|
| South Texas | El Paso | About Us | Programs | News & Publications | Events |
|
The Daily Texan, November 30, 2004 Civil trial against UTPD officer begins Opening statements were presented Monday in the civil suit by former UT student Jonathan Bougie against a UT police officer. Bougie, now a professor of physics at Huston-Tillotson College, is claiming that Officer Wayne Coffey smashed Bougie's head into a concrete planter while Bougie was chalking sidewalk messages promoting an anti-war rally last year. Ingrid Hansen of the Texas Attorney General's office represented Coffey but could not comment on the trial as it was still proceeding, said spokesman Tom Kelley. Susan Bradshaw, UT associate vice president for legal affairs, said the University could not comment. After jury selection and opening statements, Wayne Krause, an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project representing Bougie, called biology senior Matthew Perry to the stand. Perry alleges that he was studying at the Undergraduate Library when he saw Coffey quietly approach Bougie from behind and open-handedly smack his head. In what Bougie's attorney is calling an excessive use of force, the blow broke his glasses and caused facial injuries that were later treated at Brackenridge Hospital with four stitches March 19, 2003. UT police charged Bougie with criminal mischief, a Class "C" Misdemeanor, citing a regulation that prohibits individuals from applying chalk to sidewalks. Krause, staff counsel for the Texas Civil Rights Project, said these charges were later dismissed. The plaintiffs then brought up Coffey for questioning, but the case will continue today when the rest of their witnesses, along with Bougie, will be presented. The defense will then present their case. Krause said a ruling could come as early as today, though there was a possibility the case could extend to Wednesday. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, but Bougie said he hoped the case would also reveal the deficiencies of the University and UTPD concerning lack of policy or training in regards to students' civil rights. "I think students and whoever should be able to express their free speech rights on campus without being afraid of getting beaten up by the police," Bougie said. However, neither the University nor UTPD are included in the suit, "because, legally, the facts may have not lent themselves to retaining them in the complaint," Krause said. UTPD Assistant Chief Terry McMahan could not comment on the case but said he believed the department is sensitive to everyone's rights, especially those of students. "Colleges are known for free speech and the expression of ideas, and [UTPD officers] deal with this issue on a daily basis, so we're probably more sensitive to it than others," McMahan said. Coffey still works at UTPD and can be seen on billboards on Interstate 35 and Highway 71 with other officers advertising support for Austin law enforcement. The billboard reads, "How many total strangers have you protected today?" Former UT student gets day in court AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Tuesday, November 30, 2004 The police officer looked "strange" as he ran across the University of Texas West Mall that night last year, "like he was tiptoeing" or "sneaking up on someone," UT student Matthew Perry testified at the start of a civil rights trial in federal court on Monday. Perry said he halted his cell phone conversation to watch the officer, who was heading toward a student writing in chalk on a short cement wall outside the Texas Union. After initially slowing down, the officer gathered a full head of steam and ran at the student, extended his right hand and smashed the student's face against the cement wall, Perry testified. The student, who was facing the wall the entire time, never saw it coming, Perry told a jury convened before U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks. Perry was the first witness in a civil trial pitting Jonathan Bougie -- the student who was chalking the wall that night -- against UT police officer Wayne Coffey. Bougie, who is seeking unspecified damages, says Coffey used excessive force against him that night; Coffey denies that. He contends that he forced Bougie to the ground to keep him from escaping an impending arrest for criminal mischief. Bougie was a graduate student in physics and a member of the Campus Coalition for Peace and Justice on March 19, 2003, the night the United States invaded Iraq. About 10:30 p.m., Bougie was writing "protest the war" on the wall to persuade fellow students to attend an anti-war rally the next day. The West Mall is a usual center of protest activity on campus; chalk is regularly used by student groups to promote various activities, including protests. Bougie, 30, has since earned a doctorate in physics from UT and teaches physics and physical science at Huston-Tillotson College. He was arrested by Coffey that night on charges of criminal mischief, a Class C misdemeanor. The charges were later dropped. Bougie's attorney, Wayne Krause of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said in his opening statement that Coffey failed to identify himself as a police officer before pushing Bougie into the wall, "breaking his glasses, leaving Dr. Bougie bloody and having to go to the emergency room." Coffey's attorney, Assistant Attorney General Richard Salisbury, said the officer's actions were "reasonable under the circumstances." Coffey didn't know if Bougie had a weapon, and his first priority was to ensure his own safety, Salisbury said. The decision to not immediately identify himself as a police officer was "a judgment call," Salisbury said. When called to testify by Bougie's lawyers, Coffey said he ran up behind Bougie and put his hands on the student's shoulders, not on his head. "He lunged left, looked right a little bit, looked up at me a little bit and then he raised up," Coffey testified. Coffey said he had been dispatched to the West Mall on a report that someone was chalking a wall without permission of the university. "It was necessary for me to use force because I thought Dr. Bougie was going to flee," he said. Coffey is a former professional football player who Krause said has been a UT officer for "six or seven years." Salisbury declined to comment on his client's employment history after the close of testimony. According to Total Football, a book that includes a record of every National Football League player in history, Coffey played three games for the New England Patriots in 1987, catching three passes for 66 yards. The Web site ArenaFan.com says that Coffey played from 1989 to 1995 in the Arena Football League. Coffey's lawyers will cross-examine him when the trial continues this morning. The trial is expected to last three days.
Austin American-Statesman, statesman.com Suicide victim's sister, Travis County settle lawsuit Thursday, September 16, 2004 Nearly three years after her brother jumped to his death at the Travis County Jail, Debbie Mergele got a $64,000 settlement from the county. She also got some things she considered more important: an apology and a list of changes made to prevent suicides. So far, the changes seem to be working: After averaging a suicide a year since 1997, the jail has not had one since John Frump jumped from a second-story cellblock in November 2001. The lawsuit was settled Aug. 16. Mergele had sued Travis County Sheriff Margo Frasier, whose office runs the jails, and two other county officials last year. In the lawsuit, her lawyers argued that Frump should have been on suicide watch when he died. That day, after the 44-year-old geologist was released from his cell for dinner, he ran upstairs to the second tier of cells at the downtown Austin jail. He yelled at guards to leave him alone, climbed the mezzanine railing and jumped. He died four hours later at Brackenridge Hospital. "As I told Mr. Frump's family, we didn't handle this the way I would have liked to see this done," Frasier said. A week before Frump was arrested on sexual assault charges in an attack on his former wife, he had been involuntarily placed at the Austin State Hospital for psychiatric care after a failed suicide attempt. In addition, as he was being booked into the jail, he threatened to kill himself, the sheriff's department has said. During his second day at the jail, Frump was taken off a 24-hour suicide watch, in which guards check on inmates at least every 15 minutes and restrict their access to items such as some types of bedding and clothing that they could use to kill themselves. That day, Frasier said, Frump told his cellmate that he wanted to kill himself, and those statements were passed on to a jail counselor, but Frump remained in the general inmate population. That's the point at which Frasier thinks things could have been handled differently, she said. "I don't know that we could have prevented his death, but I am sorry that he died in our facility," Frasier said. She said that since Frump's death, her office has hired a contract psychiatrist full time to replace part-time psychiatrists. She also said that corrections officers and counselors have been retrained on dealing with potentially suicidal inmates. Corrections officers are now urged to aggressively share information about an inmate's actions and threats with counselors and psychiatrists. Jail officials had considered installing a mesh screen to prevent jumping from the second tier but decided against it because that would cut down on jailers' visibility and hinder safety, Frasier said. Mergele, 46, said that more important than the financial settlement is knowing that jail officials have made some changes and that they regret what happened. "I wasn't out for money," said Mergele, who filed the lawsuit on her brother's behalf because she is his closest relative. "I didn't want this to happen to anyone else." Law aids immigrants who are victims of abuse Hernán Rozemberg SAN JUAN — Elvira Arredondo is trying to make up for 14 years without smiling. The owner of a taquería in this small town in the Rio Grande Valley, Arredondo today is the picture of an independent woman: Getting the restaurant off the ground, expanding her fledgling catering service, helping lead local voter registration drives and ensuring a good education for her children. She even beamed about filing her own taxes. The radical change came about in the past couple of years after she broke away from more than a decade of virtual home imprisonment at the hands of an abusive husband. Thousands of undocumented immigrant women across the country, like Arredondo once was, are victims of domestic violence. Escape becomes all but impossible, as the abusers use their status as U.S. residents or citizens to hold their wives hostage, threatening to call immigration officers to have them deported if they act up. Yet some have found a way out. A little-known section of the Violence Against Women Act allows abused undocumented immigrant women — and children and men — to file secretly for legal residency on their own. They also could apply to not get deported, if they already had been ordered out of the country. Applicants must be formally married when they submit the paperwork, which typically includes a statement detailing the type and length of abuse. Most applications are approved, unless government reviewers don't see enough proof of abuse or if applicants have a criminal record. Immigration investigators do look into the claims before approval is given. The victims are asked to file birth and marriage certificates and get affidavits from others who are aware of the abuse. The women also are asked to submit photos of the injuries and doctors' reports, if they are available. Though it may easily take several years before approved applicants receive their "green cards," they usually get a voucher for public benefits in a couple of months — so at least they can leave the abusive home — followed by a work permit. Officials with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency managing the program, said a national publicity campaign was launched after the law was passed. And though the quantity of applicants is minimal in terms of the general population, one administrator said word gradually has spread and more undocumented battered women are recognizing it as a viable option. "This program is very unique because the government works closely with community groups," the administrator said. "We recognize the unique circumstances of these battered women and children." Some immigrant advocates, however, said that even after a decade in the books, most people have never heard of the law. Juan Rios, who travels rural South Texas looking to assist victims, said many police and immigration officers — even some shelter workers — are ignorant of the provision. Even those who have heard of it don't know that abuse does not have to mean large, visible bruises, said Rios, who works for the Texas Civil Rights Project. Though harder to prove, "extreme cruelty" cases involve verbal or mental maltreatment. In the end, lack of knowledge about the program hurts victims the worst, said Rios, noting dozens of undocumented battered women would sign up, only if they knew it existed. Arredondo, the taquería owner in San Juan, a few miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, wishes she could have found out about it sooner. She left her home in Tampico, Mexico, as a teenager in search of a better-paying job. She obtained a border-crossing card, typically used for short shopping trips, but then stayed, cleaning homes in the Rio Grande Valley. She fell in love with a man who turned aggressive after they were married, she said. She followed her husband, a U.S.-born migrant farm worker, traveling between Texas, Colorado and Idaho. He constantly abused her verbally and physically, she said, slapping her to the floor even when she was pregnant with their first child. As their two children grew, he also hit them. He threatened to kill her many times — one night he came close, jamming a kitchen knife against her throat. At first, she couldn't leave him because she still loved him. Then she couldn't leave him because she feared she'd be deported to Mexico. "He said all the time all he needed was a quarter — to call la migra," Arredondo, 40, recalled. One night in late 2001 she finally took off, children in tow. A local shelter worker referred her to the Texas Civil Rights Project, which took her case and, through the federal law's provision, successfully gained legality. She's waiting for her green card, but her work permit allowed her to start a registered restaurant and catering business. After more than two years out of a life of abuse, she has even been tapped by advocates to speak to other women considering applying for the program but still fearful of the consequences. "This opportunity has been like an angel came down from the sky just for me," she said. "I know it's a scary step, but more women have to see this as a good way out." For some, it could be their only means of survival. As an educated woman, with a degree in architecture in Monterrey, Mexico, who had already experienced one failed marriage, Fabiola Nuñez thought she would know better than end up in an abusive relationship. Yet the Brownsville resident spent three straight years terrified about the man she had happily married a year earlier. He would say he was only joking when he began to push her around or pull her hair, she said. Then one day the pushing and shoving turned into punches to the face. One night he beat her incessantly and locked her inside a room. Had he not passed out from being drunk, he would have killed her, she said. Screaming for help, she dashed to a neighbor's house and called police. She was taken to a local shelter and then referred to Proyecto Libertad in Harlingen, a nonprofit advocacy group that handles cases for undocumented women. Today, three years into her new life as a permanent resident and after a two-year stint as a domestic violence counselor, she's back in school, taking architecture classes. She has three children in Brownsville schools. "If this law didn't exist, I might not exist myself," she said. Despite its name, the program is not limited to just women. Abused children, like David in Eagle Pass, also can apply. David, who did not want to give his last name, became a victim of his stepfather, who tormented the youngster and his mother for seven years. David's mother married the man when the boy was 9. He often stayed as late as he could at a friend's house to avoid watching the stepfather — a U.S. resident — overpower his mother, he said. Many times over the years, she would grab David in the middle of the night to run away for days, sometimes weeks, only eventually to return to the abuser's house. Though he never found out details of how it occurred, when he returned home one night, David learned his mother was gone — she had been deported to Piedras Negras, Mexico, their hometown. He found refuge in his aunt's house, but he lived in daily fear that he, too, would be rounded up and sent back. His aunt signed him up for counseling sessions. Advocate Juan Rios heard about David's story and helped him process the paperwork and paid the $110 application fee. The government approved the petition this month. When his work permit arrives in the mail, David said, he'll truly feel free. It has been nearly five years since he escaped abuse, but he still fears being in public or leaving town, thinking authorities could pick him up at any time. Once armed with legal documents, David, now 21, plans to apply for college and might also sign up for military service. No matter the choice, he just wants to be able to finally say he's got a future. "I thought I was going to stay down for the rest of my life," he said. "I'm so excited now — I'm going to do so many things. This has been so unexpected." The Austin Chronicle, July 30, 2004 APD Sued Over 2003 Search The suit alleges that brothers Ricardo Villegas and Alejandro Villegas, Claudia Gutierrez, and her two young children were at home asleep around midnight on Oct. 17 when they heard four gunshots outside. Twenty minutes later they heard shots again, followed by "yelling and screaming" outside their house. Looking outside, the brothers saw approximately 15 Austin police officers surrounding their house; the officers yelled for them to come outside, which they did, one by one. Outside, the four adults were held at gunpoint and told to lie on the ground; Gutierrez's 3-year-old and 8-month-old remained inside sleeping. The officers – as yet unnamed in the lawsuit – then demanded that the family members tell them the location of a gun, the suit alleges, and ignored repeated protestations that the family did not own a gun. "You better tell us where the gun is before we get in the house," the lawsuit alleges the police replied, "because if we find it, things are going to be worse." Alejandro Villegas repeated that there was no gun. Still, police handcuffed the four, then yelled inside for the two children to wake up. With the children still asleep inside, the officers, guns drawn, entered the house to search for the phantom weapon. "They opened drawers, emptied the clothes in piles on the floor, and pulled out items from under beds," the suit alleges. "The officers did not find a gun, or anything illegal, for that matter." After concluding their fruitless search, the officers removed the handcuffs and left without explanation, the lawsuit alleges. "The officers never justified their actions and said only, 'we do this all the time,'" reads the lawsuit. "No apology was ever given." In a short statement, the APD says that the officers were responding to a "shots fired" call that had come in to 911 from Granger Drive. After making contact with the caller – a neighbor of the Villegas brothers and Gutierrez – the officers heard a second round of shots, which they thought were coming from the Villegas house. Subsequently, the officers determined that the shots had actually come from a "location on Deep Circle, which is directly behind the [Villegas'] residence," the release reads – and that's where, ultimately, the officers found their perp and gun. "After an Internal Affairs investigation and review by the Police Monitor's Office approximately nine months ago," the statement concludes, "it was determined that officers followed APD policies and procedures by securing a potentially dangerous and volatile situation." Jim Harrington, director of the TCRP, disagrees with the rosy summation: If everything was by the book that night, he asks, why doesn't the APD have any records of the incident at the Villegas house? "[A]fter many open records requests for incident reports ... no reports have been found," the lawsuit reads. Requests for "reports ... have also been made for the house located behind the Villegas home, where the gunshots originated, and no records have been located." The lawsuit seeks $80,000 in actual damages and an additional $10,000 in punitive damages against each of the 15 officers at the Villegas home that night.
The Austin Chronicle, July 30, 2004 Naked City
The Austin Chronicle, July 30, 2004 Democracy Coalition Wins on Appeal The Democracy Coalition activists claim that Austin police violated their free-speech rights during an April 2001 protest against President George W. Bush, by denying them access to the traditional protest area on Lavaca Street, across from the Governor's Mansion. A group of more than 30 protesters walked from a protest at the Bullock Museum toward the mansion – where Bush was scheduled to lunch with Gov. Rick Perry – but were stopped by police at the northeast corner of 11th and Lavaca, a block from their destination. Tempers flared and an APD horse either charged or was spooked and bolted into the demonstrators; no one was hurt, and the horses were called off, but police still refused to allow the protesters to cross the street – even though pro-Bush activists had been allowed to cross to the free-speech zone to show their signs of support for the president. The coalition sued, claiming the city and police department violated their federal and state constitutional right to free speech and assembly. During the January 2003 trial, a civil jury cleared two APD mounted patrol officers – Kenneth Farr and Michael Carlson – of any liability for violating the demonstrators' rights. However, Cooper pre-empted the jury's ability to weigh in on the protesters' free-speech claims, agreeing with Assistant City Attorney Robin Sanders' argument that the activists had failed to show that the city had an official and unconstitutional "custom, policy, or practice" for dealing with protesters. The case was heard by the Third Court earlier this year, and last week the justices ruled that, although the coalition had not presented enough evidence to further its First Amendment free-speech claims, it has a right to have its free-speech claims under the Texas Constitution decided by a jury. In affirming the dismissal of the activists' federal free-speech claims, the court agreed that, according to the evidence presented at trial, the "City's crowd-control policies are not facially violative of the First Amendment." However, they concluded that there remained a question of whether those city policies as applied in this case violated the protesters' free-speech rights – and if so, whether the decision to deny access to the free-speech zone was based on the anti-Bush content of their speech (the granddaddy of First Amendment violations). This question, the court ruled, should have been decided by the jury. "In this case, the [activists] have adduced evidence that some people who were supporters of President Bush were allowed to reach the free-speech area, while the protesters' access to the area was blocked. One protester who reached the free-speech area by a circuitous route was allegedly asked by a police officer to roll up his sign protesting the President," Justice Bea Ann Smith wrote for the court. "On the record before us, it is not even possible to discern if the City's actions were content-neutral or content-based," she continued. "Based on this ... and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellants ... we conclude that the question of whether the City violated appellants' rights ... cannot be decided as a matter of law," and must be decided by the trial court. Stays of execution linked to new appeal strategies By KIMBERLY DURNAN / DallasNews.com Nine Texas killers' executions have been postponed this year, raising hopes among capital punishment opponents that new and successful avenues for appeal may be gaining momentum. Although the Texas Attorney General's Office does not keep annual statistics about stays of execution, it confirmed that all of the cases in question involved issues of mental retardation or the age of the defendant at the time of the crime. Both issues have gained traction at the highest judicial levels. Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, an organization of lawyers who pursue civil rights cases, said he believes the recent spate of stays does not mean the end of the death penalty in Texas, but perhaps a mellowing in its application. "Clearly something is happening," he said. "All of the polling shows the majority favors capital punishment as a concept, but there is more reservation or opposition of using it. People don't want it applied too frequently. The courts are reflecting that." The Supreme Court found in 2002 that executing the mentally retarded amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, an Eighth Amendment violation. Attention to the issue was heightened in June, when the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying a Texas death row inmate's claims of mental retardation were not considered. In an opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, she accused the 5th Circuit of "paying lip service to the principles" of the appellate process and not following Supreme Court guidelines. Meanwhile, the high court is expected to hear arguments this fall in a Missouri case that could determine whether executing people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime is constitutional. On Monday, Canada, Mexico and other U.S. allies asked the Supreme Court to end such executions, arguing that they violate "widely accepted human rights norms and the minimum standards of human rights set forth by the United Nations." The Supreme Court set 16 as the minimum age for imposing the death penalty in 1989, but the Missouri case could reflect what some consider a shifting philosophy, illustrated by 31 states that have abolished executions for juvenile killers. Texas is not one of them. However, many states appear to be holding off on such executions until hearing the high court's opinion. Tom Kelley, a spokesman for the Texas Attorney General's Office, noted that Texas joined Alabama in its amicus filing in the Missouri case. In that document, Alabama's attorney general argued that there is "no magic in the age 18" and that some teenagers do understand the wrongfulness of their actions. "A teenager who plots like an adult, kills like an adult, and covers up like an adult should be held responsible for his choices like an adult," the brief states. In Texas, 27 of the 456 prisoners on death row committed their crimes at the age of 17. An untold number could be considered mentally retarded, although a Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman acknowledged that some inmates who do not fit the description have used the issue to their advantage. "It's a shame because there are people who can genuinely make an argument," Michelle Lyons said. "It's not good when people abuse the system." Kelley refused to discuss the attorney general's position on mental retardation issues. Not all claims of mental defect are successful. In May, Texas executed Kelsey Patterson, 50, a paranoid schizophrenic who murdered a Palestine businessman and his secretary in 1992. In a highly unusual move, the Texas pardons board recommended clemency but Gov. Rick Perry rejected it. Overall, however, the pace of lethal injections in the nation's most active death penalty state appears to have slowed. So far, 10 people have been put to death in Texas; last year, a total of 24 were executed. Anzel Keon Jones was 17 when he killed a Paris, Texas, woman and sexually assaulted her mother. His execution was stayed Feb. 25 after Jones' attorney, Richard Burr, argued that the Constitution forbids executing criminals under the age of 18 as cruel and unusual punishment. Burr said teenage convicts could be punished in other ways. "Anzel Jones was 17 at the time. His brain wasn't fully developed. He was confused, compulsive and he made a bad decision," Burr said. "He will spend the rest of his life in prison. That's harsh punishment." J. Kerye Ashmore, an assistant district attorney in Grayson County who prosecuted Jones, said most Paris residents would be outraged if the punishment does not get carried out, noting that Jones "cut a woman's throat in front of her mother, sexually assaulted an 80-year-old woman, cut her throat and set her house on fire." Ashmore said he has no hesitation about putting Jones to death. "His age was taken into consideration. It's acceptable in our state if a person is 17 and they did something," he said. Also this year, one death penalty sentence was commuted to life in prison after the defendant was deemed retarded. And Houston prosecutors withdrew requests for execution dates for Efrain Perez and Raul Omar Villarreal, both 28, because both were 17 when they kidnapped, raped and strangled two high school girls. The prosecution is awaiting the high court's decision before re-setting the execution dates. Death penalty supporters say attorneys always find new ways to win appeals. A couple of years ago, for example, challenges often centered on calls for evidence retesting based on new DNA technology. Burr, the defense attorney, suggested that future death penalty issues likely will focus on questions of mental illness and the use of eyewitness testimony, accomplices and jailhouse sources. Capital punishment opponents say public sentiment might be softening since an Illinois scandal found that 13 people on death row were wrongly convicted, through new DNA evidence, confessions from the actual killer or witness retractions. "It has people saying maybe there are some innocent people on death row and maybe we should be more careful," said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center. Shannon Edmonds, staff attorney for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, said it's not public opinion driving the success in getting judges to stop executions. "The focus of some folks on the minimum age does not seem to becoming from a popular groundswell," Edmonds said. "It comes from people who oppose the death penalty, period. "They are focusing on mental health issues and age because those are the most sympathetic. If they succeed, then I would expect them to use those victories to push on toward the abolition of the death penalty." Dianne Clements, executive director of Justice for All, a Houston-based crime victims' advocacy group, says she doesn't understand the sympathy for some of the nation's most atrocious killers. She argues that new exclusions to the death penalty will mean more costly appeals for taxpayers, particularly in the area of mental retardation, And death row inmates have nothing to lose by making unfounded appeals, she said. "They'll throw it on the wall to see what sticks," Clements said. "It's not like they have to work, hold a job and cut the grass. No, we foot the bill and they sit back and see how far they can go."
Austin American-Statesman, statesman.com LETTER TO THE EDITOR Tuesday, July 13, 2004 Activist for civil rights I don't have the slightest idea why the Statesman called me a "Democratic activist" in the July 10 article "Charges against Crawford protesters dismissed." I am not one, and have never claimed to be. Because the Texas Civil Rights Project is a nonprofit foundation and because civil rights crosses all partisan boundaries, I studiously avoid partisan politics, and rarely even add my name to an endorsement list for a candidate, unless it's a personal friend. This kind of unsupported and unfounded labeling serves to undermine the civil rights project's work, especially in a state that is solidly Republican. This wrongful assertion also undermines my position as one of the nonpartisan members on the Texas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. An activist I surely am, but an activist for civil rights — not for a political party. The American-Statesman's unfounded assertion of fact is unfair, flat-out wrong and inexcusable. JIM HARRINGTON Austin
wacotrib.com, a product of Waco Tribune-Herald Charges against anti-war quintet dropped A local county court-at-law judge on Friday dismissed charges against five anti-war activists convicted of protesting illegally in President Bush's adopted hometown of Crawford last year. The judge's decision hands a belated victory to the protesters, who claimed their conviction of a parade ordinance in Crawford was more about restricting free speech than jail sentences or fines. Representatives for the activists on Thursday challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance in a pretrial hearing at the McLennan County Courthouse — their first chance at appeal beyond a Central Texas town of 705 that has capitalized on Bush's nearby ranch residence. And on Friday, County Court-at-Law Judge Tom Ragland dropped charges against all five activists. "Based on the evidence, the court finds that city of Crawford Ordinance No. 2001-006 was overly broad on its face and in the manner in which it was implemented and enforced by the city of Crawford, and therefore, contravenes the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America," Ragland wrote in his one-page decision. The five activists were among about 100 demonstrators on their way from Austin to Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in May 2003 to protest the war in Iraq when they were stopped by law enforcement in Crawford, arrested and put in jail for the night. The activists were convicted in February by a Crawford jury of violating the city's parade and procession ordinance. They were fined from $200 to $500 for the class C misdemeanor. However, the anti-war activists saw the verdict as sending a chilling message to future protesters hoping to voice their grievances near what is frequently called the "Western White House," they said. "I think what the order means is that the Constitution applies with full force and vigor, even in the president's backyard," said Jim Harrington, an attorney for the activists. "I think the ordinance on its face is clearly unconstitutional. And you see, because of how broad and vague it is, it can turn around and be used in the particular case as it was here." David Deaconson, the attorney who represented Crawford, on Friday said he would not speculate on Ragland's findings and, instead, simply accept the decision. "I appreciate the fact that Judge Ragland was placed in a difficult position," Deaconson told the Tribune-Herald . "While I might not necessarily agree with his position, I certainly respect his decision." The ordinance the peace activists violated required 15 days' notice and $25 before the town's police chief could issue a permit to demonstrate within city limits. Since the protesters' arrests, Crawford officials have changed the ordinance to allow for a seven-day notice. The new ordinance, passed by the Crawford City Council a few days before the defendants' formal arraignment in October 2003, provides other striking differences. The old ordinance could be applied to one person if that person was demonstrating, Crawford City Attorney Brad Newsom said during Thursday's testimony. The new ordinance applies only to 20 people or more. The old ordinance also provided no means for appeal, meaning Crawford Police Chief Donnie Tidmore was left with sole legal discretion on who could be denied a permit. That left anyone denied a permit with but one recourse — going to court. Under the new ordinance, a person denied a permit can appeal to the Crawford City Council. "It's significantly better than where we were," said Harrington, who also directs the Texas Civil Rights Project. "I think a lot of it will depend on how they go about enforcing it. I think we'll just have to wait and see on that." Protesters will likely get the chance, too. Bush's visits to his ranch — including those in which he hosts foreign allies — have occasionally drawn peaceful protesters to Crawford from Austin, Dallas and elsewhere. In court this week, Harrington argued that the town's old ordinance gave far-reaching authority to Tidmore. For example, Harrington said the ordinance allowed the chief great leeway in deciding what was meant by the words "impede traffic." "As it was brought out in the hearing, there were many places in the Crawford ordinance that were open to vast interpretation," said Patricia Major, 44, of Dallas one of the quintet of protesters. "And I'm glad to see that that won't stand in court." During Thursday's hearing, Deaconson argued the ordinance was merely intended to maintain the safety of Crawford residents during protests and keep traffic from being impeded for more than two hours. Deaconson also stressed Chief Tidmore had never denied a permit, and that the protesters could have kept moving when asked to leave but chose to protest at a police blockade. But that argument didn't hold beyond Crawford's municipal court. Major said she hopes the court's decision sends a clear message to elected officials. "No matter who's president," she said, "I hope that it will mean that a president, or any official, will have to hear the voice of the people." Miguel Liscano can be reached at mliscano@wacotrib.com or 757-5735.
