Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
This is the Moment We Have All Been Waiting For
SCRAM! Calls Community to Action: Let Council Hear Your Voice on Tuesday Night
On Tuesday, March 24th, an extraordinary event will be taking place in Santa Cruz. In response to pressure brought to bear by SCRAM! (Santa Cruz Resistance Against Militarization!) and hundreds of citizens who are concerned about the purchase of a BEARCAT armored response vehicle and militarization of law enforcement, an evening session of City Council will revisit these issues. The meeting will begin at 7:00 with chambers doors opening at 6:30. Because the response to this issue has been so overwhelming, overflow seating will be provided at the Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium for residents who are anticipated to attend but who will not be able to find seating in the council chambers. Proceedings will also be broadcast into the Council Courtyard for those who want a more bird's eye view of the proceedings. SCRAM! urges the entire community to come out and voice their individual concerns.
SCRAM! has been organizing grassroots action to compel the City Council to rescind approval for the BEARCAT purchase and to develop policies that prevent military equipment from flowing into law enforcement. As witnessed at the most recent council sessions, the community has rallied around these goals and SCRAM! has successfully worked to return these issues to the Council Agenda for a full, transparent public hearing. One of SCRAM!'s concerns is voiced by Abbi Samuels of Occupy Santa Cruz and a founding member of SCRAM!. “To obtain the Homeland Security grant, the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) had to agree to designate Santa Cruz as a ‘federal buffer zone,’ with numerous highly dubious terrorism targets like the Boardwalk and UCSC. Clearly, this moves us down the slippery slope to having the military in our streets”.
Why raise these questions? Because the mere presence of the threatening and menacing BEARCAT in our streets may create civil unrest. Says ACLU Santa Cruz County Board Chair and SCRAM! member Peter Gelblum, "These vehicles evoke force and fear, making residents feel like the police view them as enemy combatants. Even though it’s been ordered we still don’t fully know how it’s equipped, how it will be used, the cost of the training and maintenance each year, or a multitude of other questions." Harry Meserve speaking for the Veterans for Peace expresses a related concern. "Many veterans return from service in the Gulf suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). We just don't know what effect the presence of a military-style vehicle in our community will have on those returning service men and women and we feel we are justifiably concerned." While SCPD continues to contend that the vehicle is for first responder defensive purposes only, many remain unconvinced. Sherry Conable, Coordinator of CodePink Santa Cruz and a SCRAM! founding members says "the basic vehicle itself comes equipped with 11 gun ports from which officers can fire many types of weapons while completely protected. The weapons they can use from the gunports include tasers, rubber bullets such as those used on US Marine Scott Olson in Oakland during the Occupy Movement and many different kinds of rifles, including high powered automatic weapons. How is this NOT offensive?"
Of additional concern is the process by which the SCPD and the City Council approved and accepted the grant. First, seven months passed before Council was informed that the grant application had been approved. This information could have been disclosed at any time during this period. Secondly, Council was told that there was no time for debate because the funds would be lost if the purchase was not approved immediately. This alleged “deadline” does not appear anywhere in grant application. Third, Council attempted to slip this extremely controversial item past the public by putting it on the Consent Agenda and then provided only selective and unsubstantiated bits of information. Says Keith McHenry, SCRAM! member and founder of the global social justice organization Food Not Bombs, “this situation is not unique to Santa Cruz. We have found a pattern of nondisclosure and misrepresentation about these kinds of grants all over the country. But just because others are doing it doesn’t make it right”.
SCRAM! agrees that keeping first responders and potential victims safe is vitally important. But that does not mean we need the BEARCAT. Former firefighter and SCRAM! member Ron Pomerantz observes, "SCPD has failed to present a single instance in Santa Cruz history where someone suffered an injury that even might have been prevented if a BEARCAT had been available."
SCRAM! urges citizens to join us on Tuesday, March 24th and voice their concerns. No matter where you weigh in on the issue of the BEARCAT and militarization, this is a moment in the history of our community that will be remembered. Be there and be part of that history. Better yet, be there and make history. A rally to be held in the City Council Courtyard will begin at 6:00 and will feature speakers including educators, veterans, faith community members, social and political action activists and former and present elected officials. Richard Stockton and the Raging Grannies will provide comedy and musical comment.
