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: Report Demonstrates Need for Public Safety Priority in City

It has become commonplace within this community to assume that I am against law enforcement because of my proactiveness on the issue of police oversight. I also believe in oversight for all aspects of professional life whether it be medical, legal, or safety standards. I simply believe that oversight is always needed as a protection to the public--regardless of the industry. It is not anti-contractor to have building inspectors. It is simply a recognition that a few bad contractors can ruin it for the thousands of good contractors.

In any case, a number of councilmembers have staked their name as being staunch defenders of law enforcement mainly because they were viewed in opposition of efforts to create civilian review of police operations.

However, in my view it is not simply enough to oppose oversight in order to be pro-law enforcement. Looking at city budget priorities that have been largely put into place by this current council majority, I have to question why anyone would consider them (the council majority) pro-law enforcement.

This is largely made clear, at least in my opinion, in a staff report that will come before the city council this evening.

What is clear from the staff report that we will examine in more detail shortly is that the city lacks the money at present to make the upgrades that we need to protect our citizens in the form of public safety.

The city faces serious budget constraints at present. And more importantly it faces serious budget inflexibility in the future.

As we discussed in March, city practices implemented repeatedly by this council majority have served to hamstring the budget process. Current policy has created a situation where a retired employee needs to have worked only five years with the city in order to receive medical benefits for life after retirement. Current policy has created a stratospheric rise in salaries and benefits--not for the rank and file employee but for upper management.

The result of this practice is not only are we paying a tremendous amount of the city's current budget to upper management, but we have produced a system whereby we are funding people long after they have left the system and we have done so for people who have not been longtime employees necessarily.

No only are we paying a large percentage of our budget to this now, but we will pay ever more in the future. We will have locked a large percentage of our budget away for entitlements and we will not have the budgetary flexibility to meet the needs of a growing and vital community especially in terms of public safety. We simply cannot continue down this path is we want a safe community.

Thus the staff is recommending three phases based on available budget. First, a phase based on changes that can be implemented immediately with minimal additional costs. Second, they would look toward flexibility and reallocation of money. Third, they would look toward new incoming revenue streams such as the Target store.

Our public safety is going to rely on the revenue stream from Target--which may or may not ever come to Davis and from which budgetary estimates are shaky at best?

What the report does not suggest is that many of these concerns could have been handled had the city looked at their budget a few years ago and done a better job of prioritizing their concerns. The bottom line here is that the city will find a way most likely to get the public safety the people need, but the people are going to have to pay for it and the citizens at some point should ask why.

The staff report argues:

"Simply adding “officers to the streets” will not address the overall needs of the Police Department in the long run. On the contrary, unless a sound management and oversight structure is in place first, the addition of officers may not meet community expectations for the type of service that the Department should provide. Furthermore, the addition of officers must be implemented strategically, with an eye on those community expectations and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department."

This is an interesting finding. As the Ombudsman, Bob Aaronson, suggested in his report back in February, there at that time criticized the leadership, management and supervision within the department. With the arrival of new police Chief Landy Black, there is reasonable hope that that situation will improve.

However, I would also suggest based on my experience on a ride-along, conversations with members of the business community, and conversations with the public as a whole, that we do need to add more officers to the streets. Much of the time, the current level of patrol is sufficient to cover the city, but it is not sufficient to have a real presence in key parts of the city. Nor is it sufficient to cover the city when a major incident occurs. For example, I watched what happened when there was a simple fight at an apartment complex that led to an injury. Most of their manpower was at the scene of this incident--which meant during a prime time for parties and mayhem, there were not officers on the street that could handle party calls. There were not officers patrolling the street.

So while I agree that "simply" adding "officers to the streets" will not solve the problems, they will go a long way toward helping resolve some of the issues that this community has.

The report further states,

"there is no one response time standard in law enforcement. Police response times vary greatly depending on the type and priority of call received."

I agree. But where questions arise is why it takes a certain length of time to respond to what could potentially be serious calls downtown during key times. There was a broad daylight bank robbery where response time was questioned. I saw an incident personally where a fight could have been dangerous to the public at a popular Davis restaurant and it took the police over ten minutes to arrive.

We recognize that there are different priorities for different situations. No one is overly concerned if it takes the police half an hour to take down a report, but if there is a potentially dangerous situation, it is obvious to this layman that we need the manpower and flexibility to respond rapidly to such situations. And during downtimes, we could use the police presence in key areas to both deter troublemakers as well as foster relations with specific communities and neighborhoods.

Unfortunately none of this will happen unless the city can get control over the budget situation. And right now, they have not.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Subcomittee and Staff Look Ill-prepared in Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Deliberations

In many ways this was entirely of their own doing. In April, Councilmember Lamar Heystek pulled a consent agenda item off the consent calendar and moved to allow city staff rather than the city commissions subcommittee of Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson look into changes in the anti-discrimination ordinance. At the time, we reported that Councilmember Heystek respectfully but firmly pointed out to the subcommittee that they lacked legal training and moreover they had originally missed the provision. Councilmember Souza's defense was that they were not even aware of the provision in the anti-discrimination ordinance that authorized the HRC to "investigate" and "mediate" charges of discrimination. Heystek responded that proved his point--the council subcommittee had not done their homework and that he lacked confidence in their ability to handle such an important and complex task. Nevertheless, the council voted 3-2 with Heystek joined by Mayor Greenwald in dissent, to authorize the subcommittee to look at the anti-discrimination ordinance.

This criticism would come forth again on Tuesday as the Council subcommittee would come forward with their recommendation first to delete the provision and then to alter it. Without Councilmember Heystek's work, the council would have never been aware of this flaw to begin with as in October of last year, when the council was re-writing the authorizing ordinances and resolutions for all the commissions, neither Souza nor Asmundson had read through the anti-discrimination ordinance. As it turns out, they had not read it in June of 2006 when they shut down the HRC for doing what in retrospect was their job.

In addition to simply not knowing the provision within the anti-discrimination ordinance, there were several other appalling aspects of the subcommittee's work as presented on Tuesday evening. First, somehow between October when the issue first arose and June, and between April when the subcommittee was authorized to look at this question and June, no one asked the city attorney her opinion as to whether the city had to change to ordinance to make it consistent with the resolution. It was her opinion that they did not have to change the ordinance that led Councilmember Souza to withdraw his recommendation for making changes to the ordinance. How could that question not have arisen until there was a public recommendation?

Second, Councilmember Souza and Asmundson made the original recommendation in the council agenda:

“The subcommittee recommends that Section 7A-15(c) of the city’s Anti-discrimination Ordinance should be deleted.”

However, at the meeting it turns out they altered that recommendation without any sort of notice to the public or their colleagues. Instead of deleting that section, they altered it, substituting the HRC for the "city" and "city manager." This change was literally made at 5:30 on Tuesday evening.

Third, Councilmember Souza and Asmundson admitted that they had not read the minutes from the 1986 original deliberations until 6:00 Tuesday evening. In fact, the only reason they saw these minutes at all were that Councilmember Heystek requested of Kelly Stachowicz all the records from the 1986 proceedings and then all the councilmembers received copies of those proceedings. Asmundson claimed that there was no information in them that was useful, but this is simply not true. First, the council voted by a 4-1 margin to approve it. The one dissenting vote was Councilmember Jerry Adler. Mr. Adler at that time made a string of legalistic motions to alter various parts of the ordinance that he thought were problematic. He did not raise one objection however to the section in question. Second, the minutes also contained a list of citizens who at the time spoke in favor of the ordinance, citizens who are still in the community now and are in fact allies of the council majority. It is in fact a veritable "who's who" list of Davis residents.

