CPD IN THE NEWS

Critics say the close connections between prosecutors and local police leads to unjust decisions not to prosecute officers following officer-involved shootings.

The absence of indictments of police officers in shooting deaths – especially in high-profile cases like the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Tamir Rice in Cleveland – is raising questions about the fairness of using local prosecutors to investigate police officers with whom they may have close ties.

Critics say the close working relationships between local prosecutors and law enforcement injects a bias into investigations of shootings and other deaths at the hands of police. A solution, some suggest, would be to use independent prosecutors to investigate charges of wrong-doing by police officers.

The investigation into the death of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La., offers one example of the closeness often seen between prosecutors and police departments. East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore recused himself from the investigation, as he had worked closely with both police-officer parents of one of the officers involved in the shooting. 

When a police officer is involved in a shooting, often the officer's own police department opens an internal investigation into the incident. In some cases, says Walter Katz, an independent police auditor of the city of San Jose, Calif., who has studied investigations of police use of lethal force, there is evidence that suggests the investigator's close relationship to the officer can lead to a lack of objectivity.

"That can be amplified when also the local prosecuting agency is the agency that reviews to decide whether or not to file criminal charges against a police officer," Mr. Katz tells The Christian Science Monitor. "In smaller jurisdictions ... they're going to have a close working relationship, so it creates the potential impression that it's not an arm's length review of the use of force."

The scarcity of indictments in a variety of high-profile shootings has increased scrutiny of officer prosecutions by local authorities. The prosecutors in both the Tamir Rice case in Cleveland and the Michael Brown case in Ferguson said they believed the officers involved had acted legally. Both were accused of not presenting a fair review of possible charges to the grand juries, as Ari Melber, MSNBC’s chief legal correspondent, explained in The Washington Post.

The problem of officer-involved shootings of blacks wouldn't be solved with independent prosecutors, Marbre Stahly-Butts, the deputy director of racial justice for the Center for Popular Democracy, a progressive advocacy organization, tells the Monitor. But "certainly accountability is an essential step that needs to happen," she says.

"We have the common sense that asking prosecutors who work everyday with police and depend on police for their cases, to then be objective in prosecuting them, is just not reasonable," Ms. Stahly-Butts says.

Local advocates are working to address these issues, Stahly-Butts says, especially in St. Louis and New York, where it has contributed to the passage of an executive order ensuring independent prosecutors.

On the federal level, Congressman Steve Cohen (D) of Tennessee is sponsoring a bill that would withhold federal funding from law enforcement unless the use of independent prosecutors to address instances of deadly force by police is instituted.

"There's no good reason not to have independent prosecutors," he tells the Monitor. "If you have the prosecutors who work with the law enforcement agency, which they do hand-in-glove to investigate cases and present cases, there is... an appearance of, if not outright, impropriety."

This can limit the citizenry's faith in the justice system, especially if no charges are brought against the officers, Representative Cohen says. On the flip side, when local prosecutors do bring charges, police can react negatively. After Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby brought charges against officers in the death of Freddie Gray, some believe there was a work slowdown among Baltimore Police, which police officials denied, the Baltimore Sun reported. This hurts the entire community, Cohen says.

The bill, introduced in October 2015, has 80 co-sponsors as of Wednesday morning. Several states have made moves to implement independent prosecutors, including Connecticut and New York. Cohen says it is important to set a nation-wide standard, but House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R) of Virginia has not yet scheduled a hearing.

The bill is opposed by the National Association of Police Organizations, a law enforcement advocacy group. The organization's executive director, William Johnson, wrote a letter to Cohen expressing fears that officers would face "a great deal of pressure" if investigated by independent prosecutors, The Hill reported. 

"There is a risk that decisions to prosecute would be made based on politics, not on the law and admissible evidence," Johnson wrote. "NAPO is concerned that an officer would be indicted, even if he/she did nothing wrong."

Johnson did not respond to requests for comment from the Monitor.

Cohen says local law enforcement may oppose his bill because they benefit from the current system and may be "getting home cooking".

"That's not what justice is about," he says. "All games should be on neutral courts."

By AIDAN QUIGLEY 

Source

People in green shirts stating “Let Our Wages Grow” and “Who’s Recovery?” are all over the main lobby and outdoor areas of the lodge.

As officials meet for the Economic Policy Symposium, the Fed Up Coalition consisting of workers, economists, and allies are holding a conference simultaneously to discuss ways to foster full employment, higher wages and racial equality.

Ed Donaldson, who is with the San Francisco Alliance of Californians for Community Emplowerment is here to join the conversation on interest rates, unemployment and how the decisions of the Federal Reserve impact Americans.

“We are here exercising our democracy,” said Donaldson. “Monetary policy and the activities of the Federal Reserve are so very important.”

