Home | 2007 Columns » | All Columns » | 2007 Blogs »
02-09-07, Blog #3: Strib and City Hall swatted by the paranoia of their S.W.A.T call up against ghosts.
The Strib editorial this morning, "Samuels' frustration should be widely felt," is one of those Orwellian speak moments from "1984" that shows, once again, how the Strib and City Hall agendas mesh against the wishes of the people in general and the Black community in particular, as they fight to maintain a status quo, even it means leaving Blacks walking, and, when let on the bus, kept at the back of the bus.
The Strib editorial this morning missed the point with its point that "Those angry critics who, at today's City Council meeting, will push for Samuels' resignation risk missing that larger point." Note, not " if" any object or that some " may " object but that they " will " object. That's not journalism. That is collusion with City Hall and with their informers among the Black Leadership Confernce. With the S.W.A.T. in place, they were ready to not only ambush concerned community people, the real leaders of the community, but to do so with a military show of force.
And the Strib continued with its disdain of journalism when it writes that " Gleason Glover said "show me the money" in an impassioned speech about targeting school dollars toward low-income minority kids ." In reality, it was said by Gary Suddeth, who succeeded Gleason.
So you can see the kind of behind the scenes collusion that must be going on in the agenda triangle of the Strib editors able to talk in advance of angry critics who, at today's City Council meeting, will push for Samuels' resignation, coordinated with City Hall having S.W.A.T. teams called up and deployed in and around the City Council Chambers as a military show of force to confront the "angry critics" in order to clearly show their support for Samuels and not the community, and their Black leader informers within the black leadership group who also want to preserve the status quo and thus set up this "showdown," with S.W.A.T teams, as if community protesters protesting against those who work against their community are some kind of criminals. .
And what is at the bottom of this manure fest between the Strib, City Hall, and so-called Black leaders? They are attempting to distract us from seeing their collusion in the budgetary and moral corruption of the city system that places the blame on those the city is to serve rather than on the way the city serves those they blame.
And even though Nick Coleman put his finger on the real issue in his column yesterday (Memo to Samuels, Rybak: Do your duty and help fix schools) education itself, and exposed the lies Samuel's spoke, that the Strib wants to let go as a "clumsy metaphor," they all come back to the innocent party: the City, and the guilty party, the community, and thus want Samuels to continue in his job as helps keep Blacks in their place.
The Strib speaks of the problem being funding, "funding cuts forced on education" when recent reports show that Minnesota is among the tops in money for education. If we got what we paid for all would graduate. And all would do so being able to read and write.
But Samuels would burn the school down and provide SWAT barricades at city hall. He and the Strib blame the students for being part of "a destructive popular culture that celebrates failure, glorifies crime and disrespects academic achievement." And, needless to say, at the end of the day, all of us are accountable for our actions and behaviors.
But the Strib speaks out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand it decries the influence of "a destructive popular culture that celebrates failure, glorifies crime and disrespects academic achievement," and then turns around and advertises for and runs stories glorifying that very culture. What makes the Strib dangerous is not that it is hypocritical, but that it actually believes both sides of its mouth, can't see the contradiction, and believes only the city can solve the problem when all the city does is make it worse.
In 1990, the Strib ran a three week series on the "Issues of Race" and how the institutions continually put road blacks in the path of Blacks trying to improve themselves, covered earlier by the January 1990 cover story in the MplsStPaul magazine, with its cover line that "racism is alive--and growing--in the Twin Cities. That was when the Strib was still capable of being a journistic enterprise. Sadly, as the Minnapolis bloggers at www.powerlineblog.com have shown, the Strib is no longer among the best.
As to the culture, much is due to policies enacted by the city, as Senator Patrick Moynihan said in the 60s, regarding policies enacted that he said would undermine the Black family. And they have.
Coleman is correct: it is Rybak and Sammuel's "duty" to help fix the schools. We are constantly told that parental involvement is what is best for kids in education and their schools. But just as Bill Clinton involved himself in a private school for his daughter, ignoring the Washington, D.C. school system, among the nation's worst (that Congress could care less is one of the great crimes against Blacks in an inner city), so too do Rybak and Samuels send their kids to private schools. They have no involvement in our public schools and feel free to speak with certitude from their ignorance.
The voucher program Samuels wants adopted, which would benefit his wife's career, would be unnecessary if the Democrats would go after the problem at its source: the school system careerists, the teachers' union, and the idea they share with politicians that the 1968 Kerner Commission is correct, that Black's can't make it on their own, so they must be wards of the state, and wards should be doing as they are told, not protesting. Until this unholy idea and the alliance that supports it is overturned, our kids will continue to be poorly served by a city and political party that doesn't think they can do well anyway.
Finally, the Strib, at its authoritarian, elitist status quo best, says people should not protest but instead settle it at the ballot box. Let us not forget that Blacks could not do that until the 1960s because of the restrictions barring voting (and we still hear of attempts to block Black voting every election cycle), and that the voters of North Minneapolis were stymied again when the City engaged in resetting the ward lines through gerrymandering in order to pit two Black candidates against each other in the last elections, doing so in the favor of Samuels.
So yes, we need swat teams, but teams that will swat away a corrupt education system and a city government that continues to divide the Black community with promises to those who would lead it. What is new is that all those seeking funding to be in positions the city control are not needed any more. So many have sold out, so many have set the pattern of practice of giving in to what the DFL wants, that the City and DFL no longer have to "reward" their informers and "leader" members with grants or salaries, as they themselves unlocked the door to let in the fox who eats civil rights and blocks equal access and equal opportunity.
