[Summit] Jackson Recall election set for May 2

Itisa Costume itisacostume at gmail.com
Wed Mar 15 10:09:32 CDT 2017


The discussion of the CSA is largely irrelevant to the recall.  It is not
the case that "lives stand in the balance."

The CSA just isn't the kind of thing that will do much at all. We aren't
faced with a choice of saving some number of victims of police violence or
recalling an allegedly corrupt politician. That's not the situation.



Look at the CSA.

https://providencecommunitysafetyact.wordpress.com/full-text-of-the-csa/

I don't see how it has a chance of passing. It's a cobbled together list of
various requirements and checklists combined with a little anti-Trump
immigration rider.  I'd never vote for something like this.  It's riddled
with problems that would, at best, make policing a hassle.

Consider this provision:

"(2) Prior to performing a search of any individual, law enforcement
officers must inform the individual of the right to request that the search
be performed by an officer of the gender of the individual’s choosing.
Officers must comply with such requests in the performance of searches. If
an officer of the requested gender is not present at the time, one will be
called to the scene as soon as possible so as not to unnecessarily delay
the time required to perform the search."

I love it.  Image a couple guys who get pulled over and are suspected of
selling drugs or having a gun.  The provision would allow them to say that
they want to be searched by a woman. I guess we'll have to wait around
until we can get one of the women on the force on the scene.  Nice. If I
were a criminal, I'd use this every time I got pulled over.


The section on language access is fun too:

"*G. Language access for Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals*

1. The Police Department shall establish a language access hotline to
connect police officials in the field with qualified interpreters in a
timely manner. Officers who wish to question an LEP individual for any
reason and are not fluent in a language spoken proficiently by that
individual, shall not question that individual until a qualified
interpreter is present, except in emergency situations.

2. Police shall not use family members, friends or bystanders as
interpreters except in emergency situations."

So, if the police arrive at a crime scene, they can't question anyone
unless they share a language in which they are both fluent.  They can't
even ask a guy sitting in a store a question about what the criminals
looked like unless they speak his language, fluently! They can't even ask a
bystander to help interpret. Ya, that's a great idea. They should have to
wait an hour before they can get a description of the suspects. Brilliant.


The anti-Trump section contains this:

"2. No department, agency, commission, officer or employee acting on behalf
of the City of Providence shall use any City funds or resources to assist
in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate
information on the immigration status of individuals in the City of
Providence."

So, the police can't even provide any information on immigration status.
Not even information on murders and rapists. I guess the assumption is that
no one, not even a rapist should face deportation.  I don't get it.
Regardless of what you think of Trump, this sounds like a bad idea.


In any case, you can pick nearly any provision in the CSA and find odd
problems.  I wouldn't vote for it.  And even if it does pass, it's not
going to do much of anything except slow down the police a little here and
there.  They'll have to jump through an extra hoop or two, fill out a card,
word things differently. Overall, it looks like a waste of time. Its
potential passage is certainly not a good reason to keep a corrupt
politician in office.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Ethan Gyles <ethangy at gmail.com> wrote:

> An analogous thought exercise: Would those cautioning against a Jackson
> recall vote for a presidential candidate in 2020 if it guaranteed one issue
> close to your heart (just one) would finally become law? (But let's say
> this candidate is also known for failure to follow election law, is mostly
> unavailable and unresponsive to voters, has been indicted for embezzlement,
> and election of this person would cause world-stage embarrassment)
>
> On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure of that, Greg, not sure at all.  Nor am I sure how Jackson
> would actually vote on CSA, when push comes to shove..  That's why I'd like
> the discussion to continue.
>
> If the vote on CSA would be very close, and Jackson would vote for it,
> then opponents of CSA might try to force a vote in the months between when
> Jackson is removed from the Council and when his eventual replacement takes
> office.
>
> Also, as Emlyn says, even if the Council votes CSA down, it can always be
> reintroduced in years to come.
>
> Bob M
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Emlyn Addison <noisyblocks at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Sam's take. We can ensure that a CSA supporter is elected to
>> replace Jackson. After all the hard work rooting out this rotten apple,
>> with no guarantee that the CSA would pass anyway, let's take our victories
>> where we can get them. Police brutality isn't going to disappear overnight,
>> but a corrupt official will.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If we can't have it both ways, Michael, then which is the greater
>>> problem?
>>>
>>> It is corruption and misuse, even outright theft, of taxpayer money?  Or
>>> is it police misconduct, even brutality, especially toward the less
>>> privileged?
>>>
>>> They are both huge problems, but which do you think is the greater
>>> problem, here and now?
>>>
>>> As for me, frankly, I'd rather lose some of my property to elected
>>> thieves on a regular basis than tolerate police misconduct -- which has
>>> indeed descended into brutality from time to time, even in Providence,
>>> though we privileged people in Ward 3 see less of the latter than people
>>> elsewhere in the city.
>>>
>>> I signed the petition to recall Jackson as soon as it became available,
>>> but Mikaila's comment has made me waver in my support of the recall now.
>>>
>>> I would welcome reasoned discussion on the issue, if anyone feels up to
>>> discussing the pros and cons here.
>>>
>>> Bob M
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Michael McGlynn <mmcglynn at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mikaila, you can't have both ways. Would prefer Kevin Jackson remain in
>>>> office or not?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur <
>>>> mmlarthur at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No one, least of all me, said anyone is obligated to fix every issue.
>>>>> Rather when people are involved in working really hard and doing a good
>>>>> thing, they may also want to think about and work to mitigate the potential
>>>>> direct consequences of those actions, unintended though they may be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given what is going on with the CSA, the Jackson recall is likely to
>>>>> have specific negative consequences which really matter to the lives of
>>>>> Providence residents, unless the CSA is passed prior to May 2. This is
>>>>> because even the best possible replacement for Jackson would not be in
>>>>> office until quite a while after the May 2 election date--the special
>>>>> election can be up to 90 days after the recall election, and looking at
>>>>> that and the City Council calendar suggests that Jackson's replacement
>>>>> would attend his or her first council meeting in September.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lives hang in the balance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/14/2017 5:51 PM, Kim Clark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> i could not agree more.
>>>>>
>>>>> talk about getting slapped in the face for working really hard and
>>>>> doing a good thing — having someone judge you and allege you are now
>>>>> obligated to fix every issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur
>>>>> mmlarthur at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thank You,
>>>> Michael McGlynn
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Summit mailing list
>>>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>>>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.prov
>>>> idence.ri.us
>>>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Summit mailing list
>>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20170315/90795ec6/attachment.html>


More information about the Summit mailing list