SAVE THE DATES AUGUST 9TH, 13TH AND OCTOBER 7TH

ALL OF US OR NONE / A NEW WAY OF LIFE RE-ENTRY PROJECT

On August 9, 2011 our meeting will attend an agenda for the purpose of establishing the committees for our Peace and Justice Summit. On August 13, 2011, Saturday, our training session shall commence. Linda Evans, Dorsey Nunn, and Manuel La Fontaine from All OF US OR NONE from San Francisco will be here to help with the training as to defining what we will need to have the summit become a great success.

The elected officials invite list is growing, which we shall discuss further on the 9th. Having to identify our demands and to strategically plan what our language will conclude makes for everyone that will participate on the committees to be in attendance. Our goals and objectives are imperative to have a voice with expectations of results that we can continue our efforts to improve re-entry, housing, employment, and other services needed for the formally incarcerated person, their families and community.

Ban the Box will positively be an item of discussion and I hope that everyone is as excited as I am for being able to be in the position to help make changes for the benefit of our lives and those we serve as a whole.

Our venue for the Peace and Justice Summit will be held at the Houssels Fourm @ Memorial Hospital in Long Beach.

Please come on join us for the planning and execution of the anticipated and needed summit that we all have been waiting for.

FB

On August 23, 2011, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will hold an informational hearing on CDCR's policies and practices with the SHU (security housing units) in Sacramento. Committee Chair Tom Ammiano scheduled this hearing at the request of the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition. The legislative committee will hear testimony from speakers called by both sides. There will also be a comment period when family members and others can speak. The coalition urges everyone concerned about the torturous conditions in California's prisons to attend this hearing. People will be coordinating transportation from all over California.

For more information, you can visit the coalition's website at prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com or email prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity@gmail.com or call: 510. 444.0484

Prison Overcrowding, Debt Crisis-Could lead to Three-Strikes being Struck-Out!

From almost the day California's Three Strikes sentencing law was approved by voters in 1994, opponents have tried and failed to repeal or amend the politically popular measure.

Now, huge budget deficits and overcrowded prisons have given opponents of the Three Strikes Law a more attractive argument for why it should be changed: California is broke and can't afford such an expensive approach to criminal justice anymore.

By focusing on the costs of housing long-term prisoners and on the state's need to reduce its inmate population, opponents said they believe a ballot measure amending the law, promised for 2012, has its best chance of success since Three Strikes was enacted.

The dollars-and-cents argument, combined with long-standing arguments that Three Strikes is unfair, could finally be the right mix to beat back a strong lobby that over the years has included politicians fearful of being labeled "soft on crime," victims advocating for longer sentences and a wealthy prison-guard union, opponents of the law said.

A recent survey conducted by the Los Angeles Times found that 60 percent of 1,507 registered voters polled would support reducing life sentences for prisoners whose third strike was for a property crime such as auto theft or shoplifting.

The time is right because you have fiscal considerations "... and all sorts of efforts that put strange bedfellows together for reform," said Arnold Steinberg, a Republican political strategist, at a recent forum on the topic. "There is a tremendous opportunity there."

But it's an opportunity that proponents of the law say they will vigorously fight.

"The huge savings that may be projected by the proponents of change will not bear out," said Scott Thorpe, chief executive officer of the California District Attorneys Association, a group that has always fought against a change in the law. "We think the way it has been voted in by the voters and the discretion it gives to district attorneys and the courts is the right way to do Three Strikes."

The law was approved by voters as a tonic to alleviate rising crime rates and in response to the highly publicized kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by a habitual convict wanted for parole violations. The Three Strikes Law was the embodiment of a tough-on-crime approach, handing down mandated decades-long prison terms for repeat criminals but the law hands discretion to county prosecutors in deciding who is eligible to be sentenced under Three Strikes, and carries a provision allowing minor crimes to trigger a third strike -- and with it a 25-years-to-life prison term that means an inmate is not eligible for parole for a quarter-century. That spawned detractors who argued that the law is inconsistently applied and unfair.

For example, a felon with two strikes who gets caught shoplifting in Bakersfield has a higher chance of getting a third strike than if that same felon was caught shoplifting in Oakland.

"The law (is) punitive without any sort of reference to whether it (is) also just," said Elizabeth Sholes, public policy director for the California Council of Churches, which supports reform. "We do know there were far too many cases where the third strike may not have been a serious or violent felony."

