I was invited to present on A People’s History of Grand Rapids at Calvin University last night
It has been an exciting year, since I first published my book, A People’s History of Grand Rapids. I have had numerous opportunities to speak about the book and about some of the history in this community, especially history that is not widely known.
I spoke at Calvin University last night, as the result of an invitation from someone in the Sociology and Social Work Department.
I talked a little bit about my own background and how I came to be interested in history from below in Grand Rapids, along with the years I have spent teaching a popular education class on the history of US Social Movements, using Howard Zinn’s, A People’s History of the United States.
I then began talking about the history of Settler Colonialism in Grand Rapids and why it is important that this is a starting point when talking about the history of this city. Settler Colonialism is the foundation of the founding of this city and you can’t really talk about the history of Grand Rapids without talking about Settler Colonialism.
I then addressed some of the history of the African America fight against Systemic White Supremacy throughout the 20th Century, including the 21st Century. People were shocked to learn about the KKK parade in Grand Rapids on July 4th, 1925 – pictured above. In additionally we talked about Institutionalized White Supremacy in Grand Rapids over the passed century, along with the Black-led resistance to it.
I also spoke briefly about the 1911 furniture workers strike, the documentation of that strike and the response from the Grand Rapids furniture barons.
However, the rest of the presentation centered on some people’s history that was specific to Calvin College/Calvin University. I talked about one of the earliest critiques of the Amway Corporation, which was written by a Calvin student in 1971, entitled Cleaning Out the Third World.
Next, I spoke about the robust anti-Vietnam War organizing that took place on the Calvin campus, by both students and faculty. According to archives of the student paper, The Chimes, Calvin students and faculty hosted numerous lectures, debates and forums on the war, with an emphasis on Christian moral responsibility. In March of 1968, forty seven Calvin Professors ran an anti-war ad in the Grand Rapids Press.
Students organizing against the war were involved in organizing Teach-Ins, rallies and informational resources for students on the draft, as is seen in the picture. In addition, students at Calvin participated in the national Moratorium Campaign against the Vietnam War, with rallies on campus and organizing buses to DC. Go to this link for all of the archival anti-Vietnam stories in The Chimes.
Lastly, I presented information on the well organized campaign by Calvin students and faculty regarding the divestment campaign against South African Apartheid. Beginning in the early 1980s, students and faculty members began investigating the issue, especially since the Christian Reformed Church was directly involved in the historical dynamics that contributed to Apartheid policies in South Africa.
One thing that made the Anti-Apartheid campaign get off the ground was the presence of Allan Boesak, a member of the Dutch Reformed Church and one of the leading Anti-Apartheid activists from South Africa. Boesak not only spoke at Calvin College in 1983, he was invite to be a visiting professor.
This relationship with Boesak was important for the longevity of the Anti-Apartheid Movement on Calvin’s campus, because now students and faculty had a relationship with someone who was the target of South African government harassment. Evidence of how the Calvin community was engaged around this personal relationship with Boesak is evidenced by a letter sent and signed by dozens of Calvin faculty (pages 1 – 10), which was addressed to then South African President Botha. The letter, like so many others from that movement put pressure on the South African government to end their abuse of those involved in the Anti-Apartheid Movement.
Coverage of the Anti-Apartheid efforts at Calvin can be found in the student newspaper, The Chimes, over a several year period. One can see that there were ongoing efforts to educate the campus community on the issues centered around South African Apartheid, but most of the coverage was about the actual campaign of divestment.
Students and faculty had begun a campaign to get Calvin College to divest from any company profiting off of racist Apartheid policies. The Student Senate had done the research looking into how much money Calvin College had invested in companies doing business in South Africa and in a letter to the college president in October of 1985, they provide a breakdown of this money. (page 13)
This well organized campaign paid off, when the finance committee of the Board of Trustees decided to divest Calvin College funds from two companies in November of 1986. The Chimes article (page 9) on this action states, According to President DeWit, “These two companies were right on the verge of the legitimate classification in the Sullivan system. It was proper, rather than to press the point, to sell them.”
It was the efforts of people at institutions such as Calvin College, using the tactic of divestment, which eventually dismantled the Apartheid policies of South Africa.
The discussion afterwards was lively and people were very animated when learning about this rich history in Grand Rapids and on the Calvin campus.
Since Sunday, there have been at least three of the four major daily commercial news outlets in Grand Rapids that have reported on the City of Rapids’ attempt to get the lawsuit from the family of Honestie Hodges against the City dismissed.
In 2017, Honestie Hodges was an 11 year old African American whom the GRPD detained and handcuffed at gunpoint, while the police were looking for a crime suspect. Honestie died several years later after she had contracted the COVID virus.
In November of 2023, the family of Honestie Hodges fired a lawyer who filed a lawsuit seeking to sue the Grand Rapids Police Department for the trauma Honestie experienced in 2017. The lawyer who filed the lawsuit was quoted in a November 2023 MLive article as saying:
“After that confrontation by officers, Honestie’s life was marred by extreme emotional and psychological distress significantly diminishing her quality of life and her ability to cope both physically and mentally.”
WXMI 17, WZZM 13 and MLive, all ran stories about the City’s response to the lawsuit over the past few days. The channel 13 story is the shortest (45 seconds), and only provides an overview of what happened in 2017 and the claims made by the lawyer hired by the Hodges family. There were no comments from the City of Grand Rapids included.
