|
| South Texas | El Paso | About Us | Programs | News & Publications | Events |
|
Press Clip Archive: 2004 Spring (Jan. - May) The Daily Texan By Zein Basravi Civil rights group holds 'Local Hero' fund-raiser
Media Credit: Patrick Cummings The Texas Civil Rights Project held its first Local Hero/Celebrity Charity Auction on Thursday.
4/22/04 wacotrib.com, a product of Waco Tribune-Herald We the people must stop Patriot Act in its tracks JIM HARRINGTON Guest column AUSTIN — President Bush is seeking to jump-start flagging efforts to pressure Congress to extend certain expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. He argues the country will be vulnerable if Congress allows these provisions to lapse. 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. http://www.wacotrib.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/04/22/1082609346.05522.3772.2286.html 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. The Austin Chronicle Austin Stories 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." Feb. 8, 2005 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."
Austin American Statesman By Erik Rodriguez and Andy Alford UNEQUAL FORCE: Austin police used force against African Americans and Hispanics at significantly higher rates than they did against whites during the past six years, according to an Austin American-Statesman analysis of police statistics. 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. Austin Chronicle: Naked City BY JORDAN SMITH Charges Dropped in APD Case On Dec. 19 the Travis Co. District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges pending against Austin Police Department Officer Michael Olsen, who was facing prosecution on three counts of tampering with a government record. Olsen was accused of providing false information in a police report in connection with a June 2002 altercation on Sixth Street. According to the grand jury's August 2003 indictment, Olsen wrote several false statements regarding Jeffrey Thornton in a police report about a June 20, 2002, incident. In December 2002, Olsen received a 60-day suspension from the department, which ended last February. According to the APD disciplinary memo, Thornton was near the corner of Sixth and Red River around 2:15am on June 20, 2002, where he saw Olsen responding to an altercation. "Thornton observed Officer Olsen take enforcement action and made a comment to his friend that he thought ... Olsen's actions were inappropriate," the memo reads. Olsen apparently heard Thornton's comments and responded by using "inappropriate language toward ... Thornton and grabbed his arms and escorted him to [another officer's] squad car," where Olsen intended to write Thornton a ticket for being a "pedestrian in the roadway."
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.
|
