements will begin sometime in January 2016.

Curiously the Judge mentioned the so called Worcester Panhandling case that is now in Appeals Court.  It is being reevaluated in light of the Supreme Court Ruling allowing panhandling in Lowell Massachusetts. The Judge said that panhandling is free speech, but the people could not step off of the sidewalk to do it. He also said that political sign holders might be a danger to the public or a safety issue, if they stayed on the sidewalk and just waved at people in cars.  Is this judge giving the green light for the arrest of political sign holders?  The implications of this trial are grave and could, like the panhandling case, make it ways to the Supreme Court.

Sometimes it seemed that the Assistant DA acted as if the Judge would favor him no matter what. In regards to a Motion from the defense  about misidentification of one of the defendant, the Assistant DA was unprepared and did not have his opposition argument with him. He said it was downstairs.  The Judge gave him time to get it. The Assistant DA came back empty handed. One could speculate that he did not write or have the Opposition Memo.  The Judge could have allowed the Motion as the DA had no opposition to it in court. Instead the Judge told the Assistant DA to get it to him as soon as he could.

A mistake was made by the Judge in his thinking that the protesters had blocked an ambulance. This mistake showed prejudice on his part. He had come to a conclusion without evidence. He seemed to additionally err in his thinking on whether the disturbing peace statute contains a “legitimate purpose” clause.

This trial will have an impact in Worcester and State wide. It might too find its wary to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to get resolved. 

School Committee's Turn to Old School Policies

The Worcester School Committee Takes a Turn to Old School Policies

The two liberal or progressive members of the School Committee, Hilda Ramirez and Tracy A. O’Connell Novick will be replaced by what some consider to be a right wing challenger, Donna M. Colorio, and a relatively unknown, Molly McCullough.  I say that Ms. Ramirez and Ms. O’Connell Novick are progressive because from my experience they understood the changes that the Worcester Public School is going through as it becomes more of a majority minority school system. They did more than just maintained a color blind system of public education, but instead tried to accommodate each child level of educational ability.

It is clear what the school committee women elect will do.  It has been my experience that Ms. Coloria does not understand the school changes and is resistant to them.  There are some who say that she is connected to the racist Tea Party which has consistently displayed bias toward newcomers, especially Hispanic people. I suppose we can expect what is on the surface are color blind decisions by Ms. Colorio that will prove to have disparately adverse impact on many kids without adequate educational resources outside of the school, especially Black and Latino kids.

I only know Ms. McCullough from her literature and I do not have any strong opinions about her. Most of her election statements seem to be the usual stuff that do not say much nor offends anyone. I suppose we will soon find out about her real thinking and character in the near term.

It is unfortunate to have lost both Ms. O’Connell Novick and Ms. Ramirez. The City’s failure to re elect Ms. Ramirez is especially a blow as there are now no so called minorities on the School Committee. There are no Asians, no Blacks, nor Latinos.

I know and like Messrs O’Connell, Foley, and Monfredo. They are decent people and well qualified such that it is likely their decisions will be based on a pedagogy that will do no harm.

Ms. Briancharia has not shown to me that she has the capacity or the compassion to be on the school committee, but many people in Worcester do. Her almost irrational demands about cops in the schools are particularly worrisome. Sometimes I feel that her lack of a college degree and any experience in education makes her less capable than some of the others who ran for school committee.

Now that Ms. Colorio has won, it appears that Mr. Rodrigues chances of becoming the contractual School Superintendent are greatly reduced. From all accounts Ms. Maureen Binienda, principal of South High School, is well qualified to be a superintendent of schools. However I wonder if her backers in the Worcester School Committee have taken into account the changes aforementioned. Sometimes a color blind policy is not what is needed to address the particulars of a situation.

The cops in schools was rammed down the throat of the school system so quickly that there is no policy nor protocol for the arrest of kids at school, the use of police force at school, nor the interactions of administration and police. The police powers are authorized under a different state statute than are found in the Department of Education regulations.  There will be city wide meeting Nov, 18, 2015, 6 PM at Centro, 11 Sycamore St.  to discuss this lack of policy issue.

I hope that the inconsistencies between police authority and Department of Education authority can be resolved in such a way as not to be harmful to the students. I also hope that a school committee that is now all white can make compassionate and good decisions for a school system that is now majority minority. 

President Obama, congressman McGovern, and the Middle East

President Obama, Congressman McGovern, and the Middle East

President Obama is sending troops to Syria. This is an escalation of an already sorrowful conflict that has displaced at least one-half of Syria’s population, millions of people. Those without wealth or power always lose in wars. Don’t believe the proclamations that there are less than 50 US troopers being sent. There are many more troopers that are not subject to public disclosure. As with Afghanistan President Obama has lied to us or has broken a promise.

In 2013 protester opposed the bombing of the Syrian forces of President Assad. Hopefully there will be opposition to troops being sent into Syria, Iraq, and the reduced draw down of troop in Afghanistan.

 No Bombing of Syia 2013

To his credit Congressman James McGovern is making an effort to subject the escalation of the US involvement in Syria to some debate and to the War Powers Act.  Other democrats, such as Congressman Joseph Kennedy, are supporting this effort.

Congressman McGovern 2015  ( courtesy Bill Coleman)

The recently acknowledged failure of the Unites States to create a mercenary army in Syria failed miserably. Almost all of the 5000 fighters trained by the United States deserted and joined ISIS. This development is evidence that money cannot buy loyalty to imperialist countries. It is clear now that the United States has no or little credibility in the Middle East.

There is an effort now by the Obama administration to stabilize the Middle East with some factions in Syria allying themselves with the US. This is unlikely, despite the efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry. The population of Syria has already allied itself with President Assad or with ISIS. The factions that could join a US coalition have no popular base.

The current face of the Middle East was created by the Balfour Agreement dividing up the Ottoman Empire after World War I and the partition of Palestine after World War II. The global economy, the Iraqi-Iran Wars, Iraq War I and II, and the many iterations of the Israeli-Palestinian Wars have destabilized the Middle East. These conflicts have created extreme religion based political parties in each country, except Kurdistan which has a strange Marxist government.

 It is an absolute certainty that 50 special American operatives will not change the root and material conditions that fuel the Middle East conflicts and instability. The Russians have removed any possibility that President Assad of Syria will step down or be otherwise removed. Like Iraq and Ukraine, Syria will be partitioned in a de facto manner, if not de juris.

It is time to rethink our National interests. It is in our National interest to have a stable Middle East without conflicts. It is no longer in our interests to support the feudalism of the so called royal families which sell us cheap oil or the Fascism of the ISIS state which the US had a hand in creating.

 It is in our National interest to have a secular Israel-Palestine with special protections for the security of the Jewish people and economic and social justice for Palestinians. It is time we recognized the status of the Kurds and Kurdistan. It is time we recognized the Armenians in Turkey.  

 It is not in our National interests to have millions of people displaced and in refugee camps and hundreds of thousands of people trekking across Europe looking for haven. The United States which has been a major cause of the refugee crisis has a moral, if not legal, responsibility to provide asylum to more refugees than it has now done.

Thank you Mr. McGovern for seeking transparency and open discussion on our involvement in the Middle East and elsewhere. 

My Impromptu Conversation with Worcester Manager Augustus

      Courtesy Bill coleman

My Impromptu Meeting with City Manager Augustus

I met City Manager Augustus for the first time on Saturday October 24, 2015. I was standing outside of the Belmont AME Zion Church in Worcester. Mr. Augustus walked by on his way to the NAACP forum on education. As most people know by now I am legally blind with only reduced sight in one eye. For that reason I did not recognized the City Manager. I said to him “I think I know you”.

Mr. Augustus identified himself and then to my surprise he said “You are Gordon Davis and you write hateful things about me”. I thought that politicians would have had thicker skin and not get upset about thinks written about them.

I responded that I never wrote any thing hateful about him. I challenged him to cite one example of any hate speech or even anything personal about him. Mr. Augustus said that he could not at the moment think of anything hateful that I had said about him.

I said that I thought he was maliciously prosecuting the four BlackLives Matter protesters. He said that the courts would decide the issue. Then he went into this monologue about how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. went to jail and that protesters should go to jail. 

My wife reminded me as we stood talking to Mr. Augustus not to lose my temper. So Mr. Augustus and I started a back and forth on the issue.  Mr. Augustus said that the protesters disturbed the peace, because the truck driving was “inching into the protester”. I told Mr. Augustus that the truck driver’s “inching” was a form of assault. Mr. Augustus said that the driver was provoked by the presence of the protester. I told Mr. Augustus that provocation was not a defense for assault.  You can not hit or threaten so one because he calls you a name. You can not claim that there is a disturbance of the peace because people hold a sign saying “BlackLives Matters”.

