Inside the Numbers: A Further Examination of the DPD Turnover Rate

Yesterday's Sacramento Bee ran an article that found that Citrus Highets and the Davis police departments have the highest staff turnover rates among other law enforcement agencies in the region.

To add fuel to the fire, the Bee recessitates old charges that the climate in Davis involving complaints of racial profiling and the Halema Buzayan case were the prominent if not primary culprits for this turnover rate.

"High-ranking officials from the two departments blame a variety of factors ranging from a new department's normal break-in period to the way a racially charged incident was handled."

The Bee quotes Assistant Chief Steve Pierce discussing issues involving the arrest of Halema Buzayan, then 16 in 2005, along with accusations of racial profiling.

"Davis Assistant Chief Steve Pierce said his department changed its retirement calculation, making retirement more attractive for some officers. In addition, several officers left to work in newly formed departments in Citrus Heights and Elk Grove.

Pierce also said some employees felt uncomfortable working in the city following a 2005 incident involving a 16-year-old Davis High School student arrested for a misdemeanor hit-and-run. Her parents alleged racial bias because the girl is Muslim.

During exit interviews, some departing officers remarked that they "don't want a car stop done on a person of color blowing up in (their) face," Pierce said."

However, that paints at best an incomplete picture. The Vanguard spoke to Davis Police Chief Landy Black who provided context to both the initial interview as well as the data.

First he provided the actual breakdown of those who left from 2006 to the present.

Retirement: 5 (3 sworn)

Attained promotion not available with DPD: 4 (2 sworn)

Failed to complete academy/field training/probationary period (dismissed by DPD): 2 (both sworn)

Non-sworn personnel became sworn officers elsewhere: 3

Resigned to take comparable position elsewhere: 5 (4 sworn)

By his count that allows for at most four sworn officers who left the department under the conditions that were describe prominently in the Sacramento Bee article.

These data suggest a much more mundane explanation for a high turnover rate. Some simply retired, others were able to get promoted to positions unavailable to them in this department, a few failed their probation, and a few became sworn officers elsewhere.

Under those conditions, the turnover rate is neither alarming nor unusual.

Chief Black also suggested that the comments attributed to Assistant Chief Steve Pierce, while accurate were taken somewhat out of context. His comment regarding exit interviews was not unsolicited but rather reflected a direct question from the Bee reporter who asked him point blank what effect the Buzayan incident had on people leaving the department. There was no emphasis made by Assistant Chief Pierce, according to Chief Black, on the Buzayan factor.

"It is unfortunate that the Sacramento Bee article makes it look like he/we put an emphasis on it. He didn't and we don't."

Chief Black continues:

"I was hired after a period of some internal and external turmoil. There was an expectation placed on me to take steps to mend internal and community relations. While I will take credit for what I've done to meet that expectation, the officers and leaders of this department have taken great individual and professional initiative to rehabilitate an image that they and I believe was unnecessarily tarnished. There is always room for improvement, but the vitriol was over the top in many folks' estimation.

I cannot speak to the character of the officers who left in 2006 or early 2007, but the officers who remained and continue to work here have done so, in large part, due to their commitment to this department, their peers, the law enforcement profession, and the citizens & community of Davis."

Chief Black also took on the issue of racial profiling.

"Racial profiling continues to be a publicly debated issue. We are aware of that and the fact that the perception of racial profiling still exists. We continue to develop our department and train our personnel to conduct themselves in ways that minimize the perception of racial bias. Our recruitment and training focuses on finding and developing professionals who have the capacity and inclination to understand the dynamics of a multi-cultural society and are able to be resilient and welcome transparency as a means to improve trust."

Brief Commentary:

From my perspective, it is unfortunate if the Sacramento Bee believed it was important to stir the pot on this issue. I received a number of emails on this article and felt it was important to find out the rest of the story from the Davis Police Department.

This issue rekindled an issue that had arose back in 2006, when many accused community activists including my wife, the chair of the Human Relations Commission at the time of creating an atmosphere that had led a large number of police officers to leave the department culminating with the Police Chief at that time, Chief Jim Hyde who took a job in Antioch.

The truth is that while it appears there may have been some police officers who left for those reasons, it was not the huge number that was being represented in the media or at city council meetings by members of the community.

While the issue of racial profiling remains a sensitive issue in parts of this community, the overall tone of discussions have change drastically. The departure of the previous chief along with the arrival of Chief Black and Ombudsman Bob Aaronson have helped change some of this.

While many undoubtedly still blame my wife for fanning the flames, many of these incidents were taken to her from people within the community and to the best of her ability she followed the charge of the Human Relations Commission as the only place where people could go to air grievances of this nature at that time.

It is my hope that we have all learned from that incident and should an incident of this sort arise in the future, we can all handle it better and avoid a repeat of what occurred in the winter and spring of 2006.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Davis Police Officer Arrested In Sacramento

Davis Police Officer Antoine Feher, 26, was arrested on the evening of Friday, September 12, 2008, outside the Park Ultra Lounge Night Club in Sacramento for a violation of California Penal Code 647(F), public intoxication.

The officer on the scene described Feher in a police report as having slurred speech, being unsteady and belligerent, while having a "strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath."

Officer Feher was asked numerous times to leave the premises by security guards and officers, but he refused. He remained belligerent and argumentative and was taken into custody for public intoxication.

In his police report, Officer Hanks of the Sacramento Police Department described the incident. He and Sgt. Lau observed Officer Feher "arguing and being belligerent with three security guards that work for the bar."



The security staff had asked Officer Feher to leave but he "refused to leave and stated that he wanted to talk to the police. We advised Feher that the security at the bar no longer wanted him there and that he had to leave."

Officer Feher then purportedly told the police officers, "So this is how your (sic) are going to treat another cop."

Officer Hanks responded "that it didn't matter if he was a cop or not, if you are asked to leave the bar by security you have to leave."

Sgt. Lau reportly asked Officer Feher what agency he worked for. His first response was YONET. He was asked again and responded, "BNE."

"Feher identified himself as working for YONET. I recognized this as Yolo Narcotics Enforcement Team. I asked Feher which agency he worked for. Feher again stated, "YONET.” I said that I understood that but that YONET was a task force and which agency he actually was employed by. Feher stated that he worked for BNE (Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, Ca DOJ)."

"It wasn't until after S-Feher was placed under arrest that we found out that S-Feher actually worked for Davis Police Department. A Davis Police Department Identification was located in his wallet."

A security guard for the night club also spoke to the arresting police.

The security guard reported that, "As I was walking around my post, I was grabbed by a customer who stated that there was an altercation in the patio near the entrance of Mason's bar. I responded to the area and saw [Feher] arguing with about 5 different customers."

He continued, "As I approached the group, all the patrons around Feher told me that he was harassing the girls in the group and would not leave them alone."

"I asked Feher to leave. He refused and became argumentative. I was concerned that Feher may become physically violent and called for additional security staff via my radio to assist. We had about five of our interior staff escort him out. He remained argumentative and belligerent. He would refuse to leave then slowly walk toward the exit then stop and argue again."

According to a female witness at the bar, who was there with several companions, Feher repeatedly attempted to talk to one of her companions and refused to leave her alone when requested to do so.

The witness then stated, "One of [Officer Feher's] friends tried to get him to leave and he shoved his friend and became aggressive towards him. He tried again to talk to [her companion] and I got afraid and pushed him away from me. He pushed me back and a bunch of people stepped in. I didn't throw a drink on him. The drink got on him when everybody stepped in. He is really drunk."

When Officer Feher was arrested, Feher demanded that the above witness be arrested as well. The Sacramento Police reluctantly arrested her after Officer Feher filled out a citizen's arrest.

He told the arresting officers:

"Well if that's the game you want to play and take sides with the bar then I want to press charges... I want to press charges for 242 pc. The girl in the bar pushed me. I want her arrested."

In his statement to the police Officer Feher said:

"I was inside the club trying to talk to girls when that girl pushed me with both hands in my chest area then threw a beer on me. I demand that she be arrested for 242PC. If you are going to make me leave, I want her arrested and you'll be creating paper for yourself. I work for BNE. I'm a cop and I want her arrested. I work on YONET.

I can't believe you guys are going to take sides with the security here over another cop. If you refuse to take my arrest, you'll be making a big mistake. You will be talking to my superiors. I'll be in contact with my watch commander. Are you going to arrest her or not? I can't believe you guys aren't arresting her. So this is how Sac PD does it huh? I will sign a citizen's arrest against her for assaulting me. You wait till you're in my jurisdiction because this type of treatment goes both ways."

According to the records from booking, Officer Feher was told that "as long as he remained calm and cooperative he would be brought in discreetly in the back door." They were concerned for his safety as a police officer and so they attempted to conduct the arrest and booking as discreetly as possible.



Officer Feher remained highly uncooperative as he was transported to the Sacramento County Jail by Officers Duink and Suehowicz.

He complained to Sacramento County Jail booking supervisor, Sgt. Vagt, that this was "bull****" and said "that this was no way to treat a brother officer."

Sgt. Vagt told Officer Feher, "I don't know if it's the alcohol you have had tonight, but you are not cooperating like I asked you."

Feher then apologized and said, "I don't have a problem with you guys it's Sac PD. However, the Sgt then described: "He then looked over at myself and [Officer] Suehowicz and began giving us "hard, challenging" stares. He looked at me and said words to the effect of
"you ain't ****, Sac PD ain't ****, I work narcotics."

Officer Feher then is purported to have said:

"You think you are the ****, you ain't man. I would love to meet you out somewhere and..."

The Sgt said: "And what?"

The reports says, "He smiled and looked hard and said "talk."

According to reports, once inside, Feher again became mildly uncooperative with sheriff's deputies by being "slow to follow instructions and making condescending comments."

At one point when he was taking off his socks, he "tossed it towards the deputy and looked at him in a challenging manner. The deputy had to step back and allow another deputy to continue the booking search."

The Vanguard spoke to Davis Police Chief Landy Black via phone last week. Due to this being a personnel matter, Chief Black could not directly respond to the specifics of the incident. However, he confirmed that an investigation is in progress and when it is completed a decision will be made that takes into account all factors. Chief Black pointed out that he has access to additional information in addition to the police report and that that will be weighed into any decision that the department makes.

Chief Black did very adamantly stress to the public that he believes that the Davis Police Department has the public interest at heart in all matters. He stressed that they will weigh the situation accordingly and do what they believe is right for all of the community and all involved and he promised to make sure that his department would always do right by the public. Having the public's confidence is one of his top priorities and one of the reasons that he decided to take this job.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek told the Vanguard:

"The solemn oath to enforce the law comes with the equally solemn obligation to obey the law. The people of all communities deserve to feel confident in those with whom they entrust their quality of life, from day-to-day city employees to members of the City Council."

Officer Feher remains on administrative leave pending the outcome of the Davis Police Department's internal investigation.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Complaint Sustained for Rude Conduct by Davis Police Officer

On the night of December 26, 2006, Lasonja Porter, an African-American and a longtime Davis resident was driving home late at night from some errands. It had been raining heavily that evening, the roads were slick and the visibility low. Not far from her residence, her vehicle hit the curb, incapacitating her vehicle and requiring a tow.

"My husband and my son decided to stay by the car and wait for the tow truck. As they waited for the tow truck the Davis police came by and said 'can I help you?' They said, 'no, our tow truck is on the way. '"

For reasons not completely clear, instead of helping the stranded family out, the police officer decided to make their life more difficult. According to Ms. Porter, the officer told them that if the tow truck did not come in five minutes, they would call their own. And in fact, the police officer did call their own tow truck.

While they were waiting for tow truck to arrive, Ms. Porter's husband asked the police officer how his Christmas was. Instead of making polite conversation, the officer lashed out.

"He said, 'you don't give an 'f' about my Christmas.' He just went off on my husband."

Both tow trucks would arrive at the same time, however, the police insisted that their tow truck remove the car and take the vehicle to Dixon.

"I was questioning why did they do this. What for--the car was waiting on a tow truck. They said nope, they're not going to give back the car. I explained to them that it was my manager's car, they didn't care. I told them that this is really harassment."

Upon request, Ms. Porter received the police report the next day.

"When I got the police report, I was very stunned. The police report read--'when I noticed who the suspect was, I immediately called Eric Labbe to the scene.'"

Ms. Porter explained to me that Eric Laabe was a police officer who had a history with herself and her husband. They had previously filed a complaint against him because of the aggressive manner in which he had interacted with them.

They had a series of meetings with the police, but it took a meeting with then interim Chief Steve Pierce for the police to finally agree to pay for the tow truck. Meanwhile, Ms. Porter was forced to have pay for the car to be towed back to Davis where it would be taken to her manager's residence to be repaired.

"Two people was there waiting on a tow truck. And the tow truck did come. At that time, they could have taken into consideration that they really was waiting on a tow truck and let me leave, but they didn't. Because when Eric Labbe got there, he just went off. He's a really aggressive police officer which we had complained previously for his aggressiveness. He'd cuss you out in a minute."

"One of the witness... she's a white lady, she heard the police officer cussing, so she left a message with Steve Pierce and told him that I did not like how he was cussing. I asked him to get on the phone, he was 'hell no.' I mean they was really going off that night."

Ms. Porter then filed a complaint against the Davis police for their handling of this case. Unlike so many of these encounters, this one did not end there.

A letter dated January 8, 2008 arrived from new Davis Police Chief Landy Black. Ms. Porter admitted she almost did not read the letter, it looked like so many other letters from the Davis Police that routinely denied the validity of her previous complaints.

This one appeared to be going the same route:

"Your complaint stemmed from a December 26, 2006 encounter members of your family had with our officers on Covell Blvd., involving a traffic collision and a towed vehicle... Your complaint was thoroughly investigated. I personally review the investigation and render the final decision in matters of this nature."

However, as I said, this one was different:

"Based on the evidence, it became clear the conduct of the Davis Police Officers whom you and/ or your family members interacted with did not meet the highest standards of conduct and service that we expect from our members. In particular I determined that your complaint of Rude Conduct had merit and a basis in fact. It has therefore been classified as SUSTAINED, meaning that there is clear and convincing evidence that the officer(s) engaged in the prohibited conduct."

Chief Black then went on to sincerely apologize:

"I apologize for this breach of high quality, professional police service that the Davis
Police Department prides itself in and the impact that it had on you and your family. It is our desire that these sorts of breaches are not repeated. Your complaint has served to make us aware of this shortcoming and steps will be taken to improve our ability to serve the community respectful fashion."

Commentary:

When this letter was forwarded to me, I had a similar reaction that Ms. Porter did. I almost did not read it. And through the first almost paragraph and a half, it read like any other denial of claim letter. Then I read the next sentence:

"Based on the evidence, it became clear the conduct of the Davis Police Officers whom you and/ or your family members interacted with did not meet the highest standards of conduct and service that we expect from our members."

I was stunned. For the first time since I have been involved in that process, there is a glimmer of hope.

For Lasonja Porter it is a validity and legitimacy, letting all know that she has a legitimate complaint about the way she has been repeatedly and routinely treated by the Davis Police Department. It will not be nearly as easy to dismiss her futures complaints about the treatment given to her by members of the Davis Police.

For the rest of the community it is the promise that this may in fact really be a new day. That the new chief is serious when he talks about professional standards for the conduct of his police officers and that he is willing to hold them accountable when they breech the public's trust and do not up hold the highest standards of quality and professional police service.

It is with great irony that we must acknowledge that when it comes to complaints against the police department, a sustained complaint actually increases one's trust in the service provided by the police and a denied complaint decreases that trust. The reason is simple. People make mistakes. Police are people and inherently there will be times when they do not respond in manner that is indicative of their training and professio. The key is not that they may occasionally err in their ways, but rather how the police department and chain of command responds to those breaches.

Had Chief Jim Hyde responded to the complaints by the Buzayan family in this manner, it is likely that that case would have long since been over and there would be no federal law suit pending.

While this action by Chief Landy Black will not be a fix-all to the rash of community complaints against the police, it does offer us hope that those complaints will not be summarily dismissed and perhaps that will become the step by which a segment of this community can begin to regain their trust in our law enforcement.

And so on Martin Luther King, Jr. day, we hold forth the promise of a new beginning.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Revisiting Hate Crime Attack

Just prior to the break, we covered a pair of hate crime incidents that occurred in the city of Davis. Now that the holidays are over, it is imperative that we revisit these incidents.

The first set of incidents occurred during the weekend of December 15. Two homes, approximately a block apart were attacked with racially charged graffiti. The official explanation by the police was this was a high school friendship situation that got out of control.

"'This is high school tensions that got way out of hand,' [Sgt. Scott] Smith said today. 'Now these kids are looking at significant charges because they chose to resolve their friendship issues in the way that they did.' "

But if that is the case, this remains just as troubling to many in this community. It is troubling if high school students are resorting to racial epithets to resolve their differences. Where do these students get this type of racial animosity? Who is teaching it to them? In other words, in my opinion and the opinion of others, even if an accurate description, the incident remains troubling and something that needs to be addressed by the school and also the community.

This is not the end of the story. We are equally concerned by the relative lack of coverage the incident received. Buried in a briefly on A-3, a second article appeared on A-4 of the Davis Enterprise.

