Shareholder actions – Page 4 – Seventh Generation Interfaith Coalition for Responsible Investing

Socially Responsible Investing requires effort

March 24, 2021August 16, 2021Chris Cox

Tariq Fancy, BlackRock’s former chief investment officer for sustainable investing, made a startling confession in a recent USA Today editorial:

In essence, Wall Street is greenwashing the economic system and, in the process, creating a deadly distraction. I should know; I was at the heart of it.

Fancy went on: “In truth, sustainable investing boils down to little more than marketing hype, PR spin and disingenuous promises from the investment community.”

It’s quite an indictment from a significant voice in the ESG sector, but, based on my personal experience working for Seventh Generation Interfaith for the past several years, I do not believe that it conveys the whole truth of the matter.

Yes, there are asset management firms that over-hype their ESG product. They slap an ESG label on a fund that screens out certain sectors and perhaps speak to a few companies about their climate actions and sell it at a higher price than non-ESG products. A recent Wall Street Journal article reported 43% higher fees for ESG products in one class of assets. Visit a grocery store, and a higher-priced item with a “Naturally Raised” or “Fresh” label may attract more consumers, even if neither quality is in any measurable sense true. The old Latin adage holds: Caveat Emptor! Buyer beware!

When we look under the hood, so to speak, at many ESG funds, there are reasons to be concerned.

Even as investors demand ESG investments, those funds labeled ESG may not always reflect investor preferences in their proxy voting. Last month, a study from Robeco Asset Management and the Erasmus University of Rotterdam School investigated a decade of proxy voting data, and concluded that large, passive asset managers vote the least in favor of ESG proposals. Further, PRI signatories in the U.S. did not even vote their proxies as well as other U.S. firms that did not describe themselves with an ESG label. Fiona Reynolds, CEO at PRI, recently responded to the report with a commitment to take action. Reynolds went on to give an unusual warning: “being a PRI signatory should not be the only due diligence test for investors.”

Asset owners who rely on negative screens and “ESG” funds can be misled. Vincent Deluard of StoneX authored a recent report entitled “The ESG Bubble: Saving the Planet and Destroying Societies.” Deluard points to blind spots in customary ESG screens. He notes, “companies with a high ESG rating pay a much lower tax rate than their less virtuous peers.” As well, he observed that “ESG funds are biased against humans: the 15 most highly-rated companies employ just 1.9 million workers, versus 5.1 million for the 15 worst-rated ones.” He concludes: “By channeling more money towards these (already wealthy) companies, ESG funds are unconsciously worsening the social and political crisis associated with automation, inequality, and monopolistic concentration.”

While Deluard’s study can cause suspicion of all ESG products, there are hopeful signs on the horizon. Last week, acting SEC chair Allison Herren Lee spoke to the proxy voting issue, saying, “We know investors are demanding ESG investment strategies and opportunities, but funds may not always reflect those investor preferences in their voting” and suggested that the SEC may need to take action on proxy voting disclosure. Further, Gary Gensler, the nominee to lead the Security and Exchange Commission, has indicated that he favors greater ESG disclosures, and the SEC as a whole is making ESG a priority. Most importantly, there are firms that do the hard work. For an asset owner, asking good questions of an asset manager can help discern if the firm is committed to doing this work. [We will soon have a blog post that examines some good questions to ask.]

The faith community, with ICCR leading the way, has pioneered socially responsible investing for fifty years. Many asset managers and advisors who are ICCR members are not doing the greenwashing that Mr. Fancy called out. And SGI members recognize their fiduciary responsibility and power of ownership to change the system for the better. SGI members create value by improving the conduct of portfolio companies and, at the same time, create real world impact for people and planet.

Investor Engagement by a Novice

February 25, 2021June 11, 2021Chris Cox

By Judy Sinnwell, OSF Dubuque

A year after retiring to Mount St. Francis in July 2015, the president of our congregation asked if I would facilitate the formation of what came to be the Sisters of St. Francis-Dubuque SRI Working Group. My previous ministry experience was elementary education-administration, adult formation, licensed health practitioner and after-school tutoring in the rural south. Saying ‘yes’ acknowledged that the topic would be interesting and that the ‘working’ part of the label would have me personally engaged in a significantly new arena addressing life’s meaning and purpose.

And so it has! Especially in recent years, as active ownership has effectively increased its voice and influence in the investment arena. Belonging to a faith- and values-based investor coalition, Seventh Generation Interfaith based in Milwaukee, provided education, professional resources, and mentoring in this important work, which for the Dubuque Franciscans, is a way of keeping our congregational mission alive.

