Stonewall Uprisings: 6 Activists Who Made History

History has an amazing and profound impact on how we move through society. As a gay teenager, I was never taught about the queer and trans movement work and if any gay figures were mentioned, their gayness surely wasn't. Bayard Rustin wasn't talked about in the Civil Rights Movement and I certainly never heard of Larry Kramer or ACT-UP. I figured we didn't have a history. My image of gay life was pretty much what it was for me as a teenager: closeted, miserable and irrelevant to society.

A black and white image of several gay, lesbian, bi+ and trans resisters outside of historic Stonewall Inn.

It would be a major fallacy to pretend gay rights in the United States began in 1969. It would ignore history and resistance, both subtle and loud, throughout the land. It would ignore the Compton Cafeteria Riots, the gay men's sip-ins and the many who risked their lives and liberty to challenge college campus lavender scares. However, the Stonewall Riots is certainly a pinpoint in history of change in the making. Every year, in June, we celebrate Pride Month to commemorate the Stonewall riots, although it has certainly been corporatized and far removed from its origins now.

Like all aspects of history, the Stonewall Riots has been dragged through convenient told tales that fit narratives and agendas. It has been whitewashed and ciswashed. The fact that many resisters were sex workers (called "hustlers" then) is ignored. The very fact that it was a riot and an uprising, in which the state, represented through the New York Police Department were the antagonists and met with force, is often downplayed or ignored. This is why police at pride is a subject of much discussion, especially by Stonewall Veterans themselves.

Below, I am going to explore six Stonewall Veteran's and their legacies, before and beyond Stonewall itself. Stonewall was a moment in time, albeit a very important one, it does us justice to continue learning about historic key figures beyond their most infamous moments (ex: Rosa Parks work in Detroit is super important--but we seldom hear about more than the Montgomery Bus Boycott.)

We also must remember that each Stonewall veteran, like all other activists, are human beings, with existences BEYOND their activism, likes and dislikes, personality flaws, bad days, etc. It is important to not dehumanize activists by idolizing them beyond the possibility of flaw. Also, be advised, that below is not an exhaustive list. Everyone involved in the events that took place is important but only six are featured here today.

Marsha P. Johnson
A black transgender drag queen, known in part for throwing a brick at New York Police Department.


Marsha "Pay It No Mind" Johnson was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey on August 24, 1945 and would later be known lovingly as the "Mayor of Christopher Street'. Christopher Street is part of the gay district in historic Greenwich Village and Johnson was known to be a warm and welcoming voice to those traveling down Christopher Street. Known to sometimes have a hot temper, she ultimately had a servant's heart and a fiery passion for liberation. As with many drag performers, she was known to be quick-wit, sharp with the tongue and quite humorous. Extremely generous, if you complimented her shawl or her bracelet, she was known to hand it to you and tell you how good it looked on you as well. 

In her own words, Marsha describes what Stonewall was and the beginning of the riots. At first, Stonewall was an exclusive men's only club but they eventually opened up to women. Once they started drag shows, Marsha boasts she was one of the first performers to hit the stage! In her experience, usually people did not get arrested in the raids at this particular club (its Mafia owners usually paid off the police), so Stonewall Riots night itself was particularly intriguing. That day, on June 28, 1969, according to Marsha, she was uptown when she got word that there was a "disturbance" happening at Stonewall. The resistance began at 1:20 a.m. and Marsha stepped on the scene at around 2 a.m. David Carter, author of Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution, credits Marsha as one of the three most pivotal activists to push the Stonewall riots into a gay rights revolution. Many accounts have stated it was, in fact, Marsha that threw a brick toward the New York Police Department, in an act of defiant resistance. Previous claims also indicated she threw a shot glass through a window, dubbed "the shot glass heard around the world".

In late 1969, Marsha was founding member of the Gay Liberation Front, an organization established by Morris Kight. Marsha found acceptance within this organization among ridicule from others, with its own newspaper, known as Come Out, stating: 
“Gay Liberation Front welcomes any gay person, regardless of sex, race, age or social behavior. Though some other gay organizations may be embarrassed by drags or transvestites*, GLF believes that we should accept all of our brothers and sisters unconditionally."

*transvestites was not a slur when used within the community in 1970.

In 1970, along with Sylvia Rivera, Marsha Johnson created Street Transvestites Action Revolutionaries, an organization for "street gay [and transgender] people" and "anyone in need". Marsha herself was a sex worker, as was Sylvia, and the two of them often used sex work as a means to an end for not only themselves but for the youth they supported. Their goals were to ensure the safety and dignity of the often-excluded queer and trans youth and give them guidance. STAR itself has been used a blueprint for many modern-day LGBTQ homeless initiatives. STAR was also a caucus of the Gay Liberation Front.

In August of 1970, through GLF, Marsha co-organized a sit-in at the Weinstein Hall. According to Sylvia Rivera, a co-organizer, the group took over the Weinstein Hall for a period of three days because the plug was going to be pulled on a show that was scheduled because it was to feature queer performers. 

It was out of this act of defiance, that STAR was born. Here's the official statement of the direct action by the activists, as seen from this page.

At some point around this time, Marsha was arrested for assaulting two police officers, in which she hit them over the head with a handbag, allegedly containing bricks in them. She was also arrested for "prostitution". 10-20 community members met in the courthouse to support her as she faced a woman judge. At the time, women judges were known to be animus to trans women particularly. Marsha appeared in a dress but no wig, while the the officers, described as two big bulky cops, appeared in bandages with black eyes. When asked why she was "prostituting", she exclaimed she needed a tombstone for her husband, who was "shot by pigs". When asked why she assaulted the officers, she states they had not identified themselves and as such, she had thought she was being robbed (not an unusual experience for trans or drag queens in New York). Unfortunately, Marsha was given 90 days for this incident. You can watch a video of this being described by a friend who attended the courthouse here.

In 1978, in a bid to respectability politics and cisnormativity, gay, lesbian and bi+ cisgender organizers did their best to exclude Marsha and Sylvia Rivera from a gay pride march. This was a move that was met with little success, as the duo jolted passed the tape and to the front of the line, proudly strutting off and posing for the cameras, in honor of the work they had contributed. 

Throughout the 1980's, Marsha continued her activism. Resilient as she had always been, Marsha performed important work for the revolutionary AIDS crisis response group, known as ACT-UP, which formed amidst a sea of death in 1987. During this time, Marsha worked alongside a community suffering both physically and emotionally into forcing radical change, through the form of mutual aid health care, illegal retro-viral medications, education and protest.  In 1990, she herself was diagnosed as HIV positive. 

Marsha died on July 6, 1992. Although the New York Police Department ruled her death a suicide, the community did not agree with this. Randy Wicker, her long-time friend and roommate since about 1980, among others, formed a community vigil and began their own investigation efforts but were met with adversity and resistance from the authorities. 

