New Report released on sexual abuse by Catholic Priests in Grand Rapids, my own experience, and what the Bishop said and didn’t say
On December 12th, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel released a report that covered a 75 year period of reported sexual abuse by Catholic Priests in the Diocese of Grand Rapids.
The 336 page report is hauntingly difficult to read, especially since there were lots of names I recognized in the report. When I first moved to Grand Rapids in the early 1980s, I was a youth minister at St. James Catholic Church in Grand Rapids. The following year I went into the Catholic seminary and attended Aquinas College as part of the process of becoming a Catholic Priest.
The priest at St. James who invited me to work there was Fr. Charles Antekeier, one of the priests named in the report. Antekeier was a rather conservative priest who was part of the Catholic Charismatic movement, which adopted some fundamentalists religious views, but maintained a deep commitment to Rome and the church hierarchy.
I loved the work with the youth, both at the grade school and through the congregation, but I soon realized that Fr. Antekeier was a rather rigid leader and would not tolerate anyone who questioned him. A friend of mine at the time, who was head of the Peace & Justice committee at the church had organized an event to hear from two local priests who had just come back from Nicaragua to talk about the role that some catholic priests were playing in the revolution there. Fr. Antekeier was not pleased by this event and made it a point to invite Nicaraguans to speak at a mass the following week. However, the Nicaraguans he invited were part of the Word of God community in Ann Arbor, which was a reactionary group that supported the Nicaraguan dictatorship that had been overthrown in 1979.
I was then told by Fr. Antekeier that I needed to go to Ann Arbor and spend a week at the Word of God community, so I could be presented the real truth about what was happening there. I refused, saying that I already had work commitments with the youth of the church. Fr. Antekeier then told me to pack my stuff and leave that same day, as I was fired from my job.
In 2015, Fr. Charles Antekeier was permanently removed from doing any ministry work, since it was revealed that while he was pastor of St. James Church, he abused youth in the parish in the early 1980s. I remember seeing a news story about this and then read the formal statement from the Grand Rapids Catholic Diocese.
I was not surprised by this revelation, since I always had a suspicion about Antekeier’s relationship to the families at St. James, especially since his authority could not be questioned. However, I do struggle with the fact that this priest was probably abusing children while I was working at the church and I had no idea it was taking place.
The details about Fr. Antekeier in this new report are deeply troubling. There are 30 pages alone of testimony from survivors in this report, with victims being abused by Fr. Antekeier as both children and adults.
Bishop’s Response
On December 15th, the Catholic Bishop for the Grand Rapids Diocese wrote a letter and made it public here at this link.
The two-page letter has some sincere comments, particularly regarding victims/survivors. At one point the Bishop writes:
All alleged conduct involving a minor occurred before 2002, the year the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops enacted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. While the report highlights the failings of priests over a 75-year period, it lacks proper context, especially in failing to acknowledge how the Church has supported victim-survivors and taken appropriate and immediate actions to address reports of clerical sexual abuse, especially since 2002. The AG report gives evidence that these safeguards are working.
While this comment seems reassuring, I don’t personally take comfort in it. There are two things that I find troubling from both the report and the Bishop’s response. First, there isn’t any real acknowledgment or exploration around the fact that Catholic priests have tremendous power in the communities they work in. Catholic priests are still seen by too many people as authority figures who often do not like to be questioned or challenged, especially in public. What I wrote about my experience with Fr. Antekeier was about the power he had and even though I was not sexually assaulted by him, he still wielded tremendous power over someone who dared to question him. The Catholic Church (and churches in general) need to address the formal and informal power that clergy have in this society, if we are serious about addressing abuses committed by clergy.
The second problem with I have with Bishop’s response is his comment in the last sentence, “The AG report gives evidence that these safeguards are working.” The Bishop provides no hard evidence that the abuse by priests isn’t continuing. If you say that there are no new reports then you are perpetuating one of the dynamics about the power that priests continue to have. Those who have a documented history of abuse are not the only problem, since there are likely priests who have not yet been caught or held accountable for their actions. Just because people are not coming forward doesn’t mean clergy abuse has ceased in the Grand Rapids Diocese.
Lastly, it is worth noting that in the Bishop’s letter he does not have any strong language condemning this history of sexual abuse by priests. The only language he uses is calling the abuse a “crime and a sin.” This kind of language is not forceful enough and the Bishop should make it clear that he condemns this kind of violence, both physical and spiritual, since priests can easily coerce and manipulate children and adults they mean to harm.
The Bishop also completely ignore the trauma caused by such abuse, trauma that has life-long implications for individuals and families who have been impacted. The Catholic Church has not responded adequately to this issue and too many priests have not been held accountable for their actions and abuse of power as priests. People who have been harmed deserve better, indeed they deserve more.
