Panel stresses urgency of closing achievement gap

Higher Ground Academy Founder-Director Bill Wilson  Credit: Shane of Necessary Exposure

by Charles Hallman
Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder
Originally posted 11/10/2010 

But shift in political winds could stall progress

Putting students first is among the most important things to be done if ever the Black-White student achievement gap is to be closed, several education professionals and advocates agreed at a recent public exchange of ideas on the subject. Higher Ground Academy Founder-Director Bill Wilson, St. Paul Public Schools Superintendent Valeria Silva, Minnesota State Representative Carlos Mariani (DFL-St. Paul), St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, and St. Paul Federation of Teachers President Mary Cathryn Ricker addressed the issue during a 90-minute education panel discussion November 3 at Macalester College.

Based on Minnesota statewide math and reading test scores, the educational achievement gap between Blacks and other students of color and Whites starts at around 30 percentage points as early as third grade and continues to widen the remainder of their school years. “We do well with many students,” but not with Black students, admitted Silva. “We have to start owning that our African American students are not achieving the gains they should be.”

Many Black children “cannot see the return on investment… They are discouraged” by school, noted Wilson, who added that more early childhood programs are needed. “The teaching of children must start at least at six months [of age and] then go forward.”

If the gap were reversed and White students performed academically poorer than Blacks, Mayor Coleman believes “there would be a riot.” 

Said Ricker, “I believe every student should have a high school diploma” no matter how long it takes.

“The achievement gap exists because of a disconnect between students and teachers,” believes Wilson. 

“I’m not an educator but a politician and policymaker,” said Mariani, executive director of the Minnesota Minority Education Partnership (MMEP), which since 2001 has annually tracked the academic progress of Blacks and other students of color.

The 2009 MMEP report noted that the chances of students of color “successfully graduating from high school…are not much improved from eight years ago.” 

Mariani agreed with Wilson that educators “making connections” with both students and their parents is “how you close the gap.”

“There’s no silver bullet,” said Coleman, adding that developing “out-of-school programs” at local libraries and parks is needed. Because the overall population in Minnesota is becoming “less White and more diverse,” closing the achievement gap is becoming increasingly important for Minnesota’s economy, whose workforce needs to be “highly educated,” Coleman said. To help close the gap, “It takes everyone [in the community] to take a role.” 

“This is an urgent matter,” Silva said, “but not just for us as educators. [It’s also urgent] for everybody that is working to improve the quality of life of students and families in the city.” 

The superintendent pointed out that education “is not a priority” nationwide as well as in Minnesota. “Education is not cool in America.” 

But last week’s panel might have been a “preaching to the choir” experience for many of the 150-175 persons in attendance, who were either students studying education or persons working in education. That’s how it looked to Macalester Humanities, Media and Cultural Studies Professor Leola Johnson 
“They [the panelists] are talking about things that people in the audience already agree with,” Johnson said. “What we actually need to do is to persuade people who don’t agree, but those people don’t show up at forums like this.”
Nonetheless, each participant on last week’s achievement gap panel “is clearly committed to doing their part [in] solving this problem,” noted Ricker. 

“We all came here saying, ‘This is what we all are doing to solve this problem,’ and we only got to scratch the surface on what we actually are doing. 

“If anything, this gave me the opportunity to continue the conversation with everyone here,” Ricker said. “We need to have the right conversation.” 
Wilson says he’d suggested further meetings with Silva, Mariani, Coleman, Ricker and others to work on solving the gap problems: “I am going to call the mayor and ask if he would host that meeting.” He also urged a closer look at area charter schools such as his Higher Ground Academy in St. Paul. 

“We have a population that is 85 percent East African, and we are making AYP [annual yearly progress] every year,” Wilson pointed out. “Let’s sit down and talk about what we are doing, and we’ll get some answers from others. If we’re really serious about that, I think that is going to be done.”

“There are so many issues here, but for me the primary issue was to really encourage this community to embrace the necessary competencies to build a great multi-racial community,” said Mariani. “Our inability to do that is one of the big things that are hurting our kids in our schools. They don’t feel a part of this system in so many ways.”

On the day after last week’s general elections, which resulted in a changeover of power from Democrat to Republican in both the Minnesota House and Senate, Mariani expressed concerns about future education funding. 

“While money shouldn’t be the total answer, it’s very difficult to do new things without the resources as well,” he said. “I think that the new majority has made it clear that not only will there not be any new resources, but actually there will be less.

“[It] wasn’t perfect under Democratic control either,” the DFL legislator noted, but he’s uncertain if “the new political realignment will further the discussion of multi-racial competency, equality and equity. I think it is going to be really tough.” 

“I think there is a real danger that [the achievement gap issue] will be pushed back” among legislative priorities, Johnson said. “We’ve got people who have come to power now who ran on getting rid of the Department of Education and who really would love to privatize everything. I think that there is a real possibility that, at the very best, what we are going to get is gridlock and stalemate.”