In regard to the statues placed in Christopher Park to honor the gay movement, Marsha had this to say: ""Now they got two little nice statues in Chariot Park to remember the gay movement. How many people have died for these two little statues to be put in the park for them to recognize gay people? How many years has it taken people to realize that we are all brothers and sisters and human beings in the human race? I mean how many years does it take people to see that? We're all in this rat race together!"

Fun fact: She was also part of the New York avant-drag performance group, the Hot Peaches!

Jerry Hoose

Jerry Hoose was different than many of the gay men of his time. Born in 1945 and into a world where upward of 99% of gay men stayed in the closet for safety, Jerry was already out and proud by 1969. He spent much of his social life perusing Christopher Street, drinking at Stonewall and eating at the Silver Dollar. Self-described as a wild guy, he hopped between boyfriend to boyfriend but found peace in the consistency that the gay scene had to offer. Having embraced his gayness since the age of 12, he had always dreamed of living in the glamorous Greenwich Village, which eventually came true 

In an interview, Jerry describes the night that would historically become the Stonewall Uprising. June 28, 1969. Similarly to Marsha, he wasn't on the scene quite at 1:20 AM when it happened--rather, he got a call from a beloved friend who urged him to run to the scene! He says it took him 40 minutes, so he arrived at 2:00am (or just after) and recalls seeing Marsha and other drag queens fiercely in the moment of tension, singing the famous "We are the Stonewall Girls" song. 

One of the most interesting memories Jerry holds was, as he described, a self-loathing gay man interfering with the riot and restraining a gay rioter, holding him toward the New York Police Department to help the NYPD control the situation. 

Jerry also remembers trying to gather the crowd to march to city hall--but they weren't so much interested in that! Or perhaps they hadn't heard him among the chaos.

In his own words, Jerry recalled that the Stonewall Uprising was his first glimmer of hope as a gay man. He spoke of how often men like him were left to be humiliated and attacked by the NYPD and the public and how helpless he often felt, with no one jumping in or fighting back. He also recounted that, the night of at least, politics or even revolution wasn't on the forefront of his mind--rather, unveiling years of anguish and anger took center. 

Like Marsha, in late 1969, Jerry took the uprising and joined the Gay Liberation Front--hellbent on radical change for the gay community, politically and socially.

Gay Liberation Front was radical in it's essence, with the goal of challenging everything from masculinity, monogamy, gender roles and even the church itself. Jerry was particular to engaging in cruising--a term designated usually for gay men who met with other men in specific hook up spots. During such engagements, Jerry and members of the GLF would pass out political information to politicize the gay and bi+ men in the encounters.

Jerry was also known to hang around Christopher Street, monitoring the area for police and providing a warning to the street workers to be on the lookout.

When the Gay Liberation Front decided to start a dance troupe, Jerry was one of the organizers delegated the task and such Alternate U was born. Alternate U was a refreshing alternative to the bar scene and was a totally queer space, circumventing the control of the Italian Mafia. It welcomed men and women to come and dance with one another in a free space. For many queer people who attended, it was the first time they could love freely in any type of public space, a moment that Jerry believed brought that glimmer of hope into the eyes of many more. Naturally, GLF always managed to put together political aspects of each event. This information is according to Out for Good by Dudley C. and Adam N.

As the hands of time took their toll, Jerry became vocal of the ageism he saw in his beloved community. He began to focus his efforts on SAGE, or Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elderly. Part of these efforts included panel discussions designed to educate the youth on the history of the Stonewall Uprising and the efforts that occurred after.

In 2015, Jerry passed away at the age of 69, reportedly with the same "loud Brooklyn accent" he had always held.

Storme' Delarverie
"Why don't you guys do something about it?!"



Storme' was a radical activist, lesbian and drag king performer, known to many as the catalyst to the Stonewall Uprising in her efforts to physically resist. Born December 24, 1920, at least she thinks, because due to anti-interracial mixing laws, she was never issued a birth certificate, in New Orleans, she was the daughter of white father and black mother, certainly not a popular mixing in the 1920's South. As a result of this, she faced much bullying by her peers.

As a child, she participated in the Ringling Brothers Circus, where she was an avid horse rider, a role she took part in until she was injured in a fall. Near the age of eighteen, she reconciled with herself that she was a lesbian. 

During the 1940's, Storme' explored her musical talent as a singer for a jazz band. Throughout the 1950's, Storme' performed as a drag king, though the term was popularly known as male impersonator at the time. A trendsetter of sorts, her willingness to publicly dress in a masculine form gave the courage to other lesbians to do the same. Plus, she had the support of the love of her life, her partner Diana.

Storme' particularly hated the designation of "Stonewall riots" and preferred the term rebellion instead. 

"Move along, faggot." an NYPD officer yelled to her. As usual, she was dressed in male garb and as such was addressed as a gay man.

After witnessing her friend being assaulted, she is said to have threw a punch at an officer, which led to an arrest.

With her handcuffs too tight, she began to voice her concerns to the NYPD, who responded by hitting her with a baton. "Why don't you guys do something about this?" she yelled to the gay men on the block. And they did! Her vocalization is said to have moved many from fear to action.



After the bustle, she later served on the Stonewall Veteran's Association and as a lead member of New York Pride. Not a long time later, her girlfriend Diana passed away and it is said that Storme' continued to carry her picture everywhere she went. Not afraid to defend herself--or her baby girls, as she called the lesbian community--she had a gun permit and patrolled the streets in the 1980's, checking to make sure no men or police were causing any trouble. In an essence, she was often considered a guardian of sorts for queer women.

“She literally walked the streets of downtown Manhattan like a gay superhero,” [Lisa]. Cannistraci said. “She was not to be messed with by any stretch of the imagination.”

She served as a bouncer, a role she continued until she was 85.

In 2010, she had moved into a nursing home and was diagnosed with dementia. In May 2014, at the age of 93, she passed away and left behind an amazing and critical legacy.

Thomas Lanigan-Schmidt

Thomas Lanigan-Schmidt was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey in 1948. An artist--he was a student of Pratt Institute in New York City in 1966 but was rejected for a higher education at Cooper Union for admitting to being openly gay in his admission papers. 

He described the world of being a gay man in the 1960's as tough and a place where the threat of violence was always around the corner. 

In an interview, he discussed knowing he was gay but lacking the language to describe it. He did not find any type of organization or cause to help him approach being gay until New York--but he could not find himself aligning with the stuffy, respectable crowd at the Mattachine Society. As a self-described street kid, he find it impossible to relate to their reality. 

When discussing his fellow street gays, he recalls that it was very hard to "box them in" general terms. Many of them faced horrible abuse at the hands of their parents and had runaway, others had been forced out onto the streets. Many were on the defense and ready to fight, even at the tap of a shoulder. 