One thing I became aware of in those first years was the annual general meeting, the AGM, which a company has for shareholders to weigh in on important company matters. Being a co-owner enabled me to file a shareholder resolution, challenging the company to make improvements in its governance, environmental and social practices. It seemed to be the right thing to do when we had the chance; but at times, it felt a bit intimidating. Recently, that was my experience as a co-filer on a resolution presented at the Tyson Food Inc. annual meeting.

The resolution asked for human rights due diligence in Tyson’s meat packing sites across the country. Iowa has several Tyson sites; one is in Waterloo, where Rath Packing Co. once had a positive reputation and provided a level of economic mobility for Blacks who migrated from the South until it was shut down in 1985. Learning about workers’ conditions during the COVID pandemic in Tyson’s Waterloo plant, where our congregation provided staff at two elementary and a central high school, became a concern and made this an obvious focus of our shareholder action.

When the resolution was made public and the AGM date was nearing, Investor Advocacy for Social Justice (a sister coalition to SGI) began to build awareness among the press and all shareholders who would have a proxy vote on the proposal during the meeting. Reporters from the Des Moines Register and Reuters contacted me for comment, specifically interested in the fact that ‘nuns’ were engaged with a national company; and the Iowa connection because of the negative news that had been previously reported about the Iowa Tyson site and COVID. Their news coverage educated readers about the broad impact of shareholder action. Each request also made me very aware that this experience was not something I anticipated when I agreed to facilitate a group investment effort five years previous!

Was it worth it? Definitely! Yes! Taking the chance to be the voice for marginalized sisters and brothers had to be done. It’s who we are as Dubuque Franciscans. And it stretched me. The support of faith-based and value-based organizations like SGI and IASJ made this possible as an investor. It’s what the world needs right now as one way to reclaim the commitment to the common good and the dignity of the individual person in the economic arena.

Shareholder Resolution Timeline

February 15, 2021April 16, 2021Natalie Wasek

We often get questions on deadlines associated with the shareholder resolution process. Because SEC rules can be difficult to read, I have outlined the Shareholder Resolution Timeline. This won’t answer all the questions, but will hopefully make the process a little more digestible.

When companies do not engage with their shareholders on salient ESG issues, or they make insufficient progress, shareholders can resort to filing a resolution to be included in the company’s proxy statement and to be voted on at the company’s next annual general meeting (AGM). While the SEC approved several changes to the 14a(8) shareholder resolution process in the final months of the Trump administration, the timeline did not change.

According to the SEC, a proposal “must be received at the company’s principal executive offices not less than 120 calendar days before the release date of the previous year’s annual meeting proxy statement. Both the release date and the deadline for receiving rule 14a-8 proposals for the next annual meeting should be identified in that proxy statement.” Thankfully, a company’s proxy statement is required to state the deadline for resolution submissions for the following year.

After a proposal is filed, the company has 14 days to ask the proponent to fix any procedural requirements (e.g. proof of ownership, word count) if they are not met. The proponent then has 14 days to resolve those issues. If the proponent does not respond or resolve the issues, the company can appeal to the SEC to exclude the proposal. The company cannot omit the resolution without giving the proponent a chance to resolve the issues, or without an appeal to the SEC.

The company has up to 80 days before its proxy is printed to challenge the proposal via a no-action request to the SEC. The company is required to provide a copy of the no-action submission to the proponents and will be published on the SEC website. After a company files a no-action request, such as substantial implementation or micro management (full list for potential exclusion, here), the proponent can appeal this challenge to the SEC. The SEC’s timeline on this decision is usually driven by the company’s proxy printing; however, the SEC does not have to wait for the proponent’s appeal, and can make a decision at any time. Because of this, it is recommended that the proponent inform the SEC on their plans to respond, and submit their appeal to the SEC as soon as possible, generally within 30 days of receiving the no-action.The SEC no longer has to respond to the company’s no-action request in writing, but rather can post their advice to their website on whether the proposal can be omitted from the company’s proxy.

Oftentimes after a no-action request is submitted by the company, the proponents decide to withdraw the proposal, usually after they reach a mutual agreement with the company. While the proponent can withdraw their proposal any time up until the day of the shareholder meeting, we generally try to withdraw before the company’s proxy statement is printed. It is sometimes preferable to withdraw the proposal before the SEC sides with the company allowing it to omit the proposal, if the company’s no action arguments are compelling.

If the proponent does not withdraw the proposal, and the SEC does not rule in favor of the company to omit it from the proxy statement, the company has to send a management statement to the proponent. The statement, typically referred to as the company’s opposition statement, must be sent at least 30 days before the proxy is printed, recommending shareholders vote either for or against the shareholder proposal. If the statement of opposition makes any arguments that are false or misleading, the proponent can ask the company to make the appropriate changes. If the company makes any flagrant errors, the proponent can write to the SEC to challenge the statement, though the SEC does not have to respond to this challenge.

In preparation of the annual general meeting (AGM), the proponent has a few opportunities to “build the vote” by informing other shareholders why they should vote in favor of the proposal.

The proponent can write and publish a Proxy Memo, detailing more information on why they filed the resolution, and why voting for the resolution is necessary. This memo is usually published on the proponent’s website and distributed to other shareholders through partner organizations.
The proponent can also file an Exempt Solicitation. Similar to a proxy memo, it expands on the proposal and argues why other shareholders should vote in favor of the proposal. This document must be reformatted by a third party to be uploaded to the SEC Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR). It is then distributed to all subscribers to SEC filings for that company and is publicly available. This generally reaches more shareholders, and asset management firms.

Leading up to the AGM, to continue to “build the vote,” proponents can also reach out to proxy service companies or firms that prepare company reports and provide proxy voting service on behalf of shareholders. The proponent can also reach out to large asset managers to inform them of their arguments for voting in favor of the resolution, and can promote their proposal through the media to build awareness and support.

After the proposal is voted on at the AGM, the company is required to publish the results of the vote, and other matters discussed, in an 8-K SEC filing within 4 days of the AGM. These filings can be found on the company’s website.

The timeline can be complicated, so you may want to refer to the table below.

Summarized Timeline:

120 Days from release date of previous years company proxy	Deadline to submit shareholder proposal
14 Days (after submission)	Company exclusion based on eligibility or requirements
14 Days (after exclusion)	Proponent can resubmit proposal fixing the issues
80 Days (before proxy is printed)	Company challenge to SEC with a no-action request
ASAP (after No Action request)	Proponent to challenge or appeal the no-action request
Any Time after No Action request	SEC makes a decision on no-action request
Any Time before AGM	Shareholder can withdraw proposal
30 Days before proxy is printed	Company issues Management Statement recommending how to vote on the proposal, to be printed in the proxy
Any Time (usually 6 weeks) before AGM	Proponent published or files Proxy Memo / Exempt Solicitation
~30 days before AGM	Proponent “builds vote” with Proxy Service companies
4 days after AGM	Company files 8-K with proposal vote results

See the SEC Bulletin with more information here.

Writing letters is easy; Will BlackRock act on it?

January 26, 2021April 7, 2021Chris Cox

Today, BlackRock’s Larry Fink issued his 2021 letter to CEOs. As usual, the New York Times devoted significant coverage to it. Again, we at SGI are heartened by Fink’s words. I’ll call your attention to this nugget near the letter’s conclusion:

Questions of racial justice, economic inequality, or community engagement are often classed as an “S” issue in ESG conversations. But it is misguided to draw such stark lines between these categories. For example, climate change is already having a disproportionate impact on low-income communities around the world – is that an E or an S issue? What matters is less the category we place these questions in, but the information we have to understand them and how they interact with each other. Improved data and disclosures will help us better understand the deep interdependence between environmental and social issues.

I loved this line: “And now, business leaders and boards will need to show great courage and commitment to their stakeholders.”

At the same time, I am reminded of the “Peanuts” comic. Time and again, Lucy tells Charlie Brown that she will hold a football while he runs up to kick it. Initially, Charlie Brown usually refuses to kick it, not trusting Lucy. Then, Lucy says something to persuade Charlie Brown to trust her. Charlie Brown runs up to kick the ball, but at the very last moment before he can kick it, Lucy removes the ball. As a consequence, Charlie Brown flies into the air, falls down on his back, and hurts himself.

We’ve seen these letters each year from Fink, and we have written about our reactions to them before. Nonetheless, when it comes to voting their proxies, BlackRock, like Lucy, yanks the ball away (See: BlackRock voted against climate resolutions over 80% of the time in 2020). To be honest, I hope that I am wrong. I pray for an abundance of “great courage and commitment.” Time will tell if 2021 will be any different.

Don’t miss these two webinars!

February 21, 2020April 16, 2020Chris Cox

Each year, ICCR and Ceres offer webinars that highlight resolutions filed by members. These webinars provide excellent guidance to institutional investors and individual investors concerning shareholder proposals in the coming proxy season. We cannot recommend highly enough your participation in both webinars.

ICCR’s 2020 Proxy Resolutions & Voting Guide Overview. ICCR member resolutions reflect some of the most hotly-debated themes in the national discourse, from the failure of energy companies to meaningfully respond to the climate crisis threatening our planet, to the role of corporations in perpetuating civil and human rights abuses through technology products, and the unrelenting rise in the cost of U.S. healthcare. Register here. (Thu, Feb 27, 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Central) (UPDATE: 2020 Proxy Guide is here. Slides and recording are here. )
Business Case to Vote For 2020 Climate-Related Shareholder Proposals. An annual webinar presenting key climate-related shareholder proposals for the 2020 proxy season, and reasons why you should vote for them. Hosted by the Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk and Sustainability. Register here. (Thu, Mar 12, 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Central)

Even if you cannot attend live, registration means that you will be sent a link to the slides and recording of the webinar. In other words, even in the event that you have a schedule conflict, it can be valuable to register and watch the webinar at another time. Please, register for these webinars!

The Awakening of a Giant?

February 20, 2020July 8, 2020Chris Cox

By Frank Sherman

Much has been written about socially responsible investing becoming mainstream. US SIF reported two years ago that $1 in every $4 of professionally managed assets in the U.S utilize ESG criteria or shareholder advocacy, a double digit annual increase since the mid-1990s. SRI concerns have also broadened from governance issues (e.g. proxy access, political and lobby spending, executive pay, separate chair) to corporate environmental impact (e.g. sustainability reporting, climate, water) and more recently, social impacts (e.g. human rights, labor rights, diversity).

Another trend in the investment world is the disproportionate growth of passive investing. As open-end and exchange-traded mutual funds managed by large asset managers make up a growing portion of U.S. equity holdings, they take on a growing fiduciary responsibility. When you buy these funds, you transfer your fiduciary responsibility to fund managers to engage companies and vote proxies for you. These long-term and diversified owners have no way to exit a stock, so the only way to influence shareholder value at a portfolio company is through exercising active ownership rights.

Given these trends, it is not surprising to read Morningstar’s recently released proxy voting report stating investor support for ESG resolutions reached a record high in 2019 averaging 29%. This excludes the proposals which were withdrawn based on company agreements. Average support for ESG shareholder resolutions across the 50 fund families analyzed rose from 27% in 2015 to 46% in 2019. However, they found that five of the 10 largest fund families —Vanguard, BlackRock, American Funds, T. Rowe Price, and DFA— voted against more than 88% of ESG-related shareholder resolutions. Their support would have caused 19 of 23 resolutions earning more than 40% support to pass if supported by just one of the largest two asset managers. In response, these fund managers claim to ‘engage companies privately’.

The silver lining highlighted by Morningstar is Blackrock. Recall that two years ago Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, told CEOs that to sustain financial performance they must “understand the societal impact of your business as well as the ways that broad, structural trends – from slow wage growth to rising automation to climate change – affect your potential for growth”. He went on to say that companies need to engage their stakeholders and if they wait until they receive a proxy proposal to engage, “we believe the opportunity for meaningful dialogue has often already been missed”. This year in BlackRock’s annual letter, Fink stated that climate risk is changing the fundamentals of the financial system. BlackRock would be aligning its investment approach, including how it votes proxies, with sustainability. Fink committed to using proxy voting to advance TCFD- and SASB-aligned financial disclosures and to an unprecedented standard of proxy voting transparency. They demonstrated their seriousness by joining the Climate Action 100+, a global investor initiative which SGI is a member, representing $34 trillion in managed assets, to engage the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters to take necessary action on climate change.

Morningstar predicted that BlackRock’s “willingness to vote against management would give engagements on sustainability issues more teeth…as corporate management becomes more open to engaging with shareholder proponents”. I remain hopeful…

Diversity in the Board Room

February 10, 2020Chris Cox

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon garnered media coverage from CNBC and the New York Times for his new plan that requires I.P.O. (initial public offering) clients to have at least one “diverse” board member, if they wish to have his firm’s services. “We’re not going to take a company public unless there’s at least one diverse board candidate, with a focus on women,” Mr. Solomon told CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

I guess that my first response is it’s about time. Diverse boards are good for business. While hardly the first, Wharton told us that in 2017, Forbes drew the same conclusion in January 2018, and Harvard Business Review in March 2019. The Wall Street Journal article last week asked the question “why, when women earn the majority of college degrees and make up roughly half the workforce, do so few occupy the chief executive job?” Their analysis shows that the number of women CEOs of the country’s top 3,000 companies has more than doubled over the past decade, but it’s still under 6%.

SGI members have participated in the Midwest Diversity Initiative (MIDI), a coalition of institutional investors dedicated to increasing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity on corporate boards of companies headquartered in Midwestern states. The Coalition helps companies to:

Adopt a policy for the search and inclusion of minority and female board candidates
Require minority and female candidates to interview for every open board seat
Instruct third party search firms to include such candidates in the initial pool
Expand the candidate pool to include candidates from non-traditional sources

These efforts have seen some success: 24 Midwest companies engaged by MIDI have adopted the Rooney Rule, and 10 companies have appointed 12 diverse board members (see the press release). Nationally, we have a long way to go. On the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance website, Deloitte published a report that, as of 2018, just 34% of all Fortune 500 board seats are held by women and minorities.

On a related front, Melinda Gates found that in 2017 women founders received only 2% of venture capital funding. For lack female founders, the results are even more grim, only .0006% of venture capital has gone to them since 2009. In response, Gates invested in venture capital for women.

Women and people of color have a lot to contribute to the management and boards of successful companies. Personally, I’m glad to see that big business is slowly beginning to recognize it.

SEC’s Proposed New Rules Threaten Shareholder Democracy

November 9, 2019July 8, 2020Chris Cox

Last December, our blog gave an update on efforts by trade associations to restrict shareholder rights .

On Tuesday, November 5, the Securities and Exchange Commission unveiled the exact nature of that threat and voted 3-2 on two separate measures to propose changes to rule 14a-8 that would severely restrict investors’ access to the corporate proxy. The changes would require that:

Shareholders own $2,000 worth of company stock for a minimum of three years (up from one) before they can submit a shareholder resolution. They can submit proposals earlier if they own $25,000 for one year and $15,000 for two years. Small shareholders can no longer come together to aggregate their shares to file a resolution.
Re-submission vote thresholds were raised from 3%, 6% and 10% for the first three years to 5%, 15% and 25%.
Proxy service providers (such as ISS and Glass Lewis) will be required to provide a draft of their proxy advice to companies for comment ahead of issuance. There are several other restrictions on these companies.

These proposed changes are significant threats to our voice as shareholders. They have received significant push-back in the media (Reuters, MarketWatch) and by several investor groups (ICCR, US SIF, CII). “Between the filing threshold increases and the doubling of percentages for resubmissions, it means that smaller investors are going to find it much more difficult to file resolutions,” says Josh Zinner, CEO of ICCR. “It’s a blow against shareholder democracy.”

The 60-day comment period opens once the proposed rule changes are published in the Federal Registrar. Our members are encouraged to sign on to Ceres and ICCR comment letters or, better yet, send in your own comments to the SEC. You should also consider sending letters to your Congressional representatives. Finally, consider submitting op-eds and letters to the editor to your local paper and newsletter stories and blog posts on your websites.

To learn more about the issue and concerns, you read the statements by Commissioner Robert Jackson and Allison Herren. “There is a common theme that unites the two proposals before us today”, said Commissioner Herren. “They both would operate to suppress the exercise of shareholder rights.”

With regards to a second proposed rule change, ISS (Institutional shareholder Services) has filed a lawsuit against the SEC. The final resource is a website, supported by ICCR, that is gathering evidence and sharing reports concerning the shareholder proposal process (Investor Rights Forum).

A lot more to come on these proposals. Please lift your voice in opposition!

Riverwater Partners Employment Clauses Engagement

September 27, 2019November 22, 2019Chris Cox

By Cindy Bohlen

Chief Mindfulness Officer & Analyst, Riverwater Partners

Riverwater Partners, a Responsible Investment RIA based in Milwaukee, WI, is working in collaboration with Meredith Benton, Whistle Stop Capital, and Molly Betournay, Clean Yield Asset Management, and a few other investors, on an engagement campaign with companies to end the use of Forced Arbitration and Non-Disclosure Agreements in the context of employee harassment and discrimination claims. Riverwater chose to participate in this campaign because we believe the cost and effort to end the use of these tools is insignificant compared to the risks associated with their use, which include human capital costs, legal risk, and brand exposure.

In June, Riverwater sent letters to CEOs and Investor Relations of 24 portfolio companies highlighting said risks, stating that Attorneys General from all 50 states have signed a letter calling for the end of mandatory arbitration in sexual harassment cases, and citing examples of high-profile companies that have ended their use. As of August, we have received responses from eight companies, most indicating they do not use Forced Arbitration/Non-Disclosure Agreements at all. A few with union employees stated that negotiated contracts require certain disputes to be determined by arbitration; given that these terms are negotiated by experts on behalf of the employees, we believe this is fair. In all cases, we are encouraging companies to disclose these policies publicly, as investors have begun to focus on the issue.

Riverwater is in the process of following up with companies that have not yet responded. Our goal is to educate them regarding the risks of using Forced Arbitration and Non-Disclosure Agreements, and to encourage them to either disclose publicly if they are not using such tools, or to end use. We will consider further action, including shareholder resolution, if we deem it appropriate. We welcome participation by others who are concerned about this practice. Please feel free to contact Cindy Bohlen of Riverwater at [email protected] with interest.

Note from SGI: Efforts like this to end mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims help to put a stop to the culture of silence that protects perpetrators at the cost of their victims. We salute Cindy for her participation in this important work.

My Visit to South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley

September 27, 2019September 27, 2019Chris Cox

By Mark Peters

Director of Justice, Peace and Reconciliation, Priests of the Sacred Heart

The August 25 Washington Post ran a story about the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, the largest of three in the U.S. specifically dedicated to the holding of mothers and children. Opened to reporters for the first time, the center was described by reporter Maria Sachetti as clean and well-equipped, very different from the images we’ve all seen of kids in pens at the border.

I can confirm her story – I was there two weeks earlier and saw everything she described:

…a dental office, with a reclining chair and sterile instruments… cafeteria serving hot dogs, lime-cilantro chicken, tortillas and green salad — all you can eat… Kindergartners [singing] “If You’re Happy and You Know It…” access to a wide array of services, including a 24-hour infirmary, a day care, a library with Internet and email access, a beauty salon, a charter school and a canteen.

I’d been asked by SGI to take part in a tour of the Dilley facility and sit in on a dialogue of ICCR members with CoreCivic, the private corporation that runs Dilley and is one of the “big two” in that field, along with GEO Group. At one time they were in dialogue with GEO, but the company had “paused” that conversation. (In fact the CEO had suggested they sell their shares and leave them alone!

CoreCivic has been a more willing partner, and after the dialogue I sat in on later that afternoon after the tour of the detention facility, the ICCR delegation saw signs for hope that human rights were getting needed attention. But one has to wonder what an organization like Catholic Charities could do with the money CC is getting to run this camp, whether it’s full or not (surprisingly it never has been and often is way under its 2400 bed capacity). The director told us he had “no idea” how Customs and Border Patrol and ICE decide who to send and not – mothers have reported an almost “eenie-meenie-minee-moe” approach at the border.

The Post reporter’s story is excellent in my opinion, and I encourage you to read it. I especially call attention to her explanation of the Flores Agreement and the impact the Administration’s plan to nullify it would have on the length of time families are forced to stay in these camps (in a “vast stretch of scrubland in a tiny former oil-boom town, an hour south of San Antonio”), where the temperatures are often above 100 degrees and people generally don’t leave their air-conditioned pods.

The women who’ve left and were interviewed by Sachetti all agreed that, while “far better than the Border Patrol holding cells or the safe houses they stayed in during their trip through Mexico,” they still considered Dilley a jail. Most currently stay less than the 20 day Flores limit, but if Flores is negated stays are expected to go to 3 times that and could legally be unlimited. What will it do to the admittedly good morale (for the circumstances and relative to the trauma they’ve just passed through) we witnessed if that becomes the case. We need to be telling Congress to keep the Flores Agreement!

I and the others were very surprised by what we saw in Dilley and relieved to know that not every detention facility is as bad as the worst of them (I can only vouch for this one, but I would also have to say that we all felt it was not “staged,” that we were seeing normal life there). The next day, we heard a group that provides pro bono legal services say that residents were not being allowed to see them without an appointment, which should be their right, but we weren’t able to ask the CoreCivic official about that. Follow-up is planned. I’m grateful to SGI and ICCR for the opportunity to participate in this visit and commend the dialogue team for their dogged efforts to ensure that human rights are not trampled. Perhaps what we saw would not have been that way without the efforts of them and so many others to let government and business know we are watching.