“I think if we put all of our ideas in one place, we really can accomplish a lot,” concluded Silva. “If there is any place in this country where we can close this achievement gap, it is in St. Paul. I really believe that.”

Charles Hallman welcomes reader responses to challman@spokesman-re corder.com.

Facebook, freedom and thin-skinned bosses

By Bruce Barry, Special to CNN

November 11, 2010 -- Updated 1434 GMT (2234 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Bruce Barry: Losing private-sector job over a Facebook remark doesn't violate freedom of speech
• Employers shouldn't view offhand remarks on Facebook as threats, he writes
• Barry: National Labor Relations Board says comments may be protected under labor law
• Workers shouldn't forfeit rights, he says, and thin-skinned bosses can scare away talent

Editor's note: Bruce Barry is professor of management and sociology at Vanderbilt University and author of "Speechless: The Erosion of Free Expression in the American Workplace" (Berrett-Koehler, 2007).

Nashville, Tennessee (CNN) -- The recent news item about a Connecticut worker fired for Facebook postings that annoyed her employer, like other accounts of employees sacked for private speech, was bound to draw a lot of attention. Americans hold First Amendment rights to free speech as a kind of sacrosanct birthright, and for many of us the idea that you can lose your job for expressing private thoughts away from work offends the core principle of freedom of expression.

In fact, though, firing a worker for off-the-job speech that unsettles an employer is pretty routine, and for the most part very legal. The First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights protect us from infringements on our liberties by acts of government, not from the oppressive acts of nongovernmental actors such as private-sector employers.

Combine that with the labor law concept of "employment at will," which makes it possible to fire someone without due process for just about anything short of discrimination, and you are left with an American workplace where free expression has scarcely more moral credibility than employee theft. A particularly eye-catching example is an Alabama woman who lost her job -- with no legal recourse -- during the 2004 election season because her Republican boss didn't like the John Kerry bumper sticker on her car in the factory parking lot.

Widespread use by just about everyone of online networks and social media opens new opportunities for workers to engage in personal expressive activity that might arouse the notice and disapproval of one's employer, and by extension opportunities for touchy or paranoid employers to police and punish essentially harmless extracurricular speech.

So in a sense, the situation involving Dawnmarie Souza, the Connecticut emergency medical technician fired by an ambulance services firm for posting negative comments about her boss on Facebook, is just the latest skirmish in an ongoing conflict between employers' desire to keep workers in line and the rights of employees to live their private expressive lives without unwarranted employer interference.

Holding a job should not require giving up your right to an expressive private life.
--Bruce Barry

Fired for Facebook?

Dare to trash your boss on Facebook?

RELATED TOPICS

• Facebook Inc.
• First Amendment Rights
• U.S. National Labor Relations Board
• Labor Law

But there's a wrinkle that makes this case important: the involvement of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which contends that Souza's Facebook comments could be protected activity under labor law. Americans don't enjoy general free speech protections against infringement by a private employer (with some limited exceptions, such as certain kinds of whistle-blowing). But federal labor law does grant union-eligible workers the right to engage in "concerted activity" for the purpose of "mutual aid or protection" -- essentially, to communicate with each other about working conditions and terms of employment. Those same federal laws bar employers from interfering with workers' efforts to improve their work situations.

If Souza had dissed her boss in, say, a blog post or a letter to the editor, her expressive act would likely earn no protection against her employer's wrath. But on Facebook her comments catalyzed responses from and interaction with some of her co-workers. That online "conversation" involving Souza and other employees of the same firm is what the NLRB alleges could amount to protected concerted activity. If the courts agree (at this point it's just a charge by the NLRB, with a hearing slated for early next year) then Souza's dismissal was illegal.

When this case does reach a courtroom, lawyers will tussle over the nature of social media sites. Does interaction within a closed Facebook circle of friends amount to private conversation, or are negative comments about one's job or boss on Facebook the equivalent of a public statement that could affect a firm's reputation? Does it matter how big one's network is? How many co-workers have to chime in to the conversation to make it "concerted" activity?

Until this works its way through the courts, employment lawyers are advising corporate clients to ensure that employee policies regarding internet use are not written so broadly that they chill workers' exercise of their associational rights under labor law.

Souza's situation turns more on labor law protections than on constitutional free-speech rights because she worked for a private-sector employer. The First Amendment does afford more protection to public-sector workers, but government employees reading this shouldn't get their hopes up. Federal court decisions along with developments in management practice have combined to make even the public-sector workplace rather inhospitable to employee free-speech claims.

Consider the cautionary tale of Ashley Payne, a Georgia public school teacher forced to resign last year when administrators learned in an anonymous email about pictures of her on Facebook holding an alcoholic beverage during a trip to Europe. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Payne kept her network settings private, and never friended any students. A year later, as her case crawls through the legal system and she awaits her day in court, Payne is still unable to find a teaching position.

