Bexar County Jail overcrowding … it’s all in your head

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

If you’ve got a naturally sunny disposition (despite the long shadow of those prison bars falling on your shoulders), chances are you’ve got more room to roam on the inside of Bexar County Jail these days. You may even be tempted to crack open a $3.59 can of “no bean” commissary chili to celebrate the new-found breathing room.
 
Hey. We know surviving the pileup of ’09 was no easy feat. [For background on overcrowding, scary voices, and suicide, see "Hang Time."]

Most of last year, the land of Los Orejones was full all the way up to its “Mother”-tattooed neck. With a capacity just shy of 4,600, Bexar County’s admin found itself juggling another 100 on top of that. Now we’re down in the 4,000 range and things are runnin’ smooth again — unless you happen to be mental.

It seems that despite all our cubic yards of reclaimed turf, the mental-health and suicide-prevention units are still packed tight. That is the initial assessment of national suicide expert Lindsay Hayes, who completed a three-day investigation of the jail policies and procedures with regards to suicide prevention last week. And it’s no wonder.

According to officials at University Health System, “The vast majority of persons screened by mental health at the time of booking had evidence … for a major mental illness.” And yet only a handful (about 25 per week — or the kind of crazy impossible to ignore) are weeded out at the door, according to Community Health Care Service officials.

UHS officials tell the Current that 900 Bexar County inmates (nearly one in four) on average are receiving psychiatric assistance from their staff. And the U.S. Department of Justice estimates three-quarters of county-level inmates nationally are suffering from one mental disorder or another.

“We’re not overcrowded in jail space; the nuance is, we are overcrowded in terms of mental-health space,” said Debra Jordan, deputy chief at the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office.

Although UHS had last year recommended expanding the mental-health unit into an adjacent area and been rebuffed by the jail administration, this time it really appears to be happening.

“We’ve asked the Texas Commission on Jail Standards about opening some space across the street at the annex for a mental-health unit,” Jordan said. “Because the classification is what makes all the difference in the world. You can’t just house people wherever you want to house them. We need more mental-health space.”

We can hear the shrinks at UHS breathing a collective sigh of relief from here.

We’ve always thought of the Bexar County icebox as a crazy-making machine: If you’re not crazy going in, you soon will be. So this small victory (if its plays out) goes out to our manic-depressive comrades in stir. You are not forgotten.

Fire and ICE

By Enrique Lopetegui
elopetegui@sacurrent.com

 On February 25, about three dozen vociferous activists gathered in front of the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement building on Fourwinds Dr. to demand the closing of the Willacy County ("Tent City") and Los Fresnosï' Port Isabel (PIDC) detention centers.

 As part of the "Dignity, Not Detention campaign organized by the Detention Watch Network, the activists - including members of Southwest Workers Union, Texans United For Families, Grassroots Leadership, and the Reverend Lorenza Andrade Smith, of the Westlawn United Methodist Church - accused ICE of serious human rights abuses against detainees. And none of the activists was louder - or more specific - than SWU's Anayanse Garza, who denounced abuses against hunger strikers at PIDC and pointed to the alleged culprit.

 "This is the pain," she said, holding a petition, "these are the 243 signatures of the people at Port IsabeI that have been tortured, beaten and humiliated, and these orders were coming from [ICE's field office director] Michael J. Pitts, who is sitting very comfortably in his air-conditioned room, while other people are being tortured and threatened with force-feeding by having a tube inserted through their noses. I don't care if the government says that immigrants have no human rights. Immigrants do have human rights. It's not a crime to hunger strike, it is your right, and that's why [Pitts] should be tried. He shouldn't be allowed to even be there right now."

She broke down in tears and had to be consoled by fellow activists.

The copy of the petition faxed to the QueBlog reads that "the human and civil rights of our families and those who wish to assist us are ... violated."  It is signed by 235 names (our count), each with its respective legal resident number and their city of origin.

The activists tried to present the letter to Pitts, but couldn't get past security.

"We were rejected," Grassroots Leadership's Bob Libal told the QueBlog. "They told us to mail it."

According to Amnesty International's "Jailed Without Justice" report, "immigrants and asylum seekers may be detained for months or even years as they go through deportation procedures that will determine whether or not they are eligible to remain in the United States.

"According to a 2003 study, individuals who were eventually granted asylum spent an average of 10 months in detention with the longest reported period being 3.5 years ... Individuals who have been ordered deported may languish in detention indefinitely if their home country is unwilling to accept their return or does not have diplomatic relations with the United States."

Under U.S. law, those in deportation proceedings can secure legal representation but not at the expense of the government. Therefore, according to Amnesty, "84 percent of those in immigration detention do not have a lawyer, and instead represent themselves."

AI's report says that "detainees are often detained in jail facilities with barbed wire and cells, alongside those serving time for criminal convictions. They are not able to wear their own clothes but instead wear prison uniforms. Immigrants are unnecessarily exposed to inappropriate and excessive restraints including handcuffs, belly chains, and leg restraints ... [and] physical and verbal abuse."

"After mentioning that  "lawful permanent residents can be placed in 'mandatory detention' with no right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge or judicial body," AI concludes that "conditions of detention in many facilities do not meet either international human rights standards or ICE guidelines."

In September 2008, ICE announced the publication of 41 new performance-based detention standards, but AI was skeptical: "They are not legally enforceable and do not provide adequate sanctions for violations."

Silky Shah, member of board of directors of Grassroots Leadership and Organizing and Outreach Coordinator for Detention Watch Network, agrees.

"[The abuses that are] happening right now," she said, "will outlast any comprehensive reform that [takes place], and we need to continue working together restoring justice for all."

Sarnata Reynolds, Amnesty International's campaign director for refugee and migrant rights, visited Port Isabel in July 2009 in a rare field visit by a human rights group.

"We were there last June, and besides what we told the media we haven't released an official statement [on PIDC]," Reynolds told the QueBlog on Friday. "I don't want to misspeak. I want to review my notes before I get back to you."

In June 4, 2009, a day after her visit to PIDC, she told the Houston Press that AI's preliminary findings confirmed that detainees are "locked up, and you have no right to a bond hearing. You have no right to ever demonstrate that ... 'I'm not a danger to the community, I'm not a flight risk, so let me out while I proceed [with] my removal proceedings.'"

One of the detainees she spoke to was Rama Carty, a native of Congo who has resided legally in the U.S. since 1971, at age one.

He was detained in Maine in May of 2006 for a drug offense he claims was fabricated. After serving less than two years of prison time, he was held at ICE detention centers in Main, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana, before arriving at PIDC in December 2008.

With two other detainees, he organized a hunger strike at PIDC on April 15, 2009, to expose to the media the conditions of detention.

"We got at least 70 other detainees, maybe 90, but it went down quickly after the authorities started applying pressure on us," he told the QueBlog. "Some people did three weeks [of hunger strike], but they threatened me with cutting me the access to the law library. I needed that, so I stopped."

On June 3, the day he said he was supposed to meet with Reynolds for the second time, at 5 a.m. he was awaken by guards who told him to pack because he was leaving.

"I told them I shouldn't be leaving, since [the Department of Homeland Security] was negotiating with AI to meet with us and I wasn't done with my interviews," Carty said. "I smelled something fishy immediately."

That's when he was attacked, he says, but the guards accused him of assault. On that same day, Carty was transferred to an ICE detention center in Louisiana, but couldn't be deported because no country would recognize him as a citizen.

"I was going to be in limbo until who knows when," Carty said.

In the fall of 2009, Carty successfully sued ICE and obtained a $100,000 unsecured bond that allowed him to walk free in December 2009. After spending time in Massachusetts, he's now back in Texas since February 22, under home arrest at a hotel in Brownsville, awaiting his March trial for the assault

"If I'm a flight risk, why did I come back?" he said. "They offered me [to plead guilty to] a misdemeanor, but I'm not going to do that. I want to go to trial, I didn't do anything."

He also won't go on the record with details of the attack, but wants to set the record straight.

"I don't want to publish specifics that will need to be divulged at trial," he said. "But I do want to let everyone know that I was assaulted, not the other way around. When I could not be deported, I was wrongfully indicted [for supposedly attacking the guards,] in order [for them] to leverage against a possible civil action."

He says he was shaving when the guards jumped on him, and now they're saying that he used a razor to attack them.

"The missing video and the missing razor are two of the most glaring pieces of missing evidence," Carty said. "It's clear in the very little bit of video that the government has produced, which shows my being hit when I was on the floor at the very end of the incident, that the entire video should have been available. The entire video would have made it clear that I should not have been indicted in the first place. But of course, there is no video, because if there is a video, they have no case.

"Everything happens at [PIDC]: Everything from sexual harassment of male and female detainees, assault, pitting black detainees against Hispanics and vice versa, in an attempt to divide and conquer. It's a terrible situation and it has been going on for decades."