As one Vanguard reader put it, this was not a valid complaint at all. The psuedononymous reader wrote:

"The Enterprise printed the story where it should be printed, and given its comparatively high readership level, thereby ensuring that many, nany (sic) more people in Davis are aware of the incident than any Vanguard story will."

However, they miss the point here. The highest readership on a paper is front page. Some people will read the brieflies, but those numbers are considerably lower than those who merely see the front page stories. The key question is how important is a hate crimes attack in Davis to the public? Is this something that will generate interest and controversy? The answer to me is yes.

Jann Murray-Garcia and Jonathan London used their periodic Davis Enterprise column to address this issue. In fact, the column was a last second re-write to address an issue they saw as paramount to the community. They used a portion of their space to take the unusual step of criticizing the paper that provides them with space.

I (Jann) shivered when a Davis High School student asked me if I knew anything about the hate crime that occurred in Davis on Saturday, Dec. 16. Despite reading that Sunday's paper, I had missed the mention of this incident on Page A3 in a "Briefly" section of The Davis Enterprise.

That mention of the hate crime showed up at all in The Enterprise is progress. To have the Davis Police Department investigate this as a hate crime, report it to our local newspaper and have it in the paper within 24 hours is indeed progress. (Kudos to the DPD!)

None of that happened five years ago with the spray painting of the N-word on a cul-de-sac in West Davis, outside the home of a young African American couple. Back then, it took independent community action from Davis Blacks for Effective Community Action and others to push the police and The Enterprise to cover the story and investigate the event as a hate crime.

This most recent hate crime made it on to Page A3 in The Enterprise's "Briefly" section (Dec. 16). The slightly longer follow-up report of the hate crime announced the arrest of a 17-year-old and the impending arrest of an 18-year-old, both Davis High students. It appeared on Page A4 of Tuesday's Enterprise.

At the risk of breaking professional decorum, Jonathan and I must publicly state that we need better than that from our local newspaper.

Without the substantial reporting and historical context of hate crimes in Davis, our public memory, our community conscience is compromised. Our ability to parent and teach and police, our ability to remember, is compromised.

The article goes on to demonstrate the recent history of hate crimes in Davis and why they need more coverage. For me this is a very simple issue that requires a very complex solution. The hate crime is an attack upon an entire segment of a community. When they write "KKK FUCK NIGGERS" on one person's home, they are not just vandalizing someone's property, they are not merely attacking that individual, they are telling an entire segment of the community that they are second class citizens and that they should live in fear.

Perhaps this is an issue where the youth need to lead us, like Amanda McCaffrey, a junior at Davis High School did in a brilliant letter to the editor.

I am a junior at Davis Senior High School, and am taking Race and Social Justice in U.S. History. Through the course of our studies, our curriculum has proved to us that social change and improvement is impossible without acknowledgment of our society's problems.

Therefore, I was very distressed to see the alarmingly brief article in the Dec. 16 Enterprise about our community's most recent hate crime. I wonder how our community can ever hope to make appreciable progress in our tolerance level if we are not made fully aware of the very issues that make it impossible.

Although the community may prefer to remain in blissful ignorance with regards to local intolerance, it is essential that we be made to confront these issues that are wounding our society beyond repair. I do not mean to demand that our newspaper publish spiteful accounts or call our neighbors to arms; I merely suggest that we give those who have been hurt by prejudiced and ignorant acts the dignity of recognizing that pain.

Do you we not want to set better examples for our youth? Do we not want to give them hope that the future will not bring a repetition of past acts of hatred?

In short, should we not as this community come together to address the issue of hate crimes, to attack these heinous and debilitating attacks at their roots?

After the original article, someone asked what more I wanted to see--jail time? Absolutely not. Jail time for the perpetrators does not even begin to address the problem. The first thing I want to see is community awareness. I want this community to understand that there is still a problem. Even if it is only a small and ignorant minority for whom it is a problem for, we need awareness. We do not get awareness when we have an issue that is buried in the middle of the paper just as people are going into their holiday celebration mode.

Second, this is an opportunity. We have a new police chief. This is a freebie for him. This is where the police have an opportunity to reach out to a community that often feels separate and show them that the police care and will be vigilant in attacking incidents of hate crimes. The police can take the lead here and help to raise community awareness.

Unfortunately as critics are undoubtedly quick to point out, none of these are solutions to the problem. Frankly if I knew more education was the answer, if I knew a more vigilant police force was the answer, if I knew more jail time was the answer, if I knew certain programs were the answer, the problem would have been solved long ago. Obvious there is no magic bullet here. No simple answer. No fix-all solution.

But one thing I know is not the answer is burying out head in the sand and ignoring it because it is ugly and unseemly and it makes us feel uncomfortable and it makes us perhaps question ourselves (if we are being honest) in ways that magnify that discomfort. But we have to do it, because we cannot afford to allow another generation to grow up believing that they can express their anger, frustration, or resolve their problems by resorting to racial epithets. We just cannot do that anymore. These things tend to fester unless dealt with in an appropriate manner.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We continue with the 5th biggest story: Landy Black hired as new Davis Police Chief.

Given all of the controversy surrounding the Police Department and the exit of former Chief Jim Hyde, this is almost a story because it is not a story. The resignation of Police Chief Jim Hyde was the second biggest story in 2006.

However, the hiring of the new police chief was not without at least some early controversy.

City Manager Bill Emlen decided that the best way to conduct these interviews was to keep all of the names confidential.

So on January 9, the City Manager announced that there were seven final candidates for the position of Police Chief.

"Last night the Davis Enterprise reported that the city has seven final candidates for the position of Police Chief and that one of those candidates is not interim Chief Steve Pierce.

City Manager Bill Emlen was quoted as saying:

“We’d like to find somebody who’s going to be around for a while, is able to set the department forward with clear vision and will be able to implement that vision.”

City Manager Bill Emlen not only has not disclosed the list of finalists to the press, but he has not disclosed it to the city council. While this is a personnel matter, it would not be inappropriate to divulge the names of candidates particularly to the members of the council. Several sources have informed us that this is a highly unusual move by the City Manager. While some personnel matters are confidential, the names of those on a short list are not--particularly to the City Council who is ostensibly his boss."

However, just because the intent was to keep the names confidential, doesn't mean that names do not leak out--particularly controversial ones.

As we reported on January 10, 2007:

"The People’s Vanguard of Davis has learned from multiple well-placed sources that one of these seven finalists is former Davis Police Captain Nick Concolino who was dismissed from the Davis Police Department in June of 2000 by then Police Chief Jerry Gonzales and then City Manager John Meyer."

The article laid out some of the reasons for the firing on Concolino and the controversy it spawned.

"The nature of personnel matters is shrouded in confidentiality agreements that prevent the release of reasons for a dismissal. As such, the public and even the City Council at the time were never informed of the reasons. We spoke with the Mayor of Davis during the time of the dismissal, Ken Wagstaff. He expressed his frustration stating, “this was the most frustrating thing about being on the council.”

Any hire of Nick Concolino would re-open old wounds. This action resulted in a huge and ugly controversy as the Davis Police Officer’s Association (DPOA) and many citizens campaigned against the dismissal of Concolino and then began an orchestrated campaign against Chief Gonzales. In response many citizens and civil rights activists came to the defense of Chief Gonzales."

The fact that Mr. Concolino was even under consideration sparked a lot of attention, criticism, and outrage.

Two weeks later, when the field was trimmed to three, Mr. Concolino was not among them.

"The Davis Enterprise reported on Thursday that City Manager Bill Emlen has announced that there are three finalists for the Police Chief position vacated in June by the departure of Jim Hyde for the same position with the Antioch Police Department.

According to several sources, Nick Concolino, who we ran an article on a few weeks ago, is not among the top three candidates. According to Emlen, one of the candidates is a woman, two of them are from out of state, and two of them work currently for law enforcement organizations, but one does not but has experience working as management in police organizations."

By early February it was clear that there was one candidate--Seattle Police Captain Landy Black.

The Police Captain sat down on the phone with me for a 30 minute phone interview. And laid out his position on a number of controversial issues including expressed support for civilian police oversight, which he had worked under while in Seattle.

On February 20, 2007, Landy Black was named the new Police Chief.

"City Manager Bill Emlen at last night's Davis City Council Meeting announced that Seattle Police Captain Landy Black has accepted a job offer for the position of Police Chief. Captain Black's tenure will officially begin on April 9, 2007. Interim Police Chief Steve Pierce will once again return to his previous position of Assistant Police Chief. Captain Black's starting salary will be $130,421.50 which is the highest salary in the city's salary schedule."

The swearing in came in early April:

"Amid much excitement, anticipation, mixed in perhaps with some relief, Davis City Manager Bill Emlen swore in Landy Black as Davis' new police chief.

