Blogs

Story at http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/ga-prison-inmates-stage-1-day-pe...

By Bruce A. Dixon

In an action which is unprecedented on several levels, black, brown and white inmates of Georgia's notorious state prison system are standing together for a historic one day peaceful strike today, during which they are remaining in their cells, refusing work and other assignments and activities. This is a groundbreaking event not only because inmates are standing up for themselves and their own human rughts, but because prisoners are setting an example by reaching across racial boundaries which, in prisons, have historically been used to pit oppressed communities against each other.

The action is taking place today in at least half a dozen of Georgia's more than one hundred state prisons, correctional facilities, work camps, county prisons and other correctional facilities. We have unconfirmed reports that authorities at Macon State prison have aggressively responded to the strike by sending tactical squads in to rough up and menace inmates.

Outside calls from concerned citizens and news media will tend to stay the hand of prison authorities who may tend to react with reckless and brutal aggression. So calls to the warden's office of the following Georgia State Prisons expressing concern for the welfare of the prisoners during this and the next few days are welcome.

Macon State Prison is 978-472-3900.

Hays State Prison is at (706) 857-0400

Telfair State prison is 229-868-7721

Baldwin State Prison is at (478) 445- 5218

Valdosta State Prison is 229-333-7900

Smith State Prison is at (912) 654-5000

The Georgia Department of Corrections is at http://www.dcor.state.ga.us [3] and their phone number is 478-992-5246

This is all the news we have for now, more coming.

One in every thirteen adults in the state of Georgia is in prison, on parole or probation or some form of court or correctional supervision.

The members of Atlanta BLOCS (Building Locally to Organize for Community Safety) stand firmly in solidarity with the members and supporters of the family of Oscar Grant. While we do not subscribe to the belief that imprisonment is a viable solution to social problems, we do believe that the leniency in the sentencing of Johannes Mehserle for the murder of Oscar Grant is symptomatic of a failure of the U.S. criminal justice system (more aptly called the prison industrial complex) to value the lives of people of color. This failure is further evidenced in the over-imprisonment of people of color, daily experiences of police harassment and misconduct, and police occupation of communities of color. We have bore witness to this failure to value our lives in Atlanta, with the shootings of Kathryn Johnston, Tremaine Miller, and Pierre George. We affirm the need, and our right, to resist, and to proclaim the sanctity of our lives and the lives of our loved ones.

Further, BLOCS asserts that the Mehserle verdict also serves as a message-bearer to communities of color that justice and safety for our communities cannot be achieved within a system that places higher value on badges than on our very existence. There remains a complete lack of accountability on the part of those sworn “to serve and protect”, even in the face of compelling evidence of misconduct. This lack of accountability is upheld not only by the police departments themselves, but also by the courts of law upon which people of color have long relied in seeking remedy for injustice. It is up to us to organize and fight to hold accountable those who have power and are tempted to misuse it. It is up to us to organize and create safety within our own communities, not by replicating the models of the system against which we are fighting, but by creating new models that value and affirm all lives, equally. It is in the memory of Oscar Grant, Sean Bell, Kathryn Johnston, and all those who have lost their lives at the hands of police violence that BLOCS continues to resist, to fight, and to build a world that preserves and honors our lives. Because it matters. And so do we.

Click the link below for WABE's piece on BLOCS and promises by Acting Police Chief Turner
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wabe/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1677147/Atlanta/WABE.Newscast.%2819.Jul.8am%29

What was most notable for me about Interim Chief George Turner’s performance at Thursday’s town hall meeting—compared to those of finalists Cedric Alexander and Robert White—was the number of times he used the word, “continue.”  Turner said that that the department would “continue” to improve its questionable 911 practices, “continue” mend the relationship between the department and the jaded community, and “continue” to timely complete OPS investigations (this couldn’t possibly include the Kathryn Johnston investigation, which remains open to this day).  All in all, Turner ignored the fact that many believe that any continuation of what APD is currently doing will drive the wedge between the department and the community even deeper.  
 
George Turner has been a member of the Atlanta Police Department for twenty-eight years.  During his tenure, he (by his own account) created the Gang Taskforce that continues to fail the city.  After all, even Mayor Reed campaigned on the issue of bringing Atlanta out of the dark ages of gang enforcement.  Turner also managed the city’s 911 call center, when it was known for its horrendous hold times.  Nevertheless, Turner wears his failed endeavors on his lapel like badges of honor, hoping no one notices how tarnished they are.  He seems to hope that we notice only that he has continuously served Atlanta as a police officer. 
 
When asked about his most recent accomplishments, Turner belabored the number of arrests the department has made during his stint as interim chief.  He entirely failed to recognize that the fundamental prevention of crime lies in everything that happens before an individual is arrested.  Turner blamed the court system for freeing felons, not pausing to address the flagrant disregard for witness subpoenas Atlanta’s officers routinely demonstrate in Fulton County Superior Court.  Even more disturbing, Turner bragged about the City’s aggressive arrests of scores panhandlers downtown after an audience member callously asked how the candidates would “put away” the “crackheads” who live at the Peachtree & Pine homeless shelter.  One can’t really be surprised by his commentary, though—Turner was reared and rewarded a culture of arbitrary enforcement quotas and bogus warrants, where officers feel most effective when they’ve locked up as many people as they can.  Turner’s perception of crime prevention is but a continuation of what he has learned from the failed administrations he’s served. 
 
Put in perspective, George Turner’s “rise” to power within APD was slow and rocky.  His career moved at a more modest pace than those of Alexander and White.  One must wonder why year twenty-eight is Turner’s first opportunity to be considered for the job.  Then again, it wasn’t until he was encouraged to obtain his undergraduate and graduate degrees after the turn of the 21st Century that he became eligible for certain executive positions within the department.  Mayor Reed selected him as Interim Chief after two equally ranked deputy chiefs chose to end their APD careers.  Frankly, Turner was in the right place at the right time and now stands to benefit greatly from what could have quite possibly been happenstance.
 
There was applause from some when Chief Turner boldly declared to the room, “it’s my time.”  This is no time for entitlement complexes.  Team spirit for the hometown favorite seems better placed under the Georgia Dome or in Phillips Arena, where lives aren’t at stake.  Atlanta’s next police chief will shape the minds and practices of hundreds of uniformed men and women to whom we hand badges, handcuffs, guns, battering rams and arrest citations.  Turner seems to be a very nice person, but practical experience, progressive insight and creativity are key to moving Atlanta forward as a safer international city.   
 
The learning curve to which we so often refer in this conversation encompasses far more than familiarity with neighborhoods and bedrock churches.  The new chief of police must form an entirely new relationship with the community.  He must learn how to venture beyond inviting folks in for a look at the new APD headquarters.  George Turner hasn’t learned how to do that—even in his twenty-eight years as an Atlanta police officer.  Based on their experience, White and Alexander appear to be the only candidates who would hit the ground running when it comes to real change in Atlanta policing.  Turner is hardly ahead of the curve.
 
By Tiffany Williams, BLOCS

ATLANTA CITY COUNCIL DROPS A BOMBSHELL
 
The bomb might be coming later, but the shell has already been launched. Today, the Atlanta City Council proposed to curtail the mayor’s power to form an administration, giving more authority over high-level appointments to the council’s 16 members.
 
Two council members, however, are fighting for their right to be rubber stamps.
 
And the conversation among the council members was laced with some shocking admissions, among them this gem from Councilman C.T. Martin: “We are just passing the money along. Eighty-five percent of what we do is we pass the money.”
 
When it comes to setting up an administration, the council has always had the power to refuse to confirm a mayor’s pick for any of the top cabinet positions, such as police chief, fire chief, city attorney, commissioner of parks and recreation, commissioner of public works, etc. However, the council has never used its power to deny confirmation, because, as explained in today’s council meeting, there has been no standard, uniform process for vetting and screening the mayor’s picks.
 
At present, Mayor Kasim Reed has five such positions, among them police chief and fire chief, awaiting confirmation by the council.
 
But, last Friday, Council President Ceasar Mitchell sent a letter to Reed after he and other council members had met with the mayor to talk about changes to the process of administration-building. It was the day after Reed had hosted a town hall meeting intended to allow the public to meet the top three police chief candidates.
 
In his letter to the mayor, Mitchell wrote “As you are well aware, most, if not all executive, agency and commissioner level leadership appointments are subject to confirmation by the City Council. In the past, the City Council’s confirmation process has been largely informal with the exception of a perfunctory legislative procedure. In an effort to bring greater structure, predictability and effectiveness to our confirmation process, the City Council has developed a set of procedures and guidelines for confirming executive leadership appointments.”
 

The council will hold a work session on the proposed new process on June 18 in an effort to keep ahead of the mayor’s recent picks for top-level positions. The mayor said he would choose a police chief in 10 to 12 days after the June 3 town hall, so the police chief's appointment would be affected by the new procedures if they are approved by council.

 
According to Mitchell’s letter, the new process has three objectives: To be more navigable for those candidates vying for jobs, Second “this structured approach will allow the council to collect standardized information about a candidate which will enable a more informed evaluation of his or her qualifications.” Third, the process should provide greater transparency and more detail between the mayor and the council.
 
There are two main requirements for the mayor’s would-be appointees under the proposed legislation: 1) A dossier should be given to council along with the name of any mayoral appointee 2) Each candidate will participate in a round of interviews and presentations with council.
 