The issue of the lack of prosecution of the dog owners in Boynton Park was brought up by my wife. She said that the City knows the name of the violators and that they provoked the City Workers.  The City brought charges against a City worker driving a truck in Boynton Park, but not against the truck driver at Kelly Square. Mr. August said that it was different, but did not give an explanation how it was different.

Mr. Augustus offered three different rationales for the City seeking charges against the protesters. The first was that the City offered the protesters a deal that amounted to extortion; don’t protest again and the City will not seek charges. The second is that the Police saying it saw a video. The third is Mr. Augusts’ comment that protester should go to jail like Dr. King.

I think that the defense attorneys for the protesters should call on Mr. Augustus and Police Chief Gemme to testify under oath on November 9. 2015, to get evidence on how they formed the decision to seek charges against the protesters. This information should be made public. I think a jury might see the malicious prosecution by the Manger and the Police Chief. Evidence of this possible malicious prosecution could be dispositive and help a jury understand the case better.

Worcester' Confused Policy About Arresting Kids at School

Confusion About City Policy of Arresting Kids at School

The NAACP hosted a forum on education, October 24, 2015, at the AME Zion Church on Illinois St. One of the topics for discussion was called Public Safety which was led by two police officers and the Public Safety Liaison Officer for the Worcester Public Schools.  Groups opposing the police arresting kids at schools were told that they could not collect signatures for their petition to City Council nor address the forum. At one point the organizer of the event came out to the sidewalk and told these groups to stop talking to people. The minister of the Church also told the groups to stop their petition collection while they were on the sidewalk in front of the Church.  After some dialog the NAACP and AME Zion Church allowed the group to come into the event’s workshop.

The workshop on Public Safety was run by Public Safety Liaison Officer Rob Pezzella, Sergeant Lopez, and Officer Diaz.  Sergeant Lopez and Officer Diaz are full time police assigned to Worcester Public High Schools. Each of Worcester’s five public high schools has a full time officer assigned to it. There is single police officer assigned to all of the middle schools. For elementary school Mr. Perzella explained they are covered by route cares. 

Mr. Pezzella stated there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Worcester Public Schools and the Worcester Police that was outdated and needed revision. He said that he had no timetable for its revision and it was not entirely clear what would go into the revised MOU.  When asked whether the public could have input in the writing of the revised MOU, Mr. Pezzella said that he would have to defer to Superintendent of Schools, the Manager, and the Mayor.  Sergeant Lopez said that the Chapter 222 of the Act of 2012 required that there be some sort of public hearings.

The two police officers told the workshop attendees what they did at school. They said that they did a myriad of duties, including directing traffic, visiting parents, and counseling. Officer Diaz said that she would conduct random drug searches with a drug dog.  However she said that she does not as a rule intervene in a discipline issues unless she is asked to do so by the school administration.  Officer Lopez and Diaz both said once she is involved, the principal could not tell them to stand down. Sergeant Lopez asserted that only the District Attorney could order him to stand down.

The assertions and opinions of the police officers are not found in the MOU or in Chapter 222. It is not clear what is the City of Worcester’s policy on the interaction of the police and the school administration and the students.  It would make sense for the City to clarify this policy as soon as possible in order for the parents and students to understand what is expected.

A counselor from the School Department spoke of how she interacts with the students and parents when there are issues including children requiring assistance (CRA). This counselor is familiar with the regulations and guides the parents and children through the procedures. However when asked, she said that she was not an advocate, but a neutral officer of the court. She had no privilege and the parent and child should not have an expectation of confidentiality.  It was not clear from her presentation whether the parents and children were informed of this before speaking with her.  

The groups collecting the petition signatures outside the Church said that the arrest of children at school was traumatizing to all concerned and harmful to the child. The groups went on to say that arresting kids at school has a racist element and was a part of the school to jail pipeline.

PLP and the Massachusetts Human Rights Committee are hosting a discussion on the interaction of the police and school and City Policy. The discussion is planned for November 18, 2015, 6 PM, at CENTRO, 11 Sycamore St. 01608.

The City policy on arrests of children at school should be clarified by the School Department, the police, the Manager, and the Mayor. There should at least some minimum age that the police would not arrest a child, but seek instead a CRA. Right now there is no official policy; policy is set by the individual police officers without official guidance. This creation of an official policy should be transparent with the input of the public.