Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

LOCAL News :: [none]

Letter to Scott Kennedy, Killer of Citizen Police Review

The Santa Cruz Police Department has 99 armed and potentially dangerous police officers, 33% of the general fund, and the City is facing a major budget crisis. The CPRB was in the middle of investigating multiple complaints of selective enforcement of people of color and the poor. What does our great "Statesman" Vice-Mayor Scott Kennedy do? He axes the Citizens Police Review Board and can't even get the math right.
AN OPEN LETTER TO VICE-MAYOR SCOTT KENNEDY

to: Vice-Mayor Scott Kennedy
re: the elimination of Citizen oversight of the police

January 31, 2003

Dear Vice-Mayor Scott Kennedy,

On Tuesday, January 28th, you, along with the rest of the council acted to dissolve the Citizens Police Review Board citing budget woes as your reason. Since the council's plan is to replace the 7 all-volunteer board members with a highly paid attorney, certainly any cost savings will be negligible. Nor did you even consider the reasonable request upon the part of Chair Mark Halfmoon and Vice-Chair Brent Fouse to at least finish the 5 complaints they had already spent dozens of hours reading all materials and viewing evidence in order to present their findings on those remaining complaints.

That was the last thing you wanted to happen. For the CPRB was investigating over 29 incidents of selective enforcement or harassment of poor, homeless, or people of color. You voted to order the CPRB to "cease operations" on January 29th, the very next day.

It is obvious to me that you, the actual person who gutted the effectiveness of the CPRB when it was originally enacted in 1994, were more than happy to axe the program as quickly as possible. You have on several occasions stated that you trust the police, that you count on police to use discretion---which in itself is a good thing, but in reality, this turns out to be a slavish adherence by the police to any request by a merchant and a disproportionate focus on poor and homeless people, young people, and people of color for ticketing and arrest. Did you axe the board to stop the review of the SCPD policy of selective enforcement against poor, homeless, and people of color?

You mentioned my name in your deliberations and accused me of filing three complaints in the past year. What was your meaning in this? Were you saying that because I filed them, they were false or insignificant? I know you are aware that I work closely with homeless people, and all three complaints I filed were on behalf of the poor and homeless people who I had evidence and testimony of the abuse and misconduct they had suffered at the hands of the SCPD. In the 8 years in which the CPRB has been in operation, I have filed 8 complaints. So what is your point, Scott?

I am still waiting for the CPRB to consider my complaint against Officer Guerrasio for the death of David Andress, a homeless man who Guerrasio took into custody. The death certificate reports Andress had "numerous contusions to the head from beating his own head against a brick planter".

I'm still waiting for the CPRB to review my complaint regarding the Button St. shooting on March 1998, where Bryan Andruss' wife was assaulted by an officer and then he was shot five times for attempting to defend her with a baseball bat. A case in which Sgt. Hennig shot Andrus in the back but testified he shot Andrus "as he was charging towards him."

As you were eliminating the last vestige of citizen oversight of our bloated, piggish police department (who's budget I predict will be miraculously spared in the upcoming budget cuts) your parting shot is to impugn the reputation of those who filed complaints? Insult to injury and hardly the behavior the public has the right to expect from a self-proclaimed "statesman" like yourself.

I do have sympathy for the council in trying to keep the City functional in light of the shrinking budget. I understand that scaling back on expenses is neccessary and I expect a lot of belt-tightening to occur. But your elimination of the CPRB was just wrong.

Hundreds of people worked for months and years to get that board established, and in four short days you acted to eliminate it completely with phoney stats on what the actual budget savings will be. The people of Santa Cruz are worse off today than they were before Tuesday. Your efforts to sanitize Santa Cruz of the poor, downtrodden homeless people and beggars will not go unnoticed. Your actions to eliminate any protection they may have demonstrate what a pawn you are to bigots, power-brokers, and to unchecked police power.

Sincerely,

Becky Johnson of HUFF
Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
(831) 423-HUFF or becky_johnson (at) sbcglobal.net

 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Comments

Appreciation to Kennedy and the Council

Vice Mayor Kennedy and Council members, thank you for eliminating the unnecessary and wasteful CPRB and replacing it with a hopefully more objective, effective and less political structure. It has been painfully evident for far too long that a small group of self promoting police hating bigots attempted to hijack the CPRB for their own twisted political ends. These quasi anarchists/fascists who masquerade as progressives need to be exposed and confronted whenever and wherever they attempt to infect this community. Good job!!!
 

Response to Fed-Up

Fed-up wrote:

Vice Mayor Kennedy and Council members, thank you for eliminating the unnecessary and wasteful CPRB and replacing it with a hopefully more objective, effective and less political structure.

BECKY: Don't hold your breath, Fed-up

It has been painfully evident for far too long that a small group of self promoting police hating...

BECKY: Fed-up, police review is only about police misconduct such as excessive force, filing false charges, harassment, or selective enforcement. I don't "hate" the police. I realize that the police form a neccessary function. I would not hesitate to call the police in the case of an auto accident or a burglary.

...bigots attempted to hijack the CPRB for their own twisted political ends.

BECKY: And what would those ends be? Police who follow the rule of law. Bad cops getting fired. What other "twisted agenda" do you think we have in mind?

These quasi anarchists/fascists who masquerade as progressives...