In fact, almost half of the more than 40,000 inmates serving time in a state prison for either a second or third strike are doing so for committing a nonviolent or no serious crime, statistics from the California Department of Corrections show.

A study conducted by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice found that the state will pay at least $10 billion over the next 25 years to house the roughly 8,000 inmates currently serving a 25-years-to-life sentence for committing a third strike.

But that estimate does not factor in the increased costs of housing aging inmates who end up needing treatment for various health problems. "You can project ahead and see it's a huge number," said Tom Hayden, a former state senator and current director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center. "They will be in geriatric care inside the prison at unbelievable health care costs."

In addition, housing inmates with 25-to-life prison terms costs the state more because those inmates are classified as high-risk and must be placed in high-security prisons.

It isn't overcrowding because of a lack of beds; there is also overcrowding because you don't have the right kinds of beds," said Jeannie Woodford, a former director of the state's corrections department. "You have a great portion of three-strikers who are not the typical high-level inmate but now, with the sentence, they are a Level 3 or 4."

That type of effect a reform of Three Strikes will have on the state budget, however, remains unclear, as proponents of a change have yet to detail the extent of reform they will seek from voters. At a minimum, many said, a reform will include a provision mandating that a felon must commit a serious or violent felony to be charged with a third strike.

For the Bay Area's largest counties, such a reform will not make a big difference in how district attorneys approach a case in which a defendant is eligible to be charged with a third strike. Statistics show that the Bay Area's three largest counties use the Three Strikes law the least. Nevertheless, proponents of Three Strikes promise to aggressively fight any reform.

"Lowering penalties is not going to decrease prison populations, it's going to increase prison populations because crime becomes more attractive," said Mike Reynolds, a vocal supporter and creator of the law whose daughter was murdered in 1992. "If you reduce penalties for crimes, you are going to see criminals committing more crimes."

Opponents of the law point to numerous studies that have shown no connection between the law and a reduction in crime and, they say, voters should reform Three Strikes because it is the morally right  thing to do. With the budget crisis and prison overcrowding, those opponents believe they can  convince voters of their argument.

"You can't do good stewardship without being mindful of cost -- the whole idea of being just doesn't work if in the process you are ruining your state's budget," Sholes said.

$10 billion is what the state is expected to pay over the next 25 years for third-strike inmates.


Staff writer Josh Richman contributed to this report.

The Fight is Not Over- CALL CONGRESS NOW: End The Debt Debate!!

Dearest Friends and Allies,


You may have seen the President ask you to call your Member of Congress and express your opinion on the debt debate. This showdown is leading our country down a risky economic path and putting our international standing at risk. It's time for us to raise the debt ceiling and pay our dues.

That’s why we’re asking you to call 866-961-2143 to be connected to your member of Congress. When you're connected tell them to stop this nonsense and set our country back on track. Tell them to put our country first, raise the debt ceiling and protect Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Yesterday, there were hundreds of rallies nationwide to demand that members of Congress put real solutions on the table, instead of slashing programs for seniors and the poor while protecting tax giveaways for billionaires. Thousands of calls are being made to keep Congress accountable as well. Calling Congress today will continue to keep up the momentum and make your voices heard.

These calls make a difference, call 866-961-2143 today!

Visit the link below to call your representative.

http://www.joinchangenation.org/page/call-congress:-end-the-debt-debate

Your Comments Are Needed!! SB853 -Language Access Standards- Submit Your Comments Today!

Last month, the Federal government issued new regulations on the internal claims and appeals and external review processes for private group health plans and health insurers as part of the Affordable Care Act. These regulations have significantly weaker language access provisions in response to exaggerated complaints from insurers about the costs of implementing California’s landmark language access law, SB 853.

Under the revised Interim Regulations, plans will only have to provide translated consumer notices in languages that 10% of the population of a county read, while oral interpretation will be required in only those same languages. These standards are not only weaker than the initial proposal; they take a step back and undermine Title VI of the Civil Rights Act that requires oral interpretation to be provided in all languages. Please submit your comments for stronger language access standards TODAY. Comments must be received by July 25th.

Suggested comments:

• I wish to comment on the proposed 10% threshold for translation and oral interpretation of private plan materials in internal review and appeal contexts.

