[Summit] Jackson Recall election set for May 2
rmath13 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 15 10:54:36 CDT 2017
Yes, the CSA does indeed have huge problems, though it's heart is good, as
Now that I have read its proposed wording more closely, I think it hasn't a
ghost of a chance of passing the Council as written -- even if Jackson were
still on the Council and were to vote for it. Providence voters have not,
in most wards, shown themselves to be particularly progressive or
idealistic in the past. In some wards, a vote for the CSA (as it is
written) would probably work strongly against a council member's
So that settles the issue for me, I think. I will vote to recall Jackson
unless someone raises some new and relevant issue between now and May 2.
Thank you, one and all, for your comments.
Also, are you actually a neighbor of ours, "It is a Costume," living in
Ward 3? (I mean this as an honest question, not a put-down.) You see, a
nameless actor in a costume inspires enormous distrust in real life, and
can barely inspire trust even in theater.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Emlyn Addison <noisyblocks at gmail.com>
> I can't speak to the wisdom/viability/enforceability of the CSA, which
> has its heart in the right place, but suggesting that one evil should be
> tolerated in the distant hopes that it *might* curtail another is, in my
> view, an unwise use of our civic efforts.
> Of course we all care about police brutality and racial injustice but,
> again, let's take a victory when it's in the offing.
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Itisa Costume <itisacostume at gmail.com>
>> 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.
>> 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.
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Summit