The newly sworn-in Chief Black was joined by a number of colleagues, friends, and his very proud wife and parents yesterday before a full contingent of Davis Police Officers, elected office holders, and other community leaders."

For the most part since that point, Chief Landy Black has been a non-story.

He earned rare praise from the Vanguard for his handling on the May Day Student Protests.

In an article entitled, "Davis Police Compare Favorably in their Actions on Tuesday Compared with the Problems in Los Angeles," I wrote:

"As I watched the protest on Tuesday as it moved from campus, through the middle of Russell Boulevard and eventually to the intersection of Russell and Anderson, I remarked to several people the professionalism by which the Davis Police Department handled the march. They not only blocked off the streets in advance of the march, but they allowed for the impromptu, never engaging or escalating even when things may have gone slightly off-track.

As the march ended up with several hundred protesters marching in the middle of one of the most heavily trafficked intersections in the city, the police seemingly effortlessly diverted traffic. I understand that this diversion inconvenienced travelers and students who were attempting to get to class, but in terms of their prime duty--safety and peace, the police did their job on that afternoon and they did it well."

Most impressive to me was a conversation that I had with Chief Black on site:

"I spoke first to Lt. Dorothy Pearson and then to the new Chief himself, Landy Black. In both cases, they downplayed the significance of their actions. Telling me that this was their job. Chief Black spoke about the importance of the right to protest as being a centerpiece of a Democratic society and I could not agree more. However, as we have seen throughout history, the actions of the Davis Police Department on this day should not be dismissed as lightly as the leadership did."

There will likely be trying times in the future for the new police chief, in many ways that is the nature of the job. However, the first seven months or so on the job have afforded the chief was an opportunity to put down roots and make contacts in the community before the next trying incident.

For all of this non-controversy, especially after last year, the hiring of Police Chief Landy Black is the fifth biggest story in 2006.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

School Board Receives Full Explanation of Truancy Policies

It was a meeting in stark contrast to the previous board discussion on the issue of truancy. The meeting was such a stark contrast to the point where people were openly shaking their heads wondering why the original meeting in September had to go as poorly as it did.

To her credit, Pam Mari, Davis Joint Unified School District Director of Student Services admitted that the previous conversation did not go as well as was hoped. However, she suggested that communications have drastically improved.

As so often seems to be the case, there was a miscommunication about expectations. She seemed to believe that the board already knew what was going on with regards to truancy, when in fact they clearly did not. It should be noted of course, that this was her first presentation in her present position. Nevertheless, the entire incident underscores the need for communication to occur at a high level.

Unlike the September meeting, Pam Mari was flanked by Lt. Darren Pytel of the Davis Police Department who was able to clarify the role of the police as it relates to issues of truancy. Also present were Trease Peterson, the Youth Intervention Specialist, and representatives from the Yolo County Probations department and the Yolo County DA's office (Patty Fong).

Lt. Darren Pytel made it clear to the public that the use of the term "sweep" meant something different to the police than to the public. To the public the perception was that they would go around town and attempt to round up youths who might not be in school. "We have no intent to do that." Instead, they have found that a lot of high school students, when being truant, end up hanging around in the park next to school. If this is the situation they encounter then they approach the students with a consensual stop and ask them where they should be. According to Lt. Pytel, most students are fairly honest about what they should be doing.

Chronic truancy is also linked to criminal behavior and substance abuse.

Currently they are allowed by the education code to return the students to school. This does not constitute an arrest, and nothing is placed on the record or legal action taken, however, they do intend to notify the public.

Pam Mari laid out what amounts to seven levels of intervention based on the severity and persistence of the problem. (See the slides from the powerpoint presentation).

These range from preliminary steps to make contact with parents and students at the low levels of the policy to home visits in the middle levels, to full legal action at the high levels.

Police involvement begins at level three where a visiting team of the Davis Police Department Youth Specialist or an officer and a school administrator attempt to visit the home of a consistent truant. This is a consensual visit whereby the policy have no authority to enter the home. They can enter only by consent. They are limited to attendance issues and prefer to have school personnel present. There is a letter that would be deliver to the student or parent and they then follow up with a certified letter to the home.

At the level five, the student is classified as an "habitual truant" and is generally referred by the Yolo County District Attorney's office to a Truancy Mediation program. Finally level six is where formal legal action occurs where by a notice-to-appear in court is present and the students and parents can face legal action.

It should be noted of course that level six only occurs after the previous five steps, it does not seem likely that this would ever be implemented unless the parents are being almost intentionally neglectful. Assuming that they follow through with the first five steps as diligently (as it appears on paper) they should be able to avoid full legal action.

On the other hand, Pam Mari remarked that the first letter finally went out last week, and this letter went to 45-55 Davis High School Students, which seems to me, a very large number of students who would have enough of a truancy problem that they required a first letter.

Board member Tim Taylor - who had expressed some concern at the previous meeting - expressed that he was both happy and impressed with the thought and explanation that went with this.

Taylor remained concerned about one aspect, and that is about how this process works and what criteria was applied for students to be brought back to school. Lt. Pytel explained that mostly the police made consensual contacts with people, cruising around and stopping kids who appeared of school age to ask them where they are supposed to be. Chief Black clarified with me that this largely occurred around the school itself but occasionally went into the broader community. However, it was not a large scale community-wide effort and was also not generally focused during times when students would have legitimate reasons to be about--such as during lunch or at the end of the day when some students had no classes or other arrangements.

The question of suspension came up. It seemed contradictory to Tim Taylor, Jim Provenza, and Gina Daleiden that suspension was a viable punishment for a student who was being truant. There was concern expressed, since suspension was the only punishment laid out in the policy code. Pam Mari suggested that it was largely counterintuitive, but said that every so often it makes sense. She suggested that two students had been subjected to this over the course of her tenure, in over 1000 cases. Tim Taylor pressed this point, suggesting that there may be reasons for suspension in addition to truancy, but does not understand why the punishment for not going to school would to keep the student from going to school.

Board member Keltie Jones suggested a scenario where a good student might blow off a single class that bored them; however, this does not seem to be a very likely scenario for habitual truants.

Jim Provenza eventually read from the education code which suggested looking for alternatives to suspension and detention. There also seemed to be a consensus to deemphasize suspension but not take it completely off the table.

In general, there was concern about how to handle the academic component of this. Two problems that are foreseen is that students may be reluctant to go back to school after missing considerable class due to being so far behind. Trease Peterson approached me after the agenda item to explain that they have given this dilemma considerable thought and have attempted to incorporate it into the broader program, so that students are not simply left with a sense of hopelessness.

Additionally, there was concern about the district policy whereby suspensions automatically mean coursework would become a zero. For students to suffer an academic punishment for behavioral problems, again seems counterintuitive. Many of the students who would be truant or suspended for other purposes, are likely to have enough academic problems to begin with.

Superintendent Richard Whitmore, who was in his final meeting as interim Superintendent, said that his single biggest regret was that they did not address that particular issue.

The issues that were not raised were SARB (School Attendance Review Board) which was multi-jurisdictional, and the issue of portable PDA devices and their use on campus.

However, for the most part, the key issues got raised, the school board had considerable buy-in to the process, and again one has to wonder why these things have to be so difficult. Had the initial presentation occurred like this, much anguish and confusion would have never materialized. Hopefully this is a lesson learned.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: School District and Community Still Deciding How to Deal with Truancy Issue

In an effort to foster inter-jurisdictional cooperation, many of the local jurisdictions have "2 by 2" meetings to discuss issues of mutual interest that may at a later point in time be brought back up with the full body. Two members from each jurisdiction sit on a body that is governed by the Brown Act. On Thursday, two members from the school district--Jim Provenza and Tim Taylor met with two members of the Davis City Council--Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek. One of the items that they discussed was the recent truancy issue which was brought to this body at the behest of School Board President Jim Provenza.

Originally Mr. Provenza brought the matter to this body because the school board was for all intents and purposes blind-sided at a September 6, 2007 meeting where they learned of efforts to crack down on truancy in the district, apparently already underway between the school district, the district attorney's office, and the Davis Police Department. The hope was that this meeting would provide the district with some clarity, but in fact, we learned very little from this particular meeting. School Board President Provenza himself deferred most comments until the school board could meet on November 1 to discuss this item. He did however invite Chief Landy Black and Lt. Darren Pytel to present a report on the police's efforts to date.

Davis City Councilmember Lamar Hystek pressed for some information about the efforts to date and the current policy, however, the response was that there was no changes to the current policy and any other answers were deferred to that November 1, 2007 meeting.

Councilmember Heystek relayed concerns that he had heard from Davis High School Students about the policy.

School Board Member Tim Taylor responded in part that he felt that much of the confusion and anxiety was created by the school board meeting and presentation by Director of Student Services Pam Mari.