• The proposed standards fail to recognize the needs of the 12 million residents in the United States who do not speak English well, over half of whom reside in California.

• As health plan and insurance members, they pay premiums and receive marketing materials and calls in their primary language, but under these proposed regulations, they would not be able to access plan review and appeals materials to ensure they receive the care they need.

• The Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Department of Labor (DOL) should immediately revise these joint Interim Regulations. Specifically they should:

• Require large group plans to provide notices to 5% of the plan’s population or 500 persons in a plan’s service area and 25% of the population for small group plans.

• Provide oral interpretation in all languages at all times under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, reiterated in Section 1557 of the ACA, and by Executive Order published at 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121-22 (Aug. 16, 2000).

• Require the identification (“tagging and tracking”) of a member’s spoken and written language need as required by Title VI Office of Civil Rights in order to ensure effective communication about medical instructions and vital patient information critical to the provision of quality care.

• Reject bogus claims by health plans that these regulations will be too costly by using California’s language access law, SB 853, as an example. These federal regulations apply to a much narrower set of documents – notices about appeals and denials of medical coverage – than those covered by SB 853. In addition, the costs health plans are citing are one time translation costs for documents that will be used for many years.

You can submit comments in the following ways:

Electronically. You may submit comments to http://www.regulations.gov./ Enter docket ID number EBSA-2010-0019-0002 in the "Enter Keyword or ID" field and click on "Search." On the next web page, click on the "Submit a Comment" action and follow the instructions.

 By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Attention: CMS-9993-IFC2, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

If you are bilingual or work with limited English proficient populations, consider filing comments in other languages as well as in English, to demonstrate the need and importance for strong language access regulations.

San Francisco may bar employers, landlords from asking about convictions and arrests.

Reporting from San Francisco...

City officials are considering a law that would prohibit private employers,
landlords and city contractors from inquiring about an individual's arrest
or conviction history before determining whether that person is qualified
for a job or housing.

If the law is approved, San Francisco would join Hawaii, New York,
Massachusetts and Philadelphia in protecting most people with criminal
records from blanket discrimination in the private job market. A handful of
jurisdictions in Illinois and Wisconsin impose similar restrictions on
landlords, and Seattle is now weighing a proposal comparable to San
Francisco's that does both.

Specifically, the law would require that questions about criminal background
be deferred until a determination is made that the applicant is otherwise
qualified. A rejection would then be permitted based on an applicant's prior
conviction only if it were "substantially related" to the job or housing in
question.

Someone convicted of embezzling, for example, could be turned down for a job
working with money. The proposal, which will soon be drafted as an ordinance
and debated by lawmakers, would not interfere with state and federal laws
that already ban some former criminals from jobs in law enforcement, child
care and other fields.

It will be the subject of a hearing Wednesday before the city's Human Rights
Commission, which along with the San Francisco Reentry Council has
recommended that it become law. But it has already sparked outrage.

A recent San Francisco Chronicle editorial called it "eye-rolling" and an
example of "the fuzzy-headed thinking that makes San Francisco politics such
rich fodder for late-night comedy and cable commentators." The San Francisco
Apartment Assn. said it would unduly burden private property owners and open
them up to potential lawsuits.

Proponents, however, say it is critical to public safety.

"This is not about being soft on crime," said San Francisco Dist. Atty.
George Gascon, a strong supporter. "If we release people into our
communities and don't figure out a way to get them housing and employment,
we put them in a situation where the only opportunity they have is often to
reoffend."

About 30% of the nation's adult population has a criminal conviction,
according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Reentry advocates say those rap
sheets are easily unearthed by the vast majority of employers who now rely
on private background checks.

The U.S. attorney general recently convened a cabinet-level council to
grapple with the issue, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
will take it up at a hearing next week.

In California, the problem has gained particular urgency, as tens of
thousands of prisoners from overcrowded state facilities will soon become a
local responsibility. "How we work the reentry process is going to be very
critical," said Gascon, who has invited leaders from the nine Bay Area
counties to discuss a coordinated approach to the problem.

The proposal comes five years after San Francisco passed an ordinance
offering similar protections for public job seekers. Such laws are now in
place in several states and about two dozen cities and counties nationwide.

It would offer a foot in the door to those who have been locked out of
opportunities, supporters say.