Already situated outside due to the high volume of attendees on June 28, 1969, Thomas missed the inside scuffles but bore witness to the movement as it was born on the exterior of Stonewall Inn. Similarly to Jerry, he found this moment to a beacon of hope and the come-uppance of the gay community. In this moment, Thomas says, "he saw the light". 

While he is not a world renowned artist, he has certainly had his share of critical acclaim for his work. He produced art throughout the 1970s, often depicting queerness sometimes even integrated with Christianity. He has appeared in documentaries both about Stonewall and his art.

As of the time of this writing, he is still living.

Raymond Castro

I didn't know I was going to be part of history!

Raymond Castro is a native of Puerto Rico and was present inside Stonewall on June 28, 1969. Little did he know he would be part of history! Unlike the aforementioned Stonewall Veterans, Castro was actually arrested and detained by New York Police Department that fateful day. 

He didn't go in the paddywagon without a fight though. Probably incentived by Storme's appeal earlier, he fought the NYPD off as much as he could--but unfortunately, they restrained him. In fact, the officer even exclaimed, "you must be some kind of animal!"

As early as his teenage years, he can recall perusing Christopher Street with a group of friends from fashion design--where he would mingle and associate with other queer people. He fondly remembers the bars, including Stonewall, as a positive place where you could listen to popular music and watch people dance with members of the same gender, somewhat freely. That was, except of course, prior to a raid when the light warning lights would chime on. 

Yet, that June 28, 1969, time stood still as the events unfolded. While stuck inside facing arrest, he can recall the unison of chanting from the outside resisters, yelling for pigs to go home and throwing loose change. 

Raymond continued to be as involved in gay activism as he could be. He spent a happy 30+ years with his partner Frankie and migrated to Florida, living near the City of Tampa. 

This was a far stretch from the double life he had lived for so many years. Trying to fit in a heteronormative life, he married in 1962 at the age of 20 but had no children. They both knew there was no love in their relationship but for Raymond it made life much easier to have a picture of a wife to show off. 

In October of 2010, Raymond died at the age of 68.

Yvonne "Butch" Ritter

Born in 1951 to a Roman Catholic Brooklyn family, Yvonne is a transgender woman. In June 1969, homosexual sex and "crossdressing" was illegal in every state except Illinois. As such, Yvonne was no stranger to police harassment and raids. She had just turned 18 on June 27, 1969  and was out celebrating her birthday that evening. Dressing in what she called drag at the time, she often worried about facing arrest for being herself if she was clocked--though she continued to do so. 

Yvonne recounts stories of seeing the white warning light trigger on--that's when you had to make sure you weren't dancing with anyone of the same gender and that your hands were visible, lest you become accused of doing something you shouldn't with your hands out of sight.

Interestingly, Yvonne can recall some of the gay men discussing Judy Garland's funeral. This is relevant because some historians believe-although without solid evidence-that Judy Garland's death ignited some of the rage and fight in the gay community.

"How am I gonna explain this: in my mother's dress?" she stewed from the paddywagon, having been one of the "crossdressers" taken into custody by the New York Police Department. That's when she heard the sound of loose change being thrown at the paddywagon and the racket from the resistance outside. 

Though she feared the riots would make the local news, including images of her, luckily it never happened--and her parents never discovered she was out in the gay village celebrating that evening.

After transitioning, she went to college where she later became nurse. As a nurse, she spent much of the 1980's providing compassionate care to gay men who fell victim to the AIDS Crisis in a time when many medical professionals turned away such patients. 

As of this writing, Yvonne is still living.

There are many other wonderful individuals who were involved in the riots who continued to do work thereafter and their stories should all be heard and told. Surely, eventually, I will do a follow-up piece on another six!

Servant Leadership

When I think about workplaces, one of the most amazing aspects is how often people find their supervisors or managers to be incompetent, uncaring, inefficient or otherwise a negative individual to work for.

People aren't just quitting jobs, they are leaving managers. Let's face it, most of us already don't want to go to work. Not as many of us as we'd hope are working our dream jobs. We have to go to work, to pay our bills, eat, have shelter and have health care access. That is how capitalism works. We can talk all day about changing that structure but in the meantime, we need to survive where we are.

Since we have to be at work to survive, it might as well be the most enjoyable experience. We've seen people make the best out of the most mundane jobs, from parking attendants, to cashiers and janitors. There's no reason why we can't make workplaces pleasant.

But most managers do not have what it takes to lead, especially with Millenials and Generation Z workers coming in full force.

This is why I am so passionate about what is called Servant Leadership. Coined as a term by Robert Greenleaf in 1970. I should note, just because Greenleaf coined the term in 1970 does not mean the methodology was born in 1970. He just put an academic spin on it and helped bring the concept into the mainstream light.

Greenleaf now has an organization that touches on this subject.

“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first."

At first, it might sound counter intuitive. For so long, especially in my upbringing, we had an impression of a boss telling us what to do, when to do it and reaming us out if we don't do it up to their standards. There's so many jokes, or "jokes" rather, about wishing the boss was sick or would take a vacation.

Bad bosses ruin everything.

Servant leadership also might sound like a "pushover" boss. But that's not what it is. It's still important--always important--to set boundaries and establish a line of command. Nobody wants to be walked over as a leader and if you blur the line too much, things don't get done and people lose respect for you as a boss. It requires a hearty balance.

True leaders, however, serve from the front. We need more of it in workplaces and in community activism.

Let's look at Hannah. Hannah runs a call center. As a manager, she makes it a point every Monday morning to do a walk-by for her staff. She checks in to see how everyone's weekend was and then asks about supplies. "Do you need any pens or pads?" She asks. Her staff have come to expect it. She is a servant leader. There are material benefits for this role for her.

For one, she is on the floor and developing relationships. Her staff knows who she is and that she is involved. While out there, she can see her staff in action without just directly "watching them."

For two, she is securing productivity. Her staff is not productive without the supplies they need and they may have to pause from sales calls for a moment to restock up, when she could do it in the morning.

She is killing two birds with one stone.

You may be thinking to yourself, well, if her staff was responsible, they'd know to refill before they're out of supplies. There's some truth to that but also some flaws. For one, if they're a busy and productive team, they may not even notice they're running out of supplies until it gets critical. Additionally, not everyone is as much of an independent leader, some people are just there for  ride, and Hannah can save time and face by filling in these gaps.

Think of the ripple effect as well. Say Hannah got caught up in a meeting and Julie notices she's out of pads and staples. Since Hannah isn't on the floor, Julie pauses her calls to restock up but with Hannah's leadership in mind, Julie takes a moment to ask her team if they need anything. This will pause her individual productivity while she's off the line but others do not have to pause because she had the foresight to dive in and help everybody else out. She saw her leader do it.

Leaders lead by example.

Is it a perfect formula? Nah. There's no such thing as perfect--in any work place under any style.