Fourth, it was not clear from the deliberations that either council or staff understood the wording in the ordinance. It was only when Mayor Greenwald pointed out that the ordinance itself contained the key provision that precluded any findings of the commission's investigation and mediation from being admissible in a court of law, that Harriet Steiner acknowledged that there were in fact distinctions between the legal definition of "investigate" and "mediate" and a more general and common language usage.

The language reads:

"The findings and conclusions of the commission issued in response to such proceedings shall not be admissible in a civil action."

This section in fact indicates and clarifies that when the ordinance speaks of investigate, it does not mean a legal investigation that would have subpoena and more importantly, "adjudicatory" power. Rather, it was meant to be a more informal means of findings out facts and making recommendations to the actual body with legislative authority, the city council.

Fifth, following from this, it was clear that neither staff nor council really understood the history of the commission or its functions. This is especially appalling given that Councilmember Souza was a longtime member and in fact chaired this commission. Bill Ritter, a former chair, told the council that city had a times hired independent investigators to follow up more formally on HRC findings. In fact, as the three former chairs sitting in the audience pointed out, the HRC never had, used, or sought adjudicatory power. The council apparently had little understanding of what the HRC did or how it operated.

This is not surprising in light of the dispute last year, that in my opinion, was largely distorted and blown out of proportions. The council depicted an HRC out of control and bent on subverting the will of council. In fact, what happened was that as a series of complaints against the Davis police arose, the HRC had public meetings to determine the nature of the complaints against the police. They appointed a subcommittee to investigate those complaints led by Jann Murray-Garcia. That subcommittee released their report in February, but by that time the council had already gone another direction in terms how to approach the problem and opted for an Ombudsman rather than Civilian Oversight. The HRC, never took up the issue again formally, although some of their members were involved in pubic protests over the handling of the Buzayan and other cases. None of these actions overstepped the bounds of commission. The council had every right to do as they did and go a different direction, though the tone of the meetings and Councilmember Puntillo's denouncement of their work as "not worth the paper it was written on" was decidedly unprofessional and in poor taste.

Nevertheless, one must in the end question this particular subcommittee, which has seemed to not only fail to perform their duties in an adequate and timely manner with regards to the HRC, but it also badly blundered with another recommendation that in the end they had to withdraw--the recommendation to merge the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services commission. (For an overview of that process click here and also here.

The basic facts here are surprisingly similar, but play out over a longer time frame than the anti-discrimination ordinance. The subcommittee issued their initial recommendations for the merger in a consent agenda item and it was only because Councilmember Heystek asked for the item to be brought back later that we discovered that there was a full blown resolution for the merger of the two commissions. Souza would later claim this was brought forward for discussion, but it was not. It was a full blown resolution with a recommendation for merger and it was in a consent agenda item that would not be discussed unless someone pulled it.

When objections to the merger arose, Souza took it to each of the commissions, the Social Services Commission approved it, but the Senior Citizens Commission refused and in fact made a very public complaint about it. At one point, Mr. Souza in fact, berated and attempted to browbeat the chair of that commission, Elaine Roberts Musser, and the rest of the commission, but they would not back down. After a series of very public hearings, included a devastating speech by the chair before the council (see the you tube video of it here), the council not only backed off but attempted to make it appear as though they had not really intended to do anything more than "raise the issue" for the "purposes of discussion."

The historic record of this however does not bear it out and in the end like the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Senior Citizens Commission prevailed when Souza and Asmundson did a hasty reversal in the middle of the proceedings.

What is also interesting is that in both cases, the subcommittee of Souza and Asmundson did the primary work. Councilmember Don Saylor in neither controversy said a whole lot and in fact he did not make a public assertion of his view on either matter and allowed his colleagues and allies to essentially hang themselves.

There has been some controversy about the amount of work done by subcommittees as opposed to the entire body. I am of two-mindsets on the issue because on the one hand, I prefer public deliberations on staff prepared items. On the other hand, I think much of the preparation work can be done outside of formal meetings. What is clear however is that the council should think twice before assigning Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson to work together on a subcommittee. They have made two pretty large miscalculations that have in essence wasted both the council's time as well as the community's time. The amount of work that the Senior Citizens Commission and their chair had to do must have been tremendous. Instead of pushing forward with their duties they were forced to fight for their existence.

This process played out in a rather embarrassing way for both city and staff. Frankly both the subcommittee and the staff should be embarrassed at both their lack of knowledge but more importantly their lack of preparation on this item.

I am very grateful that the council did the right thing in the end on this issue, just as they did on the Senior Citizens Commission merger, but that should not excuse the steps that were taken in the interim and especially the lack of preparation and notification to the public.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

STUNNING REVERSAL BY COUNCIL ON ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE

“Fait accompli,” were the words I used to close my remarks in yesterday’s column to describe the prospects for the proposed changes to the Anti-discrimination Ordinance that would have removed a key passage that empowered the Human Relations Commission to investigate and mediate complaints regarding allegations of discrimination. All went according to plan until about two-thirds of the way through deliberations when one of the members of the subcommittee recommending the changes to the ordinance, Councilmember Stephen Souza, suddenly and unexpectedly moved that there be no changes to the ordinance. The result was a 5-0 vote to make no changes to the ordinance and to basically restore the duties that the Human Relations Commission had previously performed up until June 27, 2006 when the council voted to disband the commission.

Perhaps the most stunning part of the evening was the way that we got to this point, the effectiveness of public testimony, and vigilance on the part of Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Mayor Sue Greenwald in somehow, some way, forcing the council majority to back off. Even more stunning was how woefully unprepared Councilmember Souza and several city staffers were about this meeting and how little either council or staff knew about the actual history of the Commission. This was particularly surprising given the fact that Councilmember Souza was himself a former chair of the Commission.

Assistant City Manager Kelly Stachowicz’s remark actually set the tone for much of the discussion:

“That particular resolution, one of the things that it did was attempted to remove the responsibility from the Human Relations Commission to investigate individual grievances with the intent of attempting to adjudicate them primarily because that particular responsibility is problematic in a public commission…”

Stachowicz specifically referred to the Commission's lack of subpoena power and lack of ability to get all information as a reason to strip its power to investigate and mediate. As we shall see, the interpretation of this language would prove key in the ultimate decision to restore the Commission with this power.

The first of many twists of this night came when Souza suddenly announced that they had changed their proposal, which first sought to delete the authorizing section from the ordinance and instead would edit it to shift the power from the HRC to the city and city manager.

“Section 7A-15(c) which is civil remedies under the anti-discrimination ordinance, speaks to a specific commission as the entity that would mediate and investigate, what we have done is change that language to not be specific and allow for the evolving nature of the city’s mediation ability and programs over time.”

Souza spoke of replacing the power of the HRC with that of existing organizations. The argument that he used was that the city now possesses resources that it did not have at its disposal in 1986 such as the mediation and fair housing program, the police advisory committee, the ombudsman, the personnel board, and the human resources department. He argued that only one of them has subpoena power, the personnel board. In order to do a proper investigation, a body must be able to compel individuals to come forward to testify, only the personnel board has that power, not the HRC, he stated.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek took strong disagreement with both the process by which this was brought forward and some of the specific proposals.