From my perspective, having talked with a good number of students, most were not even aware that there was a school board meeting that discussed this topic. Their confusion stems from the lack of adequate communication from the school district and the police about activities that have been occurring on campus since last spring but also about activities that occurred on campus the first week of school.

That is not to criticize Mr. Taylor on this, in fact, he was quite forceful once again in not wanting to repeat what happened at the September 6, 2007 meeting.

“We need to ramp this up through the community, rather than have it dumped on the public through another board meeting. We need to make it clear that we're going to have dialogues at schools.”

Davis Police Chief Landy Black suggested that the use of the word "sweep" was not the best word choice. He suggested that is a word used by the police in a different sort of context than it is used in the public. This was much the same as the conversation I had a few weeks ago with Lt. Darren Pytel. The idea that the police would be able to do any sort of broad sweep of the community is not realistic given department resources. And in an interestingly candid admission, he acknowledged that the police often do not do a good job of public relations.

Councilmember Heystek suggested again that the district and the community needs to be proactive in terms of how they deal with this issue, not just in terms of cracking down on truancy, but also in terms of getting community buy-in and communicating with the public.

Mr. Heystek then pushed for a motion to direct city and school district staff members to distribute information on the truancy policy, and the rights and responsibilities of students, parents and school district employees.

Interestingly enough, one of the things that came out of my meeting with Lt. Pytel was a that he will be offer a session to students on Police Procedure. So on October 29, 2007 at 6 PM, a session on "An Introduction to Police Procedure: Emphasis on Juvenile Law" with be taught by Davis Police Lt. Darren Pytel, this workshop will cover law and procedures currently in effect for youth in California and the Davis Community.

Last spring Lt. Pytel offered a course like this for adults which I attended, for the most part I agreed with his information and I found it valuable to understand where police were coming from in terms of contacts with the public--both consensual and non-consensual.

In my discussions with many high school students it became very clear that most of them did not know what their rights were and did not realize when they were free to leave and when the stop was an actual detention and they were compelled to give the police any information.

I would encourage in fact both students and their parents to attend this seminar. Chief Black suggested that while this is scheduled for community chambers where the city council meets, it could be moved to a larger venue if there is enough interest.

I also understand that the students themselves may be organizing an event with the ACLU to talk about these issues as well. The more discussion the better from my perspective.

November 1, 2007 will now be a key meeting for this community in terms of learning what is happening in the schools and also in terms of setting the direction for future efforts to deal with truancy. As long as the community is informed in this process, this will be a healthy discussion.

One of the efforts I understand that is underway are efforts to form a SARB--Student Attendance Review Board. The advantage of a SARB is that is a multi-jurisdictional approach between the schools, the juvenile justice system, and the police. But it also aims to really figure out why the student is being truant so that they can get help, and so there is a partnership with counselors, mental health services, drug counseling services, social workers, etc. to actually get to the root cause of the truancy and determine what needs the student has for help. The goal here is to get the student into school and the SARB can be a great resource for doing that.

This is another reason, I think the efforts to date while well-intentioned needed school board direction and community buy-in.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary and Analysis: Looking Closer at the Truancy Issue

This is part of a continuing examination of the Davis Joint Unified School District truancy issue. On Monday, we reviewed Thursday school board meeting. Today, we will examine the claims made by the Director of Student Services Pam Mari regarding the need for changes in truancy prevention as well education code. As we assess some of those claims it brings up additional questions.

Pam Mari in her presentation to the board of education, made the argument that the reason that the police got involved in this process is that the district had made a number of attempts to rectify the problem of truancy and those efforts failed. Numbers were cited with regard to lost revenue by the school district in the form of ADA (Average Daily Attendance). One number that floated around was $500,000 was lost at the high school in ADA dollars due to truancy.

However, information that was present in April 11, 2007's Davis Community Advisory Board (CAB) through the police department, raises serious questions about these claims.

According to the minutes from that meeting, Lt. Darren Pytel, one of the innovators of this program, said:

"At the beginning of the school year Davis High was having problems with their telephone computer. Parents were not notified about attendance issues and the students figured it out. Around November, December the district informed parents of the problem and let when know what outstanding absences were not dealt with."

As the result of this computer glitch, up to 200 kids had missed five or more full school days.

My reading of this situation is that a one-time computer problem made it difficult for parents to be notified about attendance problems. The students figured out there was a problem with the computer (the administration did not) and that they would not be caught and therefore took full advantage.

If that is what happened, there was a known cause from a known problem. That would differ from an ongoing problem of truancy. If this interpretation is correct, do we really need to change the way that we are enforcing truancies? Do we really need a radical approach? Shouldn't this issue have been assessed by the policy making policy (i.e. the school board) prior to changes in procedure?

The basic question here is was this a one-time problem as the result of the computer glitch--which was not mentioned at the school board meeting--or is this an ongoing problem? And why did the administration not cite statistics for the board to put numbers on this?

What happened next was largely a result of the truancies caused by this computer glitch. The claim in the school board meeting on Thursday was that the truancy sweep would only involve getting the 15-20 worst offenders into school.

This is not what happened last spring.

"When officers saw school aged kids, they were to ask, “Where are you supposed to be right now?” Then they would verify with School Officer Mark Hicks, who has a police radio and can tell from the school computer if the student should be in school. If so, the officer would give them a ride back to the school" (CAB Meeting minutes April 11, 2007).

This does not sound like an action limited to a few students who are the worst offenders, it sounds like a blanket sweep of the community.

The other problem at this point is that the police have really conflated the issue of truancy with the issue of students driving accompanied by friends in the vehicle--which they are not supposed to do if they have had their license for less than a year. Previously, police did not stop students solely for the purpose of checking whether their friends should be in the car.

That policy has now changed and the police are cracking down on this. They are specifically pulling over cars with young drivers and looking to see if their should be able to drive with friends. That has been a focused effort on the part of the police. That of course leads me to the question and I understand the law, but is there a compelling reason that the police need to expend a large amount of manpower to enforce this law, other than it is the law?

Reading the notes from the CAB meeting which occurred back in April and was actually referenced in March, leads people to a further question--why is it that the school board was not made aware of the changes in policy? This meeting by the way, was one of the first attended by new police chief Landy Black.

However, these discussion appear now to go back six months. How is it that all of these changes in procedure could occur without school board input?

Of all of my concerns about this policy, that is the biggest. The school board is elected to represent the interests of the public on the school board. They are accountable to the public. If they fail to do their job, they can be voted out of office by the public or even recalled under extreme circumstances of dereliction of duty. Administrators are not accountable to the public directly however. They do not have to face the voters. The administration works for the Superintendent and the Superintendent is hired by the school board.

The argument made by Pam Mari is that this is authorized by the California Education Code and therefore they did not need board consent to change their procedure for dealing with truancy.

School Board Member Tim Taylor nailed it on the response:

"One of the things we are struggling with is that regardless of whether the law allows certain things to be done, if they haven’t been done, we have two choices, we can hit the ground at 100 miles per hour or we can have a discussion with ourselves and the community and the public and discuss what are we going to do and I think what you’re hearing and certainly what I’m feeling certainly is that the 100 mile an hour approach while perhaps legal may not be the best fit. Because people are gong to feel like they are getting run over. That will cause community pullback… instead of buy-in, which I think we need, that will have the opposite effect."

However, the other question is whether or not this is even allowed by the law and authorized through ed code.

My reading of the education code does not suggest that it "authorizes" this kind of approach. It does not appear to prohibit this kind of approach necessarily. But it does not automatically authorize it.

What it does specify are definitions for truancy and recourse that the district can take for habitual truants. According to the education code, no pupil can be classified as habitually truant without an effort to have a conference with the parent.

"Any pupil is deemed an habitual truant who has been reported as a truant three or more times per school year, provided that no pupil shall be deemed an habitual truant unless an appropriate district officer or employee has made a conscientious effort to hold at least one conference with a parent or guardian of the pupil and the pupil himself" (EC Section 48262).

The prescribed penalty for habitual truancy:

"(c) The third time a truancy report is required within the same school year, the pupil shall be classified a habitual truant, as defined in Section 48262, and may be referred to and required to attend, an attendance review board or a truancy mediation program pursuant to Section 48263 or pursuant to Section 601.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. If the district does not have a truancy mediation program, the pupil may be required to attend a comparable program deemed acceptable by the school district's attendance supervisor. If the pupil does not successfully complete the truancy mediation program or other similar program, the pupil shall be subject to subdivision (d)." (EC Section 48264.5 Subdivision C).

The penalty phase according to the education code appears after the fourth truancy. Penalties at that point include community service, fine of no more than $100, attendance in a court-approved truancy prevention program, and only then suspension or revocation of driving privileges.