The dossier should include a copy of the job description used to attract applicants; a behavior/motivation profile by applicant; the job department’s mission and goals; the resumes of the top three candidates for the job; statement of the candidate’s qualifications; responses to the evaluative questionnaire.
 
The “evaluative questionnaire” is divided into four sections: 1) Vision, mission, goals and objectives, 2) Quality background (“are there any aspects of the candidate’s background that have the potential to impede the candidate’s performance in this role?”) 3) Behavior and motivational traits (this may include a form like the Myers Briggs personality test) and 4) Level of skill (does the candidate align with this role?)  
 
“We presented this to the mayor last Friday and he is looking it over as we are,” Councilwoman Joyce Sheperd, chair of the council’s human resources committee, said during today’s full council meeting.
 
Councilman C.T. Martin, however, the longest-serving member of council, objected to the proposal.
 
“These are requirements we can’t meet ourselves. I could swallow this a little better if a citizens committee were appointed,” he said.
 
It was a surprising comment because, indeed, citizens committees have been appointed, most notably for the police and fire chief searches, but the mayor, according to critics in the community and with organizations represented on those committees, has manipulated their processes.
 
Martin felt that the mayor should be allowed to make his own mistakes without dragging the council into it.
 
Sheperd countered “I you look at what we are asking for salaries, I think we are doing our due diligence by getting more information about these appointments.”
 
The police chief is one of the highest paid in the nation, with a salary of about $220,000 plus benefits.
 
“The way we have been doing it,” Sheperd continued. “is that they would interview with us for about 10 or 15 minutes and then we would vote them up or down and I have never heard of anyone being voted down. What is wrong with us making a process? I think a resume and 10 or 15 minutes is not enough information.”
 
Sheperd and Councilwoman Felicia Moore explained that the proposed process is based on the confirmation hearings at the federal level. There, the executive branch will appoint a department head and then the legislative branch either confirms or refuses to confirm the president’s pick after a sometimes lengthy series of hearings.
 
Martin said that he has talked with appointees before, and if he did not like them, he said “I let them run their mouths and when they were done I said goodbye…If the administration chooses someone who fails then that’s on them not on us.”
 
Martin continued “That falls on the administration. I believe in giving them the team they want and then if they mess up, it’s up to us to reveal it. It’s that [mayor’s] team.”
 
In essence, Martin promoted the notion of giving the mayor enough rope to hang himself—and did not mention his own responsibility as a councilman to the citizens, or that perhaps the citizens’ needs are more important than allowing the mayor to fail so the council can look good.
 
Councilman H. Lamar Willis agreed with Martin.
 
“You have to let them pick the players they want to play with,” he said. “If we get to decide, then we get the responsibility for failure as well.”
 
Willis warned that making critical comments to the mayor’s appointees or otherwise scaring them off could backfire on the council as well.
 
Neither Martin nor Willis seemed even remotely aware that this sounded cowardly or like an abdication of responsibility on their parts. Moore explained that the council members won’t be picking the people to fill the posts, they will just be arming themselves with better information before they go blindly rubber-stamping the mayor’s appointees, which should make the mayor more transparent about them.
 
She reminded Martin and Willis that the council does, by virtue of its charter, have a responsibility to vet the mayor’s picks, otherwise why would the charter even require the appointments to be confirmed by the council? The council, she noted, in its role as the elected representatives of different parts of the city has a responsibility to offer a balance of power.
 
“The 15 council members plus one mayor equal the City of Atlanta,” Moore said. “The council can choose what we approve. We don’t have to just rubber-stamp whatever the mayor says.”
 
She added “I will never, ever dilute my vote as a council representative. People elect us because they have work and lives and they expect us to represent them. Now, do we want to take those appointees and rubber stamp them or do we want to be more deliberative?”
 
Alex Wan, who is serving his first term on the council and represents much of Midtown, expressed his support for the proposal.
 
“It is a tool that each one of us can use to the extent that we want to or that we do not want to,” Wan said.
 
Willis responded that the real problem lies on the back end of the appointment process—after the mayor’s appointees have screwed up. Then, he said, there are no hearings or accountability.
 
“You’ve got a table and a chair waiting for you for that conversation,” Council President Mitchell said. “I think that’s the next step.”
 
Martin was not swayed. He said he was not interested in the confirmations. He said he wanted to be a council member, not a mayor.
 
“Have you seen his desk?” Martin asked regarding the mayor. “There is a stack of papers that high and meetings and things he has to go to. Let’s face it, the power in this government is in that office over there. He makes the decisions. Really, after that, we are just passing the money along. Eighty-five percent of what we do is we pass the money.” SP