"In all my years, I've never seen immigrants raising a hand against guards," said Tony Hefner, a guard at PIDC from 1983 through 1990. "It's always been the other way around."

Hefner, who says he was fired in 1985, got his job back in 1987, and was fired again in 1990, spent years gathering information about abuses at PIDC and will publish his findings, "real names and all," in the book Between the Fences: Before Guantanamo, there was the Port Isabel Service Process Center, due out in May. Some of those names, documents and pictures a la Abu Ghraib can be seen in his website, torchlake.com/hefner.

"The very same thing that happened [in my time] is happening today [at PIDC]," said Hefner. "Stealing money from detainees, beating detainees up ... If detainees from two different countries were fighting, they would handcuff them together and push them into each other and take bets on them."

Hefner will be a witness for Carty during the trial.

"They're framing this young man claiming that he did something that he didn't do," Hefner said. "That's the standard policy there: If you stand up against them, they nail you. What Rama [Carty] is going through is nothing unusual."

Nina Pruneda, spokeswoman for ICE in San Antonio, said the QueBlog's information "is not correct information."

"Torture? That's the first time I ever heard of that," she said Friday. "There are a lot of rumors in the community but, believe you me, there's nothing of that nature going on.

"We need the names of those detainees. For security purposes we don't obtain information like that [letting the activists into the building], they have to mail it. That's the process."

So if we get you the names ...

"Names, dates of birth, and A [resident] numbers," she said. "And Monday we'll get back to you with the other information you requested."

"The other information we requested included whether ICE's 41 new performance-based detention standards have already been implemented, what happens if a detention guard violates those standards, what is ICE's policy in regards to hunger strikes, whether force-feeding is ever used with hunger strikers, and, finally, what actions - if any - Pitts ordered to be taken against the hunger strikers.

We'll be waiting ...

Almost Time: International Woman's Day March signs

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

The message is clear; the march is approaching.

Coffee or Tea? Clean-energy protest crashes Tea Party SA birthday

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

Dozens of area residents mobilized by MoveOn chapters in San Antonio and Cibolo and a developing Coffee Party gathered Sunday a couple blocks north of Sunset Station on the east edge of downtown to support the rapid development and deployment of non-polluting energy sources to combat climate change and ending the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, in a rented space at the Station, 50 or so Tea Party folks were celebrating the org's first birthday by listening to a speaker berate President Obama and gearing up for an afternoon talk from a meteorologist and climate-change contrarian. David Dilley titled his speech, Climate Cycles ... Unveiling the Man-Made Climate Change Hoax, Earth's Temperatures and CO2 Levels are Natural and Good for Earth, though the Tea Party of San Antonio wisely shrunk it to simply: Climate Change: Manmade or Natural Cycle.)

After hearing from three speakers promote solar, geothermal, and condemn carbon-emitting coal, the MoveOn/Coffee Partiers chanted down the lane to gain the attention of those at the other end of the spectrum. They then positioned themselves across the street to vocalize some more.

While I spent 20 minutes or so inside the Tea Party event, I had to squeeze through a well-packed line of police and private security at the gate to get to the supposedly open event.

Regrettably, I only witnessed one conversation occur between a MoveOn member and a Tea adherent. And that 5-minute exchange on a point of common ground — shared disgust over a recent Supreme Court ruling granting corporations the right to flood the political process with unlimited donations — was probably the highlight of the afternoon. Sadly, it had to take place through an iron fence.

It was a failure lamented by another pro-clean-energy protestor, possibly the only other liberal to brave the police line and tune in another message. You can hear his thoughts on post-partisan dialogue and police intimidation in this video post.

I caught some highlights with a camera (below).

Tree ordinance closes every loophole but cash on the barrel head

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

An updated tree ordinance intended to close two major loopholes that have plagued San Antonio’s natural scene is making its final passes along the committee taffy-making circuit as it heads to the City Council.

Councilman Reed Williams opened the public meeting at Igo Public Library earlier this week saying, “We all love trees. I have yet to meet someone who doesn’t love a tree. It’s just that sometimes we think they’re in the wrong place.”

Damn squirrels, interrupting Mother Nature's nut-dropping wisdom and such.

Following the publication of a study of San Antonio's tree cover by American Forests, City leaders asked staff to examine ways of bumping San Antonio’s total tree canopy up from 38 percent to 40 percent, said Rod Sanchez, the city’s director of development services. Two key reforms intended to make clear-cutting, if not illegal, less profitable.

Today, residents living on tens of acres may still declare themselves exempt from tree laws under the “single family exemption” and buzz their holdings to make way for box stores. But the new ordinance moving toward a possible Council vote in April would limit such exemptions to those living on a maximum half-acre, Sanchez said.

And by adopting strict tree canopy requirements, city staff hope they are on the way toward closing the troubling agricultural exemptions that have allowed large tracts of the City and its extra-territorial jurisdiction to be razed in the past.

However, as was pointed out by several in attendance, not even the largest and most stately “heritage” tree is secure from development.

While developers can still buzz away virtually any tree, they will have to double what they pay per tree taken down. For every tree more than an inch diameter taken out developers have to pay $200. Currently they pay $100 per tree. Also, they would have to mitigate for the tree losses. A so-called “heritage” tree requires three trees to be planted elsewhere. Heritage trees are defined as:



Also, developers are currently allowed to shrink the amount of area fenced off for “root protection” on those larger, heritage trees if they pay a little extra. But Sanchez said that provision could be eliminated under the language of the new ordinance.

While many types of trees are not covered in the protections (including destructive non-native trees such as Chinese pistache, chinaberry, Chinese tallow, salt cedar, and Japanese ligustrum), the amount of tree canopy from desired species in the ordinance is currently set at:



However, these percentages are still in play and being hotly debated. They are likely to be revisited at Tuesday's final meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee. It then marches on to the planning commission on March 10 and the infrastructure and growth committee on March 16 before landing in the Council's lap April Fools’ Day.

For more information, contact the Planning & Development Services Department or the Citizens Tree Coalition.

Also, you can read the draft ordinance below...

Rate Hike: Chamber leaders say, ‘Thank you, sir. May I have another?’

Public doesn't assume the position as gracefully

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

If anything was learned during the hours of citizens’ comments at this morning’s vote to raise electric and gas rates for CPS Energy customers, it’s that the local chambers of commerce are still doggedly devoted to their hometown utility.

Despite their unanimous support of CPS Energy’s plans to dive deeply into the nuke-expansion plans at the South Texas Project nuclear facility with partner NRG Energy — a loyalty that was paid back by the utility with months of deception as to the ultimate price of that project — they returned this morning with love and devotion for CPS.

Peppering a stream of voices raised against the hike, the chambers (Greater San, North San, South San, Hispanic, and Black) stood out like beads of oil riding the waves of protest.

The contrast was so stark that even Councilmember Justin Rodriquez, who, like most of his colleagues, cast the hike as an unwelcome but necessary “root canal,” teased the handful of suits testifying: “No one wants a root canal, except for our friends at the chambers of commerce.”

It was a well-timed moment of humor to diffuse a tense morning wherein dozens of residents lobbied against the new rates — some in the flesh, others via a video presentation made by members of the Southwest Workers Union.

But the concerns of those speaking against the 7.5- percent and 8.5-percent increase in electric and gas rates ranged from those on the edge of poverty to the moral implications of nuclear waste (despite settling with NRG, CPS remains a 7-percent partner in the proposed two-reactor expansion) to a widespread distrust of CPS to use the money how is says it will.

Despite promises of raising investment in green initiatives to $136 million over four years at the 2008 rate hike, the utility only used $3 million before shuttering several incentive programs for green-energy rebates.

Interim General Manager Jelynne LeBlanc-Burley blamed that on the Council’s reduction of the rate increase from the desired 5-percent to 3.5-percent. However, in a summary lecture that closed the debate, Mayor Julián Castro pointed out the program reductions still represented a business decision within CPS. He lamented, “Sustainability has only recently been seriously considered” by CPS.

While assistance to the Residential Energy Assistance Program is being doubled to $2 million per year to help those most at risk from having their power cut off, several wondered if that was enough. Others advocated implementation of a tiered rate structure that would grant lower energy users lower rates and encourage overall energy conservation.

Most public speakers seemed to agree CPS needed a truly independent audit and better oversight to make sure new monies weren’t misspent.

Councilman Reed Williams countered that current oversight is sufficient when he waved a CPS line-item budget and said, “This, folks, is the bible. This is where it is going.”

It was just this line-by-line information Karen Hadden, director of the SEED Coalition, had been seeking (and been denied) from CPS staffers — leading to another barb from Castro for Burley.

“I do believe we need to have a detailed budget on the Internet and we need to make it readily available,” Castro said to loud applause. “The document that Councilman Williams has, that should be made available. … We have to distill out what really is competitive. First of all, who are we competing against if we’re a monopoly?”

CPS regularly uses the excuse that certain information is “competitive” to deny public-record requests from the Current. It's an argument that has resonated with the Texas Attorney General’s office despite complaints from the paper.


“That culture just can’t stand,” Castro said. “There are still changes that need to be made.”

But the unanimous Council approval suggests those changes won’t come at the expense of delaying the completion of the Spruce Two coal plant or the start of a new phase of sub-station construction, two projects the new revenue stream is to be used for.

Given yesterday’s settlement with NRG Energy, which stops all future payment from San Antonio for the development of proposed Units 3 & 4 at STP, not all local activists were sure what they felt about the rate hike. However, Alice Canestaro-Garcia of Energía Mía has decided to keep the anti-nuclear campaign in Castro’s face until the city fully divests itself from the project.

Until the city gets serious about decentralized energy, some San Antonians will keep turning off their power in protest.

More below…

First federal nuclear loan guarantee goes to … someone else

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

President Obama announced this morning that the federal government will guarantee $8 billion in loans for two new nuclear reactors of an untested design in Georgia. With the federal blessing, the pair could become the first new reactors built in the country in nearly 30 years.*

At a Maryland headquarters of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Obama said it was “only the beginning” — that his new budget would triple the federal money available for other reactors to come. He cast his decision in economic, supra-partisan terms.

“On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs,” he said.

“Our competitors are racing to create jobs and command growing energy industries. … And the commitment of these other countries isn’t just generating jobs; it’s generating demand for expertise and new technologies.  Make no mistake: whether it is nuclear energy, or solar or wind energy, if we fail to invest in these technologies today, we’ll be importing them tomorrow."

The U.S. Department of Energy decision to back a new reactor design, one that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered refigured out of fears that strong winds could blow it over, bodes poorly for the NRG Energy/CPS Energy gamble on an already approved, older design for new reactors in South Texas.

Writes Katherine Ling at The New York Times:

Southern estimates the two new reactors will cost $14.5 billion. Under the loan guarantee program, the government may guarantee up to 80 percent of a nuclear project's cost, but the recipient must pay a percentage as a "credit subsidy" fee set by DOE and the Office of Management and Budget. The size of the credit subsidy fee has been the focus of squabbles among the government, industry and advocacy groups.

Details of the loan guarantee are still being finalized today, an industry source said.

The fact that CPS and its nuke partner NRG, whose planned expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear facility is also a loan contender, are attacking each other in court probably didn’t help their chances.

However, a cheerful DOE spokesperson familiar with the selection process was optimistic — and infinitely forgiving.

“There’s a lot of stuff going on with all the applicants,” said Ebony Meeks. “Everything is taken into consideration. Saying that, I don’t want to say [the lawsuit] doesn’t … it’s not a gold star, but it doesn’t necessarily preclude you from being reviewed and eventually receiving a conditional commitment.”

What the selection of Southern Company’s Georgia project means for NRG, CPS, and the planned expansion of the South Texas Project outside Bay City is unclear. It was just a few weeks ago that NRG CEO David Crane suggested that if his company didn’t get the loan guarantee, he would pull out entirely.

Did he mean Round One, or does he have more sticking power given Obama’s jump into the nuclear ring? A call to an NRG press agent in Houston was not immediately returned this morning.

Meanwhile, those opposing new nuclear in the country pointed to a major leak of radioactive tritium now flushing into the Connecticut River in Vermont as an illustration of the dangers the technology represents.

UPDATE (12:06) In a conference call this morning, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said of the new reactors: "If you lose control of it, it will not melt down. ... The new generation of reactors are much safer." Of course, he also said radiation was "contained" during the Three-Mile Island release and near-total meltdown. So, there ya go.


* The exception to this statement would be Watts Bar in Tennessee. Unit One at Watts Bar was begun in 1973, idled for many years, and completed in 1996. If Southern Company's reactors can be completed in six years, they would be the first reactors completed in 20 years. However, Watts Bar Unit 2, begun in 1985 and also later idled, has been restarted by the Tennessee Valley Authority and is expected to be completed in 2013.

San Antonio, "Constitution-free zone"

The perils of DWM in the Alamo City

By Enrique Lopetegui
elopetegui@sacurrent.com

(Update on 2/16/10: CBP press officers contact the QueBlog)

If you are brown and drive a pick-up truck on San Antonio Highways, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has a message for you: Whether you’re undocumented or a U.S. citizen, watch your butt.

OK, the CBP didn’t say that. But based on several official documents brought to the QueQue’s attention by two local immigration attorneys, that seems to be what the CBP is doing.

“The public should be concerned that the CBP is out there profiling drivers,” said Andrés Pérez, an attorney with De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendáriz. “The obvious problem with CBP patrolling the streets and highways of San Antonio is that they are not legally justified to stop drivers for no reason or based on a reasonable suspicion that a driver may or may not be doing something illegal.  San Antonio is well outside of this [special] zone, and CBP knows this.”

The “special zone” Pérez is referring to is what’s jokingly referred to as the “Constitution-free zone” that extends about 125 miles from the border inland. While the U.S. Fourth Amendment and the Texas Constitution require probable cause for any detention or traffic stop by a law enforcement officer, ports of entry and that special zone are the exceptions to the rule.

“CBP can stop drivers inside the zone based only a ‘reasonable suspicion’ of illegal activity, a slightly lesser standard than probable cause,” said Pérez. “But because the standard is so low and victims of these arrests frequently do not challenge the arrest, CBP operates with relative impunity.”

Arrests without probable cause and illegal profiling seem to be the norm,  and not only in the special zone.

“CBP can stop people based on suspected criminal activity [smuggling drugs or aliens, for example], but not simply because they believe someone is not in the U.S. legally,” said Pérez. “There is no way to suspect a driver is documented or not without racially profiling him.”

José [last name withheld], an undocumented Guatemalan, was stopped and detained by CBP on March 19, 2007. His case has all the common elements found in most of the cases the QueQue looked at: The driver and passengers were brown, they were in a pick-up truck, were construction workers and, according to the CBP officer, looked “stoic” and “nervous” when they noticed that a CBP car was nearby.

CBP Agent Rolando Salinas spotted José driving westbound on the 410, and pulled alongside. The agent says José “became very nervous” and always looked “straight ahead.” He decided to stop him after José supposedly began to “switch lanes quickly.” The officer arrested José and sent him to the SA Border Patrol station.

According to José, who had no criminal record, as soon as the CBP car turned its light on he pulled over. The agent, he said, ran towards his car, opened the passenger door and asked him, in English, if he had a driver’s license. José replied he didn’t speak English, so the agent asked him again in Spanish. José said no, and the agent asked for work permit (José said no) and nationality.

“Then, he physically pulled me out through the passenger side and put handcuffs on me,” said José, who was then sent to detention.

According to the written decision of immigration judge Glenn P. McPhaul, at José’s hearing on February 14, 2008 agent Salinas said that when he is patrolling “he looks for passengers in the back seat of cars, the expressions on the faces of the passengers, and how they react to the Border Patrol vehicle in assessing whether to stop a car.” Salinas also testified that he often stops “construction workers or smugglers.” The judge wrote the agent was “non-responsive when asked how one Hispanic person might stand out from another as an illegal alien when the Hispanic population is so high in San Antonio.”

After saying that José “looked stiff and nervous, clenched the steering wheel” and “did not look at him,” Salinas finally said José “looked like an ‘OTM,’ that is, someone ‘other than Mexican,’ because of his cheekbones, jaws, ears, and forehead, but not because of his skin color.”

“The agent testified that he thought [José] was nervous because he was looking straight ahead,” wrote the judge. “He also said that if a driver gives a quick glance to the side and then looks straight ahead, that too appears as a nervous reaction. Since both looking straight ahead and quickly glancing to the side can be considered suspicious activity, [José’s] failure to look at the Border Patrol vehicle cannot be considered a factor in assessing whether to stop him.”

The judge also noted that the clenching of the steering wheel argument is bogus. “Obviously, cars are driven by gripping the steering wheel.”

The judge dismissed the case after concluding that “the only basis for the agent’s stop was that [José] ‘looked like an alien.’ ”

“Further,” wrote the judge in his concluding paragraph, “the fact that [Department of Homeland Security] officers receive training in Fourth Amendment law, as the agent did in this case, supports the inference that when a DHS officer makes a stop solely based on race, he has deliberately violated the law or has acted in conscious disregard of the Constitution.”

But similar traffic stops continue.

On December 31, 2008, a construction worker named Juan and his three passengers where arrested by CBP officers Leija and Delgado after their pick-up truck drove by the officer’s assigned area on Highway 151. The reason? They looked “stoic and nervous.”

On May 15, 2009, a Guatemalan named Israel was a passenger in an eastbound truck on I-10 when “agent Salinas” (the same Salinas?) noticed they were “very nervous” and had “an uncomfortable-looking forward stare.” Israel and the driver were followed and pulled over by three CBP cars. In his sworn statement, Israel mentions that, while he was handcuffed in the back of one of the patrols, he saw something that suggests the CBP doesn’t waste any time.

“Two of the agents that were standing outside the third BP vehicle pointed at the agents that had put me in the Border Patrol car, to look at a red Ford pick up truck that was passing by,” Israel said. “The first Border Patrol car (the one I was in) flashed its lights and went after the red truck, [and] the other two [Border Patrol] cars then followed. I saw them surrounding the truck, and they got three young men from the truck, handcuffed them and put them in the second Border Patrol.”

On January 15, 2009, an undocumented, San Antonio-bound Mexican construction worker named Damián and four passengers in a double-cab truck, were stopped just outside of San Angelo. “I asked [the agent] why he had stopped us,” Damián testified, “and he told me because of the stuff we had in the truck and because we looked ‘Mexican.’ ”

Melchor, another Mexican construction worker, and his three passengers were arrested by agents Salinas, Leija, and Delgado on November 25, 2008, because they “believed the truck may be disguised as a construction vehicle so as to transport illegal aliens further into the United States,” according to the official report. “The agents also noted that the passengers were stoic and appeared to be extremely nervous when encountered by the agents.”

“Being present in the U.S. without valid documentation is not a crime, it is a civil violation only,” said Pérez. “The catch is that, since the Supreme Court has determined that immigration violations are civil in nature, due process does not apply in immigration proceedings. There’s no right to counsel, there’s no right to evidentiary rules — government hearsay is commonly admitted — [and] there’s no right to cross-examine government witnesses, etc.”

“Technically speaking, the person in removal proceedings does have the right to cross-examine government witnesses, but as a practical matter that right is not very enforceable,” said David Antón Armendáriz, a partner in the law firm. “As to the right to counsel, [the detainees] have no right to appointed counsel as in criminal proceedings, but they do have the right to pay a lawyer to defend them.”

In the case of Melchor, he was detained for at least 16 hours before he was allowed to speak to a lawyer. As in most cases, he was given the option of signing an I-826, voluntary return to Mexico, which he signed before obtaining the representation of Armendáriz.

“[What the CPB is doing is] entirely illegal but they do it because they know they can get away with it,” said Armendáriz. “That is to say, there is no effective deterrent for their illegal conduct.”

But didn’t the judge on the first case questioned the agent’s credibility and threw the whole thing out of the window? Yes, but the CBP is a foxy bunch and, according to Pérez and Armendáriz, they’re now no longer bringing the agents forward to defend their actions.

“The last thing they want is to have to bring an agent into the court room to swear as to the legality of their actions,” said Armendáriz. “It might be that they know what they’re doing is illegal. What happens when they do bring an agent to the stand is what happened on that first case: The story falls apart and the judge throws the case out. So they attempt to defend their cases in other ways.”

The government can provide alternative evidence of “alienage,” an immigration law term to describe the fact of being an alien, or not a citizen of the United States. For example, a landlord can testify that the detainee showed him a fake ID in order to rent an apartment.

“Essentially, the government is trying to sidestep the whole issue of the illegal arrest,” says Armendáriz. “By producing alternative evidence of alienage, the government is taking the position that the issue of the illegal arrest is irrelevant to the administrative removal proceeding, because independent evidence of alienage exists and that is enough to deport the person.”

So the other option is a federal court action, and good luck with that one.

“First of all, the system deliberately creates financial burdens or disincentives to bringing a suit,” says Armendáriz. He explains that, theoretically, a person could either file an FTCA suit (named after the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act, passed by Congress in order to provide a limited waiver of the federal government's immunity when its employees are negligent), or a Bivens Action (named after Webster Bivens, who in 1971 successfully sued six federal agents for illegal search and arrest), but it is unlikely that anyone in, say, Melchor’s position, could have the means to take advantage of either one.

“Attorneys fees are capped by statute at a ridiculously low rate for an FTCA suit, making this kind of suit unattractive to most attorneys” Armendáriz said. “And without  a competent attorney, it is unlikely an affected person will have the will, knowledge, and means to bring an FTCA suit.  As for a Bivens suit, the defendant is a government agent, someone with shallow pockets, which again makes this kind of suit unattractive to most attorneys because the prospect of a decent payout is not great. “

Besides the money issues, it would be hard for an undocumented person to take advantage of the law given the fact that he/she are often deported within hours of the detention.

“But even if you aren’t deported right away, it is most likely that you will remain detained, so how likely is it that you will have the strength, will, knowledge, money, time, etc., necessary to know your rights and to find a lawyer willing to take the case while you simultaneously fight to avoid deportation and avoid losing your home, job, or family?” said Armendáriz. “Not very likely at all. And, even if you are a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, you're not likely going to want to sue the government.”

Paula Rivera, public affairs liaison for the Border Patrol in Houston, returned our message on February 16, but the QueBlog couldn't reach her when we called her back. Minutes later, CBP press officer Yolanda Choates told us she would put us in touch with a "Border Patrol public affairs specialist that runs the [SA] area." She also said, "That's fine, that's not a problem," when told about the nature of our story.

“People should not dismiss this problem as affecting only the undocumented,” says Armendáriz. “They should be very concerned that there are government agents who care little about breaking this land's highest law in order to enforce the administrative rules governing immigration. All people everywhere should care if only because, when the Fourth Amendment rights of any of us are trampled upon by government agents, the Fourth Amendment rights of all us are endangered.”

Rate Hike: Council vote on electric/gas bump Thursday morning

Citibank ranks nukes potential ‘corporate killers,’ but CPS still wants a taste

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

Thursday morning, San Antonio Council members are expected to vote on increasing electric and gas rates for CPS customers. Though the 6.5- percent and 7.5-percent 7.5- percent and 8.5-percent* increases — the first of an anticipated decade of rate hikes the utility says it needs to keep up with capital development projects and the area’s growth — do not include future payments for the expansion of STP nuclear complex.

It’s no wonder some San Antonio residents nearly messed themselves when a small-town newspaper editor published a story suggesting San Antonio was about to recommit itself to the planned expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear complex. It turns out that when cover-ups over increased cost estimates were souring the public here in San Anto, none other than Citibank was warning off potential investors in the United Kingdom.

In a starkly titled financial assessment, “New Nuclear — The Economics Say No,’ Citibank reps suggested in November that any number of hurdles to construction of new plants represented  “corporate killers.” Though the clarion call followed just announced commitments to new nukes in the UK, it could now be applied in the United States. President Obama said earlier this month he hopes to pony up $54 billion in federal loan guarantees to kick off a new wave of nuke construction.

Daniel Weiss cites San Antonio’s sticker-shock experience — and the lack of Wall Street enthusiasm — as he picks apart Obama’s move for Climate Progress.

Julio Godoy at the Inter Press Service (reposted by Infoshop News) writes:

Citibank concludes these enormous challenges will result in soaring costs. It's the same position local opponents of the STP expansion have been making for two years, though they are rarely credited for their foresight by the elected leadership or in local media.

While some jumped when they read an error-choked Bay City Tribune article predicting a San Antonio “resolution backing STP Units 3 & 4  — possibly within the next few days,” they needn’t have. The current Mayor and Council have all but washed their hands of the expansion. However, there is a lingering residue — an irrepressible hope to gain a share in the project in return for the millions CPS has already spent — that could keep the City in thrall to the planned new units for years to come.

A better plan, suggests Karen Hadden, director of the SEED Coalition: “They should get out. They should get out clean right now.” Take the money and run.

SEED was key to bringing some of the earliest numbers that suggested the nuke expansion would be far above the $5 billion, as NRG first suggested.

Now with the project about to break down, the state of Texas is showing its hand as an interested party for the first time. Public Utility Commission Chairman Barry Smitherman (with Governor Perry’s “full support”) sat the squabbling CPS Energy interim GM and NRG Energy CEO down for a four-hour talk last week. More meetings are expected.

CPS wants to withdraw from the planned two-reactor expansion at Bay City but still benefit from a share of ownership commensurate with the value of its land and water rights at the site and the $350 million already paid in. A district judge ruled recently that CPS should be compensated if it withdraws and suggested the two get back to the bargaining table.

But where was the state and Smitherman during all those months the SA community was being sold on the project with fictitious numbers?

When talk turns to rate hikes, Hadden says CPS is just not ready.

“They haven’t fixed the problems at CPS Energy.  They haven’t gotten better accountability. They haven’t done an outside independent investigation. They don’t have a line-item proposal. They haven’t withdrawn from the nuke,” she said.

Without stricter oversight, CPS could potentially take the rate-hike cash and turn around under a more receptive Council and reengage with the STP project, Hadden suggested. “This is a backdoor for nukes."

(Citibank’s full report is below.)

Edwards murder update: DeGuerin weighs in

"Thomas Ford did not kill Dana Clair Edwards, and he doesn't know who did," said defense attorney Dick DeGuerin. Ford was arrested this morning for the January 1, 2009 murder of Edwards, with whom he'd had a serious romantic relationship. DeGuerin referred to the "cloud of suspicion" that has surrounded Ford almost since Edwards's death (which the Current wrote about in October 2009; see Missing Pieces) but said he doesn't know whether the police have investigated other suspects. SAPD told the Current last fall that they had eliminated other persons of interest, but Ford's previous attorney, Cecil Bain, alleged police set their sights on Ford early and exclusively. More in next week's QueQue.

Police make arrest in Dana Clair Edwards's murder

The San Antonio Police confirmed today that Thomas Ford was arrested for the murder of Dana Clair Edwards, 32, whose body was found in the early hours of January 2, 2009.

Ford, who reportedly has retained top-notch Houston defense attorney Dick DeGuerin, is expected to make bail today. Ford has not yet been indicted, but he has been the focus of the murder investigation for several months. He attended a New Year's Eve party with Edwards* -- who family and friends say had recently ended a serious romantic relationship with him -- but left early. Edwards was murdered sometime after she returned home in the early hours of January 1. There were no signs of theft or sexual assault, but Edwards's Jack Russell terrier, Grit, was missing and his body was found some two weeks later in Olmos Basin.

According to the police, recent results from crime lab tests were the impetus for Ford's arrest.

* A clarification: Dana Clair and Thomas Ford did not attend the party together -- they were both in attendance as mutual friends of the hosts.
                     

Price is Wrong: Guess the rate for sex with a child, win a Foreman grill

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

What’s the going rate for a Egyptian prostitute? How much do families in India earn from selling their daughters into brothels? How much do sex tourists pay to sleep with child slaves in Thailand?

Know the right answer and you could win a digital camera or George Foreman grill.

Tacky? Absolutely. But the game-show shtick can also apparently boost participation at anti-human-trafficking events 200 percent. (Listen in, by clicking 'play' below.)




The Denman Room of UTSA’s University Center on Tuesday night is nearly full; the audience is enthusiastically engaged, equally willing to wager on the price for illicit sex or a board game.

Is this kind of attendance usual for an event sponsored by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship?

“That’s not regular for hardly anything you do at UTSA,” says Ana Graves, InterVarsity’s campus minister.

The first year Graves tried to bring the grim reality of sex trafficking to UTSA students she could only draw 40 students from the 29,000 attending the school's two campuses. Then she stumbled on the game-show formula, a student crafted the script, and they’ve witnessed a dramatic response.

Year two brought in 200 students. This year was just shy of that, at about 180.

Graves partnered with other campus groups and used various forms of outreach to promote the event and its message.

They also screened a video produced by International Justice Mission about trafficking with several audiences, Graves said. “We actually probably educated more people than came last night,” she said. “Any way we can get education out, we want to get it out. And more came than if you just say, ‘We’re going to talk about human trafficking!’”

But there is a fine line between education and the continued dehumanization of others through humor. After another of Baptist Student Ministries’ Emmanuel Roldan’s calls for estimates about the price of a human life in yet another distant nation, one attendee hollers out not a monetary figure but “a banana.”

And yet, just as things begin to slip into a deeper state of silliness, two investigators from the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office crash the party to explain the horrors of trafficking as they exist here in San Antonio.

“When you talk to a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old and they’re telling you what animals out there did to them for money. I can’t explain it to you. But I’m going to give you a hint,” said Bexar County Sgt. Jerry Garza (left), as he squared off with the room.

Imagine yourself a child in a tiny room, he tells the group, and you’re listening to men outside the curtain talking about you and talking about money.

On the other side, you hear somebody screaming and crying for help, saying, "Please don’t do that to me! Why are you doing this to me?!” he continues.

“On the nightstand is a tube of KY, a box of condoms, a timer, and a little box of paper towels. And as you’re sitting there listening to what’s happening behind you, that curtain opens up. And that animal walks in there with you. And for 20 minutes you belong to him. He will do anything and everything to you he wants, because he paid for you," he says.

Smiles across the room retract.

“If that doesn’t get to your head, think about your siblings. Think about your little brother or little sister, who the day before was riding their bicycle in front of your house. Now they’re in that room and for 20 minutes they belong to someone else.”

“For you, 20 minutes is a walk downstairs to get something to eat and go to class,” he says. “For those kids it’s a lifetime. The 20-minute timer stops and the next hand comes through the curtain and it starts all over again.”

“Now imagine that 12-year-old tell you to your face. And knowing that there are thousands, thousands more out there, and you only have one. That’s 20 minutes.”

Garza and Investigator Renee Ochoa are the only two law enforcement officers dedicated strictly to sex trafficking in South Texas. And while the two get calls from across the region, the need in San Antonio alone is beyond their capacity to handle.

For her part, Graves said she will continue to advocate on behalf of the victims of trafficking.

“We’re about empowering the future leaders of our world. That’s what college students are. So, if we can get people to know about this, they’re gonna start fighting it,” she said.

So expect uncomfortable gimmicks to continue, and through them, hopefully, a mobilized anti-slavery movement.

And, yes, guess the price right and you could be competing for the change to win a George Foreman Grill, a digital camera, or an Apples to Apples board game.

Bay City Blunder: Nuke love means never having to say ‘Correction’

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

It can be a hard job running a small-town weekly. I know. I did it for three years.

Practicing good journalism there can be risky. Expose official corruption in a big city and you have the instant support of a dozen candidates hoping to replace the alleged embezzler/wife beater/criminal of the hour; expose it in a small town and you may have just lost 40 percent of your advertising revenue.

I never quite got the hang of the required community boosting, which partly explains why I’m not still making those weekly Rotary Club meetings.

So it is not without a degree of empathy this morning that I called Mike Reddell, publisher of the twice-weekly Bay City Tribune, to discuss an article he penned in yesterday’s edition.

Several local folks forwarded it to me, alarmed from the opening paragraph, which asserts the City of San Antonio is about to pass a resolution in support of the expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear complex.

Reddell’s article makes a string of questionable statements, but the main falsehood, repeated twice, is that the City is poised to pass a resolution affirming its continued participation in STP 3&4.

No such resolution is on the horizon for San Antonio, where the proposed expansion has fallen into deep disfavor after CPS Energy officials sought to cover up escalating cost estimates. The closest thing matching Reddell’s statements would be an expected CPS Energy Board of Trustees vote on whether or not to continue in the construction of two new reactors with NRG Energy, at all. However, that vote was delayed yesterday.

If CPS votes to continue as a paying partner, a possibility now considered remote, it would require rate-hike increases on CPS customers that must be approved by the City Council.

I called the Tribune to ask if Reddell planned to run a correction.

Why would he do that? he asked. He quoted Judge McDonald and Mayor Knapik, both of whom said their version of Mayor Castro’s comments was correct.

But had bothered to call Mayor Castro?

“I will, but I’ve got another meeting and I don’t have to kowtow to the City of San Antonio. I’m sorry,” the unapologetic publisher fussed. “The thing about it is, I think people in San Antonio don’t realize is if this project fails because of San Antonio, Matagorda County will suffer a huge blow. Does that matter in San Antonio? I’m sure it doesn’t,” Reddell continued. “I’m sure y’all could care less. Except, that the people of Matagorda County, they have a risk from STP as it is and San Antonio gets 40 percent of that product.”

Yes, but what does that have with the published assertion that San Antonio is poised to pass a resolution in support of the nuke plant?

“That’s what [Castro] told them,” Reddell said.

“No,” I interrupt. “That’s what they told you he told them.”

Mayor Castro told the Current this morning that Reddell never contacted his office seeking comment and that no resolution in support of STP 3 & 4 is being considered, “either by the Board or the Council, as was reported. That is simply incorrect.”

While the Mayor said he hopes the dispute between CPS and NRG can be resolved and the project moved forward, but “I think it’s clear that CPS will not likely participate in a way that it did envision before last fall.”

“We certainly don’t want to holdup the expansion, but we do want to make sure our investment is protected,” Castro said. “CPS may retain a reduced stake in the project but not continue to invest in the project in the future.”

That ownership stake would only be equal to the roughly $350 million already spent in addition to the value of the existing land and water rights held by CPS, he said. “That’s very different from the character of what’s being suggested in this article. We’re talking about a diluted stake based upon negotiation.”

And the notion that a bond issue could be brought to pay for continued involvement in the project?

“God only knows where that assessment came from,” Castro said.

I called both of Reddell’s sources, McDonald and Knapik. McDonald, I was told, was in a meeting but would return my call either this afternoon or in the morning. There has been no call back from Knapik.

Meanwhile, Reddell accused me of acting more like a City official than a journalist.

“Are you with the City of San Antonio or are you with an independent newspaper?” he asked. “Am I’m talking to the Current or am I talking to the City of San Antonio? Because you sure sound like a City official. You don’t sound like a journalist to me.”

It was an insult our local establishment will surely get a kick out of, but it was off topic.

“Is it possible you got it wrong?” I pushed.

“I quoted the mayor and the county judge and I didn’t get it wrong from them,” he says.

He’s right. He got it wrong by not calling the subject of his story — Castro — who he quoted thirdhand at least four times.

If the Reddell submits to running a correction, you’ll have to read about it somewhere else. I asked if he would email me the text of it when it ran, to which he responded: “You’ll be the last person I email,” before hanging up the phone.


UPDATE Correction runs Monday, February 15: "Due to a misunderstanding from interviews ... "

Dem Dam: Unheard candidates sue KERA in federal court

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

It’s not all about a Jimmy Carter-eggplant cross and a Palestinian comb over king.

Those of you who suffered through the two-way Democratic Primary debate this week (or follow the race in virtually any of the state media) will be forgiven for not knowing that a full seven contenders are actually vying for the Party’s favor. You see, KERA, which organized the affair, found nearly three quarters of the candidates even less photogenic than former Houston Mayor Bill White and Farouk Shami, hair products magnate, seeking Perry’s seat as Texas Governor. (See our last post, "Dem Dam: Candidates we won't hear.")

“It’s gotten to the point where if you’re not one of the chosen, or one of the elite, one of the blessed … you’ve got no chance,” said Star Locke, a Port Aransas builder running for Governor on the higher-faster pro-border-wall ticket. “That’s like 99 percent of the people in Texas. I mean, my God, we’re all working slobs.”

Now Locke and three other excluded candidates have lobbed a $400-million lawsuit at the North Texas television station alleging it violated their rights of speech, due process, and equal protection under the law, among other quaint notions of a long-ago America.

“By ‘disqualifying’ & ‘excluding’ plaintiffs from these debates the ‘melt down effect’ takes place across Texas with all the media,” Locke wrote in the complaint filed Tuesday morning in federal court in Travis County. “The ‘snow ball effect’ comes into play and soon all efforts by Plaintiffs to speak or be heard or campaign turns into a joke and Plaintiffs are even ridiculed as ‘publicity seekers’ or ‘even weird.’”

Other candidates signing onto the lawsuit include San Antonio's Dr. Alma Aguando, Dallas teacher Felix Alvarado, and East Texas professor Clement Glenn.

Go to town. Read it your own self.

Dem Dam: Candidates we won’t hear in primary debate tonight

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

When North Texas television news anchor Karen Borta earnestly shoots her first question to the Democratic candidates for Texas Governor at tonight’s debate, there is no risk viewers will find themselves assaulted with any rants about “foreign”-owned motels proliferating across the state or schooled on the secret plan to scrap the American dollar for a multi-national currency called the Amero.

Thanks to KERA’s decision to whittle down a seven-way race to a mere two candidates, we’re going to sidestep a dollop of race baiting and conspiracy theory, evident in the campaigns of Bill Dear and Star Locke.

Locke (left) is the only (I hope) candidate boasting multiple images of mushroom clouds on his campaign site.

But with nearly three quarters of the candidates excluded from what will likely be the only Democratic primary debate we get, we’ll also be missing the chance to hear San Antonio doctor Alma Aguado decry the injustices of NAFTA at home and abroad or consider Dallas teacher Felix Alvarado’s pitch to slash our school drop-out rates.

Instead, there will only be two flavors of thought to choose from: three-term Houston Mayor Bill White and Houston-based hair care magnate Farouk Shami.

KERA states on its website that the other five candidates failed to meet the station’s three-part criteria for inclusion.

Those qualifications include:

It’s a limited-attention-span chicken-and-the-egg dilemma. A newborn candidate can’t gain the needed cash to run a competitive race without first gaining exposure; and exposure comes easiest with the donations gained from it. The formula penalizes candidates who, like White, are not established politicians with an established pool of donors to tap, or millionaires willing to flush their own funds into the campaign hole as has Shami.

Dr. Aguado wasn’t taking her exclusion quietly, taking it all the way up to KERA’s … director of multi-media services?

In a February 1 letter to star techie Rick Thompson, Aguado comes a hair away from decrying her exclusion as racist.

Complaining about the policy allowing a candidate to be excluded for not fielding 6 percent support in a statewide poll, Aguado wrote:



She goes on to school Thompson in a ream of digital-inclusion issues; issues that play to the advantage of strong online campaigns like Mayor White’s. Unfortunately, the schooling she offers is cut straight off a University of Texas webpage.

Plagiarism aside, her spirit is in the right place.

DeAnne Cuellar, executive director of the San Antonio-based non-profit Media Justice League, agrees with Aguado’s message on exclusion.

Poverty rates in San Antonio and South Texas are reflected in low levels of online access, Cuellar said. “It is a race issue for us … and the communities we work with because it’s impossible for us to ignore that the majority of people who are feeling the disparities are overwhelmingly people of color. It makes it a racial issue.”

“If the government is going to move on the Internet, then the community needs to move on the Internet, as well,” Cuellar said. “If we’re voting and we’re putting agendas online and yet your community doesn’t have access to the Internet, what sort of community is that. What does that say?”

And if we’re talking telephone surveys, the last poll (pdf) we’re aware of was taken back when Tom Schieffer, Ronnie Earle, and Kinky Friedman were making gormandizing growls after Perry’s perch and 55 percent of Dems were undecided. Heck, by this standard, neither White nor Shami have kickstand-legs to lean on for their own inclusion.

Dallas teacher and former San Antonian Felix Alvarado (left) bagged two-percent of that November poll, but was still excluded from the shuffle. The rejection came by Fed Ex last week, he said.

In an effort to achieve some clarity, we called KERA and were transferred to the director of viewer services who said the only person who would be able to comment was busy prepping for the debate. “But you’re welcome to leave a message.”

Alvarado has experienced similar troubles.

“We called them several times and we have been emailing them, calling them, but they always let us talk to a secretary, and the secretary says, ‘Go to our website and the website will tell you the criteria and you don’t meet the criteria,’” Alvarado said.

The only failed criteria he can pinpoint is his lack of money.

“I have been out there, throughout almost all the state … We were going on the premise that we had a good message and that people would respond,” he said. “You know the DNC and the Democratic Party are involved in this. And White is the anointed one.”

For our part, we’d like to hear from the full range of candidates — even if Lockheed Martin, which underwrote one of the Republican debates, has to pay for an additional hour of commercial-free television.

While Aguado’s website is littered with the sort of grammatical errors that make it hard to take her campaign seriously, I’d bear a thousand errors of capitalization for the chance to hear the only candidate I know of proposing cutting trade agreements that fail to provide adequate environmental protections for workers in Central America.

Plus, the elusive Facebook candidate for Governor, Clement Glenn, said to be a “coordinator of a family and community violence prevention after-school program in Houston’s fifth ward,” could have supplied a deeply needed urban voice to the mix.

Hell, throw ‘em all together with the guy and his mushroom clouds. Democracy is made to be messy.

Drone Wars: Obama and Texas cops agree on dehumanizing sky

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

Not counting those “supplemental” billions sought from Congress to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan humming in time, Obama’s 2011 proposed defense budget bumps Defense Department bones up by 3.4 percent.

It’s a healthy meal in a time of famine. While social programs across the country are getting frozen in place, the only major existing military hardware lines to get the ax are the C-17 cargo planes and secondary engines for Joint Strike Fighters, programs Defense Secretary Robert Gates wanted cut last year anyway.

But in this era of terror-related cost creep, one program in the new warfare arsenal is about to double. Unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, are slated to receive $2 billion for increased production. It appears that drones, offering stealth surveillance packed with hellfire missiles underwing, are finally coming into their own.

According to the Los Angeles Times:



Texas Air Guard fighter jocks at Houston’s Ellington Field traded in their F-16s for fulltime drone combat more than a year ago when the last of the F-16s flew out in the summer of 2008. The 147th Fighter Wing became the 147th Reconnaissance Wing with a dozen Predators in the shed.

But Texas’ drone fever dates back at least to 2005, when Governor Rick Perry swooned over the potential of UAVs to safeguard Texas’ oil refineries and track border crossers along the Rio Grande. The Houston Police Department sought to jump into the game in 2007 with a not-so-secret launch of a pint-sized predator. However, the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority still won’t let the Inspector Gadgets of innumerable cop shops or even the Ellington crews put up their unmanned drones.

Lynn Lunsford, press officer out of the FAA’s Fort Worth office said the “mechanics of the thing” have his agency studying the issue intently. “Right now the technology is still not quite there, where you can have a drone that can detect and then avoid other aircraft,” he said.

D.C.-based FAA staff, digging in for a possible blizzard, weren’t able to get me the stats I was looking for. A spokesperson said while they are still taking applications for unmanned flying machines, but he didn’t know offhand if any had been approved in Texas.

And then there is the whole government secrecy thing: “I’m not even aware if that’s releasable at this point,” said spokesperson Les Dorr. “The only one I’m aware of is Houston.”

In fact, the first FAA waivers to launch UAV’s domestically was granted way back in 2003 to the U.S. Air Force. In the years since, the agency has approved a minimum of 440 applications for UAVs nationwide, according to an FAA fact sheet released in October, 2009.

Still the FAA and military have been butting heads on the issue. It may take the development of “sense-and-avoid” tech to smooth the deal that would completely militarize our civilian skies, one military journal wrote recently.

If prosecution ever starts to include drone surveillance footage, things could interesting.  

HPD’s Executive Assistant Police Chief Martha Montalvo told the TV crew that busted the “secret” test flight years back that “the unmanned aircraft would be used for ‘mobility’ or traffic issues, evacuations during storms, homeland security, search and rescue, and also ‘tactical.’” And HPD officials said they “would address privacy and unlawful search questions later.”

Keep watching this space to find out who has applied (and who may be flying) spy drones above us, because, at least according to Defense Secretary Gates, these things aren’t going away.

Back to the Times again:



I tried to follow up with Public Affairs at the 147th, but they must have been strapped into something somewhere. After punching my way through the departmental gauntlet multiple times, I found they hadn’t managed to set up their voicemail. A robot’s voice told me so.

"Factory farms not so bad after all" says TFB

Cavalier blog post of the week:

"Factory farms not so bad after all"

Written by Texas Farm Bureau spokesman Gene Hall, it argues that if you just look at the plain meaning of the words, not only are "factory farms" not "vile" or "evil," but "efficient," "productive," and "beneficial." I've read it three times and can't find any mention of "pesticides," "Monsanto," or "water subsidies."

Some other maligned phrases that might happily accept his PR assistance:
"Concentration camps"
"Pork Barrel Spending"
"Ethnic Cleansing"
"First Degree Murder"

Also, says Hall, no one really wanted to farm anymore, which is why we need factory farms (nonetheless, he writes, factory farms supply some 20% of American jobs -- so, the jokes on us, I guess?).

Hall does point out that we consumers have come to rely on cheap groceries and ready availability of everything in every season -- but again he skirts the underlying mechanisms of the industrial farm economy (and its multifarious lobbyists) to summarily conclude that you can have affordable food or organic, sustainable food -- not both.

"There would be consequences for outlawing this kind of agriculture," Hall writes. "We can send everyone back to the farm. We can all keep some chickens, a milk cow and grow a garden."

I can't wait till he parses Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.

UHS fought with Bexar County Jail about over-crowding, suicide risk

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

University Health System staff worried about the impact of jail over-crowding at Bexar County Jail and fought to change jail practices like housing suicidal inmates in parts of the jail not intended for suicidal observation, recently released emails show.

“There is a lot of confusion regarding housing for suicidal inmates,” Lydia Mesquiti wrote to staff members on March 13, 2009. “The jail administrator is allowing suicidal inmates to be housed in PODs that are not designated as a Suicide Prevention Unit. Our Department (UHS-DHCS) policy has NOT changed. When we find someone with a suicide potential and place him on suicide precautions he is to got the SPU or OB (if female) or MT-O1.”

Mesquiti, the director of mental health services over UHS’ jail contract with Bexar County, instructed her staff to continue correctly classify every suicidal inmate even if they weren’t being housed in under the right conditions.

“We are not authorizing any suicidal inmates to any other units,” she wrote. “If a suicidal inmate is taken to another unit not designated for suicide prevention then you are to call the UHS Vice President Theresa Scepanski.”

Jail Administrator Roger Dovalina told the Current last month that overcrowding likely contributed to the high number of suicides at the jail that ended up tripling the national average. A review of jail records showed cases where the inability to house inmates in the suicide unit because of overcrowding appeared to contribute to hanging deaths.

Later, UHS staff began lobbying hard for changes in housing these at-risk detainees that Chief Dovalina apparently was not willing to make. (Calls to Dovalina were not immediately returned Thursday.)

On March 14, UHS VP Teresa Scepanski wrote staff after hearing that jail personnel were placing suicidal inmates in the required smocks but not in the suicide prevention unit. “I spoke to Shift Commander [Capt. David Salinas] and explained this “new” policy cannot go into effect until we can meet and discuss a process that does not conflict with the regulations. … I requested this inmate be placed in MT01. Shift Commander did not cooperate with my request,” Scepanski wrote.

UHS mental-health employees had been lobbying to turn an open area of the jail (MT01) into a makeshift suicide watch area, a suggestion that was ultimately rebuffed.

However, a month later, a little progress was made when Dovalina instructed jail staff to up their observation rounds from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes wherever suicidal inmates were being housed.

After 412 suicide attempts (see chart, right) and three hanging deaths, a sheriff’s deputy wrote in August of a “circle of frustration” existing in the booking area over continued failures to get  suicidal inmates properly housed and treated.

“The mental health staff blame the medical staff, who in turn blame classification, then the blame is back on mental health staff. It is a circle of frustration and during this time the inmate creates problems for the booking staff," the Bexar County deputy wrote. "I am under the impression that an inmate evaluated and found to be suicidal, should at least be monitored or at least check on occasion by mental health unit, that hardly happens.” 

Instead, suicidal detainees were being forced to sit on a stool in front of the sergeant’s desk until a cell was located for them. This process could take up to 48 hours, the deputy wrote.

On December 4, Chief Dovalina issued Administrative Directive 09-30 ordering staff to conduct 30-minute surveillance of inmates housed in Intake (including detox where at least one suicide occurred last year) or the jail annex. They had been making the rounds every hour.

According to the department’s Suicide Prevention Log, 769 inmates attempted to take their lives at the jail in 2009. As reported in Hang Time, Bexar County Sheriff Amadeo Ortiz invited a national expert in suicide prevention to come examine the jail and its operations after the 6 suicides of ’09. More than 50 pages of UHS emails released to the Current show a health department grappling with a problem far beyond their power to control.

Hearing Tonight: Rate-hike testimony suggests green reforms to slow

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

With San Antonio’s nuclear-play creeping toward dissolution, blasts of cold weather and artificially inflated gas prices have started edging up local power bills. Come March, that edge will almost certainly be sharper for already-struggling families. That's when a proposed CPS rate increase is expected to be folded into the batter.

At a Council hearing Monday night, the first of three scheduled on examining the rationale behind CPS Energy’s expected 7.5-percent electric and 8.5-percent gas rate-increase request, the tag-teaming Electron Queens, Acting GM Jelynne LeBlanc-Burley and CFO Paul Gold-Williams, ran down the numbers. The utility needs to finish the Spruce 2 coal plant this year, unwrap new gas peaking units, and shovel more than $200 million into new sub stations and keep pace with new development, they said.

This “capital cycle” will mean going deeper into debt, a proposition that didn’t sit well with Councilman John Clamp: “If we get too confident on the debt side, that will eat our lunch one day.”

Several Council members expressed squeamishness about sticking ratepayers with higher bills at a time when so many are in need — and as CPS talks about slowing environmental projects like putting scrubbers on existing coal plants and rolling out a smart grid to pave the way for solar’s arrival in SA.

The scrubbers, for instance, won't "need" to be installed until 2015 to comply with expected new federal requirements, Gold-Williams said.

While the rate increase does not include the most aggressive march forward on the green-energy front, it also doesn’t include any funds for the expansion of the STP nuclear complex at Bay City, Burley said.

A final nuclear decision, which could go down as San Antonio’s most visible stillbirth since Main Plaza, is expected at a CPS Board of Trustees meeting next week. If they choose, after all, to try to revive that beast, expect the rate-hike request to rise even higher.

However, with recent positive reception in district court, CPS should be able to separate from its nuke partner NRG Energy with a good share of its investment covered. We’ll be watching to see if the utility and City will be satisfied salvaging all those already-misspent monies or if they’ll press forward dumping millions more in the hopes of one day turning a profit for their troubles. This is where things get sticky — and not in a good way.

The second hearing on the proposed increase is being held at 5:30 pm tonight at the City Hall Complex, 114 W. Commerce. Emphasis at tonight’s meeting to be on energy conservation and green initiatives: how far? how fast?

Operation Homefront “restructured”

By Enrique Lopetegui
elopetegui@sacurrent.com

(Update on 2/1/10: Jim Knotts clarifies status of communication department, newly created position, and reveals his salary)

On January 20, the national office of the San Antonio-based military charity Operation Homefront eliminated nine positions, four of them locally, even as donations have greatly increased since at least 2006.

“We actually didn’t do any layoffs, we did a restructuring,” Amy Palmer, Operation Homefront’s chief operational officer, told the QueQue. “We’re trying to reduce our ongoing operational expenses, and we restructured the national staff.”

Operation Homefront, founded in 2003, provides “emergency and morale assistance for our troops, the families they leave behind and for wounded warriors when they return home,” according to its website. It has more than two dozen independent chapters around the country which operate under the national charter. One third of the national staff of 27 is based in San Antonio, one-third in Washington, D.C., and the rest are virtual employees scattered around the country. Ashley Matta, administrative assistant for the Texas chapter, also based in San Antonio, confirmed that the job losses didn’t affect the chapter’s staff.

Two of the eliminated positions were already vacant, so the decision affected seven positions in human resources, marketing, administration, and Operation Homefront Village, the OH apartment complex that since March 2008 serves as short-term transitional housing for wounded vets. But there is also a new San Antonio office assistant position created that is currently open.

"We are in the process of developing the job description and advertisement," said Jim Knotts, who took over as CEO in November 2009.  "We eliminated a marketing specialist and an administrative assistant positions.  We are taking the most important responsibilities of those two positions to create the new office assistant position. So, in effect, the position was created when we announced the restructuring on January 20. With one new position created, we have 28 positions on the national staff after the restructuring: Twelve are in San Antonio, six are in D.C., and the other 10 are virtual across the country."

Any more "restructuring" in the near future?

“We hope not,” said Palmer. “We have to monitor our fundraising progress and continue to reassess our financial position. But we do not intend at this time to make additional restructuring decisions. A lot of organizations have gone through changes in the last couple of years, with the economy the way it is. We’re no exception, but we’re looking at ways to get more money to the families that we’re trying to serve. Our services weren’t cut. This is not unique to military charities, and it’s not unique to operation homefront.”

Knotts told the QueQue that those whose positions were eliminated should be able to receive unemployment benefits.

“We pay into the state for unemployment insurance, like every employer,” said Knotts from Ecuador, where he has just adopted a son. “It was explained to us that, yes, they’ll be able to apply for unemployment insurance.”

Palmer said that for the last year several employees have been reassigned to different areas within the charity. But, for the outsider, the loss of positions came as a surprise: According to the organization’s last three 990s, OH received donations of $3.5 million in 2006, $12.7 million in 2007, and $16.4 million in 2008. And as late as December 1, 2009, Operation Homefront earned its third consecutive four-star rating from Charity Navigator “for its ability to efficiently manage and grow its finances.”

“Only 13 percent of the charities we rate have received at least three consecutive four-star evaluations,” wrote Charity Navigator’s president and CEO Ken Berge, in the December letter addressed to Palmer, “indicating that Operation Homefront executes its mission in a fiscally responsible way, and outperforms most other charities in America.”

But some comments written on Operation Homefront’s Charity Navigator’s page accuse OH of “dismantling” its communications department, and of having “internal issues,” illustrated by the fact that here have been three presidents in the last few years.

"Operation Homefront has had three CEO's in three years," Knotts wrote the QueQue. "However, the organization has also grown each of those years in terms of needs met for our military families and total revenue, which is a testament to the depth and professionalism of the staff."

On the issue of the communications department, Knotts sent us two emails.

"Earlier in 2009, we rearranged some reporting structures within the national office, changes that had nothing to do with this restructuring,” said Knotts in the first email. “As a result, our online communications team moved from communications to operations. So before the restructuring we had two positions in communications. Both are currently vacant, and we plan to fill both."

An hour after this posting, Knotts sent another email for clarification:

"We did have a VP of Online Communications take a job outside of Operation Homefront in November," Knotts wrote. "At that time, we chose not to refill that position. That was the same time we changed the reporting structure so that the online communications group began reporting to Operations instead of Communications. Since it was unrelated to the restructuring, I had overlooked the change, but your specific questions about eliminated positions in Communications reminded me."

Although the personell info in the Operation Homefront Charity Navigator page is outdated, Knotts said he makes $175,000 a year, "which will be public record when we file our 2009 taxes." His predecessor, Mark Smith, made $125,648 a year.

No matter what changes Operation Homefront goes through, Palmer says the four-star status is not in jeopardy.

“We didn’t make any changes to our program,” Palmer said. “The support and emergency assistance we provide to the families hasn’t changed and will continue exactly as it is.

“Our donations have been pretty strong for 2010. Of course, it all comes down to cash. Our employees get paid with cash, and of course we have a lot of non-cash services donated, but it all comes down to cash. So we have a very aggressive fundraising plan and we expect to do very well this year financially. The pace will slow, because we’re a young organization growing very quickly. The leaps won’t be as aggressive, but we do expect to continue having a trend of positive earnings.”

DOD cutting ‘non-combat’ greenhouse gases, leans on Valero for the dirty stuff

Greg Harman
gharman@sacurrent.com

The sophisticated hacking of a major UK climate research center two weeks before the would-a-been-historic international gathering on climate change in Copenhagen last December “bore all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated intelligence operation,” according to Sir David King, former science advisor to past British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

King told the Guardian, “it was an extraordinarily sophisticated operation. There are several bodies of people who could do this sort of work. These are national intelligence agencies and it seems to me that it was the work of such a group of people.”

Such a group, he added, could be marshaled only by a foreign government or, perhaps, the well-funded “anti-climate change lobbyists” in the U.S.

The hacking preceded the United Nation’s global conference on climate change, where representatives from around the world were hoping to cobble together a successor to the Kyoto Protocol with a binding reductions agreement intent on stabilizing the planet’s climate.

The hacking — and subsequent mass misinterpretation and mischaracterization by U.S. media outlets like FOX — played a central role in squirreling the deal.

Obama, widely criticized for turning Copenhagen into a photo-op to announce agreements that hadn’t actually been reached, came back to Washington with an edict for the federal government: reduce global-warming gases by 28 percent by 2020. In response, the U.S. Department of Defense committed to doing one better, or four better, with plans to cut by 34 percent by 2020.

However, these are “non-combat” emissions we’re cutting. The ill-defined War on Terror continues to rack up monster carbon costs.

One of the top beneficiaries of the DOD’s fossil fuel purchases is San Antonio-based Valero — ranked fourth among the agency’s fuel contractors with Fiscal ’08 earnings of $1.04 billion. The hometown crew  just edged out The Bahrain Petroleum Company ($1.02 bil) and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company ($918 mil) for the honor, according to the Defense Energy Support Center.

Seems a plausible alternative explanation for the company’s pump-based anti-climate legislation ad campaign … but is it enough to motivate top officers to fund a band of federally trained cyber-warfare renegades to remotely storm the East Anglia Climate Research Unit? Utter conspiratorial nonsense, I’m sure.

However, the profits do make American Apparel’s $14-million arrangement for battle uniforms, coats, and trousers for the U.S. Air Force (being stitched together in Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas) sound like small (American-grown, organic) potatoes.

Still, there are plenty of other San Anto outfits earning less than a bil per-annum. Recently announced new or renewed contracts fueling the all-points conflict with ground stations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, include:

* LaBatt Food Service and Sterling Foods are keeping those Meals Ready To Eat as real as possible with continued $9-mil and $38-mil contracts, respectfully, for “full line food distribution” and bakery goods.

* Valero Marketing & Supply Co. earned another bump of federal largesse with $118 million for “aviation turbine fuel” out of the Corpus refinery.

* Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney Military Engines bagged another $6-million contract for continued “maintenance, logistics and engineering supplies and services” performed in San Antonio for F-16A and F-16B engine parts.

* Decypher Technologies, Ltd, P3S Corp., and SpecPro Technical Services, each took a $93-mil contract for hyper-technical gobbledygook, ie. “administrative and functional support, medical and biomedical research assistance, clinical and clinical hyperbaric medicine services, environmental bio-terrorism support, technology evaluation and research studies support services to Brooks City-Base and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base units.”

* Three percent of an $8-mil Lockheed Martin project expected to showcase the possibilities that dedicated space for conducting “cyber security experiments” is also coming to San Antonio.


Remember, war is today’s growth industry. It’s the one front Obama’s new fiscal conservatism won’t touch — unless its something-less-than-surgical drone strikes we're talking about.