The WXMI 17 story was more substantive (2 minutes and 43 seconds), which provided an overview of the case, a summary of the lawsuit against the City of Grand Rapids, along with a response from Grand Rapids City attorneys. Here is what the City attorneys had to say:
“No one doubts that Honestie Hodges was frightened by the situation she suddenly found herself in, or that her mother Whitney Hodges was frightened for her daughter and confused by what was happening,” attorneys representing the city of Grand Rapids say. “Nonetheless, under the the totality of the circumstances as pled in the complaint, and as shown by the relevant body-worn camera footage, these defendants are entitled to dismissal as a matter of law.”
The MLive story was also fairly lengthy, with a more detailed account of what happened in 2017, along with comments from the lawyer who filed the lawsuit against the City, and comments from Grand Rapids City attorneys. Both the MLive and the WXMI 17 stories made mention of the GRPD’s Youth Interactions policy, which was developed after the GRPD detained, handcuffed and held Honestie Hodges at gunpoint. However, neither MLive, nor WXMI 17 provide a link to the GRPD’s Youth Interactions policy, plus neither of local news outlets question the legitimacy of the policy.
In 2018, GRIID reported on the so-called Youth Interactions policy of the GRPD, which included a link to the actual policy document. Here is part of what GRIID wrote about the GRPD’s Youth Interactions policy:
The Youth Interactions Policy is rather vague. It also frames the issue primarily around youth who are suspects. This notion that youth are suspects is exactly what people were so upset by in the community, both in the case of the 5 black youth held at gunpoint a year ago and the 11 year old Black girl held at gunpoint and handcuffed last December. In both of these cases, the youth were not suspects, they just happened to either fit the profile of other suspects or they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
However, most of the 2-page document deals with youth suspects. Under the section General Procedures, there are 5 points made. Only the 5th point talks about what to do if the youth in question is not a suspect and what to do with them. At this point the document includes 3 ways in which Grand Rapids Police Officers are supposed to deal with youth that are no longer determined to be suspects.
Even these operational procedures, which are to be applied if the youth in question is no longer a suspect, uses language that still views the youth and or the parents as problematic. How many families from communities of color have had difficult and unpleasant experiences with Child Protective Services? If the youth are not suspects, why should an officer be assigned to them?
According to a story on WXMI 17, the cost of the updated training curriculum that is specific to youth interaction, is costing the City of Grand Rapids $9,995.
The Youth Interaction Document doesn’t seem like it will prevent the GRPD from holding youth in Grand Rapids at gunpoint. In fact, the document provides little evidence that the GRPD will be making much of an effort to NOT further traumatize youth, particularly youth of color.
This document was crafted with input from a Task Force, made up of members of the GRPD and community members, listed here at this link from the City. However, despite some public input, the Youth Interaction Policy provides no real guarantees that the police will attempt to minimize any future harm directed at Grand Rapids youth, and more importantly, it does not address more root causes or systemic issues related to why youth would be considered suspects to begin with.
It would seem to me that the news media that apart from reporting on the lawsuit and the City’s desire to have it dismissed, that they should also be reporting on how the Youth Interaction’s policy has been used since 2018, with some analysis. Of course, this would require news agencies and reporters to commit to a more substantial investigation, rather than relying on Media Releases.
Not only did Senator Peters ignore my message about US complicity in Israeli war crimes, his response brags about US support of Israel
Yesterday, I received a response from Michigan Senator Gary Peters about the US funding of Israel’s genocidal campaign against the Palestinians.
Actually, what I got back from Sen. Peters was a form letter, which completely ignored the message that I sent to him. What follows is the text of what Sen. Peters sent to me, followed by my response to the Michigan Senator’s bullshit propaganda about Israel.
Here is the message from Senator Peters:
Thank you for contacting me about the war between Israel and Hamas. I appreciate you taking the time to express your views. Hearing directly from Michiganders like you helps inform me of the issues that matter to our state. I am so grateful for your input.
As your Senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am closely monitoring the situation in the Middle East. I was horrified by the vicious, coordinated terrorist attacks by Hamas on innocent Israeli citizens. I condemn this terrorism in the strongest terms. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of a resolution reaffirming Congressional support of Israel as well as a resolution calling for the safe return of all hostages. Furthermore, I joined all my Senate colleagues in passing Senator Schumer and McConnell’s resolution condemning the Hamas terrorist attack. I also voted in favor of advancing national security supplemental funding to provide critical aid to both Israel and Ukraine. In addition to security assistance, this package included emergency funding for humanitarian efforts in Gaza, the West Bank, Ukraine, and other conflict zones. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has thus far failed to pass national security funding legislation and the Senate is continuing to negotiate a path forward for the emergency supplemental bill.
As this conflict continues, innocent civilians, including American citizens in Gaza, are desperately in need of lifesaving humanitarian aid. In order to support efforts to provide aid to the civilians of Gaza, I joined dozens of my fellow senators in sending a letter to Secretary Blinken calling on the administration to provide additional humanitarian support. I am deeply troubled by the allegations that twelve employees from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) were involved in the October 7th terrorist attacks. The United States has paused funding in response to the allegations. The UN must hold those involved accountable and strengthen oversight of UNRWA operations in order to restore donor trust. It is imperative that the UNRWA is able to continue serving the millions of Palestinian civilians who depend on its services.
In addition to the needs of those in Gaza, Palestinian civilians abroad know returning home remains unsafe. That is why my colleagues and I sent a bicameral letter to President Biden calling on the administration to designate the Palestinian territories for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and/or authorize Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Palestinians present in the United States. In addition to supporting Israeli efforts to root out Hamas, we must do our part to protect all civilians.
Israel has the right to defend itself and its citizens from the indiscriminate violence perpetrated by Hamas. Additionally, Israel has the authority and responsibility to rescue hostages being held by Hamas. While engaged in rescue efforts, the Israeli government must make every effort to ensure innocent civilians in Gaza and the West Bank are not targeted by the Israeli military.
