My thanks to Steve for recounting some of the history of the struggle to restore the Bill of Rights to Santa Cruz, in which he has been a key player.

Here's a letter I wrote recently to the Bill of Rights Committee locally, which hopes to have a strengthened anti-Patriot Act provision on the City Council agenda in September. They are taking as their model Arcata.

I encourage everyone to call Santa Cruz City Council at 420-5020 to demand immediate action to put teeth into the anti-Patriot Act--teeth that were removed by an amendment from Vice-Mayor Scott Kennedy last November.

Kennedy's number for those who wish to contact him is 420-5028. He may have changed his mind on the resolution (though he is also a supporter of locally repressive laws like the Move Along Every Hour law, the anti-homeless Sleeping Ban, etc.).

Robert Norse


Dear Santa Cruz Bill of Rights Defense Committee Members:

Here are some articles from the Arcata Eye--a print and on-line publication--about the struggle to strengthen anti-Patriot Act provisions up there last spring.

After our August 11 decision to have a subcommittee draw up language and check with the City Attorney (and perhaps independent attorneys), I thought it might be helpful to pass on the language of the Arcata resolution, which I cut and paste below.

The Santa Cruz City webserver doesn't seem to be working too well today: the links aren't working.
But the original language of Santa Cruz's own stronger anti-Patriot Act Resolution from November 12th, should be there. Before Vice-Mayor Kennedy moved to weaken it.

I am also cc-ing this letter to the Santa Cruz City Council and to local media.

Robert Norse


THE ARCATA ORDINANCE
Ordinance No. 1339
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcata Amending the Arcata Municipal Code To Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties
The City Council of the City of Arcata does ordain as follows:

Section 1: Title II: Administration, Chapter 2: Officers and Employees, Article 5: Defending Civil rights and liberties, Sections 2190 - 2194 are hereby added to the Municipal Code as follows:

SEC. 2190: Purposes.
The purposes of this ordinance are as follows:

A. To protect the civil rights and civil liberties for all and to affirm the City's commitment to embody democracy, and to embrace, defend and uphold the inalienable rights and fundamental liberties granted under the United States and the California Constitutions, as set forth in Resolution 023-32, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcata to Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties, adopted by the Council on January 15, 2003; and

B. To ensure that local law enforcement continues to preserve and uphold residents' freedom of speech, assembly, association, and privacy, the right to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, even if requested or authorized to infringe upon such rights by federal or state law enforcement agencies acting under new powers created by the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), Homeland Security Act (Public Law 107-296), or related Executive Orders, or by future enacted laws, executive orders or regulations.

SEC. 2191: No Unconstitutional Detentions or Profiling.
No management employee of the City shall officially engage in or permit unlawful detentions or profiling based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or political or religious association that are in violation of individuals' civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

SEC. 2192: No Unconstitutional Voluntary Cooperation.
No management employee of the City shall officially assist or voluntarily cooperate with investigations, interrogations, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, that are in violation of individuals' civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. SEC. 2193: Notification.

Management employees of the City shall promptly notify the City Manager when, in the course of City employment, the following occurs:

A management employee of the City is contacted by another law enforcement agency and asked to cooperate or assist with an investigation, interrogation, or arrest procedure under provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), Homeland Security Act (Public Law 107-296), or related Executive Orders, or future enacted law, executive order or regulation, where such procedure is in violation of an individual's civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Upon such notification from a management employee, the City Manager shall promptly report to the City Council, specifying the law enforcement agency seeking cooperation or assistance and the actions requested of the management employee.

SEC. 2194: Defense.
The City shall provide legal defense to any management employee who is criminally charged by another entity for his or her actions in compliance with this Ordinance.

SEC. 2195: Severability.
If any section or sections of the ordinance is or are held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other sections shall nevertheless continue in full force and remain in effect.

Section 2: This ordinance will take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.

Dated: April 2, 2003.

ATTESTED: APPROVED:

City Clerk, City of Arcata Mayor, City of Arcata

Clerk's Certification

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of ordinance No. 1339, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City council of the City of Arcata, Humboldt County, California, on the second day of April, 2003, by the following vote:

AYES: 4


NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0

City Clerk, City of Arcata

ARTICLES ABOUT THE STRUGGLE TO PASS THE ORDINANCE FROM THE ARCATA EYE

Rights ordinance gains traction at Town Hall Meeting
By Daniel Mintz, Eye Reporter
February 24, 2003

Does the U.S. Patriot Act protect people from terrorism or threaten them with the loss of
their Constitutional rights?

The majority of Arcata residents attending a Feb. 20 Town Hall Meeting said they feel
their rights are endangered by the Patriot Act. And they support a proposed City
ordinance challenging it.

The municipal law will be discussed by the Arcata City Council on March 5 and is up for a
vote on March 19. It mandates that municipal employees refuse to cooperate with federal
investigators who might seek assistance in carrying out elements of the Patriot Act here.

The City Council recently passed a resolution that defines the Patriot Act as a threat to the
Bill of Rights, and instructs City employees to refuse to cooperate with federal
investigators who are apparently acting the terrorism-inspired act.

According to the resolution, the Patriot Act violates the Constitution by opening gates to
government wiretaps, e-mail monitoring, and the eying of confidential records.

Other cities in the country have passed similar resolutions, but no city has passed an
ordinance that makes cooperation with federal probes a municipal offense.

Small audience, positive response
If such a prospect is controversial, one wouldn't have known it from the sparse turnout at
the Arcata Community Center. The City wasn't able to secure the center's gym, and
officials feared that its senior dining room wouldn't be able to accommodate what was
expected to be a well-attended forum (a town hall meeting on the City's resolution against
U.S. military action in Iraq drew 200 people).

But there were plenty of empty seats - 30 residents attended, and there were moments
when moderator Sondra Schaub had to gently prod the audience into approaching the four
microphones set up for "fishbowl" discussions.

Most of the people there supported the concept of an anti-Patriot Act ordinance. A World
War II veteran said he fought to defend the country, "and a year later, I find that we have
to defend the Constitution from the government."

Demonstrating how right wing and left wing views can sometimes meet, another man who
supported the ordinance said that he'd "like to step up the actions of citizens before we're
thankful for the NRA." (The National Rifle Association's more extreme advocates say
citizens need guns to defend themselves against potential government intrusions.)
Paul Cienfuegos, chair of Arcata's Committee on Democracy and Corporations, warned
that the Bush Administration is already brewing an expansion of the Patriot Act. He said
Quaker-affiliated pacifist groups are being targeted for their views and their donation
choices.

A young woman named Ashley said she's "appalled and disgusted at the U.S. government"
and is saddened that more people aren't questioning whether the country is truly
democratic.

Ashley thinks the ordinance is a statement of unity. "For what it is, it's a beautiful thing
because it's people coming together and saying, 'We will not accept this.'"

A Humboldt State University student suggested that Arcata go further and proclaim itself
"as an international town, a U.N. town - not a part of America, but the world."

'Spinning your wheels'
Three residents, though not necessarily in support of the Patriot Act, had doubts about the
ordinance.

Anthony Porzio questioned the wisdom of "having an ordinance that's in conflict with
Federal law" and suggested impeachment of President Bush as a more effective project.
"What you're doing is spinning your wheels," he continued.

Donn R.J. Filbert said the ordinance gives the city manager too much decisionmaking
power. However, the ordinance stipulates only that City employees "notify" the city
manager.

Saying the City is fighting federal policy "at the wrong level," Bruce Hamilton said he's
"for less government." He also has concerns about Federal policies, but asserted that "the
antidote isn't to have each city - thousands - passing their own little laws."

He'd previously said that "a symbolic gesture is all that we have here."

Tad, a homeless man who's made presentations to the City Council objecting to police
actions in Arcata, said that "if we're truly concerned about upholding human rights, we
have to start at home... this very town won't allow people to sleep unless they're
homeowners or renters."