Charges against Crawford protesters dismissed Saturday, July 10, 2004 A McLennan County judge on Friday dismissed all charges against five anti-war demonstrators who were arrested last year, then fined in February, for violating a Crawford ordinance restricting protests near President Bush's ranch. The charges were dismissed because the town ordinance was "overly broad on its face and . . . the manner in which it was implemented and enforced . . . contravenes the First Amendment to the Constitution," concluded Court-at-Law Judge Tom Ragland. Crawford, a 106-year-old farming community west of Waco, became a magnet for protests after the president and his family settled near the town, which has about 700 people and a four-person police force. Town officials passed the parades and processions ordinance in 2001 to require protesters to obtain a permit and confine their demonstrations to a parking lot between the community center and the high school football field. The five protesters -- three from Austin and the other two from Dallas and Crawford -- were arrested in May 2003 and spent a night in jail in Waco after they were stopped by a police blockade on the road to the president's ranch. At the time, the ordinance required 15 days' notice and a $25 fee before the police chief could issue a protest permit. The ordinance later was amended to require only seven days' notice. The protesters, who dubbed themselves the Crawford Five, are believed to have been the first to be arrested for failing to get a permit. They were found guilty in February by a Crawford Municipal Court jury that sentenced them to pay a total of $2,000 in fines. The Texas Civil Rights Project of Austin, which represented the protesters, applauded Ragland's dismissal of the charges against the five: Tricia Major of Dallas, Amara Malizewski of Austin, Ken Zarifis of Austin, Amanda Jack of Austin and Michael Mashicek of Crawford. "This guarantees that the free speech rights of other protesters will not be silenced," said project director and Democratic activist Jim Harrington. The Crawford Five contended they were unfairly arrested when they were stopped by a police roadblock and some of them had gotten out of their cars to try to negotiate with the officers. Some local residents recalled it differently, saying the officers gave the group three orders to get back in their cars and leave but that they refused. Jack said after their arrests that they had spent the day, a Saturday, demonstrating in Austin against the president, the war in Iraq and a variety of government policies. They went to Crawford that evening to demonstrate in front of news cameras that were there for the president's hosting of the Australian prime minister. "We were aware that a permit was required within the city limits, but we weren't planning to be within the city limits," she said last year. "But the officers wouldn't let us go out of town" on the road leading to the ranch. After Ragland's order on Friday, Jack said the protesters "feel vindicated by this decision and are glad the court agrees with us that the City of Crawford violated our First Amendment rights." Crawford City Attorney Brad Newsom testified before Ragland on Thursday that the ordinance contained an informal clause requiring the police chief to talk to the city attorney before denying a permit. The court was told that the chief had approved all of the 59 protest applications submitted since the law was enacted in 2001.
wacotrib.com, a product of Waco Tribune-Herald Defendants' attorney argues Crawford ordinance gave police chief too much authority After the daylong pretrial hearing ended on Thursday at the McLennan County Courthouse, County Court-at-Law Judge Tom Ragland said he would make a decision "as quickly as I can." The hearing focused on a motion by the five activists to overturn the convictions on grounds that the ordinance, which has been watered down since their arrest, was unconstitutional in that it illegally limited the activists' right to protest. If Ragland decides to go ahead with the appeals trial, it will begin on Sept. 20. But at least one defendant said she's cautiously optimistic Ragland will throw out the cases. "I guess I'm optimistic, maybe flawed in being so, but optimistic," said Amanda Jack, 23, of Austin. "The initial trial, I felt the same way, I felt the evidence presented was clearly supporting the fact that our arrest was flawed and shouldn't have taken place and the ordinance itself was unconstitutional, but still we were found guilty." The five activists were among about 100 demonstrators on their way from Austin to Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in May 2003 to protest the war in Iraq when they were stopped by law enforcement in Crawford, arrested and put in jail for the night. Convicted in February by a Crawford jury of violating the city parade and procession ordinance, the activists were fined from $200 to $500 for the class C misdemeanor. For them, the verdict also sent a chilling message to future protesters in President Bush's adopted home, they said. The Crawford ordinance the peace activists violated required 15 days' notice and $25 before the town's police chief could issue a permit to demonstrate within city limits. Since the protesters' arrests, Crawford officials have changed the ordinance to allow for a seven-day notice. On Thursday, Jim Harrington, an attorney representing the defendants, argued that the ordinance gave too much authority to the Crawford police chief and was too far-reaching. He also said the ordinance was used illegally because the protesters were merely on their way to demonstrate at Bush's ranch, which is outside Crawford's city limits. "In this case, it is very clear that this statute is not narrowly drawn and it doesn't have reasonable or definite standards," said Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. "This law makes it illegal to drive through Crawford with signs on your car, makes it illegal to walk down the street with campaign buttons. It creates, in essence, a deconstitutionalized zone in Crawford." On the stand Thursday, Crawford City Attorney Brad Newsom, who wrote the ordinance, said the former ordinance had an unwritten check on authority. Newsom said Crawford police Chief Donnie Tidmore would have to talk with him first if the chief decided denying a permit was necessary. That never happened, Newsom said, because Tidmore approved all of the 59 protest applications, some from anti-Bush groups, that he has received since the ordinance was enacted in 2001. David Deaconson, an attorney representing Crawford, contended the ordinance was intended to protect Crawford residents from protests using hazardous materials, such as fire; allow for orderly competing protests; and keep traffic from being impeded for more than two hours. He also said the situation would have been avoided if someone had asked for a permit on the day the arrests occurred, which did not happen, or if the protesters had just moved on after they encountered the barricade. "Instead of moving on and doing something else, they decided to conduct an impromptu protest," Deaconson said. "They were instructed and given more than 5 minutes before anything started happening. They chose not to comply and they chose to go ahead, knowing they were supposed to have a permit, and continue with their protest there —that's why they were arrested." During his testimony, Newsom also said the original ordinance was an attempt to ready the town of 705 struggling with the instant fame brought by their world-famous neighbor for an onslaught of visitors. After the presidential election in 2000, Newsom said the city anticipated protests of up to about 5,000 people and had to find a way to make sure they didn't restrict the town's two major thoroughfares and didn't harm the town's residents. At one point Malcolm Greenstein, an attorney representing defendant Patricia Major, 44, of Dallas, asked why the rule requiring the chief to consult with Newsom if a permit might be rejected was not written down in the original ordinance. Newsom said: "There wasn't a need to; we're a small town." Reporter escorted from federal court while supermarket manager faced unknown charges By DAVID ROBLEDO June 29, 2004 — A reporter was escorted by a bailiff from U.S. District Court Monday morning while a manager for a local supermarket chain faced re-arraignment on charges that a U.S. District Clerk would not immediately reveal. Court records were released later that day, after The Brownsville Herald requested immediate access to those documents under the Federal Freedom of Information Act. Jaime Miguel Lopez, manager for M.A. Lopez Supermarkets, was slated for re-arraignment on unknown charges Monday morning. A Herald reporter was waiting in court for the proceedings to begin when a defense attorney asked U.S. Judge Andrew Hanen to bar the reporter from the proceedings. Hanen offered no justification for asking the reporter to leave, and a bailiff promptly directed the reporter to leave the courtroom. Brownsville attorney Sheldon Weisfeld was representing Lopez, court documents reflect. “I was singled out. I was the only one in the courtroom, who had to leave,” said Herald reporter Pate McMichael about Hanen’s order for parties not involved in the case to exit. But an open courtroom is open to all parties, explained director of the Texas Civil Rights project Jim Harrington. The first amendment guarantees the press the same access to courtrooms as the public, he said. “The press is a stand-in for the public. If anyone else is allowed access to a court, then the press should too,” Harrington said in a phone interview from Austin. Harrington said that transparency is necessary in government, so that the public can see how its leaders govern. When the public has no access to court documents and proceedings, the public has no way of knowing if judicial or prosecutorial abuse is going on, he said. After The Herald reporter was escorted from the courtroom, the U.S. District Clerk’s office and the U.S. Attorney’s office refused to comment on why the case was not open to the public and why case files were not open for inspection. After The Herald filed a request for a copy of the case file and a copy of the court transcript, the District Clerk’s office soon provided those documents. There are some situations in which there is justification for closing some parts of a hearing, Harrington said. If the press reports on contentious pre-trial testimony, that information can destroy a jury pool and force the trial to be moved to another court. In the case of 23-year-old John Allen Rubio’s decapitation of three children last year, 138th State District Judge Robert Garza barred the press from his state court as a confession Rubio offered to police just after the slayings was considered for admission. The graphic nature of Rubio’s confession threatened the objectivity of a potential jury, Garza said. Rubio was convicted of the crime late last year and sentenced to death. His common law wife Angela Camacho, 23 year-old mother to the children, stands accused of the same crime and awaits trial. Garza provided a transcript of Rubio’s confession after a jury was selected. But in an arraignment proceeding, there would be little reason for barring the media, Harrington said, because there would be no testimony being admitted and no information being exposed that could contaminate a jury pool. Other reasons exist for barring the media from pre-trial proceedings, explained attorney Brian Janis, such when testimony could reveal information important to national security or information that would identify minors who are victims of sexual assault or family violence. Lopez signed a waiver of indictment Monday in U.S. District Court and plead guilty to more than $500,000 in bank fraud. At the re-arraignment hearing, Lopez entered a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s office to fully cooperate with authorities by providing all information relating to any criminal activity known to him. Theaters' seating takes a hit from the Supreme Court San Antonio filmmaker Justin Bingham likes stadium-style seating in movie theaters. "It's great," he said. "You don't have to worry about people's heads obstructing your view." But when Bingham's sister was in a wheelchair with a broken foot, he and three friends had to carry her up to the seats. Bingham and one friend supported her shoulders while two other friends each held onto a leg. "They have this section you can sit in with wheelchairs, but no one wanted to sit down there," he said. Their quest to find good handicapped-accessible movie seats is something other Americans also have faced. Some have responded with lawsuits. On Monday, disabled moviegoers in Oregon held on to a legal victory over Regal Entertainment Group when the Supreme Court denied Regal's request for an appeal of a lower court ruling that stadium-style seating is in violation of disability rights laws. Stadium-style theaters — the first of which was built in 1995, according to Regal's attorneys — have rows of steeply tiered seating to allow a clear view of the screen. But because the seating configuration doesn't include ramps for handicapped access, customers in wheelchairs often must sit in several rows of non-tiered seating in front, sometimes just a few yards away from the screen. Most theaters over the past decade have been built in the stadium style. "I can't see anyone building anything different," said Rein Rabakukk, executive director of the National Association of Theatre Owners' Texas chapter. Regal Cinemas, part of the world's largest movie theater company, said the lower court ruling will impose "devastating" costs on companies that have built thousands of theaters with seats that must be reached by climbing stairs. AMC Entertainment Inc. and Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corp., the second- and third-largest chains, supported Regal's appeal. Court papers filed by Regal's attorneys say the ruling means theaters "must now be destroyed or expensively retrofitted." It has not been decided what Regal must do to bring its theaters into compliance with handicap access regulations. Steven Fellman, attorney for the National Association of Theatre Owners, says the situation involving movie theaters and stadium-style seating is now in chaos because of conflicting rulings from different courts. "It is unsettling that the government has not talked with the industry to set standards for this," he said. All of Regal's 82 San Antonio movie screens are equipped with stadium-style seating. Area theater managers say they've heard no complaints from patrons in wheelchairs. A Santikos spokeswoman says that company hasn't heard any complaints about its 71 movie screens with stadium-style seating. But litigation is pending against a Cinemark theater in the Rio Grande Valley, according to Jim Harrington, director of the Austin-based Texas Civil Rights Project. He says his office has been involved in more than a dozen similar cases since 1997. Ron Cranston, an Austin resident who has been in a wheelchair for 29 years, has sued movie theaters over stadium-style seating twice. The latest case resulted from a short visit to see a subtitled Keanu Reeves film. Cranston left after just 20 minutes because of discomfort caused by sitting too close to the screen. "We were 15 feet away from the screen," he said. "It just wasn't enjoyable." The Americans With Disabilities Act requires wheelchair areas of movie theaters to provide "lines of sight" similar to those for other patrons. Bob Kafka of ADAPT, a disability advocacy organization, says wheelchair accessible seating in stadium-style theaters doesn't provide similar viewing opportunities as seats for other patrons. "You're so close you can't enjoy the movie," he said. "You don't have a choice of where to sit. It really is discrimination against people in wheelchairs." Theater owners argue that customers in wheelchairs do have a clear line of sight similar to that of other movie patrons. And Fellman, the National Association of Theatre Owners attorney, says the "line of sight" required by federal law refers to moviegoers' ability to see over the heads of other patrons. Although not disabled, longtime San Antonio resident Lara Turner says seats in the wheelchair-accessible area of a Regal theater on Loop 1604 provide just as good a view of the movie screen as do other seats of the theater. Because the area was unoccupied during an recent showing of "Shrek 2," she was able to park her son's stroller there and sit next to him while watching the show. "It was a really nice view," she said. But Turner acknowledges that not all San Antonio theaters provide that same luxury. Although Kafka, who has been in a wheelchair since breaking his neck in a car accident 31 years ago, doesn't expect to have all the same seating choices as other moviegoers, he would like at least one good seating option at movie theaters. "No one is looking for a flat earth society," he said. "What we're looking for is equal opportunity."
The Austin Chronicle Naked City The federal civil rights lawsuit based on a complaint of excessive force brought by Jeffrey Thornton against APD Officer Michael Olsen settled for $31,000 on June 14. According to Thornton, he was near the corner of Sixth and Red River around 2:15am on June 20, 2002, when he saw Olsen responding to an altercation on the street. Thornton saw Olsen interacting with the crowd and made a comment to a friend that he didn't think Olsen's actions were appropriate. Olsen apparently heard the comments and responded by grabbing Thornton's arm and hauling him over to a squad car, where he was going to write him a ticket for being a "pedestrian in a roadway." Once at the car, though, Olsen struck Thornton's head against the car, causing him to fall and hit his head on the ground, the 23-year-old says. In a police report – and later, during an interview with APD's Internal Affairs – Olsen told a different story, claiming that Thornton approached him and made hostile and derogatory comments about police. But IA investigators challenged that account with videotape of the incident caught by surveillance cameras outside the Texas Lottery Commission. Olsen was suspended for 60 days, and in August, a Travis Co. grand jury indicted him for falsifying his police report. That indictment was later dropped after District Attorney Ronnie Earle's office concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute – the DA's office would be hard pressed to prove that Olsen's misstatements were actually intentional, First Assistant District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg opined in a January e-mail to Thornton's attorney Jim Harrington, executive director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, who filed a civil case in federal court last year. Olsen's attorney, state Rep. Terry Keel (R-Austin) argued that Thornton was actually part of the aggressive crowd that Olsen was controlling when Thornton was arrested, and that Olsen's reaction was routine and appropriate. NAACP Targets APD Funds The Austin chapter of the NAACP is asking the U.S. Department of Justice to withhold federal funding from the city of Austin and the Austin Police Department until city officials agree to implement a series of "remedial measures" that address APD's "systematic practice of racial discrimination and police misconduct." In the official June 19 complaint filed with the DOJ, the NAACP alleges that Austin's black and Hispanic residents are disproportionately met with excessive force at the hands of police, are routinely harassed through police abuse of so-called consent searches, and that complaints of police misconduct are often dismissed and the offending officers unpunished – allegations that the NAACP is urging the DOJ to investigate. In its 16-page filing, the NAACP alleges a pattern of abuse and discrimination, offering the officer-involved killings of Jessie Lee Owens Jr. and Sophia King, state-collected racial profiling data, and the SXSW Ozomatli incident as examples. "The police misconduct and violence suffered by the minority communities stretches back decades and has created a profound lack of trust between African Americans and Hispanics with APD," reads the complaint. "A police force that has lost its credibility within its community has failed, and a police force that operates outside the bounds of the law and the Federal Constitution must be restrained." The city's failure to remedy the situation is a federal problem, in part because APD receives federal criminal-justice grant funding, said Jim Harrington, who, as director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, filed the complaint on behalf of the NAACP. Federal funds – nearly $3.2 million last year – flow into the police budget but must be spent in compliance with various federal statutes, including Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination "under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" – the law under which the NAACP and TCRP are requesting an investigation. "It is clear that no matter how many federal lawsuits we file, we do not see any systemic change," Harrington said at a Juneteenth press conference outside NAACP offices on East 12th Street. If the charges are substantiated, the NAACP is asking that the city be allowed to keep federal funding only if Austin enters into a written agreement with the Feds and demonstrates compliance with a list of specific guidelines – including new training requirements, a new policy on deadly force that would require police to "shoot to disable," the abolition of consent searches, and new requirements on data collection and public dissemination. "Maybe now, once and for all [there will be] proper reform and proper redress," said Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder. "We talk about justice and equality, but we really don't have it. Look at the police brutality, look at the economics: It's a grand illusion." If instituted, the proposed agreement would function similarly to a federal consent decree – a binding, federal-court-ordered oversight agreement. Texas has experienced the claw of federal oversight before – notably, during the 20 years of federal oversight of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, under the terms of the Ruiz case, which addressed a host of civil rights concerns and finally came to an end in 2002. Police departments in a number of U.S. cities are currently operating under consent decree or DOJ monitoring agreements – including Los Angeles (since 2000), Cincinnati (since 2002), Pittsburgh (since 1997), and Detroit (since 2003). These arrangements can be expensive, officials at times gingerly complain. In Los Angeles the decree, tentatively slated for dissolution in 2005, reportedly costs the city $50 million per year. Whatever the cost, the arrangement demands change – which is what the NAACP and TCRP hope to win with their complaint. "Don't think for a minute that we're asking that [the government] not fund [Austin] police," Harrington said. Rather, he said, the goal is to ensure that the money goes toward "just and equitable" policing. Responding to the complaint, Assistant Chief Rick Coy said, "We're surprised that this would be filed. We thought we were making a lot of progress." Coy says that several of the NAACP's proposed changes are things the department has already done or is actively doing – including training and equipping officers with Tasers, equipping more officers with less-than-lethal shotguns, and putting video cameras in every car. Additionally, the department and police union have teamed with community members for additional training and sent a delegation to take the Tools for Tolerance training. "We're always looking for better training," Coy said. Coy added that the department has eliminated "random searches" – for which an officer doesn't have "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has occurred – and is in the process of reducing so-called consent searches – conducted on the reasonable suspicion standard. It is ultimately up to the federal government to decide whether the NAACP will win the chance to negotiate with the city over their proposed changes, since it is the DOJ investigators that ultimately will determine where and how far the investigation will go.
Man mistreated by officer settles suit AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Tuesday, June 22, 2004 A 23-year-old man, whose treatment by Austin police two years ago resulted in the suspension of an officer, has settled a federal lawsuit with the city for $31,000. Lawyers with the Texas Civil Rights Project, who represent Jeffrey Thornton, filed documents in U.S. District Court in Austin last week to seal the deal and end their lawsuit against officer Michael Olsen. The suit, filed last year, alleged that in the early morning of June 20, 2002, near Sixth Street downtown, Olsen grabbed Thornton, slammed him on the hood of a police car and then slammed him on the ground so hard that Thornton temporarily lost consciousness . The confrontation started after Thornton came out of a club and made a comment that Olsen was using "unnecessary force" on someone in the street, the lawsuit said. "I am happy with the whole situation, but when it comes to (Olsen) still working on the force and all, I am still very upset about that," Thornton said Monday. Olsen's lawyer, state Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin, could not be reached for comment. Olsen is working as a detective downtown. In a court motion, Keel argued that Thornton was part of an unruly crowd that had gathered at the corner of Red River and Sixth streets after the clubs closed. When ordered to leave the street, Keel wrote, Thornton refused and began "making negative comments about law enforcement" and was removed forcefully. Later, Thornton was taken to the ground only after he refused to be frisked, Keel wrote. Thornton had demanded $100,000 in his original lawsuit. He is a city sanitation worker and is attending Austin Community College. Thornton said he would use the settlement money to pay for the rest of his college education. After the confrontation with Olsen, Thornton was charged with resisting arrest and interfering with police duties, but those charges were quickly dropped. In December 2002, Olsen was suspended without pay for 60 days for his actions that night, including using profanity, using excessive force and making false statements on his police report. Police Chief Stan Knee has said that the suspension was based on an internal investigation, including review of a Texas Lottery Commission surveil- lance video that was running that night. Olsen was suspended without pay again after he was indicted in August by a Travis County grand jury on three charges of tampering with a government record, all stemming from the incident with Thornton. Those charges were dropped several months later by prosecutors who said they lacked evidence. Thornton said he thinks he was treated harshly because he is black and Olsen is white. He expressed hope that a recent federal complaint filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People against the Austin Police Department and the City of Austin would prevent such incidents from happening in the future. The complaint seeks to block about $3.2 million that the department receives from the federal government until it changes the way it uses force against suspects and trains officers to work with minorities. An American-Statesman analysis found that from 1998 through 2003, Austin police were twice as likely to use force against African Americans than whites. For Hispanics, the likelihood was 25 percent greater. The analysis also showed that during that time, Olsen worked primarily at night downtown, where most use of force incidents occurred. He used force 80 times during those five years, more than any other officer.
The Austin Chronicle Austin Stories
KGBT4.com, EDINBURG Holy Spirit Church Workers Back in Court Reported by Ray Pedraza Even though all are back on the job, the conflict is far from over. Thursday morning, attorneys for the employees and the Brownsville Diocese were back in court. The workers, or plaintiffs, want $25,000 in attorneys fees, but a lawyer representing the diocese, David Garza, says they're not entitled to it. Months of legal wrangling in court contested the validity of a union contract signed with the United Farm Workers of America. A court order eventually secured their positions as both parties iron out differences in mediation. "The law's clear," said Garza. "If you don't receive any money, you are not entitled to attorney's fees under breach of contract. The whole validity of the union contract is pending. So our response is very detailed, it's very clear. At least, it's our position that they're not entitled to attorney's fees at all." Attorneys for the plaintiffs also want to hold Bishop Reymundo Pena and the Brownsville Diocese in contempt of court for not establishing a Diocese wide grievance policy within six months, as agreed to in a signed settlement. "Come hell or high water there's gonna be a personnel policy," said Jim Harrington, the Director of Texas Civil Rights Project, who has represented the plaintiffs. "We basically gave notice today that we will have the Bishop here in court late August or early September explaining why he has not abided by the settlement agreement that he signed." Bishop Pena was not present at Thursday's hearing, but Garza offered an explanation about why a grievance policy is not currently in place. "It certainly was not an attempt not to do it within the six months, it's just the process has taken longer," says Garza. "And I think our response is going to be that because of things that have come up, we need additional time to complete that part of the process. We're trying to gather information from different places to put something together that will work for everybody." He says he expects to have something ready for the court by August or September. Meanwhile, those most affected by it remain optimistic. Ann Cass, one of the four women originally fired, reflected on the year of turmoil and triumph. "One year later, wow," exclaims Cass. "It was just good to hear all the positive things (in court) that we were able to get through mediation, now we want them to happen. We want the Bishop to start calling the pastors to accountability as administrators. We want the deans to do that... we want the priests to call each other to accountability, because if they don't we are not going to stop in the pursuit of justice for employees of the church." 332nd District Court Judge Mario Ramirez, who presided over Thursday's hearing, is expected to rule on the motion for attorney's fees by early next week.
Just Say No to Cornyn’s Efforts to Amend the Constitution Texas Senator John Cornyn’s recent op-ed piece, advocating attaching various amendments to the U.S. Constitution (“Amending the Constitution: a process that lets the people speak,” 6/12/04) is an exercise in disingenuous polemics, with a faulty portrayal of American constitutional history. If Cornyn had his way, he would amend the constitution to ban flag burning, prohibit the States from allowing gay marriage, protect victims’ rights, remove the requirement that Presidents be born in the United States, and establish special procedures to replace Senators and Members of Congress, if more than one-forth of them dies or become incapacitated. A victims’ rights amendment is totally unnecessary. Congress already has the power to protect victims’ rights, and has done so a number of times. Victims’ rights amendments have been added to state constitutions over the years, including Texas’, and have not done a thing to improve victims’ rights because there is never an enforcement mechanism. They are a disgraceful joke played on victims. If these amendments gave victims the right to sue to enforce their rights that would be one thing, but they never do; they are just lofty sounding political moves to capture votes. Besides, if Cornyn is so worried about victims’ rights, why not pass a constitutional amendment that overturns the Supreme Court decisions that deny monetary compensation to state employees who are victims of discrimination because of their disabilities or age ... or reverse the Supreme Court decision that held victimized women could not collect damages under the Violence Against Women Act. These laws would do far more to protect victims than what Cornyn is advocating. He takes the safe route of loudly proclaiming support for victims; but, when real courage is needed to stand up for meaningful remedies for victims, he’s nowhere to be found. Nor is there any need to tell the States how to replace Senators and Congress members who die. The States have figured that long before Cornyn came on the scene. This is just some cheap political parading under the “war on terrorism” banner. And, as to gay marriage, the amendment on prohibition (and its repeal) should speak to us about the lack of wisdom in constitutionalizing social policy, especially when driven by religious interests. The issue of gay marriage should be left up to the States since that is the traditional venue for this matter. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has said repeatedly in recent years, the role of the federal government is very limited when it comes to telling the States what they can and cannot do. This brand of federalism is an important arrow in Cornyn’s political quiver, but he is quick to abandon it when he can play off general disapproval of gay marriage. The last time Americans amended the Constitution was to limit the salaries of Congress. Cornyn’s misuse of his time as chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights reflects the wisdom of this amendment. The Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit foundation, promotes civil rights and economic and racial justice throughout Texas.
