Biomass backstabbing-- citizens being sold down the river (but we're still swimming upstream)

To be blunt, this has not been a good week for biomass opponents and the residents of Springfield.   At Monday night's city council meeting, we expected councilors to authorize themselves to appeal the building permits issued to Palmer Renewable Energy for construction of a biomass plant.  Instead,  an obviously choreographed effort   between city solicitor Ed Pikula and Councilors Walsh, Ferrera and Rooke paved the way for Walsh to introduce rule 20, bringing the proceedings to an abrupt halt.   Western Mass. Politics and Insight   has an excellent blow-by-blow description of the evening's farce.

"Don't worry, we'll fix this on Monday," Councilor Mike Fenton told us, and I believe that he and the other nine councilors who also appose this biomass plant will prevail,  but it gives the council less time to file an appeal-- the deadline is December 15.

We've had some members researching campaign contributions from PRE's owners, family members and attorney, but the Valley Advocate summed it up nicely for us before we could finish. From the Callahan family:

• Jimmy Ferrera: $1,400
• Bud Williams: $1,400
• Kateri Walsh: $1,250
• Tim Rooke: $750

 From Callahan's attorney, Frank Fitzgerald:

• Walsh: $500
• Ferrera: $350
• Rooke:  $250
• Williams $250

 Now, do I think a councilor's vote can be bought so cheaply?  Possibly.....but what I actually suspect is that there were far more substantial offers of assistance, financial and otherwise, made to city councilors by PRE this year, which will never appear in a list of campaign contributions.  I suspect that that if city councilors revealed the extent to which they have been lobbied and cajoled, we would be shocked. 

But what I absolutely believe is that no city councilor should accept a financial contribution from any person who has business before the council and who would benefit financially from a council decision.

Second piece of bad news: just today, DEP handed down a "recommended" decision about our air permit appeal, basically saying that citizens have no "standing" to appeal a DEP-issued permit!  On the advice of attorneys, I'm not going to comment on our legal strategies at this point in time (except to say we still have plenty!), especially as the decision is not final until approved by DEP Commissioner Ken Kimmel.  Our press release is below.  

I do, however, want people to think about the ramifications of this decision if it is upheld.  Clearly, DEP would not apply this decision only to PRE opponents, or only to those appealing air permits.   Think about it.  And we'll talk more later.

JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE
MA DEP’S RECOMMENDED FINAL DECISION
ON THE AIR PERMIT APPEAL REGARDING PALMER RENEWABLE ENERGY
BIOMASS PLANT IN SPRINGFIELD, MA

Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution Says
No One Other than Developer Can Raise Administrative Challenges to
Power Plant Air Permits – Not Even Affected Residents

BOSTON, MA  November 30, 2011 – Conservation Law Foundation, Arise for Social Justice, and Toxics Action Center today issued the following joint statement in response to the Massachusetts DEP’s recommended final decision on the air permit appeal for Palmer Renewable Energy’s proposed biomass-fueled Power Plant in Springfield, MA.

“This decision, if adopted, would change the rules so as to prevent affected members of the public from participating in administrative appeals of air permits. It also would undermine the state’s clean energy agenda. The recommended decision, which does not address the substance of the petitioners’ claims, essentially says that no one other than the developer has the right to raise administrative challenges to power plant air permits – not even people already suffering from severe respiratory illness, nor people suffering from disproportionate air pollution burdens. We look to DEP Commissioner Kimmel to reject the recommended decision and preserve the right of Massachusetts residents to have a voice in decisions that affect their health.”

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) protects New England’s environment for the benefit of all people. Using the law, science and the market, CLF creates solutions that preserve natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy region-wide. Founded in1966, CLF is a nonprofit, member-supported organization with offices in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.

# # #

Ferrera's prostitution proposal defeated 12-1

Jesse Lederman just called me to let me know that Councilor Ferrera's proposal to send prostitutes and johns to jail for a mandatory one year sentence was defeated by the Springfield City Council-- twelve to one!

About thirty people came down to the council speak-out tonight to show opposition to Ferrera's proposal.  A half dozen of us had signed up to speak, including Arise members, Out Now members and the members of the Prison Birth Project.  Jimmy Ferrera spent most of his time during the speak-out chatting with Kateri Walsh, listening with only half an ear, if that, as his later remarks showed.

Jesse tells me that at one point during the presentation of his proposal, Ferrera said, "As you can tell from tonight's speak-out, there are some people in this city who actually support prostitution."   Councilors Keith Wright and Melvin Edwards challenged his interpretation, saying that they hadn't heard that from the speakers at all-- that we understood drugs are a problem in our community, that prostitution follows the drugs, not the other way around, that we all have a right to live in a safe  neighborhood..

In fact I hear that Melvin Edwards, councilor from Ward Three, just shot down every one of Jimmy's fallacious arguments in favor of incarceration. He echoed the speakers tonight who said that studies have shown mandatory minimums don't prevent the offenses for which they are designed.  He spoke at least three different times.  Thank you, Councilor Edwards.

  I do believe prostitution should be decriminalized, and I do believe that nine out of ten women, men and youth who are doing street level sex work-- survival sex, as they call it-- would be off the streets in a year if they had access to drug treatment on demand, a network of understanding supporters, and a decent job and housing they can afford.  Let's take the approximately $38,000 cost of incarcerating someone in the county jail system in Massachusetts and use it to help open doors.

Problem is, there's always money to lock more people up, even as jobs and drug treatment-- and so much more!-- are cut from the state budget.  That $38,000 would not come from the city's coffers, but from the pockets of Springfield's residents, whose taxes are the bulk of  the state's revenue.  And someone-- I think from the Prison Birth Project--  pointed out the immense cost of law enforcement, especially sting operations,  in Springfield, and the diversion of needed police resources from serious crimes.

I don't think Councilor Ferrera has given much time to understanding what street level sex work is all about..  I wonder how much money he is willing to propose be added to next year's city budget to attack the root cause of the issue.  How about designating a municipal building as a drug treatment on demand center?  Sure, when pigs fly.

As Arise's Ellen Graves said tonight, no one intends to be a prostitute when she or he grows up.How can we help people reclaim their faith in the future, instead of stomping on their lives?

Photo from luckyfish's photostream at Flickr.

No biomass! Another ally

Last night Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield members were on the agenda of the Green City Initiatives Committee chaired by Councilor Ferrera, and the meeting was more productive than I expected-- after Mary Booth's presentation and after a number of questions and answers, a committee member made a motion to oppose Palmer Renewable Energy's proposed incinerator and it passed with one abstention and none opposed. 

One irony in the situation is that Councilor Ferrera had originally voted in favor of PRE's receiving their needed zone change permit back in September, 2008.  I wasn't inclined to bring that up last night as it  seemed ungracious given this new opportunity to win an ally, and I certainly am glad he's changed his mind.  A STIS member in the audience did bring it up, however, and Councilor Ferrera said pretty much what I'd expect him (and the other councilors who voted in favor of PRE ) to say: the application met all the requirements to receive a permit, so........the unspoken explanation being that he had no choice, his hands were tied, etc.  Somehow that didn't stop  former Councilors Pat Markey and Rosemary Mazza-Moriarty from voting against it, and Bruce Stebbins abstained.  (I don't understand abstentions.)

STIS recently paid for a tape of the city council meeting where PRE's zone change was approved, but only a couple of people have had a chance to watch it so far.  If I had to guess, I'd put the city council decision down to the simple fact that business people have more weight in the eyes of elected officials than regular people do.  I've come to know many of the regular people who spoke against the proposal  to city council back then, and they were already pretty knowledgeable about biomass-- more than they'd ever thought they'd be.  And since then we've learned a lot more.

Given the weight that relationships between people with power carry, the only antidote is for more and more of us to understand, to speak out, and to organize to make sure our voices are heard.

