On August 14, 2003, at approximately
4:10 p.m., the power went out in Detroit, and the entire northeast United
States. Our secretary was trapped in the elevator. The Greyhound bus
driver’s union is on the same floor and their secretary heard
her shouting. She gathered help and was able to pry open the door about
an inch. We pushed wet towels and water through the opening.
For over three hours, we
talked and worried. Finally, the fire department showed up and cracked
the door, catching Matty as she crawled out. She had been a genuine
trooper and justifiably raised her fist in triumph. Working people had
indeed triumphed over an unnecessary tribulation. As Matty said, what
else could we do? No money offered and none requested.
About two hours into the
ordeal, someone identified Enron as the cause of the problem. Most people
responded with bewilderment. As explained, the crisis arose out of the
failure to maintain and upgrade transmission lines. Enron had spent
millions promoting deregulation and exploiting the energy system. Importantly,
Enron spent millions buying political support. Then Enron sucked out
of the system approximately $70 to $100 Billion. This capital would
have provided the necessary capital to insure a functioning system.
Instead millions of people “made do” on August 14, and 15,
2003. Meanwhile, the people who exploited the deregulation lived comfortably
in one of their numerous luxurious homes.
The media, of course, provided
little or no explanation, analysis, or insight into the cause of the
problem other than to point fingers. We get minor revelations here and
there, but we are given a make believe world. The first thought that
entered people’s mind was terrorism. The myths are so pervasive,
the distortions so extreme that we fail to recognize how propaganda
distorts our reality. In many ways, what happened was far worse than
terrorists could ever accomplish. Deregulation destroys our economy,
our democracy, and our quality of life, as is occasionally acknowledged
in the media.
“But deregulation
hasn’t worked, for three basic reasons. First, there is a fairly
fixed demand for electricity and generating capacity is tight, so
companies that produce it enjoy a good deal of power to manipulate
prices. The Enron scandal, which soaked Californians for tens of billions
of dollars, was only the most extreme example. California authorities
calculated that a generating company needed to control just 3 percent
of the state’s supply to set a monopoly price.
Second, the idea of creating large national markets to buy and sell
electricity makes more sense as economic theory than as physics, because
it consumes power to transmit power. “It’s only efficient
to transmit electricity for a few hundred miles at most,” says
Dr. Richard Rosen, a physicist at the Tellus Institute, a nonprofit
research group.
Third, under deregulation the local utilities no longer have an economic
incentive to invest in keeping up transmission lines. Antiquated power
lines are operating too close to their capacity. The more power that
is shipped long distances in the new deregulated markets, the more
power those lines must carry.
In addition, in the old days of regulation, a utility like Con Ed
would be required to regularly submit a resource plan to a state’s
public service commission. The two organizations would forecast demand
and decide how much money should be invested in power plants and transmission
lines. Rates would be adjusted to cover costs. Under deregulation,
however, nobody plays that crucial planning role.
Much of the Southeast, by contrast, has retained traditional regulation—and
cheap, reliable electricity.
When the blackout hit on Thursday, many of us first thought of terrorists.
What hit us may be equally dangerous. We are hostage to a delusional
view of economics that allowed much of the Northeast to go dark without
an enemy lifting a finger. (Robert Kuttner, NYT, 8/16/03, page A25)
Paul Krugman explained:
Four years ago, Paul Joskow
of M.I.T. told FERC: “Proceeding on the assumption that, at the
present time, the market will provide needed network transmission enhancements
is the road to ruin. And so it was. (Krugman, NYT, 8/19/03, page A23)
Deregulation is the general
theory that justifies and promotes privatization. Both are founded on
the myth that the market works. Market failures are rampant, silent
debacles, never discussed and never investigated. And more importantly,
never anticipated. Believe it or not, that is why this discussion leads
to police brutality. When it comes to public policy, the failure of
private companies to provide necessary service must be discussed, exposed,
and anticipated because use of market mythology leads to disaster.
That is why this long discussion
is a necessary precondition to any analysis of the recent contract between
the City of Detroit and Kroll Incorporated. At a very steep price, Kroll
has been hired by the City of Detroit to monitor the city’s police
department. Pursuant to the Consent Judgment entered on June 12, 2003,
Kroll, a private company, will be hired to “monitor” the
violence visited on Detroit citizens.