Trial begins for 5 accused of violating Crawford's parade ordinance The activists are charged with violating the city's parade and procession ordinance — a class C misdemeanor that carries up to a $500 fine. The five and about a hundred others were on their way to President Bush's ranch near Crawford to protest the war in Iraq and various Bush administration policies when they ran into a police blockade. They were arrested after Crawford Police Chief Donnie Tidmore warned everyone to leave. The trial, held at the Crawford Community Center, is set to continue at 9 a.m. Feb. 16 because lawyers only had time to bring three out of about 11 witnesses to the stand on Saturday. One of those witnesses, Tidmore, said during cross-examination that a person wearing political buttons without a permit could violate a city ordinance that requires prior notice before a protest or parade. The chief was asked whether one of the defendants would have violated the ordinance by sporting political buttons, such as those that read "No Nukes" and "Peace," without the permit. "It could be a sign of demonstration," Tidmore said. The demonstrators, who attended a protest in Austin earlier that day, intended to take advantage of increased media coverage resulting from Australian Prime Minister John Howard's visit to the Bush ranch. They were stopped, however by a police barricade at Fourth Street and Prairie Chapel Road. The ordinance required 15-days' notice and $25 before the chief could issue a permit. The rule has since changed to allow for a seven-day notice. Tidmore said he has never turned down a request. The police chief said Saturday that he learned of the protest from a report in the Waco Tribune-Herald and other sources, such as the U.S. Secret Service. He told the jury that he had spoken with trip organizer Lisa Fithian and informed her that the demonstrators did not have a permit to protest within the city of Crawford. When the demonstrators hit the barricade, Tidmore said he waited for them to get out of their cars and move toward him before he issued a warning about the ordinance violation. And, he said, he repeated the warning several times over the next few minutes. He said he told the crowd members that they had three minutes to leave or they would be in violation of the ordinance, but gave them about seven minutes to depart in order to be "as fair as possible." Many of them left, he said. The handful who stayed were arrested for refusing to disburse and spent the night at the McLennan County Jail. Tidmore, who had no discretion over the time they spent in county jail, said he could have given them a citation, but believed arresting them was the only way to stop a demonstration that was causing a danger because of the traffic. "I didn't think they would have dispersed if I'd given them a traffic ticket," Tidmore said. Jim Harrington, the defendants' attorney, said the protesters had no intention of demonstrating within Crawford's city limits, but were only driving past to get to the ranch, located about five miles outside the city. And, Harrington said, the five defendants were not demonstrating at the time of their arrest. One was attempting to gather information about the first person taken into custody, Patricia Major, who works at a Methodist church in Dallas, Harrington said. At the time of her arrest, Major was holding a sign and talking to a television station's reporter after the crowd had been ordered to leave. Harrington pointed out that the other four defendants were not holding signs or chanting at the time of their arrest. Two of them, he said, stumbled upon the scene after walking from the Crawford Peace House, a residence owned by members of a Dallas peace activist group. Tidmore said the five were arrested because they did not disperse. Harrington then asked why the chief did not charge them with not obeying a command or failure to disperse. The chief repeated that the protesters were arrested because they violated the ordinance. Fithian, who testified on Saturday, said the group was en route to a protest near the Bush ranch and never intended to get arrested. She said the people who got out of their cars were attempting to "negotiate" with the officers, who would not let them pass. Fithian said the demonstrators took out their signs merely to show them to the officers. "It was simply for the purpose of negotiation," she said. Before the trial began, about 60 protesters congregated at the Crawford Peace House and marched the about a quarter of a mile to the Crawford Community Center, where the trial was being held. The protesters, who got a permit for the march, chanted "Ain't no power like the power of the people." At least one held a sign that read "Your first amendment rights on trial today in Crawford." To the five defendants and their followers, that seems to be what is at stake in the case the charges them with a crime that has the same severity as a traffic ticket. "I expected this kind of crackdown on dissent," said Richard Stevens, a Dallas resident down to support friends on trial. "And it's not so much that I'm angry, it's just that I'm sad my expectations were realized." wacotrib.com, a product of Waco Tribune-Herald We the people must stop Patriot Act in its tracks The antiterrorism law was passed a few weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. Two of its more controversial provisions, which are to "sunset" at the end of 2005, would allow the government to seize library patrons’ records without giving notice and to conduct Internet surveillance without a warrant. Because the act gave government so much increased surveillance capability, a sunset proviso was put in place over some of its most controversial parts. The sunset provision, however, does not apply to the expansion of pen register (trap and trace) authority to the Internet, authority to share grand jury information, expanded authority over cable providers, extended scope of subpoenas for electronic evidence, authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant and increased jurisdictional authority over search warrants for terrorism investigations. Bush made his first demand to renew the sunsetting parts of the Patriot Act in his January State of the Union address. Why he is moving so hard on this issue so far ahead of time is somewhat mysterious — unless, of course, it’s to deflect attention from the constant barrage of press reports that pre-Sept. 11 intelligence warnings were more alarming, specific and persistent than either he or his administration will admit. Bush obviously does not subscribe to Harry Truman’s motto, "the buck stops here." Moreover, if the intelligence gathered before Sept. 11 was concrete but poorly shared with relevant agencies and mismanaged by the administration, then there is no reason to extend any provisions of the Patriot Act. The tools in place before Sept. 11 were good enough, but still respected civil liberty. Why then use executive shortcomings as a pretext for abridging constitutional rights? Better to devote time and energy for sharpening the tools at hand and coordinating their use than to strip away citizens’ rights in the name of terrorism. Though Congress passed the Patriot Act overwhelmingly right after the attacks, it has since become very hotly debated. Civil liberty proponents are fighting hard to repeal or scale it back, asserting it went too far in sacrificing individual rights in a rush to give law enforcement broad powers to pursue potential terrorists. Even some Republicans, who support expanded legal power against terrorism, have grave reservations about the law’s sweeping scope. Considerable grassroots opposition also has developed. According the national Bill of Rights Defense Committee, four states and 288 cities and counties have passed resolutions to protect civil liberties, some of which specifically criticize, or express reservations about, the Patriot Act. Bush suggested Saturday in his radio address that opponents of the Patriot Act were deluding themselves about the degree of the terrorist threat and risked handcuffing the capability of law enforcement and intelligence officials to foil terrorists. To the contrary, much of the current evidence shows that it was administration officials who deluded themselves about the power of the evidence they had in hand. Rather than face the music, the president instead has turned to attack our Bill of Rights and those who support it. We Americans should not let him get away with this. Jim Harrington is director of the Texas Civil Rights Project.
City releases independent reports on police incidents By Tony Plohetski AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Saturday, April 17, 2004 An independent investigator reviewing the fatal Austin police shooting of a mentally ill woman has concluded that the use of deadly force was unavoidable, while a second outside inquiry concerning actions of a former assistant chief was inconclusive. Made public Friday, an undated investigative summary by Dallas lawyer Steve DeWolf, who was hired to review the June 2002 shooting of 23-year-old Sophia King, recommended that the Austin Police Department put more emphasis on using nonlethal weapons. "The officers I interviewed knew little about Taser guns or beanbag shotguns," he wrote, although he said it was unlikely that officer John Coffey would have used either during his fatal encounter with King because of the circumstances. In the second inquiry, James McLaughlin, executive director of the Texas Police Chiefs Association, investigated accusations that former Assistant Chief Jimmy Chapman asked that documents be removed from an internal affairs file. McLaughlin said in his report, dated Dec. 17, that he could not determine whether Chapman broke department policy. The City of Austin made the results of both investigations public through provisions in an employment contract signed last month with the Austin Police Association. City officials have shielded the findings for months, citing civil service laws and a prior union contract. The city and police union agreed during negotiations earlier this year to release the findings of all independent investigations. "As police officers, we absolutely believe in transparency and open government," Mike Sheffield, president of the police union, said Friday. "The public has a right to know what this police department is doing." Police Chief Stan Knee said he hopes the release of the findings will continue to help put to rest rumors that have shrouded the cases, both in the department and the community. He said the department has been unable to respond to many of the rumors because of a state law that prohibits release of investigations unless officers are disciplined. "It breeds mistrust, and it's hard to rebuild that trust," Knee said. "We have a final decision, and barring discovery of additional facts, I believe most individuals will accept that finding." Jim Harrington, the director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, who is representing King's family, said DeWolf's assessments that the shooting was unavoidable and that officer training wouldn't have mattered are "nonsense." "I would reject those conclusions," he said. "Everybody says with a good deal of reason that when you handle a case like that, you don't handle it in a confrontational manner, and that's exactly how they handled it." Coffey has said that King was lunging with a knife at the manager of her apartment complex when he shot her. A grand jury reviewed the case and did not indict him, and he was cleared in an internal affairs investigation. DeWolf said in his report that he reviewed all department files, including photographs, witness statements and a re-enactment video. He also said he took sworn statements from Coffey and other officers at the scene and solicited information from the community through a toll-free number. He said in his report that nonlethal weapons weren't the best option because Coffey was dealing with a bystander in danger. There could have been "horrific consequences" had a Taser or beanbag shotgun not been effective, DeWolf said. He also wrote that officers who responded to the East Austin apartment complex had sufficient training for the situation and that "even the best negotiator in the world has to have time to develop a rapport." Five minutes passed from the time officers arrived and when Coffey fired. He also said that the officers had sufficient information about King when they responded. His recommendations also said that the department should look into a system that gives officers instant information about a particular person as well as recent calls to an address. Critics have said that the officers were not adequately trained to handle people with mental illness and that they had not been given adequate information about King's history. "Ms. King's death is a tragedy," DeWolf wrote. "In my judgment, however, Officer Coffey and the other officers acted appropriately." Knee said the department is working on getting officers more training in using Tasers and beanbag shotguns. Earlier this year, the City Council granted the department $1.3 million in emergency funding to provide two additional supervisor shifts as well as more nonlethal and updated equipment, including 156 replacement in-car cameras, 15 nonlethal shotguns and 730 Tasers. The city spent about $70,000 for the two investigations. DeWolf's law firm, which represented family members of victims in the 1999 Texas A&M bonfire collapse, was selected by the city in November 2002 after the citizens review panel for the police monitor's office called for the independent investigation. He was initially given a month to complete the investigation but was delayed by a court battle between the city and police union about how the inquiry would be conducted. McLaughlin, a former Dallas-area police chief, was handpicked by Knee for the Chapman investigation. His background as a lobbyist whose interests include law enforcement, crime and corrections had prompted questions about the credibility of his investigation. Chapman's lawyer, state Rep. Terry Keel, is a member of three legislative committees that deal with law enforcement and criminal justice. Chapman had been accused of asking an internal affairs investigator in late 1997 or early 1998 to remove phone records belonging to former FBI Agent John Maspero from an internal affairs file because Maspero was working to become sheriff in Williamson County. Chapman said under oath in July that he had not asked for the records to be removed, prompting the investigation. McLaughlin interviewed more than 20 people in his investigation, only four of whom had "actual knowledge of the alleged event," he said. Two people were given polygraph exams by a Dallas firm, he said. "After careful examination of all statements, depositions, policies, procedures, criminal statutes and related information. . . . I cannot conclude that Chief Chapman did violate any of the above (policies) nor can I conclude that Chief Chapman did not violate any of the above," McLaughlin wrote. Keel said the inconclusive finding was the best option for his client. He said the chances that McLaughlin would clear Chapman had been slim because of conflicting witness statements. "I think it exonerates Chief Chapman as a practical matter, and I'm pleased it has been released," he said. McLaughlin and DeWolf said they would not comment on the investigations unless the city gave them permission. Late Friday, city officials said they were reviewing the union contract to determine what, if anything, the investigators could say about their work.
Corpus Christi Caller-Times On March 1, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott quietly, but radically, revised the Consumer Protection Division of his office, and made it significantly less consumer-friendly. Abbott abolished the 30-year-old mediation procedure where consumers can informally resolve individual complaints against businesses. The official spin is that this will free resources for high-profile impact cases. Last year alone, 27,208 Texans invoked the mediation program. Of those, 19,910 cases were opened. During 2003, 8,434 complaints were settled for a total value of $6,834,924. The mediation program did great good for individual consumers. Not only is choking off a procedure that worked well for three decades harmful, but it is counterproductive in terms of the goal of freeing up resources for high profile impact cases. Who will bother to file complaints when Abbott's office cannot be expected to follow through and attempt restitution? Indeed, the consumer-driven informal resolution mechanism had been invaluable in the past for identifying widespread consumer fraud. This leads to another issue. Who will determine a "high profile impact case," since it will not be consumer-driven? Abbott's office, of course. That raises potential abuses. Prosecutions can become more politically determined, and priorities will not reflect those who are the poorest and have greater number of problems. Rather than used car shark practices, will we see press releases about Abbott litigating issues of lakeside condos or defective sailboats? Action really hurts the poor Poor people are the ones Abbott is hurting here. A bad car is more devastating to a farm worker's making a living than a grower's SUV. For most low- and average-income folks, their only hope for relief from illegal business activities was through the attorney general. One of Abbott's alternatives to his former mediation program is for consumers to use Better Business Bureaus. BBBs are not set up to process consumer complaints, let alone enforce consumer laws. Indeed, they are often an arm of local Chambers of Commerce. Most towns are trying to attract and keep businesses, not point out their sins. The BBB option is especially unlikely in smaller communities where most business owners enjoy each other's camaraderie at the local coffee shop. That's assuming there is even a BBB in the community. Most towns do not have them. Another suggestion by Abbott is for consumers to rely on Alternative Dispute Resolution centers. That again assumes there is one in the community; there aren't many in Texas. This idea rests on the astounding assumption that a business, accused of perfidy, will voluntary submit to ADR. And ADR centers charge for their services, another burden for consumers. One might wonder why, if BBBs and ADR were viable alternatives, the consumer protection division even needed to come into existence in the first place. Nor is legal aid an alternative for poor people. Current programs are under-funded, overworked, and cannot take on a load of consumer cases. One should not underestimate the power of the attorney general's office in resolving consumer complaints. The power of a letter from the attorney general carries more weight than an ADR invitation or a BBB inquiry. The attorney general took over handling child support because deadbeats ignored orders of the social service agencies. Once the attorney general started collecting child support, payments jumped dramatically. Such is the power of the attorney general's office. Abbott's abolition of the consumer mediation program victimizes the victims of illegal business practices. Jim Harrington is the director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, with headquarters in Austin. He can be reached by e-mail at jch@mail. utexas.edu.
Presence of Army agents stirs furor The agents left without the roster, and the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command says it is investigating the incident. "We're aware of allegations that have been made. We're reviewing the situation," said Deborah Parker, chief of public affairs for the Virginia-based command. Parker confirmed that the two agents, one of whom left his business card with several students, work for Army intelligence. Jessica Biddle, a third-year law student from Houston, was questioned by Special Agent Jason Treesh in the office of the Texas Journal of Women and the Law, where she is co-editor. The journal had donated money for the conference and reserved a courtroom at the law school for the Feb. 4 event. "I thought it was outrageous. He was intimidating and was using the element of surprise to try to get information out of us, which was wholly inappropriate," Biddle said. "The conference was an academic conference, totally benign and not focused on foreign policy." Biddle said she told Treesh that she knew of no roster for the event, which was free and open to the public, and asked why he wanted the list of attendees. She said he told her there had been "some kind of problem" and asked her to give his phone number to Sahar Aziz, the law student who organized the conference. Biddle said she then took Treesh's card to the dean of student affairs. UT Law Dean Bill Powers said he's never been aware of the government investigating a law school conference or seminar in his three decades at the law school. He said he's concerned that the government's action could have a chilling effect on such conferences. "We certainly support our students being able to fully and fairly and freely express views of social and academic and intellectual concern," Powers said. Powers said he was out of town and doesn't fully know what happened. He said the law school does not give out private information about students but that the campus is open to visitors. Aziz, an Arab-American who grew up in Dallas, said she was still on campus Monday when she began getting phone messages from friends at the law school that military intelligence officers were looking for her. "I was flustered and suffered a lot of anxiety that they would come to my house that night," said Aziz. "I kept wracking my brain, `Did anything happen at the conference?' " The next day, still "walking on eggshells," Aziz contacted local civil rights attorney Malcolm Greenstein. He made some calls and told Aziz that the Army claimed they had sent personnel to the conference whose suspicions were aroused by conversations they had with three Middle Eastern men. "It was all very vague, but I learned they didn't have a subpoena or a warrant," Aziz said. Jim Harrington, legal director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said the UT case is similar to an incident at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, where federal prosecutors issued subpoenas ordering anti-war protesters to appear before a grand jury and ordering the university to turn over information about an anti-war forum on campus last Nov. 16. After an outcry from civil liberties advocates, the subpoenas were dropped on Tuesday. "The whole idea of a university is to foster discussion and ideas. And this was such a basically bland conference about what is the role of Islam in women's lives. Then you have the military traipsing through the halls," said Harrington. Doug Laycock, a UT law professor who specializes in religious liberty issues, said the intelligence agents likely violated no constitutional standards in asking for the roster. "Investigatory techniques may be harmful for religious liberty but not be illegal," said Laycock. He said it can be difficult for the government to walk the fine line between gathering information and guarding civil liberties. "We want to catch the bad guys before anything happens, but we don't want to intimidate all sorts of legitimate activities and honest citizens or legally admitted immigrants of different religions and different ethnicities," Laycock said. Aziz said she's saddened that the incident may reinforce some people's suspicions of Muslims that arose after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. And, she said it may foster distrust among Muslims of the U.S. government. "When the intelligence community needs the trust of people, they're not going to get it because they abused that authority," said Aziz. "It's really unfortunate." January 15, 2004
TCRP DENOUNCES DISMISSAL OF INDICTMENT AGAINST POLICE OFFICER–SECOND SUCH DISMISSAL IN A MONTH The Texas Civil Rights Project is denouncing the District Attorney’s dismissal of the indictment against Officer Scott Glasgow for the shooting death last June of Jessie Lee Owens. TCRP Director Jim Harrington called the dismissal a “miscarriage of justice and shows the ongoing interference of the District Attorney’s office in prosecuting police officers who abuse the rights of Austin’s minority citizens.” “This is the second time within a month the District Attorney has unilaterally dismissed charges against an officer whom a grand jury has indicted. The first was the dismissal on December 19 of the indictment against Officer Michael Olsen, who was charged with falsifying legal documents against Jeffrey Thornton to cover up Olsen’s use of excessive force against Thornton. The District Attorney’s office had the indictment against Olsen dismissed late in the afternoon on the Friday before Christmas, without advising Thornton of its intent to do so. Harrington said that it was “incredible that the District Attorney would dismiss charges after the District Attorney’s office had presented evidence to a grand jury, comprised of twelve members of the community, and the grand jury indicted the officers: “Ronnie Earle’s office clearly sends the message to the minority communities in Austin that it is covering up for the police. Why not let the case go to trial as the District Attorney’s office would do to anyone else charged with a crime? Ronnie Earle’s office interposed itself in this process and short-circuited the criminal justice system. And, if the indictment against Glasgow was flawed, why is it that the District Attorney’s office could not properly write it up in the first place for the grand jury?”
January 15, 2004 TCRP Director Jim Harrington today joined state rep. Paul Moreno (El Paso) in condemning Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s fight against state and federal civil rights laws, especially those affecting people with disabilities, and issued these comments: “Rather than being an advocate for the civil rights of Texans, especially those with disabilities, who daily face degrading discrimination, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has chosen instead to fight them and undo years of progress in changing American society to accept and integrate the disability community. “Abbot has spent his time in office so far attacking federal disability laws in federal court; and his lawyers are also in Texas state courts, trying to dismantle state disability laws, and unfortunately with success. Abbott has already convinced the Texas Supreme Court to gut laws that once protected people with mental illness. Abbot is even fighting a lawsuit to make the State Capitol and legislative proceedings more accessible to people with disabilities. “Abbott should be honest that he is waging full battle on disability laws, even though he has used them in the past for his own benefit. Apart from the hypocrisy of this, Abbott should represent the people of Texas, and not some amorphous "state." The people are the State of Texas. Abbott’s job is not to win cases at all cost, but to do justice and protect the interests of the state, as the case law puts it. It is not in our interest to tear down laws protecting people with disabilities, and make them second-class citizens. Under Abbott’s logic, he would be out in front, trying to put Rosa Parks in jail by having federal law declared unconstitutional.”
HoustonChronicle.com Jan. 9, 2004, 9:31PM AUSTIN -- A potentially costly fight over the state's enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act turned personal Friday with both sides accusing the other of hypocrisy. Incensed civil rights advocates and disabled Texans rallied in front of the Texas Supreme Court to demand that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott enforce rather than fight against the federal law. "We're talking about some of our most vulnerable members of our communities. It is a major role of the state government to address the needs of the state's most vulnerable populations," said Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin, a prominent critic of Abbott's stance against applying the ADA for state and local governments. Abbott, a wheelchair user, is defending the state against two federal lawsuits, contending that state and local governments in Texas have "sovereign immunity" from complying with anti-discrimination clauses of the federal ADA. "There's no person who personally is more appreciative of the ADA than myself," Abbott said in a telephone interview. "I'm in a wheelchair myself, and I need to get into more government buildings than anybody as I crisscross the state." Abbott added that his personal views must not interfere with his obligations as the state's top lawyer. "What we're dealing with here is an instance in which the state is sued, and when the state gets sued, it would be an abrogation of the attorney general's responsibility not to raise all legal defenses on behalf of the state," Abbott said. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals plans to hear one of the cases, a lawsuit brought by a Texas Tech University associate dean and professor who became legally blind. She sued under the ADA after university officials refused her request for high contrast tape to be placed on stairs. A separate class-action lawsuit on behalf of 25,000 disabled Texans on waiting lists and denied access to community services is before a federal court in Austin. Civil rights advocates and other groups representing the disabled contend 4 million Texans, or one in every five, are disabled and could be affected by the outcome of the lawsuits. Abbott's argument that he's defending the state from such a large block of citizens doesn't wash with some advocates. "I just think that's nonsense. I'm sick and tired of him saying that," said Texas Civil Rights Project Director Jim Harrington. "His constitutional duty is to the people of the state of Texas. It isn't to some castle in the sky." Abbott said he finds such attacks offensive, and he charged that Naishtat is hypocritical in criticizing him in an op-ed piece carried in several large Texas newspapers. The attorney general said Rep. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, filed a bill last spring that called for the Legislature to waive the state's "sovereign immunity" when applying the Americans with Disabilities Act. If it had passed, the issue would likely fix itself, Abbott said. "He is the biggest hypocrite," Abbott added of Naishtat, noting he did not act as a co-sponsor of the bill, nor did he propose one of his own. "As that bill makes clear, it is the Legislature, not the attorney general, who has the sole authority to waive sovereign immunity." Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear a related case, Tennessee v. Lane and Jones, as early as next week. In it, two plaintiffs with paraplegia sued the state for failing to ensure that courthouses are accessible for the disabled. Tennessee, like Texas, is arguing in the case that Congress has no constitutional authority to require states to pay money damages for violations of the ADA.
The Austin American-Statesman, statesman.com LETTER TO THE EDITOR January 9, 2004 The recent article on the Travis County Sheriff's mental health deputies ("Officers help the ill find refuge," 1/1/05) does a great job focusing on how law enforcement authorities can use effective non-threatening, de-escalating techniques to handle calls regarding people going through mental health crises or episodes. The Sheriff's department has long pioneered in this approach, and provided a model for other areas of Texas and the nation. Most importantly, of course, it has meant fewer deaths and injuries for people and their families going through a mental health crisis, and actually concentrated on the situation as a need for acute care, rather than a crime in progress. Former Sheriff Margo Fraser gets credit for this, as do the deputies who dedicated their efforts and skill. Let's hope the program continues to grow under the new sheriff.
HoustonChronicle.com Jan. 8, 2004, 12:01AM End `legacy' program, A&M urged The legacy program, which gives points to applicants whose parents, siblings or grandparents went to A&M, is the deciding factor in the admission of more than 300 white freshmen annually. Only a handful of blacks and about 25 Hispanics are admitted each year because of the program. "This legacy program thing is nothing more than conservative affirmative action," said state Rep. Paul Moreno, D-El Paso. "It's admission by invitation only." Jim Harrington, a veteran civil rights lawyer who heads the Texas Civil Rights Project, said A&M needs to change its policy or "it's going to be Brown vs. the board of regents of Texas A&M," an allusion to the landmark desegregation case of the 1950s. Moreno, Harrington and Bledsoe were among a number of officials who attacked A&M's admissions policy at a news conference at the state Capitol. News conferences were also conducted on the front steps of City Hall in Houston and in San Antonio. A&M's legacy program is drawing particular fire because the university recently announced it will not consider race in admissions. The announcement followed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that universities can give minorities a boost in admissions, in effect overturning the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' Hopwood decision, which had banned racial preferences in higher education in Texas since 1996. Spurning the new opportunity, A&M President Robert Gates said attracting minorities is a top priority but stressed that "students should be admitted on merit -- and no other basis." He had no response to the criticism of the legacy program Wednesday, releasing a statement that said A&M's admissions process has been "under review and will continue to be evaluated to ensure it achieves one of the university's primary objectives -- that of having a student body that is more representative of the state of Texas." A&M's undergraduate population is 82 percent white, 9 percent Hispanic, 2 percent black and 3 percent Asian-American. Typically, anywhere from 1,650 to more than 2,000 A&M applicants a year receive legacy credit, four points on a 100-point scale that also takes into account such factors as class rank and test scores. While most applicants don't need legacy points to get in, in 2003, 312 whites were admitted because of them. In 2002, that figure was 321. The program was the difference for six blacks and 27 Hispanics in 2003, and three blacks and 25 Hispanics in 2002. State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, who has twice filed bills in the Legislature to end A&M's legacy program, said last week he plans to sponsor such legislation again, as early as spring if a special session is called. But state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, who said at the Houston news conference that he will support any such bill, added that he'd prefer A&M acquiesce on its own and change its policy, either to end legacies or consider race. He said he plans to ask Gov. Rick Perry to have his appointees on the A&M board of regents vote to make the school's admissions policy "consistent." Sens. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Gonzalo Barrientos, D-Austin, added that they plan to take a closer look before voting to confirm future gubernatorial appointees to university governing boards. Other officials at the three news conferences included U.S. Congress members Chris Bell and Sheila Jackson Lee; state representatives Mike Villarreal, Joaquin Castro, Jose Menendez, Dawnna Dukes, Jessica Farrar and Dora Olivo; and representatives from the Urban League, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. A&M's legacy program was even criticized by an official of an anti-affirmative action group that Tuesday praised A&M's decision not to consider race while announcing that a loose coalition of conservative leaders recently wrote to Perry, other elected state officials and the University of Texas System board of regents, calling on them to stop UT from reintroducing racial preferences in admissions. The official, Center for Equal Opportunity senior fellow Edward Blum, said he thinks legacy admissions are "a stupid idea." He said A&M should revisit them. The letter about UT was signed by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, California anti-affirmative action leader Ward Connerly, and eight other political or legal activists. "We are all, frankly, baffled why (UT President Larry) Faulkner would insist on treating students differently because of their skin color and their ancestors' national origin when there is demonstrably no reason to engage in such unfair and divisive activity," said the letter, sent in mid-December. Wednesday, there seemed to be no confusion among officials at the news conferences. Villarreal, D-San Antonio, noted the inconsistency of A&M passing up an opportunity to increase minority enrollment because that would "amount to special treatment of a specific set of the student population, then in the next breath continuing a program that does exactly that for a segment of the student population already disproportionately represented." "A public university can't have it both ways and maintain any semblance of fairness, consistency and equity," he said.
The New York Times Calming the Mentally Ill Published: January 1, 2004, Thursday To the Editor: The frequency with which the police respond violently to the mentally ill reflects what I consider to be the most serious and dangerous problem with law enforcement agencies across the country. The lack of treatment available to poor people with mental illness leaves no one but the police to call when a person is going through an episode. The police have to accept this fact and learn to respond differently than if they were going to a crime scene. The appropriate response involves understanding and defusing the situation, not provoking and escalating it. Until the police accept this, we will continue to see mentally ill people killed needlessly. JAMES C. HARRINGTON The writer is director of the Texas Civil Rights Project.
Metro & State Briefing AUSTIN Charges against officer dismissed A case against an Austin police officer involving tampering with a government record was dismissed in state District Court in Travis County this week, according to court records. The reason for the dismissal in the case against Officer Michael Olsen was not available on Wednesday. Olsen had been accused of falsely stating that a bystander named Jeffrey Thornton walked toward him and yelled at him during a disturbance in June 2002 in downtown Austin.
News 8 Austin An Austin man who said he's the victim of police brutality is outraged the officer he says assaulted him won't face a jury. Earlier this month, the district attorney dropped the falsifying governmental records charges against Austin Police Officer Michael Olsen. Olsen's accuser said he found out from the media. Jeffrey Thornton said in June 2002, Austin Police Officer Michael Olsen assaulted him. "As I proceeded to standup, everything started spinning," Thornton said. In his report, Olsen wrote that Thornton followed him after the officer tried to break up a fight downtown, getting very close. Thornton said it was the other way around and the grand jury agreed. It charged Olsen with three counts of making false reports. Police Chief, Stan Knee suspended Olsen from the department for excessive force, but Olsen was never criminally charged with that. Now, he won't face a jury. The Travis County district attorney's office dropped the records tampering charges saying there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. "You have a lying cop, who the grand jury indicts for lying under oath and turns around, the DA disregards that and sets the cop free and back on the street. What's gonna happen to other people? How many other people is he going to prosecute by lying?" Jim Harrington, with the Texas Civil Rights Project, said. Thornton said he only learned about the dropped charges from the media. "Here we have a victim of police misconduct and the DA ignores that law that applies to victims," Harrington said. "It's not over. What he done to me, he could do to anybody. It's just that simple," Thornton said. To prevent that from happening the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a lawsuit on Thornton's behalf. The suit alleges excessive force and malicious prosecution. He's seeking $100,000 in damages, but more importantly, he said, he's seeking justice. The district attorney dropped the charges on Dec. 19. Olsen's pay was reinstated that day. He will return to his position with the Austin Police Department on Friday, Jan. 2.
December 8, 2003 Presidential Protesters Take Case to Court Three protesters filed suit in an Austin federal court this week after they were not allowed to demonstrate near the President's ranch in Crawford last May. The protesters allege their right to free speech was violated. They say police threatened to arrest them if they stopped on the road outside the President's property near Waco. Crawford has an anti-protest ordinance which reads "no procession, parade or demonstration shall occupy, march or proceed along any street, sidewalk or public place without a permit from the chief of Police." Critics claim the ordinance is selectively enforced to unfairly restrain people who oppose President Bush's policies. However, some Crawford residents support the ordinance as a way to maintain public safety.
Couple files suit against Austin police By Claire Osborn Tuesday, October 28, 2003 A lawyer and her husband filed a federal lawsuit Monday accusing an Austin police officer of roughing them up at their home after they called about a mentally ill man who had arrived at their door. Laura Tansey Rey-Sanchez, 31, said she had to go to the emergency room for bruises and back pain after officer Charles Rohre threw her on the ground and handcuffed her on Oct. 16. Rey-Sanchez held a news conference Monday at the Texas Civil Rights Project to discuss the lawsuit. She said Rohre and other officers also threw her husband, Luis Alonso Rey-Sanchez, 36, to the ground so hard that it shattered his glasses. The Austin Police Department declined to comment about the lawsuit. Rohre said he could not comment because of the pending litigation. The couple had initially called police after a man knocked on their door at 11 p.m. at their North Austin home. The man seemed disoriented, couldn't remember his name and tried to give the couple money, Laura Tansey Rey-Sanchez said. The first police officers to arrive were calm. When Rohre arrived, however, he began yelling at the man, who had been sitting calmly, Laura Tansey Rey-Sanchez said. Rohre threw the man to the ground and handcuffed him, according to the lawsuit. "I started to ask the officer why he was acting like that," Laura Tansey Rey-Sanchez said. She said Rohre screamed at her and told her if she did not get back in her house she would go to jail. Her husband asked Rohre not to yell at her, and then Rohre threatened to arrest him, the lawsuit says. Rohre yelled at Laura Tansey Rey-Sanchez again, saying he had asked her to go inside, and then he yanked her off her porch and onto the ground, she said. Rohre handcuffed Luis Alonso Rey-Sanchez after he questioned the way Rohre was handling his wife, according to the lawsuit. Eventually police took the handcuffs off the couple, and they were not charged. Laura Tansey Rey-Sanchez said she filed a complaint with the police monitor's office before filing the lawsuit. She said she also filed a complaint with the Police Department's internal affairs office. Austin police officers trained to handle mental health calls are acting too aggressively, said Jim Harrington, executive director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. He said in the past two years the nonprofit agency has received about 12 complaints about Austin police officers using excessive force in mental health incidents. In comparison, the agency has received no complaints in the past two years about police officers in Houston handling mental health calls with excessive force, said Sheri Tolliver, a lawyer who works for the project. "The first thing you have to learn is to do an assessment of the situation," Harrington said. "The officers have to understand that this is not a crime in progress." Laura Tansey Rey-Sanchez said the incident has changed her reaction toward the police. She said she had helped train officers on how to handle immigrant issues in the past year while working with the Political Asylum Project. "Now I think I would hesitate before I called APD for help," she said.
Fox-KTBC Mental Health Officer Sued by Couple An Austin Police Department mental health officer is once again under fire. An Austin couple is suing Officer Charles Rohre for brutality and false arrest after calling him to their house. The couple called police after finding a man in their backyard the night of October 16. They say he seemed mentally ill and disoriented, but was calm. They say police got there and everything was fine until Officer Rohre got there. They say Rohre threw the man to the ground, kneed him in the back, and handcuffed him. When the couple went outside to see what was going on, they say Rohre started yelling at them and ended up putting cuffs on them. Ironically, the woman involved, Laura Tansey Rey-Sanchez, is an attorney who gave police mandatory training on how to deal with immigrants out on the street. "I thought the way he was responding was really inappropriate and was an excessive use of power," said Tansey Rey-Sanchez, "so I questioned, and he told me to 'be quiet, get back in your house, or I will arrest you.' And I said 'on what grounds?' and I was really horrified how they were handling this man. Ms. Rey-Sanchez went the emergency room with a bruise to the arm and a pulled muscle in her back. They're suing Officer Rohre for $50,000. The Police Department referred us to the city's legal department. FOX 7 has not heard back from them. OCTOBER 24, 2003 McPrisons on the Border? Naked City According to Carlos Villareal of the Texas Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, a group of like-minded reformers have formed a new group, South Texans Opposing Private Prisons, in an effort to block a U.S. Marshals Service-backed plan to build a 2,800-bed jail near Laredo. The Marshals have bemoaned the lack of space for inmates in the South Texas border region -- many of whom are illegal immigrants awaiting deportation or offenders awaiting transfer to another federal facility. Immigrants, Villareal said, "are the fastest growing population in the federal prison system" and, next to low-level drug offenders, represent the nation's "next big class of nonviolent" prisoners. The project is being sold to the public as a "great opportunity for economic development," said Villareal, a notion that STOPP members say is frightening. The members of STOPP -- including the Texas Civil Rights Project and the ACLU's Jail and Prison Accountability Project -- are not only opposed to building more jails to house nonviolent first-time offenders, Villareal said, but are also opposed to this project because it will likely be run by a private vendor. So far, there are nine proposals to build the facility, eight of them from private vendors -- including incarceration-for-profit giants Wackenhut and Corrections Corporation of America. The private prison industry has been plagued by problems -- including riots at various facilities and numerous cases of sexual assaults of inmates by guards -- and yet is well insulated from public scrutiny (see "Beaten by Wackenhut," July 5, 2002). Villareal said that two public hearings have been held near Laredo, and that federal officials are currently reviewing the various proposals. Still, he said, there is a dearth of specific information about the project, and of official documentation evidencing the need for the new facility. "It's moving ahead," he said, "and the only question seems to be when they're going to do it, not if it's going to happen." A spokesperson for the U.S. Marshals Service for Texas southern district could not be reached for comment. Copyright © 1995-2003 Austin Chronicle Corp.
Civil Rights Undermined in Texas By James C. Harrington If he has his way, by the end of his time in office, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will have undone many of the federal and state civil rights laws that protect Texans against government abuse. Abbott's most recent effort is a sustained assault on federal disability laws. He does this under the rubric of "federalism," that is, expanding the doctrine of 11th Amendment immunity for the states, a judicially created dogma of questionable origins and without written mention in the U.S. Constitution. For example, our state's chief lawyer, playing into the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' pronounced hostility to civil rights, convinced a 5th Circuit panel in Lucinda Miller, et al. v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center that the disability regulations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 did not apply to Texas governmental entities. Congress enforced the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act, popularly known as §504, under the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution. If a state accepts federal money, it must provide physical modifications and program accommodations for people with disabilities. In 1985, Congress, acting in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, again passed legislation to make this "quid pro quo" clear. In a brief, Abbott's lawyers argued to a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit that Texas still really didn't know what it was getting into, and thus had not waived immunity. Of course, Abbott's lawyers did not argue that the state would give the money back. If this were a contract case with big business, our AG would have been laughed out of court. The panel decided in the AG's favor on May 13. Fortunately, the 5th Circuit has agreed to rehear Miller en banc. And, every chance the attorney general gets, and there are many, he argues that Congress did not properly bring the states under the ambit of the Americans With Disabilities Act, through either the 14th Amendment or the commerce clause. Apart from trying to gut federal disability laws, Abbott's lawyers seem to be engrossed in undoing earlier consent decrees. For example, in Frazar v. Gilbert, a 2002 5th Circuit opinion, they convinced the court to effectively void a consent decree the state had entered into to correct violations of Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) services for poor children. The AG's office argued in its brief and during the hearing that Texas had not unequivocally waived its 11th Amendment immunity when it agreed to the consent order six years before. This is a difficult concept to grasp. The state agrees to a consent decree, and then later argues it really didn't do so because it didn't waive immunity. As a result, the children of Texas suffer and the taxpayers foot the bill for these legal machinations. There was a day in the recent history when people abided by the agreements they made, even the state. In Peril While the state's defender of Texans wages war on federal civil rights, he also is doing his best to strip away what few state civil-rights laws there are in Texas. The end result is no protection at all. On the state side of the docket, the tactic is the same - government immunity, which, like its federal counterpart, has little constitutional source. The "People's Lawyer" is trying to convince the state courts, for instance, that Texas disability laws do not apply to local or state government entities because the Texas Legislature did not unequivocally waive government immunity. He has found a willing audience in the Texas Supreme Court, no friend to civil rights; a few years earlier in City of Beaumont v. Bouillion (1995) the court made a rather astonishing and ill-reasoned ruling that people had no recourse for damages against officials who violated the Texas Constitution's Bill of Rights. The Texas Supreme Court this past April, at the urging of the attorney general, who represented the hospital, ruled in Wichita Falls State Hospital v. Taylor that the family of a suicide victim who allegedly was prematurely discharged by Wichita Falls State Hospital, according to the opinion, had no cause of action against the hospital because the Texas Legislature had not "clearly and unambiguously" waived state immunity when it allowed damage suits against "mental health facilities," even those "operated by" the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. Somehow, the court unabashedly managed to find this provision of the Texas Mental Health Code not "clear and unambiguous" enough. The decision strips away the rights of people confined in Texas' mental institutions - no matter how negligent, callous or horrific the source of their injury - and places in peril other Texas civil-rights laws. Compared with much of the rest of the country, civil rights find a hostile reception in Texas' federal district courts and in the 5th Circuit. And an overly eager Texas Supreme Court seems happy to oblige Abbott's ideological activism to undercut Texas' own civil-rights laws, few that there are. The unabashed "federalism" agenda of state attorneys general is the very reason we need federal constitutional protection from state and local government. James C. Harrington is director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin and author of "The Texas Bill of Rights: A Commentary and Litigation Manual." Besides a J.D., Harrington holds an M.A. in philosophy. "Rights and Wrongs" appears regularly in Texas Lawyer.
Letters to the Editor Wednesday, October 15, 2003 Police procedures at fault Re: Oct. 9 article, "Austin police panel discusses findings in King investigation": At least five Austin officials have said they have seen, or been briefed on, the independent investigation into Sophia King's killing, and it "exonerates" Officer John Coffey. This exploitation of a report that the King family cannot see and that is supposedly secret is public manipulation. No official talks about what's in the rest of the report. The point isn't whether Coffey is exonerated. No one disputes he acted according to procedures. Those procedures and training are tragically flawed. Perhaps focusing on exonerating Coffey keeps us from focusing on why the Police Department's policies toward mentally ill people lead to killing innocent citizens. The police in Temple, dealing with an apparently mentally ill man, who charged at them with a knife, used rubber bullets and saved his life (Oct. 10 news brief, "Police disarm enraged suspect"). The Austin Police Department and Coffey could have done the same. The question is why they didn't. If they had, the King's children would still have their mother. JIM HARRINGTON Texas Civil Rights Project Austin The Beaumont Enterprise Before they go, the Port Arthur residents stop by the grocery store and use an ATM. However, sometimes the wheelchair-bound residents can't get to the places they want because of uneven or blocked sidewalks around their Ninth Avenue home. If the sidewalks aren't accessible, then they use the street, Bob said. However, that can prove dangerous, said Barbara, 56, who has been in a wheelchair since a diving accident 36 years ago. "We want the same accessibility that everyone else has," said Bob, 51, who has been in a wheelchair since 1997 because of multiple sclerosis. The Tegtmeiers are plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the city of Port Arthur filed by the Texas Civil Rights Project. The suit claims that sidewalks are inaccessible in the city. It was one of 13 lawsuits filed against different businesses and organizations across the state. Even though the Americans with Disability Act was signed 13 years ago on July 26, many proponents say that changes still need to be made. Of the 57,756 Port Arthur residents, 12,633 have at least one disability, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Of those, 6,263 have a physical disability. A physical disability is a condition limiting physical activity such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting or carrying, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Leslie McMahen, Port Arthur public works director, declined to comment because of the pending lawsuit. Port Arthur Mayor Oscar Ortiz could not be reached for comment at his office or on his cell phone Friday. In an interview last Monday, Ortiz cited the city's tight budget as why the city didn't put in curb cuts and ramps on every corner. He also said that if a person needed the curb cuts in a neighborhood, they could request it. A lawsuit filed against the city of Beaumont two years ago was settled earlier this year with 16 curb cuts costing $133,000. Kirby Richards, Beaumont central services director, and Don Burrell, building codes director for the city, did not return messages left at their offices. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 24,078 of Beaumont's 113,888 residents have a disability. About 10,915 of them have physical disabilities. The ADA does not require cities to redo existing sidewalks, but new neighborhoods must include sidewalks and curb cuts. In Port Neches, 2,455 of the 13,544 residents have disabilities, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. The city recently replaced sidewalks in several of the neighborhoods after they were torn out for new water and utility lines. The city spent $45,864 on 26 new curb cuts when they replaced the sidewalks, said Randy Kimler, in a telephone interview. Kimler said that the city will put in curb cuts if there is a physically disabled person in a neighborhood. "We try to evaluate it and work with them," Kimler said. However, each city had different ordinances about putting in sidewalks and curb cuts before the ADA was passed, Kimler said. In Port Neches, the older subdivisions may not have sidewalks because it was the homeowner's choice to put in the sidewalks, Kimler said. In newer subdivisions, the ADA requires sidewalks and curb cuts to be installed, Kimler said. Kimler was the city manager of Groves in 1990 when the ADA was passed. A city assessment was done there to compare the city's current condition to ADA standards, Kimler said. In Groves, the biggest changes were adding ramps over steps and lowering the payment counter at the water department, Kimler said. "You try to do the best you can. There's always something you unintentionally don't catch," Kimler said. Kimler said there are plans to start replacing the city's worst sidewalks after the city's current utility and road improvement are completed next year. Lee Sanders, 51, of Nederland, who has been in a wheelchair since 1970 because of a spinal cord injury, said that cities that emphasize tourism are more disability-friendly. Sanders belongs to the Golden Triangle chapter of American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today. Denver was top on the list of disability-friendly cities in a study done in 1997, according to information provided by the Disability Statistics Center. Berkeley, Calif., was second with Seattle taking third. Also in the top five were Sioux Falls, S.D., and Raleigh, N.C. The study noted that the quality of life in these cities for people with disabilities was consistent with their able-bodied counterparts.
Metro & State Briefing Disabilities Act lawsuits filed ADAPT of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed 13 lawsuits in Austin and Coleman on Friday to commemorate the 13th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, signed into law on July 26, 1990. The lawsuits included allegations of discrimination in Austin against people with disabilities at the state Capitol, the Live Oak Inn and a Pro Cali nails location. The lawsuits also alleged that several businesses were not accessible to people with mobility disabilities, including Shakespeare's Pub, Donn's Depot, Lambert's Restaurant, a Dairy Queen and a Top Cash Pawn. ADAPT is a statewide disability rights organization.
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Thursday, July 10, 2003 A University of Texas student has sued the UT police chief and another officer, saying his free speech rights were violated when he was arrested for writing in chalk on a campus sidewalk. The lawsuit, which was filed Thursday by graduate student Jonathan Bougie in Judge Jeanne Meurer's 98th District Court, seeks $100,000 in damages. It names UT Police Chief Jeffrey Van Slyke and officer Wayne Coffey as defendants. Bougie and his lawyer, Texas Civil Rights Project director Jim Harrington, said Bougie was singled out because he was voicing opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. "This kind of thing can't happen again," Bougie said. "It needs to stop." According to the lawsuit, Bougie, 28, was writing a message on a cement stoop March 19 when Coffey approached him and slammed his head into the cement, gashing his eyebrow and breaking his glasses. He was handcuffed, taken to Brackenridge Hospital to be treated for his injuries and eventually received a citation for criminal mischief, a Class C misdemeanor, Bougie said. At the time, UT police said Coffey was justified in using force to apprehend Bougie because Bougie tried to flee. On Thursday, an official in UT's Office of Legal Affairs said the university would not comment about the case because it had not yet been served with the lawsuit. Van Slyke was not immediately available for comment. The lawsuit is the latest in what has been an unusually difficult year for UT police. The department was accused of racial profiling earlier this year, after an African American student was stopped for an identification check on campus. That incident prompted UT President Larry Faulkner to create a panel of faculty, students and staff to review university policies in February.
Lawyer loses billboard case By Jim Vertuno Friday, July 4, 2003 A West Texas lawyer who posted a billboard urging drivers to "just say no" to police searches in the 1990s lost his constitutional battle over free speech Thursday in state Supreme Court. The court's 6-3 ruling rejected Pat Barber's claims that a state law prohibiting the sign violated his First Amendment rights to political speech. The Texas Highway Beautification Act is "content neutral" and places "valid" restrictions on signs placed near highways, the court said. Barber has waged his battle since 1997, when he erected an 8-foot-by-16-foot sign on his property next to Interstate 20 in Mitchell County. It read "Just Say NO to Searches!"; a telephone number led callers to a recorded message telling motorists to refuse when police ask to search their cars during routine traffic stops. Located about 70 miles west of Abilene, the sign drew growls from local law enforcement and the threat of fines from the Texas Department of Transportation. The agency said the sign violated the Texas Highway Beautification Act. The state won a trial court order to have it removed and Barber was ordered to pay $1,200 in fines and attorney fees. Barber burned down the sign in 1999 but vowed to appeal. After an appeals court ruled the law an unconstitutional violation of free speech, state officials took the case to the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said the law does not completely prohibit commercial or noncommercial speech and noted that both are allowed in commercial areas. The law allows temporary elections signs. Barber also challenged the law under the Texas Constitution, which states, "Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or the press." But the court majority rejected his claims that the Texas Constitution provides even greater free speech rights than the First Amendment. Barber, who did not rebuild the sign while awaiting the court ruling, did not immediately return telephone messages left at his office in Colorado City.
Civil rights group files suit By Claire Osborn Tuesday, June 24, 2003 The Texas Civil Rights Project filed a lawsuit Tuesday against an Austin police officer accused of a beating that was caught on city surveillance cameras. Officer Michael Olsen inappropriately took offense at something Jeffrey Thornton, 22, said to a friend. Olsen then grabbed Thornton, slammed him into a police car and then pushed him so hard to the ground that Thornton lost consciousness temporarily, according to the lawsuit filed in state district court. The incident happened June 20, 2002, on Sixth Street downtown. Although Thornton was bleeding from the head, Olsen refused to allow emergency medical workers to take him to a hospital, the lawsuit contends. Thornton spent two days in jail for resisting arrest and interfering with police duties. Charges against him were dropped because of evidence from surveillance cameras near the intersection of Sixth and Red River streets, according to the lawsuit. Olsen was suspended for 60 days for using excessive force and lying, according to a police disciplinary memo. The lawsuit asks for $100,000 in compensation. Olsen could not be reached for comment. Jim Harrington: 'Guest worker' just another name for exploitation By JIM HARRINGTON Texas Sen. John Cornyn's recent speech on the Senate floor about immigration reform is eloquent in words, short on specifics and alarming in his endorsement of a guest worker program. Mr. Cornyn's touting of a "guest worker" program for temporary immigrant workers as reform is as misplaced as the program is misnamed. While the nomenclature sounds benign enough, it is impossible to devise a guest worker program that actually works and prevents manipulation and retaliation against the very immigrant workers it claims to protect. In my own 40 years of experience with agricultural employees, farm laborers were treated as badly under the old discredited bracero program, which I witnessed, as they were under its subsequent guest worker programs. Any time "guest" employees complained about unpaid wages or exploitative working conditions, they suddenly found their work permits and temporary visas canceled and the Border Patrol called to deport them – even under Democratic administrations. The 1975 farm worker strike in Presidio is a perfect example. When the employees struck because they weren't getting paid what they were supposed to get, as required by the federal program, they were deported The only way that temporary immigrant workers will be treated justly in this country is if Congress: (1) decides they will be entitled to the same minimum wage and collective bargaining laws as other workers; (2) prohibits retaliation – usually deportation – when they complain about illegality; and (3) extends legal aid protection to them in the workplace. Those three steps are easier to administer than any guest worker scheme and will protect laborers against exploitation more than anything else. This is where Mr. Cornyn could undertake legislative leadership. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Immigration Reform and Control Act foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding back pay to undocumented workers. The ruling denied equal rights to undocumented workers and stripped them of their back pay. The employer made off like a bandit – classic exploitation, blessed by the nation's highest jurists. All Congress would have to do to overturn that unfair ruling is amend the immigration law to clarify that the nation's protective labor laws apply to all workers, regardless of legal status in the country. And Mr. Cornyn could lead the way. Why create a guest worker bureaucracy that only the growers and certain other employers want and through which they historically have abused their immigrant employees with impunity? They want it so they can keep perpetuating the same age-old exploitation to line their pockets with profits. Besides, eliminating the current two-tier caste system of "legal" and "illegal" workers would allow the marketplace to sort out real need rather than condone exploitation. If all workers have to be treated the same, regardless of immigration status, there is no incentive to bring to this country workers who aren't needed. As Mr. Cornyn said, "We must bring our broken immigration system into the 21st century. We must move transient workers out of the shadows for the sake of immigrants who endure exploitation and even death for a chance to share in the blessings of American liberty." But a guest worker program isn't the way to do it. Making federal law fairer is a more effective, and more just, way. Jim Harrington is director of the Texas Civil Rights Project.
Thrall ISD, attorneys meet to resolve suit Lawsuit claims school shortchanges girls' sports A closed mediation session Wednesday involving the Thrall Independent School District board may be a first step in resolving a federal lawsuit filed against the district. The mediation involved the Thrall ISD board, its attorneys and attorneys for the Texas Civil Rights Project, who are representing a parent suing the district for alleged gender inequities in athletics. In April, James Norris filed the Title Nine suit against Thrall ISD and Athletic Director Tommy Reaux on behalf of Norris' then 16-year-old daughter, alleging they denied equal equipment, facilities and coaching to girls. At the school board's May meeting, members voted to amend the budget to add $100,000 to cover projected legal fees associated with fighting the suit, retaining the services of the Henslee, Fowler, Hepworth & Schwartz law firm and legal counsel from the Texas Association of School Boards. Norris, whose daughter is a softball player at the high school and a senior this year, said Wednesday he tried other means to resolve the situation before taking legal action. "I've tried to work with the school to remedy the problems with the facilities and coaching and things of that nature, and basically I've been running up against a brick wall," Norris said. Attorneys for the district could not be reached early Thursday, and Thrall ISD and school board officials declined to comment but said a press release would be issued later today. In an earlier interview, former Thrall ISD Superintendent Steve Zipkes, who worked for the district when the suit was filed, said there were many things in the lawsuit he thought were "highly inaccurate." Attempts to make changes by discussing inequities in equipment, facilities and coaching with the principal, superintendent, athletic director and the school board president were unsuccessful, Norris said, because changes were never implemented. In fact, he said, he didn't think the high school or the district perceived there to be any problems with operations. "Three years ago, they (girls) were playing with no legal bats provided by the school," Norris said, citing the problems he noted in the lawsuit. "They have lights on the (softball) field, but they don't meet minimum standards for safety .... In coaching, they hire people who have no experience ever coaching softball before." The Austin-based Texas Civil Rights Project has pursued several successful Title Nine cases, including those against Channelview, Kilgore and San Marcos ISDs, all of which were decided in favor of the plaintiffs, according to Sheri Tolliver, an attorney for the project. The suit alleges the district and Reaux violated Title Nine of the Education Amendments Act, the Equal Rights Amendment to the Texas Constitution, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Chapter 106 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Title Nine federal statute applies to educational programs that receive federal funding, which includes school athletic programs. "We can get injunctive relief from the court," Tolliver said. "That means the court can order the school to make certain changes in the way it allocates funds." Before taking the case before the judge, both parties agreed to the mediation session held Wednesday night at the Thrall ISD office.