A common reaction among working professionals to stories such as Souza's and Payne's is to advise people to manage their online presence and their digital footprints more carefully and prudently. Avoid giving your employer a reason to frown on your online expressive activity, goes the argument, even when you do it on your own time, on your own device, and on private networks. This is reasonable advice to the extent that it equates to "avoid being really stupid," but it's unfortunate advice if it counsels individuals to suppress their own private expressive life as a career strategy.

To be sure, employers need not tolerate any and all extracurricular speech by workers that might genuinely pose a legitimate threat to the firm's interests or to its workplace harmony. If I worked for CNN, with a spare-time hobby maintaining the web site timewarnerisevil.com, it certainly shouldn't behoove my employer to retain my services in the name of some abstract notion of off-work freedom of personal expression. Employers need not allow workplaces to become debating societies or free-for-alls for hostility and harassment.

But it's troublesome when employers favor a management culture so bent on predictability and control that even mild or tangential departures from expressive conformity are treated with suspicion and rebuke. Employees will kvetch about jobs and bosses until the day there no longer are jobs and bosses, and enlightened employers understand that new technological vehicles for said kvetching will inevitable emerge and evolve.

Holding a job should not require giving up your right to an expressive private life, even if you might be prone to the occasional untoward remark about the people who sign your paycheck. Cultivating a thin-skinned managerial impulse to treat workers' expressive activities as existential threats to the enterprise isn't how you manage a workforce; it's how you chase talent away to your competitors.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bruce Barry.

Delta attendants say 'no' to union - Claims of moving "onward and upward" by some workers

By DAVID SHAFFER and DEE DePASS, Star Tribune staff writers

November 3, 2010

Flight attendants at Delta Air Lines narrowly rejected union representation in the first of three votes to organize the majority of employees at the world's second largest airline.
The results, announced shortly after the close of voting Wednesday, were 9,544 votes against the union, and 9,216 in favor of the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) or other unions. The margin was 328 votes, or 1.7 percent.
AFA President Pat Friend said Delta's management ran "the largest anti-union campaign that this country has ever seen" and the union would challenge the fairness of the election and seek a revote. Delta rejected the union's claims as "ridiculous" and said it looked forward to integrating its workforce two years after the merger of mostly nonunion Delta and heavily unionized Northwest Airlines
If the result stands, it means that 7,200 former Northwest flight attendants, including 1,900 based in Minnesota, will no longer be represented by the union or be covered by their existing contract. Delta said it will announce a transition plan for those workers at a later date.
More than 93 percent of Delta's 20,100 flight attendants voted in the election, which has been underway since Sept. 29 by telephone and the Internet.
At Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, a major Delta hub, some flight attendants stepping off parking shuttle buses Wednesday afternoon expressed sorrow and disbelief that their union could disappear.
"They said we have to take off our union pins -- now," said Mary Beth Balzart, a 23-year flight attendant who burst into tears as she entered the Lindbergh Terminal and reached for the tiny white AFA pin on her uniform. "It's just really sad. Not only did we lose Northwest Airlines, but now we also lost our union."
Several workers who supported the union were fearful of saying anything, or declined to give their names. Union opponents showed less reserve.

"Delta has been good to us without a union," said Suzette Klein, an 11-year flight attendant who voted against the union. Another "no" vote, Helena Luke, who has worked for Delta for four years, said, "I'm happy that there is no union. They tend to slow down progress. So I say, onward and upward."
In Atlanta, Mathew Palmer, a Delta flight attendant who helped organize the "No Way AFA" campaign that included rallies, a Facebook page and a website, was jubilant. "We as a group cannot be higher than our planes fly,'' he said.
Palmer said many former Northwest flight attendants believed the union had failed them. "They have a contract, yes, but what is that contract worth?" he said, noting that Delta workers' pay exceeded that of pre-merger Northwest attendants under their union contract. "So it really makes you question, what value is this union I have?"
Delta, based in Atlanta, had 12,900 non-union flight attendants before the merger with Northwest. The airline's other hubs are in Detroit, Memphis, New York, Salt Lake City and Cincinnati. This is the third time the AFA has lost a union election at Delta since 2002.
The decision by Delta flight attendants was the first of three winner-take-all union votes that affect 50,000 Delta workers. Two other elections that wrap up in the next two weeks will determine whether baggage and cargo handlers and passenger agents -- long unionized at Northwest, but not at Delta -- will be represented by the International Association of Machinists.
Delta Air Lines has long been among the least unionized of the major carriers. Delta's pilots and flight dispatchers have unions, but the airline's record of paying well has largely kept other unions out. The Northwest merger brought its heavily unionized workforce to Delta, creating an untenable mix of union and nonunion workers that is being resolved in these showdown elections.
Union leaders said they will ask the National Mediation Board to investigate allegations that Delta interfered with the election through mailings, e-mail, intimidating contacts with workers and a breach of voting secrecy on company computers.

