It’s not like Johnson hasn’t had pointers over the past year. I–and many others–have been harping on the NECESSITY of a cooperative city hall environment long  before Johnson sat in the council chambers for the first time (legally) or fled from a local TV news crew. I remember when Eric Hogue interviewed me for his radio show during the mayor’s race. He asked me, “What do you think? Can this city council be saved?” (or something along those lines), and my reply was (paraphrased), “Sure! I’m optimistic. All they need is a solid leader to come in and foster a team-oriented environment and get them to work together.” [I was hoping to get back on Hogue's show and elaborate a bit, but I never got the chance].

I have maintained the position that Johnson’s NUMBER ONE PRIORITY should be relationship building since day one, even though he steadfastly ignored that advice (not just from me, but from hundreds of his most vocal critics). In article after article I slammed the mayor for not being a leader, for burning bridges instead of building them, for turning a cold shoulder when he should have been extending his hand in friendship, and so forth and so on. I grew so frustrated with this mayor’s bull-headed, self indulgent, one-track minded, megalomaniacal approach to his job that  I stopped writing about him all together… until he gave me yet another reason to..

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that I find the mayor’s  new year’s resolution insulting at best. Why? First of all, because his “strong-arm mayor” initiative is still in his razor-narrow sights (and also on his resolutions list…even though it is safely ranked #3 lest anyone get the wrong idea). Second, everyone knows at this point Johnson is not interest in consensus-building as a means to accomplish a political end. The only way he builds relationships is from the inside out, and those whom have been on the outs for the past year will naturally not be ecstatic about Johnson’s sudden change of interpersonal policy in the face of grave criticism from the community.

If I was iMayor,  my resolution list would look something like this:

1. Kill strong-arm mayor initiative asap.
2. Apologize to community for being overzealous and power-hungry.
3. Apologize to city council for treating them like children who can’t be trusted.
4. Focus on public safety and juvenile deliquency like I promised I would in my campaign.
5. Stop dressing like the president of the United States every day of the year.
6. Stop acting like a mirror image of the president and get my own style.
7. Stop telling by-proxy stories of my kind-hearted philanthropy.
8. Start a council of passionate citizens like Rhonda Erwin to help me understand the problems in the inner city, and aid in proposing solutions for them.
9. Lose my ridiculous security detail, pay restitution on the money it has cost the city, and apologize to the previous mayor for bashing her about her security detail.
10. Stop acting like I am Sacramento’s only hope, and start shining the spotlight on the people who are actually doing the work to make my city a great place.
11. Stop acting like a third grader during city council meetings and embarassing my “great” city and its residents.

Image source: Sacbee.com

I am not a fan of  these “entrapment fests.”  It’s not that I am pro crime, it’s just that we simply do not have the money and/or resources to be tossing after mostly poor, down-on-their-luck saps– do we??  What is the payoff? A small fine most of them can’t even afford? These operations are sucking our already-depleted public safety resource pool dry, and costing taxpayers big bucks in salaries, planning, gas, vehicle maintenance, court fees, and so forth and so on, yet the police continue to conduct them. What gives?

My kids and I were watching an episode of Cops (or one of those shows), not long ago. Those types of shows serve as great backdrops for family discussions around the consequences of being on the wrong side of the law. [Ed: actually I watch it with my kids so they can learn where NOT to hide their stash in their car when they're old enough to drive one day]. In the episode we were watching, cops in some city were conducting an “uncover sting operation” (USO?) at a local liquor store. Three cops sat in a van and wanked around, while three or four more ate cheeseburgers and farted in nearby cars, while their under-aged decoy (a teenage girl camouflaged in To-Catch-a-Predator-style pigtails and baseball cap–sigh), solicited unsuspecting citizens to buy them alcohol. Of course they arrested several people uneventfully, but there was one surprise  that day that still sticks out in my mind.

At one point during the operation the target (a scraggly old Vietnam veteran with a ZZ Top beard, jungle hat, and one tooth), takes the money from the girl, goes inside, buys a carton of cigarettes and a 12 pack of Pabst, comes back outside and proceeds to nonchalantly get in his truck. Of course half the city police force converge on him. A  few cops even had their guns drawn. When they questioned him as to why he took the girl’s money and was preparing to run, he said, “I aint buyin no kid no alcohol, man. Serves her right.”

