A volunteer’s experience at the City of Houston shelter after Katrina
By Tim Campbell
September 16, 2005
All rights reserved
At about 5:00 p.m. Friday, September 2, the Houston affiliate of ABC News announced that the City of Houston was opening up another shelter at the George R. Brown Convention Center here, and that volunteers should just go down there. Previously, Harris County, not the City, had opened large government shelters at the Astrodome and Reliant Center.
I went right down to the GRB. By 6:00 p.m., I was helping to sort donations of clothing, toys, toiletries, bedding, baby items and food.
By 8:00 p.m., I was calling forklift drivers at the GRB Center for hundreds of more tables for the sorted items. Houstonians were donating supplies faster than we could set up tables. Volunteers with initiative just did what was needed to meet the occasion.
Saturday, Sunday and Monday (this was Labor Day weekend), the line of walk-in-off-the-streets volunteers stretched half a block. People were waiting an hour in the Texas summer sun just to volunteer! Now that’s good Samaritanism! Oh was I proud of Houston.
By Monday night, somebody decided to stop accepting donations at the Convention Center itself and donors were directed to nearby warehouses.
Evacuees finally started arriving in large numbers. Gov only knows why it took they nearly three days to make the eight hour trip from New Orleans to Houston. But we were ready. Air mattresses were in flated and there were sheets and pillows on every one of them. There were towels and soap. There were baby cribs and bassinets. There was new underwear and good clean used clothes. There was a shoe collection bigger than Imelda Marcos’—all spread out on the Convention Center floor for easy selection. Oh was I proud of Houston.
I went back to volunteer Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. One night, I stayed until 4:30 a.m., but the other evenings there were so many volunteers no one really had to stay long hours. I mean, this operation was cool.
During those days, leadership was provided mostly by volunteers from CenterPoint. I was impressed by how well and how humbly they lead us other volunteers. There was a lot of group problem solving. Questions were thrown out and people spoke up with possible answers. Other times, a volunteer ran off somewhere seeking answers. We were working like a fully functional family. I was impressed.
But the most amazing thing was this: Between Friday and Wednesday, I only saw two angry incidents at the Convention Center. One involved a thirty-is male evacuee, apparently the father of one or two children. Within minutes, Houston volunteers managed to answer his questions or help him and he left the area calmed.
The other angry incident involved a Houston woman who claimed she wanted to offer a family shelter in her home rather than in the big Convention center. At that point, our instructions were simply to let such host families (and there were lots of them) walk around in the Convention Center meeting people and then extend their invitation to lucky evacuees themselves. The previous informal system moved a lot of families out the GRB almost as fast as they arrived. Now that’s Texas hospitality. I was proud of my home city.
This one woman was angry, in a sanctimoniously soft-spoken way, because there wasn’t more structure to adopting families. She went away promising to file a complaint somewhere. I suspected she had some other agenda. And I was real curious where she might go to file a complaint. I surely had no idea but I hoped she’d find a way.
My volunteering ended almost as quickly as it began on Thursday, September 8 about 6:00 p.m. When I got to Convention Center, all volunteering had been taken over people organized by Ed Young’s mega-Second Baptist Church. Second Baptist volunteers had assumed posts at the volunteers’ entry and were only letting in volunteers who had gone through their training or who would wear their t-shirts. They seemed hell-bent on imposing their name on the whole project. Born Catholic, I was not amused.
I wore one of these t-shirts for about an hour. Then I bumped into another off the street volunteer I had come to know. She was refusing to wear the t-shirt. "On strike," she said. I empathized and took off my t-shirt too. We off-the-streets volunteers had come to associate this t-shirt with Second Baptist Church.
Furthermore, said "Operation Compassion" in three-inch letters across the front. That name made me and many others cringe. If you needed help, would you want someone to come to your assistance wearing a t-shirt bragging about their compassion? I wouldn’t.
When I settled in to work at the Information Center where I had been working previously, I quickly noticed the Second Baptist volunteers had xeroxed flyers with the wrong zip code for the GRB and were entering this in all the Internet posts for people looking for loved ones. I set out to correct this error and met surprising resistance from lead people from the Second Baptist group. I ended up suspecting the Second Baptists had decided to send all the mail addressed to evacuees at GRB General Delivery back to sender. I was ashamed of my city.
After working to resolve this problem for about an hour, I told off the Second Baptist leaders without mincing my words. I even forgot to speak in a sanctimoniously soft voice. I was surrounded by security trained at Second Baptist and physically forced out of the Convention Center. This probable assault on my person was the closest thing to violence I saw at the GRB shelter all week. I was not a happy camper.
During subsequent conversation later with Rogene Calvert, the employee of the City of Houston in charge of volunteer staffed projects, I learned because of fears expressed by the Second Baptist people, Houston families are no longer allowed to sponsor evacuees out of the center as before. People looking for lost family and friends are not allowed to enter the GRB shelter. Houstonians wanting to drive evacuees around to look for housing or jobs have to meet their friends outside the center or go through a procedure that takes about half an hour. This has virtually ended any new contacts between evacuees and Texas hospitality. GRB is under virtual lockdown. I am shamed again.
If more Houstonians knew, I think they'd be pissed too.
I was really proud of my City of Houston during that first week of volunteering at the city shelter. Now, I’m pissed. The City should never have turned its shelter so completely over to a religious group. Most importantly, these Second Baptists should have shown more respect for volunteers not organized by their church. And they should not have been allowed to set up their own security with cops and soldiers standing by. The evacuees at the GRB shelter were really lovable and admirable guests, especially considering what they had already been through.
As far as I am concerned, Second Baptist can take their t-shirts and store ’em where the sun don’t shine.
Tim Campbell
208 Caylor
Houston TX 77011
713 928-6119
Articles and photos on a variety of topics by Tim Campbell, former publisher and editor of the GLC Voice Newspaper published in Minneapolis from 1979 through 1992 for the gay community there.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Letter to Houston Chronicle, AP WashPost
Houston Chronicle
Washington Post
AA
To the Editors:
On March 15 (Page A3), the Houston Chronicle ran an article about the recent court victory for gay couples in California. The article was originally written for the Washington Post and someone addended to it a brief summary of national gay marriage legislation and court decisions. The summary was attributed to the Associated Press. That summary omitted Minnesota, the state where the battle for gay marriage began back in 1971.
California Superior (Trial Court) Judge Richard Kramer wrote in the recent decision: "Same sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled virtually the opposite back in 1971 (Baker v Nelson) arguing Minnesota can forbid gay marriage because: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation an rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."
Furthermore, in 1972, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to review the Minnesota decision for lack of a "substantial Federal question."
I hope the Chronicle, the Washington Post and the Associated Press will all make note of this pioneering gay marriage litigation in future reporting, particularly in chronologies with an historical perspective.
If the California Supreme comes to a different decision than Minnesota, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to address this issue. Federal potentates from the prez to the members of Congress have made it a substantial Federal question.
(Baker and McConnell's website is www.may-18-1970.tabcat.com/Quest.html)
Washington Post
AA
To the Editors:
On March 15 (Page A3), the Houston Chronicle ran an article about the recent court victory for gay couples in California. The article was originally written for the Washington Post and someone addended to it a brief summary of national gay marriage legislation and court decisions. The summary was attributed to the Associated Press. That summary omitted Minnesota, the state where the battle for gay marriage began back in 1971.
California Superior (Trial Court) Judge Richard Kramer wrote in the recent decision: "Same sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled virtually the opposite back in 1971 (Baker v Nelson) arguing Minnesota can forbid gay marriage because: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation an rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."
Furthermore, in 1972, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to review the Minnesota decision for lack of a "substantial Federal question."
I hope the Chronicle, the Washington Post and the Associated Press will all make note of this pioneering gay marriage litigation in future reporting, particularly in chronologies with an historical perspective.
If the California Supreme comes to a different decision than Minnesota, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to address this issue. Federal potentates from the prez to the members of Congress have made it a substantial Federal question.
(Baker and McConnell's website is www.may-18-1970.tabcat.com/Quest.html)
CA rules opposite of MN on same-sex marriage
California judge rules opposite of Minnesota Supreme Court on gay marriage issue
By Tim Campbell
(timcampbellxyx@yahoo.com)
On March 14, California Superior (Trial Court) Judge Richard Kramer wrote: "Same sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled virtually the opposite back in 1971 (Baker v Nelson) arguing Minnesota can forbid gay marriage because: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation an rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."
Furthermore, in 1972, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to review the Minnesota decision for lack of a "substantial Federal question"
If the California Supreme comes to a different decision than Minnesota, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to address this issue. Federal potentates from the prez to the members of Congress have now made gay marriage a "substantial Federal question."
By Tim Campbell
(timcampbellxyx@yahoo.com)
On March 14, California Superior (Trial Court) Judge Richard Kramer wrote: "Same sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled virtually the opposite back in 1971 (Baker v Nelson) arguing Minnesota can forbid gay marriage because: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation an rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."
Furthermore, in 1972, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to review the Minnesota decision for lack of a "substantial Federal question"
If the California Supreme comes to a different decision than Minnesota, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to address this issue. Federal potentates from the prez to the members of Congress have now made gay marriage a "substantial Federal question."
McConnell v USA 2004 dismissed
Federal judge dismisses Baker and McConnell’s suit against USA and IRS
By Tim Campbell
(Email: timcampbellxyx@yahoo.com)
On January 3, 2005, United States District Judge Joan N. Ericksen ordered the dismissal of Jack Baker and Mike McConnell’s lawsuit against the United States and the Internal Revenue Service. That lawsuit sought a refund of $793.28 of taxes paid by the couple to the IRS and a declaration that McConnell is a "lawfully married citizen…entitled to be treated the same as every other married Minnesotan similarly situated."
Judge Ericksen’s opinion grants two facts that Baker and McConnell now allege: first, that the federal court for Minnesota gave the couple permission to amend the 1976 lawsuit McConnell v Nooner to include IRS issues; second, that McConnell never filed that amended lawsuit.Nonetheless, Ericksen rules in this order that "… the Court addressed the claims in the seconded (sic) amended complaint as if it had been filed." (Underscore added.)
Ericksen reasons: "In federal court, an action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, in contrast to Minnesota State Court, where an action is commenced by service of a complaint, Minn. R. Civ. P. 301. Therefore, the service of the second amended complaint on the IRS is irrelevant."
Some think that within the federal chain of jurisdiction for this case, Judge Ericksen was the official most likely to give Baker and McConnell a fair hearing. She is a Minnesota native, went to law school here just after Baker was elected student body president at the University of Minnesota. She is also a recent divorcee and active with feminist lawyers in Minnesota.
On the downside, she also is a Republican who was made a federal judge just two years ago by President Bush.Unfortunately, as far as the most substantial issue in the case is concerned, Ericksen ruled that her Magistrate’s opinion "as holding that Minnesota does not recognize or permit same-sex marriage is fair." (Underscore added .)
Background
Baker and McConnell launched the world-wide drive for gay marriage in 1970 when they applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. A Hennepin County clerk refused to issue them that license. The couple sued. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that it was ok for that clerk to refuse Baker and McConnell a marriage license because same-sex marriage was not specifically authorized by Minnesota law.
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review that decision "for want of substantial federal question." That ruling could have meant the Supreme Court thought the issue was either not substantial or not a federal one. Marriage laws traditionally were left to the states until the question of interracial marriage came up.
Meanwhile, but prior to the Minnesota Supreme Court decision about gay marriage, Baker and McConnell went to Mankato, Minnesota, got a marriage license and were married by an appropriate minister. The marriage was registered with the State.Subsequently, using that marriage license, Baker and McConnell tried to get veterans benefit. Again, the Minnesota Supreme Court slapped them down. However, the same decision that denied Baker and McConnell veterans benefits left a foot in the door for the couple to sue for income-tax benefits.
The couple did not file that lawsuit until recently May 2004. The current decision is the result of the 2003 lawsuit.
Baker and McConnell website: www.may-18-1970.tabcat.com/Quest.html
By Tim Campbell
(Email: timcampbellxyx@yahoo.com)
On January 3, 2005, United States District Judge Joan N. Ericksen ordered the dismissal of Jack Baker and Mike McConnell’s lawsuit against the United States and the Internal Revenue Service. That lawsuit sought a refund of $793.28 of taxes paid by the couple to the IRS and a declaration that McConnell is a "lawfully married citizen…entitled to be treated the same as every other married Minnesotan similarly situated."
Judge Ericksen’s opinion grants two facts that Baker and McConnell now allege: first, that the federal court for Minnesota gave the couple permission to amend the 1976 lawsuit McConnell v Nooner to include IRS issues; second, that McConnell never filed that amended lawsuit.Nonetheless, Ericksen rules in this order that "… the Court addressed the claims in the seconded (sic) amended complaint as if it had been filed." (Underscore added.)
Ericksen reasons: "In federal court, an action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, in contrast to Minnesota State Court, where an action is commenced by service of a complaint, Minn. R. Civ. P. 301. Therefore, the service of the second amended complaint on the IRS is irrelevant."
Some think that within the federal chain of jurisdiction for this case, Judge Ericksen was the official most likely to give Baker and McConnell a fair hearing. She is a Minnesota native, went to law school here just after Baker was elected student body president at the University of Minnesota. She is also a recent divorcee and active with feminist lawyers in Minnesota.
On the downside, she also is a Republican who was made a federal judge just two years ago by President Bush.Unfortunately, as far as the most substantial issue in the case is concerned, Ericksen ruled that her Magistrate’s opinion "as holding that Minnesota does not recognize or permit same-sex marriage is fair." (Underscore added .)
Background
Baker and McConnell launched the world-wide drive for gay marriage in 1970 when they applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. A Hennepin County clerk refused to issue them that license. The couple sued. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that it was ok for that clerk to refuse Baker and McConnell a marriage license because same-sex marriage was not specifically authorized by Minnesota law.
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review that decision "for want of substantial federal question." That ruling could have meant the Supreme Court thought the issue was either not substantial or not a federal one. Marriage laws traditionally were left to the states until the question of interracial marriage came up.
Meanwhile, but prior to the Minnesota Supreme Court decision about gay marriage, Baker and McConnell went to Mankato, Minnesota, got a marriage license and were married by an appropriate minister. The marriage was registered with the State.Subsequently, using that marriage license, Baker and McConnell tried to get veterans benefit. Again, the Minnesota Supreme Court slapped them down. However, the same decision that denied Baker and McConnell veterans benefits left a foot in the door for the couple to sue for income-tax benefits.
The couple did not file that lawsuit until recently May 2004. The current decision is the result of the 2003 lawsuit.
Baker and McConnell website: www.may-18-1970.tabcat.com/Quest.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)