BECKY: Fed-up, invest in a dictionary. A fascist is a government who uses the police force as a private security force for the merchant class. By definition, private citizens cannot be fascists. As for masquerading as progressives, look to the city council and Scott Kennedy for the best examples we have in town.

need to be exposed and confronted whenever and wherever they attempt to infect this community. Good job!!!

BECKY: the only thing you have exposed is a bunch of name-calling and faulty reasoning. When you get a clue, write again, Fed-up. p.s. I noticed you cannot even give your name or a contact e-mail. why are you hiding?
 

Response to Becky

 

Response to Becky

Ms Johnson, unfortunately my initial response to you was lost in the ether. I will try again but in an abreviated fashion. First, I trust our elected officials. You obviously do not. Second, you are entitled to your definition of "police review". However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the original ordinance passed by our city council when the CPRB was created. You are perfectly capable of accessing this information on the CPRB website. Third, only God and you really know what you and Robert's, et. al. twisted agenda really is because you guys are all over the map. The only guiding principle I can see is whatever gets you the most attention at the time. Fourth, I have access to a dictionary. In my case this is essential because I only have a seventh grade education. I think my characterization of you and your fellow malcontents as quasi anarchists/fascists is appropriate for several reasons. Quasi,i.e. resembling, fascists,i.e. authoritarian control, anarchists,i.e., all forms of government are oppressive and should be abolished. Becky, you obviously hate and distrust government, but at the same time you believe that you have ALL and I mean ALL the answers to how people should live and more importantly, the rules, if any, they should live under. For you and Robert, et.al., the most important and fundamental issue is that YOU know best and should have complete and total control. So, you see my desciption kind of captures the spirit of your ideology, if not the essence. Lastly, you know perfectly well why I won't identify myself. When we both posted a while back about your infantile chalking in front of the vet's hall a fellow poster indicated that he "was going to bring a gun and shoot some police snitches". The "police snitch" reference was your's when I stated that I would summon an officer and have you cited under the city ordinance prohibiting such behavior. You and Robert didn't have the fundamental decency to write back and say anything about such a threat. Steve Argue, to his credit, did make a moral statement about the threat. Becky, you are completely and utterly bankrupt both spiritually and morally. I will write whatever I choose whenever I choose because you and your ilk need to be exposed for what you are and are not.
 

Reassurance for Fed-Up

Fed Up:

Your references to "the real purpose" of police review as revealed by the "CPRB website" and "the original ordinance" are most obscure. Do you support citizen police review?

Independent of your hostility to Becky and me, it sounds like you have done some independent research which could clarify your position. What is it? You need to be specific.

Your denunciations of us are off base as well. Becky doesn't "hate all government". We don't seek "complete and total control". But, regardless, just denouncing us doesn't help folks understand your particular points---other than that you "trust your government officials."
Unless, of course, your point is simply to generally denounce and discredit through the intensity of your anger.

Your unwillingness to say who you are predates your apprehension about this (rather unlikely)threat to you. Becky and I have gotten such threats at different times in the last few years and continue to speak publicly on the issues. Frankly, if you let yourself be deterred by them, you do yourself and the public a disservice. Anonymous assholes make threats on occasion. If you feel what you have to say is important, just turn and calmly say it again.

I believe everyone has a right to speak--you included (and to chalk the sidewalk--this is apparently where we differ). I believe it is the government that will be asserting "total control", e.g. on Friday February 14th at 10 AM in Dept. 1 when it seeks to convict Becky for two instances of chalking peace and justice statements on the sidewalk and street.

You look foolish, however, when you simply make denunciations without substance and insist on remaining anonymous.
 

Response to Robert

Robert, for your enlightenment:

Ordinance No. 94-19, Section 2.41.20. Establishment of Citizen's Police Review Board

The Citizens' Police Review Board (CPRB) is hereby established under Santa Cruz City Charter 1001 to (a) enhance citizen understanding of the process of submitting, processing and responding to citizen complaints regarding police officers; (b)add a citizen perspective to the evaluation of these complaints, and (c) contribute to the timely, fair and objective review of citizen complaints. CPRB is established with the recognition that all people in the City of Santa Cruz deserve protection of their human and civil rights and respect for their fundamental dignity as human beings. Further, the CPRB shall provide fair treatment to and protect the rights of police officers.
Mediation is the preferred method of resolving citizen complaints. The CPRB shall encourage complainants and the Police Department to make maximum and best use of this process.

I hope this is helpful to you Robert. Becky Johnson states above, "police review is only about police misconduct such as excessive force, filing false charges, harassment, or selective enforcement". I tried to make the point that Becky's "opinion" about what "police review" is about is not contained in the ordinance. Becky is entitled to believe and elaborate about her opinions, but the ordinance as such refers to "citizens' complaints" and certainly doesn't define what constitutes police misconduct.
As to my identity, I prefer to remain anonymous for the reasons given to you on an earlier post. I also disagree with you and Becky's continuing insistance that my opinions and statements somehow are less legitimate or have less value because I remain anonymous. They are, after all, merely one person's opinions and one can agree or disagree with all or part of any of them. You note in your last sentence that, among other things, I appear "foolish" if I insist on remaining anonymous. I ask you, Robert, why respond at all to a fool and a fool's ideas?
 

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software