Crawford's protest policy targeted in lawsuit By Dick Stanley AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Tuesday, June 17, 2003 CRAWFORD — Like the tourists, for whom there also was no precedent until President George W. Bush's Western White House settled nearby, protestors have become a common sight in this 106-year-old farming community west of Waco. "If they go through the procedures, they can protest," said Larry Nelson, one of Crawford's 705 residents and a clerk at Crawford Country Style, a clothing store that also sells presidential trinkets. "Before Bush brought all the cameras here there was no one to protest to." But, in a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday against Crawford and its police chief, Donnie Tidmore, the Austin-based Texas Civil Rights Project contends the town's demonstration ordinance violates the U.S. and Texas constitutions. The suit, filed in federal court in Waco, is on behalf of five would-be protesters — three from Austin and two from Dallas — who were arrested May 3 and jailed overnight for violating the ordinance. They are believed to be the first people arrested for failing to get a permit under Crawford's demonstration ordinance, which reminds some of ordinances passed in the 1960s when protests were unusual. "It's one of those ordinances you don't expect to see anymore," said Civil Rights Project Director Jim Harrington, onetime head of the Texas Civil Liberties Union. "It's clearly unconstitutional. It came into effect after Bush was elected." Permit applications under Austin's demonstration ordinance, for instance, can be filed with the police as few as five days before an event, require no fee, and demonstrators may use public streets. The Crawford ordinance requires filing with Tidmore 15 days beforehand, paying $15 and confining the event to the high school football field. Exceptions are processions for funerals, schools or by the U.S. or Texas military, police and fire fighters. "This is sort of like an ordinance you would see from the '50s," Harrington said during an Austin news conference Tuesday. Tidmore, who commands a force of three officers, declined to comment on the lawsuit until he'd had a chance to read it. Raydean Damon, owner of the Crawford souvenir shop The Red Bull, saw the demonstrators arrested by city police and McLennan County sheriff's deputies in front of her home at the corner of 4th Street and Prairie Chapel Road. "They gave them three orders to get back in their cars, but they didn't," she said. "They put them in cuffs and put them in the police cars." The Texas Civil Rights Project also filed five motions in Crawford municipal court on Tuesday to dismiss the misdemeanor charges against the five protesters. One of the arrested, Amanda Jack of Austin, had been arrested March 24 in Austin for disobeying police orders to leave a street during an anti-war demonstration. She spent most of that night in jail, too. "It was a planned civil disobedience," Jack, 22, said of the Austin demonstration, while the Crawford protest was not intended to be disobedient. The Pennsylvania native said she came to Austin in August to volunteer at Casa Marianella, a group that aids immigrants from Mexico and Central America. She and the other four arrested in Crawford had already spent the day, a Saturday, demonstrating in Austin against President Bush, the war in Iraq and a variety of government policies. They came to Crawford that evening because news cameras were there for Bush's hosting of the Australian prime minister. "We were aware that a permit was required within the city limits," Jack said. "But we weren't planning to be within the city limits. But the officers wouldn't let us go out of town." Patricia Major, a church secretary in Dallas who attended the Austin demonstration, had gone to Crawford for supper at The Peace House, a residence purchased by a Dallas activist as a gathering point for demonstrators. She planned to meet the other protesters at the high school, where protests are allowed, but she never got that far. She found the others out of their cars with their signs on the side of the road. Then Tidmore hailed them through a bullhorn, saying " 'I'll give you three minutes to get in your cars and get out of here,' " Major said. She said she didn't move fast enough and was arrested, along with Jack and Austin residents Amara Maliszewski and Ken Zarifis. Maliszewski, an employee of the Texas Department of Health, and Zarifis, an eighth-grade teacher at Burnet Middle School, could not be reached for comment. Michael Machicek, a Dallas poet and landscaper, said he was arrested when he happened upon the group as he left the Peace House. "There was brutality," he said. "Inappropriate language. It was really strange." He said the officers overtightened their handcuffs and did not loosen them for an hour. Machicek, who takes medication regularly, said he was denied it at the county jail in Waco where the protestors spent the night before a judge released them the next morning He said the lawsuit is about "getting civil remedies for violations of our human rights." The lawsuit seeks no damages, only attorney's fees, Harrington said. But he said the motions filed in Crawford to quash the charges of violating the ordinance could be expensive if city officials decide to contest the matter. "You never hear of anyone being kept in jail for a peaceful protest," Harrington said. "I think it was retaliatory. It's going to cost them a lot of money to process the trial." Money is one thing Crawford doesn't have. The city pays no salary to Mayor Robert Campbell, who could not be reached for comment. He makes his living pastoring two churches, one in Crawford and the other in Waco. Bush's presence has rejuvenated Crawford's small business district, symbolized by the recent opening of a new bank. But the city still needed charity to improve its volunteer firefighting and emergency medical services. In December, two cities in Delaware and one in Massachusetts donated a used ambulance, a used fire rescue truck and a 39-year-old fire engine to help Crawford protect Bush and his family.
Man fatally shot by APD officer Early Saturday morning, an East Austin resident suspected of driving a stolen vehicle was fatally shot by an Austin police officer after the officer reportedly approached the car, became entangled in the door and was dragged a short distance down a residential street. Glasgow followed the vehicle and called for backup, the report said. Glasgow approached the car and tried to arrest the driver, Jesse Lee Owens, a 20-year-old East Austin resident. Owens accelerated, dragging Glasgow down the street. Glasgow fired his weapon, striking Owens several times. Owens was pronounced dead at the scene, and Glasgow was transported to Brackenridge Hospital, where he was treated for minor injuries and then released, said Adam Shavitz, a public information officer for the APD. Glasgow has been placed on administrative leave. "Whenever an officer uses deadly force, it's policy that he be placed on administrative leave while the investigation is conducted," said Shavitz. The investigation will be twofold, Shavitz said. "There are different facets," he said. "There's an internal investigation, and then, any time there's a death, the shooting team investigates that aspect. They'll look into the shooting and the death itself, and, ultimately, their findings will be presented to a grand jury." The community is reeling from the shooting, and some are discouraged by the frequency of officer-related shootings in the area, said Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. Harrington, an East Austin resident, represented the family of Sophia King, a woman shot by an APD officer a year ago last week. "A couple things are distressing to me," Harrington said. "First, how quickly the officer resorted to deadly force and second, the fact that the kid was unarmed." "These things never happen on the West side," Harrington continued. "The police seem to have this whole different attitude about who's on the West side and who's on the East side. The police obviously come into this neighborhood with their own biases from the past. And they overreact because they're afraid." Harrington said the police department will need to make serious internal changes to prevent future incidents from occurring. The Texas Civil Rights Project will get involved with the case if they are asked to by family and community members, and Harrington said that he hopes the case will be investigated by Austin's police monitor, Iris Jones. "There has to be a change of heart," Harrington said. "A change in the police department has to come internally, and they need a strong leader to come in and professionalize the workforce. "There's really a mentality of occupation on the East side," Harrington said. Owens' funeral arrangements will be handled by King Tears Mortuary, but the services have not yet been arranged. APD sued for alleged civil rights violations A federal lawsuit against three Austin Police Department supervisors is trying to change the way Austin handles downtown protests. It may also force a change in federal laws created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The lawsuit stems from an incident in 2001. President Bush was in Austin, sparking a large protest downtown. To break up a group near the Governor's Mansion, APD officers on horseback moved in. Thirteen protesters claim that action violated their civil rights. "This is what this lawsuit is about, is to put a break on this power of the government right now to run rough shod over our rights in the name of making us more secure," says Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project. Similar claims, filed in state court were rejected back in January. The city declined to comment because of the pending federal case. The Daily Texan State & Local The Austin Police Department released a portion of the Sophia King investigation Wednesday in an effort to improve relations with the Austin community, but critics said APD is still missing the point. An APD statement said Chief Stan Knee decided to release the criminal portion of the investigation to give the community a better understanding of events that led to the death of Sophia King when she was shot by APD officer John Coffey in June 2002. The internal affairs report and an independent investigation of the incident were not released because Coffey has not faced disciplinary action. On June 14, 2002, APD officers responded to a disturbance at the Rosewood Courts apartments in East Austin. According to the APD investigation, Sophia King was holding a knife over her building manager when Coffey shot her. King had a history of mental illness and had encountered Austin police dozens of times before her death. A grand jury chose not to indict Coffey for the shooting. Some critics of the APD questioned the timing of the release. "It's completely political," said Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "There's no motivation beyond the political quagmire they are finding themselves in." Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said focusing on the legality of one incident is a diversion from the more important issue. "The problem is that the department doesn't have the training in place to de-escalate these things," Harrington said. "It's not that the officer is criminally liable."
Americans ready to offer Iraqis a helping hand Ruth, my neighbor across the street and also a nurse, was over to the house for dinner and casually mentioned over a glass of wine how much she would like to go to Iraq to work in a hospital, if that were possible. Ruth's comment raises a perplexing question: Why is it that the Bush administration hasn't issued a national call for volunteers to rebuild that country, as John F. Kennedy did to start the Peace Corps more than 40 years ago? The United States is in a deepening morass in postwar Iraq. Huge demonstrations of Iraqis demand that this country withdraw from Iraq because health care has collapsed, law and order have degenerated to the brink of anarchy, educational institutions have been pillaged and shut down, and the infrastructure is in shambles. The administration plotted and executed a war with incredible detail and precision, but it seems to be short on competence in rebuilding what it so devastatingly destroyed. There are many "Ruths" in this country – business people, educators, engineers, health care workers and law enforcement personnel – who gladly would answer the call to give a year or two of their lives, not only to help rebuild Iraq but also to present living examples of the power of volunteers to transform a society. Why does this administration act so callously toward the people of Iraq, whose suffering we see daily on television and whose suffering the administration caused? Generous, selfless talent abounds in this country. Since 1961, more than 168,000 volunteers have served in the Peace Corps, working overseas in such diverse fields as agriculture, business development, education, the environment, health care and information technology. Currently, 50,000 AmeriCorps volunteers work within the United States, doing the same tasks that their Peace Corps compatriots perform on an international level. The American Bar Association has a Central and East European Law Initiative and an Asia Law Initiative that work with legal professionals in formerly authoritarian countries, helping them to reform their legal systems. Another example is Sarah Chayes, a former National Public Radio reporter, who covered the war in Afghanistan and then resigned her position to become field director of Afghans for Civil Society – a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization founded to promote a democratic alternative and to assist in the development of a civil society. All of that could be done in Iraq, were it the will of the president to make it happen. After World War II, Harry Truman directed that the head of the eagle on the seal of the president of the United States be changed to face its right talon, holding the olive branch of peace. Since 1877, the eagle had faced its left talon, holding the bundle of arrows symbolizing the power of war. Mr. Truman did that to emphasize the priority of peace, the symbol of which the eagle carried with its stronger, right talon. He then set about rebuilding Europe and Japan, which had been devastated by war. Mr. Truman had the courage and foresight to do that with the enormous financial and human commitment of the United States, and he succeeded in establishing economic strength and democracy abroad. It was a feat unparalleled in history. Perhaps Mr. Bush should take a lesson from Mr. Truman. Americans are ready to lend their hand, as they always have. Is the president there to call us to the challenge? James C. Harrington is director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit foundation that promotes civil rights and economic and racial justice throughout Texas. http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/viewpoints/stories/052403dnediharrington.a4945.html (Also ran in Galveston News)
Investigation Continues into DPS Tracking 5/23/03--The investigation into how Department of Public Safety tracked down state Democrats is expected to continue before a Travis County grand jury next week. "In a sense, this is the essence of the problem with the Patriot Act," said Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project. Harrington calls the destruction of DPS documents a perfect example of how Americans have handed over some of their rights to the government, in exchange for tighter post 9-11 security. "Here you have a purely political maneuver by Texas legislators, nothing to do with homeland security by any stretch of the imagination," said Harrington. "And then...we have the security powers of the country invoked illegally, I'm sure. Then, all of a sudden, you turn around and you have the government destroying the records of that illegality. " Democrats charge the shredding of documents is a cover-up. They're looking for proof of who called Federal Homeland Security officials to track down the airplane belonging to former Democratic House Speaker Pete Laney, which Republicans thought was ferrying Democrats to Oklahoma. The Travis County District Attorney's Office is now investigating. But former prosecutor and Sheriff Terry Keel says DPS had every right to contact the federal government for help, and that any investigation should be conducted at the federal level. "Now, if you're suggesting that someone contacted the Homeland Security suggesting something occurred that didn't," said Republican Keel of the House General Investigation Committee, "then I would certainly applaud the federal government looking into that. And if they corroborate that something like that took place, then it would be relevant for the DPS to look into it and see if their own rules have been violated." Keel's reference is to allegations that DPS thought Laney's plane was in trouble--a premise that itself could be in distress. Republican State Representative Mike Krusee of Round Rock, who helped coordinate the DPS search, told us he feared trouble at about 6:45 last Monday evening--he says half-an-hour after it was supposed to arrive. "DPS came back with a report that they expected the plane to arrive in Georgetown at 6:13," Representative Krusee said on Monday. But Laney says that was never the flight plan, and that his plane arrived and took off again roughly four hours earlier. "From about 3:30 on 'til about 7:00, it was on the ground in Ardmore, Oklahoma," said Laney.
Tuesday, February 4, 2003 Rights group files suit in beating The Texas Civil Rights Project on Monday filed a federal lawsuit against Kimble County, the City of Junction and a former Kimble County deputy sheriff. The suit seeks $300,000 in damages for Daniel Gauna of Junction, whose beating at the hands of two Junction police officers was captured on videotape. The deputy sheriff left the camera on in his car during the beating, which happened in Gauna's front yard, according to the lawsuit. The three law officials did not have a warrant and later filed charges against Gauna for resisting arrest and interfering with the duties of a public servant. A district judge found in Gauna's favor. "What is unique about this case, of course, is that the officers' conduct was so clearly captured on film that the officers could testify otherwise without any credibility," said Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. FBI looking into King shooting The FBI will look into the shooting of Sophia King, a mentally ill woman, by an Austin police officer at the request of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The NAACP had written a letter to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and President Bush in December requesting action. Officer John Coffey said he shot King, 23, at an East Austin housing project June 11 because she was lunging with a knife toward her apartment manager. Coffey was cleared in an internal investigation last year, and a Travis County grand jury declined to indict him.
When Weed Is Really Weed BY JORDAN SMITH The legal wrangling over a suspicious patch of ragweed has finally come to a close, after Travis Co. agreed to pay a settlement to several Spicewood residents who were the subject of an illegal drug raid, the Texas Civil Rights Project announced Dec. 29. According to TCRP's Jim Harrington, the county will pay $40,000 to Hazy Hills resident Sandy Smith and several of her tenants whose homes were raided on May 8, 2001 by the Capital Area Narcotics Task Force. The task force members descended on Smith's property without a warrant, claiming their helicopter had spotted marijuana growing on her 2.5-acre property. Smith and the others were held at gunpoint for nearly 30 minutes before the officers realized the plant in question was only ragweed -- nearly as common in Texas as dirt. "I hope [Travis Co. Sheriff Margo Frasier] and her deputies learn their lesson from this, that they must respect our civil rights and treat us with dignity," Smith said. The Hazy Hills debacle was one in a string of high-profile CANTF failures -- including the botched raid that ended with the February 2001 shooting death of Travis Co. Sheriff's Deputy Keith Ruiz. All of Texas' regional drug task force operations were taken over by the governor's office last year -- largely because of problems with oversight and accountability, and a long list of controversial operations, including the 1999 Tulia raid. Since then the CANTF has officially disbanded. For more on the Hazy Hills raid see, "No Weed, Just Dopes," May 25, 2001.
News 8, Austin Iranian family will fight to stay Mo Jamal and his family won asylum in Germany after they fled Iran 17 years ago. They eventually left Germany for the United States. But the INS has denied their petition for asylum here, even though they've lived in Austin for eight years. Jamal's initial plea for asylum was denied and his appeal was pending for five years. Last month, his appeal was denied as well. Jamal said now he plans to hire a new attorney and take his case to the federal level. "They want to dance, but they are prohibited from dancing...they want to be free," Mo Jamal said of the women in one of his wife's paintings. And like the Iranian woman in that picture, he is searching for eternal freedom. "It's like a tree ... that we planted and deeply rooted and getting fruits, and we want to take off and kick out this tree from this country...what is the reason?" Jamal said. The Texas Civil Rights Project says the Patriot Act is to blame. Attorney General John Ashcroft initiated the law right after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "The government has been up front on this that it is going to use the immigration laws to the full extent that it can to get people out of the country who are not citizens ... and specifically people of Mideast or Muslim belief or Arabic origin," said Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project. Edward Sledge, of the Austin Human Rights Commission, is also interested in this unique case. He's received an outpouring of forwarded e-mails from the arts community urging Congress to keep Jamal's family in the country. Now, Sledge is organizing a Wednesday press conference on the family's behalf. "This family has a very large support network here in this community, and this is to demonstrate that support," Sledge said. Although they have until Sunday to leave the country, the Jamal family has no intention of packing. "We don't know where we have to go ... It's easy to pack, but it is hard to find a place to go," Jamal said. Jamal said Austin is their home and they're willing to fight for their rights just as citizens would.
Drug task force's $40,000 error: Raid by now-dissolved unit turned up ragweed, not pot Travis County taxpayers will pay $40,000 to settle a lawsuit that accused a now-dissolved sheriff's office narcotics task force of violating the civil rights of four Spicewood residents during a bungled drug raid in May 2001. The federal lawsuit, filed last January, alleged that about a dozen members of the sheriff's Capital Area Narcotics Task Force held Sandra Smith and three tenants at gunpoint while they ransacked Smith's rental property on Happy Valley Pathway. The officers later said they suspected Smith was growing marijuana on the land but found only ragweed on her lot. They did not have a search warrant, according to the lawsuit, which was filed by the Texas Civil Rights Project. Travis County commissioners unanimously approved the settlement earlier this month after determining that the county would probably lose if the case went to trial, County Judge Sam Biscoe said. "The Commissioners Court had serious questions about how the events unfolded," Biscoe said. Smith and the other plaintiffs -- David Howard, Chance Leverett and Wayne Darling -- originally sought $35,000 each. Darling died in September. Both sides said they agreed to settle in part because they wanted to avoid a costly trial. The raid was one of three high-profile incidents that raised questions about the task force in 2001. That February, Deputy Keith Ruiz was shot to death while trying to break down the front door of a suspected drug dealer's home in Del Valle. The gunman, Edwin Delamora, said he fired because he believed he was being robbed, but he was convicted of Ruiz's murder. And in December 2001, a deputy shot and killed unarmed Tony Martinez, 19, who was sleeping on a sofa when the task force raided his cousin's home. Smith said the lawsuit accomplished its top goal when Sheriff Margo Frasier disbanded the task force earlier this year. "I was just trying to show everybody that they don't have any right to push people around who are good, hard-working people like we are," said Smith, 57. "They just acted like we were some kind of trailer trash or something."
Web posted Saturday, October 19, 2002 Rights group gives award to Blackburn The Amarillo attorney who is spearheading the defense against the controversial 1999 Tulia drug bust will receive an award from the Texas Civil Rights Project this weekend. Attorney Jeff Blackburn will be in Austin today to pick up the Henry B. Gonzalez Human Rights Award at the TCRP's annual Bill of Rights dinner, said Jim Harrington, TCRP director. Harrington said Blackburn's willingness to dedicate hundreds of hours of work and nearly $40,000 in a pro bono effort to free the Tulia defendants played heavily into his selection for the award. "The fact that he has a lot of personal integrity and courage and commitment to justice to invest his own time and money is very important to us," Harrington said. "Also, the fact that he has dedicated his work to a very poor African-American community in Tulia. It's very hard in poor minority communities to get representation." Blackburn organized the Tulia Legal Defense Fund, a group of local attorneys who joined together in 2000 to represent the defendants from the Tulia drug bust. The fund is dedicated to clearing the 46 people, 39 of whom are black, who were arrested in Tulia after an 18-month undercover investigation by agent Tom Coleman. The arrests stirred controversy and allegations of racial discrimination, leading to civil lawsuits and investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Texas Attorney General's office. The Gonzalez award, which has been given for two years to recognize outstanding efforts at ensuring human rights, also recognizes Chris Hoffman and Jack Swindell, Blackburn's fellow Amarillo attorneys working in the fund, as well as several other who have contributed time and effort. Blackburn said he and the others involved in the defense efforts have been proud to dedicate their time and money at no charge, because the defense brings its own rewards. "Most lawyers that I know do a lot of free work for people because they believe that it's a good cause," Blackburn said. "The only difference between what we're doing in this case and what most lawyers do every day is that this one seems to have gotten more attention. "This has given all of us that have been involved in it a chance to be bigger than ourselves - to do something that is good and right. If you look at it that way, that's our reward for what we've been doing."
Metro & State Briefing Thursday, August 15, 2002 Central Texas Digest The Luling School board approved a settlement Tuesday with two girls who were asked to leave their school after becoming pregnant in the 1990s. Some members of the staff at Luling High School had told the two 16-year-old students, Margaret Contreras and Celia Leon, that it was more appropriate for them to leave school when they were pregnant than to stay, said Andrea Gunn. Gunn, a lawyer for the Texas Civil Rights Project, was the girls' attorney. The school was violating federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities, Gunn said. In the settlement, the district agreed to provide students, staff and parents information about a program at the high school that allows pregnant students to attend school on a full- or part-time basis or receive educational services at home after the birth of a child, Gunn said. Contreras and Leon also received money damages, but Gunn declined to reveal the amount. Luling school board members could not be reached Wednesday for comment.
ADAPT files 12 lawsuits for ADA anniversary The group claims restaurants, fitness centers, certain government buildings and parking lots are not built with proper access for people with disabilities. So, the group plans to continue the fight. "We'll always be fighting this as long as people and businesses don't follow what the law requires which is basic access and equivalent access to goods and services," said David Wittie of ADAPT. Lawsuits have been filed against buildings in Austin, Bexar County, El Paso and Laredo. ADAPT says it's been filing suits against businesses in Texas since 1997.
El Paso Times Borderland Sunday, July 21, 2002 Downtown Burger King's 'little step' sparks protest Adriana Chavez The group of about 30 people staged a protest outside the Burger King at 310 S. Mesa, near San Jacinto Plaza. Their complaint is that after five years of encouraging the store's owners to install a wheelchair ramp and do away with the entrance's step, nothing has been done. "They're discriminating against people with disabilities just because of one little step," said Alfredo Ju·rez, team leader and coordinator of Desert Adapt, a local group responsible for calling the protest. The restaurant's co-owner, Al Latorre, said that in 1999 he submitted a proposal to build a ramp in front of the store, but it was rejected by City Council. "I tried to get a ramp put in front of the restaurant to provide access, and the city turned me down. They felt it would impede on pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk," said Latorre, who described the proposed ramp as a smooth slope from the sidewalk. "For (the protesters) to do this now ... it's not right, and all it does is create bad will. Now I'm not going to feel inclined to cooperate." Ju·rez says his group wanted Latorre to resubmit a plan with a less-complicated design, but Latorre refused, citing monetary reasons. Ju·rez said he warned Latorre that the original proposal wasn't going to pass. "Burger King is owned by a corporation that has billions of dollars in revenue," Ju·rez said as protesters chanted "access is our civil right." The group plans to file a formal complaint with the corporation. Lidia Anderson, a personal care attendant who was among the protesters, said that by adding a ramp, the restaurant would be helping not just disabled persons, but mothers with strollers and older people who have a hard time climbing stairs. Desert Adapt was one of the organizations that filed a lawsuit in 1999 against Cinemark Tinseltown, 11855 Gateway West, for what they said was failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the ADA, at least one accessible route must be provided within the site's boundary from public transportation stops, accessible parking spaces, passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks, to an accessible building entrance. The historical Cortez Hotel building, where the restaurant is located, has a back entrance with a ramp, but Ju·rez said that the two doors are too heavy to open by someone in a wheelchair and that the ramp into the restaurant is too steep, making it impossible for someone without a motorized wheelchair to enter. Ju·rez also said the back entrance is closed during the weekends.
Houston Chronicle June 24, 2002, 11:47PM Austin school district sued for Title IX softball violations AUSTIN -- High school girls who play softball aren't getting a fair shake from the Austin Independent School District, a federal civil rights lawsuit filed Monday alleges. The lawsuit against Austin, Crockett, McCallum and Travis High Schools cites violations of Title IX, the Texas Equal Rights Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment's protections of due process. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, stems partly from the school district's delayed construction of four softball fields promised in a 1996 bond election. Even though the school board recently voted to construct two fields in far northeast Austin, they are not comparable to the district's baseball fields for boys, the suit said. "I don't have any knowledge of a Title IX lawsuit. As far as I know we haven't been served with papers," said AISD attorney Mel Waxler. "Until I see a lawsuit and have a chance to review it, I really would not be in any position to comment."
Mother considers lawsuit after police shooting By Molly Smith An Austin mother is considering a lawsuit to answer questions surrounding a deadly police shooting. Sophia King was shot and killed Tuesday in East Austin. Police say a 16-year veteran of the police force, officer John Coffey, was forced to fire his weapon. They say King was threatening someone with a knife, but King's family is not so sure. King's mother, Brenda Elendu, joined forces with the Texas Civil Rights Project today, an advocacy group that believes the police acted poorly in handling King's 911 call. Elendu says this all could have been avoided if officers knew how to respond to a call involving a person with mental illness. Assistant police chief Rick Coy stands by the officer's decision to shoot and says this is not a discrimination issue. As soon as the investigation is over, the city's new police monitor will start another investigation into what happened. Officer Coffey has been placed on administrative leave, pending an investigation, which is standard in the case of deadly force.
ACLU lawsuits aim at American AUSTIN - An Austin man ejected from an American Airlines flight several months ago sued the company in federal court Tuesday, saying he was singled out because of his last name and humiliated in front of his children. The complaint from Mohammed Ali Ahmed seeking direct and punitive damages came on the same day that the American Civil Liberties Union announced the filing of five lawsuits alleging illegal racial discrimination against four major airlines in several U.S. cities. One of those suits also targets Fort Worth-based American; the others name Continental, Northwest and United. All of the airlines broadly denied discriminatory treatment of passengers and defended their procedures. Ahmed, a native of India who became an American citizen in 1997, said he decided to sue American for kicking him off a plane Sept. 29 because of what he described as a "pattern" of illegal discrimination at the airline. "There's too many mistakes going on, so if somebody didn't step in, I think everyone standing here across the country will suffer," he said. In a written statement, American did not comment directly on the lawsuits but said it had a "long and recognized commitment to diversity." "Many people of many ethnicities and national origins have been inconvenienced by our nation's heightened emphasis on security since Sept. 11," the statement said. "Though we regret that some people feel they have been offended ... security and safety are - and must be - the primary concern." In the Austin case, the incident occurred after Ahmed boarded Flight 572 in Austin en route to Chicago, where he was to attend the funeral of his father-in-law. Here's what he says happened: He and three of his young children made it through the security checkpoints and had been seated for almost an hour when an American Airlines employee told him to take his children off the plane to face questioning. His wife and an infant child boarded a separate flight on another airline. After Ahmed asked why he was taken off the American Airlines flight, a police officer told him it was "because of his name." Ahmed said, however, that he was never told that he was on any type of watch list of suspected terrorists. He said American had many chances to raise concerns before he was seated. And he said the airline never tried to verify his employment status with Motorola or to call the Chicago funeral home to confirm that he was on his way to bury his father-in-law. Instead, Ahmed and his young children were subjected to "a march of shame in front of a hundred spectators" and eventually had to postpone the funeral to undergo the questioning, the suit alleges. Ahmed called his treatment "torture, torture just for the name." Ahmed wants direct reimbursement for the $1,064 he had to pay to postpone his father-in-law's funeral. He also is seeking compensation for mental suffering and humiliation and punitive damages. Jim Harrington, Ahmed's attorney and head of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said that only by having its wallet hit would American stop discriminating. "I think money helps corporations understand what their responsibilities are," Harrington said. Todd Burke, an American spokesman, declined to comment on any of the specific cases but said pilots "do have the authority to deny boarding to anyone" if they feel safety is compromised. In the other lawsuit involving American, Hassan Sader, a Moroccan native and naturalized American citizen, says he was treated like a "second-class citizen" when he was told by an American Airlines agent to get off a plane in Baltimore headed for Seattle on Oct. 31. The cases involving Northwest, Continental and United also involved passengers of Middle Eastern or Asian appearance who were ejected from flights, the ACLU said. Northwest, the only airline to comment directly on one of the lawsuits, said the passenger in question was removed because of "conflicting information" on whether he had received clearance. Once cleared, the passenger was put on another plane and reached his destination before the originally scheduled flight, the company said.