Mayor Sarno stumbles with the new city council, the public and the police

When Ward Four City Councilor E. Henry Twiggs put out the call last week that his committee would be discussing proposals for a new Civilian  Police Review Board, I'm sure he had no idea that Mayor Domenic Sarno would release his own proposal by executive order the day before the meeting.  For some strange reason, the city council actually thought it would have some input into the proposal, given that nine police officers in two separate incidents are now under investigation and at least some councilor's phone have been quite busy with calls from constituents.

But the meeting still took place last night in Room 220, and members of the Civil Rights and Race Relations Committee-- E. Henry Twiggs, John Lysak and Keith Wright-- were joined by Melvin Edwards, Katari Walsh, Michael Fenton, Thomas Ashe, Zaida Luna and Timothy Rooke!  With James Ferrera and Tim Allen in the audience, the only city councilors who weren't in attendence were Clodo Concepcion and and Jose Tosado.

On one side of the room sat members of the Springfield Police Department.  On the other side sat about 40 community members.

The first part of the meeting was given over to a presentation by City Solicitor Edward Pikula, who had completed the thankless task of coming up with the civilian police commission plan.  He was closely questioned by council members about some fairly complicated elements that shaped the plan-- Police Commissioner Fitchet's contract, civil service requirements, charter change and the police union's contract.  Councilor Twiggs made it clear he was not happy that council members were not consulted in the drafting of the proposal.  Then the meeting was turned over to speakers.

Police Union President Joseph Gentile spoke first, and said that the union did not support Mayor Sarno's new civilian police commission.  He said he wanted very much to see race relations in between the police and the community improve, and thought that community policing, which we no longer have, would do it.  He reminded us that the original police commission, which was disbanded as a condition of Commissioner Edward Flynn's hire, had the power to seek funding, develop program, hire, fire, commend and discipline as well as other powers.  Gentile's solution was something close to the original commission.)

(I'm going to stop here for a moment to .remember Ed Flynn as one of the most arrogant and incompetent persons I've ever met.  He wanted to be Commissioner, not Chief; he wanted all the powers of the Police Commission, and he left for a job in Milwaukee only 19 months into a five year contract. In trying to his leaving, he said, "I am two things ... and they're both real. I am an idealist about this job, and I am ambitious. The gap between the two gets filled with guilt," said Flynn, a well-traveled, pedigreed executive in blue, whose presence in Springfield has been unwelcome by many among the rank-and-file of the department."  Republican.   Some of the problems we're facing right now belong on his shoulders.)

Most of the people who spoke next talked about their intense disappointment  in being excluded from the process of determining the form pf police oversight; some, such as Arise for Social Justice and Rev. Talbert Swan, had submitted written suggestions. Others spoke about the mistrust in the community and the need to make sure that allegations of police brutality were thoroughly investigated by a commission with real powers, lacking in Sarno's commiission. 

I spoke near the end.  The point I wanted to make is that people who voted for ward representation in Springfield did so with the expectation that their councilors would be able to participate in decisions that affected their neighborhoods.  But first, I mentioned that I had been arrested in that very room about five years before at a city auction of tax title property, and charged with disturbing the peace, which was true, seeing as I was speaking out of turn, and with assault and battery on a police officer, completely untrue, and that the charges had been dropped when the officer failed to appear in court..  At that point I inclined myself toward the police officers, and said, ruefully, "You know, guys, that's the kind of thing-- putting charges on people they don't deserve-- that breeds cynicism and mistrust and that has to stop."

After I sat down, I glanced over to the officers' side of the room. It happened so quickly that at first I wasn't sure what I saw, but what I saw was an officer with his hand in the shape of a gun, held low to his lap, and pointed directly at me.

How the issues of police management and accountability in this city will be resolved, I don't know, but it's clearly not over yet.  Councilor Ferrera will be introducing his own version of a police commission on Monday night, which Councilor Twiggs has already said he doesn't support, but as Ferrera said to me this morning, at least the council will have the opportunity to debate, amend, accept or reject his proposal, an opportunity they were denied with Sarno's executive order.   And although no councilor at the meeting overtly expressed anger at Mayor Sarno (Ed Pikula was the stand-in for that), relations certainly haven't been improved.  It was only this January 20 that City Council President Jose Tosado called the lack of communication between the mayor and city council "institutionalized disfunction."  Ward representation can't be effective if the council continues to be shut out of the government.

Drawing from Shell's Daily Drawing.

Springfield judge on side of common sense; marijuana law goes back to committee

Seems like I'm having an exceptionally busy week but I want to find time to remark on two events in Springfield, MA this Monday.

First, Councilor James Ferrara's attempt to circumvent new state law by making marijuana an arrestable offense-- as well as increasing the fine by $300-- was sent back to committee Monday night after possibly more opposition than expected.

Ferrara said he's heard that Chicopee, a neighboring city, was planning to increase fines for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, and he didn't want Springfield to become a haven for pot smokers. Yup, that's right, all the area pot smokers, whether they reside in Springfield, Chicopee or not, are going to say, Hmmm...$300 fine in Chicopee, $100 fine in Springfield.....Let's all head to Springfield to smoke a joint. Yes, indeed, Springfield is a haven for pot smokers.....

The ACLU's Bill Newman said increasing the fine would likely clog the court system, as a $100 fine is payable but a $400 fine might go unpaid. Newman was representing a group I'd never heard of, the Liberty Preservation Association of Massachusetts, Inc., which seems to be Libertarian, and about a dozen of whose members also came to the City Council hearing.

A considerably more controversial event came about after Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty II threw out evidence against a suspected drug trafficker, saying that he did not believe the testimony of two of the arresting officers. That's the third time in recent months that a Hampden Superior Court judge has refused to believe evidence presented by officers, and the second time for Moriarty. Unfortunately, in the first case, the man who was set free then went on to kill another man at Springfield's Mardi Gras strip club this past January. I'm sure that case was on Moriarty's mind when he made his ruling on Monday; he knew he'd be wide open to criticism, but still he did what he thought was the right thing. the Springfield Republican reported on police reaction and anger here.

Debate on the local forums has been pretty one-sided, with most people saying the judge was clearly on the side of the criminals, and only a few pointing out that no, the judge was on the side of the law. Moral of the story: if you want to arrest someone and have the charges stick, you've got to do it the right way.

You know that moment in life where something you've always believed is overturned by personal experience? My own very minor experience of an arrest for possession of marijuana became one of those "Aha!" moments.

Forty years ago, when it really did seem like a revolution was around the corner two friends and I were sitting in a parked car in Cambridge, MA and we had just finished smoking a joint. We had about another quarter ounce in the glove box, but otherwise, no marijuana was visible.

Suddenly a police officer knocked on the window of the car, and as we rolled down the window, I imagine he was hit with a strong whiff of an illegal substance. He told us that he was going to arrest all three of us then and there, but that it would go easier on us in court if we just turned over anything we had rather than making him search, and like idiots, we did.

Flash forward to our day in court, where we had a public defender and a little better sense of our rights but were still basically naive-- 3 eighteen year old white kids.

The officer was called to testify, and the ADA asked him the circumstances of our arrests.

"I was walking by the car and could smell marijuana. I looked in the window of the car," he said, "and I could see a bag of marijuana right there on the seat."

Well, we were so astounded at his lie that we let out three very audible gasps. The judge let the case finish up and then found us not guilty, clearly not believing the testimony of the arresting officer. What a relief.

That was the end of my belief that all police officers always tell the truth. I have not replaced it with a belief that all police officers always lie, but through the years I've personally been aware of at least thirty similar situations, not counting those I've learned about through the media.

I have a flare and a fondness for the law which probably started when I was a kid reading about Clarence Darrow's great labor and criminal cases. I do believe unjust laws are made to be broken and I know that sentiment is not limited to my generation. But I respect the intent of the law, which, at its best, is simply a set of rules defined collectively about how we live in a fair and safe society.

My message to the criminal justice system is simple: If you want to enforce the law, do it by following the law.

Hands off my marijuana law!

One would think that when 65% of Massachusetts' voters said that we approved of decriminalizing marijuana, that that would tell our elected officials all they need to know about the will of the people. But oh, no! The law is less than a month old and already municipal officials are trying to toughen the penalties.

Massachusetts joined eleven other states on January 2 when we voted to decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, replacing a criminal penalty with a civil fine of $100. Almost immediately, law enforcement officers began complaining that the law was unclear and would be difficult to enforce. In particular, officers said that those offenders who were issued citations could easily give a false name. Maybe that could happen in Boston, but it certainly won't be happening in small towns and every other city where police are quite likely to know the faces of most of the population. I'm not sure what the penalty for giving a false name to the police is in Massachusetts, but why add insult to injury?

The state has already issued opinions that the new law does not mean schools must now tolerate marijuana possession in schools, and that employers can continue to forbid marijuana possession in the workplace. But a Cape Cod lawmaker, Rep. Cleon Turner, D-Dennis, plans to propose a law making three unpaid citations to possession in a one year period a criminal misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, as well as a law to make explicit the right of schools and workplaces to ban marijuana on the premises.

Apparently most lawmakers haven't caught up with the public's growing distaste for the war on drugs as it's been fought the last thirty years, because now some municipalities want to get in on the act and make their anti-drug position very clear.

Framingham's Board of Health wants to add smoking marijuana to the already in place law against smoking cigarettes in restaurants and other public places, and institute a series of fines for establishments that allow such smoking to take place.

The Methuen City Council wanted to increase fines for possession of less than an ounce of pot to $400, but compromised at $200 after public opposition.

Now , this Monday, the Springfield's City Council will consider Councilor James J. Ferrera III's proposal to make smoking marijuana in public an arrestable offense with a $300 fine (emphasis mine).

The proposal is supported by Police Commissioner William Fitchet but talk to many law enforcement officers off the record, and they'll tell you they support decriminalization of marijuana. Many want to bring the drug war to an end altogether. Members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), not all of whom are retired, make a strong case for decriminalization based on their first-hand experience.

Meanwhile I expect that a lot of law enforcement officers are not going to go out of their way to issue citations; in fact the first citation under the new law issued in Massachusetts came after a Springfield police officer arrested a man for possession of crack cocaine and illegal firearms possession.

For the first time in a number of years, we have a chance for a sensible drug policy to prevail in this country. let's hope local officials don't drag their feet.

FOUR councilors reject ethics proposal-- what are they afraid of?

Mike Plaisance did a nice piece of reporting yesterday in the wake of City Council's failure to pass an Ethics proposal, 's today in the wake of the faulure of an proposed ethics law which would have required financial and conflict of interest disclosures.

It turns out that all nine of Springfield MA's city councilors have spouses or family members who work for a government agency, or they themselves do.

Now, this isn't a bad thing per se. On the face of it, it simply means a family committed to public service. Making this information public-- and of course, it's no secret to those in the know anyway-- just puts potential conflict of interest issues aboveboard for all to see. Financial disclosure shouldn't be very controversial, either.

Yet the Gang of Four-- Bill Foley, Tim Rooke, Jimmy Ferrera and Bud Williams voted against the ethics proposal, with reasons ranging from too much paperwork to protestations of honesty. The proposal was sponsored by Bruce Stebbins and Pat Markey and supported by Rosemarie Mazza Moriarty and Jose Tosado. Kateri Walsh was absent.

All this plays out as we approach our city council's first election with a mixed system of ward councilors and at-large. We have all at-large now, nine seats, but next November we will only be electing five at-large. So at least four of Springfield's current councilors will not be returning to the Council next year (unless some choose to run from their ward and I doubt any of them will, they'd consider it a "demotion.")

My guess is that two of the "Gang of Four" will not run for re-election. I've got my thoughts, which two do you think?

The "Black Community," Majorie Hurst; Unexpected trip to City Council

Sunday night I blogged about Mayor Domenic Sarno's so far unkept promise about moving forward on the environment in Springfield, MA. On Monday, my sister called me to say that Councilor Ferrera intended to introduce a resolution to urge Mayor Sarno to establish a Green Commission at Monday's City Council meeting. So I took myself down to the public speak-out to talk about what could be done right away to improve our city's environment. It was a bit odd. Through the years I've addressed City Council on only two issues: homelessness and ward representation. There are limits to how thin I can spread myself! Well, we have ward representation, now. Homelessness is another story.