So to repeat, after reading through education code, one could probably argue that school policy is not prohibited by the code unless they are attempted to revoke driving privileges earlier than allowed. However, it is not clear that ed code authorizes this approach or that this approach could be undertaken without board approval. I am not familiar enough with the law here to be able to assess what control a school board has in implementing education code policies.

Regardless, it would have been helpful for the administrator in presenting this program to have a written citation of the relevant sections of education code for the school board to see in advance and help them in understanding the new policy and how it fits in with the requirements from the state.

Many questions still need to be answered. Some of these questions include what is actually going on, what this policy will actually do. Other questions include who knew what and when and why was neither the board of education nor the city council aware of these activities by the school district and law enforcement. Answers to those will hopefully occur at the next City-School District two-by-two meeting and a subsequent school board meeting.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

DA Office's Does Not Seek Charges After Assault on DPD Officers

The Vanguard has learned that on August 1, 2007, a 43 year-old homeless man was involved in an altercation with other homeless people at the Davis Community Shelter. He was apparently harassing others, began to vandalize the facility and refused to leave. But by the time police arrived he had left the facility. Nevertheless, a few minutes later he attempted to return at which point police attempted to arrest him for trespassing.

It was at this point that a scuffle ensued with the police. According to one witness, he actually lifted an officer over his head, but apparently no one was seriously injured. He was arrested for trespassing and assault on an officer.

However, two days later on August 3, he was released without charges being filed. According to Davis Police Chief Landy Black, court rulings on trespassing laws have been that if an individual leaves a place that is normally open to the public prior to officers arriving, then they cannot charge an individual with trespassing.

Nevertheless, the police were there for a valid reason and made a lawful arrest at which point the individual resisted in a violent manner and assaulted a police officer.

Landy Black expressed disappointment with the decision by the District Attorney's office to release the individual and not prosecute the crime - at least - of assault on a police officer at the time. However, he stressed that they are still working with the District Attorney to perhaps get charges filed at a later point.

In the meantime the Davis Police are using the incident as a learning experience to better understand the law in this regard and also to use it as a training exercise for future examples of how this could be handled better and what to do to avoid this kind of situation.

Sixteen days after he was initially released, on August 19, 2007, the individual was arrested again. This time he is being held in the county jail and has a court date set for September 5, 2007 at which point he faces charges for public intoxication, assaulting a peace officer, and resisting arrest for an incident that occurred on A Street and 10th Street in Davis.

The Deputy District Attorney in charge of his initial case was Steve Mount. Mr. Mount told me that he had no knowledge of this case after he declined to file charges on August 3, 2007. He told me that the trespassing charge failed to meet standards and that the assault charges were sent back to the police department for further reporting and that's the end of his involvement in the case.

For many, the complaints against the District Attorney's office have been that they over-prosecute fairly minor crimes. But from time-to-time, I have heard the opposite complaints--that they fail to prosecute more serious crimes.

This individual clearly both represented and represents a serious danger to the police and this community. He has a long arrest history that includes repeated arrests for assault, theft, drugs, and is a registered sex offender. Any individual who can manhandle the police or who would assault an officer is an individual that is a danger to the community at large.

Those familiar with the situation have openly wondered why this individual was released at the same time the District Attorney's office has vigilantly prosecuted many young people, particularly black and Hispanics for non-violent drug possession offenses and yet allowed this man with a long history of violence to be released.

There may be legitimate reasons that explain why the District Attorney did not initially seek charges of this individual. And they may yet seek charges against this individual for the August 1 incident, however that sixteen days that the individual was released exposed the public and the Davis Police to a dangerous individual who would repeat his actions. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt this time; however, we may not be so lucky next time.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: A One-Year Review of Police Oversight in Davis

One year ago from August 24, 2006 to August 30, 2006, the fledgling Vanguard in the wake of the then Davis City Council majority of Asumundson, Puntillo, Saylor and Souza voting to put the Human Relations Commission on hiatus ran a seven-part series examining the Davis Police Oversight System. Within a month or two, the city of Davis would hire Bob Aaronson as the police ombudsman for the City of Davis. Last week, the Vanguard interviewed Mr. Aaronson and discussed his first year on the job. Today the Vanguard will discuss a number of police oversight issues and make him regret putting his thoughts on the record (just kidding).

My initial response to the proposed oversight system now in place was strong opposition. There were three reasons for that primarily. First, there was no public component to it--there was no place where an individual could make a complaint in public and receive a public redress of their grievance. Second, the Ombudsman position itself was fairly weak--it was a part-time position, the Ombudsman acted basically as an auditor who reviewed completed investigations if the individual making a complaint was not satisfied. Finally and probably most pointedly, I failed to trust the council to produce a system that would work given their misgivings about and opposition to the need for oversight to begin with.

I will begin with the last point. The other points will be evaluated as I look back over the recommendations I made on August 30, 2006.

To be quite frank, one of the reasons I never trusted the council to create an oversight system that worked is that the very first meeting that I ever saw from them (January 17, 2006), Councilmembers Don Saylor and Ted Puntillo spent their time attempting to demonstrate how unnecessary police oversight in Davis was.

That statement was summarized by this quote by Ted Puntillo:

"What I want are police officers out there that are using their training and their instincts, I don’t want them thinking about oh somebody’s going to be reviewing what I’m doing. "

Don Saylor stated that they had "thoroughly reviewed the complaints against the city and found them totally without merit." This was a stunning statement given it did not seem likely they conducted their own investigation of these complaints. Puntillo then added that this would be "an eye-opener for many in the city."

Up until the point at which these statements were made I have lived in the city of Davis for nearly nine and a half years and had never been involved in city politics. By the time this little scene was done, my life would be unalterably changed. And let me tell you, Ted Puntillo was right, it was an eye-opener for me to hear elected public officials make these sorts of blatantly irresponsible statements.

A few weeks later, on February 21, 2006, then-Police Chief Jim Hyde and Councilmember Don Saylor went through a series of statistics to demonstrate to the public how low the number of sustained complaints were in the city of Davis. Basically what Jim Hyde told Councilmember Saylor was that there were 74 citizen complaints from 2003 to 2005 and of those only 5 were sustained.

Statistics are given a bad rap because most people do not understand how to properly analyze them. This leads to the assumption by many that statistics can be used to say whatever you want them to say. This is patently untrue however. One needs to be able to interpret statistics properly. To his credit, Councilmember Saylor on that date did ask the correct question--asking Chief Hyde how these numbers compare to other communities. However, Chief Hyde dodged this question by stating that communities vary and therefore are difficult to compare. And Saylor never pressed him on the issue when he clearly should have. Had he pressed him, he would have found out that the number of sustained complaints was right around the national average whereby less than 10 percent of all complaints are sustained by the Internal Review Process and in fact, Davis had a higher number than a lot of other jurisdictions.

Ombudsman Bob Aaronson when asked as to whether Davis was in need of an independent oversight system said:

"I’m someone who believes that every law enforcement organization ought to have some form of oversight. I’ve worked with a lot of organizations around the state and to me it’s not a critique of law enforcement it has to do with the fact that in absence of oversight not everyone is going to be squared away."

I still believe that a good police oversight system benefits rather than harms the interests of police officers. It fosters trust that they are doing their jobs the proper way and also provides an outlet for those who are dissatisfied with the handling of their encounter with a police officer. Often that dissatisfaction stems from misunderstanding about the law and an individual's right under the law. By having someone who is independent of the police be in the position and have the authority to explain to an individual that the incident was handled properly, it allows for those who would otherwise distrust the police to be educated about proper procedure.

Getting back however to my original trepidations--the point of this demonstration is to show why I was skeptical of this city council, who had pointedly and deliberately argued that we do not need police oversight, would then be able to turn around and create a police oversight model that would work. They never laid out the case for oversight as Mr. Aaronson did. They took oversight to be a criticism of all police because it arose from specific complaints against the police rather than a means by which to foster community trust in the police.

The jury is still out on that bottom line however. As a whole, I think Bob Aaronson was a good hire. In the comments to the interview last week, some complained he was probably too cautious with his assessment. I would tend to agree with that viewpoint. He has made it a point to protect his political capital until the big case comes forward. While I can understand that desire, I think there are enough data to really look into past practices so that we can come to terms with them and correct them for the future.

At the same time, we have not seen the big case yet either. My biggest problem has been the lack of willingness of those in the community with what appear to be valid complaints that are worthy of investigation (it may turn out that the investigation would clear the officer of wrongdoing, but investigation is still needed) are not willing to come forward. These people are often unwilling to come forward. Part of the reason for that is that they are afraid to. In part, they saw what happened to Buzayans and decided it just was not worth it. That has been a source of much frustration personally.

One of the big questions is that of racial profiling and whether it occurs in the department.