The New York Times National Briefing 23 May 2002 TEXAS: CHALLENGE TO AID FOR RELIGION IS BACK
Austin Parents Questioning Equality Offered to Girls' Sports Fox 7 News, Austin Are female high school students treated unfairly when it comes to sports? Some Austin high school parents think so. They're filing a grievance against the Austin Independent School District. Williams Field, in addition to Butler Field on Barton Springs, serve as the AISD girls' softball playing fields. The field has only one set of bleachers, there's no concession stand, and we're told that the scoreboard along Cesar Chavez doesn't even work. "This is the dugout, and as you can see, it's not enclosed," said softball mom Roni Morales. That's just one item on her laundry list of complaints about AISD's girls' softball fields. "Chicken wire. Chicken wire. You can see that it's very thin; balls can go through it and we've had gaping holes there," said Morales. Since the passage of a 1996 bond, the district has promised a new facility. But something else always takes precedence. "Actually, under the law, under Title IX, lack of funding is not an excuse," said Andrea Gunn, who works with the Texas Civil Rights Project. She's helping the group of six parents who are filing a grievance with the district to level the playing field when it comes to girls' and boys' sports. "These types of conditions that these girls have been playing in or on over the years, it just wouldn't fly for the boys' program," said Gunn. Softball parents say their practice fields don't score either. They say the baseball practice fields are maintained by the district, but not theirs. "We spend hours with the watering and the mowing and so forth, and making general improvements--many times out of our own pockets," said Morales. District administrators promise they're working on the issue, but don't believe they're in violation of Title IX policies. "There are certainly some concerns there," said Ylise Janssen of the Austin Independent School District, "and I think that we mentioned that last night. But we are always striving hard to stay in compliance with Title IX." The district has a plan for a new field, but it will be in northeast Austin. Boys' baseball teams have two: the Berger Center in south Austin, and the Nelson Field in north Austin. "We'd really like to see a south field, just like the boys have a north field and a south field," said Morales. And just like their girls play to win, "we are prepared to take it to whatever level we need to." Even if that means filing a Title IX lawsuit in federal court against the district. Title IX, by the way, is now a 30-year-old federal law that requires equal funding in boys' and girls' programs in public schools. The NonProfit Times February 1, 2002 By Richard Williamson When Jack Cowley ran prisons as a warden in Oklahoma, he wasn't in the habit of giving his inmates hugs. In fact, such personal contact was strictly forbidden. But when he was hired to run the InnerChange Freedom Initiative at the Carol Vance unit of the Texas prison system near Houston, the rules changed dramatically. "A staff person is trained not to even touch a prisoner except in the case of a riot or a forced extraction," Cowley said. "Here, people are hugging inmates, and that's very tough for a traditional corrections officer to get used to." Counselors from InnerChange, an offshoot of former White House aide and Watergate figure Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries, are also bringing religion to the inmates, specifically Christianity, and talking about brotherly love. While there's nothing new about ministering to inmates, Texas was the first state to provide funds -- $1.5 million this year -- for a program it saw as a way to reduce recidivism. President Bush, who as governor made Texas the bellwether in faith-based initiatives, has praised the prison program as an example of how religious charities can improve lives where government services often fail. In 1997, Texas became the first state to use the faith-based effort that has now taken root in Iowa and Kansas. "From the state's point of view, the mission is to reduce recidivism," said Cowley, national director of operations for the Tulsa, Okla.-based nonprofit. "From a ministry point of view, our mission is to save souls for Christ." With state funding, InnerChange will be the only program of its kind in the Vance unit. Doesn't that violate the separation of church and state? "The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has looked into it and has been quoted as saying more programs like this are needed in the system," Cowley said. "Their only issue is that there may be denominational issues, such as there may be a Muslim who wants services but there are no Muslim providers." Although Cowley said the program's degree of success will not be known until 2003, he believes InnerChange has already reduced recidivism at the Vance unit from a previous 44 percent to 10 percent today. After 27 years of experience working in prisons, Cowley says he is amazed at how effective religion and the InnerChange program can be in changing attitudes of inmates. "It's really exciting to see wardens come into the program and say, 'My God, I never thought that was possible,'" Cowley said. One inmate actually turned down parole so that he could complete the 18-month program, Cowley said. While InnerChange's post-release mentoring program aids add an extra level of supervision during parole, the program violates previous parole practices by requiring that former inmates get together for continuing religious fellowship. While criticism of the program has remained fairly muted, Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State sees InnerChange as another example of tax-funded religion under the Bush administration. "Any program that relies on or requires a conversion to a particular religion is going to be a poor candidate for public funding in our view," said Rob Boston, spokesman for Americans United. "We're not saying that they do not do good work, but they ought to do it with their own funding." Other faith-based initiatives are taking more direct hits in Texas, particularly from the Texas Freedom Network (TFN), an organization founded in 1995 by Cecile Richards, daughter of former Gov. Ann Richards. Bush defeated incumbent Ann Richards to become governor in 1994. TFN, a statewide, nonprofit, non-partisan alliance that includes 7,500 religious and community leaders, is challenging what it calls "the growing social and political influence of religious political extremists." Samantha Smoot, executive director of TFN, calls the faith-based effort in Texas "a lose-lose-lose deal." Taxpayers lose, she believes, "because they are forced to financially support religious activity, and they get virtually no accountability for how the money is spent," she said. "Churches lose, because the government strings that come with government funds threaten their independence. Poor people lose because they may be compelled to practice a faith not their own in order to receive services, and because Bush has exempted many of these programs from basic health and safety practices." In 1997, the Texas legislature passed a bill allowing religious child care facilities to be accredited by a private sector regulator, the Texas Association of Christian Child Care Agencies (TACCCA). The Roloff Homes were the first of eight faith-based child-care facilities accredited by TACCCA. Despite continued complaints of abuse and neglect, TACCCA re-accredited the Roloff Homes in April 2000, the TFN reported. With the elimination of TACCCA, state regulators will again have authority over the homes. Other programs cited by civil libertarians as flawed uses of state funds include a church-based drug rehabilitation program that argued that drug addiction is not a disease but a sin, with prayer and Bible reading as treatment. In one of the first constitutional challenges to a charitable choice contract, the American Jewish Congress and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a lawsuit in 2000 to invalidate a contract between the Texas Department of Human Services and the Jobs Partnership of Washington County (JPWC). The suit claimed that "Protestant evangelical Christianity permeates" the partnership's job training and placement program. The complaint charged that JPWC uses tax dollars to convince students of the need to "change from the inside out, rather than from the outside in, and that can only be accomplished through a relationship with Jesus Christ." At the InnerChange prison program, Cowley said he is sensitive to fears that the state's social services and funding might be taken over by the religious right. "I guess there's some civil libertarian in all of us. There's a fear that the state's going to support a religion," he said. "But the potential behind the initiative isn't so much the money. The grandest thing about the initiative is that suddenly the government is giving people permission to get involved," said Cowley. "It's giving the church, the synagogue, the mosque, a way to get involved." Richard Williamson is a reporter for the Denver News Bureau. Houston accused of discriminating against disabled HOUSTON -- A civil rights group filed 13 lawsuits against Texas businesses and government agencies accused of discriminating against people with disabilities. Five lawsuits were filed in Houston. They target:The City of Houston for sidewalks that are unusable and dangerous for wheelchairs; Texas State Optical for allegedly refusing to give an eye exam to a woman in a wheelchair; Dollar Arena for allegedly refusing to move boxes that block aisles and trap customers inside; Ryland Homes for allegedly having inaccessible model homes and offices; and the Aldine School District for allegedly having stadiums that don't allow a mother to watch her son. Malaika Adan is a Houston resident who has used a wheelchair since she was 23. "My experience with the sidewalks has been horrific," she said. "Imagine feeling safer wheeling in traffic than on the sidewalk. Now following the ADA (American With Disabilities Act) is disrespectful of people with disabilities and a direct impediment of our becoming independent members of the community." Nobody likes fighting traffic. But in Adan's case, it can be very dangerous. "They drive like they're playing chicken. And I think I'm gonna end up being somebody's fried chicken that evening." Attorneys for the disabled say the city of Houston is supposed to make curb cuts that make way for wheelchairs. But many intersections still don't make room for the disabled. Houston resident Deborah Boudreaux claims TSO denied her an eye exam because she was in a wheelchair. "It upset me terribly," said Boudreaux. "I'm a person like everybody else. It's not that difficult." The Texas Civil Rights Project chose to file the lawsuits on this 13th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act. "It's really very simple. We've had 13 years that the law's been on the books. We just want doors to be opened, ramps to be there and people not to discriminate against others just because they're in a wheelchair or have another disability," said attorney Wayne Krause.
Civil rights group files suit against sheriff's office The Texas Civil Rights Project filed suit against the Travis County Sheriff's Office for its handling of a drug raid last year. The suit claims that members of the Central Texas Narcotics Task Force did not have a warrant when they entered a home with their guns drawn. According to the suit, the agents were looking for a marijuana grove they believe was at the back of the property, but instead they found only ragweed. The agents are accused of intimidating and threatening people during the raid. The Travis County Sheriff's Office said it has not seen the lawsuit yet, but it stands by the Task Force and its handling of the incident.
January 21, 2002 Cheerleader fight evolves into federal suit By Terrence Stutz SAN MARCOS--The dispute started over selection of cheerleaders at San Marcos High School, but for Melba Garcia, the stakes have become much greater than who will rally the fans at Rattler football games. Ms. Garcia is one of the parents behind a federal lawsuit filed against the school district last week that alleged violations of privacy and other constitutional rights of three students who were dropped from the school's cheerleader squad last year. The suit, filed by the Texas Civil Rights Project, charges that San Marcos school officials improperly released confidential information about the students to other parents who then pressured the school board to kick them off the squad. The board action came during a stormy meeting last summer at which parents and even student cheerleaders shouted their approval as Ms. Garcia, her husband and parents of the other girls looked on in stunned silence. "It felt like a public hanging of our daughters," she said in an interview last week. "It was very hard on my daughter. It really hurt her." San Marcos school officials, who have insisted they followed the law, declined to comment on the lawsuit. Ms. Garcia said her daughter - a high school sophomore - transferred to another school district last fall because of the harassing phone calls and threatening e-mails she received. The homes of the three girls' families - who tried to reform the cheerleader selection process - were egged repeatedly, and just a week ago, someone pinned a poster containing vulgarities on the front of the Garcias' home, the parents said. The families finally decided to take legal action. "This really has nothing to do with cheerleaders. It's about more important issues," Ms. Garcia said. "We are fighting for the rights of our daughters and other students. And we feel what we're doing is the right thing to do." The controversy began last summer when the three girls initially sought to become cheerleaders and were rejected. Their parents filed grievances with the school district that eventually went before the school board, which voted 4-3 to place the girls on the cheerleader squad. That displeased another group of cheerleader parents, who protested the action and asked the administration for confidential documents relating to the grievance proceedings and the school records from the original cheerleader tryouts. Superintendent Ann Dixon and San Marcos High School Principal Julio Toro, the lawsuit said, "unlawfully discussed confidential information about the students, and gave documents and other information to parents who opposed efforts made by the plaintiffs to address deficiencies in the selection process" for cheerleaders. Also disclosed was the confidential disciplinary record of one of the students, according to the suit. That information was then taken by the group of parents to the school board, which held an emergency meeting in July to hear their complaints. The board voted 4-2 to rescind its previous decision and to kick the girls off the cheerleader squad ñ an action roundly cheered at the meeting. Ms. Garcia and the parents of the other two girls approached the Texas Civil Rights Project about taking legal action against the school district. "It's unfortunate how common the violation of student privacy rights is in Texas schools," said James Harrington, the attorney for the parents. "School districts should train their administrators, staff and teachers to respect and protect their students' privacy." Andrea Gunn, another lawyer for the Texas Civil Rights Project, said the lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the school district to provide professional training for employees on the rights of students and confidentiality of student records. Student privacy rights are guaranteed under federal statute. In addition, she said, the suit seeks to prohibit the district from releasing certain information about students in the future, and it requests unspecified monetary damages. "Monetary damages are not the primary reason the parents brought this suit," Ms. Gunn explained. "Their intent is to address a climate in this school district that fails to protect the rights of its students." Terrence Stutz is based in the Austin Bureau of The Dallas Morning News.
January 18, 2002 Only Women Pay Mullins said she and Salmon became disenchanted with the district after their oldest daughter joined the school's dance team and cheerleading squad. Male athletes' needs were fully paid for, she said, but dancers and cheerleaders had to pay tryout fees and buy their own uniforms and supplies. San Marcos students earn half a physical education credit for cheerleading, said TCRP lawyer Andrea Gunn, making it a legitimate athletic program. "In the Kilgore suit, that was the theory we used," she said. "Cheerleading isn't restricted to women, but traditionally it is mostly women." For the 2000-01 school year, Mullins' two daughters decided to try swimming. Shortly thereafter, the district cut the program, which had more females than males. Although Mullins doesn't have specific budget info on the men's programs (the TCRP plans to obtain it, Gunn said), she said, "I do think pretty much without a doubt the football boys are probably getting more than anyone." When she confronted San Marcos High Principal Julio Toro about exploring a Title IX suit, "He told me that football made more money and therefore they could spend more money on football." As the lawsuit points out, Title IX mandates equal funding for men's and women's programs, regardless of whether one produces more revenue than the other.
Wednesday, November 14, 2001 Texas woman files lawsuit over using inmates as telemarketers The Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY - A Texas woman has filed a federal lawsuit against a family film company that hired Utah inmates as telemarketers ó a practice she says put her family in danger. April Jordan wants the company that employed the felon, Salt Lake City-based SandStar Family Entertainment, to pay damages for the alleged violation of her family's privacy. She filed a lawsuit in Dallas' U.S. District Court Tuesday. Her attorney, Jim Harrington, asked the court to certify the case as a class action lawsuit, claiming potentially thousands of families were contacted by inmates. Jordan participated in a SandStar telephone survey early 2000, according to the lawsuit. In February 2000, a Utah State Prison inmate working for Utah Correctional Industries called Jordan's home in Mesquite, Texas, while selling family-oriented films under an agreement with SandStar. Jordan's daughter answered the inmate's call. The inmate allegedly discovered the girl's name, birth date, physical description, address and other personal information, according to the lawsuit. He then allegedly gave the information to another inmate, who sent a letter to the girl. "When you know there are adult men, with not the best intentions, with information about your daughter, and you don't know who they are ... it's like being on guard 24/7," Jordan said. Officials from SandStar, which sells Sesame Street videos and family-oriented films, did not return several telephone calls Tuesday. The Utah Department of Corrections discontinued all inmate telemarketing which produced $700,000 in revenue from SandStar, the Utah Travel Council and the state Division of Corporations last year because officials could not ensure inmates would not misuse personal information obtained by telephone. Two inmates involved in the letters lost a parole date, said Jack Ford, spokesman for the Department of Corrections. He said the inmate who sent the letter has said he believed the girl was a woman over 21, and has apologized for the mailing. After contacting SandStar to have her name and telephone number removed from a calling list, Jordan allegedly received one more telemarketing call from a Utah prisoner. "The biggest part (of filing the suit) is due to SandStar's non-responsive attitude," Jordan said. Harrington said SandStar violated the law by collecting consumers' personal information in a survey without revealing it would be provided to felons. "It's a violation of privacy rights because you're not being told that's going to happen," Harrington said. Controversial Mural Whitewashed by School Board October 12, 2001 WIMBERLY, Texas - When students at Katherine Anne Porter (KAP) High School returned from their weekend on Oct. 16 they noticed a remarkable change in their hallway. Just weeks before, art students had created a colorful mural filled with their own designs and paintings, but a school board meeting on October 12 resulted in a weekend white-washing of the 30 foot piece of art. The mural did not receive any negative reaction until several weeks later when a student drew an image of two men kissing. After that time the school's administration and the school board made efforts to censor the wall. Grady Roper, art and journalism teacher at KAP, supervised and participated in the creation of the mural. After the mural controversy, Roper found himself without a job - dismissed for not being a "team player." Jul. 5, 2001 A wrongful termination lawsuit was filed in Hays County. Roper, represented by the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), says he was actually terminated for talking to The Texas Triangle to assess the rights of his students and perhaps shed public light on what he considered callous censorship of student art. NOW: Roper awaits news from KAP's legal team on the settlement agreement his attorney, Andrea Gunn, submitted this week. Law requires such agreements be attempted before a trial date will be set. Roper says he is happy with the proposal. Gunn says she eagerly awaits a prompt response. "I am already happy with everything that 's gone down - if nothing more came of this I would feel fine - the school embarrassed the shit out of themselves," Roper said. "I would love to have my students back, but I really don't mind just painting houses. It's a shame, but that's just kind of the way the world is - you can't expect people to be up to date on their thinking."
September 26, 2001 Majority of Texans would limit civil liberties to boost security By Clay Robison AUSTIN -- Three-fourths of Texans are willing to sacrifice some of their civil liberties in an effort to prevent the type of terrorism that struck New York and the Pentagon, a new survey indicates. According to the Scripps Howard Texas Poll, 52 percent of Texans are concerned about new restrictions being imposed on their freedoms as the government reacts to the Sept. 11 attacks. But 74 percent of the poll's respondents said they would be willing to give up some of their liberties to fight terrorism. The telephone survey of 500 Texas adults was conducted Sept. 20-25, as the Bush administration was pressing Congress for legislation to expand the authority of law enforcement officials against suspected terrorists. Action on the proposals has been delayed by lawmakers who want to ensure the changes don't go too far in limiting civil liberties. Texans' attitudes on limiting their freedoms are similar to those expressed nationally. Seventy-nine percent of respondents to a New York Times/CBS News Poll published earlier this week agreed that Americans will have to give up some of their personal freedoms to make the country safe from terrorist attacks. In addition to the administration's push for expanded use of wiretaps and other steps against suspected terrorists, there also has been public discussion about imposing unprecedented restrictions on ordinary citizens, such as the issuance of electronic identification cards and government monitoring of phone calls and e-mail. Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said it was "dangerous" for Americans to be so willing to accept new governmental restrictions on their lives. "This is exactly what happens every time there is a crisis. Our political leadership tries to gain more leverage, in a sense, over the Bill of Rights," he said. Harrington said the talk of restricting personal freedoms was particularly ominous since the Bush administration has been unable to say that any of the expanded investigatory authority it is seeking would have prevented the recent attacks. "There is absolutely no guarantee that these safeguards would have avoided the Sept. 11 occurrence," Attorney General John Ashcroft told the House Judiciary Committee this week. "We do know that without them, the occurrence took place." Will Harrell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said he also was concerned about the polls. But he said the findings were "understandable" because America is suffering through a time of crisis and fear. "It's a bump, but a temporary bump, and I don't think that's an opinion shared by most elected officials," he said. An overwhelming majority of Texans, 93 percent, are concerned about the possibility of more terrorist attacks in the United States, the Texas Poll indicates. And 57 percent are worried that they or a member of their family will become a terrorist victim. Only 27 percent, however, said the Sept. 11 attacks had made them more fearful to attend sporting or other public events. Sixty-two percent of the Texas Poll respondents thought U.S. intelligence agencies should have discovered plans for the terrorist attacks on the East Coast before they happened. But 86 percent said they were confident that the government can prevent further terrorist attacks in this country. Harrington said he suspected one reason the administration was in a hurry to expand its authority was to provide "political cover" for its intelligence failures and lack of security at the airports where hijackers boarded commercial airliners for use in the attacks. The survey by the Scripps Howard Data Center has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
New Web site against hate crimes in wake of attacks On September 14, an Islamic Center was targeted in the Dallas suburb of Irving. Someone fired three shots at the building; no one was injured. On September 18, an Arab-American grocery store in San Antonio was attacked. Police said someone purposely rammed a car into the front of the store. Again, there were no injuries. On September 19 here in Austin, the Nation of Islam mosque was set on fire. Police are ruling it a case of arson; no one was injured in that incident either. Clearly, attackers have targeted Texas' Arab-American and Muslim communities since Tuesday, September 11. These recent hate crimes have the Texas Civil Rights Project concerned, and they have a message. As TCR project coordinator Jim Harrington said, that message essentially states, "No matter what happened and no matter who did it, that you cannot blame a group of people because of their national origin or because of their religious backgrounds. It's very important that we treat everybody equally, with equal dignity and as Americans." To get their message across, the group has created a Web site and hotline for Arabs or Muslims who think they have been discriminated against. At the top of the Texas Civil Rights Project home page, there's a link that asks if you've experienced discrimination during the current crisis. If you click on that link, you will find a phone number and email address for legal assistance. "We'd try to get a overview of what happened. And then it'd be really important to find out who did it, and then how that it might have been motivated by hate crime," said Harrington. But this group does not take the place of the police. If you have been a victim of a hate crime, your initial contact should still be law enforcement officers. Harrington explained their role is "just having somebody making the inquiries and following up on it ... enough to make sure that the police do the job that they need to be doing." Although they haven't received any phone calls yet, the Texas Civil Rights Project hopes these resources will encourage people to come forward and bring justice to those who resort to violence as an outlet for hate.
The New York Times on the Web June 1, 2001 Texas Retooling Criminal Justice in Wake of Furor on Death Penalty HOUSTON, May 31 ó Texas, which leads the nation in executions and endured withering criticism of its death penalty system during the presidential campaign last year, is poised to make significant changes in its criminal justice laws and so, supporters of the overhaul say, create a fairer system of capital punishment. The Legislature, which concluded its session this week, passed a measure addressing a central complaint about Texas criminal justice: that indigent defendants are too often given bad lawyers to handle their cases. The lawmakers also approved legislation providing for DNA testing for many criminal defendants and prisoners, as well as a bill to increase payments to people wrongfully imprisoned. Gov. Rick Perry has signed the DNA bill and is expected to sign the two others. But Mr. Perry has not yet decided what he will do on perhaps the most controversial measure, a bill that would make Texas the 14th state to ban the execution of mentally retarded prisoners. Prosecutors are urging a veto, while supporters note that a similar bill has passed the Florida Legislature and is backed by Gov. Jeb Bush. While most of the changes cover a broad range of criminal defendants and not solely those charged with capital crimes, many lawmakers were motivated largely by the intense negative attention focused on the state's death penalty during the presidential campaign of Gov. George W. Bush. The flurry in passage of criminal justice legislation, while falling short of what many death penalty opponents had hoped for, is in marked contrast to activity the last time the biennial Legislature met, in 1999, when Mr. Bush's presidential aspirations hung over every vote. Mr. Bush, who during the campaign last year steadfastly defended the Texas capital punishment system, vetoed a bill as governor that was similar to the one passed this year on legal representation for the poor, and also spoke against a failed 1999 bill that would have forbidden execution of the retarded. Texas carried out a record 40 executions last year. But some experts believe that improving the quality of legal defense for the poor ó to say nothing of DNA testing, which has already resulted in some prisoners' release from death rows across the country ó could reduce the number of death sentences in Texas. "Just having someone to really tell your story at the time of sentencing and not doing just a perfunctory job does seem to help," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, in Washington, which opposes execution. "The indigent-defense system seems to be a key factor, and if the reforms that Texas passed make a meaningful difference in the way cases are handled there, then I think it will result in fewer death sentences." Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat in the Republican-controlled State Senate who played a leading role in pushing for a criminal justice overhaul, agreed that the negative attention focused on the state's system during the presidential campaign had been a significant factor in bringing change this year. He said he did not know if the bills would mean fewer executions, "but I hope so." "I think these are major reforms," Senator Ellis said. "For the Lone Star State, it's a whole new era in criminal justice reform." Since 1976, Texas has executed 246 people, more than half of them during Governor Bush's administration; the state figure is more than a third of the national total, 716. As yet this year, there have been only seven executions in Texas, a far slower rate than in 2000. Because execution dates are set by local judges in the state's 254 counties rather than by a central corrections authority, there is no way to predict how many will be scheduled in a given month. In any event, a change in attitudes in this fiercely law-and-order state was evident from the moment the legislative session began in January. Mr. Perry, a Republican who rose from lieutenant governor to governor after Mr. Bush's presidential election victory, surprised some lawmakers by speaking, though in vague terms, of a need for changes in criminal justice. A newfound willingness of legislators to consider such changes became apparent when bills to impose a two-year moratorium on executions passed committees in both houses, before eventually dying. Such bills had never even been given a committee hearing in the past. In addition, Mr. Perry asked that lawmakers place the DNA bill on an emergency fast track, and signed it shortly after it was passed. In response to questions about the Legislature's new direction, Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman, said it was not relevant to Mr. Bush's own record as governor. "Those are issues for the current Legislature and the current governor in Texas to address," he said. "When the president was governor, his views were very clear." The Scripps Howard Texas Poll has shown that Texans remain strongly in favor of the death penalty but are not against changing or at least studying the system. In a February poll, 66 percent of respondents said the state should not execute an inmate considered mentally retarded. A poll last year showed that 76 percent supported a moratorium on executions in cases that might be affected by DNA testing. The same poll found that 65 percent believed Texas had executed innocent people. For longtime death penalty opponents in Texas, the changes are welcome, if not yet enough. James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, hailed them as enormous steps in the context of Texas' past, even if they might seem modest compared with those in states like Illinois, which last year imposed a moratorium on all executions. Maurie Levin, a lawyer with Texas Defender Service, which represents death row inmates, said the changes were meaningful but called them "baby steps when Texas needs giant steps." For example, the indigent-defense bill that Mr. Perry is expected to sign falls far short of the statewide indigent-defense system sought by many critics of the death penalty. Currently, not only is each county responsible for how lawyers are appointed for poor defendants, the state does not require standards or provide oversight. The new bill, the Fair Defense Act, would not have the state taking control away from county judges, but would create minimum standards for lawyers appointed by those judges, would provide about $20 million a year in state money for the counties' programs and would institute reporting requirements allowing the state to monitor them. As for the bill on the mentally ill, Governor Perry is facing pressure from both sides, and must decide by June 17 whether to sign it, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature. This bill would allow juries to decide during a sentencing phase whether the defendant was mentally retarded. If so, there could be no death penalty. If the jury decided the defendant was not retarded, then a hearing would be held in which two disinterested experts would make recommendations to the judge, who would have final say. The political fight is quickly escalating. Mr. Ellis and other supporters say that on the basis of an I.Q. of 70 or below, the state has already executed six mentally retarded inmates and that seven more are sitting on death row. "It reeks of revenge, not justice, when you execute someone who is mentally retarded and doesn't know the difference between right and wrong," said State Representative Juan Hinojosa, a Democrat from McAllen, the chief sponsor in the Democratic-controlled House. But Mr. Perry and several district attorneys have argued that Texas has never executed a mentally retarded person, contending that I.Q. is not the sole factor in determining retardation. Prosecutors also maintain that allowing the judge to have final say would wrongly take the final decision away from the jury. "This bill gives it to the jury and then takes it away from the jury," said David Weeks, the district attorney in Walker County, which includes Huntsville, home to the state's death chamber. "There are a great many problems with this law."