Think about Marla. Marla is the front-end team leader at popular and very busy grocery store. She knows the dinner rush is coming at five. She's got all twelve checkout lines open. All the breaks are scheduled for coverage. Now, Marla does a walk through. "Tiffany, how are you on change? Got a counterfeit pen? Rainchecks? What about you Charles? Oh, hey, Steve, you forget to put your nametag on after break, please put that on! Amanda, you said you were short on store ads? I'll get you some."

Would Marla be effective if all twelve had to go gather what they needed--probably at the last minute once it inconveniences a customer at the last minute? Not really. By being thoughtful and a servant, she's making her job easier in the long run.

But also--the cashiers are now more likely to have the time, energy and motivation to provide the service to their customers. People who feel heard and served and more likely to hear and serve.

It trickles from the top, truly. Also, notice how when she was doing her walkthrough, she caught that Steve forgot his nametag? Isn't it better that Marla caught that and not HER supervisor or an angry customer? If she hadn't done the walkthrough, it would never have happened.

Or Christine. Some of her staff work until 7pm although she herself only works until 5pm. It's tempting to run out the door but she examines the warehouse floor first. "Do you all need anything from me before I go?" Even if they don't, she has opened up an opportunity to have voices heard and she now can address needs to ensure productivity in her absence.

Old school style of management would tell you to never bother your boss, to be almost ashamed to have to ask for anything. That's why it's old school. It's time to graduate from that school and open your heart and minds to servant leadership.

You enrich the lives of your staff, you build trust, you catch mistakes and loafing, you develop ideas, you develop relationships. And most importantly, your staff is more likely to replicate this with their customers.

In a way, it is like treating your staff like customers--to a degree. Of course you still have to assert authority at times, as balance is the key to success, but you can do this with a servant's heart. To lead as a servant is to lead into success.

Resources on Servant Leadership:

https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/jvl/vol1_iss1/Spears_Final.pdf

https://www.skipprichard.com/9-qualities-of-the-servant-leader/

http://toservefirst.com/definition-of-servant-leadership.html

https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/7-secrets-of-servant-leadership-that-will-lead-you-to-success.html

https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/manage-servant-leadership

Reach for the Straz?

All of us in Tampa have attended events at David Straz Center (formerly the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center). It's a beacon of art, entertainment and music in the Tampa Bay Area.

Naturally, David Straz is a well known public figure. Using that clout, David Straz is putting in the bid to be Mayor of Tampa. Certainly an attractive choice considering he is a billionaire (like the President--and that's working out so great!) and has good business sense.

"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" is his own philosophy even! [2] Considering the City of Tampa has 21% poverty rate and 16% of Tampa cannot access health insurance, according to the Census Quick Facts [4], perhaps not everyone in the City has the opportunity to pick themselves up by the bootstraps. In fact, the myth of meritocracy in an inequitable City is dangerous in the minds of many children of color and poor children of all stripes because it simply is often not achievable due to systemic barriers. Such rhetoric is actually dangerous enough to cause children and young adults to engage is risky behavior. [5]

See this excerpt from the Atlantic about "picking yourself up by the bootstraps.":

"“If you’re in an advantaged position in society, believing the system is fair and that everyone could just get ahead if they just tried hard enough doesn’t create any conflict for you … [you] can feel good about how [you] made it,” said Erin Godfrey, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of applied psychology at New York University’s Steinhardt School. But for those marginalized by the system—economically, racially, and ethnically—believing the system is fair puts them in conflict with themselves and can have negative consequences."[5]

As if that wasn't scary enough, David the Rich also (unsurprisingly) voted for President Donald Trump in the 2016 election. He says he regrets this decision [2] and will not vote for him again in 2020 [1]. Actions speak louder than words, friend, besides that he has made many donations in his long life. It is true, sometimes he does donate to Democrats but in general, especially between 1998 to 2006, his largest donations go to the Republican Party [1]. 

Now, it is one thing to regret a vote. We all have, I am sure. I believe in making space for growth and that is the tenant's of restorative justice I preach so boldly. However, restorative justice isn't usually a process you develop when you decide to run for Mayor in a blue city and realize your problematic voting history will come to light. Aside from that, Straz would have to do years more worth of work in reparative work to undo the harm he supported. He was moved to vote for Trump in 2016. Let's remind the voting public of some of the soundbites of Trump's 2016 campaign:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

 In February, former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke had offered some support for Trump's campaign:  "I think he deserves a close look by those who believe the era of political correctness needs to come to an end." When CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Trump whether he would disavow the support, Trump replied, "Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?

"You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible."

During a town hall with MSNBC, moderator Chris Matthews asked Trump if there would be punishment for women who attempt to procure abortions after he hypothetically outlawed it: "The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment." Matthews asked him to clarify if he meant punishment for the woman seeking the abortion, and Trump responded, "Yes, there has to be some form." 

[6]

 That is only a small fragment of the abhorrent things that Trump said in 2016, before Straz casted his November 2016 vote. If he stood by and supported the misogyny, racism and xenophobia of Trump then, it is doubtful that he has reformed enough in the past two years to truly understand the full consequences of that. In order to verify, I thought I would review his platform.

Unfortunately, there isn't one. [3] Other than a notable name, what would Straz have to offer the City? Do not fall in love with celebrity--look at how that is working out in the White House.

Say No to Straz.

[1] https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/William-March-David-Straz-exploring-run-for-mayor-backs-away-from-Trump_162291684

[2] http://floridapolitics.com/archives/277724-david-straz-comes-out-with-four-early-endorsements-for-tampa-mayor

[3] https://davidstrazformayor.com/about-david/

[4] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/tampacityflorida

[5] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/internalizing-the-myth-of-meritocracy/535035/

[6] https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/blog-post/16-donald-trumps-most-controversial-statements

Democracy: Workplaces

For anyone that is interested, my viewpoint is that humans should have representative democracy at every level possible. From neighborhoods, to workplaces, to districts, to counties, etc. I believe that the more say we have, the more autonomy we can develop as a people and we can build a better word. Not a perfect world but a better world.

So, what about Democratic Workplaces? Surely, some philosophers smarter than I have come up with the same or a better idea but this is my idea.

WORKERS ARE THE SHAREHOLDERS 
In my vision, the workers are the shareholders and the only shareholders. This differs from the current structure. In the current structure, public companies can sell their stock to anyone with the money. As such, these random rich owners can buy a certain aEmount of the company's assets, and as such, they are the shareholders. Companies then work to the whim of building a profitable company for these distant shareholders of whom have no value to the actual company itself.

With this system, let's say you are given a certain percentage of stock shares for every 40th hour you work. Naturally, full-time employees would gain more stock than their part-time counterparts, in a more rapid succession, but everyone is valued equally. Since full-time employees put in more time, it is perfectly fair for them to accrue stock at a faster rate.

Because employees are the sole shareholders, the employees receive the dividends when and if the company profits. This is advantageous for many reasons. As an invested employee who is looking to maximize their earnings, everyone is more likely to work together to make money for the company. This means everyone will be equally invested in being productive employees, providing customer service and competitive, quality products. This is because employees will want the public to come to their business, so they can not only keep their jobs but make a profit together.