It could take months for the federal agency that oversaw the election to investigate the union charges and determine whether another vote is justified. Earlier this year, another Delta union won a revote for the airline's flight simulator technicians because of management interference, though the workers still rejected the union in the second election.
Delta said interference charges are common after union elections. "The AFA clearly plans to continue its fear-and-smear campaign, even after our flight attendants have decided," it said in a statement.
The AFA last month complained to the mediation board that Delta encouraged flight attendants to use the airline's computers to vote, a possible breach of ballot secrecy. But Delta, in a statement, said airline computers also were used to vote in the 2008 AFA election, and nobody complained.
dshaffer@startribune.com • 612-673-7090 dee.depass@startribune.com • 612-673-7725

© 2010 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

OPINION: Convention Center is supposedly a huge asset

The Minneapolis Convention Center was featured in a recent article that examined the facility's revenues and expenses in light of initial projections vs. the economic and competitive realities of the convention business over the last several years. Although that's important information, we want to make sure that residents of Minneapolis understand the entire story of what the center means to Minneapolis and the region.

The purpose of any convention center is to attract visitors and enhance the local economy. The Minneapolis center is a success story when it comes to the benefits it provides to the community. Hundreds of thousands of people come to the building each year for conventions, meetings, concerts, fundraisers and more. A percentage of them are local residents who spend money on parking, food and beverages; the rest are visitors who bring outside money into our economy and spend even more on hotels rooms and services, transportation, food, beverages and entertainment.

Even in the weakened 2009 economy, people attending events at the Minneapolis center introduced $212.9 million into the local economy. The building is an economic driver for the city, and the city's investment draws people to experience everything Minneapolis has to offer.

The facility also employs hundreds of people. Many of those workers live in the city and spend the money they make in our community.

When the decision was made to build and later to expand the Minneapolis Convention Center, the city leaders before us had the foresight to understand that the investment in "bricks and mortar" was just one aspect of a cycle of community reinvestment. It's a cycle that continues to yield countless benefits every day.

LYNN CASEY and ROBERT LILLIGREN
Casey is chair of Meet Minneapolis. Lilligren is a member of the organization's board and is also a Minneapolis City Council member.

Support grows for Minneapolis to rethink the way it draws election districts

Author: STEVE BRANDT; STAFF WRITER

Momentum is building at Minneapolis City Hall for devising a fairer process for drawing the ward and other election boundaries that govern for whom voters may vote.

The effort is being led by Cam Gordon, new chair of the City Council's Election Committee, supported by Elizabeth Glidden, that panel's chair for the last four years.

They've asked the Charter Commission to devise a fairer, more transparent process for drawing election lines that could be presented to voters as a charter amendment next fall. The commission agreed last week to establish a subgroup to work on a timeline for doing so. The next redistricting happens in 2012.

"I strongly believe this process could be improved," Gordon told the commission.

Some of the momentum for changing how political lines are drawn comes from a legal challenge by Green Party candidates and others to the boundaries drawn in 2002 by the city's last redistricting commission. That lawsuit alleged that the redistricting group lacked enough minority group or Green members to be representative, and that it treated minority voters unfairly.

A federal judge found the 2002 plan met legal standards. Nevertheless, Charter Commission member Andrea Rubenstein said, the lawsuit raised issues that deserve examination.

Gordon was a Green Party official and plaintiff in the legal challenge. Greens felt particularly aggrieved by the last redistricting because it put both of the party's council incumbents into wards where they were forced to run against DFL incumbents. Both lost.

The charter defines the makeup of the redistricting commission. One member is picked by the council's majority party , another by the rest of the council members, which currently would be Gordon, the council's only non-DFLer. The Charter Commission names two members from each political party that got 5 percent of the vote in the last statewide election -- DFL, Republican and Independence in the 2002 redistricting -- and two more from a minority party or unaffiliated candidates.

Despite the fact that Greens had elected two of 13 council members in 2002 and no party besides the DFL elected any others, Greens got only one redistricting seat to two each for Republican and Independence representatives.

Charter Commissioner Todd Ferrara, who served on the last redistricting panel, called the mapping process contentious and political.

Although some other cities allow their councils to draw political boundaries, there seems to be consensus at City Hall against that approach. St. Paul charges its charter commission with drawing city election lines. Charter commissions in both cities are appointed by the chief judges of their respective district courts.

Glidden said a better solution might not emerge for Minneapolis, but that the amount of criticism of the last process warrants a review. Mayoral policy director Peter Wagenius said that although the mayor plays no formal role in redistricting, "I think it's safe to say there's got to be a better way to go about it."

The drawing of political lines takes on more importance now because the school board will be partially elected from districts starting with this fall's elections. Its initial districts will follow the six Park Board districts, which also are up for revision next year after this year's federal census.

Copyright 2010 Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities

Guess What? Casual Sex Won't Make You Go Insane

By Ellen Friedrichs, AlterNet

Casual sex: even the phrase sounds a little suspect. And its connections to STDs, unplanned pregnancy, depression, and even alcoholism? Well, those are just a given, discussed endlessly by pundits, and in books with titles like, Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus, Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children, and even, Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both. Add to this the unrelentingly dire warnings about “premarital” sex given by abstinence programs and many religious groups, and it can be hard to make a case for any kind of non-monogamous-non-matrimonial-non-procreative intimacy. But what if the links between casual sex (an ill-defined term, which seems to refer to anything from a one-night stand to sex between committed domestic partners) and the troubles of the world aren't as straightforward as people would have you believe?

Some recent research makes this seem pretty likely. Last week, for example, researchers from the University of Minnesota announced the findings of a study looking at the effect of casual sex on young adults. After studying 1,311 sexually active 18- to 24-year-olds, researchers were somewhat surprised to discover that, "young adults engaging in casual sexual encounters do not appear to be at increased risk for harmful psychological outcomes as compared to sexually active young adults in more committed relationships." And back in 2007, another study at the same institution found that despite what many people believe, non-marital sex doesn't negatively affect a teen's mental health or make a young person more prone to depression.

But what about research demonstrating that women, unlike men, can't handle casual sex due to their chemical makeup? One of the most frequently made claims is that during sex women release more of the "love" hormone, oxytocin, than men do. Since a primary role of oxytocin is to promote bonding, the logic goes that women are programmed to become emotionally distressed if sex doesn't lead to a relationship. But such thinking fails to take into account the existence of the sexual double standard, which punishes women for sex outside of a relationship far more than it does men. It stands to reason that this could account for a woman's post-casual sex unhappiness. Nor does this line of thinking address the fact that even if one of oxytocin's roles is to promote bonding, humans have shown time and time again that we are very capable of trumping our pure biological destiny. If we weren't, legions of infertility specialists would be out of work.

Some people stretch the biological links even further. Dr. Eric Keroack, the former deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services claimed that sex with multiple partners affects a woman's brain chemistry by suppressing oxytocin and impairing her subsequent ability to maintain relationships. He made these claims based, in large part, on the work of Dr. Rebecca Turner, who called his conclusions "complete pseudoscience" and a misrepresentation of her work. Still, Keroack continued to promote these notions while overseeing federally funded teenage pregnancy, family planning, and abstinence programs.

Misrepresentations are all too common when it comes to the mainstream portrayal of casual sex. For example, a study out of Durham University in the UK, prompted headlines like "Women Have Not Adapted To Casual Sex, Research Shows." However, this failure to adapt was not evolutionary, as the title implied. In fact, what women in this study couldn't adapt to was something very different: being treated poorly by their male sex partners! As the lead researcher explained, “What the women seemed to object to was not the briefness of the encounter but the fact that the man did not seem to appreciate her.”

To complicate matters further, a whole lot of otherwise smart people seem to forget that casual sex did not first emerge after Y2K. Last year, for example, in a New York Times op-ed, Charles M. Blow lamented what he saw as the advent of a hook-up culture. His piece cited a study by the Washington research group, Child Trends, which claimed that contemporary high school seniors no longer date seriously and instead choose to “hook-up" without commitment. He also quoted Kathleen Bogle, the author of 2008's, Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus. She explained that, "Under the old model, you dated a few times and, if you really liked the person, you might consider having sex. Under the new model, you hook up a few times and, if you really like the person, you might consider going on a date."

But even Blow's own newspaper contradicted this assumption the very next day, when the wedding section ran an interview with a newly married couple in their 50s. The pair explained that although they had actually been sexually involved over 30 years earlier, a committed relationship hadn't been on the table. Back in 1975, the woman explained, "People didn't date. You hung out and then you slept together." Sounds a lot like this dangerous new phenomenon of hooking-up that people find so shocking....

Seriously, we all know that hooking-up and casual sex are not new. In the United States, at least, sex outside of marriage has been around an awfully long time. A 2006 study found that 95 percent of Americans, including people born as far back as the 1940s, have had "premarital” sex. And how can we forget milestones like the sexual revolution, or the "Me" generation, when getting laid was just something to do? To be sure, not everyone in the '60s, '70s and '80s was having free love orgies, throwing key parties or embarking on cocaine-fueled office affairs, but these were important years for sexual freedom: syphilis had long since been cured, morals were relaxed, the birth control pill was an option and abortion became legal. Today those agonizing over what they see as an uptick in promiscuity, loose values and risk-taking, need to be reminded that while the cast may be different, much about the casual sex plot remains the same.

