Somerville Divestment Project

On Wednesday July 6^th in the afternoon Christina Bolton, a representative of the Somerville Divestment Project (SDP)received an email from the director of the Somerville Arts Council indicating that Somerville Divestment Project would not be allowed to have a table in this year's festival which occurred on July 16^th.

On Thursday July 7^th, representatives of SDP, Christina Bolton and Ron Francis,met with Gregory Jenkins, the director of the Council. We argued that the Somerville Divestment Project has attended the event twice before and that there had never been an incident that caused any difficulty. We showed pictures of SDP operating at the event two prior years (2003, 2004), including pictures which showed the signs we had used. We also brought and showed to him the large signs that we had used in each of the last two years.

The director indicated that this issue has caused "complaints" by some people, that this issue "has escalated from before", and that SDP did "not fit in". We told him that our activities included artwork in the form of linoleum lithograph, passing our educational information, selling T-shirts, olive oil, and wood carvings from Palestine and that the materials that we had submitted this year were similar in nature. We showed him that our materials represented no escalation at all and in fact were nearly identical to the materials that we had used in previous years.

We also inquired why it was that we were never contacted so that we could rebut the charges made by people who had "complained". To this day we do not know the nature of the complaints.

We asked for the list of all groups that had either been accepted or denied. We wanted this information so that we could prove that we were being discriminated against. This was denied to us on that day and was continually denied to us all the way up until two days before the event - too late to determine which groups were in fact conducting "political" activities similar to SDP.

This deliberate denial of information is a clear violation of the freedom of information act and we have still not been sent this list. We were forced to do reconnaissance at the festival to document in pictures and as personal witnesses, which groups were present and what they were doing.

We also asked for the minutes of the Board meeting of the Arts Council and were denied also - a violation of the open meeting law.

Two reasons given for both denials were that we had that we had to put the request in writing (as this was being attempted the excuse changed to "we are busy now").

(By the way, the SJ (Somerville Journal) story indicates that we protested the following Wednesday (13^th) at the Arts Council and stayed after hours refusing to leave. This is completely untrue. This is what happened. Ron Francis arrived at approximately 5:15 and walked into the office which was open. Several staff members of ArtBeat were present. He reiterated the request to see the list of organizations that were either accepted or denied. This was again denied. Note that other residents had requested this information and were also denied. Ron then proceeded to call the press in front of the Director at which point the director became agitated, stood up and made an unsuccessful attempt to turn off the phone. Ron asked him again to give the list of organizations over the cell phone so that both Kate Wallace as well as the Somerville News Editor could hear this request plainly. The director then stated into the phone that he was denying the request. The director then asked Ron to leave which he did after approximately 10 total minutes of interaction)

These denials are clear violations of the freedom of information act.

Several days after SDP made the initial requests on Thursday the 7^th, The Massachusetts Green Rainbow Action Political Club (a 527 group), an organization which had been accepted into the festival, was also informed that it was going to be denied. (Note also that the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts has also taken a firm position on divestment and economic sanction with a statement that is considerably stronger than SDP's petition).

It is clear that whatever rules had supposedly been in place to block political organizations did not apply to the Green Rainbow political club at the time that the determination letters were issued by the ArtBeat Council.

Suddenly, a few days after SDP's requests to the ARtBeat Council, this decision was reversed. This lends more credence to the argument that in fact no rules were in place to block political groups because obviously the Green Rainbow Action Club would have been blocked at that time? but they weren't. Why not ? Why were they only asked not to participate after SDP made it's request to see the list of organizations that had been accepted or denied ? We await an explanation.

It became clear after a while that the director essentially agreed with us that we were in no violation of any rules and that the main reason that we were being denied is because he had received a lot of phone calls from people complaining about our presence and pressure from the mayor's office.

We asked him who made the final decisions on this matter. At first he indicated that he made the final decisions but then stated clearly that the mayor was his boss and "professionally" he had to consult with the mayor and was basically passing the buck to the mayor (even if he might agree with us "personally").

He indicated that the mayor was his boss and then proceeded to call the mayor's office in front of us. The conversation with the mayor's assistant was very brief and the director indicated that he heard the mayor say in the background "under no circumstances" and that we (SDP reps)should "leave the office".

Christina and Ron stayed for another 15 minutes or so and continued to argue that we had been to the events in two previous years 2003 and 2004 and that there were no incidents of any nature and no police were ever involved or anything really. We told him that approximately 200 to 400 people had come up to our table (at least 200 signatures plus other who did not sign but just took information)

We showed the director again the T-shirt design that one of our members had made as a lithograph plate and that it was original art. The director indicated finally that he did not have any problems with our materials but that he had received complaints.

Note that SDP had intended to sell 500 of the T-shirts to the thousands of documented SDP supporters who might attend the festival. We were unable to do this as a result of being blocked by the mayor. The net financial loss to SDPon the T-shirts alone is in the thousands of dollars.

At one point the director indicated that he might have to disallow all political groups from attending the event in order to be consistent.When pressured however he said that our group was different because he had received "complaints". So there were in fact no rules about political groups but instead the decision was made based on the political objections of the mayor and or other people, or else the director would have indicated that immediately upon asked.

That the ArtBeat Director (clearly expressing the mayor's sentiment and not his own) changed his tune a few days later and retroactively barred the MRGRA shows that SDP was originally blocked because of political discrimination and not any rules about political groups. This shows clearly that it was not in fact any rule that had been established by political groups but instead a special rule for SDP. We argued that it was political discrimination and that he was singling out SDP and not other political groups. This is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US constitution.

Over the next 4 or 5 days, SDP continued to try to get an explanation as to why we were being denied participation in the festival. At least six different reasons have been given, and as of Monday the 25t^th, no communication from the Mayor's office in either physical mail or email has been received documenting the reasons why SDP was blocked.

"we do not fit in" with the festival

our materials had "escalated" from last year (or that the issue of divestment had "escalated" from last year - which is called democracy by the way)

the Arts Council had "received complaints" of an unspecified nature and by whom, and how many nobody knows

we were a "political" group. Remember that at one point the Arts Council said that all political groups might have to be banned. But very quickly the council backed off of this comment

we were engaged in "lobbying" and so were different than other political groups. Note that at least 3 other organizations present at the festival were engaged in lobbying

we were engaged in "explicit political activity" because we were doing a ballot question. Note that the

The Somerville Climate Action group collected over 100 signatures at the festival petitioning to put a question on the ballot in Somerville. (We have photographs of this). They did this in plain site with a large banner, indicating that they were a political action group, for the full length of the festival and were never questioned by any ArtBeat officials who were plainly seen walking around the festival monitoring the event. It would not surprise me to see that the Somerville Climate Action group is able to get their question on the ballot as a result of the hundreds of people who came up to their table, signed the petition, offered to volunteer, or got educated on the issue so that they might support the petition being offered by the SCA.

The Somerville Divestment Project on the other hand was denied the opportunity to have a table where people could come up and learn about the organization using a table and clear visuals. As a result, SDP

did not collect over 100 signature at a tables as SCA did,
did not recruit volunteers to participate in signatures collection,
did not get a chance to have people sample educational materials,
did not get a chance to highlight the Palestinian cultural materials that humanize people's understanding of the plight of Palestinians,
did not get the chance to show off our large maps that help people understand the justice and human rights that we are fighting for
did not get the chance to show our big signs showing the growing support of divestment by 6 leading religious organizations, as well as the U.N., and a growing number of organizations.
did not get the chance to do the political work that clearly was being done at the festival (see list below),
did not get to raise the money necessary to print our educational materials,

and had to expend energy to lobby the Alderman and the Mayor to just get a basic right to be present at the festival and not be discriminated against because of "complaints", or to be treated in the same way as other political groups (depending on which of the mayor's 6 reasons we are fighting against).

Under these conditions we are expected to believe that the city of Somerville will conduct fair elections in November without oversight, when it is clear that city officials with power that flows down from the Mayor, are willing to openly discriminate against SDP. What other offices in the city that are controlled or influenced by the mayor will discriminate against SDP in applying the laws of the city, the State, or of the US.?

It is clear that SDP was originally (from the July 6^th to 12^th) because of political discrimination, before the mayors' office had finally settled on reason number 6^th for blocking SDP - SDP was a group that was engaged in explicit political activity and lobbying of the Board of Aldermen.

Let's see if this last reason - explicit political activity or of lobbying is consistent with the activities which took place on the day of the ArtBeat festival:

On the Day of the ArtBeat Festival:

Several other groups that were political were in full operation at the festival. There are photographs of all of these groups operating as well as photographs of the petition collected.

Amnesty International. This group advocates on behalf of political prisoners and had lobbied the Board of Aldermen.
Socially and Environmentally Responsible Investing group. This group had a sign up calling for "activist divestment".
Groundwork Somerville Action (contact Andrea Ranger 617 623 6143). This is a group that openly admits that they have done lobbying at the State House.
STEP, a transportation group that brings residents to Statehouse specifically for lobbying activity.
Somerville Climate Action. This group collected at least 100 signatures to petition for a ballot question in Somerville for the whole ArtBeat event and did this open explicitly political activity and was never questioned by openly present ArtBeat officials.

The failure of the ArtBeat organizers, who were fully present and observant, to stop organizations that were engaging in political, lobbying, or explicit ballot related measures is further evidence that that there were in fact no rules preventing political expression at the festival; SDP was blocked because the mayor opposes our political agenda.

In summary, The mayor of Somerville has abused his power as an executive for his own political advantage. In the process he has trampled over the rights of ordinary Somerville residents.

Specifically, the mayor has discriminated against SDP by singling out this political group for special treatment. To this date (Monday 22^nd) we do not have in writing why were discriminated against and have been given 6 different reasons.

Furthermore the mayor used his power to interfere, via political discriminatory, in the political process that is available to residents under MGL Chapter 53 section 18A, to collect signatures for a ballot question; the executive branch of government is intervening in matters having to do with elections. The mayor's action blocked SDP from using one of the usual avenues that are available for groups that are interested in expressing citizen opinion at the ballot box.

The mayor did this action knowing that ArtBeat is the only major Somerville event where groups are allowed to display their wares and express themselves. In addition the mayor knew that the ArtBeat festival would allow SDP to build support to lobby aldermen to put the question on the ballot as well as generate general support for the campaign.

The mayor does not seem to understand that his powers are given to him by the citizens and that he needs to use these powers responsibly and legally.

The volunteers of the Somerville Divestment Project however are a group that acts as it does as a matter of basic justice for Palestinians and we vow to continue our work even in an environment where we are clearly being targeted unfairly and illegally.

I always remember that Palestinians are killed for expressing themselves on their basic political rights, and that I as a Somerville taxpayer give money for the salary of a city auditor who votes every year to give money to Bonds and companies that carry out unconscionable human rights violations against Palestinians - some of whom are relatives of Palestinian Somervillians. Given what is happening to Palestinians on a daily basis with Somerville tax money money, SDP can be counted on to continue the fight for basic justice: Israel complying with international law and ending the racist practices of Israeli apartheid.

It is encouraging that one Alderman is requesting that the mayor give an explanation of why SDP was blocked.

Ron Francis
Ward 3 Coordinator SDP