When asked in a California Aggie article if there is "racism within the Davis Police Department," Chief Landy Black who had been in the department for two months at the time responded:

"It's absolutely untrue. I think there was a great deal of political influence in what was going on. There was a need from some people for [their own] publicity, and with the current climate of policing, it gets you notoriety to claim racist policing."

While that was perhaps not the best way to ask the question, I am still uncertain as to how the Chief could know this that soon. Nevertheless, I am not altogether convinced that racial profiling equals racism rather than poor policing technique or even laziness.

During the course of this year I asked the same question of both Former UC Davis Police Chief Calvin Handy who also serves on both the PAC (Police Advisory Commission) and the CAB (Community Advisory Board) and the Ombudsman Bob Aaronson.

When I asked Calvin Handy here was his response:

"My first act as [UC Davis] police chief here was to meet with large groups, students, staff, and faculty, and they had this consistent belief that racial profiling was happening in the city of Davis... After 12 years it is kind of amazing given how much we engaged in the process that people are saying the same thing. This problem has just gone on for too long and too pervasive."

Last week Bob Aaronson said something remarkably similar:

"I have not seen first hand evidence of it. Where I have seen documents or I have seen incidents first hand that would allow me to establish that that occurred. On the other hand, there have been enough complaints by people of color that I’m not prepared to say it’s not an issue. As well there is some statistical information that I don’t know enough about to know whether it’s credible and if it is credible what it’s really saying. But clearly there is something there that requires more attention."

Part of the problem that I have had is how would you even go about proving racial profiling? It is a difficult problem to address.

In response to my evaluation last year of the Police Oversight system. As I examine it now, there are probably several recommendations that I would no longer make, but there are several that I think are still pretty valid.

First, I believed that it would be difficult to have an Ombudsman without it being a full-time position. From my discussions with Bob Aaronson, I believe that more than ever.

Aaronson's response here makes a lot of sense--that it is a matter of balancing priorities:

"Clearly I would like to have more time to spend in Davis doing more active outreach to the community and also doing more ridealongs. But the challenge for a place like Davis—because the implication and the question is ‘what instead’ or ‘in addition to’—the challenge for a community like Davis, and it’s the reason why I came here, most oversight models are geared toward far larger jurisdictions and larger departments. I have a hard time arguing that a jurisdiction the size of Davis ought to be spending a quarter of a million dollars on oversight. I have a hard time arguing that. I could see spending a couple of million dollars on oversight or more for the city of San Jose. But smaller oversight, no one is really trying to figure out a way to do that and so my work here and my work in Santa Cruz also are efforts to explore is there a cost effective way to use some of the oversight tools in a smaller jurisdiction."

It is worth noting that Councilmember Stephen Souza keeps trying to expand the role of the ombudsman to cover the entire city, a notion he first brought up in February of 2006, a notion he mentioned again in March of 2007 and a notion he most recently mentioned in conjunction with a proposal to remove the investigation authority from the Human Relations Commission. I do not see how this is a possibility without hiring a full-time ombudsman with a professional staff.

Second, I recommended that the Ombudsman be given a stronger role in the initial oversight. As this system has developed, it has changed structurally even though it has not changed on paper. What seems to have happened is that the PAC reviews the Internal Reviews from the Department and that the Ombudsman acts as almost a public liaison who assists and talks to individuals about complaints and helps them if they wish to file a formal complaint.

Third, I suggested using the PAC to replace the Internal Affairs Department.

Bob Aaronson last week suggested basic support for Police Internal Affairs departments:

"In my experience, most internal affairs organizations do a good job 90 to 95 percent of the time on cases. And of the remaining five to ten percent, are not handled the way I’d have them handle them. Not out of malice but out of a lack of training."

I differ from Mr. Aaronson here though I lack his over 20 years of direct experience as an ombudsman. My experience had demonstrated in fact a problem with the internal affairs departments in general. Too many cases are returned as not sustained even when the individuals have valid complaints. One of these cases locally was the Bernita Toney case who complained that a police officer falisified a police report. The internal review process concluded this complaint was not sustained. Yet in a court of law, a jury found that the police report had in fact been falisified when they decided to acquit Ms. Toney of all charges against her. This is but one example. The worse example was the use of the Internal Affairs department to threaten and intimidate Halema Buzayan instead of investigating the complaint against Officer Pheng Ly.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Aaronson commented about Davis Police Sgt. Gina Anderson's, who is now in Citrus Heights, handling of the Buzayan Investigation.

"[B]ased on my explicit training to the Department, they now know that you cannot try to advance a criminal investigation through the investigation of a citizen complaint."

The suggestion here is that this was inadvertent and due to a lack of training. Perhaps. But the effect was to intimidate and threaten a minor who was attempting to file a complaint against the actions of a police officer.

My fourth suggestion was to strengthen the CAB. The CAB is composed of many individuals purportedly from diverse segments of the population, but for the most part only a few of these individuals were critical or skeptical of the police department. It was not until March, that the city finally admitted that this was not part of the oversight process. Nevertheless, it would behoove the new police chief to reconstitute the CAB and place on it more individuals who are critical of the police for the very reason that he would get better feedback from the community if he did so.

Fifth, I suggested improving community outreach. The new police chief seems amenable to that, and some of that is going on. But without specific impetus, I think there are segments of the population that would not be reached. Along the same lines, I suggested improving representation on the boards, make the CAB meetings public. This has not occurred yet.

Finally, I suggested they reinstate the Human Relations Commission. They did this but really stripped this commission of its power and influence. They did at least keep the civil rights ordinance intact, but the HRC is not the body that it was prior to June of 2006. I have spent enough time on this subject, but I think the community really misunderstood what the HRC was aiming to do with police oversight and the valuable function it performed prior to 2006.

In many ways, I do not think either the Ombudsman's job or the Chief's job have started yet. We are still waiting for the "big one." That will occur at some point, it is inevitable no matter how well-intentioned we are, something is going to occur. The question will then become, are we properly equipped to handle things. Overall, I would say that some of my fears about this system have been alleviated. I think we were fortunate to land an individual with the experience of Mr. Aaronson. But as he discovered in Santa Cruz, when you rule against the police there is a heavy price to pay. We have not seen whether anyone can withstand that kind of pressure just yet and that will be the crucial test for this system.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Interview with Davis Police Ombudsman Bob Aaronson

Last year around this time, the City of Davis hired its first Police Ombudsman Bob Aaronson. Aaronson has served in the capacity of independent auditor for the City of Santa Cruz among other municipalities. At the time this culminated a rather tumultuous year in Davis that saw allegations, protests, and the disbanding of the city's Human Relations Commission. Now a year later, things have calmed down, but have the underlying problems that led to these complaints and protests dissipated, the Vanguard sits down as talks to the Ombudsman Bob Aaronson to get his take on the current situation.

You’ve been here nearly a year, I know you’ve talked about it before, but is Davis what you expected?

No. Davis is a much more interesting place than I expected. And Davis is a much more interesting place culturally than I expected. As someone who has passed by Davis thousands and thousands of times, I did not have a clue.

What are your impressions of the Davis Police Department?

I don’t think that’s changed a whole lot since my discussion in front of the council. I think there are a lot of good people in the Davis Police Department. I think there are a lot of the challenges, some of the challenges are because of history, problems that have been present historically and you still live with the ghosts and then there are problems that are related to how many people are comparatively new at being peace officers. I think those are quite significant challenges.

So far, what are your impressions of Landy Black?

So far my impressions of Landy Black are positive. My sense is that he is getting out into the community; my sense is that he’s making connections within the department. And my sense is that those connections are good. Landy Black strikes me as an eminently decent guy and someone who is a real cop.

What has the primary focus of your position entailed?

There are two different things that I have been doing. One component that I have been doing is responding to citizens who have complaints and on average I am probably talking to between half a dozen and a dozen people a month. They call to talk about their situations and telling them what the process is and sometimes all it is is explaining to them that the procedural issues that they saw were appropriate.

The second part of what I’m doing is almost like being an organizational facilitator. And an example of that is being part of a process that got the cameras and the computers working. But there are also a myriad of ways that I have become an alternative channel for communication for different parts of city government about what’s going on. And what the problems are.

Do you believe that Davis was in need of an independent police oversight system?

I’m not the right person to ask because I’m someone who believes that every law enforcement organization ought to have some form of oversight. I’ve worked with a lot of organizations around the state and to me it’s not a critique of law enforcement it has to do with the fact that in absence of oversight not everyone is going to be squared away. That’s why we have cops. Because in the absence of cops, some of us are going to speed. Some of us are not going obey traffic laws and commit offenses. We need oversight. I think we all need oversight and benefit from it. It’s the reason why we don’t come into the world hatched out of eggs. We come into the world with two overseers.