At that, my wife and I laughed out loud and cheered him on, half-expecting the cops to do the same. Surprisingly the cops found no humor in the situation. In fact they immediately read him his rights, took him into custody, impounded his car, and charged him with robbery.

In my narrow mind, that little bit of theater serves to underscore the absurdity of these operations. If he buys her the beer, he gets busted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor; if he takes her money to teach her a lesson, he gets busted for robbery; and of course if he ignores her someone else gets busted. As the car pulled away with the bewildered veteran in the back, the sergeant said to the camera,”There’s a right and a wrong way to handle these situations. If he really wanted to teach her a lesson, he should have reported her.”

Oh yeah, you guys really taught that old guy a lesson, didn’t you!? Sigh. And who should be getting the lessons  anyways? Seems to me if you really wanted to dole out lessons, you would be out busting the kids trying to buy alcohol, wouldn’t you? How about putting ADULT decoys out there to lure the kids: “Hey kid, want some alcohol? I’ll buy ya some beer if you buy me a pack of smokes. Whadda ya say?”

What’s the difference between luring kids or luring adults? There is none. In both scenarios you’re LURING someone.  You’re literally compelling them to commit crime. You’re actually obstructing the course of their day to make them a criminal. In my opinion, any time you fabricate crime (and in the process screw up the crime stats — would be like counting a hitter’s practice home runs as regular season HR’s), you are entrapping citizens.

What the $#@%? What’s next, littering the river side with 20 dollars bills stolen from a bank and then arresting homeless people for picking them up??!

I know, the anal ones will tell me these operations aren’t technically considered entrapment because they don’t meet such and such criteria;  but regardless, I will hold my position that they are. Any time you deliberately try to “net” (as the Bee calls it), citizens as though they were fish in a stream, you are entrapping them. You are CATCHING them in your trap; and on top of that, you are even keeping the small ones instead of throwing them back!

Cops did this very thing last night on Woodland according to the Bee. Last week they did the same in Placer County. Apparently these operations are funded by a “grant” from the ABC (Alcoholic Bev Control); but lest we be fooled, grant means “money from taxpayers” and nothing more… right? Get this, from the Placer County operation:

“In Lincoln, the operation also was conducted in four locations. The decoy contacted 35 adults and one of the adults bought alcohol for the minor. The person was cited…” -Sac Bee 9-1-1 article

1 in 35?? Are you kidding me? That’s embarassing. And who was the one guy who fell for it? Don’t tell me, a migrant worker who can’t even afford the fine. Puh-leeze.

I will never support these types of programs because I do not approve of CRIME FABRICATION. Again I ask, who is planning and executing these wasteful operations that are clearly sucking our already-depleted public safety resource pool dry? Do poiice chiefs make these decisions unilaterally? Is it the ABC who sells them on conducting them? If so, who is giving the ABC authority to conduct these operations? If they have money for these grants, why aren’t voters getting to decide how that money is spent?

I believe these are important questions when we have a SEVERE shortage of cops, and most cities are cutting back service after service to get out of their budget holes. As many people have observed during these rough economic times: WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. Every agency, including agencies like Alcoholic Beverage Control, should have to account for every penny they are spending. And furthermore, money they have to spend on ridiculous operations like these should be redirected to more critical public safety functions that are in jeopardy because of the budget crisis.

PS: I am not talking about legit decoy programs such as car theft decoys,pedophile decoys, and other operations that legitimately seek to take dangerous people off our streets.

Sources:

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/archives/2009/06/sting-nets-7-su.html

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/archives/2009/01/five-arrests-re.html

Mayor Johnson says the city presented the union a “very good offer.” Conversely, the union thinks the city’s demands are unreasonable. The union offered the city one year with no pay raises as long as no jobs were cut. The city rejected the offer. The city apparently wanted a 3 year pay freeze.

From what I have seen, it is the union residents appear to be angry with.  I have read countless comments from citizens to the effect of:  “so much for the brotherhood when it comes to money.”  Hard to argue.

Indeed, at face value it appears as though savings accounts  are more  important to union members than saving their brothers’ jobs. Then again, if your job was safe, and your company asked YOU to choose between raises or your peers’ jobs, how would you vote? I have thought about this a little, and I honestly don’t know how I would vote.  That choice could be likened to being presented two options: to have your teeth knocked out or your legs broken. Errrrrr. This decision had to be a gut-wrenching one for firefighters, and I don’t envy them for having to make it. They probably thought the city would ultimately come though. But despite KJ’s hardcore stance on public safety, that didn’t happen.

That raises the question: Has KJ and his council colleagues done all they can to reach an amicable solution with the union? I know a lot of people are probably thinking : “Joe! There is no money in the city’s coffers! Do you want them to grow $10,000,000 in the city hall atrium?” (Ed: Do we even have a city hall atrium? And if so, is it adorned with 40 Acres art works yet?).  I understand the city has no money, but should we assume just because it has no money that is has done everything in its power to save jobs?

The city’s new fiscal year starts on July 1. Shouldn’t they be negotiating all the way up til the eve of the new fiscal year? Of course I understand that they have to legally notify workers two weeks in advance, but Johnson’s “we’re done” statement tonight leads me to believe the city is completely DONE with negotiating, and would rather take off for their vacation on Monday than work with public safety officials to find a solution.

In any event, I really abhor all the rancid comments from people about our firefighters. I think charges that they are overpaid, crooked, lazy, greedy, and so forth and so on are pathetic. It’s probably safe to say the people making those comments have never needed the services of the fire department. These folks make MAJOR sacrifices to serve the public and put their lives on the line EVERY DAY for our safety, and they deserve more respect than ignorant people are giving them.

Show some respect for our public safety servants. They deserve it.

I’m very sorry so many of our prized firefighters are losing their jobs. I can only hope they can find jobs elsewhere doing what they love to do.. serving their fellow human beings. God speed to y’all and we’ll keep praying for an eleventh hour miracle.

Maybe KJ can call up Warren Buffet and get some cash for us…

I read through the report last night (not recommended). Looks like Lamberth Consulting–who executed the study and penned the report–definitely earned their money. The reports offers a lot of conclusions, but the only ones I am absolutely certain of after reading it are these: I am glad I am not a racial profiling analyst.. or a cop.. or a driver being pulled over because of my skin color.

Seems to me the central theme and purpose of the study is centered around this statement in the intro “..in many communities, especially minority communities, a lack of trust remains between law enforcement and local residents. This tension is exacerbated by allegations of police misconduct such as racial profiling…”

The PD echoed as much in a Bee article yesterday when Chief Braziel said he was “not convinced” the public fully trusted his department. He also went on to tell the Bee: while the report is “a valid study,” it did not go far enough in recommending what the Police Department should do to rectify the concerns. That process, he said, would begin immediately within the department.

Actually the report DOES go far enough to recommend ways to “rectify concerns.” In all the chaos yesterday, the chief evidently missed the section titled “Recommendations” starting on page 71. Not sure how the chief missed that part, but then again I do NOT envy anyone who is officially obligated to read reports such as these, so Joe gives the Chief a pass for his first pass.

In any event, the whole point of these studies is to find out if cops are unfairly targeting minorities, and if so, share that information with the public, and then partner with the public and other agencies with express goal of INCREASING THE TRUST BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THE PUBLIC.. which of course leads to the uber-ultimate goal of INCREASING THE PEACE.

So technically, the Bee COULD have chosen a myriad of different headlines to capture the essence of the study, and its goals. Here is an example:

Sacramento Police seeking to bridge trust gap with residents find many opportunities in new racial profiling report

Instead the Bee chose “Report: blacks more like to get stopped” or something inflammatory like that. Then again, gotta sell those papers, so anything that can draw 200+ supercharged observations in the Comments section is a good headline in their world I guess.

What do I think about the report? Two words: STOP SNITCHING. The black community has had trust issues with the cops since time memorial. take a black history course if you don’t understand why.

Across the COUNTRY there are trust issues between the cops and residents–especially in “the hood.” Members of the black community even have a term for racial profiling by police: “Driving While Black.” In fact black comedians have made a lot of money cracking jokes about cops, cars, and black people in general. It’s nothing new.

On the flip side, one thing about these types of reports I don’t like is that they often produce inaccurate generalizations (like the Bee’s–which would have us believe the problem is the exact same anywhere in the city). If you check the tables in it with percentage data, you’ll see how the numbers SOAR in areas where more black folks live. For instance, there are some areas in the report where the “comparative disparity” is, e.g., 370% (Fruitridge and Freeport); yet there are others substantively lower at 8% (El Camino and Truxel).

Do the extrapolated results in some areas skew the overall results? Of course they do, because the “two times more likely to be stopped” outcome is basically an average of averages averaged to an average—err something like that.

An average of averages. Aren’t you glad you decided against that statistics degree?

How did the Lamberth company attempt to explain the disparities? They say something like: “perhaps a disproportionate number of blacks are commuting to Sacramento by car..” Almost sounds sarcastic, doesn’t it?

Regardless of the report’s findings, I’m having trouble believing we have a racist police department, as the headlines would have us believe. That said, I don’t doubt there is a discrimination in the PD’s ranks; most educated people know racism and racial profiling are a sad reality of our country IN GENERAL.

I think we can all agree that some people are OBSESSED with race. Even black people are quick to point out the differences between themselves and other races–especially comedians like Chris Rock who have made millions poking fun at our differences, and never discussing our similarities (which is a huge problem to the spiritually-minded like myself, who tend to view the world through a ONE LOVE paradigm, where all are brothers and sisters who have more in COMMON than in difference). White people are no better. Anyone been watching/listening to Toby Keith lately? Yikes. Got redneck?

Another thing that bugs me about this report, and the inevitable department reaction that will have officers sitting in classrooms for hours on end, listening to instructors drone on about racial profiling, is that officers who DON’T profile will also have to sit through it. And that sucks. Growing up my Dad taught me: It’s always the bad apples that spoil it for the bunch. Boy was he right about that. We can only HOPE that this massive study also collected data on WHICH officers were doing the majority of the profiling–but that’s probably just wishful thinking.

Anyhow, I think it is IMPERATIVE the cops have the public’s trust. In fact the whole STOP SNITCHING thing started with inner city youth who didn’t trust the police. We CONSTANTLY hear the police complaining about how the public won’t help them. A great example of this is the Elk Grove baby shooting case. They still haven’t solved that. They can’t get the witnesses to cooperate. Could it be because the witnesses don’t trust the “po po”? It’s a question to consider.

[On a SIDE note, I myself have encountered a trust issue with the cops in the course of owning this web site. I can tell you it left a very foul taste in my mouth, and made me stop to think about the trustworthiness of the police--something I had never pondered before. Of course I am NOT comparing my lame little web site experiences with the plight of the black community, but the experience none the less gave me a tiny little taste of the trust issue-- and it was extremely unsettling].

One thing’s for sure: It will be an uphill climb for the PD as long as they have some officers who are not doing their job in the most unbiased manner possible, despite what a sometimes-crappy, underpaid, thankless profession they are in. Obviously some changes are in order, and the chief is going to need to figure out how to implement them, and at the same time not further degrade the quality of public safety–which is already a source of great consternation with residents in some neighborhoods such as Natomas.

Personally I am happy the police commissioned this report. I think Rick Braziel is a very good chief and I believe we have a very good police department– with potentially a few bad apples.

I am glad I did not choose law enforcement as a profession. I don’t think you could pay me enough to dawn a kevlar vest, 15 (?) pounds of gear, combat boots, a loaded weapon, and make me sit in a car full of hot electronic equipment for 10 hours or more a day–in Sacramento of all places.

If you’re ever curious about what it takes to be a police officer, just watch the “The Academy” on the Reality channel. No thanks.

Source: City of Sacramento web site report