Further reflections and wonderments

Several students have read the previous post about "the forgotten county." They have responded to it in a variety of ways. Some are puzzled that the word of such a huge class action suit would not be seen on everyone's television set, and shared in conversations of every Black farmer in the land.

Others have responded with sentiments like, "of course, not." Not everyone has cable. Not everyone reads certain magazines like Jet or TV Guide or subscribes to certain newspapers. It's a myth, some have suggested, that every African American family has cable, and that every Black family watches BET and CNN. Some skeptics have even suggested that depending upon the number of advertisements bought and paid for by somebody, a farmer and family would have to be glued to the television set.

On the other hand, if you've had the flu that's been going around this part of the world of late, you probably have seen a number of advertisements by various attorneys with 1-800 numbers to call if you have taken certain medications and been diagnosed with certain conditions. A lot of money is spent by firms whose intent is to locate those folks for inclusion into their cases.

I personally wonder about networks, and how it is that personal networks failed to connect some folks with other folks with other folks with other folks. My skepticism says that just because a Black farmer hears of something like this, doesn't mean that he and his family will necessarily jump at participation. Described as less than a full loaf of bread, that something is better than nothing, for some it might have been too good to be true, and for some it might represent just one more opportunity to feel the inherent mistrust of those in power. Those in power have a certain color of skin. Those marginalized have another shade of skin color. Skin color has implications in our land for power and privilege.

One more thing I wonder about is the whole process of certifying a class as a class. This where I'd appreciate a reader who understands these matters to wade in. My understanding is that the "Manual for Complex Litigation" contains the procedures for certifying a class and for notifying potential members of a class that a class is being certified. The notice should include eleven things including definitions, options, terms of the proposed settlement, methods for objecting, bases for the allocation and distribution of funds, etc. (p. 295). A particularly interesting point is made relative to who is to receive settlement notice and how notice is be delivered. Key words are used such as "reasonable manner," "all class members who would be bound by a proposed settlement," "individual notice is required, where practicable," and "posting notices and other information on the internet, publishing short, attention-getting notices" in various published mediums.

Of most interest to me is why the announcements did not come via the FSA in DC to the state FSA office, and then to the county FSA office. These offices know the farmers in a given locale. Surely names and addresses are found in files in cabinets in offices under someone's administrative control.

At some point on this blog perhaps we'll discuss the role of key attorneys in the development of the case and how farmers have responded to what was ultimately written into the Pigford Consent Decree.

So, as someone has suggested, maybe the process did indeed fit the letter of the law, but it seemed designed to fail. Yes, designed to fail if informing EVERY Black farmer is the intent, but not if informing SOME Black farmers is the intent.

I'm just a professor of marriage and family therapy. Legal things are beyond me, at least legal things of this magnitude and scope. Perspectives and information are invited.

The Forgotten County

Judge Paul Friedman approved what is now known as the Pigford Consent Decree, or the Pigford et al. v. Glickman Class Action Suit, in April, 1999. Glickman's Civil Rights Action Team report of 1997 and the USDA-commissioned work of the D. J. Miller & Associates in 1994 nailed the results of minority farmers mistreatment versus White farmers in a variety of areas related to the financing of the farm business including crop payments, disaster programs, loans, etc. between 1983 and 1997.

In order to gain access to the Consent Decree, farmers had to be informed. The Consent Decree designated the Poorman-Douglas Corporation as the entity responsible for notifying farmers, receiving claims, deciding the legitimacy of claims, and passing them on to the adjudicator for possible action. Per this link, a variety of strategies was designed to inform farmers: 44 commercials on BET and 18 commercials on CNN; advertisements in 27 "general circulation newspapers" and 115 newspapers in an 18-state region targeting a largely Black audience; and full page advertisements in TV Guide. There may have been more efforts of an orchestrated sort, along with word of mouth advertising, but I'm not certain at this point.

What's the point, you may be asking? Good question.

Here's the point. Chilton County is just south of Birmingham. County seat is Clanton, one of the major cities is Jemison, and it has 41,000 plus people, 694 square miles, and 6.8 square miles of water. In that county you'll find the Chilton County Black Farmers Association, Bernice Atchison, President. She'll give you lots of documentation that says it was a forgotten county in 1999 and 2000.

Forgotten by whom? Forgotten by whomever should have informed the Black farmers as to the Consent Decree. In Ms. Atchison's hands, and in my hands, are signed affidavits by local officials that assert that the county did not receive information in a timely fashion or at all. Documents come from a probate court judge and three cities. From the looks of things, the closest city that had information published was Birmingham, 54 miles to the north.

So, if a farmer does not read TV Guide or certain newspapers, and if the farmers do not watch BET and CNN at certain critical points in the schedule of things, then they did not get the information. No information was given to key personnel in the county.

Not only were a number of these farmers considered to be late filers, many of them were among the "not-notified," which makes them either "late filers or non-filers."

This is why the Consent Decree is being re-opened, hopefully, as part of the 2007 Farm Bill.

Ok, I'm scratching my head on this one. How can this happen? How did this happen?

Looks to me like the notification guidelines were inadequate. Also looks to me like the drop dead due date for applying was too inflexible. There are other inadequacies, but more on them later.