SCRAM! has been organizing grassroots action to compel the City Council to rescind approval for the BEARCAT purchase and to develop policies that prevent military equipment from flowing into law enforcement. As witnessed at the most recent council sessions, the community has rallied around these goals and SCRAM! has successfully worked to return these issues to the Council Agenda for a full, transparent public hearing. One of SCRAM!'s concerns is voiced by Abbi Samuels of Occupy Santa Cruz and a founding member of SCRAM!. “To obtain the Homeland Security grant, the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) had to agree to designate Santa Cruz as a ‘federal buffer zone,’ with numerous highly dubious terrorism targets like the Boardwalk and UCSC. Clearly, this moves us down the slippery slope to having the military in our streets”.
Why raise these questions? Because the mere presence of the threatening and menacing BEARCAT in our streets may create civil unrest. Says ACLU Santa Cruz County Board Chair and SCRAM! member Peter Gelblum, "These vehicles evoke force and fear, making residents feel like the police view them as enemy combatants. Even though it’s been ordered we still don’t fully know how it’s equipped, how it will be used, the cost of the training and maintenance each year, or a multitude of other questions." Harry Meserve speaking for the Veterans for Peace expresses a related concern. "Many veterans return from service in the Gulf suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). We just don't know what effect the presence of a military-style vehicle in our community will have on those returning service men and women and we feel we are justifiably concerned." While SCPD continues to contend that the vehicle is for first responder defensive purposes only, many remain unconvinced. Sherry Conable, Coordinator of CodePink Santa Cruz and a SCRAM! founding members says "the basic vehicle itself comes equipped with 11 gun ports from which officers can fire many types of weapons while completely protected. The weapons they can use from the gunports include tasers, rubber bullets such as those used on US Marine Scott Olson in Oakland during the Occupy Movement and many different kinds of rifles, including high powered automatic weapons. How is this NOT offensive?"
Of additional concern is the process by which the SCPD and the City Council approved and accepted the grant. First, seven months passed before Council was informed that the grant application had been approved. This information could have been disclosed at any time during this period. Secondly, Council was told that there was no time for debate because the funds would be lost if the purchase was not approved immediately. This alleged “deadline” does not appear anywhere in grant application. Third, Council attempted to slip this extremely controversial item past the public by putting it on the Consent Agenda and then provided only selective and unsubstantiated bits of information. Says Keith McHenry, SCRAM! member and founder of the global social justice organization Food Not Bombs, “this situation is not unique to Santa Cruz. We have found a pattern of nondisclosure and misrepresentation about these kinds of grants all over the country. But just because others are doing it doesn’t make it right”.
SCRAM! agrees that keeping first responders and potential victims safe is vitally important. But that does not mean we need the BEARCAT. Former firefighter and SCRAM! member Ron Pomerantz observes, "SCPD has failed to present a single instance in Santa Cruz history where someone suffered an injury that even might have been prevented if a BEARCAT had been available."
SCRAM! urges citizens to join us on Tuesday, March 24th and voice their concerns. No matter where you weigh in on the issue of the BEARCAT and militarization, this is a moment in the history of our community that will be remembered. Be there and be part of that history. Better yet, be there and make history. A rally to be held in the City Council Courtyard will begin at 6:00 and will feature speakers including educators, veterans, faith community members, social and political action activists and former and present elected officials. Richard Stockton and the Raging Grannies will provide comedy and musical comment.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Drum roll puhleeze! Apparently there's never been a fireworthiness test of these glorified pick up trucks. I volunteer!
The moment I've been waiting for is when we figure out where they hid the fucking thing and destroy it.
When I did a search on "Burning" police Bearcat, only the picture of the siege leading to a police murder posted above came up... a lethal SWAT raid against a man who had been nowhere near a crime scene in Greenfield Ca when a shooting took place, and had nothing to do with it.
Read that carefully: "lethal SWAT raid"; Victim of that lethality " had nothing to do with it".
That seems to happen A LOT in American law enforcement... and the SCPD IS NOT 'special'
The moment I've been waiting for is when we figure out where they hid the fucking thing and destroy it.
When I did a search on "Burning" police Bearcat, only the picture of the siege leading to a police murder posted above came up... a lethal SWAT raid against a man who had been nowhere near a crime scene in Greenfield Ca when a shooting took place, and had nothing to do with it.
Read that carefully: "lethal SWAT raid"; Victim of that lethality " had nothing to do with it".
That seems to happen A LOT in American law enforcement... and the SCPD IS NOT 'special'
Dear Constituent,
The BEARCAT armored vehicle is back on the agenda for a FINAL decision on Tuesday, March 24th at 7PM, with a rally at 6PM against the purchase of it at 809 Center.
THE PROCESS
For me, the most important thing about the BEARCAT is rectifying the process by which it came to the Council. The December 9th meeting at which the Council approved the “armored rescue vehicle” has to have been one of the worst meetings in recent Council history. And when I review the video recording of the meeting, I am reminded that I was part of the problem. In hindsight, I should have forcefully demanded a better staff report and a better process prior to making a decision about a high profile expansion of the capabilities of our police department. I am relieved that I followed my instinct not to agree on something that I don’t have enough information on and voted not to purchase the BEARCAT.
In trying to avoid having a problem like this in the future I recommended to staff that they propose a policy in which the City Council would review grants BEFORE the City apply for them. In the case of both the BEARCAT grant application and a prior one for license plate readers, the items came in to the Council to accept the grants under a tight time-line that makes it hard for the Council to address public concerns that arise upon reading the agendas. I appreciate that the staff have a recommendation to address this problem on Tuesday’s agenda though I am concerned about the major exceptions included in the proposal for projects in the Capitol Improvement Project (CIP) list and projects under $100,000.00. The CIP is a dense document that lays out 3 years of construction projects during budget time. It is not widely read.
The policy would also exclude purchases under $100,000.00, an amount that would have exempted the license plate reader grant ($37,000.00) from the policy, as well as any other potentially objectionable purchase of up to $99,999.00. What should the grant amount be that the Council will automatically look at the time of the application and not just at the time of approval? $5,000.00, $25,000.00? And should construction projects be included? As you think about it, please keep in mind that every additional item on the Council agenda creates more work for our hardworking staff.
To weigh in on this important attempt to make our City business more transparent to the public, check out the agenda for the meeting at the City Council section of cityofsantacruz.com, then email the Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com
The BEARCAT
As for the BEARCAT itself, much of the debate is around whether a BEARCAT (Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck) is a way to protect police or an assault vehicle. I definitely think it is appropriate to protect our police, and I support the acquisition and/or use of some kind of armored vehicle within our county. The question is whether the BEARCAT ‘militarizes’ the police force by giving it additional capabilities that put it at odds with our collaborative policing philosophy.
To research the matter for yourself, I encourage you to watch two videos on the use of a BEARCAT. If the links don’t work for some reason, you should be able to do an internet search for them. The first is about a 5-hour standoff in Oklahoma with an armed resident.
http://www.dragtimes.com/video-viewer.php?v=B5XzbIfBzm8&feature
The 2nd is a promotional piece for the BEARCAT put out by LENCO, its manufacturer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqZYIApWrpU&feature=youtu.be
In as much as the way a piece of equipment is marketed determines its use, a lot can be learned by perusing Lenco’s website and facebook page.
The vehicle the City is considering ordering would be one of the smaller BEARCATs. It would have gun ports and a battering ram but not a turret or a teargas launcher.
If you share my opinion that a BEARCAT could be used either for rescues or assaults, then check out Mayor Lane’s proposed use guidelines in the Council agenda. Do these guidelines limit the usage of the vehicle sufficiently that we should go ahead and accept it? Conversely, should the City look into using or buying a different vehicle that safeguards our police without expanding their capability in a way that feels threatening to some members of our community? There are two older armored trucks in our county, albeit with inferior capabilities of a new BEARCAT. In Berkeley, for example, the City Council returned a BEARCAT and bought an armored van for their Police Department. This would seem to mirror the recommendation of our local central Democratic Club:
“In order to help encourage, develop, and implement policies that prevent military equipment from flowing into law enforcement agencies throughout Santa Cruz County, we move: That the Santa Cruz City Council's approval of the purchase of a BEARCAT with funds from the Department of Homeland Security be brought back to the Council for reconsideration, and that staff be directed to bring back alternative proposals for rescue vehicles that are less militarized for Council approval. Additionally that there be a binding City policy for grant applications and their acceptance that ensures timeliness, transparency, and full public disclosure and input.”
Tuesday’s meeting brings up questions of transparency in government, the breadth of police powers , and the necessity of protecting our police officers. If you are not sure whether or not to weigh in on this issue, please consider following the advice of US Representative Sam Farr, who rarely opines on local issues. In a letter to the people of Santa Cruz, he writes:
“I believe people have the absolute right to petition their government to change things they don’t like. If the people of Santa Cruz want to get rid of the Bearcat, they need to petition the city council which took the action that allowed the Bearcat to come to Santa Cruz. Contact the mayor and city council members with your thoughts and attend the March 24 City Council meeting. They have the power to rescind the purchase. If this were a federal issue I’d be at the front of the line trying to correct whatever missteps were taken. But this is a local issue and needs to be corrected at the local level.”
That’s March 24th, 7PM at 809 Center Street, and/or send in your comments to citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Your Advocate on the City Council,
Micah Posner
The BEARCAT armored vehicle is back on the agenda for a FINAL decision on Tuesday, March 24th at 7PM, with a rally at 6PM against the purchase of it at 809 Center.
THE PROCESS
For me, the most important thing about the BEARCAT is rectifying the process by which it came to the Council. The December 9th meeting at which the Council approved the “armored rescue vehicle” has to have been one of the worst meetings in recent Council history. And when I review the video recording of the meeting, I am reminded that I was part of the problem. In hindsight, I should have forcefully demanded a better staff report and a better process prior to making a decision about a high profile expansion of the capabilities of our police department. I am relieved that I followed my instinct not to agree on something that I don’t have enough information on and voted not to purchase the BEARCAT.
In trying to avoid having a problem like this in the future I recommended to staff that they propose a policy in which the City Council would review grants BEFORE the City apply for them. In the case of both the BEARCAT grant application and a prior one for license plate readers, the items came in to the Council to accept the grants under a tight time-line that makes it hard for the Council to address public concerns that arise upon reading the agendas. I appreciate that the staff have a recommendation to address this problem on Tuesday’s agenda though I am concerned about the major exceptions included in the proposal for projects in the Capitol Improvement Project (CIP) list and projects under $100,000.00. The CIP is a dense document that lays out 3 years of construction projects during budget time. It is not widely read.
The policy would also exclude purchases under $100,000.00, an amount that would have exempted the license plate reader grant ($37,000.00) from the policy, as well as any other potentially objectionable purchase of up to $99,999.00. What should the grant amount be that the Council will automatically look at the time of the application and not just at the time of approval? $5,000.00, $25,000.00? And should construction projects be included? As you think about it, please keep in mind that every additional item on the Council agenda creates more work for our hardworking staff.
To weigh in on this important attempt to make our City business more transparent to the public, check out the agenda for the meeting at the City Council section of cityofsantacruz.com, then email the Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com
The BEARCAT
As for the BEARCAT itself, much of the debate is around whether a BEARCAT (Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck) is a way to protect police or an assault vehicle. I definitely think it is appropriate to protect our police, and I support the acquisition and/or use of some kind of armored vehicle within our county. The question is whether the BEARCAT ‘militarizes’ the police force by giving it additional capabilities that put it at odds with our collaborative policing philosophy.
To research the matter for yourself, I encourage you to watch two videos on the use of a BEARCAT. If the links don’t work for some reason, you should be able to do an internet search for them. The first is about a 5-hour standoff in Oklahoma with an armed resident.
http://www.dragtimes.com/video-viewer.php?v=B5XzbIfBzm8&feature
The 2nd is a promotional piece for the BEARCAT put out by LENCO, its manufacturer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqZYIApWrpU&feature=youtu.be
In as much as the way a piece of equipment is marketed determines its use, a lot can be learned by perusing Lenco’s website and facebook page.
The vehicle the City is considering ordering would be one of the smaller BEARCATs. It would have gun ports and a battering ram but not a turret or a teargas launcher.
If you share my opinion that a BEARCAT could be used either for rescues or assaults, then check out Mayor Lane’s proposed use guidelines in the Council agenda. Do these guidelines limit the usage of the vehicle sufficiently that we should go ahead and accept it? Conversely, should the City look into using or buying a different vehicle that safeguards our police without expanding their capability in a way that feels threatening to some members of our community? There are two older armored trucks in our county, albeit with inferior capabilities of a new BEARCAT. In Berkeley, for example, the City Council returned a BEARCAT and bought an armored van for their Police Department. This would seem to mirror the recommendation of our local central Democratic Club:
“In order to help encourage, develop, and implement policies that prevent military equipment from flowing into law enforcement agencies throughout Santa Cruz County, we move: That the Santa Cruz City Council's approval of the purchase of a BEARCAT with funds from the Department of Homeland Security be brought back to the Council for reconsideration, and that staff be directed to bring back alternative proposals for rescue vehicles that are less militarized for Council approval. Additionally that there be a binding City policy for grant applications and their acceptance that ensures timeliness, transparency, and full public disclosure and input.”