Councilmember Heystek pointedly asked: “We received this amendment to the ordinance shortly before 6:30, why was this not included in our council packet when it was delivered to our homes?”

Souza responded: “Because we prepared it a half hour before the meeting. We thought about it over the weekend, and me and Ruth discussed it, then we came and met with Kelly [Stachowicz] at 5:30 and proposed the language that you see before you.”

Heystek continued to press his point: “I certainly appreciate that you’ve done that, but I question whether or not we’ve given people, even here, who wish to speak who were not prepared for these changes, and perhaps people at home who haven’t had these changes presented to them, I think the council should be very eager to take public comment tonight, but I question whether or not we should take action tonight.”

He also questioned the relevance of the personnel board as an investigative body for civil rights complaints.

Souza responded: “It’s the appropriate body where individuals in the city lodge complaints against individuals in the city”

City Attorney Harriet Steiner had to step in here: “The personnel board is there so that if there is a personnel action against a city employee, if there is a complaint against a city employee… that is the hearing body on whether the employee should appropriately be disciplined for their conduct. That board is set up as an adjudicatory board, but that board is not a board where people come in and lodge a complaint against a city employee…”

Heystek: “That was my understanding of the role of the personnel board, so I will ask the subcommittee what relevance does the personnel board have to what we are dealing with tonight, changes to this civil rights ordinance, why do you bring up the personnel board if it is not otherwise a body that is open to the public?”

Souza: “If there is a discrimination complaint against an individual in the city from an employee of the city, that would be the vehicle that they use to adjudicate the issue.”

Souza also admitted in response to a question from Heystek that he had only read the minutes of the deliberations on the original ordinance from 1986 “this evening.” This appears to be another inexplicable example of Mr. Souza, who had a full nine months to prepare from the time this issue was first raised and a good four or five months since the issue was given back to the council the subcommittee. Why would he only read the minutes of the meeting on the evening of the council action, rather than as a member of the subcommittee as they deliberated on this issue presumably over the prior nine months? This seems inexplicable and utterly contemptible.

Asmundson seemed to attempt to justify this glaring oversight by suggesting:

“The 1986 minutes really doesn’t show us anything, it’s just the action it showed in the minutes, there was no discussion, and we couldn’t find any discussion on that motion.”

Heystek responded, “I respectfully disagree with you on that point.”

Also present at last night’s council meeting were members of the public who played a key role in this as well, with six members speaking, each one of them speaking strongly against the proposed changes to the ordinance.

Michelle Stephens, a current member of the HRC spoke for her out of town colleague Shelly Bailes first. “She was there when the anti-discrimination ordinance was written, and she is opposed to any changes.” And then Ms. Stephens spoke for herself:

“Changing this document would be a mistake, for over 20 years this anti-discrimination ordinance has served our community well, providing proof that the city of Davis is committed to human rights… We should not allow something that has shaped our city to be re-written so easily. Changing the ordinance will also effectively make the Human Relations Commission, a party-planning group…” “There is no such thing as having too many opportunities for citizens to voice their concerns.”

Dean Johanson, spoke on behalf of the Yolo County ACLU. He voiced the ACLU’s “opposition to any change in the ordinance as it stands now.” Furthermore, “as an individual who has in the past used the Human Relations Commission, I do think that what you are calling, ‘evolving,’ is actually de-evolution, you’re actually going back in time by making these changes.”

I also spoke on the need to keep to a mechanism that is free of court action that would enforce the anti-discrimination ordinance. Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald, my wife, and former chair of the Commission, spoke about some of the cases that the HRC actually dealt with and their role in bringing about changes in the school district’s climate policy, the city hate crimes, and other programs that dealt with civil rights.

Former HRC Chair Bill Ritter,

“In the nine years I served, this was an important task of the Commission, it was important because it gave teeth to the anti-discrimination ordinance, an avenue by which citizens could come and work out their problems as they perceived them.”

Mr. Ritter pointed out that the mediations services have always been a part of the process. In one case, the city manager, followed up with a private investigator to follow-up on the research that the commission had done.

Former HRC Chair, Tansey Thomas, also spoke out against the changes she cited a number of reports and recommendations that were not followed through upon.

Councilmember Heystek pressed City Manager Bill Emlen as to where he would be providing referrals to investigate or mediate the complaint of individuals. Emlen in fact had no idea and dodged Heystek’s question twice. First, stating it would depend on the nature of the complaint. And second stating, “I think they’ve been mentioned this evening the various options that are available.” Both of these were essentially dodges and non-answers.

Councilmember Souza then asked several key questions of City Attorney Harriet Steiner.

Souza: “Do we have to do anything in order to keep the ordinance legal in its intent and the resolution in the Human Relations Commission? Can we leave it as it is?”

Steiner: “I think we probably could leave it as it is.”

Souza: “Does any city commission, in particular the Human Relations Commission, have the ability under law to investigate?”

Steiner: “None of our commissions would actually provide what lawyers think of as a non-biased investigation, none of the commissions with the possible exception of the personnel board that we talked about before, really are set up to do an equivalent to what the courts do. Many of our commissions listen to the citizens, provide forums for issues, and come to a policy recommendation to the city council with an appropriate recommendation…”

This is actually a key statement because Steiner is speaking in terms of how lawyers think about the term, “investigation,” rather than other possible definitions of the word. It was Mayor Greenwald who demonstrated from the text of the ordinance that the intent was never to “adjudicate” and always referred to a much less formal mechanism of mediation and investigation. The ordinance specifically states that the findings are not admissible in court, implying strongly that the HRC was not to be a body that investigates in the manner in which Steiner speaks of the term “investigate.”

Greenwald pointed out that the council was not provided a copy of the actual ordinance.

Mayor Greenwald's reading of the ordinance was: “yes the Commission can investigate and mediate, but it would not provide material for action.”

Harriet stated that it says, “the findings and conclusions are not admissible in court for a civil action.”

Greenwald: “Investigation and mediation does not have only one definition.”

Harriet: “That’s what I was trying to say. There are different kinds of investigation and different kinds of proceedings. An investigation to come forward to have a community forum is a different kind of investigation than an investigation to try to adjudicate an individual complaint against another individual against a city employee.”

Harriet: “I don’t know that the Human Relations Commission has ever been in a position where it has taken an individual complaint and tried to come up with the answer as to what should happen on that particular complaint as opposed to a larger issue and what the community should do...”

The discussion seemed to turn on the term, “adjudicate.” The perception of the council seemed to be that the ordinance authorized the HRC to adjudicate a complaint, when in fact the language of the ordinance precluded such action and it had never been the practice of the HRC to adjudicate. It was Mayor Greenwald’s teasing out the term that led to this clarification and seemed to change the course of the meeting.

During this discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson and Councilmember Stephen Souza were conferencing. Suddenly, Asmundson stated that there was an announcement from the subcommittee.

Souza stated: “I would suggest, given the first answer to the question about whether we could just leave the ordinance as is, that I would move that we leave the ordinance as is, and that we direct the liaison to the Human Relations Commission to explain the other avenues that are available and clarify the meaning, and provide the information as to the avenues that are available for mediation and complaints.”

There was an air of disbelief, as it appeared briefly that the council minority could not believe what they had just heard and sitting in the audience, I had the same feeling. It was quite stunning given the direction of the conversation up until the last few moments.

