Santa Cruz Indymedia :
Santa Cruz Indymedia

LOCAL Announcement :: Police State

"Just Us" Campaign against SCPD spying update

The "Just Us" campaign continues! The latest news:

Councilmember Tony Madrigal is calling for an independent investigation regarding police surveillance at community meetings, such as the meetings of the organizers of the Last Night DIY Parade.

It will be on Tuesday's 3pm City Council agenda. (Jan. 24)

We will have a pre-meeting rally at Tuesday 2:30pm at the City Hall. Bring yourself and your friends to help ensure the City Council votes in favor of conducting an independent investigation. Spread the word. It is about time the council broke their silence.

In addition to attending the meeting or if you cannot attend the
meeting, you can email the entire City Council at
CityCouncil (at), to express your support for
conducting an independent investigation.

New Comments are disabled, please visit


City Manager to Appoint Independent Investigator? Please.

Check out the one page staff report by that fighting crusader against police misconduct Tony Madrigal:

[ (item #23)]

The text reads:
DATE: January 18, 2006
AGENDA OF: January 24, 2006
DEPARTMENT: City Council
RECOMMENDATION:  That the City Council, by motion, direct the City Manager to conduct an independent investigation surrounding recent incidents of police surveillance at community meetings.
BACKGROUND:  At its January 10, 2006 City Council meeting, the Council heard complaints, concerns, and demands for Council action from more than a dozen members of the public, regarding the Santa Cruz Police Department and the conduct of two of its officers at planning meetings for a “Last Day Santa Cruz DIY? New Year’s Eve parade that took place on December 31, 2005.  Furthermore, we have received numerous emails and other forms of communications expressing a strong community concern about this issue. 
DISCUSSION:   In addition to the concerns of the public, it has been brought to the Council’s attention that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a Public Records
Act request to look into whether or not the privacy rights of the attendees of these planning meetings were violated.  Finally, public concern has been expressed about the City’s action to conduct its own internal investigation.  
FISCAL IMPACT:  Approval of the above recommendation has unspecified fiscal implications.
Submitted by: Tony Madrigal

Though the title says "independent investigation", the resolution is to send the investigation to the City Manager Dick Wilson. Wilson appointed Police Chief Skerry. The SCPD higherups have overseen similar coverup operations in the past (Officer Loran Baker in sexual improprieties with 10 women in 1992; the Happy John Dine slaying by Officer Connor Cary in 1997).

I suggest Just Us and whatever other community organizations are interested in making real change here hold their own public hearings, using public documents obtained through Public Records Act requests, as well as taking public testimony from those who have been spied on in the past.

I'll be bringing the matter up at the HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) meeting on Wednesday morning 8:30 AM at the County Building (in the breezeway between the courthouse and the county building).

Note also that the City Council itself will be conducting a "Public Employees Performance Evaluation" of the City Manager at 7:30 pm on Wednesday January 24th in the City Council Courtyard Conference room (right next to Council chambers).

Though this is a closed session, the public is permitted to testify on items before the review begins at an "open interval".

It would be salutary for those who oppose this continuing spying business (and other police abuses such as tasering, selective enforcement, pain compliance holds and assaults on protesters at UCSC's Tent City last April, etc.) to hold City Manager Dick Wilson accountable and demand a real explanation. He appointed Skerry (with no real public input or public hearings).

The Homeland Security grants are regularly granted. Patriot Act cooperation may be proceeding apace. Wilson helped kill the Bill of Rights Defense Committee's bid to establish stronger safeguards two years ago.

It's true that this Wilson "review" is really a closed session farce, which is a routine rubberstamping. It could be forced into being a more open forum if enough people attended with concerns.

The City Council agenda describes the January 24th session as follows:

Special Closed Litigation Session
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
7:30 p.m.                        Closed Litigation Session, Courtyard Conference Room
At 7:30 p.m., the presiding Officer will open the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Closed and Litigation sessions in a public meeting in the Courtyard Conference Room, for the purpose of announcing the agenda; thereafter the meeting will be closed to the public.
A. Labor Negotiations (Government Code §54957.6).  
Richard Wilson – Negotiator
Employee Organization – Executive Team (Department Heads)
B.        Public Employees Performance Evaluation (Government Code § 54957). 
City Council’s performance evaluation of City Manager
The City Attorney’s Office will present an oral report in an open session at 9:30 a.m. on January 26, 2006.
Adjournment — The City Council will adjourn from the special Closed Litigation Session meeting of January 25, 2006, to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, for a closed litigation session at 1:30 p.m. in the Courtyard Conference Room, followed by 3:00 and 7:00 p.m. open sessions in Council Chambers.
Note:  The Council Chambers will be closed ten minutes after the meeting is adjourned.