Tuesday’s meeting brings up questions of transparency in government, the breadth of police powers , and the necessity of protecting our police officers. If you are not sure whether or not to weigh in on this issue, please consider following the advice of US Representative Sam Farr, who rarely opines on local issues. In a letter to the people of Santa Cruz, he writes:
“I believe people have the absolute right to petition their government to change things they don’t like. If the people of Santa Cruz want to get rid of the Bearcat, they need to petition the city council which took the action that allowed the Bearcat to come to Santa Cruz. Contact the mayor and city council members with your thoughts and attend the March 24 City Council meeting. They have the power to rescind the purchase. If this were a federal issue I’d be at the front of the line trying to correct whatever missteps were taken. But this is a local issue and needs to be corrected at the local level.”
That’s March 24th, 7PM at 809 Center Street, and/or send in your comments to citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Your Advocate on the City Council,
Micah Posner
"rectifying the process by which it came to the Council"
"propose a policy in which the City Council would review grants BEFORE"
"items came in to the Council to accept the grants under a tight time-line"
"concerned about the major exceptions"
"a dense document [...] is not widely read"
All of the above are common techniques for hiding the dirty details. Often those techniques are used in a premeditated fashion, which speaks to intent.
"a FINAL decision"
As does that!
Another commonly abused technique is the use of 'guidelines' instead of laws with teeth, teeth that could dissuade law enforcement from engaging in tragically common unaccountable behaviors like shooting innocent people dead in the streets. Why law enforcement, and other .gov bodies like City Council, are so adverse to such accountability is an unanswered question, which reflects quite poorly on the powers that be.
(Yes, Minister is a classic comedy series from England, stuffed full of political tricks)
"propose a policy in which the City Council would review grants BEFORE"
"items came in to the Council to accept the grants under a tight time-line"
"concerned about the major exceptions"
"a dense document [...] is not widely read"
All of the above are common techniques for hiding the dirty details. Often those techniques are used in a premeditated fashion, which speaks to intent.
"a FINAL decision"
As does that!
Another commonly abused technique is the use of 'guidelines' instead of laws with teeth, teeth that could dissuade law enforcement from engaging in tragically common unaccountable behaviors like shooting innocent people dead in the streets. Why law enforcement, and other .gov bodies like City Council, are so adverse to such accountability is an unanswered question, which reflects quite poorly on the powers that be.
(Yes, Minister is a classic comedy series from England, stuffed full of political tricks)
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
Harvey Makay, author of the popular business advice book 'Swim With The Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive" had a VERY important piece of business wisdom that NONE of the council members seems to understand and it's causing some confusion for COMPETENT people viewing what happened at the December meeting
Paraphrased: "When everyone is saying you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO do something, and it has to happen right now, or the deal goes away, and the pressure is on...
Don't do it."
The pic at the top is from his 'short form' (looong pdf link to it below). It says about the same, plus some other advice for the council.
(Sheesh! I wonder if these folks are as incompetent in their business lives as they are as council people and how DID they get elected?)
Paraphrased: "When everyone is saying you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO do something, and it has to happen right now, or the deal goes away, and the pressure is on...
Don't do it."
The pic at the top is from his 'short form' (looong pdf link to it below). It says about the same, plus some other advice for the council.
(Sheesh! I wonder if these folks are as incompetent in their business lives as they are as council people and how DID they get elected?)
For more information:
http://credu.bookzip.co.kr/sub/audio/PDFVI...
It is my disregarded opinion the city council reps for the "New Business Ethic"... IOW, none... and it shows. THEY HAD TO KNOW, given the way the demand for funding was delivered on a NO-NOTICE basis, that the pressure was intentional, because NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would do such a thing as deliver a no-notice request for funding.
In my opinion, the 'pressure' was intended, and used as, as a convenient 'foil', a "Straw Issue" to blame instead of taking responsibility for a predestined shoo-in vote.
In my estimation the city council is, quite simply, (as stated in a previous post) incompetent, and need to be recalled. or recalled for what are simply "Unethical business practices". The city manager goes first. One can see him on an almost daily basis meeting casually with the SCPD's brass. He HAD TO KNOW the bearcat deal was in the works and DID NOT inform his employers... The city council.
