Oh, Now I Understand!

When I first started covering City Hall well over a decade ago, I asked someone who really knew their way around city government (they've since retired) what was up with the Department of Building and Housing (B & H). Why couldn't it be reformed and brought into the modern age of government? The cryptic answer I got, along with a knowing smile, was, "They'll never be able to make reforms there." I pressed my source for more information over the years, but all I ever got was that wry smile.

Still today, most local contractors would rather get beat with a two-by-four with a rusty nail in it than go down to B & H. I’m the project manager for a small development in my ward, so I know more than a few tradesmen. The fifth floor of City Hall is like a Bermuda Triangle for builders... some go in for a permit and are never seen or heard from again. Their families file missing persons’ reports, search parties have been sent out, but to no avail. They seemed to have vanished into thin air. Rumors of ghost-like creatures have been reported, blueprints under their arms, roaming the halls of B & H at night, begging the cleaning staff, anyone, if they can please, please get permits for their projects. It’s spooky.

I just knew that Mike White, as tough a micro-manager as he was, would be able to reform B & H, but even he couldn’t pull it off … and believe me, he tried. Then came Jane Campbell, and I think it was her administration that introduced hand-held computers for housing inspectors to use to file their reports from the field. At last, I though, B & H was going to move into the modern age. Wrong. The inspectors dug their heels in and flat-out refused to use the devices, and they were probably trashed. There are sections in B & H where it’s rumored that computers aren’t even used … they still prefer typewriters — manuals, not electric. None of that new-fangled stuff for these Luddites.

And now, finally, I know why: Computers leave records... “fingerprints.” And the recently arrested inspectors weren’t about to allow anything to be instituted that would stop them from shaking down contractors. Remember, these were all senior employees, and they evidently could derail any changes. As long as everything was done the old-fashioned way, they figured they could get away with their scams forever.

In most cities contractors can pull permits online, they don’t have to go to City Hall and do a jig for some functionary to get a piece of paper; but not in Cleveland, and now we know why: Graft. Before the housing market went belly up Cleveland approved permits for 1700 new homes in its best year; in that same year Atlanta approved 17,000 (mostly online!), a figure B & H couldn’t handle if it tried. Bribe-taking works better face-to-face.

Mayor Jackson, an honest and able public official, put Ed Rybka (an equally honest and able public servant) over B & H in an attempt to bring it into the modern age, but he was — and is — fighting a firmly entrenched bureaucracy; and the truth may be that he is winning the fight, maybe changes are underway that the public is not yet aware of. However, perception, not truth, is reality; and the reality among contractors is that this is a dysfunctional department.

But now, with the with the recent busts, Rybka just might be able to get some traction in terms of instituting changes that the public is aware of — and would deeply appreciate.

Please don’t mistakenly think that everyone down at B & H is looking to have their palms greased, is inept, or is lazy; there are some fine city workers in that department. Maybe I should repeat this line because I guarantee you than it will be overlooked as critics accuse me of painting everyone with the same brush: There really are some good people working in B & H.

But also don’t think for a minute that all of the crooks have been caught — not by a long shot. If you believe that, please rush me some of that funny stuff you’ve been smoking. A few contractors have told me about other inspectors who have the habit of sticking their hands out, and they’ve yet to be indicted — but I imagine that by now they are as nervous as a bunch of whores in church.

And there really should be a special felony charge for government employees — any government employees, no matter where they work — who take paychecks under false pretenses … posing as if they really are doing something, all the while knowing they haven’t done squat but punched in for years. Their thinking goes “It’s bad enough that I have to be here five days a week and you expect me to actually do some work too? Are you kidding?” NOTE: Feel free to circle that last sentence and leave it on someone’s desk, if you feel that someone needs to see it.

If there ever was a time to clean up B & H, it’s now … and then maybe those Ghosts of Contractors Past, those souls that have been stuck in permit purgatory, wandering the halls of the fifth floor for years, will finally be able to get some rest.

Testi-lying

I’m almost positive that it was Barry Scheck, the founder and director of the Innocence Project (a national organization that has helped to free dozens of falsely convicted individuals over the years) who invented the term “testi-lying” to describe the illegal behavior of police officers, coroners, and other “expert” witnesses for the prosecution, when, in some criminal cases, they falsely testify under oath to win a conviction they otherwise might lose. It’s a practice that is far more pervasive than anyone associated with America’s criminal justice/judicial system cares to admit, but in some twisted minds acceptable behavior since “the ends justify the means,” and, “after all, they probably were guilty of something.”

These liars know that we Americans are taught to respect and not question authority — a mindset that is actually more damaging to, than supportive of, democracy — so once they’ve made up their minds that the person they are lying about is guilty, fudging the facts (or in some cases they just outright make them up out of thin air) to sway gullible jurors is, to them, acceptable behavior. It was former New York Chief Supreme Court Judge Sol Wachtler who once famously said (I’m paraphrasing here): Grand juries are so easily led around by the nose, that a prosecutor can get them to indict a ham sandwich.

This brings me to the case of DEA agent Lee Lucas. He was indicted last week for lying to win convictions in numerous drug cases emanating from a years-long Mansfield, OH sting operation. According to the indictment, Lucas committed perjury and violated the civil rights of a number of defendants who were guilty of nothing other than being black. Believe me, the kind of behavior Lucas is accused of engaging in would not be allowed to happen in a white community... no way, no how. Everything his snitch told him he pretended to believe, usually without corroboration. Why?

Because he wanted to be known as a super-cop, and for his peers to believe that he had to have convictions — actual guilt or innocence seemed to be of little consequence to Lucas.

This case is somewhat analogous to the torture cases that currently have Washington in turmoil: How far should government agents go, in terms of breaking the law, under the guise of protecting the citizenry?

As for the use of lying snitches, allegedly no one did it better than former Cuyahoga County prosecutor Carmen Marino. When faced with a tough case and no witnesses, he supposedly would place a snitch in the cell with the person on trial, coach the snitch on what information he needed, and then, at trial, the snitch would testi-lie that the person confessed to him in the middle of the night. Jurors were (and still are) gullible enough to believe that a person charged with murder or some other serious crime would confess to a total stranger placed in a cell with them, sometimes for just one night. I guess the malefactor just have an overwhelming need to unburden themselves to someone — anyone.

After “testi-lying” for the prosecution the snitch is then usually given a “license” to sell drugs or commit other crimes in the black community … until their services were needed again. All of this is being done in the name of “justice.” Prosecutors sometimes call it “winning ugly,” but winning nonetheless.

However, Lucas and others of his ilk have many defenders in the law enforcement community, and a goodly number of them were in the federal courtroom to lend moral support when he made his first appearance in front of a judge. It was “circle the wagons” time, as a blue wall of defenders came to his aid, and they will do everything within their power to assure that Lucas is never convicted … and they probably will be successful. One has to wonder why, with the overwhelming (albeit circumstantial at this point) evidence contained in the indictment, why these fellow officers seem to be offering their unconditional support. What if Lucas is found guilty, will they still support him?

For some of these supporters it’s not about getting to the truth of the matter, it’s only about protecting one of their own … no matter if he’s right or wrong. From people sworn to uphold the law, and act under color of authority, this should be very scary.

In a way this case is similar to Bernie Madoff’s: No one questioned how Madoff could possibly make so much money (even during bad economic times), and, likewise, no one at the DEA ever questioned how Lucas could make so many arrests that led to convictions — it’s called willful blindness, and that should be very scary too.

When Richard Nixon dubbed it a “War on Drugs” he set the tone for the kind of behavior Lucas is alleged to have engaged in: Win at any and all costs, the truth be damned; and another scary thought is … how many other DEA agents — and other law enforcement officials — around the country are perhaps as guilty of the same type of behavior Lucas stands accused of?

How many innocent people are serving long prison sentences so that some agent can “keep their stats up” as if this is a baseball game or some other sport?

Why do officers and government agents frame some people and torture others … and then testi-lie about their behavior? For the same reason dogs lick their testicles … because they can. Who’s going to stop them? For some of them, it’s all about winning promotions. But remember, most societies die — simply rot away —from cancerous behavior from within, not from enemies without.

The prosecution of a DEA agent is such a rarity, I just know there is a book (and probably a movie) deal here … I just don’t have the time to devote to the project; but if there is a good writer out there searching for a meaningful book project, I’d be happy to collaborate with them. I know this stuff inside out.

From Cool Cleveland contributor Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com

Read Mansfield's book From Behind the Wall: Commentary on Crime, Punishment, Race, and the Underclass by a Prison Inmate. It is available again in hardcover through the author. Visit him online at http://www.FromBehindTheWall.com.

 (:divend:)