To take a step back, the
question of police brutality has a long and sordid history especially
in Detroit (Whose Detroit by Heather Thompson). But this particular
chapter begins in middle 1990’s with several police killings.
Even that statement is too
limiting. Police killings and brutality are endemic to this country,
and certainly Detroit has no corner on the market when it comes to suffering
at the hands of the police. But we must begin somewhere and discuss
the immediate problem. With the Consent Judgment and the hiring of Kroll,
the citizens of Detroit face three points in issue, which must be recognized,
classified, and discussed in some organized fashion.
Firstly, we live in a globalized
economic system that exploits and oppresses our citizenry. The economic
unfairness leads to an unjust judicial system that punishes working
people and ignores the crimes of the rich. The police are therefore
assigned the task of controlling a population that rebels against both
the oppression and the exploitation.
Secondly, the police use
force, sometimes deadly force, to secure control. The assumption underlying
the hiring Kroll is that force is a necessary part of this control as
long as it is done in a professional manner.
Thirdly, the City of Detroit
is starved of funds because private companies have insured that taxes
will not be paid in an equitable manner. As a result, the police force
is inadequately trained and often the raw use of force is so brutal
and unrestrained, the pretense of impartiality is eliminated.
That was the case in the
murder of Malice Green, an unemployed steelworker. The murder was so
brutal, so pointless, and so savage that even the globalized media could
not ignore it. During the year of 1997, the Detroit Coalition against
Police Brutality more or less formed with the leadership of Gloria House,
Marg Parsons and Ron Scott.
Linking up with the October
22 movement, a national “organization” building a movement
against police brutality, the Detroit Coalition began to accumulate
information, attend vigils and expose the pattern of brutality. Providing
a focus for stored up grievances, the Detroit Coalition against Police
Brutality was soon overwhelmed given its under funded organizational
basis. In spite of those weaknesses, the Coalition was nevertheless
able to respond. With information pouring in, it became clear that Eugene
Brown had a history of violence and brutality. On September 21, 1996,
Eugene Brown savagely murdered LaMar Grable. Even though the evidence
revealed that Brown had been involved with several killings and beatings,
the Detroit Police Department was unresponsive.
Focusing on the murder of
Lamar Grable, the Detroit Coalition began to take demands to the City
Council including a demand for hearings. Setting up forums to air grievances,
the coalition was again able to focus pent up frustrations of the Detroit
citizenry. The Coalition was flooded with reports of killings, beatings,
insults and unfair charges. With only a modicum of analysis, the pattern
and practice of police activity became apparent. The necessary conclusion
that something had to be done was easily supported by a growing body
of factual information.
Eventually, Arnetta Grable,
Lamar Grable’s mother contacted the federal government, Janet
Reno’s office, to initiate an investigation of the Detroit Police
Department. She was convinced that some outside body was needed. At
the time of LaMar’s murder, Mayor Dennis Archer, now president
of the American Bar Association, declared that LaMar Grable was a criminal
trying to kill police officers. (Michigan Citizen 8/23/03, page A4).
Also, Sheila Murphy Cockrell demanded an investigation. She had been
active in the 1960’s investigating police brutality.
On August 6, 2003, a jury
awarded Arnetta Grable $4 million for the killing of her son. Eugene
Brown continues to work for the Detroit Police Department. The jury
assessed the facts including the arguments of the city and concluded
that excessive force had been used. This conclusion was reached even
though much of the most damning evidence had been excluded from the
jury’ consideration by the judge. Even with bias in favor of the
police, the jury’s collective wisdom supported a democratic verdict.
The most salient aspect of
this history is that the initiative for the investigation, the energy
that sustained the inquiry into police activity was Detroit citizens.
They formed the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality, sustained
it with their own contributions, called on the media to report what
was happening, contacted the city council, and laid bare the repeated
acts of police misconduct. It was their perseverance and demands for
justice that moved the government, the judiciary and other agencies
to respond. And this was all done without compensation.
Significantly, from 1997
to 2003, the total budget for the Detroit Coalition ranged somewhere
between $10,000.00 and $20,000.00. Because much work was volunteered
and because individuals dipped into their own pockets, the amount is
not clear. The range, however, is from ten thousand to twenty thousand,
not millions, as corporations would demand for the same amount of work.