May 31, 2001 San Antonio Express News Golf cart decision may open doors By Jaime Castillo By determining that walking is not an intrinsic part of the game of golf, the U.S. Supreme Court opened a new vista for disabled athletes who should see more opportunities in professional and amateur sports as a result of the landmark ruling, legal experts and advocates said Wednesday. And despite fears to the contrary, many said the 7-2 ruling in favor of allowing professional golfer Casey Martin to use a cart in tournaments is narrowly defined enough to preserve the integrity of major athletic competitions. "It's a very loud message that we must bring the disabled community into every aspect of daily life, from participating in sports to going to the movies," said Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin. "We don't want to change the nature of baseball or football, but if we can modify it to allow fuller participation, we now must do it." Kirk Bauer, executive director of Disabled Sports USA and a marathon runner who lost a leg in the Vietnam War, said the Martin case put some badly needed teeth in the Americans With Disabilities Act. The ADA mandates that public facilities make reasonable changes to encourage access by the disabled. Up to now, it has been largely used to ensure that public buildings and government services are accessible to disabled people. "What it (the ruling) says is that professional sports is not exempt from the ADA, as long as it doesn't affect the fundamental nature of the game," Bauer said. "The question is still going to be: Can this person perform at a level necessary to compete in that sport?" Bauer said his own efforts to participate in the Boston Marathon are a good example of how the ADA can be used to make "reasonable accommodations" for disabled people. Last year, marathon organizers allowed him and other runners with disabilities to start the race two hours early. Some advocates said they hope the ruling will encourage more people to extend opportunities to disabled people beyond the sporting world. Judy Babbitt, the city's disability access officer who monitors ADA compliance, said the city has recently made interpreters available to a deaf man who is studying to become a lifeguard. "He passed the same test everyone else had to pass before the classes began, so we decided that providing an interpreter was a reasonable accommodation for him," said Babbitt, who uses a wheelchair. Babbitt downplayed concerns by some who believe the Martin case will encourage the filing of frivolous legal claims based on the ADA, which was adopted in 1990. "If the doomsayers had been prophets, we would have seen the world overturned by disabled people," she said. "It hasn't happened yet."
May 29, 2001 Court allows cart for disabled golfer Legal scholars say ruling won't have major effect on professional sports By Mark Curriden The Professional Golfers' Association must allow Casey Martin to use a golf cart during tournaments under a federal law designed to protect the rights of people with a disability, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The justices ruled 7-2 that the Americans With Disabilities Act requires pro sporting events to provide a level playing field to those with handicaps as long as the changes required do not fundamentally alter how the game is played. Legal experts said the court's decision is narrowly tailored to this limited set of facts and will have limited effect on other sports. Even so, analysts called the ruling a major victory for supporters of disability rights because, they said, a decision against Mr. Martin could have been devastating to their cause. "At a time when we have seen the Supreme Court cutting back the effectiveness and reach of the ADA, this ruling comes as very welcome news," said Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. "This decision says that the federal disabilities act is alive and well." The Americans With Disabilities Act, which Congress enacted in 1990, requires restaurants, golf courses, libraries and other public and private institutions to make "reasonable modifications" in order to accommodate people with disabilities. Mr. Martin, who is 28, sued the PGA in 1997 when it refused to allow him to ride a golf cart during PGA Tour events; he alleged that the decision violated federal law. He suffers from a degenerative leg ailment that he says makes it impossible for him to walk an 18-hole course, which golf officials estimate to be about 20 miles for a typical four-round tournament. Doctors say Mr. Martin's leg may eventually have to be amputated. His attorneys told the justices earlier this year that hitting the ball, not walking the course, is the key competitive element in golf. Lawyers for the PGA, which fought Mr. Martin's efforts for five years, argued that allowing Mr. Martin to use a cart rather than walk the course undermines the traditional rules designed to protect the game's integrity. The Supreme Court ruled that accommodating Mr. Martin's needs does not fundamentally change how the game of golf is played. "We have no doubt that allowing Martin to use a golf cart would not fundamentally alter the nature of tournaments," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. "What it can be said to do, on the other hand, is to allow Martin the chance to qualify for and compete in the athletic events offered to those members of the public who have the skill and desire to enter." If the purpose of forcing golfers to walk the course is to challenge their physical stamina, then Mr. Martin's disability already does that, said Justice Stevens, an avid golfer at age 81. The justices also faulted PGA officials for not considering Mr. Martin's claims in a more careful, deliberate manner. A Dallas lawyer agreed. "In this case, the PGA simply rejected Martin's request without evaluating his physical needs and without investigating possible accommodations," said Dallas lawyer Ken Molberg, an expert in disability litigation. "The most important thing about this decision is that the Supreme Court said that federal law puts the burden on employers and groups like the PGA to see if their rules don't arbitrarily discriminate against people with disabilities and see if something can't be done to accommodate them," said Mr. Molberg. "They just can't dismiss these claims summarily by claiming it doesn't fall within their rules." Texas Tech University law dean Frank Newton and other legal scholars said the Supreme Court decision is a victory for ADA supporters because of speculation that the justices would scale back what companies and agencies are required to do in order to accommodate people with disabilities. "We were scared to death the court was going to vote the other way, which would have jeopardized public access for people with disabilities at restaurants, recreational facilities and so forth," said Stephanie Thomas of Adapt, an Austin-based disability-rights organization. "This ruling just keeps us at the status quo, which means that people's rights will continue to be protected," she said. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, saying the majority's decision establishes separate rules for the disabled. He said such efforts are nothing more than "benevolent compassion" that are "quite absurd." To prove his point, Justice Scalia sarcastically predicted that Little League players with attention deficit disorder might be given four strikes, instead of three, in an effort to level the playing field. Several disability advocates, including former Sen. Bob Dole, had asked the justices to rule in favor of Mr. Martin. "Before the PGA just automatically knocks down someone's desire for accommodation, they now have to think twice," Mr. Martin said. "I think in the future this opens some doors for people."
Golfing legends Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer have denounced Mr. Martin's assertions, contending that a cart would give him a competitive advantage. "In Casey's particular case, there's no doubt about his disability," said pro golfer Hal Sutton, a member of the PGA Tour's policy board. "This is not about Casey Martin. It's about the possibilities it opens up. The next person's disabilities, it might not be as clear.
March 25, 2001
Noted civil rights lawyer to fight injustices in Austin By Dulcinea Cuellar San Juan-- From a small office in the back of the United Farm Workers Union, civil rights lawyer Raymond Gill has worked to make the Rio Grande Valley a better place for the working poor. Gill, who has spent the 10 years as a lawyer for the South Texas Project, challenges the everyday injustices faced by low-income residents. He has fought for better working conditions for migrant workers, improved the way many people have been treated by U.S. federal agents and helped launch boycotts and marches to memorialize civil rights leaders. "Of course, it makes me mad the way some of these people are treated," he said. "But that is what keeps me going and I hope I have made a difference." After a decade of representing farm workers, challenging politicians and filing more than 500 lawsuits, Gill will hang up his trademark red union beret to begin a new life in Austin. That doesn't mean he is giving up the civil rights cause, though. Gill leaves his post Saturday to be a lawyer for Advocacy, a nonprofit organization in Austin that handles the legal needs of the disabled. "Who better than Ray can understand the needs of the disabled people, and who better can assert those needs in court?" said David Guerra, an assistant U.S. attorney who has argued about eight cases with Gill in federal court. Gill, who has been confined to a wheelchair since he fell off a ladder in 1977, said he is looking forward to starting his new job next month and being closer to his family in Austin. "I have thought about leaving for some time," he said. "In fact, when my daughter got married in 1997, I was going to leave, but then at the last minute, I felt I needed to stay." "Now, I feel that itís time to go," he said. Juanita Valdez-Cox, regional manager of the UFW, said Gill's departure is bittersweet. "He's become a great true friend to myself and the farm worker community," she said. "But we understand that he needs to be near his family." Valdez-Cox, who said she thinks of Gill as the union's lawyer because he had fought so many legal battles for them, remembers when he first joined the South Texas Project in March 1991. "People wondered if he would be strong enough to handles all the controversial issues the union is known for," she said. "They were also concerned that here was a person who doesn't know Spanish, the area or the culture, but was here to help." Many of those concerns were settled when union members got to know Gill, she said. "Many of them now feel that he understands them," she said. James Harrington director of the Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin and Gill's boss agrees. "I will miss him, for sure," he said. "I've been impressed with the equality of work he produces." Harrington, who hired Gill 10 years ago to be the director of the South Texas Project, said a strange chain of events led to his hiring. He said that Gill had put a classified ad in a monthly trade magazine, seeking to practice law in a Third World country. "I wrote him back and said, 'You can't practice law in a Third World country, but I can get you as close as possible,' " Harrington said. "And the rest is history." McAllen resident Paul Gabriel will take Gill's place as director of the South Texas Project, Harrington said. Gabriel was in private practice for 10 years in McAllen specializing in bankruptcy cases. "For me, this will be more interesting that what I have don in the past," he said. "With this, you really have an effect on people's lives that is deeper than just fixing their financial situation. Here, you are really helping people who are on the fringes of society and need the help the most.
Advocates disappointed by Garrett ruling The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in the University of Alabama vs. Garrett case was not completely unexpected, but disability advocates still were disappointed by the decision. The court ruled that Congress did not have the authority when it passed the Americans with Disabilities Act to allow individuals to sue states for employment discrimination. "It's a setback to our long struggle to end discrimination, public and private, against people with disabilities," said Curtis Becker, executive director of the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems. "It's particularly devastating because states are large employers of people with disabilities ... and now not (to be) protected under federal law is disturbing." The court heard oral arguments in Garrett in October. Decision follows a trend Last year in Kimel vs. Florida Board of Regents, the court found Congress did not have the authority to apply the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to the states. The court said parts of this law were not proportionate to any discrimination targeted by the act. Disability advocates thought they might be able to avoid the same fate because discrimination against people with disabilities was well documented and is included in the preamble to the ADA. Advocates also had a lot of high-powered politicians on their side. Former President George Bush, who signed the ADA into law in 1990, submitted a brief supporting the ADA. A bipartisan Congressional brief was on the ADA's side. Senators such as Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, came out in support of the ADA. And 14 states signed amicus briefs for the ADA. That's unusual because it is the state attorneys general's job to protect the rights of the state. Typically, states would rather not be held to a federal statute. It could have been worse "There was a lot of damage they could have done that they ended up not addressing in this decision," said Andrew Imparato, president and chief executive officer of the American Association of People with Disabilities. "That is a bad outcome but it is a relatively narrow outcome." A negative message "It is distressing and there is plenty of case law and historical precedent to suggest that people with disabilities receive unequal protection under the law," said Jim Manley, press secretary for Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who co-sponsored the original ADA and wrote a brief in support of the Garrett case. "It's a step back." The ruling does not mean people with disabilities have no recourse against discrimination. People may still sue a state for injunctive relief, which means the state must fix the discrimination by offering the job or making an accommodation. The federal government can also levy its power under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. That relies on the Justice Department to fully enforce that regulation. Atty Gen. John Ashcroft, who many disability advocates spoke out against during his nomination hearings, heads that department. "It's a good early opportunity for Ashcroft to show maybe we were wrong to worry about it," Imparato said. Advocates also will appeal to President Bush to speak out in response to this case and stress the constitutionality of the ADA. In addition to the Rehab Act, people with disabilities can turn to their state governments for protection against discrimination. When the ADA was passed, 36 states passed similar legislation at the state level. Some states, such as California, have stronger protection than others. In Arizona, for example, protection extends to people with physical disabilities but not mental illness. "In (Texas) we do have our own disability statutes," said Jim Harrington, executive director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. Garrett "wouldn't really have that much of an impact.. But it sends a terrible message. (Protection) is going to vary from state to state." Advocates must now work to strengthen those state protections, Imparato said. Another worry is future legislation and future Supreme Court cases. If the court did not think there was sufficient proof of discrimination based on disability, that may affect how far upcoming federal legislation -- such as a hate crimes bill -- can go in protecting disability rights at a state level. And if the court was willing to rule against the ADA in Garrett, the next case to come along may chip away even further at this legislation. It could become even more critical if several current justices retire, which is expected during the next four years. The balance is currently 5-4 in favor of states' rights. Based on some of Bush's appointments to Cabinet positions, some advocates are worried the ideology could shift even more heavily to the right. "People don't pay enough attention to the court and the decisions they make," Harrington said. "This is a perfect example of how people need to really consider who they are voting for for president."
The New York Times Voting Accessible to All Published: February 11, 2001, Sunday To the Editor: All the recent discussions and proposals about improving voting mechanisms around the country are well and good. However, not discussed is the fact that this is also a perfect opportunity to make these mechanisms accessible to voters with physical disabilities and those who are blind. We and other groups have done considerable work in this area. But this is only the beginning of true universal suffrage -- the ability to cast a meaningful secret ballot without regard to race, religion, ethnic origin, sex or disability. This also is what the Americans With Disabilities Act requires of voting jurisdictions. JAMES C. HARRINGTON
Texas bill seeks to block English-only in the workplace Agencia EFE AUSTIN, Texas (EFE) -- A bill that would allow immigrant workers to speak in their native language at work is slated to come before the Texas state legislature when it reconvenes in January. The bill, proposed by Brownsville Rep. Rene Oliveira, a Democrat, seeks to protect workers who choose to communicate in their native tongues during working hours from discrimination. The initiative comes after several lawsuits were filed in Texas courts by Mexican immigrant workers who claim they were discriminated against by their supervisors for speaking with clients or colleagues in Spanish. The bill seeks to prohibit employers from demanding that workers use only English in the workplace. "We want to safeguard those who speak a language other than English during their breaks, in the restroom or on the telephone," Oliveira, the president of the Legislative Mexican-American Committee, said. The bill also seeks to make employers clearly identify in which situations workers should only speak English and the penalties they could face if they fail to do so. "Texas needs immigrant workers to continue its economic growth, but they are more comfortable speaking in their common language with colleagues or clients," Oliveira said. If the bill is passed, it would benefit both workers in the service industry and those in the high technology sector. "They work very hard and should be treated fairly, notwithstanding their nationalities or native language," Oliveira noted. Human rights groups in Texas have launched programs to educate Hispanics on cases of alleged discrimination against migrant workers on the basis of their language. According to the Austin-based Texas Civil Rights Project, one of the state's most important human rights groups, language discrimination has become a worrisome situation. "We are returning to the past when Mexican-Americans in Texas were forbidden from speaking Spanish in the workplace and even in schools," Texas Civil Rights Project head Jim Harrington said. Mexican-American Mary Rice, 56, claims she has been the victim of discrimination at the public hospital where she works as a nurse. Since 1999, the hospital has forbidden her from speaking Spanish with her colleagues, Rice said. "I feel humiliated, because they use us for everything ... to translate for doctors, in the emergency room and then they forbid us from speaking Spanish during our breaks," she added. According to Irma Rodriguez Aviles, also a Mexican-American worker, her supervisors at the Albertson's Supermarket where she works have forbidden her from speaking in Spanish with her husband on the telephone, even in case of an emergency. They have also forbidden her from speaking Spanish with customers who do not speak English, according to Rodriguez, who has filed a suit against the supermarket. "It was hell, and when I suffered a nervous breakdown in the supermarket and had to be rushed to a hospital I vowed that I would never again allow myself to be discriminated against for being Mexican," said Rodriguez, who with the help of attorney Alicia White filed a three-million-dollar lawsuit against the company.
April 20, 2000 Disabled Texans sue for access to theater, mall, 2 video stores By Deborah Tedford Advocates for disabled Texans have filed federal court lawsuits aimed at making a local theater, mall and two video stores accessible to patrons who use wheel chairs. Attorneys for the Austin-based Texas Civil Rights Project claim parking, bathroom, and entryways at Wortham Center, Sharpstown Center and Blockbuster video stores on Louetta and FM 1960 do not meet standards mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suits allege that physical barriers make it almost impossible for the disabled to utilize the facilities. ìIíd like to do my business myself,î said Janet Dollar, who sued Viacom retail stores, owner of two Blockbusters in the Houston area. Dollar said she rents three or four movies a week from her neighborhood Blockbuster on Louetta, but she cannot do so when she is alone because the space between the two entry doors will not accommodate her wheelchair. The doors are too heavy for wheelchair. The doors are too heavy for wheelchair-bound customers to push open, she claims. To enter the store, Dollar said, she must go through the fire exit at the rear-a feat that takes co-operation from employees often deluged with customers during weekend rush. Randy Hargrove, Viacom spokesman, had no comment on Dollarís allegations. But Ted Ross, managing attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project, said his clients face barriers that ambulatory patrons do not have. Bathrooms out of compliance with the ADA keep many Houstonians who use wheelchairs for enjoying an event at Wortham Center, he said. That city facility, opened in the 1980ís, has uninsulated pipes beneath the restroomsí sinks, Ross said, and hot pipes, level with a person in a wheelchair, could seriously burn legs perhaps numbed to pain. Urinals in the menís bathrooms, he said, are to high for the disabled, the Worthamís ticket counters exceed the 36-inch height specified by the ADA, and the ramp from the garage is too steep for easy access. Assistant City Attorney Susan Taylor said she has not evaluated the Worthamís compliance, because the city has not been served with the suit. However, she said, the city is committed to compliance with the ADA and will make changes to meet federal standards. The suits say Sharpstown Center needs the most improvements. James Harrington, an attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project, said the mallís parking spaces, bathrooms, phones and elevators are out of compliance. Ross said the restrooms lack pictograms or Braille characters used by the visually impaired, and the mallís text telephone has not worked in some time. He also said the call buttons for the elevator adjacent to the centerís movie theater complex are too high for a person in a wheel chair. Last year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission logged 17,806 complaints under the ADA, nearly 23 percent of the total filed. Passes into law July 26, 1990, the ADA is divided into five primary parts: outlawing discrimination in employment, public accommodations, transportation, telecommunications and the dissemination of services from state and local governments. The law prohibits discrimination in employment and in how services are provided. It also requires certain resources to be available and accessible to the disabled.
The Amarillo Globe-News Online Web posted Friday, September 8, 2000 Project to examine area's Title IX compliance By DEON DAUGHERTY AUSTIN - A project aimed at ensuring girls can get on the field in public school sports is coming to the land of Friday night football. Sponsored by the National Association for Public Interest Law and the Texas Civil Rights Project, recent law school graduate Andrea Gunn will spend the next year polling people in rural West Texas communities about gender equity in sports - and if area educators are meeting the demands of Title IX. The federal law prohibits sex discrimination in public educational institutions. Gunn's project is aimed at increasing awareness of the law in Texas' rural communities. Gunn is dividing the two-year program in half, with the first year centered on West Texas and the second portion looking at East Texas, which is of interest based on the number of minority females living in rural communities there. As for the western portion of the state, Gunn said, "In West Texas, football is obviously so important that it seemed a natural place, as well as working with minorities (in those cities)." Panhandle and Plains school officials say they strive to make sure girls have a fair shot in athletics. "I think in Amarillo we're doing everything we can to ensure our kids are treated equitably and fairly in terms of opportunity and access," said Amarillo Independent School District Personnel Director David Cargill. "I know we're hustling to make sure we're doing the right thing." The importance of the project depends on how successful it is, Cargill said. "If they find out everyone is doing a good job, then it could be a tremendous statement. And if they find one or two that are not, then dealing with those may be important," he said. In Lubbock County, Frenship Independent School District Superintendent Paul Whitton said "We're all very conscious of the Title IX requirements. I really think people in general are very much aware of Title IX, and people, I think, will bring it to our attention if they think we're not in compliance." Frenship's district is a growing one, Whitton said, which bolsters the administration's attention to Title IX. "We are always conscious that if we add to one side of the coin, we have to add to the other in an equitable way," he said. As for the male-dominated game of football, Whitton said, some girls in early grades have participated. One female elementary school student played for a while last year, he said. "It was something she wanted to do, and she certainly had that privilege," he said, adding that high school girls would also be accommodated. In Lubbock, the school district is updating its athletic facilities to give female athletes equal opportunities, said superintendent Jack Clemmons. And officials there will be glad to hear of Gunn's findings or suggestions, he said. "We're very open-minded in this district to any help concerning Title IX. We've tried to be pro-active, especially for the female students in the district," he said. "We would readily welcome any special project to bring attention to Title IX concerns." Gunn said many people are still unaware of Title IX. She plans to meet with local leaders in PTA and YWCA organizations, students and others to learn about their views on the law and how it is applied in their hometowns. Part of the project will include training sessions on Title IX. She hopes the work can demystify the law, she said, which often is a divisive issue featuring vastly different viewpoints. "Athletics is an important part of a young woman's life, for self-esteem and self-confidence," she said, adding that those elements may help young girls combat being victims later in life. Plus, she said, athletic scholarships are important to many minority girls who may have no other way to pay for higher education, she said. During the last 10 years, Gunn said, there has been a national movement to try to reach women at younger ages. "Going in and working with students at a young age, everyone benefits, including the pool of potential lead athletes and athletic opportunities for the schools," she said. "This really does benefit everyone."
January 27,2000 UTEP sued for ADA violations TCRP director Jim Harrington met with UT-El Paso officials an the plaintiff Raul Valencia in El Paso Wednesday to discuss the lawsuit, said Christian Clarke, a UT-El Paso public information officer. When an arena manager denied Valencia access to his usual $100 seats at a boxing match held at the universityís Don Heskins Special Events Center, Valencia brought his case to the TCRP, said Alex Rodriguez, chief-of-staff to Rep. Norma Chavez, D-El Paso. Valencia, who uses a wheelchair, was moved to the mezzanine with no compensation, Rodriguez said. While Carol Robert Spence, a manager at the events center, claimed that safety was the issue, Valencia felt it was discrimination. "Recreational opportunities and sports events should be as open to people with disabilities as they are open to anyone else," Harringtion said. "When someone has $100 ringside tickets, they ought to be able to sit at ringside like any other sports fan without having someone interfere with them for reasons that either are malicious or based on stereotypes about people with disabilities." After a conference in El Paso Wednesday, UT-El Paso officials issued a statement saying the universityís policy is to provide access to every spectator at its events. "The university greatly regrets the misunderstanding," the statement read. UT-El Paso officials said the university is taking steps to avoid another incident like the one involving Valencia. "This is definitely an isolated event," Clarke said. "This is definitely not a pattern of how UTEP handles this sort of problem." The lawsuit against UT-El Paso is part of the projectís five-week campaign targeting businesses and organizations that fail to comply with the disabilities act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of physical disabilities. TCRP is also working in conjunction with several other civil rights groups to complete the campaign by filing three suits each week against organizations in East Texas. This is the second suit TCRP has filed against UT-El Paso regarding violations of the disabilities act. The first, filed in 1993, involved various physical access issues on campus, Harrison said. "Our main goal is to campaign for compliance," said Shae Garwood, developmental director for the non-profit Texas Civil Rights Project.
The New York Times Death Row Justice: View From Texas Published: January 12, 2000, Wednesday To the Editor: ''Texas' Busy Death Chamber Helps Define Bush's Tenure'' (front page, Jan. 7) showed well Gov. George W. Bush's attitude toward the death penalty. However, an even greater problem lies at the heart of the justice system in Texas for which the governor is directly responsible. The odds of ending up on death row are tied to the quality of legal representation. Those who are poor get appointed counsel, and in capital cases they have a high probability of being executed. Patronage, cronyism and incompetence characterize Texas' system of appointing counsel. Last year Governor Bush vetoed modest legislation that would have allowed Texas counties to begin a limited public defender program that would have raised the quality of representation for indigent defendants. Mr. Bush may feel ''compassionate,'' but that doesn't do much for the abysmal quality of public justice in Texas. JAMES C. HARRINGTON
October 1999 Round Rock Denny's hit with race-bias suit By Jason Spencer A Hispanic woman and two black men who claim they were denied service in favor of white patrons at a Round Rock Dennyís restaurant filed a federal anti-discrimination lawsuit against the company Thursday. Carolina M. Hinojosa, Earl L. Roundtree and Larry D. Harvell were in the Denny's at 2700 N. Interstate 35 just before midnight July 31 when restaurant employees refused to seat them promptly while they continued to serve white customers, the suit says. "What they want out of this lawsuit is that they get treated equally and with dignity when they go to Denny's, and that their race and their nationality not come into play in how they were treated," said their attorney, Jim Harrington, executive director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. Round Rock franchise owner Amer Hammound said the incident resulted from a miscommunication between a first-day host and a restaurant manager, who did not see the black men and Hispanic woman when she showed a white couple to a table before their turn. Once they realized the mistake, the manager apologized and offered to seat them, but they refused and left the restaurant, said Hammoud. "Occasionally we get busy, and miscommunications occur," he said. "We have a very strict policy about consistency in service." The lawsuit says the manager saw the group and intentionally ignored them. Harrington called his clients' treatment a "humiliating throwback to Jim Crow" and accused Denny's of fostering a "culture of discrimination." According to Harrington, the Denny's host told the group they would have to wait for a table, and then refused to let them sit at a bar to order a milkshake, Harrington said. Denny's in recent years has been the target of similar discrimination lawsuits filed in California and Maryland. In 1994, the South Carolina-based company agreed to a $54.4 million class action settlement and agreed to implement sweeping policy changes aimed at creating diversity at its 1,400-plus franchise. An internal investigation into the discrimination allegation will be launched immediately, according to a written statement issued Thursday by Denny's president and chief executive John Romandetti.
September 22,1999 Discrimination lawsuit filed against restaurant By Thaddeus DeJesus A lawsuit filed Tuesday alleges that the Johnny Rockets restaurant in Barton Creek Mall discriminated against Hispanic patrons. Milly Moreida, one of the six plaintiffs, said her party was turned away from the restaurant because of their ethnicity July 30. She said her party was second in line. The white couple in front of them was allowed into the restaurant. But when her group came up to the reception desk, Moreida and her friends were overlooked. She said they stayed in the vicinity of the restaurant and noticed that the manager seated the four white patrons who were behind Moreida's group. Cathy Rodriguez, plaintiff, said she approached the manager to ask why he had seated other patrons. Rodriguez said the manager treated her rudely and he asked her, "Well, how many of y'all are there?" She said her group left the restaurant area altogether after that. Bill Groux, vice president of marketing, said Johnny Rockets has always had a reputation of affording employees and customers with equal service. For example, 44 percent of the employees at the Barton Creek restaurant are Hispanic, and nationwide, the figure is 29 percent. "We have a zero-tolerance policy against discrimination of any kind," he said. "We embrace diversity of all kinds." Groux said the complaint is currently under investigation and the company will report what it finds. Roland Diaz, plaintiff, said he couldn't understand why they weren't served, given the ethnic makeup of the employees in the restaurant. "If they had Hispanics working for them, I wouldn't understand why they would have any problems feeding us that day," Diaz said. At the Tuesday press conference announcing the lawsuit in front of the restaurant at Barton Creek Mall, attorney Jim Harrington was arrested for trespassing, a Class B misdemeanor, after refusing to leave the premises. Harrington said the restaurant drowned out the press conference with loud music to intimidate plaintiffs and himself. Harrington moved the press conference outside when the music became too loud. There, he was arrested by the Austin Police Department. The plaintiffs were also threatened with arrest when the mall manager asked, "Does anyone else want to be arrested?" "I have a better sense of how people are treated in prison," he said referring to his five-and-a-half hour stay in the Travis County jail. Restaurant manager James Smallwood, who was not on duty on the night of July 30, declined to comment about the lawsuit and the press conference, adding that no one at the restaurant called the police. But Harrington said the restaurant was responsible for his arrest because the manager asked the mall management to step in. Harrington said discriminatory treatment is a big problem in Texas. The heart of the lawsuit, he said, is equal access and equal treatment for all. "Just because you can work in the kitchen-the plantation-doesn't mean you can eat at the table," Harrington said. He has taken up the case as part of the Texas Civil Rights Project's "Equality Under the Law" campaign. The project already sued a Denny's restaurant in late August. In 1984, Harrington successfully sued Barton Creek Mall to determine if it is public or private property. It was ruled to be a "quasi-public" forum where gatherings such as petitions and press conferences can be held as long as they donít interfere with the flow of traffic or customers. Harrington said he plans to file suit on Wednesday against the mall, Johnny Rockets and the Austin Police Department for his arrest. The Barton Creek Mall management refused to comment Tuesday.