I contacted the assistant City Clerk today. She told me that the "open session" on Thursday January 25th where the Council reports of its "review" of Wilson actually amounts to nothing more than City Attorney Barisone coming to her office to say "we discussed the city manager".

Of course, if there were a crowd in her office on Thursday morning, demanding public comment on the report--which the public is entitled to do, the Council would have to assemble a quorum and allow it. And maybe even respond to it.

I have zero confidence in this council to truly hold its powerful staff accountable. But if people come in numbers, they will be forced to go through the motions of doing so. And ultimately some Council members who once nurtured notions of independence (Porter and Fitzmaurice) may actually make a move or two.

Correction: City Council's Report is on Thursday the 26th

Thursday is the 26th not the 25th. The "report" will supposedly take place at "open session" in the City Clerk's office at 9:30 AM on Thursday January 26th.

Again with the negative

"Check out the one page staff report by that fighting crusader against police misconduct Tony Madrigal:"

If Tony Madrigal doesn't meet your litmus test, then who would? Let me guess.... NOBODY.

You continually attack everyone for not being progressive enough, and then when someone actually does something progressive, you attack them for not being progressive in the past! This is becoming such a standard practice with you that I think people are apt to appreciate those you criticize even more than if you hadn't criticized them at all.

Stick to the issue. People can see what you're about.

Madrigal is not the issue; meaningful SCPD control is.

Hey, anonymous. Are you suggesting that City Manager Dick Wilson's investigation will be "independent"? How about inviting Dick Cheney to investigate NSA spying?

I think the text of Madrigal's resolution speaks for itself.

On Madrigal's bad record:

Madrigal also has a weak history on the old Citizens Police Review Board. He has backpedaled or remained silent on civil rights issues for the homeless. He failed to offer such support at the SEIU internally.

On the plus side, Madrigal has been supportive of unions such as IATSE and SEIU (sometimes unilaterally so). Since he's a paid union guy, this is kind of expected.

The point here, of course, is whether the police department has been lying to the public and (like Bush) either breaking the law or using procedures which, if known, would be rejected by a majority of our community.

And whether Madrigal's resolution has anything to do with finding this out.

The anonymous poster needs to set aside his distaste for me and consider the broader issue.

Re: "Just Us" Campaign against SCPD spying update

I welcome an independent investigation, but ask: How independent can any investigation by city auditors of city employees really be? The city council has the authority to pass an ordinance prohibiting police spying, and they should.

I'd like to see 3 things come out of this:

1. full disclosure of ALL surveillance of ANY peaceful political group in the last three years, including any ties to federal and state law enforcement
2. an ordinance absolutely prohibiting the city police department from conducting surveillance of peaceful political groups
3. the police chief and city manager held accountable for police spying on citizens

Personally, I hope we will reach a point where the people of Santa Cruz will be able to express their free speech and free assembly rights without fear that there is a cop lurking in their midst.

As of this time, the full records that the police department was obligated by law to provide in our Public Record Act Request remain incomplete. The ACLU is filing another public records act request on our behalf this week.


The Letter the Mayor Ignored

For those interested in a critique Mayor Mathews' treatment of City Council critics (such as Rico, whom she silenced on January 10th at Oral Communications) see:

Rico's suggestions are right on.

Since it's clear the Council won't act without broader and deeper pressure (perhaps in the pocketbook through lawsuits), more organizing and independent action seems a good and necessary road.

Lots of joyous street protests can be a liberating part of all of this.

While Madrigal's "City Manager Investigation" proposal is woefully insufficient, note that Rotkin's (see today's Sentinel story) is worse. Rotkin wants us to wait until the SCPD comes up with its cover story.

For the Sentinel story check out : for the Sentinel story.

No surprise, and directly in line with Rotkin's blocking of any meaningful information about tasering, use of force guidelines, SCPD beatings at Tent U last April, and other police capers.

Rotkin, remember, is (or was) on the Board of Directors of the ACLU. The ACLU--with the stench strong enough to curl the nostrils of the respectable--is now finally taking some local action in seeking Public Records (and more power to them for doing so). What we need, though is legal power to press for action.

While we're at it, wouldn't it be nice for the city to reveal where 24 hour cameras are placed downtown on and around Pacific Avenue in the city's ("we love marijuana, but let's felony-bust the kids at Borders") Drug War?

Re: "Just Us" Campaign against SCPD spying update

Dick Wilson? Isn't that the name of the deleterious chairman of the Pine Ridge Reservation when a bunch of people were shot by police and FBI in the 70s?


No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event


Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software