This blog is longer and more detailed than previous blogs in this trilogy about my case with the Las Cruces Police Department because its thesis is more circumstantial and more serious.
No one in the Las Cruces government—Mayor, Councilors, City Managers, City Attorney, Police Chiefs—has defended or explained the refusal of the LCPD to drop five, admittedly false, admittedly minor, allegations of animal code violations in over 4 years. Internal Affairs admitted that they are false; I have admitted that they are minor. Those who have discussed the matter with me think that the city government’s refusal is absurd. Yet no one in city government has done anything to rectify this wrong. Why? Why is this case different from other cases in which false charges are routinely dropped?
Answers differ. One is the instinctive, institutional defensiveness of officials and their refusal to admit mistakes, especially the longer they have refused to do so. Two is their fear that any admission might prompt legal action resulting in adverse publicity for the city and the LCPD. For, if the allegations were officially admitted to be false, then questions would arise about why they were made and have not been dropped. Three is their resentment of public criticism exposing their failures and foibles to other officials and concerned citizens. So, when then IA Sergeant, now Deputy Police Chief responsible for IA, Sean Mullen expressed his resentment to the Police Chief, “Mr. Hays … protested the facts in emails, blogs, phone calls and meetings,” he spoke for Las Cruces officials.
Yet I am not convinced that defensiveness, fear, and resentment are the only reasons for the refusal of Las Cruces government officials to right a wrong and offer an apology Four is antisemitism. Their conduct fits the patterns. Typically, antisemites do not admit, disavow, or apologize for their antisemitic words or deeds; or, if not given to such words or deeds themselves, tolerate them in others. My case has challenged City Council and the LCPD to confront antisemitism; by declining the challenge, they fit the pattern.
I admit that, in response to this official disregard of antisemitism, I have changed from suspecting the possibility of antisemitism to subscribing to the probability of it. The LCPD’s and particularly IA’s contradictory positions and inconsistent conduct reflect their inability to deal with antisemitism in the ranks (with no Jew in blue) and reveal their refusal to drop false allegations because of antisemitism. Details follow.
* * * * * * *
Antisemitism had not occurred to me as a motive for the five false allegations when, on 5 August 2019, I filed a formal complaint. That evening, puzzled by them, I asked my ex-wife, an Episcopalian, why she thought I had received them. She said that it was the “house.” Still puzzled, I asked what she meant; she said that it was the Star of David above the garage door. I wrote the Police Chief an email with a picture of my garage and urged an IA investigation of the AOC’s motives. “I now expect a very good answer. Lacking one, I shall feel free to draw my own conclusions.” The Chief forwarded my email with the short message “FYI” to the IA Chief. I did not file a complaint about the ACO’s possible antisemitism because I believe that it is not a crime, but a psychological construct and a moral defect.
The IA Chief responded to the Chief’s email by doing nothing for some time. On 5 August, an IA investigator indicated a two-week IA investigation of my allegations; when nothing had happened by 3 September, I wrote the Chief about the delay. On that date, Mullen emailed the Codes Enforcement Administrator:
After a review, this matter was determined to be a non-serious nature that would be best addressed at the shift/section level. This incident will be closed out in IA with no investigation and is being referred to you as a Supervisory Matter.
The Administrator’s 11 September memorandum on this ”non-serious” “Supervisory Matter” to the Chief found no merit in my complaint. It did not address the truth or falsity of the allegations; it admitted that I had a multi-animal permit but recommended no action. It omitted the “FYI” matter of antisemitism, about which the Administrator was unlikely to be a “subject matter expert” on antisemitism. Although the Chief had promised a written response to my complaint, I received none. Instead, on 20 September, the IA Chief wrote to explain the process of an IA investigation and the assignment of the investigation to the Administrator.
I determined Codes Enforcement Chief…was the most qualified person to handle your complaint. He has experience as an animal control officer and as a supervisor for the codes enforcement section. He is the subject matter expert for your complaint.
Mullen’s and the IA Chief’s emails make no reference to antisemitism. Neither IA nor the LCPD took antisemitism seriously enough even to mention it, much less investigate it.
* * * * * * *
A sudden change occurred on 22 September when my blog “LCPD Trumped-Up Code Violations Suggest Antisemitism” appeared. On 27 September, Mullen emailed me that “Your complaint has been updated to investigate the allegation of bias based policing” and that the original IA investigator had been reassigned to my case. I spoke with him to express my disapproval of adding antisemitism to my complaint, explained my reasons, and demanded its withdrawal. However, because I believe that antisemitism is a serious matter and had identified it as serious, I said that the delay in addressing it seemed to indicate that IA did not take it seriously. Mullen later imputed a bogus contradiction to me. On the one hand, I did not want to file or support a formal complaint; on the other, I claimed to be serious about antisemitism. He either could not comprehend their co-existence or found it convenient to use the former alternative as a rationalization for not investigating antisemitism—a position which he later contradicted in a memorandum.
More delay. The matter of antisemitism did not arise again until a 7 December 2020 meeting of District 1 Councilor, Interim City Manager, Police Chief, herself, and me. I noted that IA had not taken antisemitism seriously enough to investigate it. The Chief objected by asserting but not supporting his claim that it was taken seriously. When Mullen wrote his 5 February memorandum to the Chief, in the section “General Order 165.01(A) Bias Based Policing,” he touched upon antisemitism lightly in his interview with the ACO officer and heavily in his conclusion. In a redacted portion, Mullen wrote:
Mr. Hays doesn’t like the fact a warning notice was left on his gate. He challenges the complaints [sic] validity since the caller chose to remain anonymous. He protested the facts in emails, blogs, phone calls and meetings. The notice was left by ACO to have the property owner call in and the Animal Control Officer educate them on the reason for the visit to their home and the city ordinances required by every pet owner. In an email and blog authored by Mr. Hays, he suggested antisemitism within LCPD, specifically in this instance with [the ACO]. He noted a large Star of David which hangs above the garage at his home as motivation for [the ACO]’s actions. Mr. Hays told [the IA Chief and [the Chief] during a meeting on January 7, 2020, with City Staff that he wasn’t complaining of biased [sic] based policing. LCPD is obligated to look into any suggestion of biased [sic] based policing whether or not the citizen files an official complaint.
During my interview [the ACO] advised he is not targeting Mr. Hays’ [sic] because of his beliefs, religion or any other reason. He just happened to be the officer who took this call for service. By the same measure where Mr. Hays said there is no evidence to support violations at his home; [sic] there is absolutely no evidence to suggest any bias or targeting of Mr. Hays by [the ACO] or LCPD.
Mullen’s first three comments, all derogatory, have nothing to do with antisemitism and misrepresent my views. His next statement is irrelevant; what the ACO’s purpose was and what his practice was are two different things. Mullen later distorts my comments on bias based policing. The record is clear; until I made the issue of antisemitism public, the LCPD defaulted on what he claims is its obligation. After my blog appeared, IA hastily included it in my complaint; after I protested its inclusion, IA as hastily removed it. Thereafter, the LCPD ignored its obligation.
Without having investigated antisemitism, Mullen raised the issue in the interview with the ACO. He accepted his denial at face value—insufficient in an investigation. His denial implies that any other ACO officer would have acted as he had: allege five false code violations and raise a suspicion of antisemitic motive. Mullen’s claim that “there is absolutely no evidence” to suggest antisemitism is overstated because Mullen has little more idea about what evidence would suggest it than he has about how to conduct an investigation into the suggestion of antisemitism. Evidence of antisemitism is not limited to the obvious displays of swastikas or slogans like “Death to the Jews” or “Kill the Kikes,” or attacks on Jewish community centers or temples; it extends to silent or invisible discrimination in education, employment, housing, and law enforcement.
* * * * * * *
I almost want to write QED. The government of the City of the Crosses is antisemitic. Despite my many blogs, no one on City Council has addressed the issue. The LCPD did not take the suggestion of antisemitism seriously, juggled its concerns according to the politics of appearances, and shifted its views to ensure that it avoided the issue. “FYI” does not signal seriousness. Inaction until a blog suggests LCPD antisemitism does not signal seriousness. Assignment of the investigation to someone with “expertise” in code violations like long grass and barking dogs, but not antisemitism does not suggest seriousness. Repeated misrepresentations of my reasons for not wanting antisemitism included in my complaint, to serve as a rationale for abandoning an investigation into antisemitism, do not signal seriousness. An unsupported assertion by the Chief that the LCPD takes antisemitism seriously does not signal seriousness. Indeed, this record of unserious action or inaction contradicts the claim that “LCPD is obligated to look into any suggestion of biased [sic] based policing whether or not the citizen files an official complaint.” At the suggestion of antisemitism, the officials of city government showed themselves variously uncertain, indecisive, incompetent, inconsistent, and professionally bankrupt. That was then.
This is now. In December, I met with Police Chief Story and sketched my case to him. He expressed sincere-seeming concerns about it. When I wrote to thank him for his time, I offered to discuss the related issue of antisemitism if he were interested. He was not; I have had no reply in over four months. He is unwilling to answer the obvious question: if antisemitism is not an important part of the reason for the LCPD’s refusal to retract the allegations and offer an apology for them, what explains its failure to correct the record.
His predecessors’ lack of seriousness about antisemitism is good evidence of antisemitism in the LCPD from the top down then. That Chief Story has done nothing to right a wrong implicating antisemitism is good evidence of antisemitism in the LCPD from the top down now. And members of City Council who say nay or do nothing must explain why antisemitism is no factor in the failure of city government to drop and apologize for the five false, minor allegations in nearly 5 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment