|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Activists calling for the defunding of police departments and current and former police personnel are among the candidates vying for a seat on Mountain View’s newly created Public Safety Advisory Board, the city’s first-ever attempt at civilian oversight for local law enforcement.
City officials say a total of 13 applicants applied for a spot on the seven-member board, which was created last year following months of civil unrest and calls for police reform. The board serves an advisory role, and can only make recommendations to the department.
Board members are expected to tackle possible changes to the Mountain View Police Department’s use-of-force policies, which could more closely adhere to the 8 Can’t Wait campaign. Police officials say the deparment’s existing policies mostly mirror 8 Can’t Wait, but there are differences. Mountain View officers are still permitted to shoot at moving vehicles, which the national campaign advises against.
The board will also explore ways in which some emergency calls could be answered by medical staff and social workers instead of cops, and will dig into the police department’s contact demographics, which shows Black and Latino residents are more likely to be stopped or arrested by police.
Applicants range from teenagers in high school to senior citizens, each with divergent views on how to improve trust between the community and local law enforcement. Three applicants — Sebastian Brisbois, Tim Mackenzie and Eva Tang — are members of the Mountain View Coalition for Police Reform and Accountability (MVCPRA), a recently formed watchdog group that has pushed for more police accountability. The group has been vocal at council meetings since the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers in May 2020.
Tang, a science teacher in East Palo Alto, said in her application that she is troubled by the data showing racial bias in stopping and arresting suspects, and that white supremacy has roots in law enforcement that must be addressed. She points to the riots at the U.S. Capitol in January, in which some officers may have aided in the violent protest, as a reason to be alarmed.
“We cannot have public safety in Mountain View that perpetuates this kind of white supremacy in our community,” she said.
Mackenzie, also a vocal critic at council meetings, said he believes the scope of policing in Mountain View is far too large, and that officers shouldn’t be the first choice in responding to people experiencing a mental health crisis.
“The police have become a catch-all for any emergency-related call and therefore end up being called in to matters that they are not trained to handle,” he wrote. “Mountain View should take the lessons from our neighbors and act before tragedy occurs in our city. Police are far too burdened with tasks that have fallen to them.”
Other applicants are from the world of law enforcement. Laura Jammal works as an administrative aide for the Dublin Police Department, and said she has seen firsthand the “shift in perception” of police and cultural changes in recent years. She worries there is an overly negative view of police that needs to be addressed.
“While not all officers are perfect, the vast majority are doing an exceptional job and serve their communities in the best way they know how,” she said.
Jammal called defunding the police a “huge mistake” and would rather boost training than cut funding.
Derek Langton is a former Massachusetts state police officer who now works as a software engineer. He believes all law enforcement agencies are facing challenges with police bias, and that Mountain View should take a hard look at both its use of force policies and its messaging to the public.
Other applicants include Cleave Frink, who said in his application he would support school resource officers (SROs) on campus and other youth services by the police department, and Alex Brown, who made a pitch for more transparency when it comes to local law enforcement.
“I think that what last year made clear is not that we have issues in law enforcement itself, but in the transparency of the city and the confidence of the public to know that their needs are being heard and addressed,” he said.
Jeannette Wang, a Los Altos High School student, applied for the public safety advisory board after laying out her vision for how police departments could win the trust of the public — specifically communities of color. Joan Brodovsky, a Sunset Estates resident applying for the board, said she believes police need to make inroads with the Latino community in order to win its trust and support.
Also applying for the board are Susan Lam, a registered nurse; Kalwant Sandhu, former member of the Human Relations Commission; Mike Berman, a former teacher now working for Amazon Web Services; and Kavita Aiyar, president of the Cuesta Park Neighborhood Association.
The Mountain View City Council is scheduled to interview the applicants on Tuesday, March 16, and will formally appoint the members in April. Three of the inaugural members were serve shortened, two-year terms expiring in 2023, while the remaining four will serve for a full four-year term. More information on the process and applications are available online.
It is unfortunate that our city got roped into this by the Marxist movement called “BlackLivesMatter”.
Sally Lieber is the only council member that lobbied to have this group come to our city.
In the interest of our city, the city council should not pick any activists to be on this advisory board. After this year the board should make what ever comments they wish, then disband this board. It will serve no useful purpose and will only divide our community.
We have a great PD, lets not ruin it and turn ours into what has happened in Minneapolis with their de-fund movement.
This advisory board will simply give the police more money and legitimacy. Recommendations for improving police PR messaging, anti-bias training, having SROs on school campuses and increasing police/youth programs enable white supremacist systems to be perpetuated.
I agree with Mark that the Activists should not be included on the Police Advisory Board.
Unfortunately, they are heavy on a political and ideology agenda rather any practical field experience with law enforcement operations.
An example was a recent letter to the editor advocating the removal of rifles as tools for MVPD. Net/Net: There was a glaring lack of understanding why and how these rifles are used.
It is ok not to know too much about these things. It is not ok to advocate things which put the lives of law enforcement officers at risk and at severe life-threatening disadvantage.
Here is a concise history of events which affected the armaments’ of officers
* 1986 — 5 out of 8 FBI agents were shot, 3 killed by one bank robber with a semi-auto .223 rifles
* 1997 — 10 out of 50 responding officers where shot by 2 bank robbers with fully automatic +
body armor. AK-47 rifles firing 7.62 mm bullets. 7 civilians also shot. Medevac
severely to the victims as fire was too intense and shotgun and pistols ineffective.