Heystek quickly regained the initiative at this point however, and pressured the council to reconcile between the language of the ordinance and the language of the authorizing resolution of the HRC. He pointed out that in the future, councilmembers would not be reading the motions made on this date, but rather the language in the resolution. He spoke forcefully and ultimately prevailed in getting the subcommittee to re-write the resolution to include some of the language of the ordinance to make it clear that they had the ability to mediate and investigate, but not adjudicate (again a power that the Commission never had to begin with).

By a 5-0 vote, the city council not only left unchanged the historic anti-discrimination ordinance, but also appeared, and I stress appeared, since there will have to be another item on this in the future, to restore the previous power of the Human Relations Commission to what it had been prior to its being disbanded in June of last year.

This was the most stunned I have ever been at a council verdict and in many ways I still am not clear as to what happened. It appeared that public comment moved the council. It appeared even prior to the meeting, that perhaps criticism of the initial proposal, perhaps from this blog, moved the council to use stronger wording. And it appeared that the discussion brought up by Mayor Greenwald with regards to the issue of adjudication probably provided the final death knell.

Souza justified it by the answer that Harriet Steiner gave to his first question, but in fact he asked four questions and it appeared by the fourth question that he was simply lining it up for his eventual victory asking her about the role of adjudication and whether the ordinance itself was proper. Steiner’s response was that she was always uncomfortable with the language of the ordinance. The fourth question was about police oversight, a question and answer that were discussed at length last year and that Souza fully knew the answer to.

Thus my only conclusion is that somewhere during the course of that discussion, the issue of definition of investigation arose and the issue of adjudication made it clear that the ordinance never intended to authorize nor did the Commission ever act as a body that adjudicates individual complaints.

I will point out that people last year charged that the HRC was trying to become a de-facto civilian review board for police complaints, but that is not true. What the HRC was doing was taking individual complaints and attempting to advocate a general policy—the construction of a civilian review board. The council rejected that proposal, but that was the HRC’s intent, not to adjudicate the Buzayan case or any of the other individual cases. Those cases were only used to provide examples for a policy change.

It is very important to note that the HRC was never granted the power of subpoena nor did they ever seek to use the subpoena power. The charge was made that the commission overstepped their bounds and misused their power, but as we saw last night, it has be acknowledged that is simply untrue given that they never attempted to adjudicate individual cases. We can disagree on the forcefulness with which the commission conducted its business, but that alone does not mean that the commission was not outside of its charge.

In the end, the council did the right thing last night, but one must severely question several aspects of the proceedings. First, the late change of text for the ordinance butts up against a violation of the Brown Act which requires a period of proper noticing to the public. That change caught all involved off-guard. Second, the lack of preparation on the part of the subcommittee was irresponsible. Souza’s question of Steiner could have taken place in private and having her opinion that there was no conflict could have mitigated against this discussion. Third, the lack of staff providing of resources including the ordinance is appalling. Fourth, Souza’s admission that he had only read the minutes of the 1986 discussion last night, prior to the meeting, was not only appalling, but disrespectful to the work of past councils. Finally, this entire discussion embodies a sort of lack of preparation and lack of professionalism. It was clear from the discussion that neither the council nor staff really understood the history of the Commission or how they have operated in the past.

This is not surprising in light of the controversy that happened last year that in my opinion, as a very biased observer, was greatly distorted in the public realm. That is not to suggest that the Commission acted without error that is far from the case, however, their intents and their actions were greatly distorted in the heat of a political campaign and the heat of public scrutiny.

In Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald’s closing comments during her public remarks, she asked the council

“to take this historic anti-discrimination ordinance and instead of stripping it of its protections, to move in the other direction to make it stronger. I ask you to take these fractured ties in this community and bring us together. I ask you to lift up those who have suffered in this past year from hopelessness and despair and give them hope and guidance that the City of Davis will not turn its back on its commitment to civil rights.”

In many ways, a year removed from the controversy, when things could be treated with reflection rather than with impulse, they have done exactly that. The question though is really whether it is too late. The results last night stunned us all, but they also served to reinvigorate us. It was the first time in a long time that we had any sense of optimism, accomplishment and hope.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Council and Staff Try To Justify Weakening of Historic Civil Rights Ordinance

If you read the Davis Enterprise last night, you would be led to believe that the historic, anti-discrimination ordinance that passed in 1986 was no longer needed. This justification might make sense if they were removing the entire ordinance, but instead they are removing one portion of text dealing with an enforcement mechanism and then attempting to suture up that hole somewhat artificially.

When it was adopted in 1986, the ordinance offered protections not otherwise available at the time, said Assistant City Manager Kelly Stachowicz.

“According to the city attorney, most of those things are now covered by state and federal law,” she added.

The city now has several mechanisms in place to deal with charges of discrimination, including a police ombudsman hired in September, the city's Mediation and Fair Housing Program and the Police Advisory Committee.

“The subcommittee believes there is an adequate web of resources available to individuals and the best roles for the current Human Relations Commission include listening, information intake and referral,” Souza and Asmundson wrote.

There are several components to this claim that need to be addressed.

First, most of these things are indeed covered by state and federal law. The problem is that unless the case of discrimination is egregious enough to warrant the Attorney General of California or the Justice Department/ FBI to intervene, the enforcement mechanism is a lawsuit in court. As we discussed last week, such a mode is expensive and impractical for most situations that arise. Moreover, as we also discussed, the only recourse available to individuals should not be the court system, this is a chief reason why the HRC was empowered in the first place even lacking the ability to subpoena people to testify.

Second the city may have several mechanisms, but most of them involve the police or housing. Those account for a very small percentage of the types of incidents that the HRC in the past has dealt with. So who is going to handle those type of complaints?

The word we are getting is that those complaints of discrimination would be rolled into the Police Ombudsman, Bob Aaronson's duty. Or at least that is what Councilmember Stephen Souza is reportedly thinking at this time. This is not the first time he has suggested expanding the role of the ombudsman. The problem is that it is not altogether clear that the ombudsman is the proper authority to deal with a number of these kinds of disputes that used to be handled by the HRC. Moreover, the ombudsman is currently working well beyond his part time duties, expanding his role would likely necessitate the city hiring additional staff to do the duties that the HRC used to perform.

The Enterprise Article cites the report from the subcommittee:

“As a public body, the commission is limited to what it can discuss in open session,” Asmundson and Souza wrote. “It is also limited in information it can seek regarding personnel issues, information about police officers, and information it can require other jurisdictions to share. This makes it difficult for the commission to appropriately, thoroughly and fairly mediate/adjudicate individual cases.”

As Mr. Souza ought to know since he was on the HRC, police issues encompass only a very small portion of the types of complaints that the HRC dealt with in the past. Moreover, Souza's report only dealt with again a very narrow issue base--police issues. The disputes that arose last year undoubtedly have led to this decision, but the subcommittee is thinking very narrowly when they justify the removal of the ordinance item based on a single-issue area that has now been dealt with through the hiring of the ombudsman.

"At a recent meeting, commissioners discussed the ordinance, and several said they felt uncomfortable in the role of mediator. Others said to dismantle an important city ordinance was inappropriate."

I find the fact that several members of the commission were uncomfortable with the role of mediator appalling. In past HRCs, it was strongly encouraged that the members go through mediation training--and many did. It is part of the duties that they had and were listed in the description. It would be like a member of the BEDC or the Planning Commission uncomfortable with reading and analyzing zoning laws or development agreements. My response is 'oh well, if you are uncomfortable, resign.' As we found out last year, this body and these laws are bigger than the individuals currently holding the appointments.

There is a perception out there that bodies like the HRC are limited in terms of what they can do to effect change. Nothing is really further from the truth. In 2002 and early 2003, the HRC heard a number of incidents involving racism and bullying at the Davis High School. The HRC, helped organize a community meeting that turned out be a real eye-opener for the entire community. Following the Forum on Bullying and Racism hosted by the HRC, the Davis Enterprise reported:

Talk about racism at Davis High School became real for school district officials Monday night, as emotional students recounted experiences with violence, discrimination and taunting.

Davis Joint Unified School District Board of Education members, Superintendent David Murphy, teachers and Davis City Council members joined more than 100 community members and students at a public forum on racism.

The forum, organized by the Davis Human Relations Commission and held Monday at the Veterans' Memorial Center, produced a long list of possible solutions and nearly five hours of testimony and discussion.

"I thought there was a problem. I had no idea of the depth and breadth of the problem and how deep it seems to be within ... our schools, particularly the high school," Joan Sallee, school board president, said after hearing the students' stories. "And I'm grateful for this meeting." (Davis Enterprise, February 25, 2003).

The result of this meeting was that numerous students came forward with heartfelt and emotional experiences and the school board and superintendent could no longer simply ignore the problem.

Emotional -- at times tearful -- students recounted vivid stories of discrimination and poor treatment on campus by their peers, administrators and staff. Some said they are uncomfortable talking to administrators about experiences. Others accused the school district of unfair punishments.

"There is no word in the English language like (the N-word)," Babajide Olupona, a DHS students and commission member, said, recalling years of discrimination and negative experiences in the schools and community. "No one really understands the impact of that word."

Other students offered detailed accounts of discrimination, vandalism of their property and violence based on race, ethnicity, religion and status.

The result of that meeting was that the Superintendent Murphy worked with members of the HRC to create new programs and new positions to deal with the problem. One of the results of that work is the climate coordinator position, now held by Mel Lewis.

We see from this both the possibilities but the shortcomings of the a body such as the HRC. First, the HRC was able to organize a meeting to educate the community. Second, they were able to work with the Superintendent to create new programs.

But third, as many who read these pages realize, the problems that were identified then, still exist now. Why? There was a lack of follow-through after the crisis abated.

However, the HRC was able to facilitate with the school district new programs, new discipline code language, and a new position. This set the stage for what has happened this year, where all of these aspects have been tightened up due to greater levels of follow-through and commitment by the current school board.

Most importantly, there was key communication fostered and changes enacted without a lawsuit having to be filed. I do not see how the Ombudsman would be able to perform this function.

In October of 2003, four teenagers threw more than 120 eggs at five vehicles--mainly owned by minorities including a gay man.

Russell and several friends, concerned community members and fellow victims of hate crimes scratched out signs and banners to protest the Yolo County District Attorney's Office's willingness to drop hate crime charges against a teen-ager who is charged with vandalizing several cars and a home on Oct. 26, 2003.

One of the victims is Russell, a 27-year-old openly gay UC Davis lab assistant.

"This is silent affirmation to people who commit these type of crimes because they can look and see that nothing is going to happen to them if they get caught," Russell said of the plea offer. "This allows this type of behavior to continue."

Four youths reportedly shouted racist and bigoted remarks as they threw more than 120 eggs at five vehicles and one house early that October morning. One car was owned by Russell; another was owned by a black family. The house was owned by a black family.

Witnesses told police they saw four juveniles throw more than 120 eggs at the two cars. Russell's vehicle suffered more than $4,000 in damage, he said. Liquid from the eggs seeped through into the engine, causing damage, and the paint was also ruined.

Russell was able to pick one of the juveniles out of a photo lineup and he was arrested for the crimes. However, the youth has refused to tell authorities the names of the other three suspects.

"This was devastating to me," Russell said about the hate crime. "Then to have the crimes basically dismissed makes the whole experience exponentially worse."

Raphael Moore, Russell's attorney, said the proposed deal - announced at a pretrial hearing last week - might include dropping the hate crime charges against the juvenile. The 16-year-old could face limited probation and the possibility of having his record expunged in three years if the plea agreement is approved. (Davis Enterprise July 15, 2004).

As a result the HRC took up Mr. Russell's cause. The result was that the HRC worked with the new police chief Jim Hyde, yes the same police chief and the same HRC chair that were at odds a year later. At this time however, the HRC arranged for public meetings where various individuals spoke about the problems of hate crimes. As the result of those meetings, Chief Hyde greatly improved and expanded the department's enforcement of hate crimes legislation.

Even though, Mr. Russell's case was never prosecuted as a hate crime and the juvenile was slapped on the wrist at most, it set in motion a series of changes that will ensure that such events do not occur in the future.

These are but two of the more recent and easily accessible examples of what the HRC has been able to do in the past. Both of these incidents show an effective use of this commission that can both investigate and use community resources to resolve disputes that do not have to go into the legal system as law suits and litigation.

The council now wishes to turn this commission primarily into a listening, intake and referral commission. My experience is that few will come before such a commission. In the past many came before the commission because it was the only body that would listen to their complaints where they believe they were getting a fair hearing. The council wishes for the most part to take this vetting which is often healthy and cathartic out of the public process.

In the end, the council is weakening an historic document to fix a small and limited problem that arose in 2005-06 when the dispute over the proper way in which to deal with a given set of complaints erupted more broadly than it should have. Instead of finding ways to resolve the situation, the council opted for the hatchet approach first purging the HRC, then rewriting its rules, and now changing a landmark civil rights document. This is compounding the problem that began with the inability of either the police chief or the council to recognize the existence of problems and complaints within the community. These actions may quell the public complaints at this time, but they also put a lid on problems rather than solve them, at some point they will erupt again, boiling to the surface. This current council will probably not be in power when they do and they will not have to deal with the mess that they have created.

Unfortunately this is a done deal, fait accompli. And it is a shame that Davis will once again take a dramatic step backwards in their protections against civil rights abuses.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Souza and Asmundson Propose to Strip Civil Rights Protections from Seminal City Ordinance

The Davis City Council in 1986 passed one of the most sweeping anti-discrimination ordinances in the country. This ordinance put Davis on the forefront of civil rights protections in the nation. The ordinance would then be re-affirmed by a vote of the public.

The ordinance protected individuals on the basis of “race, religion, color, ancestry, age, national origin, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, disability or place of birth…” It granted “The fundamental rights of citizens include the right to live unfettered by unreasonable discrimination and this right is consistent with the American ideals of individual freedom, liberty and responsibility for one's own actions.” Moreover it placed the responsibility with government “to take action to prevent such discrimination.”

In addition to the sweeping scope of the protections, it provided three core enforcement mechanisms to ensure that this ordinance was not merely a paper tiger. In 10.06.050(a):

“any person whose rights are violated pursuant to this chapter may bring a civil action against person or persons engaging in such violation. Upon a finding of liability, the court shall award actual damages…”

Second, (b) allows:

“any person who commits an act in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter” to “be enjoined therefrom and from future violations by any court of competent jurisdiction.”

While both of these provisions are essential, they both require court action. Court action has two fundamental drawbacks. First, it is not a speedy process—meaning it may take a period of years for the court to issue a finding. Second, it is an expensive process, thus people of modest means have difficulty retaining quality counsel and even more difficulty following through on the lengthy and expensive court process. However, the city of Davis, visionary as it was, created a third option that would mitigate this problem. They empowered a government body—the Davis Human Relations Commission with the power to investigate and mediate complaints of discrimination.

Section 7A-15 (c)Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the human relations commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint. The commission may adopt rules of procedure to accommodate the needs of such investigation and mediation. A complaint to the commission shall not be a prerequisite to filing a civil action under this section, and the findings and conclusions of the commission issued in response to such proceedings shall not be admissible in a civil action. (Ord. No. 1359, § 1 (part).)

When the current Davis City Council reformulated the Davis Human Relations Commission, they sought to strip much of the previous power that they once had. As a result, they passed a resolution making the HRC strictly an advisory body, without the ability to investigate complaints. It was pointed out last fall by Councilmember Heystek that the resolution passed by the Council by a 3-2 vote (with Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek dissenting) was at odds with the anti-discrimination ordinance.

Council again by a 3-2 vote, decided to send the question back to the subcommittee of Councilmembers Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza (rather than staff) to determine what to do with the anti-discrimination ordinance. On Tuesday, they will take up the issue as a full council.

The report concludes:

“The subcommittee recommends that Section 7A-15(c) of the city’s Anti-discrimination Ordinance should be deleted.”

Furthermore, they argue that this is not a fundamental problem for civil rights enforcement:

“The Subcommittee believes there is an adequate web of resources available to individuals.”

This view is actually based on a very limited understand of the ordinance and the scope of protections under the ordinance. In effect, the council decision (and there is little doubt what the council decision will be given that Councilmember Saylor has been the most fervent about abolishing the powers of the HRC and oversight), will strike the major enforcement mechanism in the ordinance, leaving only judicial remedies as a possibility for an aggrieved individual. As we discussed, due to the prohibitive costs and general lack of ability for individuals to file suit, there is no legitimate recourse an aggrieved individual of modest or even moderate means possesses.

To understand this, we should look toward the Buzayan case, which is now two years old following the initial incident in June 2005. And yet, a full two years later, the federal trial has not yet begun. Moreover the family has already spent in the hundreds of thousands of dollars on court costs. While the Buzayans can afford these costs (with a great deal of strain and burden even on their finances), the average person simply cannot, which means they are effectively without remedy.

The council subcommittee is arguing that there are other available remedies. In fact, I can think of one and they really cite only one, the police ombudsman, an entity which is completely untested and not codified into the ordinance. The anti-discrimination ordinance intended to look well beyond the scope of police activities. In fact, that was likely only a very minor perceived role for the HRC. Over the years, the HRC has been involved in a very wide variety of cases most of which were not directly related to police activities.

There is to my knowledge no other such mechanism to fulfill the role formerly played by the HRC. What avenues are available for some of the other complaints that arise other than going to court? Does the council insist that the court and litigation is the only remedy? Wasn’t the HRC created precisely as a means to avoid court action?

The HRC was the only body existing that had the ability to both listen to complaints aired in public and investigate and report their findings publicly. The city council has claimed that they have such powers, but the city council does not act as an investigatory body. Their job is primarily a policy making body that acts on recommendations from the various commissions that do the leg work? Does the City Council really want to subsume the role played by the former HRC to both hear and investigate complaints of discrimination not just against the police, but throughout the community? This does not seem a practical stance and yet this is exactly what Steve Souza claimed last fall when this issue arose during the time at which the commissions were reformulated.

Some have suggested that there should be a private/ independent HRC to fulfill this function, but the force of government is precisely what is needed to mediate and resolve issues and complaints of discrimination and there needs to be an available remedy outside of the courts which are costly to both plaintiff and the city and lengthy. In fact, in the language of the anti-discrimination ordinance cited above, the ordinance SPECIFICALLY charged government as having a primary role to play in the enforcement of these provisions.

As it stands now, there is no remedy for complaints in the ordinance. The council has not codified the ombudsman into the anti-discrimination ordinance. And there are no remedies for discrimination complaints outside of police complaints.

Imagine Brown v. Board of Education without the ensuing civil rights legislation to give that decision and subsequent decisions actual teeth that can be used by federal, state, and local governments to enforce civil rights legislation—that is precisely what the current council majority's subcommittee is recommending doing with the Davis Civil Rights ordinance—it lays out provisions but offers no enforcement mechanism outside of the costly court system.

The council majority is in effect making the civil rights ordinance exactly what the authors of it sought to avoid—making it a paper tiger ordinance. For the average person who charges discrimination, there is now no effective means by which to redress their grievances outside of the lengthy and costly court process.

The saddest part I think is that this is a huge step backwards in the fight for civil rights. Davis was once on the forefront in the nation on civil rights, just as it had been on the forefront of a number of progressive issues during the seminal progressive era. One by one the current council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza is undoing the great work of the giants who came before them. And the citizenry of Davis to this point have offered hardly a whisper of protest. Unfortunately it may take a major case to re-infuse our commitment to civil rights in Davis and that is the saddest part. Many in this city believed that this was a hard-earned but accomplished victory. Now the very members who claim to be liberals, are about to undo this victory.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

HRC Gets an Earful on Race Relations at the High School

For the first time since the Davis Human Relations Commission was disbanded and then reconstituted, the HRC listened to members of the public talking about their concerns about race relations at Davis High School. While the topic started out focusing on the Black Student Union (BSU) suspension, it broadened into more general complaints about racial issues at the high school and in the broader community.

The unfortunate aspect of this meeting however, was the lack of presence by the school district, which is the authority with jurisdiction over the matter. The HRC meeting coincided with a special board meeting across the street. That meeting prevented Climate Coordinator Mel Lewis from attending the HRC meeting, despite the pertinence of the issue and despite his position as liaison and ex-officio member of the body. (Update at 8:20 am 4/27/07: It was reported last night that Lewis could not attend due to the school board meeting, but we have gotten word that the meeting only dealt with the issue of the Superintendent hire and Lewis was neither at that meeting nor is he involved in that issue).

Instead, Mel Lewis and Kevin French submitted to the HRC a two-page statement that purported to summarize the events that led to the suspension of the BSU. The complaints included a number of parent who attended the BSU meeting on March 1, 2007 who did not check-in or out of campus per the requirements. Moreover he charged that "negative race-based comments were directed at the principal and coordinator of school climate activities..."

A number of attendees at the HRC meeting had been in attendance at the BSU meeting. They took issue with the statement released by Mel Lewis--calling it one-sided and distorted. They claimed on the contrary, that there were never any race-based comments. Moreover, the statement claimed "the principal suspended BSU club meetings until parties offered apologies and held reconciliatory meetings. To date, no apologies or meetings have taken place." On the contrary, members present at the meetings disputed these facts suggesting that there was never a request for such apologies or meetings as a precondition for reinstatement of the BSU. Moreover, even if true, why are they punishing the students for the actions of the parents?

While it is difficult to ascertain exactly what happened involving the BSU and a number of parents have suggested that media accounts in the Davis Enterprise and Sacramento Bee were distorted and inaccurate, some of the commissioners perhaps got too bogged down in the specific facts of this specific issue. One of the members, suggested specifically that they did not have the facts of this case and therefore it would be difficult to take any action.

To a large extent this was true, however, the point was also made that this specific incident is part of a larger problem and that the issue of race and race relations needs to be considered as a whole rather than through one specific issue. Police Ombudsman Bob Aaronson who was attending the meeting, made the point that if there is a burning building, you cannot create a subcommittee to figure out what the facts are, if you do, it will simply burn to the ground long before you get the hose there. In these cases, sometimes you must act not on the specifics of the case, but rather on the overall picture.

Interim Superintendent Richard Whitmore also sent the HRC a letter outlining the steps that the district has been taking--mostly in the form of new programs.

"We are taking steps to evaluate those existing programs and determine when and how to improve them... We will explore additional opportunities to develop and articulate a curriculum that addresses diversity, but I would caution that curriculum does not change overnight, nor does it change without appropriate training and a cycle of evaluation and improvement."

While I can respect the Interim Superintendent's difficult position, I have a number of concerns that I do not think are addressed by curriculum changes. First, I am very concerned that the district and the HRC could not coordinate on this meeting. Frankly, Mel Lewis, Ginni Davis, and Richard Whitmore needed to hear what was said at this meeting. I do not understand why there could not have been some kind of cooperative effort here, but that is what needs to happen in the field.

Second, Mel Lewis is the climate coordinator however many of the parents and students believe that he is part of the problem (along with Ginni Davis). I have not witnessed this personally, but many believe the entire situation was mishandled. Mel Lewis purportedly was going to assume the role of adviser when the previous adviser, Courtnay Tessler, stepped down, however the students wanted no part of that.

Third, the primary problems I see are not curriculum based. I have very serious concerns about the high school administration. While it seemed that the school board and superintendent did a good job with the suspension of the student involved in the Malcolm X incident, that situation has still not been resolved. Apparently the teacher has refused to return to class while the student is present. That has left the students themselves without a qualified instructor right before their AP Calculus exam. Moreover, now the district is trying to get the student to transfer classes to the other calculus class, which would cause him to rearrange his entire schedule. They have not rescinded his suspension and that may lead to him getting a poor grade in a class where he missed an exam. In short, the high school administration completely mismanaged the situation there. That has nothing to do with curriculum.

Along the same lines, many parents and community members complained that the BSU situation was mishandled. Others complained that there are no African American teachers at the high school Courtney Tessler, a white woman, had reportedly not wanted to be the adviser again, but the BSU Students came to her and told her that no one else wanted them. This sounds like a horrible message sent to the students, and something that the administration at the high school could have handled much better.

Furthermore there are four years worth of survey data of high school students that show that the perception of the high school students--even those who are white or Asian--believe that black and Latino students are given harsher punishments for the same actions as their white and Asian student counterpart.

None of these problems it would seem can be resolved by new programs or curriculum changes, they all require tough choices by the upper management of the district and the school board. Unfortunately, it seems that according to some parents at least, Mel Lewis, the person who is supposed to be solution to these problems is instead part of the problem. One of his suggestions that apparently greatly angered many in the minority community when he suggested that they take the "B" out of BSU.

Then there is the issue of the Human Relations Commission itself. Leaving aside the handling by the council of the police issue last year, what was clear watching this meeting is that the people who were on the HRC were those in the room with the least experience and knowledge about these issues. On the one hand it was good that they got to hear these stories from long-time activists and community members. On the other hand, most of the members probably had no idea that this type of thing had been happening and for how long. What the community lost when the HRC was disbanded, was a tremendous amount of collective and institutional memory.

A number of long-time and esteemed community members at this meeting provided invaluable background and insight on these issues. People like former HRC Chair Rick Gonzales who not only described a number of first-hand incidents but also described some of the things they did 20 years ago on the HRC to look into these kinds of issues. Gonzales also brought forward 35 years of educational history. Desmond Jolly, has been in this community for 35 years and spoke about some of the issues that his son faced. Dick Livingston taught at the high school for years, talked about people like former HRC member Bill Calhoun who was for a long time the only African-American teacher in the High School and now there are none at the high school.

What resonated most with me was Ombudsman Bob Aaronson's warning that this is indeed not just a school issue, but a community issue. And that if these things did not get dealt with at this level, it would quickly filter down to the incidents that he does handle. Michelle Stephens, an HRC member had probably the most forceful advocacy of action, and she mentioned that she works with adult education and that these problems just carry right on to the people she works with.

In the end, the HRC was too limited in its power to do much. There will be a joint Council-School Board Meeting on May 23, and the HRC is going to draft a statement.

The old HRC could have played a much larger role in this matter. In 2003, the issue of bullying arose. That HRC held a community meeting where the Superintendent David Murphy himself got an earful from literally hundreds in the community including parents and students, many of them in tears, many of them angry on the bullying issue. This forced district action. Even as a mere educational body, the HRC could play this type of role. But instead they will make a mere statement and a recommendation.

My own personal issues aside with the HRC and my wife's role, it was never more clear to me how much this community has lost by the changes to the HRC.

Right now this situation is starting to boil with a number members of the minority community increasingly concerned about the climate in the schools. The stories we heard last night were the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately those with the actual power to enact changes were not there to hear them. The HRC was created in the aftermath of the murder of a Davis High School student. This is an issue that they have taken up in the past repeatedly. And now they have been strafed of their power and the community as a whole is worse off.

It was a very frustrating night but I left with a bit of a smile on my face as I know that at least for one night, the HRC members got to listen for just a few minutes to stories about the dark underbelly of the People's Republic of Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Police Chief Landy Black Takes Over Police Department Facing Numerous Challenges

When Landy Black was sworn in as the tenth police chief in the history of the City of Davis, one was tempted to congratulate him on the one hand and apologize to him on the other hand. By most accounts, Black is a good and dedicated police officer, with good family and a strong support network. He also has vast experience running a very diverse precinct in a very diverse part of Seattle. He will need all of these assets to survive in Davis.

The problems faced by Black as he enters Davis will be both internal and external. By now people are well aware of the external situation. There have been long standing and credible complaints in this community about police misconduct. That has resulted both in numerous citizen complaints, lawsuits, and a general atmosphere of distrust in segments of the community.

The situation boiled over last year to the point where the animosity and distrust were mutual. He spoke specifically to this point both in February when I interviewed him and this week as he was sworn into office.

In February, when I spoke to him, he stressed the importance of communication. He believes that police departments are not doing service to the community if not communicating with critical people. But there is a dual responsibility. The community needs to inform them about where they can make improvements. They also want to know when they are doing the right thing and not just the wrong thing.

This week he spoke this this concept of communication and community involvement once again.

"It has been mentioned that there is a sense of a need for respect, a respect of people of all classes and all sense of diversity, and that is something that I am committed to... However it is important I understand that the community needs to be involved in the process of leading their police department and I am the conduit by which that information is conveyed to our officers. And I am committed to and will continue to always look for any opportunity for those who are allies and stakeholders in the concept of safe and livable cities to communicate with me about the manner in which we can go about obtaining that lofty end."

This was a theme picked up by former UC Davis Police Chief Calvin Handy in our interview last month:

"I am not an expert on the DPD at this point. [But,] I think that the DPD is in need of solid open community embracing leadership. If you look at the issues of the past 18 months and perhaps before, the DPD needs a good new police chief with good ideas and build ideas and build some trust, I’m not saying there is completely no trust, but there are areas where trust is lacking and this is where the new chief can made a bigger impact. The new chief needs to be open to community input. This is a good department but the number one need is a good leader who is open and accessible and approachable."

It is not merely the public however that needs a new commitment of leadership.

In the Ombudsman's report in February, Bob Aaronson spoke to "the need for quality leadership and clear supervision that uniformly holds people accountable."

"Without intending to disrespect the hard work of current and former supervisors and administrators, it does appear that the turnover in staff, and particularly in chiefs, has undermined the organization’s supervisory chain of command, its vision and its morale. By all reports, these problems pre-existed the Buzayan incident. There is no more critical decision to be made for the Department in the next twelve months than the selection of the next Chief of Police."

Mr. Aaronson's critique is exactly right in my view, and this has been a problem that has plagued the police department since the day that former Chief Jerry Gonzales was forced to step down as Police Chief.

Chief Landy Black will face immense challenges is within his own organization if he is to set about making changes to the supervisory structure.

I have some concerns about the willingness of some of the old guard leadership that still exists in this department to make the kind of concessions and changes that are needed to bring about both changes in the command structure that Mr. Aaronson refers to, that are necessary for a changed approach with the public that Chief Black clearly desires to take place. It is here that I sense in several conversations some reluctance of certain high ranking police officers in the Davis Police Department to make the necessary changes and even embrace the new leadership of Chief Landy Black.

I left the reception Monday on the one hand hopeful that Chief Black with his strong experience and solid support structure and upbringing could indeed be the person that this community needs to lead the police force. Everyone who I spoke to, who had any sense of history with Chief Black, affirmed his character and commitment. These attributes do not seem to be in doubt. One can tell the character of a person by their family and their associates, and from those alone, Chief Black seems to be a person of outstanding commitment and character.

However, I also left concerned about the enthusiasm and commitment of the old guard in the Davis Police Department. Some of the sergeants seemed very cold and distant when asked their feelings on the new police chief--some of them even evasive when asked about their feelings of the new chief. It is these people that either are going to need to fall into line or be removed if Chief Black is going to succeed. With the Chief be able to get rid of some of these officers who seem to so clearly have been a problem for the last decade if not longer? That is a tough task to ask a new chief, but that will be a very important and telling factor in whether or not Chief Black is to succeed where his predecessors have not.

As I say, I have nothing but support and respect for Chief Black but he is going to have a very tough task ahead of him. Congratulations and good luck.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Interview with Former UC Davis Police Chief Calvin Handy

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to interview Retired UC Davis Police Chief Calvin Handy. He currently sits on both the Community Advisory Board (CAB) and Police Advisory Committee (PAC). This interview primarily focused on the PAC which is one of the oversight bodies created by the City Council and the City Manager last year to help with overseeing the operations of the police.

(Due to my own limitations these answers are paraphrased for the most part rather than direct quotes).

Question: Describe for me what the PAC does

Answer: July of 2006 was the first meeting where the three members of the PAC, City Manager Bill Emlen, Interim Police Chief Steve Pierce, and Complaint Unit Officer Gina Anderson all met. The PAC conforms to a specific kind of professional review process. The city is undergoing a number of existing experiments involving a professional independent review process. They were looking at this as an experiment, but this may be the way for us to go. The PAC provides a review and evaluation of completely adjudicated complaints against any employee of the police department. We examine the complaint investigative process. We also have the ability to review and evaluate any department process. We can review training--in order to really look at process or actions--you need to understand process, guidelines, and training. The PAC makes very specific recommendations to the City Manager about a wide range of issue. However, we do not begin our own independent investigation. We can ask any question. It is beyond just a professional audit, review and evaluation. "Rather than auditing I call it an accountability process."

Question: How does the PAC's role compare with that of the CAB

Answer: It has less of a direct connection with the CAB. Ombudsman is going to be active, living, tangible point of access for people who have issues and concerns about the police department. It will be a point of interaction with the community. The PAC does not have an interactive role. It has not been decided how the two processes have come together. There is a mechanism that exists that the ombudsman has with complaints and complaint resolution, whereas we also look at and evaluate policy and training as it relates to complaints. This is an effective way to get the process off the ground. No real formal process existed to oversee aspects of the police department before. Seems like this starting process has the ombudsman and PAC working in tandem whereas the CAB was put together to serve as a feedback mechanism and a point of exchange of information about citizens and police department. The CAB and PAC are completely different and really have no overlap. The CAB works directly with the Police Chief or Interim Police Chief and the PAC is more independent.

Question: How closely have you’ve worked with the ombudsman

Answer: I met with him personally as part of his outreach. Meetings with the ombudsman are in the works. The first priority for ombudsman was meeting with the community while forming viewpoint about what his role would be. Communication role between the two at minimum see how this will work. All parties figuring out what the roles are.

Question: What do you think the strengths of the PAC are?

Answer: It is too early to say 100 percent what the strengths are. However, this process exists where it did not exist before. Many of these things ended up at the HRC prior to this. With the hiring of the ombudsman that may now shift. We provide critical and yet professional and intense evaluations of investigations. We communicate with the city manager. We look at process and any aspect of police operation. We have potentially a great deal of latitude to what can look at. We are independent and unbiased—not biased one way or the other. This process not very effective if predisposed to one group over another. Can this be improved on six months from now? Who knows.

Question: What do you think the weaknesses of the PAC are?

Answer: This is the initial establishment of that program and first public report on the PAC was February 20 at city council. There is not much out there in terms of the PAC and what it does. [Note: I told him that as much as I follow this process, I was largely unaware of what the PAC does]. Need to provide as much information as we can. We need to inform the public of the numbers of complaints and how often we meet, this can give people a better understanding about what the PAC is. There is a lot of confusion in the public about what this group is. We need to clarify the role and inform people as to who is a part of the PAC. One suggestion is that the protocols for PAC could be put online. The PAC is not meeting with community groups, rather the ombudsman is playing that role. I do not see the detriment with meeting people on the PAC and I think this will happen at some point

Question: What are your overall thoughts about the Davis police department and its operations

Answer: I am not an expert on the DPD at this point. I think that the DPD is in need of solid open community embracing leadership. If you look at the issues of the past 18 months and perhaps before, the DPD needs a good new police chief with good ideas and build ideas and build some trust, I’m not saying there is completely no trust, but there are areas where trust is lacking and this is where the new chief can made a bigger impact. The new chief needs to be open to community input. This is a good department but the number one need is a good leader who is open and accessible and approachable. Even when things are adversarial. The department could use more friends out there. Over last 13 years, my impression has been that they are trying to be more of a community department—community oriented policing. I think most officers do have a genuine intention of protecting all of the citizens of Davis. When you have communication breakdown, your motives and intentions won’t thrive. Everyone wants to feel safe—safe from crime, good safe environment. Hard to make progress without mending that particular bridge. I am very encouraged with discussions with the city manager that he wants to find a police chief who can run the department and heal the rifts in the community.

Question: Do you believe that there is racial profiling by the Davis Police Department?

Answer: 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. It doesn’t matter what I believe. It matters what they believe. We worked hard to build bridges between students and uc Davis police department. Many think that it exists—regardless of what I think [he repeated himself for emphasis]. Problem is how it has been handled or not handled. We have allowed the issue of racial profiling to divide us and become adversarial. A huge percentage of folks in African American community think that this has happened to them. This requires a critical undertaking and inquiring into this problem. Perhaps police are thinking we are just doing our jobs—but there is a strong perception. When you have such a perception, it exists for them. It deserves more attention, more time, and I think it deserves more effort to get to the bottom of this. Really bringing forth some action. People think they are doing the right thing. I think that the police don’t think they are doing racial profiling, rather they think they are doing the right thing. This is why it is all the more important to interact, talk, and find out what happened. 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.

I thank Chief Calvin Handy for taking the time to sit down with an interview. I learned a tremendous amount by talking to him.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting