As if there weren’t already enough reasons to question the activities of Prison Fellowship Ministries, why would some guy from Alexandria named “Donny Ferguson” – instead of, say, a representative from the organization’s Lansdowne headquarters – be writing letters in its defense to our local newspapers? Oh yeah; Ferguson used to be Eugene Delgaudio’s aide – an interesting association he failed to disclose in his letter.  Ferguson also misrepresents the facts in at least two significant ways, a subject we’ll return to later – but one has to begin by wondering why he would be so interested in protecting this recipient of a hefty Loudoun tax exemption from criticism.

The previous post Prisoner reentry initiative: Beware of manipulated data described how Prison Fellowship Ministries and its political allies in the Bush administration grossly misrepresented the success of Prison Fellowship’s InnerChange Freedom Initiative in order to justify government endorsement and public funding of the program, and suggested keeping a close eye on Governor McDonnell’s recently announced “prisoner reentry initiative.” I cited criminology researcher Dan Mears, who singled out the InnerChange program for criticism, reporting that the real data actually show a higher recidivism rate in comparison to control groups. Mears further questions, “particularly where some degree of coercion is possible, the appropriateness of using any taxpayer dollars for religious programming.”

It is to the issue of coercion that we now turn. In June 2006, a federal judge determined that the operation of InnerChange at a state prison in Iowa constituted an impermissible use of public funds in violation of the Establishment Clause. Judge Robert W. Pratt found that “[f]or all practical purposes, the state has literally established an Evangelical Christian congregation within the walls of one its penal institutions, giving the leaders of that congregation, i.e., InnerChange employees, authority to control the spiritual, emotional, and physical lives of hundreds of Iowa inmates.” Accordingly, “the InnerChange treatment program is hereby permanently enjoined from further operation at the Newton Facility, or any other institution within the Iowa Dept. of Corrections, so long as it is supported by government funding.” Pratt found the violations so egregious that he took the unusual step of ordering Prison Fellowship Ministries to repay more than $1.5 million in state funding. He reasoned that the well-connected activist organization knew exactly what it was doing:

[Prison Fellowship] retained experienced, knowledgeable legal counsel that should have been aware of the constitutional risks associated with state funding of InnerChange. The Defendants, here, are not poorly funded nonpublic schools, but well-financed and sophisticated entities who know every contour of First Amendment law. In addition, evidence shows that the California Department of Corrections provided InnerChange and Prison Fellowship a full legal memorandum explaining why that agency could not, in good conscience, support state funding of InnerChange in its prisons given Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Among the court’s extensive findings:

• Inmates enrolled in the InnerChange program were afforded privileges not available to other inmates, such as extra visitation time with family members, more books and computers, and earlier access to classes necessary for parole consideration.
• Inmates enrolled in InnerChange were housed in “Unit E,” previously used as the prison’s “honor unit” to reward those inmates “with the highest security or privilege levels associated with low risk behavior… When InnerChange moved into Unit E, inmates already residing there were moved to other [General Population] living units if they did not join the InnerChange program.” Unit E provided such amenities as separate bathrooms with privacy partitions, real doors to which the inmates had keys, and the absence of security cameras.
• InnerChange staff “shared many of the same duties as state correctional officers and other state prison employees,” and were vested with the authority to issue disciplinary reports and impose punishment.
• Although InnerChange/Prison Fellowship makes the claim that all inmates are welcome to participate and that the program does not attempt to convert inmates to Christianity, in practice participation meant renouncing one’s faith if it deviated from the Prison Fellowship-approved form of Evangelical Christianity. For example, the text for one class instructed that “the first step toward experiencing your freedom in Christ is to renounce…any other non-Christian religions or cults.” And although the civic values taught in the program could theoretically be separated from sectarian content, in this case they were not. “The intensive, indoctrinating Christian language and practice that makes up the InnerChange program effectively precludes non-Evangelical Christian inmates from participating.” Practitioners of other faiths who tried to participate testified that they were told by their “Biblical Counselors” that their faith practices were “the worship of false idols,” “against the Bible,” “of darkness,” and other deprecating remarks.
• Decisions regarding inmates’ “progress” were at the sole discretion of InnerChange employees. Here is an excerpt from an evaluation which ended with the dismissal of an inmate from the program:
  

  [y]our conduct has been excellent according to security standards, and you are a hard worker. With you as a member you have always completed your work and assignments, however, you are not displaying the growth needed to remain in the program. Your Focus is not on God and His Son to Change you.

  Another inmate who was expelled from the program was a Native American. He was asked repeatedly by staff if he was “saved,” and why he was continuing to practice his own faith traditions. The reason given for his ultimate dismissal was that he “was not growing spiritually,” and didn’t show enough enthusiasm during worship services. Numerous inmates of other faiths gave similar testimony about why they left or were dismissed from the program.

• To remain in the program through Phase IV (after release), former inmates were required to regularly attend a church approved by InnerChange.
• Public funding accounted for 30 to 40 percent of  InnerChange’s operating costs in the Iowa state prison system. On paper, state funding was supposed to be limited to “non-religious aspects” of the program – but according to InnerChange’s own documents there were no non-religious aspects. The curriculum was designed to be pervasively sectarian and had the intended purpose of indoctrinating InnerChange inmates into a particular form of “the Evangelical Christian belief system.” This description is from the InnerChange White Paper (at p. 59 of the District Court ruling):
  

  Biblical principles are integrated into the entire course curriculum of [InnerChange Freedom Initiative], rather than compartmentalized in specific classes. In other words, the application of Biblical principles is not an agenda item-it is the agenda.

  There was no serious attempt at distinguishing between secular and sectarian aspects of the programming (likely because the directors knew that, in reality, there was no such distinction);  reimbursement was “based on InnerChange’s representations to the state about how each InnerChange employee’s time was utilized” according to “a general understanding of how the time would be spent.”

In summation, Judge Pratt affirmed that “As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, one of the few absolutes in Establishment Clause jurisprudence is the ‘prohibit[ion against] government-financed or government sponsored indoctrination into the beliefs of a particular religious faith,'” and found that “[t]here is no set of circumstances under which state funds could support the…treatment methods employed in the InnerChange program.”

Prison Fellowship appealed the ruling – and here enter the misrepresentations of Mr. Ferguson. In his letter, he states that the three judge appeals panel, which included former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, “tossed out” the lower court ruling, “allowing the program to operate.” That isn’t even close to the truth, and I suspect Mr. Ferguson knows it.

In fact, on every claim made by Prison Fellowship with regard to the Establishment Clause violation, the appellate judges strongly upheld the district court ruling. There is only one area in which the appellate judges reversed the district court, and that is the matter of “whether recoupment [the $1.5 million Prison Fellowship was ordered to pay back] is a proper remedy.” The order to return funds that had been paid for services rendered before the ruling was handed down was, as already noted, somewhat unusual. And that’s it. That’s the extent of what was reversed in the appeals ruling that “affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands.”

The case was never about the right of Prison Fellowship Ministries to operate a sectarian religious program. They were not enjoined from operating InnerChange in the Iowa prison system, only from operating it “so long as it is supported by government funding.” It is this distinction that both Prison Fellowship Ministries and Mr. Ferguson wish to confuse, with language about “public expressions of religious faith.” At trial, Prison Fellowship lawyers also tried to make the issue their own freedom of religious expression. This did not go over well.

If Prison Fellowship wants to contract its services at public expense, the court said, “they are burdened with the same responsibilities of any state employee: to respect the civil rights of all persons, including the First Amendment’s prohibition on indoctrinating others in their form of religion. In the context of this case, the Defendants have no legitimate interest in the accommodation of their own religious beliefs, but just the opposite. [Emphasis added]”

It is Orwellian to suggest, as does Mr. Ferguson in his letter, that the use of taxpayer money to fund the religious indoctrination of a (quite literally) captive audience is tantamount to “public expressions of religious faith.” The InnerChange program accomplishes exactly the opposite of free expression of religion within the prisons in which it operates: It marginalizes and punishes through disparate treatment all expressions of faith other than those approved of by the unaccountable staff of the InnerChange program. As the appellate ruling points out in one of its many affirmations of the lower court, “the inmate had no genuine and independent private choice; “he could either exercise his freedom of religion or avail himself of the one comprehensive treatment program, but not both.

