Council Prez Ostrow: Bill of Rights Good Idea
One of the least contentious debates in Minneapolis City Hall in quite some time happened Wednesday afternoon at the city council's Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee meeting. First item of business was a resolution introduced by council member Dean Zimmermann (Sixth Ward), who does not sit on the committee, titled "Defending the Bill of Rights."
The resolution grew from various grassroots networks, including a number of neighborhood activists, defense attorneys and the main architect of the draft, an attorney named Peter Thompson. All parties are increasingly concerned about the far reaches of the Patriot and Homeland Security acts, and the newly introduced Patriot Act II, certain to be before congressional leaders in Washington any day now.
Relying heavily on the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and, smartly, the state of Minnesota Constitution (thereby framing any debate as a local issue), the resolution reinforces the liberties of "freedom of speech, association and press" and "privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures" along with freedom of religion and due process and the like. You know, your basic rights as an American.
The authors believe "these constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties that are treasured by us are now threatened by" the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act. The two acts, among other things, grant the FBI access to the medical and financial records of individuals, allows searches without a warrant, and prevents the release of some records by the government that normally would be public under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Minneapolis resolution decrees "all city law enforcement agencies and personnel promptly report to the Minneapolis City Council and Human Rights Commission, to the extent legally possible, all instances in the city of Minneapolis, where activities, investigations, or proceedings have violated the fundamental rights and liberties enumerated above."
So, in other words, the resolution purports to let city employees know that they don't have to follow the lead of the Feds if they feel doing so would violate any part of the U.S. or state constitution. Well-intentioned, perhaps, but a pretty nebulous order.
Seven Minneapolis council members signed on as authors of the resolution, including two, Scott Benson (11th Ward) and Dan Niziolek (10th Ward) who refused to vote for an anti-war resolution a few weeks ago. That this defense of the bill of rights had wider spread support on the council was, at first blush, surprising.
Even council president Paul Ostrow, who invoked his privilege as chair of the body to toss out the anti-war resolution (saying it was "not germane to the business of the body") without so much as a debate, was sold by attorney Thompson's presentation--and the testimony of nearly ten citizens in favor--in this case.
(The anti-war resolution had five authors: Zimmermann, Paul Zerby, Natalie Johnson Lee, Robert Lilligren and Gary Schiff, all of whom signed the "defense" resolution.)
"It's no secret that I've been the topic of conversation on what is or is not germane to this body," Ostrow admitted, referring to his anti-anti-war stance. "I do see the value in this. I continue to believe there are matters of foreign policy that the council should not weigh in on, but this is different. This directly affects city employees."
After some quibbling over grammar, and some half-hearted remarks about possible conflicts the resolution could create for cops by Deputy Police Chief Greg Hestness, the committee passed the resolution unanimously, to the applause of the 50 or so gathered in the gallery. The resolution goes before the full council next Friday, March 21.
Finer-Point
In the hallway after the vote, Dean Zimmermann told me he was hardly surprised by the favorable response for the resolution. "This one had six other authors on it, so it would have been pretty hard to ignore," Zimmermann said, noting that even the police seem amenable to the resolution. "This is more specific, and carries weight as an actual directive to city employees."
Still, Zimermann admitted that the purpose of the resolution remains largely symbolic: "If every city in the country stands up to this and says, 'Hey, we're talking about our civil liberites,' then we've got something."
Shout-Out: That letter writer "Eskit"
One of the more befuddling complaints lodged against me came from a one-named Minneapolis missive-artist that ran in the 2/26/03 issue. Don't know much about Eskit, though I understand he's a good character and such. But that doesn't matter. The point is the premise of his letter strikes as defensive at best, perhaps even faulty.
The issue is that in a recent story I referred to Zimmermann as "far left." Eskit takes issue with this characterization, saying it implies "inflexibility." Well, no, Eskit, it doesn't. At least not to me.
From what I can see, Zimmermann is very much like the guy portrayed in the letter; he also is fighting from the left for issues he cares deeply about that others on the council won't touch. I don't believe that makes him an extremist, and it certainly doesn't imply that he doesn't work well with others.
When did "far left" become an insult? It's depressing to me that a supporter of someone who is "a Green, or a dissenter, or a truth-teller" would buy into the myth of "centrist politics" spewed by nearly everyone from the two status-quo parties these days.
12:56:43 PM 
|