Do you believe that the Police Internal Affairs Department serves an effective function or do you believe that too often police departments seek to protect themselves from scrutiny?

In my experience, most internal affairs organizations do a good job 90 to 95 percent of the time on cases. And of the remaining five to ten percent, are not handled the way I’d have them handle them. Not out of malice but out of a lack of training. There are instances where organizations will have a tendancy in order to avoid the limelight or order to avoid the harsh reality will try to find a way to avoid getting to the right result. But the number of times I’ve seen that happen I could probably count on two hands. And that’s based on over 20 years of work with law enforcement.

What changes would you like to see in the Davis police oversight system?

Clearly I would like to have more time to spend in Davis doing more active outreach to the community and also doing more ridealongs. But the challenge for a place like Davis—because the implication and the question is ‘what instead’ or ‘in addition to’—the challenge for a community like Davis, and it’s the reason why I came here, most oversight models are geared toward far larger jurisdictions and larger departments. I have a hard time arguing that a jurisdiction the size of Davis ought to be spending a quarter of a million dollars on oversight. I have a hard time arguing that. I could see spending a couple of million dollars on oversight or more for the city of San Jose. But smaller oversight, no one is really trying to figure out a way to do that and so my work here and my work in Santa Cruz also are efforts to explore is there a cost effective way to use some of the oversight tools in a smaller jurisdiction.

What do you view as the biggest mistake made by former Chief Jim Hyde during his tenure? How can we work to prevent repeat mistakes with the new Chief, Landy Black?

I try to have this rule that if I was not present, it is not fair of me to find fault. I have not viewed my charge as what occurred prior to my watch although I’ve accumulated some information about it. I think there is a host of things, where if I had been involved I would have hoped would have been responded to differently. I certainly have not been shy about the fact that I believe there was a missed opportunity for the community and the department to use the Buzayan incident as a means of having a discussion as opposed to a means of having an argument.

You mentioned that the city of Davis missed out on an opportunity during the contentious 2006 year. What do you think as an outsider looking in, should have been done differently?

If I had been involved in the underlying incident and I have not listened to tapes and I have not reviewed reports, but I have read enough information. I think I would have made different decisions about what occurred at the scene. Decisions that were not as intrusive. I think that decisions that were made in my view don’t amount to misconduct or I certainly haven’t seen anything that would suggest to me that they were misconduct, but I would say that in my view they are misjudgments. Candidly on the other side of it, I will also tell you… if I had been, if my family had been in the situation, I think I would have responded differently as well. And that to me is the point of the Buzayan case, there were opportunities for everyone to learn. Not just for the department to learn about how to handle something in a way that it is as effect but less intrusive, but also for the community to learn about how they can more effectively interact with the department in a way that increases the likelihood of a more positive or less negative outcome.

Does Davis PD have a problem of racial profiling in your view?

I have not seen first hand evidence of it. Where I have seen documents or I have seen incidents first hand that would allow me to establish that that occurred. On the other hand, there have been enough complaints by people of color that I’m not prepared to say it’s not an issue. As well there is some statistical information that I don’t know enough about to know whether it’s credible and if it is credible what it’s really saying. But clearly there is something there that requires more attention.

The DPOA has repeatedly asked for more police officers as a means for crime prevention, do you believe that such hires are necessary?

I am far more conscious about how much I don’t know than how much I do. If I were going to answer that question in this sort of a public fashion, I would want to have done some sort of a serious study of auditing response times, auditing workloads and the like. In all honesty, I don’t know. To answer that question one way or another would require me on some level to speculate.

What lessons can we learn from the UCLA tasering incident?

That one to me is pretty clean. Tasers are less than deadly force. But are probably the equivalent to the use of the baton. It is pretty hard to kill someone with a baton, but you are likely to have more moderate range injuries. You can argue it one way or another. I would be surprised if any officer would have used a baton on the student in the UCLA PD case. When you have a passive resister, you should not be using Tasers. To me that is a fairly basic lesson and one of the problems has been… that most of the first round of instruction in how to use Tasers was controlled by Taser International. And Taser International, and I’ve viewed some of their instruction, in the first round, but definitely in the first round there were scenarios where Tasers were being used on people who were not violently resisting. Hence what happened at UCLA PD.

(I follow up: So how best would it be for police officers to handle people who are not cooperating but not violent resisting and not a physical threat to either the officer or the public?)

Depends on the situation and the size of the person. Officers get taught all sorts of control holds and take down techniques, in the academy and in the FTO process. In an instance where there’s a large crowd gathered, the use of a Taser on someone who is not actively resistant and who is not actively violent is actually increasing the risk to the officer not decreasing it. Now it’s important to be clear and I have viewed on a number of occasions the videotape of the UCLA PD incident and my problem with the videotapes while the videotapes are very troubling, it’s really hard to be able to see enough of the student in a lot of the frames to know what things I would have done or what things I hoped an officer would have done.

What changes can Davis do in the next year to improve relations between portions of the community and the police department?

I would like to see a way that members of the Davis police department become more involved in the community as individuals and as officers and that means community meetings, neighborhood meetings, it also means encouraging people to do ridealongs with the Davis Police Department. There does need to be more of a connection. There clearly does.

You have previously mentioned problems with both supervision, chain of command, and overall morale—have these areas improved under the new chief? What further needs to be done?

Morale has improved because the department is grateful to have a new chief on board. But the underlying issues—the new chief has been there for three and a half months. You don’t fix a damaged family in three and a half months—this is clearly a work in progress. And the underlying issues involving supervision, chain of command, and communication are still there. They remain to be resolved in a successful way.

My biggest frustration for the past year has been the inability or unwillingness for people with legitimate complaints against the police department to come forward—what can we do about that?

That’s a good question. I have had a similar experience and not just with you but with other people who have brought forward to me that there are people who they were in touch with who had complaints and I have begged, cajoled, pleaded… You know, I have two different ways of expressing it. One is that I have an Amnesty International T-shirt that says ‘All it takes for the triumph of evil is for enough good people to be silent.’ The other one is just a more straightforward one. In the absence of people willing to bear witness, no one goes to jail. I understand why people are reluctant, I genuinely do, I understand that for a lot of people, it’s an act of bravery, it’s an act of courage to come forward with a complaint. But it’s really important, and part of the side benefit is that people who come forward with complaints ultimately, regardless of any other resolution, feel unburdened by having done that.

How can we effect change in the absence of people willing to come forward and to use your words—bear witness?

I don’t know, I think that’s probably my single biggest challenge. One of the things I could do is to do more outreach in the community. I have been reluctant to ask the city for more hours, because the city is trying to be fiscally responsible and I respect that. And the problem with what I talk about in terms of getting out into the community is that it’s time consuming. But there is a way candidly that I feel that I know the Davis Police Department right now better than I do the community.

I’ve been told you are not a big fan of anonymity on the internet, can you share your thoughts?

I tend to work by analogy. I think that people’s behavior on freeways is much worse than their behavior at parties or in bars because they are basically anonymous. I think that when you provide people with an anonymous environment a lot of the social controls for some people tend to dissipate. And if we can be anonymous, there are people who are prepared in a theater to stand up and scream [obscenities] to a guy on stage. Now they would never do that if the guy on stage could see their face and see who they were. But in a darkened theater there are people who do that. I have watched and I respect both the vote that was taken and also the sentiment that there are people who otherwise would not post if it was [not] anonymous, but if no one has noticed it, I’m an outspoken person, I’m not shy about offering my perspective and part of my attitude as a student of race relations and the holocaust is you got be willing to speak out and put your name to something.

Your impressions so far of the Vanguard? How can the Vanguard become a more effective tool in the community?

The most positive thing I think about the Vanguard is that there are things being reported in the Vanguard that I haven’t seen in any other media outlets that are at least available to me. And I appreciate that because I don’t just study Davis police issues, I study all of the Davis community issues to better educate myself. So I really appreciated that. I think there have been times that I have been concerned that the tenor of comments and discussion and some of them of them are by the bloggist and some of them by the commenters that are less than civil. I guess the starting place for me, if I caste you as evil, I lose the opportunity to have an effective conversation with you where I really get through to you. I worry about that aspect. That being said, I’m not arguing that the bite should go away. I think part of the bite is what works about it. It’s also true that I think in the year that the Vanguard, I ought to be interviewing you about the Vanguard because it has been about a year and three months or a year and two months that you’ve been doing the Vanguard, and I ought to be interviewing you about how’s that year been, what do you think your successes have been and what have your failures been. I think that the Vanguard has matured in that past year in really powerful ways. I’m sure that you asking in a way is a little self-serving… but I’m grateful that the Vanguard is there. I don’t always agree with it, but it’s rare I don’t learn something.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting