Rallies and marches to protest family separations and detentions by U.S. border officials will be held around the Bay Area today.

Thousands are expected to turn out for the protests, which are part of a nationwide "Families Belong Together" action, with an anchor protest in Washington D.C.'s Lafayette Park.

The protests challenge the separation of what protesters describe as separation of children from families at the U.S.-Mexico border

In San Francisco, an event from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. will start with a march at Mission Dolores Park, at 19th and Dolores streets, and end with a rally at Civic Center.

Joan Baez and representatives from several organizations, including Mujeres Unidas y Activas, CA Domestic Workers and Causa Justa, are scheduled to speak at the at the San Francisco rally.

Event organizers include Families Belong Together San Francisco, Women's March San Francisco and Indivisible SF.

Another event in Oakland will take place from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at Lakeside Park, near Staten and Bellevue avenues. The family-friendly rally will feature children's activities and youth speakers.

A complete list of events can be found at https://act.moveon.org/event/families-belong-together/

Organizers are expecting roughly a thousand people to attend a protest and vigil today against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and for immigrant detainees held at the West County Detention Facility in Richmond. The "Detention Center Day of Action" started at 7 a.m. outside 5555 Giant Highway, where activists estimate roughly 200 immigrants are being held. 

Roughly 60 people set up an open microphone with activists and community members stepping up to share their reasons for attending and other stories of resistance, according to activist Edward Wright, who was interviewed by phone from the scene. 

People there have also been singing songs and sharing chants for "more just and equitable immigration policy," Wright said. 

"We're here all day and we're going to continue putting pressure on Trump, his administration and on ICE," he added. 

A multi-day protest last week in Portland, Oregon, effectively shut down an ICE facility there after activists blocked access for federal employees. Wright said the group in Richmond is not looking to do the same thing here out of concerns that immigration officials might relocate detainees at other detention facilities further away from their friends and families. 

The group says they are committed to non-violence but they also respect a diversity of tactics, and they're trying to address broader issues including a public resurgence of white nationalism and white supremacy. 

"This isn't just about ICE," Wright said. "This isn't just about the new tactics of immigration enforcement happening at the border and at checkpoints around the country." 

"We see ICE as a symptom of a deeper problem," he added.

http://www.trumphotels.org/ Click on it before they take it down!

In November, voters in Berkeley and the rest of the historically progressive 15^th Assembly District will decide between two dramatically different candidates: Buffy Wicks, a newcomer to the district, with no local track record, but with record amounts of outside money, and Jovanka Beckles, a locally based candidate with a strong record of progressive activism.

Follow the Money

Through May 19, Assembly District candidate Buffy Wicks, who finished first in a 12 candidate race in the June 5 primary, received contributions totaling $656,597.91, a record amount for this district, according to campaign filings with the California Secretary of State.

On top of that, an independent expenditure committee of Govern for California, a group of wealthy “philanthropists” who support charter schools, spent $493,332.70 to support her candidacy, while the California Dental Association Independent Expenditure PAC spent $99,481.46 to support her.

The money her campaign raised added to the money spent to support her by outside groups totals $1,249,414, a record amount for a candidate in our local Assembly District and far more than in previous elections. Govern for California’s heavy spending for Wicks makes this election very different from previous 15^th District races. 

The Out of State Candidate 

Buffy Wicks, who has never held any elected office, managed Hilary Clinton’s 2016 California Primary campaign against Bernie Sanders and also worked in Barack Obama’s campaigns and in the Obama White House. She has only been registered to vote in the 15th Assembly since 2016 and between 2008 and 2016 lived out of state or in Los Angeles. 

She has no track record working on local issues in the district and, for that reason, it may not be surprising that only 14% of those who have contributed money to her campaign so far live in the district. 

48% of contributors to Wicks’ campaign committee live out of state. 20% are residents of Washington D.C. and its suburbs. She has more contributors not only in DC and its suburbs, but in Chicago and its suburbs, and in New York City and its suburbs, than she does in either Berkeley or Oakland. 

There has never been a such an expensive local Assembly race or a candidate who has relied so heavily on outside money. It’s not unusual for candidates to receive some contributions from family members and friends in other parts of the country, but it is unusual for a local East Bay candidate to rely so heavily on out of state money. 

The Locally Based Candidates 

In sharp contrast, Jovanka Beckles, Vice Mayor of Richmond, in her second term as a member of the Richmond City Council, who came in second behind Wicks, raised a more modest $157,844.25 in the same period, less than a quarter of what Wicks raised. Beckles spent less per vote received than any of the other six major candidates. Spending for Wicks per vote received was more than three and a half times spending for Beckles as of the end of the latest filing period, with total spending not yet reported. 

67% of Beckles’ contributors live in the District; only 4% of her contributors live out of state. No outside money from independent expenditure committees run by wealthy investors or special interests was spent to support her. Not surprisingly, she has the most contributors from Richmond. 

 

	Buffy Wicks	Jovanka Beckles
Contributions received through May 19	$656,596.91	$157,844.25
% contributors from AD 15	14%	67%
% contributors out of state	48%	4%
% contributors DC & suburbs	20%	.3%
Average contribution per  Contributor	$680	$478
Candidate committee  Expenditures through May 19	$540,867.29	$157,518.84
Independent Expenditures  In support by outside groups	$592,814.17	0

 

Oakland City Councilmember Dan Kalb, who finished third behind Beckles, raised $279,21739 in the same period; 3% from out of state; 48% from inside the District. Much of the rest of his money came from parts of Oakland not in the District and from other Bay Area Cities. 

Berkeley school board member Judy Appel, who finished fourth, raised $288,791; 7% of her contributors reside out of state; 59% reside in the district. Appel had the largest number of contributors from Berkeley and was endorsed by four current Berkeley councilmembers. 