Likewise, objections to Prison Fellowship’s continuing tax exemption here in Loudoun have nothing to do with the organization’s right to religious expression, which is not threatened in the least. That right is guaranteed to all of us under the First Amendment. Since they’re trying so hard to convince us that religious expression is the issue at stake when it clearly is not, Prison Fellowship must want something more.

There is absolutely no indication that Prison Fellowship concedes any wrongdoing in the Iowa case – in fact, they have continued to make themselves out to be the victims of discrimination – or that they wouldn’t engage in exactly the same behavior again if given the chance. For example, in Virginia.

Follow below the fold for some of the progressive solicitations we’ve actually responded to recently.

Reading blogs isn’t really activism unless it gets you to take action.  

• As Rep. Wolf to Co-sponsor the CIR ASAP bill – The Comprehensive Immigration Reform, ASAP bill, introduced by Rep. Gutierrez, would solve our immigration mess. Tell Rep. Wolf to support it, today.

The Upright Citizens Brigade takes on the BP Oil Spill.

What?

Wilder Publication is under fire for putting warning labels on copies of historical US documents, including the Constitution. The label warns “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.” From the article: “The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they ‘might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.'” – Slashdot.org

Again, what?

Something’s funny here. I’m, not sure what it is though.

The publisher in question, Wilder Publications is based in Radford, Virginia. And the copyright on the warning is 2007. The publisher itself seems to run heavy into pulp new-agey Christian self-help, sold entirely through Amazon.com.

Weird.

[Update] A smart commenter on Slashdot pointed out that the publisher evidently puts this disclaimer on all their publications. Which makes sens considering what they publish.

[Update 2] The publisher himself has already debunked this story in a blog post of his own. That post is worth reading in its own right.

So the truth is, had we thought about it, we probably would not have put that disclaimer on the book. That being said, it doesn’t change the fact that the offended people aren’t putting much thought into this. The U.S. Constitution legalized slavery and forbid women from voting. In fact, our illegal immigration problem is a direct consequence of the slavery laws. I’m being told that values have not changed since this document was written. Do these people really mean that they don’t think women should vote and that African Americans should still be slaves? If they don’t mean that then they don’t really have much of an argument because values have changed and if the U.S. Constitution were written today it would be different. So either the issue is not well thought out or it’s intellectually dishonest. Personally, I think it’s a bit of both. – Warren LaPine

Some further digging shows that the books Wilder sells are just reprints of “Mind” self-help books from the 1920s! Check out this excerpt from review of one of their books:

**Don’t be duped!** Collier’s The Book of Life is really the Secret of the Ages but under its original title. It was published in 1925 but the title was changed to its current name a year later (and a revised and expanded edition was published in 1948).

I smell a publicity stunt.

If you are a follower of Democratic blogs in Virginia you may have seen a number of posts, recently, about the contest for First Vice Chair of the Democratic Party of Virginia (DPVA). Vivian Paige does a fantastic job explaining what is going on.

(Note, in the explanation below, Vivian refers to the position as “1st VP” of the Party. More accurately, the position is First Vice-Chair for Organization. That being said, her explanation of the situation and race is spot-on.)

The position of 1st VP is the #2 slot in the party organization. In addition to filling in for the chair when s/he is absent, the 1st VP is charged with “strengthening county and city democratic committees, increasing their membership and activities, perfecting their organization, providing necessary training, and acting as a liaison to congressional district and county and city democratic committees regarding statewide coordinated campaign activities.”

If the 1st VP is female, a DNC slot also goes along with it. If not, the slot goes to the next highest ranking female in the party organization.

…

Secondly, there has been a tradition in the DPVA to have a black 1st VP if the chair is white. Is it in the rules? Nope, not any more than it is in the rules that Norfolk’s vice mayor is black or that Norfolk’s boards and commissions reflect the same racial makeup as council. It is what it is. – Vivian Paige

Follow below the fold for a discussion of the candidates, and what the heck this is all about.On her blog, Vivian goes on to explain her reasons for supporting one of the candidates for the position, Gaylene Kanoyton. Gaylene is the Chair of the Hampton Democrats. A position she stepped into when the Chair became vacant, and the Hampton Democrats needed a leader.

Opposing Gaylene is the Susan Mariner, who is going against long-standing DPVA tradition by running. She is a new face for the party, having gotten her start with the Webb campaign. Susan has been active in Democratic politics since 2003, and gained statewide visibility for her efforts on the Webb campaign. (Thanks for the clarification! – P13) Since then, she has become Chair of the Virginia Beach Democrats, and kept in regular contact with her compatriots from the Webb campaign who run Blue Virginia.

(It appears that the third candidate, Ella Ward, has dropped out of the race and endorsed Gaylene.)

At its heart, the race for 1st Vice Chair has become a proxy fight between competing visions for the Democratic Party of Virginia. On one side is the Party organization model, which has been in place for generations and emphasizes gradual development of leaders and organization based on existing precedents and power structures. On the other side is a model of new activism, which can be characterized by social media, blogging and people who have come to the Democratic Party of Virginia in the past five years or so, at least in part as a reaction to Republican depredations over the past decade.

Gaylene has served Virginia Democrats for years, and worked her way up through the organization. When there was an major vacancy in her local organization, she filled it with grace and energy. She has piled up endorsements from the existing powerful figures within the Party. She meets the criteria of Party tradition by being an African American candidate during a period when the Chair is white. In working her way up through the Party, Gaylene has impressed and engaged the people she has worked with, and served when and as Democrats needed her. Her candidacy is based on that call to serve her Party and fellow Democrats.

Susan Mariner burst onto the Virginia Democratic scene only four years ago, during the Webb campaign. The NetRoots of Virginia identifies with her background and story. She rose quickly to become Chair of the Virginia Beach Democrats in a competitive election (even as Gaylene became Chair of the Hampton Democrats when that seat fell vacant and leadership was needed). Her candidacy is based on bringing new people and faces into the Democratic Party, rather than a long history of Democratic participation and organization. She has taken her run for 1st Vice Chair across the Commonwealth, going to local committee meetings and actively campaigning for the job as if she were running for statewide office (which, in effect, she is).

And then there’s the question of organizational precedent. Race is a real issue in America, and nowhere more than Virginia. Virginia Democrats of recent generations have not been afraid of race. We have been honest about our past and done our best to make up for those failings of our history with action in the present. We elected the first black governor in the history of America. In 2008, the Virginia Democratic Party helped deliver the capital of the Confederacy to our first African American President. Our tradition of advancing African American leaders within our Party organization has made us stronger and smarter across our base of voters.

That being said, the Democratic Party central organization has been accused of being ineffectual over the past few years. Local organizations and activists have been frustrated with its responsiveness and leadership. the campaigns we have won have sometimes been seen to be victories in spite of, rather than because of, the central Party organization. I believe things have improved under David Mills, as the party is now at least issuing opinions on matters of import to the Commonwealth. But improvement is not success, in and of itself. There is an argument to be made that more fundamental changes need to happen at the DPVA, to engage newer and younger Democrats.

I have no candidate in this race. I believe our Democratic Party will be well served by choosing either Gaylene or Susan. We are all Democrats. As our State Party Plan says,

Every resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia who believes in the principles of the Democratic Party is hereby declared to be a member of the Democratic Party of Virginia.

Our 1st Vice Chair is there for all of us, and I believe both candidates understand and exemplify that truth. Regardless of the outcome of the vote tomorrow, Virginia Democrats will be stronger for having a competitive race for 1st Vice Chair, and for having become engaged in the future of our Party as a result.

[Update] Vivian has posted her final thoughts on the 1st Vice Chair and the significance of the position.  

Links for nicer weather.

Another time a lady freaked out because she saw a rat on the sidewalk. It’s a sidewalk. In New York City. That’s where rats live. Be thankful the rat didn’t pull up a chair and order a Bloody Mary and ask for separate checks. – The Bitchy Waiter

You really should click through, there are more fun links this week than ever before!

• The Bitchy Waiter Blog – A nice palate cleanser on a rough day.
• Liz wants this. DROOL. I could actually take my son along to drop him off at school or camp while I BIKE TO WORK!
• The provincial lawyer who is helping plot an emirate coup – Our addiction to oil puts us in bed with some really regressive people.
• Sleep If You’re Tired, Don’t If You’re Not – An old friend opines on napping. I happen to agree with him.
• Nuclear Follies: How Not To Stop the BP Oil Gusher – A reasonable and point-by-point explanation of why nuking the Gulf oil well leak is not a good idea.
• Bloody June – Soldiers are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan.
• Chinese Concept: The Train that Never Stops – The video is worth the clickthrough. Really cool idea.
• Women Forced to Breastfeed Adult Men in Saudi Arabia – Disgusting. Period.
• Re-Attracting Young Voters Back to the Obama Coalition – Dismissing young voters is both insulting and dumb. It’s about reaching out to young people in their own context, just like we do for other parts of the Democratic coalition.
• If It’s Thursday, It’s Bathrooms. Also, on Mondays. Why GENDA is important. New Yorkers, pay attention.
• Abortion Drugs Given in Iowa via Video Link – Expect the right to get the vapors over this one. I love the creativity in insuring that underserved populations can get access to a legal medical procedure, safely. These are among the reasons that my wife and I will be signing up for these license plates.

As has been discussed previously, there is some debate over the form and structure of Loudoun’s government going on among the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Waters has proposed reducing the number of Supervisors, converting some to At-large and staggering their Terms. Loudoun Progress has discussed this before.

This week the Board of Supervisors began taking action on these proposals, as reported by Scott York in his regular email to his constituents.

Tim Hemstreet, County Administrator, made a brief presentation regarding Structure and Terms of the Board of Supervisors, Form of Government and Reapportionment.  He noted at the January 20, 2010 Business Meeting, an item initiated by Supervisor Waters was discussed regarding the topics of the structure and terms of the Board of Supervisors (including the idea of implementing staggered terms), the appropriate form of government for Loudoun County, and general guidelines for the redistricting process associated with the 2010 census.

Supervisor Delgaudio moved that the Board of Supervisors enter into a Committee of the Whole. (Seconded by Supervisor Waters. The motion FAILED 2-7, Supervisors Delgaudio and Waters voted yes.)

The Board agreed to forward this item to the September 8, 2010 Board Business Meeting for a Committee of the Whole discussion of the issue.

The Board also agreed not to continue further discussion of adding at-large members to the Board. (Emphasis mine – P13) – Board of Supervisors Report

It is gratifying to see that the first of three bad ideas has been dropped. The Board of Supervisors will not be converting some of its membership to At-Large. This means that all Supervisors other than the Chairman will continue to be elected at the District level, thus sustaining the interpersonal, direct relationship between Supervisors and neighborhoods in Loudoun.

Follow below the fold for the interesting report from County Administrator Hemstreet on another of the bad ideas, staggered terms.The Loudoun Times-Mirror reports on the analysis of staggered terms done by County staff.

A report recently released by County Administrator Tim Hemstreet outlining the merits and pitfalls of restructuring Loudoun’s government system says supervisors would focus more on campaigning than work should the board move to staggered election terms.

“Elections and campaigning will not be uncommon for at least a year leading up to an election, and even those members not up for election are likely to be involved in campaigns,” the report said. “As such, and based on past experiences, it is plausible that the board may only achieve one year of effective work before going back into “campaign mode.” – Loudoun Times-Mirror

As things stand, Supervisors generally get three years of work done (for better or for worse) before going back into campaign mode. This allows independence among Supervisors as well as a focus on pragmatic results. Going to staggered terms means that there would always been an election around the corner (think Congress, with elections every 2 years) and encourage a more narrow focus on issues, rather than providing Supervisors with the time to really get into issues and work together as colleagues.

It’s a bad idea.

The Doorbell Queen has a post up today about high school sizes and educational quality. It’s worth clicking through and reading yourself, but here’s a taste.