In my opinion, the 'pressure' was intended, and used as, as a convenient 'foil', a "Straw Issue" to blame instead of taking responsibility for a predestined shoo-in vote.
In my estimation the city council is, quite simply, (as stated in a previous post) incompetent, and need to be recalled. or recalled for what are simply "Unethical business practices". The city manager goes first. One can see him on an almost daily basis meeting casually with the SCPD's brass. He HAD TO KNOW the bearcat deal was in the works and DID NOT inform his employers... The city council.
RETREAD TACTICS
Steve Pleich's Call to Arms--attend yet another City Council meeting--sounds wearily familiar, walking the line between encouraging participation and avoiding any strong criticism of Mayor Lane. Lane severely disappointed activists for delaying the issue, avoiding important questions, not holding the meeting in the larger Civic Auditorium, and acting as waterboy for Chief Vogel and the SCPD.
Every poster on this website opposes the Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck (abbreviating obscures the reality).
Repeatedly activists, now commandeered by SCRAM, have come to City Council and shoehorned themselves into the Oral Communications period at 5 PM after staff have left and filled up the half hour period decreed by Mayor Lane with two minute speeches,
QUESTIONABLE VICTORY
SCRAM activists told us they had secured a victory by getting Lane to put the issue on the agenda and getting the meeting moved to the Civic Auditorium and the time to 7 PM. It will be at 7, but the only issues on the agenda is the City staff's affirmation of Chief Vogel's loophole-packed policy for BearCat use and a very limited accountability/notice process that, as Posner notes, is significantly limited. The return of the BearCat is not the issue and is not even mentioned in the staff report. Nor are the costs. This is a victory?
Is SCRAM denouncing this turnabout in the media? Perhaps I'm not tuning in to the right channel.
Playing pattycake with politicians behind closed doors may not be the best way to influence politicians or to empower the community on this issue. It may bolster the prestige of activist leaders as powerbrokers. Do closed meetings, tete-a-tete's with leaders, and backroom negotiations really suit the movement for police transparency and accountability? Expecting good results from this Mayor and this City Council without showing power is, I think, at best naive.
It's particularly telling that while activists around the country are marching in the street, we obediently line up to make our two-minute statements at City Council, hold conferences with politicians, then come back again two weeks later to repeat the process.
WE NEED TO GO DEEPER
HUFF, the group I work with, has been concerned about militarization of the police (and local police abuse) for decades and held four different informational tablings in front of the police station. The BearCat is an important symbol which in this case epitomizes both the unapologetic and ugly face of our (and other) police departments. The backroom power of the SCPD also shows through--in the way it was acquired (and the Mayor and City Council's refusal to directly address important questions and reschedule a vote on the real issue--its acquisition).
Organizations belonging to SCRAM are to be commended for their persistence and voice in the limited actions they have taken thus far. We can only hope they'll go further.
HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) will continue to focus on specific abuses by the SCPD, their perpetual lack of transparency and accountability, and their links with those in power. See "No More Bigotry As Usual" at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/12/13/flyer__for__12-17.pdf and "SCPD--No Disclosure of When People were PepperSprayed, Choked, Tasered, Gun-Bullied or Shot" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/04/18765028.php .
SCRAM Scraps HUFF
Organizations working with SCRAM should know that the SCRAM central committee decided to remove HUFF as a supporting organization without specific explanation, notice, or hearing, rewriting their fliers to exclude HUFF.
We support the return of the BearCat and real notice and accountability for police acquisitions--as SCRAM is properly calling for. We support the three SCRAM demands. Of course, we need to go further and address day-to-day militarization and abuses.
We regret the elitist exclusion of HUFF. We hope that member organizations will work with us to take local action to oppose local abuses in the months ahead--whether around the BearCat or other abuses that more directly and immediately impact the community.
Steve Pleich's Call to Arms--attend yet another City Council meeting--sounds wearily familiar, walking the line between encouraging participation and avoiding any strong criticism of Mayor Lane. Lane severely disappointed activists for delaying the issue, avoiding important questions, not holding the meeting in the larger Civic Auditorium, and acting as waterboy for Chief Vogel and the SCPD.
Every poster on this website opposes the Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck (abbreviating obscures the reality).
Repeatedly activists, now commandeered by SCRAM, have come to City Council and shoehorned themselves into the Oral Communications period at 5 PM after staff have left and filled up the half hour period decreed by Mayor Lane with two minute speeches,
QUESTIONABLE VICTORY
SCRAM activists told us they had secured a victory by getting Lane to put the issue on the agenda and getting the meeting moved to the Civic Auditorium and the time to 7 PM. It will be at 7, but the only issues on the agenda is the City staff's affirmation of Chief Vogel's loophole-packed policy for BearCat use and a very limited accountability/notice process that, as Posner notes, is significantly limited. The return of the BearCat is not the issue and is not even mentioned in the staff report. Nor are the costs. This is a victory?
Is SCRAM denouncing this turnabout in the media? Perhaps I'm not tuning in to the right channel.
Playing pattycake with politicians behind closed doors may not be the best way to influence politicians or to empower the community on this issue. It may bolster the prestige of activist leaders as powerbrokers. Do closed meetings, tete-a-tete's with leaders, and backroom negotiations really suit the movement for police transparency and accountability? Expecting good results from this Mayor and this City Council without showing power is, I think, at best naive.
It's particularly telling that while activists around the country are marching in the street, we obediently line up to make our two-minute statements at City Council, hold conferences with politicians, then come back again two weeks later to repeat the process.
WE NEED TO GO DEEPER
HUFF, the group I work with, has been concerned about militarization of the police (and local police abuse) for decades and held four different informational tablings in front of the police station. The BearCat is an important symbol which in this case epitomizes both the unapologetic and ugly face of our (and other) police departments. The backroom power of the SCPD also shows through--in the way it was acquired (and the Mayor and City Council's refusal to directly address important questions and reschedule a vote on the real issue--its acquisition).
Organizations belonging to SCRAM are to be commended for their persistence and voice in the limited actions they have taken thus far. We can only hope they'll go further.
HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) will continue to focus on specific abuses by the SCPD, their perpetual lack of transparency and accountability, and their links with those in power. See "No More Bigotry As Usual" at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/12/13/flyer__for__12-17.pdf and "SCPD--No Disclosure of When People were PepperSprayed, Choked, Tasered, Gun-Bullied or Shot" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/04/18765028.php .
SCRAM Scraps HUFF
Organizations working with SCRAM should know that the SCRAM central committee decided to remove HUFF as a supporting organization without specific explanation, notice, or hearing, rewriting their fliers to exclude HUFF.
We support the return of the BearCat and real notice and accountability for police acquisitions--as SCRAM is properly calling for. We support the three SCRAM demands. Of course, we need to go further and address day-to-day militarization and abuses.
We regret the elitist exclusion of HUFF. We hope that member organizations will work with us to take local action to oppose local abuses in the months ahead--whether around the BearCat or other abuses that more directly and immediately impact the community.
RN writes:
"Organizations working with SCRAM should know that the SCRAM central committee decided to remove HUFF as a supporting organization without specific explanation, notice, or hearing, rewriting their fliers to exclude HUFF."
Robert, the explanation is simple, and has been pointed out many times over. You are pathologically incapable of working with others (and unlike your claim 'I work with" you ARE "HUFF") and you yourself feel the need to COMMANDEER. PeaceCamp2010 being the classic example. Your inability to work with lawyers is another. YOU need to 'run the show' or you simply blow the show up..
I might be the one taking potshots from the Anarchic sidelines regularly on this site but I LIVE WHAT I SAY and IN A PINCH, on the ground, I put my time and body on the line for others. You flee when you can't be the center of the attention/storm. It's a pattern you repeat over and over.
Of COURSE no one wants to work with you. You are a 'protest of one' and it's about YOU not the issues you purport to represent.
"Organizations working with SCRAM should know that the SCRAM central committee decided to remove HUFF as a supporting organization without specific explanation, notice, or hearing, rewriting their fliers to exclude HUFF."
Robert, the explanation is simple, and has been pointed out many times over. You are pathologically incapable of working with others (and unlike your claim 'I work with" you ARE "HUFF") and you yourself feel the need to COMMANDEER. PeaceCamp2010 being the classic example. Your inability to work with lawyers is another. YOU need to 'run the show' or you simply blow the show up..
I might be the one taking potshots from the Anarchic sidelines regularly on this site but I LIVE WHAT I SAY and IN A PINCH, on the ground, I put my time and body on the line for others. You flee when you can't be the center of the attention/storm. It's a pattern you repeat over and over.
Of COURSE no one wants to work with you. You are a 'protest of one' and it's about YOU not the issues you purport to represent.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network