Two Berkeley-based candidates, East Bay MUD director Andy Katz and Berkeley City Councimember Ben Bartlett also raised very little money from out of state and got most of their contributions from AD-15 and the larger Bay Area. 

Big Increase Over 2014 

In the 2014 Assembly District 15 primary, Elizabeth Echols received 31.1% of the vote in the June primary, running ahead of Tony Thurmond who received 24.4%. 

In the same reporting periods that year, Echols, the best financed candidate, received contributions totaling $358,528.05, while Thurmond’s contributions totaled $242,014.90. Thurmond went on to win the November election. 

Wicks this year raised about $300,000 more than Echols did in 2014 for the same campaign filing periods. 

Who is Govern for California? 

So who the outsiders who are pouring so much money into our local Assembly race? Harriet Steele’s June 1 post on 48hills.org helps to answer the question and is worth reading. You can find it here: https://48hills.org/2018/06/big-right-wing-money-east-bay/ 

Steele reports that Govern for California’s founders are David Crane, a former advisor to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; David Penner, currently chairman of the board of Wal-Mart, and Ron Conway, a wealthy tech investor. 

One of Govern for California’s committees takes the money it receives from wealthy donors and gives it as PAC contributions to candidates they like. Wicks received two $4400 PAC contributions (one for the primary; one for the general election) from this committee, the maximum that can be given in a state race. Another Govern for California Committee acts as an intermediary for wealthy donors, with the majority giving the maximum $4400 to Wicks. Over $76,000 was raised for Wicks’ campaign committee by Govern for California. This money from wealthy donors is equal to almost half of the money Beckles raised, most of it from local donors. 

More significant is the Govern for California Action Committee, which is the committee that expended to date $493,332.70 in support of Buffy Wicks. This paid for mailers supporting Wicks as well as for research and consulting work in support of her candidacy. A little over $120,000 was donated to this committee by David Crane. Over $36,000 was donated by a pro-charter schools PAC. Crane is a charter school supporter and critic of teachers’ unions. 

While per pupil spending in in California ranks 41^st in the nation, these wealthy donors to Govern for California are not advocating for reform of Prop 13 to generate more money for education. Nor will you find them calling for a higher minimum wage, single payer health care, funding for affordable housing or advocating other progressive positions. This is not a group that is addressing the growing economic inequality in this country. 

The Govern for California Action Committee seems to exist largely to support Buffy Wicks. While two other candidates have received some support, over 95% of the expenditures to support candidates, in the current election cycle, have been spent to support Wicks, apparently the favorite of Govern for California and its founder David Crane. It seems fair to assume that they think she will advance their agenda if elected and would prevent election of a progressive Assembly member who would challenge that agenda. 

Other candidates receiving support from Govern for California, via its Network Committee, include Marshall Tuck, who is running against Tony Thurmond for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with over $175,000 in contributions channeled to Tuck, the second highest amount of support from Govern for California committees. 

Catherine Baker, the Republican candidate in Assembly District 16, which includes Eastern Alameda County, Lamorinda and part of Walnut Creek, is also backed by Govern for California, which was an intermediary for over $88,000 in donations. The group also backs some moderate Democrats like Scott Weiner, author of SB 827. 

The CNA-backed Candidate 

Buffy Wicks was not the only candidate to benefit from independent expenditures, though far more outside money was spent for her than for any other candidate. Rochelle Pardue-Okimoto, Mayor Pro Tem of El Cerrito and a neonatal nurse at Alta Bates Hospital, who finished fifth in the primary, benefited from $137,715.40 of independent expenditure by a committee affiliated with her union, the California Nurses Association, and from $56,114.30 spend by the California African American PAC. Pardue-Okimoto was endorsed by current AD-15 Assembly member Tony Thurmond. 

Rochelle Pardue Okimoto was not the only candidate backed by her union. Jovanka Beckles, who makes her living as a mental health specialist working with children, was supported by the PAC affiliated with her onw union, Teamsters Local 856 and by other Teamsters PACs, and by PACS affiliated with unions representing healthcare workers and other workers. Other candidates, including Dan Kalb, Andy Katz and Judy Appel had some union PAC support, with Appel winning support of the Berkeley Federation of Teachers and other unions representing educators. Both Appel and Beckles received contributions from the Equality California PAC. 

Dan Kalb, supported by the Sierra Club, received a contribution from the Club’s PAC and one from a solar industry PAC. Union PAC money and the few other PAC contributions, though, played a relatively small role in the race, being totally dwarfed by all the outside money flowing to Buffy Wicks and spent in support of her candidacy by wealthy donors from outside the district. 

 

What’s at Stake 

It’s not just on charter schools and education that the candidates differ. Buffy Wicks is the only Democratic candidate in the primary who does not support repeal of Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Under Costa Hawkins, cities like Berkeley that passed rent control before 1995 cannot extend rent control to housing built since rent control was adopted (1980 in Berkeley). And no city can apply rent control to any housing built after 1995. Costa Hawkins prevents cities from taking steps, if they choose to do so, to protect tenants from soaring rents. There will be an initiative on the fall ballot to repeal Costa Hawkins. 

This fall’s election will determine whether outside money will prevail and whether a candidate with few ties to the East Bay and no track record, will end up representing one of the country’s more progressive districts. Her wealthy financial backers are not spending huge sums of money supporting her candidacy because they want to see progressive policy initiatives from AD-15’s representative. 

 

Technical note: contributions received is the sum of those reported on the form 460 for calendar year 2017 and those reported on Form 460 for 2018 through May 19. Money received after May 19 is not included, nor are expenditures made after May 19, which will be included in later campaign filings. Percent contributors from inside the District and from out of state is calculated from the spreadsheets for contributions on the Secretary of State’s Web site for AD-15. People whose contributions were returned for some reason are not included in my count. Some contributors made more than one contribution. Data based on percent of contributions, which is easier to calculate, would differ somewhat from date based on contributors, where each contributor is counted only once. Not all of Oakland falls within AD-15. Six zip codes made up entirely or partly of parts of Oakland fall wholly or partly in AD-15. Any person or group with one of these six zip codes is considered to be a resident of AD-15, though in a few cases they aren’t since district boundaries do not conform exactly to zip code boundaries. Street addresses are not given, so sorting by zip code is the best that can be done. Average contribution per contributor is calculated by dividing the total amount of contributions as found in the spreadsheets on the Secretary of State Web site by the number of contributors.

45% of the votes cast in Alameda County in the AD-15 race were cast in Berkeley. Among Alameda County cities in the District, Wicks did best in affluent Piedmont, with 43.8%; while her poorest showing was in Berkeley with 30.6%. Countywide, she came in first with 32.5%.

Beckles did best in Berkeley with 18.1%; she got 12.8% in Oakland, finishing third. Countywide, Beckles won 14.6%. Kalb did best in Oakland with 26.2%, but came in behind Wicks who got33.1%.

Appel did best in her home city of Berkeley with 17.8% and finished fourth countywide with 14.1% Contra Costa County precinct results are not yet available 

How Berkeley Voted Assembly District 15 

 

Candidate	Votes	Percent
Wicks	10,431	30.6%
Beckles	6,156	18.1%
Appel	6,055	17.8%
Kalb	4,927	14.5%
Pardue-Okimoto	1,785	5.2%
Bartlett	1,745	5.1%
Katz	1,603	4.7%
Jandhyala	850	2.5%
Others	491	1.4%
Total	34,043

How Berkeley Voted Selected Statewide Offices 

 

 

US Senate	Votes	Percent
Feinstein*	20,923	57.8%
DeLeon	11,712	32.4%
Others	3,566	9.9%
Governor
Newsom*	21,982	59.8%
Eastin	4,432	12.0%
Villaraigosa	4,431	12.0%
Chiang	3,079	8.4%
Cox (Republican)	791	2.2%
Others	2,071	5.6%
Lt. Governor
Kounalakis*	11,624	33.4%
Bleich	9,073	26.1%
McLaughlin	6,589	19.0%
Hernandez	5,525	15.9%
Others	1,942	5.6%
Supt. of Public Instruction
Thurmond	31,994	76.9%
Tuck*	4,578	14.3%
Others	2,826	8.8%

*Finished first



How Berkeley Voted Selected Alameda County Races

 

 

 

Office or Measure	Votes	Percent
District Attorney
O’Malley*	16,383	51.5%
Price	15,459	48.5%
Measure A (2/3rds required for passage)
Yes	30,406	84.9%
No*	5,412	15.1%
Measure RM3
Yes*	25,452	72.3%
No	9,742	27.7%

*winner

Measure A was the measure to increase the sales tax by .5% to fund childcare and pre-school programs. Countywide, it won 66.2% of the vote, falling just 1500 votes short of the required two-thirds.



Berkeley Turnout Primary Elections 

 

 

Year	Ballots Cast	Percent of Registered Voters
2018	37,372	47.9%
2016	45,933	58.0%
2014	20,248	26.0%
2012	23,708	32.4%
2010	28,168	37.0%

Contra Costa County finished their count of vote by mail and provisional ballots. Alameda County finished their count last week. Here are the final totals. Jovanka Beckles beat out Dan Kalb for second place by 719 votes and will face Buffy Wicks, who finished first, in November. Official Statements of Vote, when released, will provide results by precinct and city. 

Buffy Wicks Votes Percent 

Alameda County: 24,655 32.5% 

Contra Costa County: 12,478 29.3% 

Total: 37,133 31.4% 

Jovanka Beckles 

Alameda County: 11,123 14.6% 

Contra Costa County: 7,602 17.9% 

Total: 18,725 15.8% 

Dan Kalb 

Alameda County: 14,770 19.4% 

Contra Costa County: 3,236 7.6%  

Total: 18,006 15.2% 

Judy Appel 

Alameda County: 10,714 14.1% 

Contra Costa County: 2,875 6.8%  

Total: 13,589 11.5%  

Rochelle Pardue-Okimoto 

Alameda County: 4,065 5.4% 

Contra Costa County: 5,760 13.5%  

Total: 9,825 8.3% 

Pranav Jandhyala 

Alameda County: 3,038 4.0% 

Contra Costa County: 3,907 9.8%  

Total: 6,945 5.9% 

Andy Katz 

Alameda County: 3,461 4.6% 

Contra Costa County: 2,747 6.5% 

Total: 6,208 5.2% 

Ben Bartlett: 

Alameda County: 2,787 3.3% 

Contra Costa County: 1,162 2.7% 

Total: 3,949 3.3%
 

Other Candidates: 

Alameda County: 1,229 1.6% 

Contra Costa County: 2,779 6.5%  

Total: 4,008 3.4% 

 

Turnout: 

Alameda County: 39.7% 

Contra Costa County: 39.8% 

Turnout was a lot higher than for the 2014 primary election, but a lot lower than turnout in the 2016 presidential primary. Results can be found on the Secretary of State’s Web site: https://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/state-assembly/district/15 

Like the little trains that could, burrowing owls have made a dramatic arrival to the Albany Bulb plateau. Birdwatchers and photographers have lined the cyclone fence on the Bulb plateau, under the jurisdiction of the East Bay Regional Park District, hoping to catch glimpses of the birds at their mounds. Burrowing owls are small, long-legged owls that nest in burrows. Unusual for owls, they are active during the day. 

But they’re not the only rare California Species of Special Concern at the Bulb—a nesting pair of kites have successfully raised four young in a nest high in a tree top in the City of Albany-owned portion of the Bulb. Kites are birds of prey, distinguished for their hovering and diving flights. 

(Photo credit: Pam Young) 

Mature adults have dark red eyes, white breasts, and slate-colored wings. This juvenile has dark eyes, an orange band across its chest, and mottled brown white on its wings. 

My husband and I have been walking our dogs at the Bulb for the last 15 years. This year, we met a dog walker and Golden Gate Fields employee at the Bulb, with a replacement dog. The beloved pet he brought to work had died after killing a poisoned rat. Owls, kites, raptors in general, can have the same ugly fate, catching a poisoned rodent. 

The Bulb originated as a construction dumping site--part of the plan to eventually fill in the Bay. (An ornithologist from Boston told us the San Francisco Bay is studied globally as an example of efforts to repair and restore what had been so trashed.) 

Some time back, the plateau to the north of the parking lot was fenced off, as a mitigation for the Tom Bates soccer fields along Hwy. 80. The burrowing owls there were displaced, but officials hoped they might discover the Bulb. Or whatever: don’t mess with a soccer field named for Bates. The owls did move in last year. This year three different birds have been identified. 

Walking at dusk, we’ve been thrilled to experience the owls flying low and soundlessly by us. We’ve also encountered them sitting on the fence, not flying off as we walked gingerly around them. We’ve spotted other owls, possible barn owls, after dark. 

We also met up with Pam Young of the Audubon Society at the Bulb who shared some of their effort on the behalf of the owls. (These small owls are newly in the spotlight, after the recent New York Times story about the burrowing owls in Mountain View that are running up against feral cats favored by Google employees.) Unfortunately, we didn’t see any owls for all the high vegetation, but she was excited to find the kites, the breeding pair and their young. She also noted that their diet was “100% rodents." 

So far so good, like a 4-H project that gets a Gold Medal. Except that the Bulb is an urban park, and impinged upon on all sides by clashing interests. We also hadn’t forgotten about the poisoned pet, and worried how the owls would fare. 

The vegetation covered plateau is regularly mowed, and will be shortly, as the 4th of July approaches. A grass fire would impact traffic on the freeway. 

Scott Possin of the East Bay Regional Park District cites bird biologist Jules Evans who says burrowing owls prefer low grass, mowed areas. If the owls decide to breed, their young may still be vulnerable as late as May. And blackbirds, white crown sparrows, and other birds also nest in that area. As luck would have it, their nesting seasons are mostly over by the drop dead deadline of the 4th, and the nightmare urban plague of fireworks. 

Nearby Golden Gate Fields Racetrack, Costco, and the USPS Distribution warehouse all take measures to control rats and mice, often using rodenticides with anticoagulants and other poisons. Rats and mice are also part or all of the diet of the kites and owls. 

David Duggan, the new general manager of Golden Gate Fields, located within the borders of Berkeley and Albany, is open to exploring other options for rat control. Currently, Swat Pest control is using snap traps only in the stables, but Orkin Rodent Control is also working there. The Orkin phone operator I talked to said they were avoiding poison in their familiar plastic enclosed rodent bait stations, citing problems with rodents dying in walls. But she said they defer to their clients. 

Costco, in Richmond, is a special problem. The exterior of their store is lined with Ecolab plastic bait stations. They are labeled “poison,” with a poison hotline number to call. (I called the 800 number, asking about the bait stations. No help there, luckily I didn’t have a toddler throwing up and turning blue.) The stations have holes for easy exit and entry. Many are cracked and weathered. 

But Costco managers I talked to peremptorily dismissed my concerns. Keisha said the stations were “hotels rats entered and didn’t leave.” Period. Good-bye. The next manager, David Dorado, concurred, saying the rats remained in the traps. He denied the bait inside was poisonous, said that label was to discourage people from opening them up. (Perhaps to kill time during the long wait to have your tires changed?) 

Ecolab is a trip. They are a very big company, with many products. (Soap dispensers at Kaiser, I just noticed.) So I was told by the 800 number operator. She suggested using emails for Ecolab pest specialists, since she had no information about the bait stations, but my emails went unanswered. I did enjoy the Ecolab rodent education YouTube videos, which proclaimed the ground-breaking, patented “rodenticide-free devices (that) lower environmental impact," but the videos were oddly mute, even coy, about how exactly the rodents were dispatched. Snap traps? Baited with what? What if they nibbled bait and then decided to exit—traps don’t always spring. 

As the Swat owner explained, their bait stations aren’t labeled poisonous, because they’re not. 

The same Ecolab stations appear to be placed at the immense postal distribution facility next to Costco. Try getting someone there on the phone. 

Labels on Costco Rodent Bait Stations 

So, we have a situation of a threatened species making a tentative home, against all odds, with danger lurking just across the parking lot, or water. At worst, despite the best intentions of East Bay Regional Park employees and others, you have boutique, feel good conservation. 

The owls and kites have established a tentative foothold. Citizen activism, calling Costco (even better if you’re a member), Congressperson Lee (USPS), Richmond elected officials and Assembly candidate like Jovanka Beckles, Golden Gate Fields, and the East Bay Regional Park Dist. might help. 

 

---

Robert Brokl is an Oakland-based artist 

 

Thanks to a citizen videographer, I’ve been able to watch a very peculiar performance by a subcommittee of the Berkeley City Council which was tasked, more than a year ago, with reviewing Berkeley’s participation in the Urban Shield drills on police crisis response. You can find a good summary of what happened and a link to the video here.

It’s an issue which has attracted a lot of public attention not only in Berkeley, but also at the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in Santa Cruz and San Francisco and probably other cities.

Opposition to Urban Shield goes back at least ten years, but has recently accelerated along with the Black Lives Matter movement. The program is based on a military assault model, which critics, including Berkeley Councilmember Kate Harrison, contend seriously neglects the de-escalation tactics which are more successful in the typical urban crisis. Other cities, including Palo Alto, have objected to how expensive police participation at overtime rates can be. Urban Shield exercises are accompanied by an “Expo”—translation: trade show –which pitches expensive military hardware to a pre-primed market of local cops.

The pros and cons of Berkeley’s participation have been extensively debated over the last decade, and Councilmember Harrison covers them well in her report to the subcommittee, so we don’t need to re-hash them here. But reviewing the video I was disturbed by what I saw of the civic decision-making process. 

At the very end of the meeting, Councilmember Susan Wengraf threw a procedural bombshell into the discussion. She produced what she said was a copy of several sections of the city’s charter, read them aloud, and interpreted them to mean that councilmembers (and perhaps even the subcommittee) would be breaking the law if they voted to withdraw from Urban Shield. Mayor Arreguin seemed to be persuaded by her logic and announced that he’d decided to vote no on the resolution which was proposed in the draft report authored by Councilmember Harrison. 

“I’m not here to break the law!” he said a couple of times. 

Say what? 

It’s a common error among relatively smart people who haven’t been to law school to think that if you just read a few sentences of any code you will know what the law requires of you. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. Often, disputed interpretation of laws ultimately must be settled in court. 

Actually, whoever’s writing the Indivisible Berkeley emails just dropped a paragraph into my email stream which neatly sums up this problem (emphasis added): 

“Urban Shield: In the wake of the most recent Berkeley City Council ad hoc Subcommittee on Urban Shield meeting, the path forward seems murkier than ever. An opinion by one of the subcommittee members that the Council might not have the legal authority to direct the police in this matter caused Mayor Arreguin to completely back away from his previous decision to recommend withdrawal from participation in Urban Shield. This rescission was offered before any opinion was sought from the City Attorney. Without the Mayor affirming and insisting on City Council's authority in matters of policy and governance, even in view of long settled legal decisions and historical precedent, we believe the ramifications could be great and go beyond the issue of Urban Shield.” 

Who thinks that a city council lacks the power to decide to opt out of expensive paramilitary training for its police force? And that if they tried to do so, they’d be “breaking the law”? 

As Councilmember Harrison can be observed explaining cogently in the video, councils are supposed to make policy for the city manager and her subordinates to follow up on with implementation details, not the other way round .  

Managers don’t make policy, they execute it. In Berkeley’s case, there’s even a court decision which backs up the City Council’s authority over “policies, practices and procedures of the police department.” 

Interpreting the meaning of codified law for councilmembers is the job of the city attorney, not a do-it-yourself project either for individual councilmembers or for the city manager. And if for some reason the councilmembers don’t like city attorney’s advice, they can ask for a second opinion from an outside counsel, and even take the matter to court for resolution. 

Berkeley has what is sometimes called a strong manager/ weak mayor form of government, which seems to have led current city manager Dee William-Ridley to claim ultimate authority over what kind of training the police should get under all circumstances. At the end of the subcommittee meeting she used the discussion of Urban Shield as a springboard for a general complaint that she doesn’t get enough respect. 

“While a lot of this may be fresh and new to many, this is not a new comment,” she said. “My desk, my office, has repeatedly stated both formally and behind the scenes that I believe there is an absolute erosion of the city manager responsibilities before my time and during my time.” She went on to detail what she personally thought the city’s policy should be. 

This is the crux of the problem.  

Williams-Ridley’s previous job was as an assistant city manager in Modesto—and I hate to break this to you, Madame Manager, but you’re not in Modesto any more. Berkeley council members have traditionally expressed and implemented leading edge positions and actions on a variety of controversial matters large and small, all the way down to specifying what kind of pesticides could or could not be used in city parks. Previous managers, notably Weldon Rucker and Phil Kamlarz, have understood and respected this dynamic, but Williams-Ridley doesn’t seem to get it. 

It doesn’t help matters that she speaks of herself in the third person (My desk, my office has repeatedly stated …) or reveals that she’s been trying to control the council from behind the arras (…both formally and behind scenes…) 

There’s an obvious power struggle going on. It should be out in the open, not behind the scenes. 

In the wake of Black Lives Matter, control of police by elected officials has gained new importance all over the country. The same kind of struggle has been going, for example, in Asheville, N.C. There elected councilmembers have been trying to place restrictions on probable cause searches which have been alleged to disproportionately affect minorities., and police have been resisting. The council prevailed, but it took some work. 

The question of whether the city council has the legal authority to vote to bar Berkeley police participation in paramilitary training should be on the table in the public forum. The city attorney should be asked to provide her formal, written advice on the topic well before the meeting at which Urban Shield is scheduled to be considered, on July 24.  

Objectors, councilmembers or whoever they are, could then consult their own legal authorities in order to facilitate an informed discussion. Other questions have arisen recently regarding city staff’s apparent assumptions about lines between their powers and the City Council’s--these might also be illuminated by a free exchange of opinions. 

I want to bring to your attention that on June 30th there will be protests all over the country against the Trump administration's separation of families. I'm sure you have all seen the videos of the conditions in which ICE is keeping these kids. I was 11 years old when my family came to the U.S. and aside from the condescending attitude and rudeness of CBP when we went through passport control, our immigration experience was relatively uneventful. The experience was still traumatizing and the legal processes to become a permanent resident, and then a citizen felt dehumanizing at times. Even after going through that, I can't begin to imagine the hell those kids and parents are living.

I've been amused by the pundits, politicians, and newscasters mentioning how "this isn't who we are" and "how we are better than this." They seem to forget that there was a time when black children were sold like cattle and separated from their parents, or that the federal government took native children from their parents and sent them to "boarding schools" for what amounts to ethnic cleansing. Many of us are better than that, but a cursory look at social media or two minutes of watching Fox "News" will remind you that many have not moved past 1865 in their perception of the humanity of others.

I'd encourage you to visit the link below so you can see a list of protests near you. If you are not the protesting kind, but still feel inclined to do something, I have also included a link where you can find donation information for organizations helping the kids and their families.

Families Belong Together: Berkeley Mobilization

Protest link: https://www.familiesbelongtogether.org/

Donations: https://mashable.com/2018/06/18/child-separation-immigration-charities-donate/#8bGJniHFtqqo

In 1990, the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) engaged in one of the most successful hostage rescue operations in history: Henry’s Hostage Crisis. This was not a case of foreign terrorism. The attacker was just 29 when he obtained three guns and took 33 people hostage. The BPD’s measured response to the situation was executed with textbook perfection. Their actions earned the BPD national acclaim, a legacy that our officers live up to each day.

Decades later, we see the BPD participating in a new and altogether different style of training -- Urban Shield, a set of war games, tactical exercises, and weapons expos designed around a Bush-era counter-terrorism agenda. Using millions of dollars in Department of Homeland Security funding, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office puts on 48 hours of tactical anti-terrorism exercises for federal and local departments. The only way to get full points in the competition is through full escalation of force. In a real-world hostage situation at Children’s Hospital in 2010, officers successfully resolved the crisis without loss of life but in an Urban Shield hostage scenario based on the event, teams “won” by escalating and killing the perpetrators.

Far from this real life example, many scenarios at Urban Shield are improbable and are built around military-grade technology featured by for-profit companies in the vender expo. Take one of last year’s exercises, supposedly based on the 2008 attacks in Mumbai. Designed by Execushield, the sensationalized scenario had officers use Navy-grade aquatic raiding craft to kill members of a Hezbollah terrorist group, which had crossed the US border from South America to set up an armed encampment in a wooded cabin near a reservoir in Livermore. More than just improbable, the exercise bore almost no relationship to the Mumbai attacks, which featured multiple shootings and bomb threats distributed across multiple days and urban locations.

Berkeley can and should do better than Urban Shield. After months of subcommittee meetings including the Police Chief and presentations from the SRT team (Berkeley’s SWAT), the Council’s Urban Shield Subcommittee recommended on June 4th that the BPD suspend participation for the 2018 vendor expo and tactical exercises until revisions are made to the program. Berkeley is not pulling out of Urban Shield entirely. Certain modules of this year’s Urban Shield -- like the Emergency Operations Center exercises and the community fair – will focus on mass care and casualty. I encourage the BPD to attend these modules. 

The Urban Shield program does not reflect our needs. In the past decade, rather than confronting terrorist threats, the police department has trended toward facing high-risk search, arrest warrant services, patrol support, and crowd management. The tactical exercises at Urban Shield do not focus on these activities but instead on politically-motivated mass violence, obscuring the principle of de-escalation in community crime encounters. Urban Shield squanders resources that could be used for pressing community concerns. Going forward, we propose that Urban Shield focus on much more likely crises such as earthquakes and the 1991 Oakland fire. 

Moreover, the Urban Shield competition and expo don’t reflect our values as a community. Take ICE’s involvement in Urban Shield. Alameda is a Sanctuary County and Berkeley was the first Sanctuary City in the nation; even so, Urban Shield has stubbornly continued to host ICE, forcing our officers to exercise alongside a group that clearly stands against our city’s commitment to justice. In 2017, Urban Shield hosted the far-right Oath Keepers, a fundamentalist vigilante organization that provides security for white supremacist events like last year’s protests in Berkeley. Additionally, the exercises reinforce implicit racial biases against black and brown people in their representation within the program, expressing what Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty calls racist undertones. Berkeley is against full escalation and the unnecessary use of force by officers -- yet Urban Shield encourages officers to escalate. 

Reform from within is no longer realistic. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors put guidelines in place that claimed to reform the event. Last year saw the Oath Keepers, ICE and surveillance firms participating anyway. Only some of the guidelines have been upheld and only after a community member brought violations to the attention of the Board, when the Sheriff signed a contract with a vendor that engages in blatant racial stereotyping. 

Urban Shield is not salvageable through our involvement because Berkeley and the BPD have no input into it. Many of its failures could have been avoided if local input was considered. Outsourcing public safety training without local input is dangerous, and Urban Shield has refused to listen to the communities it is meant to protect. 

Our officers need even more training in everyday emergency response and disaster preparedness. Lasts week’s shooting in South Berkeley shows this. The shooting was not by a terrorist or active shooter, but rather against a tenant by his landlord. The BPD used medical techniques taught to them at ongoing Bay Area Urban Areas Security Initiative trainings. More funding could be allocated to these if Urban Shield did not absorb $1.5 million of the $5 million annual grant. 

Reforming Urban Shield has been an exercise in futility for the community and the city. While the discussion continues, it is time to throw the full weight of our community into this withdrawal, aligning our community preparedness with our needs and values while supporting our officers as they take this brave step away from Urban Shield and what it represents. 

Walking by the art opening entrance on Center Street was a young woman who took the brewery sandwich signboard blocking the sidewalk and slid it several feet into the passageway. I stood close by and thought it was some kind of strange magic. I walked out to see and two people who knew her counseled me to let it go as she walked away, explaining that she was one of the people constantly getting ticketed and hassled for sidewalk stuff, while nobody bothers with the signboards blocking sidewalks. 

It made perfect sense to me. I'd only a couple months ago documented over a hundred permit violations by similar businesses; tables, chairs, signboards, rolling racks of merchandise. There were no legal permits for any of it; I had checked with various planning and code entities to make sure. But the police and the city council have an agenda, and signboards aren't on it, only poor people, and mostly for their visibility. They're serious when they insist that their downtown look like Disneyland. 

This is the same nexus of policymakers who want your money and your vote in a few months. They want you to support more taxes without addressing the lopsided use of police resources against the poor. If you're anything like me, you're receiving newsletters and carefully ironed updates with carefully chosen vocabulary in the hope that you'll have your view of the city and your neighborhood's issues framed in a manageable parameter. 

This is your chance. Ask them why they haven't spoken up for respect for People's Park's city landmark status. Ask them why they haven't led a parade through your local commercial district picking up sidewalk-blocking signboards and placing them back inside the businesses where they belong. Ask them why the tent sweeps always seem to happen in the middle of the night, in the dark when it is hardest for the people affected to pack their belongings, find their glasses, and safely comply. 

You don't have to raise your voice, sound angry, or use profanity; you'll probably give them an advantage if you do. Just ask. Watch them to see if there is any sign that they recognize the issues you're raising and have given them thought. Call their opposition and ask the same questions. 

This matters. Because those carefully constrained newsletters and campaign events are going to come harder and faster as the election grows closer. And each time someone hears the civil rights concerns often unaddressed in a town that thinks it has all the answers inquired about with dignity and civility, it gives others courage to raise the same questions. 

The best politicians are not born. They are crafted and nourished by eagle-eyed citizens taking their measure, nurturing their talent, and if necessary, exposing their corruption. Be that citizen with your poetry, your art, your dance, your theater, your wallet, and certainly your voice. You may start alone, but you won't be alone for long.

Working people in the aggregate lose billions of dollars annually due to wage theft by both big and small business. The money stolen from workers is substantial and so the consequences are often severe. Wage theft increases poverty and makes low wage employees even poorer. Women, African Americans, and Hispanics have been disproportionally impacted. The most common crimes that are committed include paying below the legal minimum wage, violating overtime pay, and requiring hourly workers to perform various unpaid tasks before they clock in and after they clock out. As one researcher commented, "Wage theft is built into the business model of a substantial portion of corporate America." 

Among the corporations that have been guilty of wage theft are Walmart, AT&T, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, United Parcel Service, FedEx and Allstate. Each of these companies had profits last year of $3 billion or more. Their executives each receive a yearly pay of millions of dollars. So these and many other highly profitable corporations cannot justifiably complain they have to cut corners. Also, wage theft in the restaurant industry is rampant. Nine out of ten employees in fast food establishments claim that they have been victims of wage theft.  

To explain why business is able to violate the law and get away with it requires understanding the complicit role of the various sectors of federal and state governments. Rather than the various branches of government doing what they can to prevent this serious crime from flourishing, they have been exacerbating the problem. In effect, they have been giving business the right of way. 

Because wage theft is widespread, to successfully tackle this issue demands a larger budget for agencies to hire and retain a sufficient number of committed federal and state investigators. But not surprisingly, legislative bodies, bowing to business pressure, have been unwilling to allocate sufficient funds.  

According to a report sponsored by the AFL the working class population increased by seven fold since 1948. Yet the number of investigators in the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division have been reduced by 10 percent. At the state level, six states have no investigators to check on minimum wage violations. Twenty-six other states have less than ten investigators. Worse still, only eight states enforce wage theft penalties. Clearly, the lobbying campaigns by business interests, particularly the bribes, which are euphemistically called campaign contributions, have been very persuasive. 

But haven't many corporations been compelled to pay millions in law suit settlements? In fact, several corporations have paid out over a hundred million dollars to settle disputes in lost wages. Understandably, many members of the public are impressed with the size of the payouts. But by taking a closer look we learn that the settlements are actually a raw deal for employees who are victims of wage theft. 

Here is what is actually occurring. When the Department of Labor prevails in a suit against a corporation, it settles for substantially less money than private suits brought collectively by working people. As a result employees recoup only some of the money they lost. The penalties these corporations pay for wage theft are just the cost of doing business. 

The evidence that workers are being short changed is apparent because these settlements encourage rather than discourage business to continue the same practices afterward. Walmart is among the corporations that after paying its penalties is later sued for continuing similar illegal labor practices. In a comprehensives study of the problem of wage theft about 600 other corporations also paid penalties for repeatedly engaging in similar wage theft practices. They wouldn't do so if it wasn't worth it. 

Ideally, rather than the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour division as well as other relevant government bodies negotiating with business about the magnitude and terms of a penalty, they should attempt to mandate a verdict After all, that is what judges do in criminal cases. These verdicts should not only completely cover the amount of money that was stolen plus interest. In addition the corporation should be required to pay a high enough punitive penalty to increase the likelihood that the offense will not be repeated. Also, violations by executives could result in a prison sentence for up to six months. But that provision of the law is never used. 

Since government law suits settle for substantially less than suits brought by workers collectively, many employees have decided to bypass government in favor of private action. But this route is not problem free. These suits can drag on for a long while, and they are also very expensive. The compensation that lawyers receive when winning a case is far and above what working people earn. 

Also, as a result of two important developments, workers are being stripped of their democratic rights to sue collectively. Many employers are requiring newly hired workers to sign forced arbitration agreements as a condition of being hired. This deprives working people of the right to go to court. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that employers can prevent employees from filing class action suits. This decision is very worrisome. Without allowing workers to band together in their own interests the high court chose to close a major avenue for challenging the theft of their wages. 

The California Legislature has passed legislation that can get around these handicaps. Relatively speaking California has been more protective on wage issues than most states. The state has rejected the right of employees to force employers to sign arbitration agreements. With regard to the onerous Supreme Court decision, California allows victims to sue in the name of the state rather than workers collective suing. The state even approved a law that requires a business if it loses a case to reimburse their opponent for legal expenses Also, access to the courts in California are much easier than elsewhere. Particularly important California passed a law that permits the state to take possession of the property of an employer until the wages that are owed are paid. 

Although workers could benefit from more protective laws, there are many good laws already on the books that are not enforced. The problem is that working people are short on clout. Wage theft has flourished as labor unions have precipitously declined. Since the mid-fifties union density has dropped from 35 percent to only 6.5 percent of the workforce currently. Without the protections of unions the ability to exploit and cheat workers have increased tremendously. 

Of course, workers can still make important advances. However, nothing less than building a formidable labor movement and, ideally, with the cooperation of government (by electing progressive candidates) can working people be rescued from the nightmare that many are now experiencing.

President Trump’s executive order rescinding his prior order separating children from their parents does nothing to address the crisis of thousands of families who have already been torn apart. Many parents have been deported and the likelihood of ever seeing their children again remains highly unlikely. New asylum seekers and their children will be locked up together intensifying their misery. 

More than 600 members of the United Methodist Church have filed a formal complaint against fellow church member, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, accusing him of child abuse, immorality and racial discrimination. Protesters followed him shouting, “Stop taking kids!” The audio tape released by ProPublica which captured the wailing sounds of children crying “Mama” and “Papi” from inside a detention center has intensified the outrage. The immigrants are not “animals” as Trump likes to describe them but innocent victims of gang violence. One immigrant lost two children to gun violence before she crossed the border with her only remaining infant toddler. Not even the sight of devastated families and children in internment camps could move the party that once boasted family values and the protection of the unborn child. The silence of the Republican lambs is deafening! 

The longer these children are separated from their parents the more likely they will suffer long term physiological damage. Bed wetting physical and sexual abuse has already been reported. It is time to halt this inhumane policy NOW. For more go to http://callforsocialjustice.blogspot.com/

515 days into Trump's presidency, three things are clear: Donald's signature issue is division; he always plays to his base; and his primary issue is immigration. Trump promised his base a wall along the southern border and he's willing to do anything to accomplish this. His most recent tactic is to generate outrage by separating immigrant families at the border. The architect of this tactic is Stephen Miller.

In his ongoing effort to solidify and energize his base, Trump has pursued a consistent set of campaign issues: immigration; trade; taxes; and energy. Trump's most significant failure has been his inability to secure funding for his border wall. 

Trump has had a couple of opportunities to get funds. In September, Donald announced an initiative to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) act. In January, in an effort to save this program, Democrats offered Trump money for his wall in return for protection of the DACA recipients; Trump initially agreed but then backed off, seeking additional immigration constraints. In May, Trump threatened to veto the $1.3 trillion spending bill, unless there was full wall funding; then he relented and signed the bill citing "national security." 

Meanwhile, Trump's base has gotten restless. One of his most notorious supporters, Ann Coulter, has mocked Donald for failing to deliver on his border-wall promise . Despite Administration efforts, illegal border immigration increased in May. Trump seized on the tactic of separating immigrant families at the border in order to outrage Democrats and, in effect, blackmail them into providing funds for his wall. 

This is also an effort to galvanize Trump's base before the 2018 midterm elections. Trump had planned to excite them with tax cuts but this hasn't worked -- the base has figured out that the Trump tax cuts don't help them. 

Stephen Miller is the architect of the tactic of separating immigrant families at the border. (Miller was also the architect of Trump's January 2017 executive order restricting immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries.) The 32-year-old Miller has several White House jobs: he advises Trump on domestic policy, particularly immigration and trade; he helps write Donald's speeches; and when Trump hits the campaign trail, Miller goes with him as an opening act -- he fires up the base with an incendiary monologue. 

Miller has an interesting history. He was born into a liberal Jewish family in Santa Monica, California. As a teenager, Stephen took a hard-right turn and developed a reputation as a "troll" at Santa Monica High School and Duke University. (In this context, a "troll" is someone who deliberately sews discord by making inflammatory comments.) 

In May, Atlantic staff writer McKay Coppins wrote an excellent profile of Stephen Miller . Coppins observed that when Trump announced his presidential candidacy, Miller realized: "the New York billionaire was the flesh-and-blood manifestation of everything he cared about most: an opponent of political correctness, a hard-liner on immigration, and enemy of the political establishment -- and a world-class troll." 

Coppins noted: "People who have known [Miller] at different points in his life say his political worldview is also rooted in a deep-seated instinct for trolling. Miller represents a rising generation of conservatives for whom 'melting the snowflakes' and 'triggering the libs' are first principles." 

Stephen Miller is Trump's closest adviser who is not a member of Donald's family. (Miller serves in a White House position that is roughly equivalent to that of Valerie Jarrett in the Obama administration.) There are those that say Miller's function is to articulate Trump's impulses. 

Reading McKay Coppins article about Miller and a companion piece in Alternet by Kali Holloway four characteristics jump out. The first is that Miller is an unabashed racist. A high-school classmate remembered that Miller had, "an intense hatred toward people of color, especially toward Latinos." 

To say the least, Stephen Miller is strident. A Duke University official remembered Miller: "He's the most sanctimonious student I think I ever encountered. He seemed to be absolutely sure of his own views and the correctness of them, and seemed to assume that if you were in disagreement with him, there was something malevolent or stupid about your thinking. Incredibly intolerant." 

Miller is mini-Trump. On the campaign trail he typically warms up audiences by railing against immigration: "Uncontrolled migration from the Middle East....illegal immigrants being arrested... for the most heinous crimes imaginable... Low-wage foreign workers being brought in to take your place at less pay." 

Finally, Miller is Trump's enforcer on immigration. Miller is the architect of both of Trump's signature immigration actions: restricting immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries and separating immigrant families at the border. (Since 2013 he's led the opposition to common-sense immigration reform; in January, Miller convinced Trump to renege on a DACA deal.) 

One of the notable similarities between Trump's signature immigration actions (restricting immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries and separating immigrant families at the border) is how sloppy the implementation was. For example, there's every indication that when immigrant parents are separated from their children, the government is not taking steps to ensure they can be reconciled later. This appears to be intentional. 

Stephen Miller and Donald Trump are not motivated by civility or legality. They want to generate outrage, foment division. 

---