I’m not saying that large schools always work, or that they are appropriate in every situation, but large schools can be educationally rigorous and can, in fact, beat the pants off Loudoun County’s schools academically.

So, my dear School Board, you’re going to have to come up with something other than “educational reasons” for why you won’t even study the FEASIBILITY of expanding the size of the existing schools. Because I just gave you a total of over ten thousand reasons why that won’t fly. – Doorbell Queen

The question of school size is just one of an entire class of questions about how we do school development in Loudoun. At their core, the issues surrounding new schools in the County are issues with assumptions, rather than outcomes. For example, it is assumed that a high school must have fewer than 2000 students, and sit on 70 acres of land. It is assumed that we want to spend as little money as possible acquiring and building new schools. And it is assumed that elementary and middle schools should only be one floor.

But for many, many years, other assumptions were held that were proven to be fallacious and counterproductive. Like the assumption that kids of different races should go to different schools, for example. Or the assumption that children with special needs and their parents should fend for themselves.

It is long past time to put all of our assumptions about schools on the table and reevaluate them in the light of the needs of our community, today.For example, I’ve long been an advocate of smaller class sizes. Unfortunately, research and data aren’t necessarily showing that smaller class sizes are a solution for student achievement. The Doorbell Queen makes the case for larger high schools based on schools in New York with sterling reputations. We have excellent high schools here in Loudoun which may be able to be expanded, solving some of our problems with overcrowding and class sizes.

Similarly, Loudoun has long assumed that building schools the way we’ve built them for the past twenty years was the right way to do it for the next twenty years. It seems highly likely that is not the case.

The argument has been made, for example, that there is no longer any land available for new high schools in areas with growing student populations. However, that argument is false. Land is always available, at a price. It is one thing to say there is no land, but it is something quite different to say that we as a community do not want to spend the money necessary to acquire the optimal land.

Similarly, it is incorrect to say that we cannot have high schools with over 2000 students. It’s more accurate to say that we do not want high schools with more than 2000 students, which would allow us to have a real conversation about whether that desire ranks higher than our desire to build schools as cheaply as possible.

Far too often, issues of public policy devolve into the shouting of false absolutes. In all of these cases, policies are a question of competing interests. And we will do well to be honest with ourselves and each other by acknowledging that we each value different interests. Just because my interest, and my opinion, doesn’t win out, does not mean that my values and integrity have been sullied.

Schools and school construction are not zero-sum games. I commend the Board of Supervisors and School Board for starting to move past that idea, and I hope there will be even more progress, soon.

As John Flannery mentioned in his diary, the Board of Supervisors is holding its business meeting on the Bay Act proposals on Tuesday, June 15th.

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors will discuss the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act draft amendments during a Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday, June 15, 2010. Once an exact time is determined, it will be posted on this webpage. – Loudoun.gov

The links above contain all the information available from the County on the Act and the actions proposed. It is wise to review the facts of the matter before forming an opinion.

If you want to be heard at the meeting, you can sign up by calling the County offices. Please consider coming out and letting your voice be heard.If you cannot make the meeting in person, you can let the Board of Supervisors know your opinion by telephone or email.

In addition to speaking to the Board during a public input session or public hearing, you may send comments to the Board by e-mail at bos@loudoun.gov, or by calling the Citizen Comment Line, 703-777-0115. – Loudoun.gov

For example:

I support the Chesapeake Bay Act. I support any and all necessary actions on the part of the County to comply with it, and enforce it. Providing undisturbed greenspace around our waterways, regardless of how small, is critical to the long term health of our water, the Bay, and not incidentally the quality of life here in Loudoun.

Please implement the necessary policies to provide ourselves and our neighbors with clean water flowing into the Bay.

Think globally, act locally.

Follow below the fold for some of the progressive solicitations we’ve actually responded to recently.  

• GOP Congressman Don Young says the Gulf oil spill is “not an environmental disaster.” – From the DCCC, a petition telling Don Young to stop defending Big Oil and denying the impact of the Gulf oil disaster.
• Relay For Life (Leesburg Democrats) – Okay, so this a shameless plug for my Relay For Life fundraising link. I’m not above using my Power to push an agenda. 🙂