Chief Bratton's resignation is a great loss for the city of Los Angeles. He believes in community policing, and he restored the confidence of the community in the LAPD. I watched three prior police chiefs run the LAPD, and the reality is that progress was not made until Chief Bratton became chief and imposed his will and values on the department.

While Chief Bratton has made some progress in ending racial profiling by the LAPD, it's unfortunate that he rejected our recent report documenting continued racial profiling by the department ''' a report that showed black and Latino residents of this city are stopped, frisked and arrested far more often than whites. That's a very troubling trend, and it demonstrates that even under Chief Bratton, the LAPD has not yet met all the goals and intent of the Consent Decree.

We urge the Police Commission to take the strongest possible leadership role to ensure that the department continues to work toward ending discrimination in its policing, as required by the federal judge who recently terminated the Consent Decree. Indeed, much about the LAPD is in flux -- the removal of court supervision, the end of the monitor's role, new responsibilities for the inspector general and now the departure of Chief Bratton. The department needs a new leader who is up to the standards set by him, and who is no less committed to the reforms currently in place than Chief Bratton was.

We wish the chief well. However, his announcement that he will be working in a new venture with Michael Cherkasky -- who was the court-appointed monitor for the Consent Decree -- raises serious questions that need to be answered.

Ramona Ripston is Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – A group of high-ranking retired military officers and government officials has joined the Jewish War Veterans, the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, the Muslim American Veterans Association and other groups in filing amicus briefs supporting the position of the American Civil Liberties Union that a stand-alone Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve is not an appropriate national memorial to American veterans.

The briefs filed yesterday at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. argue that the cross – one of only 49 congressionally designated national war memorials – constitutes a government endorsement of Christianity. It does not, as the memorial’s defenders claim, commemorate all war dead and veterans, or all veterans of World War I. Rather, the cross sends the message that the military values the sacrifices of Christian soldiers over those of non-Christians, the groups said.

Such a message hurts the military as an institution, said the brief filed by former high-ranking military and government officials, who include Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a 31-year veteran of the U.S. Army and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.

“Designation of a Christian symbol as a national memorial sends a signal that America values only the sacrifice of Christian soldiers,” said Brig. Gen. Israel Drazin, a 31-year veteran and ordained rabbi who, at 21, became the youngest U.S. chaplain ever to serve on active duty.
“That message is inconsistent with both the military’s commitment to respecting the faiths of all its men and woman equally, and its vital efforts to attract young men and women of every religious belief and national origin to serve their country.”

Two Muslim veterans’ groups filing an amicus brief in support of the ACLU said they “respect our Christian brothers in arms, and we respect their faith.” Nevertheless, “a memorial to American veterans should be a memorial to all American veterans, not only to Christian veterans…But the symbol chosen commemorates only the Christians,” said the brief filed by the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, and the Muslim American Veterans Association.

The briefs were filed in a case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of an eight-foot-tall Latin cross erected on federal land in the Mojave National Preserve. At issue now is whether a congressional law allowing that cross to remain in exactly the same place by transferring ownership of an acre of preserve land to the local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars adequately addresses the constitutional violation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California that this transfer of
federal land did not eliminate the government’s endorsement of religion, and thus did not solve the constitutional violation that the lower courts had already found. But the government appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case on October 7, 2009.

“As the son of a Jewish World War II Navy veteran, I am gratified that so many distinguished retired officers and veterans organizations have recognized what Congress has unfortunately ignored: We cannot honor all the men and women who have served our country in the military with a symbol that is worshipped only by believers of one religion,” said Peter Eliasberg, the attorney of record in the case and managing attorney for the ACLU of Southern California.

Eleven percent of current active members of the military say they belong to a non-Christian faith, while an additional 21 percent are atheists or report no religion. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims all serve in Afghanistan, Iraq and other theaters, and Jews and Muslims have fought in the American military in every war, including the Revolutionary War.

“Unlike individual headstones for fallen American soldiers, which appropriately reflect the personal religious preferences of those brave men and women, this cross claims to speak for all veterans,” said Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “But as the preeminent symbol of only one faith, this national memorial in the Mojave National Preserve sends a message that the sacrifices of non-Christians are not honored or valued.”

Other groups filing amicus briefs in support of the ACLU’s position in the case include the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Interfaith Alliance.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – With California’s 650,000 farm workers facing a daily risk of death and illness from toiling in stifling summer heat, the ACLU affiliates of Southern California and San Diego and Imperial Counties, and the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, filed a landmark lawsuit today against the state and its Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) for failing to live up to their constitutional and statutory duties to protect the safety of farm workers

The lawsuit charges that state officials have failed in virtually every possible way to create a system to protect these workers, who provide 90 percent of the labor for California’s multibillion-dollar agricultural industry – the nation’s largest -- that produces everything from grapes and strawberries to lettuce and tomatoes. Perhaps most glaringly, Cal/OSHA has failed to establish common-sense regulations that would provide potentially life-saving water, shade and rest to workers who labor outdoors in temperatures that regularly top 100 degrees F.

In addition, the state requires that its existing -- and deficient -- heat safety regulation be enforced exclusively through Cal/OSHA, even though that agency has no practical ability to do the job. Cal/OSHA has so few inspectors that it simply cannot protect workers in an industry this large, routinely imposes paltry fines even for serious violations and deaths, fails to collect fines it does impose, and allows enforcement actions to be tied up in appeals processes that often delay penalties for years.

“Farm workers are literally dying because of the state’s broken system, which is designed in a way that ensures underenforcement of the law,” said Catherine Lhamon, assistant legal director for the ACLU of Southern California. “The state’s system is so full of loopholes that compliance is effectively optional, and employers flout the law with impunity.”

The state itself has identified such serious noncompliance from agricultural employers that this summer it twice declared emergencies. But even then the state took no regulatory or legislative action to protect farm workers. “We are left with no choice but to ask the court to require that the state protect farm workers from serious heat-related illness and death, which is readily preventable with basic precautions,” said Brad Phillips, an attorney with Munger, Tolles.

The state enacted its current heat safety regulation in 2005. At least 11 farm workers have died from heat-related illness since then, and farm workers have been pleading with the state for safety improvements all that time. Last year the agency conducted only 750 inspections among approximately 35,000 farms statewide – and found that nearly 40 percent had violated mandatory heat safety regulations.

Among the workers to die from heat-related illness was Maria de Jesus Bautista, who complained of nausea, headache and cold sweats in July 2008 while picking grapes during extreme heat in Riverside County. She died two weeks later. Bautista’s daughter, Margarita, is also a farm worker and still works in the fields of Riverside County. Having seen what happened to her mother, she fears for her safety during hot weather, but works out of economic necessity.

Socorro Rivera works for the largest grape grower in the United States, Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, which has vineyards in Kern and Tulare counties. On hot days, the shade provided by Giumarra consists of a plastic tarp slung over three rows of vines. Workers do not take shelter under it because air doesn’t circulate under the tarp, and it’s hotter there than in direct sunlight, Rivera says. Giumarra’s training to prevent heat illness consists of a supervisor reading a list of heat illness symptoms for 10 minutes once a year.

But no meaningful enforcement action has been taken against Giumarra. That is only one example of a glaring problem: in addition to a scarcity of inspectors and inspections, even employers who are charged with violating existing regulations escape with little or no punishment. Penalties for violations that have resulted in heat-related deaths average less than $10,000, and have dropped to as low as $250. Meanwhile, hazardous conditions often continue uncorrected for years as the labor contractors typically targeted by the state fail to pay fines or to address violations.

In addition, the industry has no environmental “trigger” such as temperature, humidity or radiant heat exposure that would set in motion a series of mandatory protective measures. One provision of Cal/OSHA’s emergency proposals earlier this year was a requirement for employers to provide shade for workers when temperatures exceed 85 degrees F. But the proposals placed the burden for taking shade breaks on farm workers themselves. Many workers say they are pressured to keep up with competing crews, and they are fearful of being fired if they take voluntary breaks to cool down.

“If hundreds of thousands of white-collar employees had to work under dangerous and life-threatening conditions, the state would almost certainly take immediate action to protect their health and safety,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director for the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. “Low-income farm workers, who are overwhelmingly Latino, deserve no less.”

“The governor has said he would address this crisis through heat regulations,” added Arturo Rodriguez, president of the United Farm Workers. “Yet farm workers have continued to die, and the evidence points to neglect, not ignorance, as the cause of their deaths. Consequently, we have no moral or practical choice but legal action."

In contrast to California’s agricultural industry, the United States Army expressly recognizes the importance off heat stress control in providing a safe and efficient working environment. Steps taken by the Army to actively manage employee heat stress include: monitoring heat index levels and employing a “flag system” that regulates work/rest cycles; ensuring that water is consumed continuously throughout the day; and training soldiers and command officers to recognize and respond to symptoms of heat illness.