Despite the fact that sex without marriage is so common, we still cling to the notion that it must be damaging in some way. Solid research demonstrating that this isn't always the case simply cannot counter our existing social assumptions: if a person claims to be undamaged by sex without commitment, that person must be lying, ethically challenged, or at the very least, deluded. Sure, sex can be dangerous. One in four people will contract an STD by the time they are 25; American teen birth rates, while not what they were in the '50s, are still the highest in the Western world; and sex crimes continue to shock and unnerve us all. But we need to concentrate on reforming our sex education and health care systems to fight these issues, not waste time simply condemning forms of sex that make us uncomfortable.

Ellen Friedrichs is a sex educator based in New York City, where she teaches high school and college classes.

© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/144596/

Obama worse than Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Dubya on immigration

Washington raid brings deportations, mixed signals

By MANUEL VALDES (AP) – 8 hours ago

BELLINGHAM, Wash. — First they were arrested and faced deportation under what has proven to be the Obama administration's only workplace raid. Then they were given work permits, and told they could stay in the United States while their employer was being prosecuted.

Now, the more than two dozen undocumented workers arrested during the February raid here at Yamato Engine Specialists Ltd. are again facing deportation.

"Well, what can you do? You can't run, that'd be worse," Gerardo Arreola Gonzalez, one of the 28 workers arrested, said about the raid. "I had to face it. Yes, I felt fear, thinking, 'The dream is over.'"

Gonzalez's unusual journey through the immigration system symbolizes just how much immigration policy has changed under President Barack Obama — and how it's still a work in progress.

The deportations and likely removals are a conclusion to a case that displeased both advocates for illegal immigrants and those who lobby for stricter immigration enforcement.

In this case, the company, the workers, and even the Seattle U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office that conducted the raid came in for some sort of punishment or special scrutiny.

Two days after the raid, ICE officials traded urgent e-mails going over answers to questions sent by an apparently miffed White House, according to e-mails obtained by the Associated Press through a federal records request.

In all, 28 men and women — mostly from Mexico — were arrested that February morning. One man opted to leave the country shortly after the raid. The 27 who remained were given work permits until the case against Yamato ended.

Now, five of the 27 workers have been deported. Seven have been allowed to leave the country voluntarily and 15 await court dates with an immigration judge, said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Lorie Dankers.

Dankers declined to comment further on the case.

"We're disappointed. We really did think that things would be different under the Obama administration," said Pramila Jayapal, executive director of OneAmerica, a Seattle-based immigration advocacy group. "It's very mixed signals ... we thought we were getting an administration that was supportive."

Immigration advocates were elated when Obama took office, thinking he'd bring immigrant-friendly enforcement policies. The raid shocked them, and they protested loudly.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano then ordered an internal review of the raid. The workers arrested were given work permits, and the company became the focus of the investigation.

But those who favor strict immigration enforcement saw Napolitano's review as a signal for lax enforcement, and a rebuke to the Bush administration's immigration policy.

For William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, Obama's approach to targeting involved employers is no better than the Bush administration's targeting of those here illegally. Both are incomplete policies, he said.

"I am for the actual enforcement against all parties involved in illegal immigration," Gheen said. "Obama is an arbitrary enforcer, just like Bush, on immigration."

The Obama administration's approach became clearer in the months after the raid: a focus on employers. Hundreds of audit forms were sent out to businesses nationwide, notifying employers to certify that their workers have valid Social Security numbers and other forms of identification proving eligibility to work in the U.S. The administration has also sought to maintain workable enforcement agreements between ICE and local police agencies, and has sought to improve conditions for immigrants detained by the government.

The government's audits of employment status have led to significant job losses. In Los Angeles, American Apparel fired 1,500 workers in September. In Minneapolis, another 1,200 janitors were cut in November.

In order to level charges against employers who hire illegal immigrants, federal prosecutors need the testimony of those workers, and that requires the arrest, confinement and questioning of employees to obtain evidence.

"The most convincing part of that proof comes from illegal aliens," Assistant U.S. Attorney Don Reno said after the Yamato case. "It's going to be just as disruptive to the illegal aliens. That's not going to change."

That new reality doesn't sit well with either side of the immigration debate.

"How could you trust their testimony if you bribed them for it? These people will say anything you want them to say," Gheen said.

"They're saying they're not actively going after the worker, but the workers are a casualty when they have lost their jobs," Jayapal said.

Meanwhile, ICE officials were heartened by some of the response they received to the raid, according to the e-mails obtained by the AP.

Seattle-based Special Agent in Charge Leigh Winchell forwarded an e-mail to his staff from Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, a vocal immigration enforcement advocate, who said Napolitano's call for a review was "backwards."

"I cannot control the politics that take place with these types of situations, but I can remind you that you are great servants of this country and this agency," Winchell wrote to his troops.

Days after the raid, Winchell told his office to convey that ICE is going after the employer, not the workers, according to the e-mails.

The case against Yamato concluded in September with a $100,000 fine being leveled. Members of the immigrant family that owns the company issued a public apology. Yamoto's owners fled Uganda four decades ago when dictator Idi Amin's regime drove out the country's entrepreneurial Indian minority.

Messages left with Yamato management for this story were not returned.

With the case wrapped up, notices of court appearances for the workers began to appear. ICE agents had warned the workers of it.

Gonzalez, who is from Mexico, had entered the country in 1998 at the age of 19, first living in Arizona, where he started his family. He came to Washington seeking a better job, becoming a welder at Yamato, making $10 an hour. For now, a local lawyer is helping him but he knows he could face deportation.

"If I have to go to my country, I have to go to my country," Gonzalez said. "...it'll be a challenge for (my family)."

At Yamato, under a basket of employment applications, a poster now warns that Yamato is a company that uses E-verify — the federal program that checks a worker's eligibility to work in the United States.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

All Minneapolis council incumbents seeking reelection won.

Author: STEVE BRANDT;

Barbara Johnson has again claimed the Fourth Ward seat on the Minneapolis City Council thanks to second-choice votes, a development that means all 10 incumbents seeking reelection will return to the council.

Johnson hit nearly 53 percent of the vote with second choices made by voters for Grant Cermak and Marcus Harcus, two candidates dropped after trailing in the first round. The hand-counted results of ranked-choice voting were released late Monday by city election officials.

As in the neighboring Fifth Ward, the only other where the incumbent missed gaining a majority of first-choice votes, Johnson won even though the last remaining challenger, Troy Parker, picked up more second-choice votes than Johnson. Parker gained an additional 331 to her 194, but because she tallied nearly 47 percent of first-choice votes, Johnson needed fewer votes to win than Parker, who finished with 38 percent.

Johnson is the current council president, but that didn't keep her from becoming one of the two incumbents to fall short of a majority in the first-choice vote count. The other was Fifth Ward Council Member Don Samuels.

Parker and Harcus portrayed Johnson as out of touch with the changing demographics of her ward. She campaigned on the city's recent drop in crime, water quality improvements and her leadership in holding accountable landlords who rent to disruptive tenants.

"I'm really very pleased, and I just can't say enough to thank the volunteers and the professionals who helped me," said Johnson, who won every precinct.

Johnson has been an opponent of ranked-choice voting, the new balloting system in which voters rank up to three candidates. She said she thinks the election suffered without a primary in which voters could vet candidates. Parker could not be reached for comment.

The results are unofficial until the city's canvassing board meets next month, but other council incumbents haven't needed second-choices to win.

Nine DFLers and one Green Party endorsee, Cam Gordon, will return to the council. Three DFL endorsees for open seats -- Kevin Reich in the First Ward, Meg Tuthill in the 10th Ward and John Quincy in the 11th Ward -- came out on top. Only Reich, who was close to the required majority for election, still awaits the results of hand-counting. A count released Monday showed Tuthill had accumulated 72 percent of first-choice votes to win her seat handily, and Quincy last week had 64 percent in his ward.

The first Park Board race result to be released was in the Cedar-Isles area, where newcomer Anita Tabb won. She was unopposed, but there were 131 write-in votes.

Copyright 2009 Star Tribune

Do away with constituencies to end tribal politics

By Wangari Maathai

This country is threatened. And it is not because we have an unbearable Constitution or electoral boundaries. It is because we as citizens and micro-nations whose political, economic needs and interests are not being protected by the current Constitution and the electoral boundaries. That is why we are clamouring for a new political order.

Our politicians govern the country by mutilating and manipulating the Constitution and electoral boundaries as well as playing divisive tribal politics.

But every so often, we go through a ritual to collect and collate views from citizens even though we know eventually the constitution and electoral boundaries will have to be agreed on by tribal chiefs.

If politicians do not get the constitution or the electoral boundaries they want, they advise their ethnic communities to reject the document.

Unfortunately, we are doing the current exercise in the middle of long-standing deep ethnic divisions, suspicion and hatred. The post-election violence and the hovering ICC make the environment unfriendly. We are craving for a leadership that can provide security, equity and justice.

Some countries have created constitutions and electoral boundaries that have been protected from the greed and selfishness of politicians. Strong institutions have been put in place to prevent manipulation or mutilation of the constitution or gerrymandering the electoral boundaries.

The constitution of the US was crafted by leaders of vision. It has served them for more than 200 years.

The documents that will be crafted are not the problem. If there were selfless, committed and visionary leaders, they would have been improving on the independence constitution. Instead, the Constitution and electoral boundaries have been treated as a means to power and privilege. Therefore, they are constantly re-written to meet new aspirations, greed and selfishness.

What Kenyans have experienced is bad governance, ethnic-based politics, tribal clashes, massacres, gender violence, poverty, economic stagnation and impunity.

Legislators should compete along political party lines and parties should be forced to seek support on the basis of their agendas, not tribal affiliation. The number of MPs should reflect the capacity of the country so that MPs do not overburden citizens with taxes and debts. The party that will have the most number of MPs should form the Government and provide a Prime Minister.

Electoral commission

This will make every vote count and parties will work hard to ensure they get as many votes as they can from every part of the country. This would serve the principles of one man, one vote, and no taxes without representation. Every vote will be important to the party rather than to an individual MP.

To make representation fair and just, an independent electoral commission should look into other relevant issues such as geography, density and special needs. The number of MPs should be fixed. Parliament has already approved that constituency boundaries serve as administrative boundaries (districts) and be centres of local authorities for the devolved government. What is important here is to empower these local authorities, community leaders and interest groups by having their roles clearly defined and protected from interference. That way, they would be able to manage the day-to-day responsibility of the devolved government. The devolved government should create boundaries, guided by their capacities and resources.

Kenyans have clearly said they want to elect their President. The President should be sponsored by a political party, and like MPs, his constituency should be the Republic. Kenyans also want presidential powers devolved and to have a president who is popular and able to unite the country. The President should get 50 per cent plus one vote to be declared winner.

To eliminate transportation of votes or double voting, voters should be able to vote from any polling station as long as they have the necessary voting documents. This would also make gerrymandering of electoral boundaries an exercise in futility.

It is important to empower the three arms of Government by clearly defining their roles so there is clear balancing of power and responsibilities, and capacity to ensure they do not interfere with other organs of governance.

Eliminating electoral constituencies for MPs would put an end to tribal power bases (and warlords). Eliminating constituencies has the potential of detribalising politics and giving every vote the same respect and power.

Source

Union election ordered at Foxwoods casino

By Stephen Singer
Hartford, Connecticut (AP) 11-07

The National Labor Relations Board during late October ordered a union election at Foxwoods Resort Casino, which has been targeted by the United Auto Workers in a drive to organize 3,000 dealers.

The decision could set the stage for one of the first unions at a tribal casino. Foxwoods, one of the largest casinos in the world, has 340,000 square feet of gambling space in a 4.7 million-square foot complex.

Peter Hoffman, regional director of the NLRB’s regional office in Hartford, rejected the argument by Foxwoods owners, the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, that the tribe’s employment law has jurisdiction in the matter.
“In reaching this conclusion, I have fully considered but find no merit to the employer’s claim that its ‘inherent authority’ to regulate employment and labor relations on its tribal lands precludes” the NLRB’s jurisdiction in this matter, Hoffman said.

Hoffman also said he found “particularly unpersuasive” a claim by the Mashantuckets that a strike against the casino would severely disrupt the tribe’s ability to provide essential services to its members.

A federal appeals court ruled earlier this year that Indian casinos are bound by the NLRB, and Hoffman cited that ruling in his decision.

The Mashantuckets said in a statement that the NLRB does not have jurisdiction “as the tribe is the governing body which has the inherent authority to regulate employment on its reservation and it has historically done so.”

Spokesman Bruce MacDonald said the issue is not about a worker’s right to organize.

“The issue is one of respecting the tribe as a government,” he said.

Foxwoods has 14 days to file a request with the NLRB in Washington for a review. MacDonald said tribal officials have not yet decided whether to appeal.

Bob Madore, director of UAW Region 9A, said the decision is a victory for Foxwoods employees.

“We were confident we would win this case,” he said. “It’s simple: Regardless of where you work, you have a right to form your own union. That’s the law, and that’s why the NLRB ruled in favor of an election.”

UAW officials during September filed for the election, saying it won a “supermajority” of the 3,000 dealers who signed cards backing a union drive. At least 30 percent of employees of a proposed bargaining unit must sign cards to force a vote, which is supervised by the NLRB.

A date for an election has not been set.

Foxwoods opposed the union’s petition to the NLRB for an election, prompting a hearing and the ruling that was issued.

Madore said UAW Region 9A, which represents university employees, legal aid workers and others in New England, New York City and Puerto Rico, decided to start its union campaign at Foxwoods with the 3,000 dealers. About 11,500 people work at a variety of jobs at Foxwoods, which opened in 1992.

“You walk before you can run,” he said.

Jacqueline Little, a poker dealer at Foxwoods for 15 years, said she was ecstatic at the news of the NLRB decision.

Little, of Coventry, R.I., said health insurance is inadequate and annual pay raises do not keep up with inflation. She even criticized cigarette smoke in the casino, which is exempt from Connecticut’s no-smoking laws.

Foxwoods and the nearby Mohegan Sun have been in the sights of unions for years. In 1999, the president of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union declared Indian-operated casinos the new frontier for union organizing.

Both casinos have said unions are unnecessary because workers are paid well and receive good benefits. Tribal sovereignty also precluded unions, the Indian tribes said.

That argument was struck a major blow with the federal court ruling earlier this year.

Little said she believes the NLRB decision will pave the way for an ultimate union victory.

“It’s inevitable. We’re going to have a union at Foxwoods,” she said.

On the Net:
www.foxwoods.com 

www.uaw.org 

www.nlrb.gov

Source