The current situation in Gaza is dire and I support efforts to work with the Israeli government to minimize civilian deaths and allow more aid into Gaza. As we look ahead to the future, I remain hopeful that a two-state solution can be achieved and that there is a more peaceful and prosperous future for both Israelis and Palestinians. I have joined 49 of my Democratic colleagues in cosponsoring an amendment led by Senator Schatz that was filed on the national security supplemental package reaffirming that a two-state solution is the policy of the United States. A two-state solution remains the best option for lasting stability in the region and this amendment underscores the critical role U.S. diplomacy must continue to play. As the Senate considers policies related to Palestine and Israel, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.
In the first paragraph of Sen. Peters’ response, he basically acknowledges all of the policies and resolutions that he has supported, which also happen to be policies and resolutions that support Israel. My original message to him was to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, to end US military aid to Israel and to condemn the genocidal assault on Palestinians…….all of which Senator Peters ignored.
In the second paragraph, Senator Peters says he care about humanitarian aid getting into Gaza, but then quickly used Israeli propaganda, which claims that staff from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), were involved in the Hamas attacks on October 7. Such claims are not true, since “Channel 4 reported that, despite being used by many countries to justify withdrawing aid amid horrific conditions in Gaza and risk complicity in genocide, the document actually “provides no evidence to support its explosive new claim that UNRWA staff were involved.” Equally important is the fact that if Senator Peters really was concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, then he would own the US role in creating the crisis.
In the fourth paragraph, Senator Peters continues the Israeli talking point of its right to defend itself, but doesn’t answer the question of what that has to do with the nearly 30,000 Palestinians that have been killed so far including the 12,300 Palestinian children.
In the fifth paragraph from Senator Peters he reiterates why it is so important for the US to support Israel, without providing any evidence to support such a claim. In addition, Sen. Peters makes the claim that a two-state solution is the only solution for lasting peace. First, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu does not support a two-state solution, nor do many Palestinians. One of the main reasons to not support a two-state solution has to do with the fact that it ignores the Nakba the 1948 Israeli theft of Palestinian land and it ignores decades of the Israeli occupation. In fact, many Palestinians support a one-state solution, which Israeli author/activist Jeff Halper calls the One Democratic State Campaign.
In the final analysis, Senator Peters, who has been the recipient lots of pro-Israel PAC money, completely ignores Israel’s genocidal campaign against the Palestinians and will not support any efforts to reduced US military aid to Israel thus making the US complicit in, along with Senator Peters, Israeli war crimes.
On Friday, February 2nd, MLive posted a story that essentially presents the proposed soccer stadium in Grand Rapids as a tremendous community asset. The article included this paragraph:
“The stadium would generate a $408 million economic impact in Grand Rapids over the next 30 years, host 17 professional matches a year with 56 “other” events, and draw 164,350 visitors per season, their presentation showed.”
The presentation that the MLive article was referring to, was done by Grand Action 2.0, a presentation that was for the Grand Rapids Westside Corridor Improvement Authority. The members of the Grand Rapids Westside Corridor Improvement Authority who were quoted in the article seemed rather pleased with the Grand Action 2.0 proposal, which is not surprising, considering who their members are.
- Dave Shaffer – Chair – former 1st Ward Grand Rapids City Commissioner that supported development projects like the soccer stadium while he was a Commission. Shaffer is now the CEO of Interphase Interiors and purchased the company with Johnny Brann Jr.. Interphase Interiors was a Haworth dealership.
- Lisa Haynes – who currently works for GVSU as the Associate Vice President Facility Services Grand Rapids Campuses and Regional Centers. Prior to working for GVSU, Haynes worked from the Amway Grand Plaza
- Johnny Brann – There is no clear indication that this is Jr. or Sr. but both are businessmen who benefit tremendously from projects like the Soccer Stadium, plus they both have a history of being supported by members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure.
- Daniel Grinwis – is a founding member of the DCC church on Walker NW. The DCC church embraces a rather conservative/reactionary interpretation of Christianity.
- Commissioner Jon O’Connor – Makes his living from selling over-priced booze and has a long history of supporting development projects that use public money, but are run privately. O’Connor was a big supporter of the criminalization of the unhoused policies adopted last year and a huge supporter of opposing any reduction in funding for the GRPD.
- Brent Gibson – President of Construction Simplified
You can see why the members of the Grand Rapids Westside Corridor Improvement Authority were enthusiastic about the proposed soccer stadium, given the fact that they essentially support both an ideological and economic framework that mimics that of Grand Action.
Community Engagement?
Beginning last week, Grand Action 2.0 was conducted controlled meetings in the community, in order to fulfill the appearance of community engagement. However, when you have an entity like Grand Action 2.0, we need to think seriously about what this so-called community engagement means.
- Grand Action 2.0 has all the power. They proposed the soccer stadium using the tired notion that it will have a positive economic benefit in the community. Of course, money will be spent because of the soccer stadium, but we all know that the majority of the money will go to the larger businesses in downtown GR that are owned and operated by members and friends of Grand Action 2.0.
- One of the leaders of Grand Action 2.0, Dick DeVos, is the brother of Dan DeVos. Dan DeVos, who own DP Fox Ventures LLC, purchased the land that the Big Boy restaurant sits on. The general consensus is that the soccer stadium will be placed in that area just west of US 131 in downtown Grand Rapids. Dan DeVos also owns the Grand Rapids Griffins and I will bet that he will likely own the professional soccer team that will play their games at the new soccer stadium.
- Grand Action 2.0 will ask the city of Grand Rapids, and mostly likely the State of Michigan, to provide public funds for the new soccer stadium, which will mean that millions in public dollars will once again go to a project that primarily benefits members of the Capitalist Class. Plus the public will have NO SAY in how public money will be spent on the hallowed soccer stadium.
- During these so-called community engaged sessions, none of what I stated so far will be part of the narrative for these community meetings. Grand Action 2.0 doesn’t want people to think about these issues, they just want them to think about how exciting it will be to have a professional soccer team in Grand Rapids.
- Another important point is that Grand Action 2.0 only decided to host these so-called community engagement session after the had secured some of the land necessary for the soccer stadium, after they got the City and the County to provide a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and after they were able to convince political leaders that having a soccer stadium would be economically beneficial to the area. These community engagement meetings didn’t happen before any decisions were made, so that people could ask important questions about such a proposal. However, this is what those in power do, they host community engagement sessions only after they hold all the power in the so-called public/private partnership.
Lastly, it is worth noting that the construction of the soccer stadium will take place, with millions of public dollars while there are thousands of families in Grand Rapids that are experiencing housing insecurity, primarily because they can’t afford to purchase a home, and they can’t afford the ridiculously high rental costs in Grand Rapids. There is something fundamentally unjust and immoral about the fact that we collectively allow entities like Grand Action 2.0 to get away with this shit, while so many people in this city are struggling to survive.
Rep. Scholten releases a statement that denies Israeli genocide, embraces US militarism, and ignores immigrant justice demands
Over the past week, there have been proposals and debates in both the US House and the US Senate regarding additional US military funding for Israel, Ukraine and the US/Mexican Border.
The Biden Administration wants funding for all three of these items, with a proposed $61 billion going to Ukraine, a proposed $10-$14 Billion to Israel and a smaller amount going for what is framed as “border security.”
Most Democratic members in Congress support what the Biden Administration, while the Republicans have been making alternative proposals for immigration and border security.
Rep. Hillary Scholten, who is just in her second year as the 3rd Congressional Representative, has consistently supported US military funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for border security. On Tuesday, Rep. Scholten released a statement regarding H.R. 7217, which she did not support, primarily because of some of the provisions in the GOP proposed bill.
What follows is Rep. Scholten’s statement from 2/6/2024, which will be followed by the GRIID response.
“The legislation put on the floor by Speaker Johnson fails to meet this moment by playing politics with our national security, and further, has no chance of becoming law.
“I support Israel’s right to exist as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people, and to ensure that right, Israel must defend itself against its enemies, including Hamas in the wake of the brutal terrorist attacks of October 7. For decades, this has been a bipartisan issue, and there is still a strong bipartisan coalition ready to support Israel. But today’s vote was not about supporting Israel and its right to defend itself.
“I have been working with bipartisan members urgently – for months – on a deal. Speaker Johnson abandoned those bipartisan negotiations and put forward a non-serious messaging bill that he knew would fail. This bill does not include much-needed humanitarian aid for innocent civilians who are suffering in Gaza. It does not include essential support for Ukraine, which continues to wage its war against the spread of authoritarianism. And it does not include a critical border security package that is essential to addressing the immigration crisis at our southern border.
“Our national security is a serious issue and demands a serious vote, not a political ploy, so I voted against this bill. I continue to push the Speaker to honor the comprehensive package that the president supports and that has bipartisan agreement in the Senate.”
“Now more than ever we must stand together as the United States of America and link arms with our democratic allies around the world, continue our tireless work to bring home the hostages still held by Hamas, send critical aid to those afflicted by war, and protect our security at home through comprehensive immigration reform.”
Point #1 – When Rep. Scholten blames Speaker Johnson for putting forth a proposal that she doesn’t think will become a law, she ignores the fact that this is a longstanding tactic of the Democratic Party as well.
Point #2 – Rep. Scholten makes it clear that Israel has her total support, since she essentially uses language that the Israeli government uses. Scholten also acknowledges that US support for Israel has been historically bi-partisan, which is true, and will continue to be so as both parties have always backed Israel no matter what the international consequences are. More importantly, Rep. Scholten fails to say anything about the now 5 month Israeli assault on Palestinians resulting in over 27,000 dead Palestinians. Like President Biden, Rep. Scholten supports the genocidal campaign being waged by Israel against the Palestinians, a designation that the International Criminal Court gave a few weeks back.
Point #3 – In paragraph 3 Rep. Scholten acknowledges her support for US military funding for Ukraine, for Israel and “a critical border security package that is essential to addressing the immigration crisis at our southern border.” In this paragraph, Scholten also mentions that the GOP version doesn’t support humanitarian aid for Gaza. What Scholten fails to mention is that the Biden Administration has voted to defund support for UNRWA, which is the United Nations Agency for Palestinian refugees. UNRWA is the best way to get humanitarian relief to Palestinians. As for the “immigration crisis at our southern border,” Rep. Scholten wants us to believe that she is a defender of immigration justice, when in fact, the legislation that she has proposed, the Dignity Act falls way short of embracing immigration justice. We addressed this issue in August, when Scholten was being interviewed by WOODTV8, writing:
The Dignity Act is not Comprehensive Immigration Reform, nor does it address more structural elements of root causes of immigration, such as the US role in supporting military and trade policies in Latin America that have destabilized most of the region, along with the fact that more and more people are being displaced and forced to flee their homelands because of Climate Change.
Point #4 – In paragraph 4, Rep. Scholten gets a little preachy saying that national security is a serious matter. However, Scholten fails to mention that the Biden Administration pushed through the largest military spending bill in US history ($886 Billion), a bill that received plenty of support from the GOP, as I noted in December when the military spending bill was adopted.
Point #5 – In the last paragraph of Scholten’s statement, we see her re-affirm her commitment to US military aid to Ukraine and to Israel, along with the Israeli PR playbook mantra, “bring home the hostages still held by Hamas.” Again, Scholten refuses to acknowledge Israeli genocide and US complicity in that genocide. Scholten also uses the language, “protect our security at home through comprehensive immigration reform.”
In this final sentence, Rep. Scholten makes it clear that US immigration policy is centered around national security and not immigration justice. Lastly, while calling what she supports comprehensive immigration reform, there is nothing comprehensive about the immigration legislation she support or the fact that it ignores the demands by immigration justice groups across the country like Mijente and Movimiento Cosecha that have a very different idea of what immigration justice looks like.
Palestine Solidarity Information, Analysis, Local Actions and Events for the week of February 7
It has become clear that the Israeli government will continue their assault on Gaza and the West Bank. The retaliation for the October 7 Hamas attack in Israel, has escalated, therefore, GRIID will be providing weekly links to information and analysis that we think can better inform us of what is happening, along with the role that the US government is playing. We will also provide information on local events and actions that people can get involved in. All of this information is to provide people with the capacity of what Noam Chomsky refers to as, intellectual self-defense.
Information
Bipartisan Border Bill Would Block All Funding to UN Palestine Relief Agency
Report Finds “No Evidence” in Key Dossier to Support Israel’s UNRWA Allegations
Revealed: An Israeli businessman’s post-genocide plan for Gaza
Ceasefire elusive as Gaza genocide enters fifth month
Solidarity During a Time of Genocide: Why Gaza Matters
Israel’s Use of Starvation as a Weapon of War Brings Gaza to the Brink of Famine
Analysis & History
Colonial Law and the Erasure of Palestine
Israel’s Ruthless Propaganda Campaign to Dehumanize Palestinians
Local Events and Actions
No upcoming actions.
Graphic used in this post is from https://visualizingpalestine.org/#visuals
Buying Elections: 2024 Grand Rapids Mayoral Race
The deadline for election campaign finances were due on Wednesday, January 31st. As it has been a practice of GRIID for several years now, we plan on post several articles in the coming days specific to the most recent round of campaign finances that are for the 2024 Elections.
Today, I want to look at the two announced candidates so far, David LaGrand and Senita Lenear. To access the Kent County Campaign Finance records click on Campaign Finance Report, then you will have to do a search by candidate name.
Grand Rapids Mayoral Candidate – David LaGrand
GRIID has already posted two articles about campaign finances for David LaGrand, with the first post in July and the second post in November of 2023.
In the most recent campaign finance cycle David LaGrand has raised $17,891.59, bringing the total to $49,715.24. During this current campaign finances cycle, 87 people/groups have contributed to LaGrand’s campaign. Here is the link for the campaign contributions and what follows is a list of some of the largest donors.
Largest Contributions
- Grand Rapids Fire Fighters Union PAC – $2,500
- Johnny Brann Jr. – $1,000
- Joan Secchia – $1,000
- Jessie Douglas – $516.45
- Ron DeWaard – $516.45
- David Dorner – $500
- Brandon Kanitz – $500
- Jeff Schutz – $500
- Robert Vanstright – $500
- Emily Loeks – $500
- Steve Pestka – $400
- Gary De Kock – $300
- Kenneth Heffner – $300
- David Diephouse – $258.32
- Gerald Lykins – $258.32
- Hal Ostrow – $258.32
- Harvey Koning – $258.32
- Case Hoogendorn – $250
- Thomas Hoeksema Sr. – $250
- Matthew Heun – $250
- Jessica Lowery – $250
- John Helmholdt – $250
- Mary Jackson – $250
- Grace Bradford – $250
- Roger Rice – $250
- Lori Keen – $250
- Carol Rottman – $250
- Emily Brink – $250
- David Leonard $250
- Hardy Lee – $250
Of the 30 top contributors to LaGrand’s campaign, they collectively donated $13,315 out of the $17,891.59. This means that the other 57 contributors gave a total of $4,576, which is about 25% of the total. These disparities are nothing like the 4 Kent County elected positions I wrote about yesterday, but there are definitely some of the same players and those that are purchasing electoral influence.
Besides the campaign finance date for LaGrand, his website has not changed in recent months, especially the section that lists “priorities.” Also, his Facebook page continues to lack any real substance or responses to critical issues facing the City of Grand Rapids.
Grand Rapids Mayoral Candidate – Senita Lenear
GRIID has only posted 1 previous article about Senita Lenear’s mayoral campaign, since she announced months after LaGrand. In that post, I did provide an overview of Lenear’s track record as a City Commissioner.
In the most recent campaign finance cycle Senita Lenear has raised only $3,737.78, which is the total for the campaign to date. During this current campaign finances cycle, 20 people have contributed to Lenear’s campaign. Here is the link for the campaign contributions and what follows is a list of some of the largest donors.
Largest Contributions
- Milinda Ysasi – $500
- David Sarnacki – $500
- Mary Alice Williams – $500
- Janay Brower – $400
Lenear’s campaign website provides some of her stances while she was a City Commissioner, although there is not a great deal of emphasis on priorities and what she would fight for as Mayor. Lenear’s Facebook page doesn’t have any new content posted, with the last content from November when she announced.
As of this writing, there is no indication that either mayoral candidate will challenge the status quo in Grand Rapids, especially when it comes to the Grand Rapids Power Structure. GRIID will continue to follow the campaign money as we get closer to the election, as well as providing some analysis of where these candidates stand on critical issues in this city.