He supports passing the ordinance, but added that it's only "symbolic" if City police
policies don't reflect the same ideals.

Test case?
Recently elected Councilmember David Meserve had campaigned on a platform that
promised attention to residents' concerns over national and global issues. He proposed the
resolution and also forwarded the ordinance concept, which apparently has the support of
a majority of councilmembers.

In an interview, Meserve referred to Hamilton's mention of Alabama Governor George
Wallace's defiance of Federal laws reversing segregation. "In that case, there was a
Supreme Court decision [backing Federal law]," Meserve continued. "And what we have
now is a law that many believe is unjust and dangerous - a law that hasn't been tested yet,
but will be at some point."

If Arcata passes the ordinance, it will be the country's first and could be a legal test case.
Meserve had earlier told KMUD radio that "We're putting ourselves out there," suggesting
that a court case over an Arcata ordinance might result in the Patriot Act itself being
found unconstitutional.

But after the Town Hall Meeting, he downplayed the possibility of leveraging an Arcata
law into a legal showdown with the Bush administration.

"As long as we haven't actually used the law, it will be a moot point," said Meserve. "No
one will sue over the presence of the ordinance itself. If it does come up, if a City
employee is asked to do something unconstitutional, the City Council will consider the
chance of litigation and balance that against the civil liberties issues."

Meserve is hoping that if the ordinance is passed, other cities will follow Arcata's lead and
a legal case would be forwarded through a class action lawsuit. He doesn't think that
Arcata alone could handle a legal challenge of the Patriot Act, and wouldn't support such
a move. "Because of the expense, I could never encourage that," he said.

But Meserve added that joining a group legal battle is possible, and "in the case of a
lawsuit, we would certainly involve people in the decision on whether to proceed."
Remembering that legal matters are decided in executive session, Meserve clarified that "I
don't think the public could be involved with an exact legal response, but the choice on
whether to go ahead would be made under public scrutiny."

The Federal government has portrayed the Patriot Act as an important lever for combating
terrorism. Might the ordinance be perceived as a means of sheltering terrorists? Sounding
irked by that question, Meserve emphasized that the ordinance would strive to protect
civil rights.

"I have had nobody, out of the hundreds of people I've talked to, say that they favor the
Patriot Act or think it's a good idea," he said. "I have yet to meet a person who feels that
way... the overall intention of this is to protect the people of Arcata from a set of laws
which threaten our civil liberties."

Interim Police Chief Randy Mendosa wasn't available for comment the day after the town
hall meeting. But he attended it and Meserve said Mendosa believes that the ordinance
"reflects the standard that he always holds himself up to" and "appreciates the ordinance
because it backs up the Constitution."

Arcata to defy Patriot Act
By Daniel Mintz, Eye Reporter
March 10, 2003

An Arcata ordinance resisting enforcement of the U.S. Patriot Act has been introduced by
the City Council and is likely to be adopted at its next meeting.

Residents and councilmembers who delivered opinions on the new federal anti-terrorist
law at the March 5 council meeting all but called the White House administration fascist –
and certain councilmembers were themselves plastered with that association during a
previous debate on how the homeless are treated by Arcata police (see related story
below) The proposed City ordinance portrays elements of the Patriot Act as
unconstitutional and mandates that Arcata’s 17 management-level employees refuse to
cooperate with federal investigators whose requests violate civil rights. Due process rights
and “protection from unreasonable searches and seizures� are cited as Constitutional
safeguards endangered by the new federal law.

The ordinance is being forwarded as a local remedy. And most of the residents who spoke
at the meeting clamored for it. They told councilmembers that they don’t trust their
government and are starting to fear it.

Paranoid times
The recents federal police raid on an Arcata glassblowing business that supplied glass
pipes to retailers has added fuel to the paranoia.

“ I am now totally convinced – I feel the long tentacles of the federal government creeping
up everywhere, and quite honestly, I’m scared,� said Susan Brinton. “They just drop like
paratroopers out of the sky into Arcata... I had to look in the dictionary for the definition
of ‘dark ages.’�

Another woman said that her friends joke about federal gumshoes eyeing their e-mails and
anti-war activism – but the jesting has an undercurrent of genuine fear. “Our federal
government is rapidly and seriously curtailing civil liberties – I am heartened by your
ordinance,� she continued.

Carl Magruder said the signs of the times are pointing to the advent of a strongarm
government. “The trend in the U.S. today is very definitely going toward centralized
power, global monopolization... I would just call it fascism, but I don’t want to frighten
people.�

Profiling of Arab-Americans and others who might fall under federal suspicion is also
mentioned in the ordinance as practices to resist. Willow Rain said that she lives here but
is not a U.S. citizen, and “as an immigrant, I don’t feel safe – and I’m white and British.�
She added that she wonders what the feds would do if they were able to look at her library
withdrawal records. “I don’t like thinking like that,� she said.

Ann Beard expressed doubts about the council’s approach, but agreed that the Patriot Act
represents an overreach of federal authority. “I know a lot of people who are staunch
Republicans and supporters of George Bush, and they’re very concerned about what’s
coming down,� she said.

A necessary shield?
Residents did speak in support of the Patriot Act – but they were a small minority.

One man wondered why everyone is so frightened. He said the scariest of events has
already happened – and the Patriot Act is a reasonable response. “Seeing those planes
crash into [the World Trade Center towers] was the worst thing I ever saw, and now the
government is scrambling to protect us.�

He added that the fed-phobia expressed by speakers was a head-scratcher to him, as he
hasn’t had encounters with any level of law enforcement. “I don’t know what you guys are
so scared about... I don’t know what’s going on here, I’m confused about this meeting
and I don’t like it when somebody else decides for me.�

Sioban Martinez doubted that councilmembers had even read the Patriot Act. “If you had,
you would have seen that the Patriot Act already specifies that there will be no profiling,�
she said.

Martinez told Councilmember David Meserve, the ordinance’s key architect, that the
Patriot Act also calls for measures that would speed emergency fire and police response.
She also reminded that the World Trade Center attack was historically unprecedented and
the government has to respond to it.

“ These were our citizens, horribly murdered,� Martinez continued. “I don’t think you can
say that the Patriot Act is hurting your Constitutional rights – it’s helping you, it’s keeping
you safe.�

Her husband, Luis, said the ordinance unreasonably asks Arcata department heads to
break the law and is the wrong way to address Constitutional concerns. Meserve has
indicated that the City may not even do anything with the ordinance beyond the symbolic
gesture of passing it – and Martinez questioned the efficacy of that approach.

“ When a City Council makes a statement as dramatic as this and isn’t willing to follow
through with it, all it shows is how truly impotent you are.�


Machi: Take it to court
A majority of councilmembers will vote in favor of passing the ordinance. Councilmember
Michael Machi, however, cast a lone vote against introducing it.

He said he also has concerns about the Patriot Act but argued that alternatives to the
ordinance have not been explored. And he added that if the Constitution and Bill of Rights
are to be taken seriously, the council should pay attention to what those documents say
about court processes.

“ Our enacting this ordinance doesn’t defend the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, it does
exactly the opposite,� Machi continued. “ This ordinance in itself threatens due process
because the City has no jurisdiction over what is and isn’t Constitutional... we would be
doing the same thing we’re saying the Patriot Act does. We’re skipping due process here,
too – this needs to go through the court system.�

Machi encouraged Arcata to either join or launch a drive for court proceedings that would
decide the Constitutionality of the controversial Patriot Act.

Other councilmembers didn’t agree. Councilmember Connie Stewart couched her
commentary in the context of her experiences as a black woman. Profiling is of particular
concern to her.

“ I am singled out at the airport a lot more than white people are, and that’s human nature,
to be afraid of difference,� she said after mentioning that in the long list of names of
people detained by the feds so far, “exactly two names are not Arab.�

Stewart also mentioned the country’s homegrown Oklahoma City bombing and said “in
that instance, we had a terrorist act committed by a white man and we did not go to war
against the Midwest – yet we’re feeding on that type of fear now.�

She concluded by saying that “as a black person, it’s really troubling to me to see some of
this stuff and I’m really glad to see that so many white people are troubled as well.�

Meserve is one of them. A municipal representative of the City’s activist community, he’s
worried that the term “terrorist� will be extended to “nonviolent demonstration.�

He asked how someone who’s had due process rights denied can implement court
processes. And he added that if the Patriot Act “ is indeed harmless, this ordinance does
nothing anyway... this ordinance does one thing and one thing only – it protects people
from having their rights denied by the government.�

Mayor Bob Ornelas views the administration of President George Bush as a mechanism of
“faith-based bigotry.� He thinks support of Bush’s directives indicates “a naivete, and
belief based on political preference.�

Ornelas said he’s glad to live in a place that upholds liberal ideals. “I do not trust the feds,
I do not trust George Bush and I feel like introducing this ordinance is a way to express
my distrust and protect people from hatred and bigotry.�

(Councilmember Elizabeth Conner was not able to attend the meeting due to a medical
emergency involving surgery. “I’m looking forward to jumping back in to council business
and a normal life,� she said later.)

The council agreed to add a clause to the ordinance that specifies the City will provide
legal support to employees charged with violating federal law. The ordinance had
originally included all City employees, but the focus was narrowed to management at the
request of employee unions.

The ordinance will be voted on – and, it appears, approved – at the March 19 council
meeting.

Arcata City Council passes “Anti-Patriot Act� ordinance
By Daniel Mintz, Eye Reporter
April 7, 2003
In what has been heralded as a historic move, the Arcata City Council has passed a law
that resists the U.S. Patriot Act – but the Boston Tea Party it isn't.
Comments from councilmembers and City officials prior to adopting the law indicate that
there is only a very remote chance that it will ever be tested.
But there is plenty of symbolic significance behind the ordinance, which was adopted at
the City Council's April 2 meeting. When the law goes into effect in 30 days, it will be a
municipal offense for any City management employee to voluntarily comply with federal
agents who make unconstitutional requests under the authority of the Patriot Act.
The ordinance cites the Patriot Act's provisions for searches and access to confidential
records as unconstitutional. When the City law was first proposed, little controversy
emerged but there were lots of questions about what would happen if the feds actually ask
City of Arcata employees to assist their Patriot Act-sanctioned investigations.
It appears that the possibility is so unlikely that it isn't worth a substantial analysis. Even if
the new municipal law is met with federal pressure, the City Council could discuss striking
it to sidestep legal issues.
And an employee who violates the ordinance and complies with unconstitutional requests
would be subjected to the same penalty that's levied for any first-time infraction offense: a
$57 fine.


August 18: Letter to the Editor
The People Are With Us

Just read about the brave stance of your city council regarding the so-called "Patriot Act."
I have been a military man all my life, and have served in the defense of my country for
some almost 50 years... And, as such, I think I am a credentialed, card carrying member of
the "establishment." I have demonstrated that I love my country.
I only say this because I want to separate myself from the "communist, hippie,
anti-American" genre that the people in Washington want us to believe that anyone who
stands for the American Dream in opposition to federal policy is....
You are taking a stand for my country. Not the military adventures for oil and gold. Not
the arrogant posturing for power and wealth.
But for a simple, American "thing."
That "thing" holds that every American possesses a life that is inviolate of any and every
law provided he or she cannot be proven to have broken a law, that we are all free and
sovereign individuals and that no power can intrude on our personal lives without just and
documentable cause.
But, then, you know that. And I am just writing to tell you that, all over this United States
of America, we, the People, are with you.
The American Dream doesn't exist in Washington. It resides in small towns of individual
people like you, who possess the courage to stand up and say... "Not in my town."
You go, guys.

I wish I could get my little town to stand up too.