August 13, 1999 By Andy Alford and Suzanne Gamboa Residents who sued to stay in their low-cost Sixth Street West Apartments reached an agreement Thursday morning with their landlord and now don't have to leave. Royce Gourley Jr., the owner of the 129-unit complex, and some of his tenants settled the discrimination suit a day before trial and the expiration of an order that prevented him from ousting tenants. Gourley said that ethnicity played no role in issuing the evictions. The settlement delighted 14-year Sixth Street West resident Ruth Granjeno, who lives in a two-bedroom unit with her husband and four children at a rent of $440 per month. "When I thought we had to leave, I cried because I thought we'd lose the school and my friends," said Granjeno, who spoke in Spanish. "Now I am very satisfied." The settlement comes as more and more Austin landlords capitalize on the city's economic boom by refurbishing older apartments into luxury units for higher rents. The tenants will be allowed to stay, but they may face higher rents, and a tenants committee will be formed for 120 days to keep as many people as possible at the 37-year-old complex. The committee will help relocate people to other apartments in the complex while their apartments are being renovated. If the complex runs out of room, the committee will craft a system for deciding who remains at the complex and who will leave. Tenants sued Gourley July 30. They said Gourley, who plans to renovate the complex at 1616 W. Sixth Street and increase rents, had been forcing only Hispanics to leave and was creating havoc in their lives just as school started. The suit alleged Gourley violated the Texas Fair Housing Act, which makes it illegal to discriminate against tenants on the basis of race, color, family status or national origin. Gourley said he did not target Hispanics when he asked tenants to leave. About 13 notices to vacate and evictions were issued before Gourley bought the complex July 8, he said. The 20 tenants he asked to leave July 19 lived in "specific areas that we are going to renovate and fell right in line with the overall makeup of the building. I never tried to identify what the ethnic status of the tenants were," he said. In the suit, tenants asked for money for restitution and court costs; for the judge to stop the evictions and non-renewal of leases which they say were discriminatory; and for Gourley to make units available to them after renovations are complete. Under the settlement, each party will pay their own court costs and no damages will be awarded. Gourley said he still plans to raise rents after the renovations, which will include new carpet, plumbing, appliances, paint and structural repairs. Although rents will likely rise, Granjeno said, "I will stay here because it's closer for my children to school and to my work and itís safe here." Plaintiffs in the suit included eight tenants, the League of United Latin American Citizens and a coalition of parents from Mathews Elementary School. They were represented by Jim Harrington, director of the nonprofit Texas Civil Rights Project, and Tony Diaz, a LULAC attorney, represented Gourley. The suit would have gone to trial in the 201st District Court today before State District Judge Suzanne Covington. Gourley "could have worked it out in a friendly fashion or fought us tooth and nail. It's to his credit that he worked it out," said Harrington, who isn't charging tenants for representation. The exodus of the tenants also threatened diversity at Mathews, a small 83-year-old school at 906 West Lynn St. Wednesday, the first day of school at Mathews, Principle Benjamin Kramer noted that some of those students didn't show for class. "Even though the judge said they would be allowed to stay (until Friday), many of the parents felt the need to get out and find a new place to stay," Kramer said. "If I were to take a guess, I'd say about a third did not come back."
July 16, 1999 Seminar teaches officers how to deal with suspects who are mentally ill By Gillian Swanson Edinburg--When a mental health condition is complicated by public disturbance or attempted suicide, police officers often are the first to arrive. But many officers readily admit they are not adequately prepared for such a situation. To learn how to tell the difference between mental illness and drug-or-alcohol-induced problems, more than 100 Hidalgo County law enforcement officials participated Tuesday in an all-day Mental Health Peace Officer Training seminar at the Tropical Texas Center for Mental Health and Mental Retardation. "We've never really had any training on mental illness," said Peter De La Garza, assistant chief of the Edinburg Police Department. De La Garza and other Rio Grande Valley authorities learned from officers of the Travis County Sheriffí' Department Mental Health Unit how to carefully approach and speak to someone who has a mental illness and has failed to use the proper medication. The Travis County Sheriff's department is one of the few enforcement agencies in the state with its own mental health unit. Aided by a $100,000 grant from the Substance Administration in Washington, D.C., Hidalgo County is developing a mental health unit and finding alternative ways to train local law enforcement officials. Six months ago, the grant helped from a team of Hidalgo County law enforcement officials, mental health providers, mental health consumers, their families and advocates, to come up with rational solutions on how to answer and deal with mental health crisis calls. The grant was awarded to the Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin. Its sister organization in Valley, the South Texas Civil Rights Project, will implement a program known as the Rural Police Training Initiative, consisting of a jail diversion project designed to prevent the needless incarceration of persons with mental illness. On Tuesday, the coalition of the Rural Police Training Initiative members and other participants learned at Tuesday's session how to calmly address individuals with suspected mental illness, and how to distinguish between somebody who is mentally ill, mentally retarded or drunk. The officers agreed that making such a distinction is not always easy. "There are times when an officer would arrest somebody that he thought was intoxicated, when in reality he was off his medication," De La Garza said. Project organizers said the training will benefit both the patient of suspect and the officer in the long run. "The person may be depressed, have no record of treatment or be off their medication. It takes a special expertise to deal with that. Our perception is that many officers are sensitized to this," said Sylvia Cedillo, project coordinator and staff attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project. "Once you empower the officers with that information," she said, "they'll become better community servants."
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1999 Messages from a stern verdict Scott Baldauf AUSTIN, TEXAS From the beginning, the odious murder of a middle-age black man in Jasper, Texas, stirred America - and in many circles the subsequent quest for justice was seen as a test of the nation's tolerance of hate. Now, as a jury in rural east Texas ponders whether an avowed white supremacist should be executed for the lynch-style killing of James Byrd Jr., the case is serving both to reassure and to prod. The reassurance comes in the swiftness of the guilty verdict - delivered by a mostly white jury after deliberating less than three hours. While many analysts say the strong evidence made the Byrd murder practically an open-and-shut case, it nonetheless stands in contrast to other high-profile, racially charged trials - especially those, such as the Rodney King beating case, in which failure to convict in state court prompted the federal government to intervene on civil rights grounds. But even as citizens of Jasper and the civil rights community breathe a sigh of relief over Tuesday's verdict, there's recognition that much remains to be done to bridge the racial divide in America. Indeed, it was the brutality of the crime - tying a beaten Byrd to the back of a pickup truck with a logging chain and dragging him for three miles - that drew so much attention. "It's waking people up to the fact that we have organized white supremacists who are willing to use violence to achieve their goals," says Floyd Cochran, a former member of the Aryan Nation white supremacist group, who now runs the antiracist Education and Vigilance Network in Moshannon, Pa. To some, the murder last June signaled that racial tensions are far from resolved, and that they continue to have a strong hold over rural America, especially in the barely integrated towns of the South. While the verdict "shows the outrage of the American people in cases of brutal hate crimes," it also "sends a loud signal for the need of increased hate-crime legislation and prevention," says Hilary Shelton, Washington spokesman for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Civil rights advocates say the murder and verdict have served a part in reawakening Jasper residents to the racial hatred that brews quietly in their community. "The fact is that east Texas is one of those places where a legacy of 300 years of apartheid has left it's heavy mark," says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a hate-crime watchdog group in Montgomery, Ala. "Jasper and east Texas have benefited from this case in an odd way. An example: It took the murder of James Byrd to bring down the fence that separated whites and blacks in Jasper's cemetery." As for the guilty verdict itself, legal experts say the jury decision had been expected. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, and the defense spent less than an hour presenting its case. The defense lawyer even acknowledged that his client, John William King, was a racist. But blood evidence and a jailhouse letter, written by Mr. King to two accused accomplices, may have sealed King's fate. "We have made history and will die proudly remembered," King wrote in a letter that included inside information about the Byrd case, along with Nazi symbols. Legal experts say the real work of the case will now begin, as defense lawyers try to build up mitigating circumstances to spare their client from Texas' oft-used death penalty. This process could take as long as three weeks, much more than the five days of the trial itself. If the defense's current strategy holds, attorneys are likely to argue that King's previous stint in a majority-black prison forced him to join a racist white group for protection. In his closing arguments, court-appointed defense attorney C. Haden "Sonny" Cribbs said that King suffered trauma while in prison. "I don't think there's any question this boy had something happen to him in the penitentiary," he said, foreshadowing what is expected to be a key point of his presentation during sentencing. "There's still a very important phase left," says Lynn Blais, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin. "It's possible that a verdict can end in a life sentence if [King] puts on a credible case of mitigating circumstances." To some law-enforcement officials, the Jasper case serves as a reminder that racial hate groups are alive and well. "You have had a low-grade race war since the end of the Civil War," says Bill Hale of the Texas Commission on Human Rights, a state agency, adding that the nation has some 500 race hate groups and as many as 100,000 card-carrying hate-group members. "The tactics and strategies have changed to a guerrilla war," he says, "and I don't anticipate an end of it in the near future." Others note that to truly restore racial peace in the economically challenged communities of east Texas, where well-paying oil jobs are just a memory, civil rights groups need to do more than hold rallies and protests. They need to listen, and fight back for the hearts and minds of citizens, white and black. "The history of the Klan [and other hate groups], it was tied to a populist message: 'Who are we going to blame for our misery?' " says Jim Harrington, head of the nonprofit Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin. "Hate-crimes legislation isn't going to solve this," he adds. "This is a hearts and minds thing. Unless we commit ourselves to grander community approach, we're not going to achieve anything, no matter how many trials we win."
Deputy shooting suit tossed; Judge dismisses claims in federal By: Jason Spencer February 2, 1999 A lawsuit on behalf of an Austin man shot by a Williamson County sheriff's deputy during a suspected "suicide by cop" attempt has been dismissed. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin said lawyers for the Texas Civil Rights Project failed to show that excessive force was used when Kim Michael Hainze was shot twice in the chest in November 1997. Sparks also dismissed claims that the sheriff's department's policy for handling subjects with mental illness fails to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Deputy Steve Allison shot Hainze, 27, during a confrontation outside a Twenty seconds after the deputies arrived, Hainze approached Allison with a pocket knife and was shot twice in the chest from close range, according to Sheriff Ed Richards. The sheriff said one of the bullets wounded Hainze's left hand. "I felt very comfortable from the very beginning that it was an unfounded lawsuit and that our officer acted properly in defense of his own life when he was forced to shoot this gentleman," Richards said. "We regret that the individual was shot, but we felt our officer had no choice but to shoot him in defense of his own life." In the lawsuit, which was filed four days after the shooting and asked for $1.15 million, Hainze's lawyers claimed the knife was in Hainze's pocket and that Allison should have dealt differently with a person he knew to be suicidal. Hainze's uncle and cousin witnessed the shooting and backed up the claim. Last August, a Williamson County jury convicted Hainze of felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in the case. He was sentenced to five years' probation. The Texas Rangers investigated the shooting, and no charges were filed against Allison. Hainze, an Austin computer programmer, said he did nothing to provoke the shooting. "Frankly, I think they're trigger-happy thugs," said Hainze, who has lost some of the use of his hand but otherwise recovered from his injuries. "They're poorly trained. They shouldn't have had their guns drawn in the first place." Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said he will appeal Sparks' ruling in hopes of forcing the sheriff's department to reassess its policy in dealing with mentally ill suspects. "Our argument has been all along that what they should have done when they got there was to deal with that situation and try to defuse it," Harrington said. "They simply approached it as if it were a crime, and within 20 seconds they had shot him twice through the chest. . . . What clearly needs to happen is Williamson County has got to learn how to do a better job with dealing with mental health calls." Sheriff's department officials do not plan to review their procedures for mentally ill suspects, Richards said.
Disabled moviegoers win suit for better seating EL PASO, Texas -- The Texas Civil Rights Project claimed victory Monday in a lawsuit against Cinemark USA Inc. A federal judge ruled Thursday that Cinemark must retrofit all 18 of its Tinseltown theater's auditoriums to accommodate people in wheelchairs. The company had wanted to retrofit only five auditoriums. A group of wheelchair users including the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities contended the reserved areas of the stadium-style movie theaters are too close to the front for disabled people to watch movies in comfort. "They're wheelchair ghettos," said attorney Jim Harrington, who filed the suits. "Twenty years ago we decided we wouldn't make black and Hispanic people stay in the balcony. That was their ghetto. This is the new ghetto for disabled people." U.S. District Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth found in August that Cinemark had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Texas disability laws. In addition to ordering the renovation, he awarded $100 to each of six plaintiffs. Harrington sued the Dallas-based chain in federal court in El Paso and also in Austin and Houston. Cinemark spokesman Randy Hester said the buildings comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Texas Accessibility Standards. Those regulations call for dispersed wheelchair areas offering lines of sight comparable to those of other seats. Distributed by The Associated Press (AP) October 29, 1998 High courts failing to hire minorities, group says; Supreme, criminal By: Osler McCarthy The state's two highest courts have failed to implement a 2-year-old recommendation to aggressively hire minority attorneys, leaving two of the most influential bodies of state government "greatly lacking" in diversity, a civil rights group said in a report released Wednesday. Texas Civil Rights Project's Jim Harrington said the group's findings show the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals fall "far too short in reflecting the diverse background of Texas' population." "The easiest way for me to explain it is that these figures represent one-half of what you would expect," he said. "If this were the private sector, if this was a private employer, everybody would be jumping up and down." The 32-page report on hiring practices over ten years said: * Slightly more than 2 percent of all law school graduates hired as Supreme Court briefing attorneys were African American. * Nine percent of criminal appeals briefing attorneys hired were black. Of those seven people, all but two were hired by Judge Morris Overstreet, who is black. * Four percent of all briefing attorneys hired by the Supreme Court were Hispanic. * Five percent of all hires by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals were Hispanics. Bill Willis, the Supreme Court's executive director, took issue with some of the report's findings, saying that the state's highest civil court shows that 6 percent of its briefing attorneys were Hispanic. Briefing attorneys review and recommend cases that each court may hear and help judges research and draft opinions. Like their counterparts working for the Retiring Justice Raul Gonzalez agreed with Harrington that more could be done and said several of the commission's recommendations endorsed by Harrington's group would help combat what he said is an economic problem. The court recruits from a "small pool" of minority attorneys and competes with large law firms that pay twice or three times the salary, Gonzalez said. But Overstreet said capable and talented briefing attorney candidates can be found if the judges look in the right places -- beyond the familiar, the law schools that judges came from and often turn to for hiring. "It's hard to find a substantial minority population at Baylor Law School," Overstreet said. "Or at SMU."
May 15, 1998 Laborers protest ticketing at job site BY: Bob Banta A crackdown on jaywalking near Austin's downtown day-labor site sparked protests Thursday that police are harassing homeless people and job hunters. Authorities say they are just trying to keep the area safe. Police issued 17 tickets between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. Thursday to people they caught crossing the street in midblock near the corners of Guadalupe, West Second and Cesar Chavez streets. Those intersections border the day-labor site, where about 125 people, mostly men, gather each day to ride with employers to temporary jobs. "If you're Mexican or homeless, you go to jail," said Raul Maldonado, 28, who frequents the day-labor site almost daily. The day-labor site is run by Austin-Travis County Mental Health Mental Retardation Center under a $70,000-a-year contract with the City of Austin. Police said most of the tickets issued Thursday were for jaywalking. The maximum fine for the offense is $105. Several men at the site, who referred to themselves as homeless, said they felt the police presence was unfair and intimidating. Several of them commented on the crackdown on the condition that they not be identified. "There's no way I could pay a ticket like that," said one bearded job hunter. "I'm glad they didn't get me this morning, because I would have gone to jail. I got a lot of tickets already. We are just looking for work." Assistant Police Chief Michael McDonald said the tickets were not an attempt to target the day laborers. "Of the 17 tickets, eight of them were to people who could not be considered homeless or job hunters," said McDonald. "And of those eight, our records show that several were in fact city employees." The 300 block of West Second Street contains several city offices, including the Austin City Council Chambers and the Austin Municipal Federal Credit Union. McDonald said several of those ticketed Thursday were taken to jail because they did not have proper identification. He said none of them was held in jail on the basis of being an undocumented worker from Mexico. "These tickets were written as a result of complaints from people who say that pedestrians have caused traffic problems in that area," McDonald said. "This is no different from our stepped-up arrests for driving while intoxicated or inspecting the big trucks on I-35." He said tickets for jaywalking have also been issued to pedestrians near the East Sixth Street entertainment area and on Guadalupe Street adjacent to the University of Texas campus. McDonald said Thursday he does not have statistics on the number of tickets issued in those areas. McDonald said that employers who impede traffic near the day--labor corner be addressed. McDonald said the tickets issued near the day-labor site are only a part of Austin Police Chief Stanley Knee's focus on enforcing traffic laws. "We are charged by the chief to make the city safer, and this is just one of the ways we are doing that," McDonald said. Jim Harrington, head of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said he believes targeting pedestrians near the day-labor site is unfair. "Our office was downtown at Third and Congress Avenue for years, and I never saw them give jaywalking tickets to bankers," Harrington said. "A $105 fine is a week's pay to a day laborer."
Activists complain they were wrongly taken from event By Rebecca Thatcher Austin American-Statesman Death penalty opponents say their rights were violated when Capitol Police escorted several of them away from a celebration Monday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. A Capitol Police supervisor said the activists were told to leave because police do not allow two demonstrations to occur at the same place. But lawyers said it is absurd to consider a few activists with leaflets a second demonstration. It certainly sends a signal of how much work is left to be done,'' said Abe Bonowitz, national coordinator of Journey of Hope ... from Violence to Healing and one of the ejected demonstrators. The state has a holiday, and yet the ideals of the man they are honoring are trashed.'' Bonowitz said he and four other members of the group are in Texas campaigning against the death penalty. He said the organizers of the King celebration at the Capitol had given his group permission to participate in the march. When the march ended at the Capitol, the group stopped its bus at the gates to drop off people who hadn't been able to march the entire route. An officer approached immediately and ordered them to leave, Bonowitz said. The officer also told them they could not wear their anti-death penalty T-shirts at the Capitol, he said. The activists parked their bus and walked to the rally at the Capitol's south lawn, carrying a box of fliers. An officer told them not to hand out the fliers, so Bonowitz said he put the box on the ground and let people take them. The officer was not satisfied, he said, and escorted him and one of the other anti-death penalty activists away. The three others who did not have any leaflets were allowed to stay. Capitol Police Lt. Ed Stapp said he had not had any complaints from organizers of the King celebration, but he said the anti-death penalty activists were violating a police prohibition on multiple demonstrations. I can assure you nobody's civil rights were violated,'' he said. But Jim Harrington, legal director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said it is common for different organizations to hand out leaflets at rallies and that the officers appeared to have violated the activists' free-speech rights. It's not a good tribute to the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King,'' Harrington said. Bill Pelke, a Journey of Hope member from Portage, Ind., agreed. I just found it really ironic that on Martin Luther King Jr. day they said we couldn't be involved because of the shirts that we were wearing.'' Thursday, October 2, 1997 Civil rights group says sexual harassment problem in schools AUSTIN (AP) -- A civil rights group that surveyed more than 1,800 students in five school districts around Texas says sexual harassment of pupils, particularly by their peers, is rampant. The non-scientific survey includes school districts that asked for harassment training from the group and represents only a tiny fraction of Texas' 1,044 school districts and 3.7 million school children. But Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, which conducted the survey, said the results are consistent with a scientific survey conducted nationally in 1993. That survey did not include Texas. "This may not be perfect in the sense of giving you right down to the accurate percentage of what's happening," Harrington said Wednesday. "But this is, I think, fully capable of showing what kind of patterns we have in Texas and how severe a problem this is in Texas and how little the school districts are doing ... and how badly the kids want something done." The survey, which included seventh- through 12th-graders, found that 74 percent of the students reported sexually harassing gestures, looks, comments or jokes. Seventy-six percent of the female students reported being pressured verbally to do something sexual; 58 percent said they had experienced unwelcome physical confrontations; and 52 percent said they had been forced to do something sexual. Twelve percent of male students reported being pressured to do something sexual; 23 percent being forced to do so; and 20 percent being leaned over and cornered. About 11 percent of the sexual harassment reported by the students came from adults; 58 percent of the female students reported some type of sexual harassment by school personnel. The survey shows the need for education and for strong enforcement of policies against harassment, said Sylvia Cedillo, coordinator of the project's initiative to stop sexual harassment in schools. She would not release the names of the school districts surveyed. Barbara Williams of the Texas Association of School Boards said her group tries to help school districts develop harassment policies and deal with incidents when they occur. While not discounting the survey, she said because of its small size it would be difficult to call it representative of the state. Texas Education Agency spokeswoman Debbie Graves Ratcliffe said the state doesn't collect sexual harassment statistics.
Texas Asks High Court to Uphold Legality of Affirmative Action The Chronicle of Higher Education By Douglas Lederman In a written petition to the Court, Texas officials broadly criticized the decision in March by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which barred the law school at the University of Texas at Austin from considering race in admissions. They argued that the court had erred by shunning diversity as illegal rationale for race based policies, and by ignoring the effects that the state's past discrimination continues to have on today's minority students. A Restrained Defense Critics of racial preferences said the state's brief did little more than rehash arguments that had been made in-and discarded by-the lower courts. Some representatives of minority groups, meanwhile, complained that Texas had not made the case for affirmative action aggressively enough. The Texas petition is restrained in its defense of race-based remedies. But legal experts noted that the primary purpose of a petition to the Supreme Court is to persuade the court to take the case, not to argue its substantive merits. Texas's petition, which was prepared by 13 lawyers, including Attorney General Dan Morales and Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard University, asked the Court to review the Fifth Circuit's decision in the case known as Hopwood v. State of Texas. Core of the Petition In that ruling, a three judge panel of the Fifth Circuit not only scrapped the admissions program at the Texas law school. but also repudiated the Supreme Court's 1978 ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke which declared that the goal of attracting a diverse group of students justified a college's use of race as one of many factors in deciding whom to admit. Bakke has been the basis of most college affirmative action programs ever since. At the core of the Texas petition is the argument that the Court should uphold Bakke and allow colleges to use diversity as a rationale for considering race. For two decades, it said, colleges have relied on the Bakke ruling to compose student bodies "that are not only bright, but diverse, to make education and the dialogue that advances it more effective and relevant to the society that graduates will enter." "This Court should correct the Court of Appeals misperception that Bakke is no longer the law and should reaffirm that educational diversity remains a compelling interest that justifies individualized consideration of race among other factors," in admissions, it said. Texas also asked the Court for more leeway in justifying the use of race-based remedies to ease continuing effects of past discrimination. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the law school could consider race as a factor only if the school itself--rather than the university system or the state--had committed the discrimination that the remedies were designed to overcome. The petition to the Supreme Court said the state's long history of discrimination continued to affect residents in Texas, including applicants to the university's law school. The state, Texas officials noted, is still operating under federal desegregation plans, and has never won Education Department approval for having stamped out the vestiges of past discrimination. ''The undisputed record shows that Texas students applying to the challenged 1992 incoming class were largely the products of a public school system that was still under court supervision for failing effectively to remedy unconstitutional de jure segregation," the state contended in its petition. In addition to those central points, Texas also argued in its petition that the Court should use Hopwood to limit the role of federal courts in punishing states for discriminating against their citizens. Texas urged the Court to restrict the right of victims of discrimination to sue states under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to require plaintiffs to prove they've been affected by a state's action before allowing them to collect damages. The Fifth Circuit opened the door for future plaintiffs to get punitive damages from individual college officials, and the University of Texas has since been hit with two new lawsuits. The second, filed last week, charges that the university's education college engaged in reverse discrimination when it failed to admit a white students with a 3.9 grade-point average. Some legal experts said they were surprised that the petition's writers, in defending affirmative action, would seek to inhibit victims of discrimination from seeking recompense, since many such victims are from minority groups. "That stands the traditional civil-rights concept about the necessary role of the courts in remedying discrimination on its head," said George R. La Noue, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. 'Resoundingly Strong' This did not trouble civil-rights lawyers like Michael A. Olivas, a law professor at the University of Houston. He applauded the Texas brief as a "resoundingly strong and aggressive attack on all fronts." But many supporters of affirmative action accused Mr. Morales, the Attorney General, of playing politics. The day the petition was to be filed, he held a press conference in which he signaled that the state, in its brief, would back away from affirmative action. "It's simply wrong," he said, "to give one applicant an automatic advantage over another applicant, based solely upon the color of one's skin." The state's petition was more supportive of race-based remedies than that statement would seem to indicate, prompting the head of the independent Texas Civil Rights Project to accuse Mr. Morales of "speaking with one face" to the voters of Texas and "with another face" to the Supreme Court. College officials and lawyers generally praised the Texas brief. Martin Michaelson, a lawyer and expert of affirmative action, said it was "short on adjective, long on muscular analysis," as requests for hearing should be. The Court could decide by next month whether to hear the case. Katherine S. Mangan contributed to this article. Thursday, May 2, 1996 Civil Rights Groups Blast Morales By PEGGY FIKAC They also said a petition filed by Morales with the U.S. Supreme Court, appealing an anti-affirmative action decision on university admissions, is partly aimed at stemming lawsuits against Texas officials over civil rights. Meanwhile, Gov. George W. Bush said if the state loses the appeal, "I believe there is a constructive way for all our universities and others to design programs that are inclusive in nature that don't necessarily have to include race." Bush said such factors as income level and a person's background could be considered, adding: "I believe we ought to do everything in our power to make sure that our university systems are not exclusive, but I think there's a positive way that we can react ... in a way that does not have any kind of discrimination." Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project said Morales turned the filing of the state's appeal "into a cheap, political maneuver rather than dealing with this (affirmative action) as a moral issue in our society." Jeff Travillion of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People called Morales "a disgrace to the movement that made his opportunity possible." Other groups criticizing Morales included the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Organization for Women and Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. The March ruling struck down the University of Texas Law School's admissions policy in a lawsuit by four white applicants, saying UT had failed to justify favoring some racial groups. While contending universities should be allowed to consider race as one of many factors, Morales said that university admissions should be based on individual merit. He said past discrimination can't be remedied by new discrimination, and that it's wrong to give someone an "automatic advantage" based only on skin color. The civil rights groups, while agreeing with Morales' decision to appeal the 5th Circuit ruling, took issue with his comments. They said affirmative action hasn't been used in the way he described, and that Morales may have hurt the state's case if his remarks come to the Supreme Court's attention. While the groups focused mainly on Morales' public comments, rather than his written appeal, lawyers Harrington and Al Kauffman of MALDEF took issue with part of the state's petition on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI includes a section that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by educational institutions receiving federal funds. The lawyers said Morales argues the state can't be sued under Title VI, which was used by the four white plaintiffs. "He has a greater agenda, and that's that we can't sue Texas officials for civil rights violations. ... We won't be able to go to court to enforce the desegregation of public schools," Harrington said. In a statement, Morales addressed the other concerns by saying he respected the groups' right to disagree with him, but reiterated, "We will never overcome past discrimination by practicing discrimination today."
|