How well did the local news media report on the highly organized campaign to improve education at the Grand Rapids Public Schools Board meeting?
As we reported in our post from this morning, the Community Report Card Campaign had a massive turnout last night for the Grand Rapids Public Schools Board Meeting.
In fact, according to one of the GRPS Board members, the meeting didn’t end until 11:30pm. That would have made it a 5 and a half hour School Board meeting. In addition, according to someone posting on the Grand Rapids Education Association social media page, the school board – without prior notification – had reduced public comment time from 3 minutes to 2 minutes.
Nevertheless, the turnout and the collective response from the community was powerful, so much so that the Grand Rapids School Board and the Grand Rapids Public School administration was put on notice.
Considering how long last nights School Board meeting was, how many people attended and spoke, and the sharing of the Community Report Card Campaign information, one would have thought that every possible news agency in Grand Rapids would have reported on last nights meeting.
Unfortunately, as of early Tuesday afternoon, I could find no stories about the massive public engagement of the GRPS on both MLive and WXMI Fox 17. To be fair, there were stories on WXMI and MLive regarding Gov. Whitmer’s visit yesterday to a GRPS school to make an announcement about expanding pre-K education to four year olds. However, Whitmer’s presence yesterday may have undermined the incredible effort by the Urban Core Collective’s Education Justice campaign. In addition, Whitmer was accompanied by several area Democratic Party politicians, who should have known about the Community Report Card Campaign and the potential conflict in news coverage. Politicians should always know about local organizing efforts, then get behind them in whatever way they can.
Two stories about last night
There were two daily news agencies that reported on the massive community engagement effort with the GRPS, with both WOODTV8 and WZZM 13 providing coverage. I want to take a look at this coverage, look at framing, sources used, etc.
The WOODTV8 story did a pretty good job of framing the issue by talking about the Urban Core Collective’s Community Report Card Campaign. Framing the story that way makes it clear that this was a community-based effort. In addition, the channel 8 reporter did acknowledge how many people responded to the questions provided to the community, teachers, students and parents, which also centered the input from the public.
The channel 8 story even walked through the Community Report Card, with video of students asking questions and community members in attendance holding up grades for each category and question. Unfortunately, just before viewers would see the interactive and participatory way that students presented their findings, WOODTV8 included comments from the GRPS media spokesperson. The response from the GRPS spokesperson should have come later, so that viewers could see the entirely of the Community Report Card presentation before allowing any sort of response.
There were four different people who viewers heard from in the channel 8 story, with a parent talking about how they value teachers, and a teacher talking about how the GRPS took too long to respond to their demands for an increase in salary, only to be insulted by a $375 salary increase.
Also problematic was the fact that channel 8 gave the GRPS spokesperson 32 seconds of uninterrupted commentary, which is rather long in the world of local TV news. The GRPS spokesperson also did not respond directly to the presentation about the Community Report, choosing to instead talk about the size of the district, the complexities of the problems they face, the millage, and the need for lawmakers to become more involved. The GRPS spokesperson did nothing more than deflect and avoid addressing the critical issued raised by the community at last nights board meeting.
WOODTV8 did mention at the end that people could access the Community Report Card information on their website. Their story on last nights GRPS Board meeting last 3 minutes and 24 seconds.
The WZZM 13 story was significantly shorter, coming in at 2 minutes and 8 seconds. The channel 13 story also framed their coverage around the Community Report Card campaign, and the first person that viewers heard was a GRPS student. The channel 13 story also providing ample time to show how the information was presented, with questions being asked, followed by participants holding up grades.
In addition to two students voices being heard in the WZZM 13 coverage, there was one parent who was given a few seconds within the channel 13 story. However, like the channel 8 coverage, the GRPS spokesperson was afforded the most airtime, with a full 26 seconds on the channel 13 story. The comments from the GRPS spokesperson in WZZM 13’s coverage didn’t deflect as much as they did in the channel 8 coverage, but they were given the last word, since the story ended with the GRPS spokesperson comments.
In both the channel 8 and channel 13 stories, the coverage could have been improved if the stories ended with someone involved in the Community Report Card Campaign having an opportunity to speak to what outcomes or demands they were wanting to see from the GRPS Administration and the School Board. Failing to provide that opportunity simply left viewers feeling like there was no resolution and no timeline for the changes that so many in the community are hoping to see.
If you have not read the Community Report Card document, please do so now and share it with people who are concerned about public education in Grand Rapids.
For nearly 2 years now, the Urban Core Collective’s Education Justice campaign has been working hard to identify problems and potential solutions to the issues that students, parents, teachers and community members in the Grand Rapids School District have been ignored for too long.
On Monday, the Urban Core Collective provided some documentation of the 414 responses they received for their Community Report Card Campaign. You all remember Report Cards, those things that we used to get when we were students. Report Cards, the piece of paper we received that either had a rushing home to show our parents what kind of a student we were, or feelings of dread that our parents might not be too happy with the grades we have been given.
Report Cards are a measuring stick and a concrete way for the community to make some assessments about the quality of public education in Grand Rapids. The Urban Core Collective’s Education Justice campaign released the results of the Community Report Card Campaign.
The Community Report Card covers feedback in the overarching categories, GRPS Administrators, GRPS School Board Members and Student Outreach. In each of these three overarching categories there were numerous questions, there was feedback and there were recommendations for the school district.
In regards to how respondents felt about GRPS Administrators, here are a few comments that are both thoughtful and challenging:
“In fairness, I think the district does “name” (i.e.; acknowledge) the issues, but what they fail to name is what standards of excellence (or even an acceptable standard) look like for those issues. The posture is persistently defensive (cleaning up messes or meeting minimum standards), rather than aspirational… “Reimagining Transportation” should not mean “we get reports from Dean.” It should mean kids get safely to/from school on time, every day.”
“I’m appreciative that the district offers listening sessions, but I have often walked away with the perspective that the district is using these sessions to defend their position rather than listen to community feedback. When big decisions are announced, GRPS generally states that these decisions are made a result of community feedback but doesn’t present the information in a way that shares how this feedback is reflected in their decision-making…”
“Se pasan la vida con planes y planes sin acción, la acción se queda en el papel.” They spend their lives with plans and plans without action, the action remains on paper.
Under the category of GRPS School Board Members, there were also powerful comments and feedback from the community:
“There are a few board members who consistently ask questions and seek change. The rest seem fine with the status quo and are not asking enough questions or holding people accountable.”
“The district’s budget is extremely complicated. I don’t feel informed enough about where BOE has discretion and where it doesn’t. Also, the budget isn’t presented/broken down in terms of those five priority areas? Is that something we could ask for?”
“There is a way to come together around the same goals, where dissent is not seen as an attack on the district. However, we need leadership that is exploring new ways of approaching our problems. More of the same will not work!”
“I know board members care, but we need to see them show their work a little more publicly on how they are trying to improve the district. I’m really hoping that they will take a stronger role in the budget process this year to ensure that parent, teacher, and student priorities are reflected in the budget.”
Lastly, under the category of Student Outreach, we read excellent comments from GRPS students.
“They’ll ask us questions or do surveys but financially they don’t do anything to show us they care.”
“I was going to grade them a ‘C’, but I wrote a ‘D’ instead because they don’t do even an average job. I remembered when they banned backpacks. I have to walk 25-30 minutes to school and carry a lot of stuff. I first used a box and was told no, then a plastic bag and was told no, and then had to carry everything by hand.”
“They don’t do enough to collaborate with students, and when they do nothing happens. We had a meeting with a school board member and I felt she was very stuck in her own ways. She was talking about how we should be more appreciative about our school. One thing we did like was talking with the food service director and sharing how we need more choices and he mentioned how we would get fresher fruits and veggies from local farmers. But when we talked about the menu options, he kept bringing up the two options that the school had already decided. We gave food feedback last November, but haven’t seen those changes.”
The Community Report Card document also shared some instructive comments on this whole process. Here is one thing they wrote which is deeply problematic:
“While the Urban Core Collective has strong relationships with a variety of community non-profit partners who have close ties to communities of color in Grand Rapids. We did outreach to some of fifteen organizations, and many were reluctant to share information or support in disseminating the report card to their stakeholders. These leaders express concern about openly participating in the campaign for fear of jeopardizing their relationships with GRPS. This is important feedback, given the fact that providing opportunities for students and parents/caregivers to provide feedback should be a neutral activity in and of itself.”
The Community Report Card Campaign document ends with these powerful words:
“We unequivocally recognize the need for communities of color, who make up nearly 80% of the GRPS student population, to be at the center of any transformative education justice work in the district. As such, these response demographics are also a call for our team to continue to build networks and trust with folks who have for so long felt excluded from actively participating in the education process. We are committed to continued growth and learning. As Angela Davis reminds us, “You have to act as if it were possible to radically transform the world. And you have to do it all the time.” We believe in the power of collaboration and real power-sharing to radically transform GRPS, and we look forward to opportunities to move this work forward alongside district leaders, students, parents/caregivers, and other partners.”
This document was shared at an event hosted by the Urban Core Collective last night. In addition, people from the community attended the Grand Rapids School Board meeting and presented some of the findings from Community Report Card Campaign.
As an organizer and community member I highly recommend that people do the following. First, please read the Community Report Card Campaign report. Every aspect of this report is important, it is visionary and it speaks to the power that communities can have when them come together with a common purpose.
Second, share this report. We all need to make sure that this information, this input and this analysis is shared widely especially if we hope to move systems of power to act in our best interest.
Third, I would encourage as many people as possible to join this campaign. If we can build a sustained critical mass of students, parents, teachers and community members we can dismantle the awful practices of the GRPS and we can collectively imagine new ways of providing the very best educational opportunities for students.
Lastly, I would say that we all need to learn about how to do community engagement and this Community Report Card Campaign is an excellent model. We cannot settle for just being invited to a meeting, instead we need to host our own meetings. We can’t just react to problems, we have to radically imagine new possibilities. In addition, we need to change power dynamics. If we want a vibrant public school system then we need to make sure that students, parents, teachers and community members are equal partners in this thing we call the Grand Rapids Public Schools.
In tomorrow’s post I want to look at how the local commercial news media reported on the incredible work done by the Community Report Card Campaign and why it matters.
Buying Elections: 2024 DeVos family campaign contributions to key Kent County elected positions
The deadline for election campaign finances were due this past Wednesday, January 31st. As it has been a practice of GRIID for several years now, we plan on post several articles in the coming days specific to the most recent round of campaign finances that are for the 2024 Elections.
Kent County elected positions will be part of the 2024 Elections, with County Commission races and other more administrative positions. Since there have been so few announcements by candidates to challenge Kent County Commissioners, there wasn’t much campaign finance activity. However, the four main administration positions that people get to vote on – County Clerk, County Treasurer, County Prosecutor and the Kent County Sheriff – all had significant campaign contributions reported for this most recent filing deadline.
To access the Kent County Campaign Finance records click on Campaign Finance Report, then you will have to do a search by candidate.
Kent County Clerk – Lisa Posthumus Lyons
Lisa Posthumus Lyons is the current Kent County Clerk and her campaign finances for the most recent filing can be found here. Lyons has raised $97,954.37 since October and she has spent $3,043.47. The total number of contributors was 117, although the bulk of the total amount raised are from just a few large donors.
Largest Contributions
- TGIF Victory Fund – $10,000
- Cheri DeVos – $8,325
- Steve Ehmann – $8,325
- Doug DeVos – $8,325
- Maria DeVos – $8,325
- Dick DeVos – $8,325
- Betsy DeVos – $8,325
- Daniel DeVos – $8,325
- Pamela DeVos – $8,325
- Joan Secchia – $4,000
- Mark Murray – $3,100
- Jim Williams – $2,604.10
- John Kennedy – $2,000
- J.C. Huizenga – $1,200
- Tom Bylenga – $1,200
- Dave Dishaw – $1,050
- Jo DeMarco – $1,040.82
- Mike Ellis – $1,000
- Mark Bissell – $1,000
The total amount of contributions from the lop 16 donors equals $92,794. This means that the remaining 101 contributors gave only gave $5,160 collectively, which is around 5% of what Lyons raised in campaign contributions
Kent County Treasurer – Peter MacGregor
Peter MacGregor is the current Kent County Treasurer and his campaign finances for the most recent filing can be found here. MacGregor has raised $121,893.39 since October and he has spent $4,098.69. The total number of contributors was 149, although the bulk of the total amount raised are from just a few large donors.
Largest Contributions
- TGIF Victory Fund – $10,000
- Cheri DeVos – $8,325
- Steve Ehmann – $8,325
- Doug DeVos – $8,325
- Maria DeVos – $8,325
- Dick DeVos – $8,325
- Betsy DeVos – $8,325
- Daniel DeVos – $8,325
- Pamela DeVos – $8,325
- Daniel Hibma – $8,325
- Heather Lombardini – $8,325
- Joan Secchia – $4,250
- Jim Williams – $2,104.10
- Charlie Secchia – $2,000
- John Kennedy – $2,000
- J.C. Huizenga – $1,200
- Tom Bylenga – $1,200
- David Bilardello – 1,020.82
- Lucas Middleton – $1,000
- Martin Spaulding – $1,000
- Mike Ellis – $1,000
- Mark Bissell – $1,000
The total amount of contributions from the lop 22 donors equals $111,024. This means that the remaining 133 contributors gave only gave $10,869 collectively, which is less than 10% of what MacGregor raised in campaign contributions.
Kent County Prosecutor – Chris Becker
Chris Becker is the current Kent County Prosecutor and his campaign finances for the most recent filing can be found here. Becker has raised $104,578.39 since October and he has spent $1,182.55. The total number of contributors was 105, although the bulk of the total amount raised are from just a few large donors.
Largest Contributions
- TGIF Victory Fund – $20,000
- Cheri DeVos – $8,325
- Steve Ehmann – $8,325
- Doug DeVos – $8,325
- Maria DeVos – $8,325
- Dick DeVos – $8,325
- Betsy DeVos – $8,325
- Daniel DeVos – $8,325
- Pamela DeVos – $8,325
- Joan Secchia – $4,000
- Charlie Secchia – $2,000
- John Kennedy – $2,000
- Jim Williams – $2,000
- Mike Ellis – $1,000
- Mark Murray – $1,000
- Tom Bylenga – $1,000
- Mark Bissell – $1,000
The total amount of contributions from the lop 18 donors equals $100,000. This means that the remaining 87 contributors gave only gave $4,578 collectively, which is around 4% of what Becker raised in campaign contributions.
Kent County Sheriff – Michelle LaJoye-Young
Michelle LaJoye-Young is the current Kent County Sheriff and her campaign finances for the most recent filing can be found here. LaJoye-Young has raised $94,478.39 since October and she has spent $1,355.97. The total number of contributors was 103, although the bulk of the total amount raised are from just a few large donors.
Largest Contributions
- TGIF Victory Fund – $10,000
- Cheri DeVos – $8,325
- Steve Ehmann – $8,325
- Doug DeVos – $8,325
- Maria DeVos – $8,325
- Dick DeVos – $8,325
- Betsy DeVos – $8,325
- Daniel DeVos – $8,325
- Pamela DeVos – $8,325
- Joan Secchia – $4,000
- Charlie Secchia – $2,000
- John Kennedy – $2,000
- Jim Williams – $2,000
- Mike Ellis – $1,000
- Mark Murray – $1,000
- Tom Bylenga – $1,000
- Mark Bissell – $1,000
The total amount of contributions from the lop 17 donors equals $90,000. This means that the remaining 86 contributors gave only gave $4,478.39 collectively, which is less than 5% of what Becker raised in campaign contributions.
When the Grand Rapids Power Structure buys elections
As anyone can see from the data we have provided here the electoral process is automatically corrupted by the influx of large sums of money by members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure. You have 8 members of the DeVos family contributing a total of $264,000 for just 4 Kent County elections, plus we still have 9 months till election day.
Of course, the close associates of the DeVos family, like the Secchia family, John Kennedy, Mark Murray, Mark Bissell and several others are also part of the Grand Rapids Power Structure and are playing their part in determining public policy in this community. Also, in case people were wondering, the TGIF Victory Fund has some of the same funders that are listed above, it’s just another avenue for the Capitalist Class to dictate politics in this community. I know that we were all taught in 8th grade civics class the notion of, “one person, one vote,” but that is not how real electoral politics is played and never has been.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 