OakTalk

No one who watched the eviction of demonstrators from Frank Ogawa Plaza can feel good about the way this situation was handled.  Nor can anyone fail to be stunned and saddened by the serious injuries sustained by Iraqui War veteran Scott Olson.  The failures at the root of Tuesday’s terrible events, however, were not policing failures; they were failures of City leadership and management. For that we have to look to the Mayor’s office.

History tells us that even the best planned and most carefully executed police action of this type, involving demonstrators who typically show a range of behavior from absolute non-violence to provocation to assaults on officers, will invariably result in some injuries.   Notwithstanding Mayor Quan’s attempts yesterday to minimize her own knowledge and involvement, the police in this case were simply doing as they were told.

Questions to be answered are these: how did things reach the point where this police action was necessary? Why did the Mayor and City Council send mixed messages to the demonstrators–one day “showing solidarity,”  camping with them, leading them to believe they were welcome at the Plaza, and then later moving to an action like this when the demonstrators settled in for a prolonged stay?

The demonstrators had a right to peacefully assemble and express themselves. However, this was public land designated for multiple purposes. The City is responsible for that land.   Well-settled law tells us that the City had both a right and a responsibility to balance the right to demonstrate on public land with narrowly constructed, content neutral restrictions that still allowed the demonstrators to get their message out.  The responsible course of management from the start was to make very clear the city’s reasonable time, place and manner rules for the use of the plaza.  No mixed messages, no trying to have it both ways.

Here is how it should have worked. The Mayor should have communicated with the group once it arrived two weeks ago, advised them of the need for a permit to occupy the plaza, and then spelled out what the requirements for the permit would be.  In other cities (and here too), camping in a public plaza or city park is not permitted–but assembling for free speech is.  As an example, a permit could have stipulated that the group may assemble, but could not camp. Group members would not be allowed there if they destroyed or damaged property, or impeded the ability of others to also use the plaza. As long as the permit restrictions were not drawn to censor what the demonstrators were saying, AND so long as the restrictions were narrow (not a big infringement) and tailored to advance a public interest (e.g., public safety) AND allowed the demonstrators to get their message out–the permit would be lawful under the First Amendment. The demonstrators would still be allowed to protest–and Tuesday’s chaos would not have occurred.

Mayor Quan managed the last two weeks’ events very badly.  She exacerbated the management failure yesterday by denying involvement in the planning of the police action and trying to pass the blame to the City Administrator.  While offering at best faint praise for the police  (“The mayor said ‘I don’t know everything’ when asked by reporters if she was satisfied with how police conducted the sweep”) she inferentially faulted 1% of them.

This week’s episode conjures memories of 2010, when City Council members, including then Council Member Quan, inserted themselves between police and demonstrators  in the aftermath of the Oscar Grant verdict, allegedly to protect the demonstrators from the police–but more likely to posture for news pictures in the middle of an election.

We don’t know if every officer at the scene did everything correctly.  But we do know that the entire problem could have been avoided if the City had laid out reasonable, clear and consistent conditions for allowing the Occupy Oakland demonstration from the start. Tragically, the City’s leadership sacrificed clarity of position in favor of photo opportunities and mixed messages.

Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts’s resignation on Tuesday was an enormous blow to a city already facing a public safety crisis and a murder rate that is spiraling upward.  Chief Batts, one of the most respected public safety professionals in the United States, came to Oakland in 2009 with a police department strategy designed to dramatically improve police/community relations, turn police department morale around and,  most importantly make Oakland one of the safest cities in California.

Two years later, Oakland’s mayor and city council have implemented budget-cutting measures that will ultimately reduce sworn police staffing by nearly 25%.  They have slapped down nearly every “force multiplying” measure the Chief has proposed, eliminated the police helicopter, severely limited the use of gang injunctions and refused to consider proposed curfew and anti-loitering measures.  Most recently, the mayor and city council members have proposed that if the Measure I  parcel tax proposal passes, half or less than half the proceeds will go toward academies, police staffing and equipment.  So passage of Measure I will result in only a minimal increase in police.

Thus, it is hardly a surprise that Chief Batts chose to leave. Oakland gave the Chief none of the tools he needed to succeed and set him up to fail.  The question is not why he left. The question is what Oakland should do next.

Mayor Quan has already announced plans for a “nationwide search” for Batts’ replacement.  Such a search would cost the city well into six figures.  Make Oakland Better Now! believes this is not the time for a nationwide search.  Instead, we urge Mayor Quan to hire a long-term interim Chief from within the department and immediately focus the City’s energies on comprehensive reform of all of our public safety efforts.  Unless reform is and effectiveness are  our first priorities, Oakland will never find another satisfactory candidate for Chief of Police.

The first step in reforming our public safety systems is a long-term plan to increase and retain officers.  Seven years ago we sent the message to City Hall that Oakland needed at least 803 police officers (Measure Y).  When Chief Batts arrived, he announced that by all accepted law enforcement standards we needed 100 more than that.  Under the City’s current plan for 2011-13, attrition will reduce the sworn head-count to fewer than 600.  While the recently announced federal grant (received as a result of Chief Batts’ outstanding efforts in Washington) will increase this number by 25, that increase falls far short of our needs.

Oakland must make the hard choices necessary to increase and retain sworn officers. This means sacrificing some city programs that have significant constituencies.  This means budgeting for a sufficient number of police academies each year.  This means looking for budget reforms that make  more money available for public safety.    And it means redoubling efforts to negotiate a  second-tier salary schedule for newly hired officers.

But Oakland must do more than this.  The mayor must collaborate with the Police Chief, the Police Department and the Police Officers’ Association to bring the Department into full compliance with the Riders Settlement.  It is estimated that this alone could free up to $2 million,.  That money could be spent on police staffing.

Furthermore, the Mayor and Council MUST set policy based on informed professional advice, and then let the professionals — the Chief and others — actually run the Department and the programs that  combat crime. We must stop micro-management by unqualified politicians and bureaucrats.

Finally, Oakland must bring focus, direction and accountability to its violence prevention programs.  Through Measure Y alone, Oakland sprinkles nearly $6 million per year across a broad spectrum of programs.  For some programs, there may be clear lines from the money spent to violence reduction.  For others, the connection is tenuous, the amounts spent are too small to be impactful, or both.  Oakland does not have a spare dollar to waste on measures that do not reduce crime in confirmed, measurable ways.  We must only fund those violence prevention programs that have demonstrable, positive effects on crime in our community.

Once Oakland’s leaders have taken these steps – solving the police staffing problem, pulling the department through court supervision, ending the micro-management  and spending violence prevention money wisely – it will be in a position to attract and retain a top leader for its police department.  Until then, a “nation-wide search” will be a distraction from the essential steps we must take to end our public safety crisis.