At a time when a small but vocal minority is advocating for police reform, Mayor Ken Miyagishima could hardly refuse the NAACP’s invitation to its 18 March meeting, over which Dr. Bobbie Green capably and coolly presided. In their comments and questions, attendees stated their clear desire for some sort of City Council discussion about police reform, specifically about a police review board of some sort. The Mayor gave long, rambling, and marginally relevant responses and a vague promise of a work session.
A contextualizing, two-part digression. First, I voted for the Mayor in each of his four campaigns. (No doubt, my vote tipped each mayoral election in his favor.) Second, soon after his fourth win, I met with him to suggest that, if his fourth term were to be his last, he should consider his legacy. Even before George Floyd’s killing, Black Lives Matter, and Amelia Baca’s killing, I urged that it be police reform. The Mayor’s response was neither enthusiastic nor encouraging. So his dismal performance on police reform has not disappointed me, for he offered no hope.
But the Mayor has been a disappointment as the city’s elected leader, for he has done everything in his power to impede discussion of an important public issue which will remain after he leaves office. In his efforts, one of his techniques is filibustering; others are untruthful argument and calculated forgetfulness. His words at this NAACP meeting provide examples.
The first example concerns the involvement of the LCPD in the investigation into Sra. Amelia Baca’s killing. When it arose as a case suitable for a review board, the Mayor supported the sufficiency of a task force of officers from three agencies—NMSP, DACSO, and NMSUPD—operating independently, without LCPD officers. I corrected his claim by reporting that, whatever role LCPD officers played in the investigation, it played a role in the review of the investigators’ report. At the review meeting, six of its twenty members were LCPD officers, including the chair and the police chief. Retreating from his claim of its independence, the Mayor said that he knew nothing about LCPD attendance at the meeting and that six were not a “majority.” I chose not to reply that he had made a positive claim without having the facts about attendance or independence; that a majority is not required to influence a report of an investigation; and that no LCPD officer cared about the fact or appearance of a conflict of interest.
The second example concerns the lack of trust in the LCPD police. Several attendees mentioned distrust of the police, but the Mayor, perhaps thinking that few citizens held that opinion, downplayed it. I supported their view by citing the testimony, filmed and recorded, of then-Deputy Chief, now Chief of Police Miguel Dominguez, to City Council on 15 June 2020. I said that he admitted public distrust of the police and noted that no Council member asked for an explanation. To evade the criticism, the Mayor said that he did not recall Dominguez’s words or their context. Again, I chose not to reply lest I appear testy. I cite Dominguez’s readily available statement, which ran in the 17 June Sun-News and appeared in my 24 June blog emailed to the Mayor and others:
Our officers are professionals. ... We will respond to your calls without fail. We know that there’s a lot of mistrust out there [emphasis now added]. We want you to know you can count on us. We are all professionals doing a tough job. We are not perfect. We make mistakes. We will own up to our mistakes. We love Las Cruces. We are a tight community. We are Las Cruces. We are here to back you up. Please reach out to us and know we are a professional organization. We really do care about our community.”
The context of Dominguez’s words is the City Council hearing on the “Eight Can’t Wait” proposals for police reform after George Floyd’s killing weeks earlier. I cannot explain the Mayor’s faulty memory of this important testimony at this significant moment by a ranking police officer.
On the matter of the review board, the Mayor invoked democratic decision making and indicated that enough Councilors disapproved of the proposal to make a work session unnecessary. I responded that democracy is exercised not only by officials, but also by citizens, and not only at the ballot box, but also by public participation in discussions of important issues between elections. I added that such discussions enable the exchange of opinions and information which often change minds. The Mayor did not reply.
Later, referring to Dominguez’s testimony, I asked what specific trust-building measures he, City Council, or the LCPD had taken to improve trust between the public and the police after that 15 June meeting. The Mayor’s answer was a few steps which, however, existed before that meeting but none taken after it. Regardless, they have not worked. It is plain that other measures must be considered and the promising ones adopted. But it is not plain to the Mayor, who impedes discussion.
The Mayor’s answers raise three questions. Why does the Mayor insist on silence and resist action on public safety? When it comes to police reform, what does he fear so much that he does not want City Council or citizens to even discuss it? Will failed leadership define his legacy after four terms in office?
No comments:
Post a Comment