Alameda: Before figuring out how to get there, let law up where we need to get to…

By Ben Calica
Before we get tangled in the great defund/fix debate, lets get everyone on the same page about what needs to go, specifically, and in writing/law so not one more parent has to teach their kids how to survive a traffic stop.

There is a lot of debate on what to do next, even what to call it, but there is a step that we can all agree on- what needs to stop, and what needs to be part of whatever agencies exist to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We want no more unneeded deaths, no more racial targeting and no more people having to teach their kids how to stay safe if they are stopped by the cops. So how do we put those goals into specifics and into writing/law so what we are debating is which approach to use, but whichever it is, it has to accomplish those goals.

1. Set the goals of what has to change into law first: While there us a great deal of debate on reform vs. rebuilding, we can agree and put into force of mandate/law a set of requirements that whatever entity(s) end up existing has to live up to or be replaced. Basically however we get there, these need to be done or the relevant agency is removed and replaced; These include
2. Unacceptable behavior stops: Be both explicit and state the general principal that behavior that creates unnecessary conflict, that is demeaning and insulting, that is bullying, that targets people because of race, gender orientation, or even disagreeing political view is does not represent the kind or of people that we want or will allow to continue on the force. This means that every incident that uses force is reviewed, all complaints are reviewed, and for a while every arrest is reviewed. Ultimately anyone found to have acted in that manner will either be given disciplinary action or removed from duty. People with repeat “minor” offenses will have shown they are unable to change and removed. And after a set amount of confirmed (via cam) inappropriate incidents, it will be determined that the agency is systemically unable to do what they need to and removed and replaced. Be specific in this one…the number of incidents that triggers each of these things. Having cam footage will handle the false accusations, so that should not be an issue.
3. Practical Transparency: Too much has festered in the dark. People who are acting in the employ of the people are subject to “this call may be monitored for quality assurance purposes.” This means that any agency who is entrusted with public safety is subject to all information available to separate review boards. Basically everything, including internal emails, is assumed to be publically available unless a real reason can be shown to an objective third party that it can’t be for some damn good and universally unstandable reason. This is how it is with other branches of government and if there are things going on that might not look good in the light, it’s probably a good reason not to do it. This includes any officer on duty always having cams on where they are unable to access or delete anything from them.
4. Identify and Remove internal change antibodies: Let’s be honest about what has made it hard/impossible to change the majority of police departments and realise that if any of these are in place, that the institution will prevent any real/long term change.
   -Any entity with management unable or unwilling to internally and publically make change happen will be removed.
   -Any agency that has unions that are unwilling to shift their protections and policies that protect their members from disciplinary action, up to removal, or is an active block to reform, will be determined to therefore be unable to be systemically changed and therefore dissolved and replaced with a different agency more in line with the standards the community is requiring.
   -And any agency found to have a culture that is punitive to members within its ranks that stand up against what they think is wrong behavior by their peers will also be acknowledged to be too resistant to change to be considered possible to make the changes needed.
5. Modify/replace state laws that protect police but block reform. The police bill of rights was a good intention, but it has ended up being one of the greatest blocks to true reform. It needs to be rethought and replaced. If it can’t, it may force defunding as the only way to have a system that is based on the community ethics that we need to see happen.

And then (ok in parallel cause we need this fixed already) Rethink and Focus on the goals of first response and follow up response and evaluate the methods for example:

1. Breakdown and Debundle Functions: The concept of getting the right responder for the right job is clearly a more efficient and effective approach then using the police as a catchall for responding to anything that isn’t fire or medical. A perfect example, one of the business districts is complaining that the police are not responding to their homelessness complaints anymore. However, they have been using the police for this for a long time and mostly the same problems keep coming up. Instead of putting that back to the APD, hire someone to be a community responder. The real problem the businesses have isn’t people being homeless, it is anyone who is making it difficult for their customers to come and do business with them. That means that someone who is engaged can both help out the particular homeless to get helped in a way that also helps the businesses out.
2. If a goal is to reduce speeding and dangerous driving, make the investment in many more traffic and traffic light cams, since these are ethnically neutral, reduce exposure to officers and stopped drivers to danger, etc.
3. To reduce the number of frankly racist calls, invest in 911 technology that can accept realtime or recent video or photos. That allows 911 to do a more accurate job in assessing what is going on, what type of responders to send, as well as proving responders with a way of showing the person involved what the behavior was that was called for, allow the response to be about the incident, not the person.
4. Crime can be reduced by deterrence of presence or by knowledge that crimes will be vigorously pursued and solved. If police are not out doing traffic stops where the majority of people are not criminals, they are available for response to follow up and solve crimes.
5. Community Engagement and Restorative Change, having responders be active and engaged parts of the community creates accessibility and trust, vs authority and intimidation. I suggested in one of my earlier pieces the idea of using the covid time to create an adopt a cop program, where officers are required to have virtual dinners with volunteer families who have experienced the harassment and mistreatment that is at the heart of this. The after a couple of months of this, that each group will most likely not be able to see the other as other, but as people.

To be clear, based on what I’ve seen with APD, I don’t know if reform is possible. What happened with Mr. Watkins on the 23rd of May was bad enough, but the response of the department has been utterly chilling. There was what can best be described as a minimizing and worst a downright false report about the incident initially, which lends absolute credenice to their being hundreds more incidents that just didn’t happen to be caught on video. We are now over a month later and there is no public statements about how terrible it was and how it does not reflect the principals of the department. There is no departmental shame about what happened and an outreach from the officers about how they feel this is a black mark against what they believe. Instead, the officers have been kept quiet and getting upset because they feel like they are under attack.

So this very department has shown all the danger signs in action for an agency that has those danger flags about potential change waving in the breeze. And it really breaks my heart to say that, because I want to believe that change can happen in an agency that I’ve worked with as a business guy. (And clearly privileged white guy.)

Other Related Essays