In our column #3 of Februray 9, we report that the Minneapolis Assistant City Attorney ruling discussed shows Minneapolis backpelling on civil rights protections: ""There does not appear to be a history of discrimination by the city to remedy," "[not] in the past [nor] currently." See her words below in Blog #1 and, as noted, here and here.
Who has protested this? No one, so far. Neither the Black Leadership Conference, nor the NAACP, nor the Urban League, nor the Civil Rights Commission, nor the Civil Rights Department, nor the Civil Service Commission, nor the Strib, nor the University of Minnesota, nor the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, raised a peep or protest. When this happens, you know they have us where they want us, in our "place."
Posted February 9, 2007, 1:33 p.m.
2-3-07, Blog #2: Minneapolis' Potential "Ides of March?" It has been brought to our attention the parallel between the foreboding of the soothsayer's warning to Julius Caesar, "Beware the Ides of March" (March 15), at the end of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1, in terms of civil rights being assassinated by discriminations's long knives in Minneapolis's proposal to assassinate history and cut Rule 8.03B this March 14th.
Posted 2-3-07, 1:18 p.m.
2-2-07, Blog #1: Regarding our Column #3 for 2007, 1-31-07:
The serious citizen asks: How can Minneapolis claim it has no history of discrimination? Why does Minneapolis contnue to backpedal on civil rights protections in the matter of Rule 8.03B?
For scan of memo below, page 1 of 2: go here.
For scan of memo below, page 2 of 2: go here
True Copy of above scans
City of Lakes
Jay M. Heffern, City Attorney
333 South 7 th Street - Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2453
0ffice 612 673-2010
TO: Pam French
CC: Miriam Vaughn-Lee
FROM: Caroline Bachun, Assistant City Attorney
Civil Division Fax 612 673.3362
Criminal Division Fax 612 673-2189
CPED Fax 612 613-5112
TTY 612 673-2157
DATE: January 12, 2007
ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
A meeting was held on January 10,2007, which I attended with you, Ron Edwards , and Miriam Vaughn-Lee. In the meeting, Ron Edwards addressed a few issues, one of them being expanded certification and Civil Service Commission Rule 8.03B. After the meeting, you asked me to review the language of the expanded certification rule and to advise whether the language is sufficient or needs to be modified.
Expanded certification is a race conscious policy and therefore, if challenged in court, is subject to a strict scrutiny review standard. An expanded certification program will survive strict scrutiny only if it serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to further that interest. One compelling governmental interest is to remedy past discrimination by the City of Minneapolis as a hiring entity. To determine if an affirmative action program is narrowly tailored, the courts will look at several factors, including: (1) the necessity for the relief and the efficacy of alternative remedies; (2) the flexibility and duration of the relief, including the availability of waiver provisions; (3) the relationship of the numerical goals to the relevant labor market and (4) the impact of the relief on the rights of third parties.
First, I will look at the compelling governmental interest of remedying past discrimination by the City in its hiring processes. I understand that after the conclusion of the case entitled Police Officers' Federation of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, et al., which related to the use of expanded certification for Police Sergeant positions, the City of Minneapolis had an expert review the hiring practices of the police department to determine if there would be a basis to find discrimination sufficient to meet a compelling governmental interest to satisfy the strict scrutiny standard. It is my understanding that the expert, Paul Bayless, determined that there was no such discrimination in the MPD hiring practlces. Further, l do not know of any studies that the City of Minneapolis has engaged in since that would demonstrate that the City has in the past or is currently engaging in discrimination in its hiring practices . In the absence of discrimination by
Page 2 of 2
January 12, 2007
the City that the City has to remedy; a court is not likely to find a compelling governmental interest to justify current use of expanded certification.
Second, I will look at the issue of whether the expanded certification program is narrowly tailored, in particular with respect to the duration of the program. Civil Service Commission Rule 8.03B was created in 1994, modified in 2002, and has a sunset provision so that the existing rule will expire March 14,2007 , at which time the Civil Service Commission will determine the need for continuation or the rule. If the expanded certification rule is extended beyond March 14,2007, it may appear to a court that the role is indefinite and is therefore not narrowly tailored and does not meet the strict scrutiny standard. If a court determines that the program is not narrowly tailored, any use of expanded certification could be deemed to be unconstitutional and the hiring of employees under the unconstitutional program might be reversed or modified in some way.
There does not appear to be a history of discrimination by the City to remedy. Further, the expanded certification program of the city could be seen by a court not to be narrowly tailored because of the long length of the duration of the program (i.e., since 1994). Because the City does not have the evidence sufficient to meet the strict scrutiny standard at this time, it is the City Attorney Office's recommendation to Human Resources that the Civil Service Commission allow Rule 8.03B to expire on March 14,2007.
Allowing Rule 8.03B to expire would not necessarily mean the end of expanded certification. If, in the future, the City does have sufficient evidence to show a compelling governmental interest to implement a new expanded certification program, the Civil Service Commission could create a new expanded certification role that would be written to survive strict scrutiny. The new rule could then be used at that time. Having a shorter duration for the expanded certification program. would bolster the City's future argument to a court that the program is narrowly tailored.
If you have questions, feel tree to contact me at Ext. 2754.
Ron hosts “Black Focus” on Channel 17, MTN-TV, Sundays, 5-6 pm. Formerly head of the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission and the Urban League, he continues his “watchdog” role for Minneapolis. Order his book, hear his voice, read his solution papers, and read his between columns “web log” at www.TheMinneapolisStory.com.
Permission is granted to reproduce The Minneapolis Story columns, blog entires and solution papers. Please cite the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder and www.TheMinneapolisStory.com for the columns. Please cite www.TheMinneapolisStory.com for blog entries and solution papers.
Home | 2007 Columns » | All Columns » | 2007 Blogs »