Once an employee resigns or is terminated, their shares are sold back to the company and they can cash out, allowing new employees to obtain the stock.

COMPANY CHARTERS
Company charters are sort of the Constitution of a corporation. In order to create an effective model of governance, each company would develop a charter that is created for and by the personnel, who are also the stakeholders. The charter would establish the groundwork of governance to provide guiding principles to all: such as a mission and vision statement, creation of managerial and leadership roles, the employee handbook, etc.

The charter would be a living document and reviewed at least once a year at conventions. During conventions, representatives from all over the company would be involved in crafting amendments and building a stronger, more time appropriate charter.

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION
The way democracy would work in the workplace would vary based on the size of the company. Let's say a company has 100 employees or less, in total. If that is the case, every employee would have a personal say in the operations of the company. In other words, every employee is equally a board of directors member. When decisions are being made, such as spending a certain dollar amount on advertising, bringing in a new consultant or remodeling the bathroom, it would have to be done election style, so all 100 (or less) employees can vote. Certain employees may be designated in specific roles based on expertise and that might make them more apt to suggest or propose items to be voted on in their area of expertise but anyone could do so. Instead of leaders, these experts would be looked at more of guides.

Once companies grow and get beyond 100 employees, it will become more difficult and cumbersome to have each individual in direct decision making. Instead, the model would go more into representative democracy which is more effective in larger quarters. Based on the charter, certain items might still be matters of direct democracy in which a decision of that magnitude might still have to be made by all employees.

Let's use Target Corporation as an example of a large corporation, so we can easily imagine what I'm talking about. Target has over 350,000 retail employees across the nation. That's a pretty large number. We're not even talking about corporate or distribution employees. There are 1,934 retail locations across the country. Let's imagine it this way:

Each store location would need to have representatives to serve the worker's total interests. Store employees would vote on representatives to serve as Worker Liaisons. With technology, it would be easy for people to participate in conventions no matter where they live. Let's say the charter requires that for every 100 employees in a location, there must be 2 representatives and that the representatives must be non-managers, full-time employees. They would have a set number of terms and an outline of responsibilities to their fellow store employees. A board of directors would also be elected (by the employees) and this board would create policies and procedures that are in-line with the company charter, mission and vision. The representatives that were elected by the store personnel would then vote on the actions, based on their understanding and interpretation of their fellow store employee's wishes. Examples of policies could be: human resources policies such as training, development, pay rates, benefits, termination policies; marketing protocols; philanthropic giving; everything from uniform appearance and scheduling requirements. In other words, the board of directors is like your company steering committee and the representatives are like the congress, taking to vote.

But also imagine a worker's initiative. In a worker's initiative, an employee of any type could launch a petition to steer the company in a different direction based on their imagination and goals, so long as their initiative is in line with the existing company charter. Any employee could be empowered to create this and then would take the lead on spreading it throughout their field location. Let's say the requirement is 60% of their fellow store employees must sign the petition for it to "pass". If that's the case, once it passes, it then moves through the entire company, through an electronic channel. If 60% of the company employees vote to approve it, then it would become policy and procedure. Let's put the example in real time:

Jim at Target Store 580 thinks that the company should utilize a new cleaner for the registers that is proven to have less chemicals and is more effective and even cheaper. Jim is just a regular cashier but is excited about the idea, so he launches the petition through an internal portal and his fellow employees are sold. 80% of store 580 votes in favor of this and as such, the petition is opened up to the entire company. Within a few months, Jim's passionate petition with facts and data listed gains traction and wins 60% of the company employees approval. As such, the board of directors is required to implement the new procedure within a reasonable amount of time. Now the company is utilizing this new cleaning supply, thanks to Jim's dedication and thoughtfulness.

Let's say Jim had not created the initiative but instead went to talk to one of the elected representatives, Kelly, about his idea. Kelly likes the idea and pitches it at the next governance meeting (let's say they happen monthly). Kelly enters a resolution to change the cleaning products at the store-level. The required number of representatives from across the company like her presentation and vote in favor. As such, the board of directors has been given direction to implement this procedural change.

This allows for two forms of representation and is all dependent, truly, on how passionate one is about their belief. In the first scenario, Jim was so confident in his idea he circumvented the elected representatives and went on his own: it was a risk because obtaining 60% approval of every Target employee is quite a feat. In the second scenario, Jim thinks its a good idea but would rather it go through the channels of representation. Kelly liked it and went with it and happened to be successful.

MANAGERS?
Yes, there would still be manager's, depending on the way the company's organizational chart is determined by the charter. Maintaining the Target example, the Guest Service area where the cashiers and customer service employees work would still have a Guest Services Manager to supervise, schedule, perform evaluations and administrative tasks. These tasks are necessary and not everyone has the leadership skills to monitor and run departments or stores. Remember, as shareholders, the goal is to be productive and profitable for everyone, so that means proper management and direction.

However, a charter could exist that allows employees to "demote" their manager if they're not happy with the performance. Whereas a department manager writes out employee evaluations, the employees of each department (and the whole store for store management) would evaluate their managers. If the managers score poorly, there could be protocol to remove them from their position. For example, let's say the Guest Service Manager receives a 20% approval rating in 2018. The company will provide the Guest Service Manager with training and leadership classes to build his skills and manage his team more efficiently. Let's say in 2019, he receives  25% approval rating. Better but still poor. The second step is to transfer the manager to a different Target store and provide more training: maybe a new environment will allow for better management. But let's say in 2020, at the new store, he still receives a 25% score. By this time, the company has discovered that he is just not an effective Guest Service Manager and he will now be moved back to a non-manager position for now.

Company's could determine this based on their charters that the worker's crafted, so smaller companies, for example, may have more intimate ways to evaluate employees.

WAGES AND BENEFITS
No, I don't believe in the model of everyone being paid an equal wage. I believe that wages should be, at minimum, a livable wage. However, employees of the company will ultimately decide the wages of each job classification based on their interpretation of it (in compliance with legal minimums). If Cashiers are paid $15.00, Customer Service Reps might be paid $18.00 and Guest Service Managers might be paid $25.00. But regardless of how employees are paid, everyone receives equal value in stock, so their dividends would be dependent on length of service (how many hours they've put in). 

Employees would have a say on benefits. Let's say that the addition or removal of benefits would require direct democracy no matter the company size because it is a decision that impacts everyone, both in the form of dividends and the form of compensation packages.

EXECUTIVE POSITIONS
No, I don't believe in the absence of executives/experts either. Not everyone is a marketing genius, a human resources expert, a real estate mogul or accounting guru. That's just a fact. People are allowed to be experts at things. It makes good sense for the shareholders (the employees) to ensure that qualified people are managing departments that bring the company success. Let's say Target had several executive positions: President, VP of Human Resources, VP of Marketing, VP of Finances, VP of Real Estate, VP of Procurement, VP of Operations, etc.

Perhaps the board of directors would recommend/nominate experts based on the minimum qualifications of the position, whether it be an active employee or someone from the outside. Each nominee presents their qualifications to the elected company representatives and as such, the representatives can vote on them. Every year, executives are evaluated by the representatives based on pre-determined metrics in the charter. Is the VP of Finances making good decisions based on our criteria? Is the VP of Human Resources utilizes the best technology to manage payroll and benefits? These are things that would be looked at, as the financial health of the company is everyone's business.

Naturally, the smaller the business is, the more involved everyone can be in a direct way. As companies grow, it makes sense to create governance that is sensible and representative. It makes it feasible and it makes it profitable. Profit doesn't have to be a dirty word anymore; because the worker's are obtaining the profit. It's not fat-cats sitting at the board of directors (they earn just as many shares based on a 40 hours of work as anyone else) that make all the decisions and keep the money. There's no wall street share. It's just simply for worker's, by worker's.

If the company isn't profitable, then the worker's will be the ones scrambling to create decisions: they'll oust poorly performing managers and executives, they'll demand new contractors in procurement and they'll vote new representatives to represent their region.

Would such a thing be perfect? Absolutely not. There's no such thing as perfect.

Non-profits would run similarly as far as governance but I suppose employee's couldn't be shareholders since they don't produce shares and profit (unless they do and I don't know about it). Nonetheless, perhaps, the score evener in that case would be more benefits or higher wages to make up for loss dividends and pensions.

Debate is welcome.

Tampa's Natural Castor Disaster

Former Police Chief Jane Castor has announced her bid to run for Mayor of Tampa on the 2019 ticket. She's certainly a tempting candidate. Tampa's first woman and first gay police chief, a 30 some year veteran of the police form and a staple in the community. But what does her legacy say about her work? In her own words, "it's up to the public to determine what kind of job I've done as Chief." [1]

Originally hired as a police officer in 1983, Castor elevated to the role of police chief in 2009 and held the role until 2015, when she retired from the position, amidst much controversy. [2]

It was a Tuesday night. 7:30 at night in the warmth of May in Tampa. A simple Knollwood Street home. Sleeping on the couch, 29 year old Jason Wescott is awoken to the sounds of his home being barged in by what may be intruders. Fearing for his safety, Wescott grabbed hold of his firearm but had not a moment to fire the gun.  [3]

"The officers have a split second to make a decision when faced with somebody who's armed," Castor said. A familiar line to anyone who's followed any story involving the police and shooting. [3]

Wescott's home wasn't broken into by your run of the mill intruder. Instead, it was the armed tactical police force, performing a raid based on a drug tip. Wescott was pronounced dead that evening and his partner, Israel Reyes, was arrested.  [3]

More alarmingly, Wescott only purchased the gun after the advice of the Tampa Police Department, under Castor. That's right--the same Tampa Police Department that later took his life "fearing for their lives" are the very reason Wescott had the gun in the first place. Months before, Wescott called the police fearful that someone was going to rob him and do him harm. A stranger partying at his house asked to borrow his phone and used it to message two other men, threatening to rob Wescott and possibly kill him. The police department's response: if anyone intrudes your home, grab a gun and shoot to kill. [3]

Someone did intrude his home. And he did attempt to shoot. But his intruder was the Tampa Police Department who shot to kill. [3]

Originally, the police spokes personnel told the public that a neighbor of Wescott's had complained about cannabis sales occurring out of the quiet Knollwood home. But that was a lie. In actuality, a paid police informant had made a series of purchases of cannabis from Wescott over the course of months, amounting to approximately $200. As a result of the informant's work, Wescott became a target to an intensive drug investigation.  [3]

At the scene of his death, there was, in fact, cannabis found. Exactly 0.2 grams which was approximately $2.00 worth. For $2.00, Wescott lost his life. As per usual, the State Attorney's Office did not prosecute and found the shooting to be justified. [3]

So did Chief Castor, "Mr. Wescott lost his life because he aimed a loaded firearm at police officers. You can take the entire marijuana [sic] issue out of the picture--if there's an indication that there is armed trafficking going on--someone selling narcotics [sic] while they are armed or have the ability to use a firearm--then the tactical response team will do the critical entry." [3]

The Times was unable to find any calls to police to neighbors to report any crime, which is where public records requests led to the information that a paid police informant had been used. [3] But why would the department lie about this and say a neighbor had been the initial reporter? Perhaps because informants had a bad reputation while under Castor. Rita Girven was one of the most notorious informants, so well-liked by the department that the Chief is seen posing with her in a selfie. Girven was responsible for up to 150 cases but was later found to be involved in a major corruption scandal so egregious that prosecutors may have had to drop charges against the 30 to 50 people she helped get into prison. Girven wasn't the only one in on the corruption; the corruption involved three other department personnel, all of whom eventually vacated their positions [4]

"The citations were a mistake," says the Mayoral candidate in 2018, just as she announces her bid. In 2015, the Department of Justice ran a scathing review of the department's stop and frisk policy that was implemented regarding biking in the City limits, popularly known as the biking while black report. [4] She says it's a mistake now but at the time she said the stop and frisk policy was a sound policy, "This is not a coincidence--many individuals receiving bike citations are involved in criminal activity." [5]

Eight out of ten, or 80%, of all bicycle related citations, ranging from riding the bike with hands removed from handlebars, wearing saggy clothing and/or bike light issues, were remitted to black residents, despite the fact that black residents only encompass 26% of the City's entire population. The amount of biking citations far exceeded those in comparable cities such as Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, St. Petersburg and Orlando. [4]

Castor's department's racial disparity does not end at bicycling. Each year in her ranks, black residents accounted for more than half of the City's total arrests, despite only accounting for 26% of the City's population. In 2009, her department's arrests accounted for 53% black, dropping only one percent in 2010. It raised back up to 53% in 2010 and increased to 54% throughout the rest of her time up to 2015 as Chief. The problem still persists today but Castor had a role and responsibility as leader to stop these disparities and chose not to. [6]

The idea of voting in a marginalized candidate, one who lives at the intersection of gay and woman, may be appealing. But one should not be so starstruck when that candidate led a corrupt department, full of scandal, overpolicing of poor and marginalized communities and disparities in citations and arrests across the board. Castor should not slide in with our votes if she cannot atone for her wrongdoings.

We do not need a "it is a mistake" analysis. We do not need comments like, "Given the hindsight, we wouldn't have used [stop and frisk]."[4]

Lives were destroyed under her leadership and undoubtedly community activists called it out--it's a question of whether or not she listened thoroughly. Her legacy could have been different; she could have supported measures like restorative justice. She could have implemented robust implicit bias training and comprehensive cultural competency training for her staff. She could have enforced sound and steady body camera policies in a sense that hold the officers accountable but do not spy on the community. She could have worked to implement external review processes to work through the internal corruption in her department. But she did not.

Castor was a lead general in the war on drugs and a keyholder to maintaining marginalization of the poor and people of color among the community. Do we need more of the same in the Mayor's office or do we need an official who will challenge the status quo for the betterment of ALL the community? You get to decide at the ballot box in 2019.

[1] http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/the-shining-and-flawed-legacy-of-tampa-police-chief-jane-castor/2228928

[2] https://www.policefoundation.org/team_detail/chief-jane-castor/

[3] http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/informer-not-neighbor-complaints-led-up-to-fatal-tampa-pot-raid/2187316

[4] http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/informer-rita-girvens-coziness-with-tampa-police-could-become-liability/2183936

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/18/in-florida-police-are-waging-a-war-on-black-bicycle-riders-investigators-say/

[6]http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/UCR-Reports

Prosecutorial Conduct: Conviction Integrity Unit

The fact is the criminal justice system is extremely powerful in this nation. Surprisingly, at all levels of it's functionalities, it is seemingly absent appropriate, external oversight. This should scare you. Detractors of the conversation on police accountability often say things like "Well, if you just follow the law, you won't go to jail!" We know this to not be true--especially with the alarming rate of racial profiling, trans and queer antagonism, houseless targeting, among other biases enacted by the police.

State Attorney (sometimes referred to District Attorney) offices wield an incredible power over the people. At their whim, they can file charges and can determine the fate of human beings on the basis of their findings--even if they are not ethical in their processes. Alarmingly, most State Attorney's face no oversight from any external functions. Citizen journalist Haydee Oropesa discusses the new Hillsborough County State Attorney's campaign promise to enact a Conviction Integrity Unit on her YouTube channel and we recommend you take a moment to watch.

Conviction integrity units can make a huge impact on people's livelihood and lessen the power imbalance between the prosecutor and the people. The Innocence Project outlines some criteria they recommend for a successful, useful integrity unit.

Some of the items the Innocence Project discusses include, but are not limited to:

• Integrity units cooperate with defense attorney's, advocates and innocence/exoneration project organizations.
• The most successful units have been run by defense attorney's, who work full-time and have substantial oversight authority.
• In addition, an independent, external advisory board of attorney's exist to oversee operations.
• Prosecutors are prohibited from any involvement in investigating any cases in which they were involved with.
• The unit is transparent and publishes their findings publicly.
• The unit has the power to recommend State Attorney personnel training and policy development based on their findings in conviction cases.
  
  But do they work? According to the Huffington Post, there has been some strides and success stories.  

Although there are over 2,300 prosecutorial offices in the country, only 24 conviction integrity units exist, which is an extreme lack of oversight nationwide. In 2015, 150 people were exonerated from their convictions in total. Of those 150 exonerated, 58 received their exoneration due to properly implemented conviction integrity units, which accounts for 39% of all exoneration. Considering there are only a few conviction integrity unit bodies in the country, that is quite a substantial amount. 

At best, a prosecutor, being human, could make a mistake--and that mistake could be very costly to someone's life. At worst, misconduct, greed and power may cause a prosecutor to incriminate someone for the sole purpose of holding their ranks within their role as a prosecutor, flexing to the public and earning their salary and bonuses. According to business insider, since 1989, 1,761 people have been exonerated for wrongful convictions. Likely though, that doesn't account for the number of people whose appeals have been denied and who have never been met with any formal representation. Below is a graphic of the trend:

Control The Patrol: The Florida Law Enforcement Bill of Rights Has Got to Go

One of the most fundamental aspects of the United States Constitution is known as the Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments to the document. Accordingly, the Bill of Rights are held in the highest regard as granting us, as citizens of this country, inalienable rights. Such rights include the right to freedom of religion and expression, a fair and speedy trial and the right to representation in court.

Amazingly enough, Florida has enacted a special bill of rights--but not to their citizens--but rather a certain occupation within it's state. The Law Enforcement Bill of Rights is a comprehensive statute that enumerates several special protections to the police all across the state.

As police accountability activists, this bill of rights poses a number of problematic features which are inhibiting a true state of police accountability within our cities and counties.

If our police are doing their jobs up to par, ethically and within the parameters of truly serving and protecting, then why must they be afforded extra protections as signed into the law? How does it make sense that they are provided extra protections at the expense of the taxpaying citizens who provide them with their paychecks and operational revenue?

Below we are breaking down the law as it is, including our take on the most problematic aspects of the law. You can sign our petition which includes requesting the repeal of this law, among other provisions.


(1) RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION.—Whenever a law enforcement officer or correctional officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his or her agency for any reason that could lead to disciplinary action, suspension, demotion, or dismissal, the interrogation must be conducted under the following conditions:

(a) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the law enforcement officer or correctional officer is on duty, unless the seriousness of the investigation is of such a degree that immediate action is required.


The civilians are not afforded this opportunity--rather, the police can come to our home or place of work at any time if they have probable cause or warrant and question us with impunity. 


(b) The interrogation shall take place either at the office of the command of the investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct, police unit, or correctional unit in which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the investigating officer or agency.

(c) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation shall be informed of the rank, name, and command of the officer in charge of the investigation, the interrogating officer, and all persons present during the interrogation. All questions directed to the officer under interrogation shall be asked by or through one interrogator during any one investigative interrogation, unless specifically waived by the officer under investigation.

(d) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation must be informed of the nature of the investigation before any interrogation begins, and he or she must be informed of the names of all complainants. All identifiable witnesses shall be interviewed, whenever possible, prior to the beginning of the investigative interview of the accused officer. The complaint, all witness statements, including all other existing subject officer statements, and all other existing evidence, including, but not limited to, incident reports, GPS locator information, and audio or video recordings relating to the incident under investigation, must be provided to each officer who is the subject of the complaint before the beginning of any investigative interview of that officer. An officer, after being informed of the right to review witness statements, may voluntarily waive the provisions of this paragraph and provide a voluntary statement at any time.


This is just unnecessary! When we are under investigation for a crime, it is not likely that we will be afforded the opportunity to review all witness statements and video before we have to make our statements. In fact, often times, when we are investigated, we are sequestered away from that information. Allowing the police to review this evidence prior to making their formal statements only allows them to formulate a story of their own based on the evidence--and severely hinders the integrity of such investigation. Why would they need to be afforded this extra protection if they are not doing wrong on a regular basis?


(e) Interrogating sessions shall be for reasonable periods and shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.

(f) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under interrogation may not be subjected to offensive language or be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action. A promise or reward may not be made as an inducement to answer any questions.


Theoretically, this is not problematic--however, when you think about it, the police intimidate and threaten people they are interviewing--in fact, it is such a standard part of policing that it is integrated into media, such as in television shows like Law & Order. Why ought they not be subjected to the same intimidation tactics as we are?


(g) The formal interrogation of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, including all recess periods, must be recorded on audio tape, or otherwise preserved in such a manner as to allow a transcript to be prepared, and there shall be no unrecorded questions or statements. Upon the request of the interrogated officer, a copy of any recording of the interrogation session must be made available to the interrogated officer no later than 72 hours, excluding holidays and weekends, following said interrogation.


We support recording the investigation but it is categorically unfair for them to be able to review their audio before the closure of the investigation. This allows them to re-collaborate their own story, which should not be necessary if they are complying with the law and departmental procedures.


(h) If the law enforcement officer or correctional officer under interrogation is under arrest, or is likely to be placed under arrest as a result of the interrogation, he or she shall be completely informed of all his or her rights before commencing the interrogation.

(i) At the request of any law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation, he or she has the right to be represented by counsel or any other representative of his or her choice, who shall be present at all times during the interrogation whenever the interrogation relates to the officer’s continued fitness for law enforcement or correctional service.

(j) Notwithstanding the rights and privileges provided by this part, this part does not limit the right of an agency to discipline or to pursue criminal charges against an officer.

(2) COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARDS.—A complaint review board shall be composed of three members: One member selected by the chief administrator of the agency or unit; one member selected by the aggrieved officer; and a third member to be selected by the other two members. Agencies or units having more than 100 law enforcement officers or correctional officers shall utilize a five-member board, with two members being selected by the administrator, two members being selected by the aggrieved officer, and the fifth member being selected by the other four members. The board members shall be law enforcement officers or correctional officers selected from any state, county, or municipal agency within the county. There shall be a board for law enforcement officers and a board for correctional officers whose members shall be from the same discipline as the aggrieved officer. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to sheriffs or deputy sheriffs.


This provision is not okay--it pre-emptively prevents cities and counties from creating their own autonomous civilian review boards. We should be able to enforce review boards at a city and county level, advised by regular civilians and staffed with professional investigators of whom do not work for the police departments. Internal investigations are unlikely to yield results and we would like to see true civilian review boards that are autonomous, independent and transparent. Again we stress--if they are complying with all the laws and the departmental policies and truly protecting the civilians, then why do they need to be pre-empted from accountability?


(3) CIVIL SUITS BROUGHT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS.—Every law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall have the right to bring civil suit against any person, group of persons, or organization or corporation, or the head of such organization or corporation, for damages, either pecuniary or otherwise, suffered during the performance of the officer’s official duties, for abridgment of the officer’s civil rights arising out of the officer’s performance of official duties, or for filing a complaint against the officer which the person knew was false when it was filed. This section does not establish a separate civil action against the officer’s employing law enforcement agency for the investigation and processing of a complaint filed under this part.

(4)(a) NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION.—A dismissal, demotion, transfer, reassignment, or other personnel action that might result in loss of pay or benefits or that might otherwise be considered a punitive measure may not be taken against any law enforcement officer or correctional officer unless the law enforcement officer or correctional officer is notified of the action and the reason or reasons for the action before the effective date of the action.

(b) Notwithstanding s. 112.533(2), whenever a law enforcement officer or correctional officer is subject to disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal, the officer or the officer’s representative shall, upon request, be provided with a complete copy of the investigative file, including the final investigative report and all evidence, and with the opportunity to address the findings in the report with the employing law enforcement agency before imposing disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal. The contents of the complaint and investigation shall remain confidential until such time as the employing law enforcement agency makes a final determination whether or not to issue a notice of disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal. This paragraph does not provide law enforcement officers with a property interest or expectancy of continued employment, employment, or appointment as a law enforcement officer.


Determinations made in regard to the police officers employment should be made available to the public and viewable by all law enforcement agencies in the state before they offer employment to said officer.


(5) RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING RIGHTS.—No law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall be discharged; disciplined; demoted; denied promotion, transfer, or reassignment; or otherwise discriminated against in regard to his or her employment or appointment, or be threatened with any such treatment, by reason of his or her exercise of the rights granted by this part.

(6) LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.—

(a) Except as provided in this subsection, disciplinary action, suspension, demotion, or dismissal may not be undertaken by an agency against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct if the investigation of the allegation is not completed within 180 days after the date the agency receives notice of the allegation by a person authorized by the agency to initiate an investigation of the misconduct. If the agency determines that disciplinary action is appropriate, it shall complete its investigation and give notice in writing to the law enforcement officer or correctional officer of its intent to proceed with disciplinary action, along with a proposal of the specific action sought, including length of suspension, if applicable. Notice to the officer must be provided within 180 days after the date the agency received notice of the alleged misconduct, except as follows:

1. The running of the limitations period may be tolled for a period specified in a written waiver of the limitation by the law enforcement officer or correctional officer.

2. The running of the limitations period is tolled during the time that any criminal investigation or prosecution is pending in connection with the act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct.

3. If the investigation involves an officer who is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable, the running of the limitations period is tolled during the period of incapacitation or unavailability.

4. In a multijurisdictional investigation, the limitations period may be extended for a period of time reasonably necessary to facilitate the coordination of the agencies involved.

5. The running of the limitations period may be tolled for emergencies or natural disasters during the time period wherein the Governor has declared a state of emergency within the jurisdictional boundaries of the concerned agency.

6. The running of the limitations period is tolled during the time that the officer’s compliance hearing proceeding is continuing beginning with the filing of the notice of violation and a request for a hearing and ending with the written determination of the compliance review panel or upon the violation being remedied by the agency.

(b) An investigation against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer may be reopened, notwithstanding the limitations period for commencing disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal, if:

1. Significant new evidence has been discovered that is likely to affect the outcome of the investigation.

2. The evidence could not have reasonably been discovered in the normal course of investigation or the evidence resulted from the predisciplinary response of the officer.

Any disciplinary action resulting from an investigation that is reopened pursuant to this paragraph must be completed within 90 days after the date the investigation is reopened.
-------------


According to this resource, the police bill of rights was enacted due to public outcries for police accountability. "The call for a special bill of rights for law enforcement officers started in the late 1960s and early 1970s in reaction to the public’s demand for greater police accountability. The concept behind the the LEO bill of rights followed Supreme Court rulings in the cases of Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and Gardner vs. Broderick (1968)."

The Restorative Justice Coalition is calling for the repeal of this problematic law for the above listed reasons and some not included. We want community based solutions to police in every city and county across the state. This statute only inhibits the ability to create such accountability. We are asking everyone to sign our petition and continue to carry on the conversation about police accountability with friends, family members, civic and faith organizations, candidates for office and elected officials.

Here's some media about this problematic bill's impact:
"The unions seem more concerned about protecting officers who are very bad."

Across the country, dangerous officers remain protected by bill of rights.

Police officers use the statute to attempt to remain employed with agencies even after bad behavior.

Despite moral character violations--allegations of violence, drugs and forcible sex--Florida officers keep their badges.