Between 75-100 representatives for the Fed Up Coalition from all over U.S. are at the Jackson Lake Lodge to voice their opinion.

“We have people here who represent every Federal Reserve district across the country. Many have met with Federal Reserve presidents in their area, which has been a very interesting dialog,” he added.

According to Donaldson, instead of looking at abstract data, it is important to have people who can tell you first hand how the economy is impacting them.

“I don’t think numbers tell the whole story about what’s going on. We have a high number of long term unemployed people and a high rate of underemployment. The Federal Reserve assisted Wall Street in getting them out of trouble and we think it’s only democratic that they begin to look at main street and look at ways they can help,” he added.

The Fed Up Coalition’s voice is beginning to be heard. Donaldson mentioned that the Federal Reserve is creating a Community Advisory Counsel, where they will select 15 people to help get insight from the ground.

“I am happy to be here. I think in many ways this is historic,” said Donaldson. “We sort of butted into the conversation, but I think it is far too important of an issue to let this conversation take place and not ask questions.”

The 2015 Economic Symposium’s central theme is “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” and takes place August 27-29 at the Jackson Lake Lodge in Grand Teton National Park.

Source: Buckrail

The Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) has made tremendous strides in exposing and challenging racial injustice, and has won real policy victories. The policies, while often imperfect, are a testament to the strength of the organizing and activism of the moment. Not coincidentally, this uprising comes at a time when income and wealth inequality are at peak levels and the economy for most black people looks markedly different than the economy for their white counterparts.

Just as we are in a critical moment in the movement for racial justice, we are in a critical moment for the right to unionize. Unions, which have been a major force for economic justice for people of color in the past 50 years, have been decimated to historically low levels.

Labor should work alongside the Movement for Black Lives, a coalition with more than 50 organizations, to usher in a radically new economic and social order. The path won’t be easy. But recent history has shown that one of the ways to get at this new reality is through union bargaining. Consider the example of Fix L.A.

Fix L.A. is a community-labor partnership that fought to fund city services and jobs alike, using city workers’ bargaining as a flashpoint to bring common good demands to the table. The coalition started after government leaders in Los Angeles drastically cut back on public services and infrastructure maintenance during the Great Recession. The city slashed nearly 5,000 jobs, a large portion of which had been held by black and Latino workers. Not only did these cuts create infrastructure problems—like overgrown and dangerous trees and flooding—but they also cost thousands of black and Latino families their livelihoods.

Fix L.A. asked why the city was spending more on bank fees than on street services, and demanded that it renegotiate those fees and invest the savings in underserved communities.

What was the result of this groundbreaking campaign?

The creation of 5,000 jobs, with a commitment to increase access to those jobs for black and Latino workers, the defeat of proposed concessions for city workers and a commitment from the city to review why it was prioritizing payment of bank fees over funding for critical services in the first place!

Bargaining for the common good

Fix L.A. may seem novel, but the context is no different from many places. We have seen massive disinvestment from public services in a way that disproportionately affects black people. This structurally-racist disinvestment is often driven by the corporate interests that bankroll elected officials’ campaigns and by Wall Street actors that use their influence over public finance to push an austerity agenda. Everywhere you look, public officials are making a choice between paying fees and providing critical services.

Chicago Public Schools paid $502 million to banks in toxic swap fees at the same time that it was slashing special education programs and laying off teachers to close a budget deficit. Detroit raised its water rates and paid $537 million in Wall Street penalties, setting the stage for mass water shutoffs when tens of thousands of poor residents of the overwhelmingly black city could not afford the higher water bills.

Wall Street and other corporations don’t hesitate to profit off of and perpetuate disinvestment in communities of color, and too often we forget to look up the food chain to see that at the other end of community crises there are rich bankers and billionaires lining their pockets. Campaigns, like Fix L.A., that involve direct actions targeting banks, hedge funds, corporations and billionaires are effective.

This sort of organizing can be hard. In order to isolate workers from their broader communities, the other side has done a terrific job of narrowly defining the scope of bargaining as wages and benefits. In many states, labor laws prohibit public sector workers from bargaining over issues that concern the welfare of the broader community or the quality of the services they provide.

The theory of “bargaining for the common good” seeks to challenge this status quo. As articulated by Joseph McCartin of Georgetown University’s Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor, bargaining for the common good has three main tenets: 1) transcending the bargaining frameworks written in law and rejecting them as tools for the corporate elite to remain in power; 2) crafting demands between local community groups and unions at the same time and in close coordination with each other from the very beginning; and 3) embracing collective direct action as key to the success of organizing campaigns.

These may seem like simple ideas, but they stand in complete opposition to the way the power elite expects union bargaining to be done. Therein lies their power.