While I was in City Hall I picked up a copy of Point of View, the local newspaper published by Frederick and Marjorie Hurst, and read it while I waited for the public speak-out to begin. I could not help but contrast the image of the city's African-American population as represented in the newspaper with the image that many of the city's white people have of African-Americans.

Point of View's stories this month included an article on students at Frederick Harris School talking about peace, the accomplishments of Major Toy R. Frasier, Jr., the Basileus of the Delta Chi Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity located in Springfield, MA, the The 2nd Annual Hoop City Jazz & Art Festival, a column on Older Americans Month by Ruth Loving, and much more. The paper also included a pretty devastating picture of how an important issue about underperforming eighth graders was cavalierly decided.by by the School Committee. Marjorie is serving her last term as a School Committee member and was one of two dissenting votes. Read this article if you really want to know what went on at the school committee meeting. As Marjorie says,

"No research was conducted or cited. No public discussion was scheduled or held. No written policy was drafted or presented for review. And the adopted policy wasn’t even on the agenda for that night. It was simply brought forward as an oral motion by Christopher Collins, our newest school committee member, during his Curriculum and Programs subcommittee report of a meeting that had been held just prior to the school committee meeting.

And the four other members of the school committee voted in favor of it!!! We don’t know how much it will cost for busing or staffing or who will be in charge of this new program. Neither parents/guardians, students, teachers, nor principals have had any advance warning or opportunity to prepare for the implementation of this policy, which will go into effect next month. By contrast, we just recently spent over a year accumulating and studying data, holding meetings, getting feedback and buy-in and drafting and revising the wording for a school uniform policy, for heavens sake! And we spend all of 30 minutes discussing a policy that possibly will have permanent and irreparable effects on a segment of our students."

Yesterday five hundred people, mostly youth, participated in a vigil mourning the murder of Mario Hornsby, Jr., a high school student who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Two hours after the rally, police arrested a 17 year old man in the murder. Police said the community cooperated with the police with information leading to the suspect's apprehension.

Now contrast the above picture of the African-American community with what posters on Masslive-- anonymous, of course-- have to say about Black people. I have to paraphrase (no direct quoting allowed) but here goes:

• One poster, commenting on the vigil, says that nothing in the Black community will change until the community rejects its own image. (Which image is that, the Point of View image?)
• Another poster says that this (the violence) isn't a community problem, it's a Black problem. (Blacks aren't a part of this city?)
• Another poster, after calling the violence a Black problem, admits he/she has no idea what goes on in the Black community.
• Another poster says it's the fault of so-called Black "leaders."
• Another poster says that summer jobs are just throwing money at "baby thugs."
• Another poster suggests tying them to a tree and beating some sense into them.

As usual, there are a few thoughtful posts.

I wonder what would happen if I started posting comments on Masslive like, "If only the white community would stop glorifying gangsters, we'd have less mob activity," or "White people just wanna lock themselves away in their gated communities and leave the rest of us to sink or swim." Boy, would I get jumped on!

Too many times we white people see only a part of the picture and think it describes the entire Black community. We say, "We're not racist, we're just telling it like it is!" And we ignore any evidence to the contrary.

On my way to work this morning, I saw: Black kids in groups walking to school, Black men in suits waiting for the bus, Black moms waiting at the bus stop with their kids, two Black guys on a corner with documents in their hands gesturing to a local building, a young Black man in a work uniform headed to work at Dunkin Donuts, two Black women dressed the way lawyers dress walking toward the intersection of State and Main.

Yes, communities of color are struggling with drugs, crime, the school drop-out rate-- but most Black kids manage to make it through school without getting addicted to drugs or being murdered or murdering. And these problems are scarcely non-existent among whites.

Here's hoping that someday we can see each other in the full range of our struggles and triumphs, without stereotypes and generalizations, and wishing the best for each other.