* 2016– 5 Dallas police officers killed in ambush. Video of one officer shooting the perp
at range 3 yards with no effect because of body armor, and perp killing the officer
with a semi auto rifle .223
Of course, police do make mistakes. The Chief of Ferguson Police was fired. My take was the
mis-use of both rifles and light armored vehicles in a crowd control situation. But just because of a few screw ups you do not take away important tool which leave law enforcement officers disadvantaged and killed. It is not 1930 anymore, and the era of the .38 revolver and shotgun ended in 80s/90s.
Use of force policy, mental health issues, physical restraint policy, crime statistics need to be improved. But the activists have not demonstrated much competence outside their ideology and political agendas.
@Justaworking stiff,
Very well said.
I would suggest that our politicians and Media are the one’s who should be “reformed” first.
In Fergusion, it was a lie about the “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” that never happened.But the media kept repeating that lie and blamed that incident on the police officer and it created the chaos that ensued.
Some of our politicians are also encouraging this type of criminal activity.
Here is one of the latest example below. But the point is, why are they blaming the PD’s for these false/irresponsible acts when they should be looking at them self’s.
A controversial bill in the CA state legislature would make some robberies a misdemeanor, not a felony.
Senate Bill 82, authored by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), would turn robberies under $950 that don’t involve weapons or cause serious injuries into petty thefts.
The penalty would be a maximum of one year in county jail, a $1,000 fine, or both, and offenders would qualify for a diversion program.
If this passes into law, a criminal would be able to rob someone of up to $950 in cash or valuables and as long as they didn’t use a gun or put them in the hospital, it would be treated the same as a petty theft charge. Since “diversion programs” are being offered as a possible sentence, the robber might not spend a single day in jail. (Diversion programs are typically counseling sessions intended to help you see the error of your ways.)
Our police department is a fantastic organization focused on service. What this board can do is assist the community in communicating the voice of our citizens to the department, and educating the community about the work the department does, among other things. We can work to find better ways to serve our citizens, and better ways to assist our police officers. It’s a two way street. Police need the help of citizens just as much as citizens need the help of police.
Public safety is not just about police, and it encompasses a range of issues that are important to our community. Done correctly, this board has the opportunity to assist our city in continuing to be the leader it already is among police departments in this state, and nationwide. The Board exists to serve. I’m quite certain that service is always useful and appreciated.
The PD has already been working with the community for 30 years, in communication and input from the public on how they can improve and help the people in our city.
The purpose of pressing the city council to set up this board was to only advance the Marxist group of “BlackLivesMatter” agenda. They wish to disarm the PD, de-fund the PD and these items does not make for a safer PD or our community.
Cfrink has the right focus in terms of community and police cooperation.
But the other key point Cfrinks made is the Two Way Street between the Community and Police.
I have to executed on what Cfrinks talked about. I was funded by Dept. of Justice in a violent
Bay Area city.
And you know who were heroes in this?
Grand mothers and Grand fathers
Partly because they are home to watch the neighborhood
But mostly because they love their middle aged sons and daughters, and their grand children
And they wanted to help
But one reason why they were effective is they were focused on problem solving to protect their
children.
A lot of civilians actually gummed up the process. Too many were grandstanding to get attention,
or were seeking political power.
Or a lot of people have problems distinguishing communicating emotions versus communicating
problems. A lot of the communications of emotions were grandstanding speeches which did nothing to identify the problem they were so upset about. Or they could not sort between high priority and low priority problems, or problems that were too hard to solve but not impactful (e.g. cars with boom boxes). My rule of thumb is that it took 4 questions to figure out the problem to be solves. Then the community voted on priorities.
But once the problem is identified, the Lt. assigned to me would take my official e-mail and solve it. His patrol officers would report back to the community. And the community would recognize those officers as heroes.
Community gets their problem solved
Patrol Officers get recognition for a job well done (and get excited to help the community)
Two Way Street
Just as Cfrink pointed out
No political agenda as Mark described
These activists should not be on the commission
(I left out training, teamwork of grand parents, middle aged, and grandkids, and process)
I think Mark correct about the political angle.
What happens are very vocal activists go after local politicians, who give in to the pressure.
From a process standpoint, the activists have a right to do this.
The problem is how the narrative gets twisted to reflect the political agenda.
And solutions get presented that don’t solve real on the ground problems.
But the politicians and media start reflecting the false narratives of these activists.
The Letter to the Editor which called for the removal of rifles from the MVPD toolkit is a
glaring example of this from the Activist community. It reflects twisting the story to reflect their
emotional state and political agenda. And showed near zero understanding of the how and why, or any on the ground realities. The writer of that editorial had no experience and was not willing to do any research on the subject she was so passionately advocating.
The core problem is that such advocacy, if successful in manipulating the emotions or regular people who do not have time or experience to evaluate the proposition, could very well yield a result similar to where that Dallas officer armed with only a semi-auto 9 mm pistol was helpless against a perp with a .223 semi-auto rifle, and was murdered.
The activist had no idea about unintended consequences of her advocacy
These activists should not be on the commission.