"I don't think you can necessarily change people's minds by legislation, you
change people's minds by putting someone in front of them who can do the
job, whether they are formerly incarcerated or not," said Gerald Miller, 54,
who served time for drug- and theft-related charges and now works with
former inmates and sits on the reentry council.

Similar private-sector protections are gaining currency nationwide.
Massachusetts signed sweeping reform last year, and Philadelphia's went into
effect this month. They counter what a recent National Employment Law Center
report concluded is widespread reluctance by employers to hire the
convicted.

"No Misdemeanors and/or Felonies of any type ever in background," read one
Craigslist ad excerpted in a recent report by the organization.

Employers and landlords who do background checks have "felt that they have
free rein: 'If I see something I don't like at all, I can just stop you from
working here or living here,' " said Michelle Rodriguez, an Oakland-based
attorney with the law center who has provided guidance to San Francisco. "It
creates this huge class for whom it's impossible to find housing and work."

Employer groups in San Francisco such as the Chamber of Commerce have not
yet weighed in on the policy, which also gives those rejected based on a
conviction an opportunity to appeal. But landlord representatives have
raised the alarm.

"They're putting a burden on private individuals like myself or you to make
a determination on someone's criminal background," said Janan New, executive
director of the San Francisco Apartment Assn. "Having us determine evidence
of rehabilitation through an interview with a tenant? I have no background
in parole. How are we going to do that?"

*lee.romney@latimes.com*

HUGE! LA Times Article: CA: Hunger Strike Expands to at Least 11 Prisons

Inmates in at least a third of California's prisons are believed to be refusing meals in solidarity with maximum-security prisoners at Pelican Bay.

Inmates in at least 11 of California's 33 prisons are refusing meals in solidarity with a hunger strike staged by prisoners in one of the system's special maximum-security units, officials said Tuesday.
The strike began Friday when inmates in the Security Housing Unit at Pelican Bay State Prison stopped eating meals in protest of conditions that they contend are cruel and inhumane.

"There are inmates in at least a third of our prisons who are refusing state-issued meals," said Terry Thornton, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The number of declared strikers at Pelican Bay — reported Saturday as fewer than two dozen — has grown but is changing daily, she said. The same is true at other prisons.

Some inmates are refusing all meals, while others are rejecting only some, Thornton said. Some were eating in visitation rooms and refusing state-issued meals in their cells, she said.

Assessing the number of actual strikers "is very challenging," Thornton said.

Prison medical staff are "making checks of every single inmate who is refusing meals," she said.

More than 400 prisoners at Pelican Bay are believed to be refusing meals, including inmates on the prison's general-population yard, said Molly Poizig, spokeswoman for the Bay Area-based group Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity.

The group had received reports on the strike from lawyers and family members visiting inmates over the weekend, she said.

The group's website claims that prison officials attempted to head off the strike by promoting a Fourth of July menu that included strawberry shortcake and ice cream. According to the website, the wife of a Security Housing Unit inmate said her husband had never had ice cream there and "has never seen a strawberry."

Inmates at Calipatria State Prison — with more than a thousand prisoners — were among those reported to be refusing meals, Poizig said. Prison officials could not be reached for comment.

But Thornton acknowledged that inmates at the prison were refusing to eat state-issued meals.

The strike was organized by Security Housing Unit inmates at Pelican Bay protesting the maximum-security unit's extreme isolation. The inmates are also asking for better food, warmer clothing and to be allowed one phone call a month.

The Security Housing Unit compound, which currently houses 1,100 inmates, is designed to isolate prison-gang members or those who've committed crimes while in prison.

The cells have no windows and are soundproofed to inhibit communication among inmates. The inmates spend 22 1/2 hours a day in their cells, being released only an hour a day to walk around a small area with high concrete walls.

Prisoner advocates have long complained that Security Housing Unit incarceration amounts to torture, often leading to mental illness, because many inmates spend years in the lockup.

Gang investigators believe the special unit reduces the ability of the most predatory inmates, particularly prison-gang leaders, to control those in other prisons as well as gang members on the street.

Prison administrators are meeting with inmate advisory councils to discuss the inmates' complaints, Thornton said.

But "I have not heard there's been any decision" to modify policies governing the Security Housing Unit, she said. "A lot of those policies have been refined through litigation."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0706-hunger-strike-20110706,0,3504424.story