Campesinos reclaim some communal lands in Mexico that Amway has been using for their Nutrilite product line
I read an interesting story on Crain’s Grand Rapids Business yesterday, which centered around a land dispute between the Amway Corporation and Mexican farmers.
The Crain’s article headline reads, Inside Amway’s failed $2.7B claim over seized Mexican farmland. Early on in the story it states:
The dispute follows a 2022 land seizure that has been in arbitration since 2023. Amway affiliate Access Business Group has racked up nearly $3.5 million in legal costs to protect the company’s interest in a plot of land known as Rancho El Petacal that the Ada-based direct selling giant purchased in the early 1990s for its Nutrilite supplement operations.
This article is instructive in so many ways. First, the Crain’s article is written almost entirely from the point of view of the Amway Corporation. At one point in the article readers do hear from someone other than Amway:
“This land has been stolen, first by the landlords of the hacienda, and then came the worst, when the government handed over the land to a transnational company instead of us peasants,” Raúl De la Cruz Reyes, chairman of the San Isidro ejido, told publication Pie de Pagina in 2022. “This company destroyed the fauna, everything. They take the product but the people remain poor because the wealth is taken abroad. What is left here are people who are worn out from work and a few elites who are filling their pockets with money.”
Second, without looking into the claims of those who have communal land rights, the Crain’s article shifts gears and talks to a Grand Valley State University Seidman College of Business professor, who was also cited at length early on in the article.
Third, when discussing the arbitration component, the Crain’s article states:
In its 2023 arbitration request, Amway argued its investments reflected the company’s commitment to its Mexico operations and benefited the local economy.
The investments included the construction of a nearly 4-mile highway to the farm, a bridge and a water treatment plant for the local community. Amway said it contributed financially to the construction of a local church, a soccer facility, and to maintenance of an elementary school facility. Amway also built a community center where Nutrilite has sponsored events such as English language courses, arts workshops and nutrition programs.
“The Nutrilite operation on the Nutrilite Property land and corresponding improvements was the first source of employment in the local community. It did more than contribute to the local economy. The Nutrilite investment actually created that economy,” the company said in the arbitration request.
What the Crain’s article suggests is that the people from the community had nothing before Amway arrived and made their lives better. Fortunately, there is another narrative. In an article headlined, San Isidro vs Amway, it states:
The communities brought their case against Amway to the United Nations and to the Permanent Peoples Tribunal. They denounced the company for violating their right to use their lands, not only to grow their foods but also to access water and move freely across their territory. They also denounced the company for environmental damage, contaminating water sources and causing health impacts such as cancer, kidney damage, and poor childhood growth. The community also decried how, without access to land, they were forced to work for the company, in poorly paid and precarious conditions.
This paints a fundamentally different narrative from the one that the Amway Corporation wants to portray. I found another article written in an online publication called Ojala, with the headline, The long road to getting land back in Mexico. This article also presents a very different narrative than the Crain’s article, which relies primarily on Amway’s narrative. Here is one excerpt from that article:
In 1994, U.S. company Amway/Nutrilite S.R.L. de C.V., bought the land from the former plantation owners, who were in deeply in debt, under the regulations of the North American Free Trade Agreement. According to attorney Robles, the company did so knowing that the land title was disputed. The company purchased the land nonetheless, while accepting liability for any conflict that might occur. It never complied with the agreement that its representatives signed. Amway has asked the courts to affirm its claim to the land, but this should be dismissed given this clause, according to the ejidatarios and their lawyer.
Ojalá attempted to contact Amway’s communications department via phone and email to inquire about the reasons for its lawsuit, despite having agreed during the purchase to assume the consequences of having acquired the land in default. We have not yet received a response.
It warms my heart to read of the possibility that communal lands might be restore to Indigenous people in Mexico. During the Mexican Revolution over 100 years ago, one of the principles of that revolution were captured in the phrase – Those who work the land ought to own it collectively!
It should surprise none of us who live in West Michigan, that the Amway Corporation is seeking to keep land that did not belong to them. The Amway Corporation should be seen clearly in this case as the outsiders and the colonizers of land they have no right to. As the Mexican Revolutionary Emiliano Zapata once said, “Tierra o Muerte!” “ Land or Death!”
Real Estate Investment firm just bought 3 more apartment complexes for $67.5 million, but their CEO is against the Invest in MI Kids ballot initiative
The growing real estate investment company Trillium Investments, just got a whole lot bigger with their recent purchased of three separate apartment complexes in West Michigan.
According to an article from Crain’s Grand Rapids Business:
The transaction included the 160-unit Bayberry Farms, at 5910 Bayberry Farms Drive in Wyoming, for $24.5 million, or $153,125 per door, and the 100-unit Marcell Ridge at 240 Marcell Drive NE in Rockford, for $14.6 million, or $146,000 per door. As part of the same deal, Trillium also bought the 181-unit Meadow Springs at 3079 E. Springview Drive in Holland Township for $28.4 million, or $157,778 per door.
The total cost of these three purchases comes out to $67.5 million. This purchase provides Trillium Investments with a sizable control over rental properties in West Michigan. The company already controls/owns rental properties in the following West Michigan counties:
- Kent County – Richmond Hills, College Hill, Ashbrook, Town & Country, Eagles Nest
- Ottawa County – Highbrook Town Homes and Cottonwood Forest
- Muskegon County – The Amazon
It’s bad enough when you have companies controlling this much housing in West Michigan, since they get to dictate rental rates that are generally out of reach to most working class individuals and families that are already housing insecure. But that it not the only thing that is problematic about Trillium Investments. Their CEO, Dan Meyering, has been very public about his opposition to the Invest in MI Kids ballot initiative.
There are currently 12 billionaire families living in Michigan, with 2 right here in the Grand Rapids area, the Meijer and DeVos families. According to one source, there are 73,364 households in Michigan with $500,000 or more in income, which makes up only 1.8% of the population. Therefore, if the ballot initiative is passed, then 1.8% of the population – the wealthiest members of Michigan – will pay increased taxes that will generate billions for public schools.m
As I reported last month, Dan Meyering says of the Invest in MI Kids ballot initiative:
If adopted, this income tax increase would fall hardest on Michigan’s small businesses, not its largest corporations. In fact, over 75% of those who would pay more under this plan are small business owners. That’s because many small businesses are “pass-through” entities, meaning owners pay taxes on business earnings and even money reinvested into growth, hiring, or equipment. The simple truth is these entrepreneurs aren’t forced to pay additional taxes on household income of $500,000 for single filers; they’re taxed on their business’ income.
First of all, if passed, the Invest in MI Kids ballot initiative would not increase taxes for corporations, yet Meyering includes corporations in his deceptive argument. Second, Meyering makes the claim that whatever profits small businesses make gets reinvested in new hiring or equipment, but again does not provide evidence or data to support such a claim.
Later in the article, Meyering uses the standard anti-public education talking points, where he states:
We should focus on three clear changes to help kids learn:
- Make sure third-grade reading works by supporting teachers with proven science-of-reading instruction and literacy-based advancement.
- Give parents transparency to make school performance data clear, comparable and accessible.
- Expand options for families. Every child learns differently, and every family deserves access to the education model that works best for them.
It is worth noting that Meyering refers to himself as a small business owner. Now, when I think of a small business owner I think of someone who owns a neighborhood restaurant or a bookstore. Meyering is the CEO of Trillium Investments, which owns a growing number of multifamily apartments across the midwest. These apartments are not affordable to most people, thus Meyering’s company owns apartment complexes that cater to members of the professional class. Thus, owning apartment complexes in Michigan and Minnesota hardly makes one a small business owner.
Meyering has a history of using his wealth and position of influence to impact public policy that benefits the wealthy and punishes working class people. For example, Meyering sits on the board of the Michigan Strategic Fund, which uses public dollars to support private projects, like the one he voted on to give $252.3 million of incentives for Amphitheater in downtown Grand Rapids. Meyering was also a signatory to the GR Chamber’s push for the City of Grand Rapids to adopt ordinances that would criminalize the unhoused.
Lastly, Meyering contributes to political campaigns locally, where he uses his wealthy to influence the outcome of elections. Meyering contributed $1000 or more in the following local elections since 2022:
$1000 to Andrew Robbins who ran for Grand Rapids 1st Ward Commissioner in 2022
$1000 to Kenneth Hoskins who ran for Grand Rapids 3rd Ward Commissioner in 2022
$1225 to Dean Pacific who ran for Grand Rapids 1st Ward Commissioner in 2024
$1225 to John Krajewski who ran for Grand Rapids 3rd Ward Commissioner in 2024
If Meyering can spend that kind of money to influence local elections and sit on state boards that approve millions of public dollars for private projects, he can surely pay a modest increase in income taxes to benefit public education. This is what propaganda looks like and why we need to call it out.
Last week I posted an article that provided some historical context for why Kent County has been so opposed to adopting the 6 sanctuary policies that Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have been demanding since the beginning of 2025. The historical context is based on Freedom of Information (FOIA) documents that people requested in 2018. Today I want to present similar historical context for why the City of Grand Rapids has been unwilling to move on the same 6 sanctuary policy demands. Today’s post is based on FOIA documents from 2019, specifically how much the GRPD was engaged in monitoring of Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE, including threats and intimidation.
It should be stated that since Movimiento Cosecha GR and it’s ally group, GR Rapid Response to ICE, began organizing in early 2017, the GRPD has consistently engaged in surveillance, monitoring, harassment and intimidation tactics of this movement. On many occasions, when organizers engaged in specific actions, there were as many, and at times, more police officers present than there were those protesting.
In what follows, you will see that the GRPD spent a great deal of energy, resources and taxpayer money to monitor, harass and threaten a consistently non-violent movement for immigration justice.
The FOIA documents obtained can be viewed at this link, with 271 pages of e-mail communication, text messages, photos, and other documents related to the 2019 May Day action that Cosecha GR had planned.
On pages 269 – 271, you can see the final cost of the FOIA request, which was $551.01. However, if one goes through the pages, it is clear that 90-95% of the documents were redacted by the GRPD. Here is the explanation they provide on the redaction:
Your request for these records is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Please be advised that information has been redacted from the documents under MCL 15.243(1)(a)(information of a personal nature release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy) and MCL 15.243(1)(b)(iii) (law enforcement records release of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy). It is the City’s position that the public interest in the disclosure of this information is outweighed by the public interest in keeping this information private. The core purpose of the FOIA is to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. Requests for information that involve private citizens in government files that reveal little to nothing about the inner working of government do not serve the core purpose of the FOIA.
Apparently, the GRPD did not want the public to know what they did, and more importantly, how they operate. So much for transparency.
On page 255, the FOIA document states this:
One could certainly make the point that the work of Movimiento Cosecha GR is anti-fascist, but the idea that there are “professional protesters” is just plain ridiculous.
Even more disturbing in the document on page 238, which shows what the GRPD was threatening to do if people marched in the street:
Remember, Movimiento Cosecha GR is a non-violent movement, but this is how the GRPD planned on responding if people marched in the streets. with violent repression.
On page 240, they GRPD included pictures they took that day, but every single one of those pictures are redacted.
However, the bulk of the FOIA documents are from e-mails by the GRPD within the department. Again, most of what are contained in the e-mails are redacted, but there are some useful and revealing comments that were used, which we want to look at.
Page 17 – It states, “Just touching base to make sure we are up and running for tomorrow’s Movimiento event as Arrest Team 2.” The GRPD is always eager to arrest someone.
Page 28 – Here the GRPD is talking about a Crowd Management plan, which means they want to manage what those protesting do. The police are always trying to bend actions the way they want them.
Page 39 – “I believe the below link is the video, but it is Movimiento Cosecha explaining that they are going to march without a permit tomorrow and know that the march will disrupt people.I would like it maintained for evidence the event we end up making arrests.”
Pages 53-57 – Includes communication between Cosecha GR and the City of Grand Rapids. The question should be asked as to why the GRPD would include this communication?
Page 59 – The GRPD is trying to set up a meeting with “Hispanic Community Leaders,” but they were rebuked saying that Cosecha GR is the group that needed to be at the table. The GRPD uses the tactic here to marginalize on the ground organizers, by meeting with people who are considered leaders, but not doing the on the ground work.
Page 72 – Operations plan is completely redacted
Pages 82-84 – The GRPD provides numerous links to articles “of interest” about the planned May Day march.
Page 103 – The GRPD says, “Being May 1, that is the date of the Mayday March organized by Movmiento Cosecha, an immigrant rights group that seeks to disrupt traffic each year. Last year was a mess and we expect worse this year.”
Page 105 – The GRPD again talking about meeting with community leaders, but that they should not initiate, “as it may be seen by some as an attempt to interfere with march plans.”
Page 173 – The GRPD writes, “I don’t think he is a member of Cosecha but I think we can make him do whatever we want…doesn’t he work for you guys?” Seems as if they are trying to get someone to infiltrate and/or collect intelligence for them.
While these examples are not terribly revealing, they do provide a window into the mindset of the GRPD and their efforts to manipulate and marginalize social movements. More importantly, the GRPD clearly does not believe in transparency, since most of the documents are redacted, thus preventing the public from having any understanding of how the GRPD functions. The larger questions are; 1)what are they hiding?, and 2) what can we learn from these documents and this example in terms of how social movements can be best prepared to deal with state violence and repression?
This historical context about why the City of Grand Rapids has opposed adopting sanctuary policies should be clearer for those following the efforts of Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE. The GRPD continues to deny any cooperation with ICE and the City of Grand Rapids continues to support the GRPD’s harassment and surveillance of Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE actions to pressure the city to adopt the 6 sanctuary policies since early 2025.
Rockford (Construction) will likely get the contract for a housing development project next to the Amway Stadium
At a recent Downtown Development Authority (DDA) meeting, Rockford (formerly known as Rockford Construction) was authorized to “to explore development potential for surface lot property the DDA owns,” according to a story on Crain’s Grand Rapids Business.
In a Memorandum from the DDA (part of the Agenda packet from 12/10 pg. 41) it reads:
For several reasons, staff believe Rockford is uniquely qualified to deliver on the objectives previously articulated for the project and site. Those qualifications include being the general contractor for the Stadium which provides them with an understanding of site conditions and coordination logistics for future development. Further Rockford is Downtown based, well capitalized, and has a history of delivering projects on the west side of Downtown – including several mixed-use projects with housing in the immediate vicinity of the stadium.
MLive also reported on the DDA’s recommendation that Rockford be the preferred developer for the housing project next to the Amway Stadium.
The problem with the MLive and Crain’s reporting is that it doesn’t provide adequate context for all the players involved in the development project. Here is how I see this project coming together.
- The Amway Stadium project, which included adjacent housing, was proposed by Grand Action 2.0. Dick DeVos is one of the three co-Chairs of this group.
- The Grand Rapids Downtown Development Authority (DDA) approved the original request for the Amway Stadium and is now recommending that Rockford get the contract for the housing development project. Two of the nine board members for the DDA are DeVos family operatives – Greg McNeilly (The Windquest Group is run by Dick and Betsy DeVos) and Rick Winn, the President of AHC Hospitality is owned by the DeVos and Van Andel families.
- It was determined last year that the Soccer Stadium would be named the Amway Stadium, since the Amway Coporation bought the naming rights for $33 million. The Amway Corporation is owned by the DeVos and Van Andel families.
- Just after the soccer stadium would be named the Amway Stadium, it was reported that the DeVos and Van Andel families would own the professional soccer team that would be playing at the Amway Stadium.
- The fact that Rockford was named as the company to likely get the contract to develop the housing project adjacent to the Amway Stadium makes complete sense. Rockford has a long history of working with the DeVos family, like the company’s integral involvement with the Doug & Maria DeVos-funded effort to spend millions to purchase land in the Boston Square and Cottage Grove areas, with Rockford’s involvement that began as early as 2014, some three years before the public ever knew about it.
In a 2016 MLive article, former Rockford CEO Mike VanGessel was talking about why Rockford moved to the westside:
Three years after moving the company’s headquarters into the neighborhood, VanGessel is working on a series of plans and projects aimed at revitalizing the gritty, working-class neighborhood into an entertainment, shopping and residential neighborhood.
VanGessel revealed in this article that he had developed important relationships over the years with other power players in the area, specifically Rich DeVos, Mike Jandernoa and Pete Secchia.
So, you can see from my narrative about who benefits from these development projects is based on who gets to decide, which in this case it is primarily the DeVos family, followed by the Van Andel family. This is what political and economic power looks like in Grand Rapids.
Rep. Scholten proudly voted for Trump’s $900.6 billion US military budget, demonstrating yet again that she is an imperialist
The US House of Representatives voted 312-112 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2026. Rep. Hillary Scholten was one of the many Democrats to vote with the Republicans to support the nearly $1 trillion US military budget.
In a recent statement the National Priorities Project, which opposes US military spending wrote:
“The last thing Congress should do is deliver $1 trillion into the hands of Secretary Pete Hegseth. Under Secretary Hegseth’s leadership, the Pentagon has killed unidentified boaters in the Caribbean, sent the National Guard to occupy peaceful U.S. cities, and driven a destructive and divisive anti-diversity agenda in the miltiary,” said Lindsay Koshgarian, Program Director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
National Priorities Project has previously shown what $1 trillion could do for the country: from ending the nursing shortage to insuring uninsured children, preventing evictions, and replacing lead pipes, every dollar the Pentagon wastes is a dollar that isn’t helping Americans get by.
Rep. Scholten has been blaming the Trump Administration for the increased cost of living, yet in standard hypocritical fashion she votes to approve $900.6 billion for militarism.
Guess how Rep. Scholten decided to communicate her vote for militarism on social media? On her Facebook page she wrote:
“The House just passed the NDAA, which included a full reauthorization of the United States Coast Guard, ensuring continued support for Great Lakes operations and the people who keep our waters safe. As a proud member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, I’m thrilled to see this bipartisan legislation clear the House floor to support our hardworking Coasties and keep our nation safe.”
Scholten doesn’t even have the courage to talk about the concrete consequences of her vote for the nearly $1 trillion US military budget. Scholten has the audacity to tell us that voting to fund US militarism and imperialism will keep us safe.
The facts are that voting for the $900.6 billion US military budget, Rep. Scholten is voting for the following:
- To maintain more than 700 US military bases around the world.
- To provided billions in corporate welfare to weapons manufacturers in the US.
- To perpetuate Climate Change, since the US military is one of the largest single consumers of fossil fuels on the planet, even larger than most countries.
- To support the ongoing funding of Israel with billions in weapons, while they continue their genocidal campaign against the Palestinians.
- To support the US National Guard’s deployment to US cities to terrorize people and to assist ICE in rounding up undocumented immigrants.
- To support the Trump Administration’s bombing of boats in the Caribbean and possible US military invasion of Venezuela.
- To support the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, weapons that would indiscriminately and instantly killed millions of people and all other life forms.
When people vote for Rep. Hillary Scholten, this is what they are voting for. Don’t give me that lesser evil shit, this is evil, brutal and oppressive.
If you want a more honest and critical assessment of US foreign policy, then I encourage you to sign up for an 8 week class that GRIID is offering and will begin on January 15th.
Some historical context on Kent County’s stance cooperating with ICE based on FOIA documents from the campaign to End the Contract
In November I reported on the actions that Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE engaged at the Kent County Sheriff’s Office.
The Kent County Jail has been putting holds on people who are in the jail, even after someone has posted bond, because ICE has requested that the Kent County Jail hold people until they decide to come and pick them up. The Kent County Jail is also doing this without obtaining a judicial warrant, which has been their policy since 2019.
When Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE demanded answers as to why the Sheriff’s office is not requiring judicial warrants to hold immigrants for ICE their response was 1) submit a FOIA request if you want that information, followed by 2) Sheriff LaJoye-Young telling the groups they needed to set up a meeting with her, even though she could have given a yes or no answer to their demand.
For those who have been reading GRIID for years of have been directly involved with Movimiento Cosecha or GR Rapid Response to ICE, the responses from the Sheriff’s office are consistent with how they dealt with the campaign to End the Contract with ICE that began in 2018.
Several months into the campaign a FOIA request was submitted. What follows is a summary of the 138 pages contained in the FOIA request. The documentation includes a great deal of repetitive content, since the e-mails include certain threads between county commissioners and county administration staff. However, there are several things that are instructive when reading the FOIA requested documents.
First, it is instructive that county officials (referring to staff, commissioners and Sheriff’s Dept.) began by stating that the ICE contract is a federal matter and that there is nothing they can do about it. From there, the language changed to “it is the Sheriff’s Department that has the contract,” and eventually the demand to end the ICE contract “will not achieve what your group wants to do.” There was clearly an evolution to how county officials responded to the demands to end the ICE contract.
Second, it was clear from numerous exchanges between county officials that they were clearly monitoring Movimiento Cosecha GR, GR Rapid Response to ICE and GRIID articles about the campaign to end the contract. On a June 14 communication between County Administrator Britt and Commissioner Saalfeld, Britt states, “It is strictly a Sheriff policy issue but it’s germane to the County Board because we are the funding unit that equips him with the jail. However, we can stop anyone from using public comment to politicize an issue.” Numerous commissioners have denied any relationship between the county budget and the ICE contract, even though it seems that Britt makes that point pretty clear. It’s also interesting how he is suggesting that they want to “stop anyone from using public comment to politicize an issue.” What else could public comment about the ICE contract be other than political?
County Administrator Britt does send out a message (June 29) just after the June 28 County Commission meeting, with a message that was vetted through corporate counsel, about what happened at the June 28 meeting. The meeting was ended “to ensure the safety of all individuals in the room.” This is ridiculous, since no one who came to that meeting was a threat to anyones safety. The only threat came from armed officers who threatened to remove people from the room. See my coverage of what happened that day.
Third, in preparation for the July County Commission meeting, county officials wanted to make it clear that they were going to include some new protocols in response to the June 28 meeting, by dictating and controlling how public comment would go and how the physical space would be organized, as you can see from their comments here below.
Fourth, on pages 45 – 48 of the FOIA documents, regarding the August 23rd Commission meeting, county officials provide justification for their suspension of the meeting and moving it to another building.
Fifth, on page 55 of the FOIA documents, we see that a staff person with Michigan Senator Gary Peters was at the July Kent County Commission meeting. It was agreed that Chairperson Saalfeld would not introduce the staffer with Sen. Peters, rather he just wanted to listen and observe. There was no further information or correspondence with Sen. Peters’ office in the FOIA documents.
Sixth, on page 64, one County administrator states, “The County and its Commissioners remaining willing to discuss the issues and the limited ability of the County to influence the federal immigration law, but the recent vandalism and trespassing at the County Board Chair’s home and further disruption at the today’s meeting did not foster collaboration or cooperation.” There was no vandalism at Chairman Saalfeld’s home, just numerous signs left challenging him to end the contract with ICE. If there was vandalism or trespassing the police would have arrested people, but no one was arrested despite significant police presence. In regards to the disruption at the July County Board meeting, the groups that have organized these actions have made it very clear that until the county ends their complicity with ICE violence, there will be disruptions at the meetings, because the mild inconvenience of meetings being disrupted is nothing compared to how the lives of immigrants are being disrupted every day in this community.
This sentiment from county administrators is continued on page 65 when they state, “If they want to solely protest without listening and dialoguing it will be a disappointment.” Well, representatives from Movimiento Cosecha GR and GR Rapid Response to ICE did meet with County officials at a separate gathering in early August, but despite the information shared about the ongoing violence being done to the immigrant community, the County officials present refused to even discuss any possibility of ending the contract with ICE.
Seventh, on page 68, Commissioner Antor writes to County Administrators about his frustration with “protestors” and suggests that the county no longer allow signs in the commission meetings or bullhorns and any disruptive behavior. He also states that the county should put out a statement on the FACTS about the ICE contract to “dispel all the hyperbole and misinformation.” This same commissioner was recorded at a later meeting engaging in his own propaganda that was merely parroting the Trump administration positions on immigration.
Eighth, on page 70 we finally learn about the fact that some county officials were setting up a separate meeting that did not include those organizing the end the contract campaign, where the sheriff and undersheriff were present. Beginning on page 75, we see the first information about the decision of the County Board Chair to suspend the September 13th meeting because of the People’s Commission that was held in the commission chambers. On page 77, the FOIA documents show that the county once again was monitoring the campaign’s Facebook page and quoting it at length.
On page 81, Chairman Saalfeld makes his feelings known in a short rant about those involved with the End the Contract campaign:
Interesting that he notes that he spoke with a news person off the record about how facts are distorted, which is interesting considering that the local news has continued to report on the campaign to end the ICE contract and has even provided information that challenges the County’s ongoing lack of taking people seriously.
Ninth, on page 97 there is an e-mail from Comm. Bulkowski asking if there has been any discussion about setting up a meeting between “the Sheriff and the Hispanic community.“ He then goes on to say, “I tam pretty confident that the few people who disrupt our meetings don’t represent the wider Hispanic community.” Then on page 104, Comm. Bulkowski goes on to say more about wanting to meet with the “Hispanic Community” and that groups like the Hispanic Chamber and the Hispanic Center should be invited to talk about these matters. This is further indication that the commissioners are dismissive of those involved with Movimiento Cosecha GR and the affected community that has continued to share their stories about the pain suffered by ICE violence.
Beginning with page 115 and continuing for several pages there is the county’s response/PR damage control in regards to their decision to not allow the public in the Commission chambers during the 2nd September meeting.
Tenth, on Page 121, Comm. Saalfeld commends County Administrator Britt for his interview on WKTV and then states that the others interviewed indicates both some inaccurate facts and some things that are not understood. We of course have a much different perspective on the interviews.
Eleventh, on page 128, Comm. Saalfeld sent another e-mail to County Administrator Britt, with a link to a GRIID article about the No Business With ICE Day action and the following comment.
“Maybe time to engage the GRPD.”
Saalfeld no doubt makes this comment because in the GRIID article cited and many of others, there has been a huge GRPD presence at anti-ICE actions. Since the Kent County Sheriff has stated repeatedly that they will not arrest people during County Commission meetings that Saalfeld wants to enlist the GRPD to deal with those who disrupt the commission meetings.
While the documents based on the FOIA request don’t necessarily reveal anything significant, they are instructive as far as how the county views those involved with the end the contract campaign and how the disruptions have made some of them very uncomfortable moving forward. The same dynamic exists right up to the present.
In my most recent article I noted that during the Mayor’s Monday meeting that happened at the Lincoln Park Pavilion, Mayor LaGrand did make a verbal commitment to talking with City Commissioners about adopting a policy that would prohibit Grand Rapids from signing a 287g contract with ICE.
Another interesting thing that Mayor LaGrand said in response to some of the demands that Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have been demanding had to do with not sharing Flock camera images on vehicle license plates with ICE. To this point Mayor LaGrand said that Chief Winstrom said there is a switch on the system, a switch that is currently off that will not allow ICE to access the Flock camera images of vehicles license plates.
First, just because Chief Winstrom says so doesn’t mean it is true. Second, what Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have been saying about the 6 sanctuary policy demands is for the city to adopt those 6 demands so that the demands will become policy, regardless of who is Mayor or is one of the 6 City Commissioners.
I have written several article about the Flock cameras that are being used in Grand Rapids, with the exact location of those cameras.
A local comrade shared with GRIID that in 2012, the GRPD went to the City Commission to request funding for 4 cruiser mounted ALPRs (ALPRs are similar to Flock cameras), which the commission approved.
In 2015, the City of Grand Rapids adopted their current surveillance policy, which you can find here. The PDF at the link clearly states that “Any City department intending to acquire, use, or deploy new surveillance equipment or surveillance services after March 14, 2015 shall obtain City Commission approval prior to the initial acquisition, use, or deployment of that equipment or service.”
However, there is an exemption in that policy which states:
“a. City Departments may acquire and use new surveillance equipment or surveillance services that are substantially similar to surveillance equipment or surveillance services that were previously approved in accordance with this policy in order to replace equipment due to failure without following the provisions of this policy prior to such acquisition or use. b. Equipment failure refers to any event in which any equipment cannot accomplish its intended purpose or task. It may also mean that the equipment stopped working, is not operating properly, or is scheduled for a contractual routine upgrade with substantially similar equipment. c. Should a department seek to acquire, use or deploy additional amounts of surveillance equipment or services that have previously been approved in compliance with this policy, the department need only provide notice to the Public Safety Committee and seek fiscal approval from the City Commission’s Fiscal Committee.”
The Flock cameras that are mounted at street corners and major intersections have only been in use since 2022. However, the GRPD did not obtain City approval for the Flock cameras that are located on streets throughout the city. The City claims, that the flock cameras meet the extremely narrow exemption from the surveillance policy above – “City Departments may acquire and use new surveillance equipment or surveillance services that are substantially similar to surveillance equipment or surveillance services that were previously approved in accordance with this policy“
The thing is that the 4 Flock cameras that were mounted on GRPD cruisers were used for checking plates against lists of stolen vehicles. With the three dozen Flock cameras that are located around Grand Rapids, they are subject to being used by ICE agents to track undocumented immigrants, especially if there is no formal policy in place to prohibit the City from sharing that information with federal agents.
With persistence Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE got Mayor LaGrand to agree to work towards prohibiting a 287g policy
Last night Mayor LaGrand hosted one of his Mayor’s Monday conversation around the theme of justice and policing.
The community forum was held at the Lincoln Park pavilion, which is also the office space for the neighborhood association. I counted 28 people in attendance, which included the Mayor, City commissioner Belchak, County Commissioner Womack and a few neighborhood association staff members.
The major of the rest of the people in attendance were members of Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE. The Mayor spoke for the first 30 minutes, talking about related matters, but often in vague terms using made up scenarios and not really addressing the theme of justice and policing.
Mayor LaGrand did talk about moving from a punishment-based system to a system that embraces restorative justice, where victims of harm are centered. Gema Lowe with Cosecha said that she appreciated centering the idea of victims, which is exactly why she came to the meeting. The undocumented immigrant community is being terrorized by ICE right now and she asked the Mayor if he would make any sort of commitment to adopting the 6 sanctuary policies that Cosecha and GR Rapid Response the ICE have been demanding since January.
Other Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE members also talked about how they have witnessed the GRPD cooperate with ICE when ICE is targeting undocumented immigrants. Mayor LaGrand said he believed that this was not happening, despite first hand accounts.
Several other people continued to press the Mayor on these issues, while others talked about why it is important for the Mayor to take a public position on this matters in support of immigrants who are being terrorized. Several people were clear about the fact that adopting the 6 sanctuary policies would not stop ICE from terrorizing immigrants, but it would send a powerful message to immigrants that the City of grand Rapids would not cooperate or assist ICE in arresting and detaining immigrants.
At one point someone began referring to ICE as the wolf that is terrorizing immigrants around the country and then Mayor LaGrand said that the wolf was not here in Grand Rapids. Immediately people pushed back on that comment stating that ICE is very active in the Grand Rapids area, arresting people, and separating families by sending the to the detention center in Baldwin, MI.
Another person then urged the Mayor to have the guts to take a stand on this, call a press conference at say that he and the City of Grand Rapids would not cooperate with ICE to terrorize undocumented immigrants.
Just before the meeting ended, Mayor LaGrand said he would be willing to talk more about these demands and specifically said he would be willing to talk with City Commissioners about adopting a policy that would prevent Grand Rapids from entering into a 287g agreement with ICE, which I have written about at length.
While many people were frustrated during the meeting, in the end it was the persistence of those who showed up that resulted in Mayor LaGrand making a verbal commitment to looking at the demands and a willingness to prohibit the GRPD from being deputized by ICE to enforce federal immigration laws, also known as a 287g policy.
I will certainly continue to write about this issue to see if Mayor LaGrand will follow up on his verbal commitments made during the meeting on Monday night.
I conducted an interview with 3 community organizers involved in the Residents United Lowell campaign, a campaign that is opposing the proposed data center in Lowell, Michigan.
These three amazing women responded to the following questions, in an interview that runs just over 27 minutes.
GRIID – What prompted you all to get involved and to get organized around the data center proposal?
GRIID – One news source said that the Lowell City Manager knew about the proposed data center 18 months ago. When did you all find out and what does this tell you about the lack of transparency and who has been making decisions up to this point?
GRIID – What all have you been able to find out about Franklin Partners LLC?
GRIID – Consumers Energy and The Right Place Inc. are also involved in this project. What does that tell you about this project, given what we know about both of these groups?
GRIID – The data center proposal might have the largest impact on Lowell and the surrounding communities in recent decades. How are you mobilizing people and that are your main talking points around why this project would be bad for residents of the area?
GRIID – How soon will there be a vote on the proposed data center project and what else do you think needs to happen to resist this project?
For those wanting to sign the petition against the proposed data center go here.
To access the ResidentsUnitedLowell information handout go here.
Follow ResidentsUnitedLowell on their Facebook page.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 