What is clear is that the dedication, commitment and persistence of
Detroit citizens sustained the investigation to this date.
Of course, giving credit
where credit is due, the Detroit Police Department continued its violent
ways bringing new blood, so to speak, into the movement.
As a result, the federal
and local governments have entered a Consent Judgment. This Consent
Judgment, however, excludes the people who brought it about. It does
not even provide for their nominal participation.
Alleging to be setting up
an “independent monitor”, the Consent Judgment turns over
the evaluation of police activity to a “private” company.
Kroll Incorporated, a risk consulting company. Kroll, Inc is not a private
company; it is a publicly held corporation that trades on the New York
stock exchange. That is important because incorporation shields all
the officers from liability. Incorporated in Delaware, it has outstanding
39,985,035 shares of common stack outstanding. (Annual Report 12/31/02)
With all this enormous wealth,
Kroll nevertheless is completely shielded for responsibility for implementation
of the Consent Judgment. The Consent Judgment states:
“92. Neither the
Monitor [Kroll Inc] nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained
be the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement
shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the
Monitor’s performance pursuant to this Agreement. Provided,
however, that this paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before
a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring
this agreement.” (Page 23 of the Consent Judgment.)
In other words, this wealthy
publicly held and publicly protected company, which will be paid a huge
sum of money by the City of Detroit, assumes no responsibility for the
effectiveness of its activity. As with all privatizing projects, the
company appropriates all the profit, privilege, and perks but imposes
on the citizens all the risks, losses, hazards, and liabilities.
On August 4, 2003, the
City of Detroit law department submitted a Motion to Approve the Monitor’s
budget:
“The Monitor has agreed to perform the services outlined for
a flat fee, to wit:
Professional
fees |
$1,250,000
per annum for five (5) Years |
Plus
actual expenses |
Not
to exceed 15% of the Professional fee” |
For a total of $7,187,000.00, Kroll Inc will do what the Detroit Coalition
has accomplished for the last 6 years for less $20,000.00. But Kroll
will have access denied to the Detroit Coalition and resources never
available to the Coalition. But, in fact, any reasonable prediction
is that Kroll will provide less service and even less success than
the Coalition has provided.
Kroll will produce a series
of reports but will have no responsibility to implement recommendations.
The City of Detroit, having spent a large sum of money for these reports,
will then claim lack of funds to set up a review board that is accountable.
In order to prepare these reports, Kroll must spend time contacting
people in the precincts, finding who is reliable, determine who can
be trusted for accurate information and determine who will follow through
with proposals. In other words, Kroll will have established a matrix
of cultural contacts that can be utilized to understand procedures,
good and bad, that are regularly followed by the police department.
Then having obtained these contacts, having prepared these reports,
all of this knowledge and all of these methods of operation will be
ripped out, Kroll will leave and the City of Detroit will be left with
nothing to insure the continuing safety of its citizenry.
And that is best possible
scenario. Other problems include the fact that Kroll comes in with a
bias in favor of the police, its investigators have no street experience,
and many times no working class experience. There is a very real possibility
that the reports will miss important information only available to the
people active in the community.
The question presented is
why the City of Detroit is spending so much money to accomplish so little.
Apparently, powerful interests
have decided that the reason excessive force has been a common practice
of the Detroit Police Department; the reason so many citizens have been
killed and beaten is simply the unprofessional actions of a few poorly
trained police officers.
But there are many other
issues to be addressed. Historically, the Detroit Police Department
was a bastion of overt racism and right wing ideology, contending that
the Black community is violent and iniquitous. That ideology is encompassed
in the view that the problem is simply unprofessional activity. The
oppression and exploitation that engenders the necessity for control
is swept under the rug.
Police officers are workers
just as all people in Detroit. But Eugene Brown has proven that the
changing the face of the police force is a necessary but insufficient
reform. The ideology that requires such force must be addressed. The
police force is charged with control of a population that is oppressed
and exploited. The laws relative to drugs are unjust and unfair. When
Enron officials steal billions, nothing is done. When an addict needs
relief, he risks his life and limb.
For the City of Detroit to
address the insanity of a system that is unfair and undemocratic at
every level of government, institutions must be built carefully so that
protection of our citizenry is primary.