Therein also lies the opportunity for unions to partner with the Movement for Black Lives. For all of their complicated racial histories, unions are some of the largest organizations of black people in the country. About 2.2 million black Americans are union members—some 14 percent of the employed black workforce.

That’s a huge number of black people who are already members of organizations with the capacity to organize and mobilize. And these black workers, like all black people in America, face real challenges of structural economic racism in almost all aspects of their lives. Their communities have been underfunded; their schools are being dismantled; they face massive poverty and are under economic assault; and they regularly encounter police violence.

Stronger together

Widening the scope of bargaining in Los Angeles led to real wins for the city’s black and Latino communities. The rest of the labor movement should take note. Imagine the power that could be added to the Movement for Black Lives if unions, recognizing the trauma that systematic racism wreaks on their membership, brought solutions that have been elevated by the Movement for Black Lives to the bargaining table in negotiations with employers ranging from the City of Baltimore to private equity giant Blackstone.

But unions cannot do this unilaterally and expect unconditional support from the black community.

Unions must make the effort on the front end to build a real relationship with Movement for Black Lives groups and members, and partner with them in developing common good bargaining demands that start to go on the offense against Wall Street and the structurally-racist economic power structure. There are groups of people organizing for racial justice under the banner of the Movement for Black Lives near every union local in the country. The onus is on labor leaders and rank-and-file union members to reach out to those groups and start to build a strong relationship where one does not exist. This process will not be easy, especially because of the history of racism that plagues unions, especially police unions. But the truth remains that there is a real opportunity to leverage the power of both movements to win real gains for black people and other people of color through a strong partnership.

It is exciting to imagine potential bargaining demands major unions could undertake alongside racial justice organizations. For example, they could demand that their employers make a commitment to job training programs to strengthen the pipeline for black workers; city and state workers could demand progressive taxation measures that raise funds from corporate actors to fund schools and services in black communities; teachers could demand school districts enact restorative justice policies to stem the school-to-prison pipeline; hospital workers could bargain for targeted health care access programs in communities of color; retail workers could demand that their employers “ban the box” and let the formerly incarcerated work. The list is almost infinite.

Bargaining for racial justice is a radical idea and will not be easily won. It will require concerted direct action targeting the real decision makers in both the public and private sectors that have a vested interest in keeping racial inequities in place. The Movement for Black Lives has proven that it can execute effective and creative direct actions backed by solid demands. They are also innovating creative tactics that move beyond traditional marches and picket lines to new types of disruptive actions that make power holders directly confront those they are harming. By combining the vision and militant tactics of the Movement for Black Lives with the membership and resources of the labor movement, we can usher in a more just and equitable society

BY MAURICE WEEKS AND MARILYN SNEIDERMAN

Source

New York Times - May 11, 2014, Room for Debate: Connie Razza - Public pensions are under threat from outright fraud as well as the financial sector’s drive to generate higher profits for itself, regardless of the cost to our communities. The public can take simple steps to eliminate this danger. Investments should be put in index funds, which typically outperform actively managed portfolios. A recent comprehensive study of the performance of state pension funds found that the 46 state funds studied could save $6 billion in fees annually, while achieving returns as good or better than their actively managed portfolios. Most privately managed pensions already pursue indexing strategies, through vehicles like Amalgamated Bank’s LongView Funds, and successfully secure strong retirement savings for participants. Public pension funds should index a significant portion of their funds under management to save billions while still generating first-rate returns.

Index funds outperform managed portfolios. Relying on them would save on fees and avoid underhanded behavior.

These funds would also save significant amounts in management fees by hiring talented in-house investment managers for significant portions of actively managed pension assets.

Any investment should be presented in plain language in a standardized, easy-to-read template, so trustees and pension participants know exactly what the product does, how it makes money and what its fees and risks are. Like cell phone agreements, all fees should be disclosed up front. Like credit card bills, actual returns and long-term, historical performance should be clearly presented. Oversight of fiduciaries should be bolstered and any who violate their responsibility to retirement funds should be pursued legally. When the State Employees Association of North Carolina hired a pension forensic investigator, they found that the state treasurer Janet Cowell had invested $30 billion in illegal, high-risk funds, causing $6.8 billion in losses. A more robust standing oversight body could have prevented much of that improper investment. The state should aggressively prosecute both pension trustees and private investment managers who put their own benefit above the interest of pension participants. More eyes on the management of retirement assets would help ensure responsible investment strategies and management. Creating a publicly managed pool of retirement funds would invest more residents in pension management, while ensuring that fewer workers would find themselves insecure in retirement. And, increased pension funds make possible more diverse, responsible investments for the actively managed portions of the funds. For instance, funds can take a decisive role in infrastructure investments that will both improve their communities and provide steady, long-term returns.

Source