|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
“The Pleasanton City Council requested the City Manager bring forward a draft action plan in July that will outline a process to discuss and evaluate community policing in Pleasanton. Adoption of the action plan would be followed by near term community listening sessions, Council-sponsored meetings regarding what policing looks like today and into the future, and some implicit bias and diversity and inclusion training for the City Council. Consideration of the action plan will occur in July either at a special or regular City Council meeting.”
That’s how City Manager Nelson Fialho interpreted the direction given to him by the council majority about setting the stage for future community discussions on policing in Pleasanton.
The message was delivered during a somewhat unclear back-and-forth on the dais during the council reports portion near the very end of the four-hour public meeting via Zoom on June 16 (which featured more than a half-hour worth of public speakers on policing during non-agenda comment at the beginning of the meeting).
We translate that as the council majority want Fialho to draft an action plan that will outline the process for future community policing conversations, and then talk about that action plan — and only that action plan — during a public meeting before hosting a separate community listening session on policing at another time.
Not concurrently. Not after. Before.
This precursor meeting at a yet-unidentified date in July, where the council will apparently try to limit public comment to only the draft action plan, seems unnecessary in concept and untenable in practice.
Just start the full conversation now.
Talking about the ground rules, the schedules and the formats for future discussions and decision-making is smart, but not prior to or independent of the first open community dialogue on the overarching topic. Vocal police reformists, adamant police advocates and every one in between want to speak their minds to the council, as soon as possible.
All five council members expressly said they want to be part of a community meeting with public comment on policing. The disagreement is on the initial timing.
This City Council doesn’t shy away from tough conversations, tough decisions. But that may well be how this proposed precursor discussion on the ground rules will be perceived by a citizenry — on all sides of the debate — that seem to be demanding a full and open dialogue.
Yes it’s important to have a roadmap to guide the city’s decision-making process. A public listening session that takes the temperature of the room (i.e. gauges where members of the public are thinking right at outset) would have to be at the top of any competent action plan on this issue.
So why dance around it?
Open with a live forum, whether face-to-face in person or over Zoom, where any and all policing topics are on the table (for any resident, business owner, community leader, police officer or other person compelled to speak).
They don’t want to be relegated to email, they don’t want to answer an online survey, they don’t want a webinar with the brand-new police chief.
It’s clear what the people of Pleasanton want. They want a meaningful, honest discussion in front of the decision-makers. At the very beginning. And then more public conversations.
We know the first community meeting will be long, impassioned and uncomfortable. It’s uncomfortable that in recent years multiple Pleasanton police officers have feared for their lives to the point they felt lethal force was their only option. It’s uncomfortable how many long shifts police officers have to work. It’s uncomfortable watching the police bodycam footage of officers’ ultimately fatal encounter with Jacob Bauer. It’s uncomfortable that there was no bodycam footage of John Deming Jr.’s death.
It’s uncomfortable that so many people are uncomfortable with policing topics.
Sharing your feelings, your experiences and your ideas, and listening to each other, will be freeing too.
The public discussions are necessary. This first conversation is necessary, as soon as possible.
It’s the logical opening step given the circumstances. If you want Fialho to present an outline or draft action plan at the beginning, great. As Councilwoman Julie Testa, the most vocal opponent of the precursor meeting, said: just do it on the same evening as the first listening session.
Don’t, as Testa said, “put them in a box and limit what they can speak on” right out of the gate. Because frankly, we’re concerned how that would look in practice.
You’re going to tell them what they can and cannot talk about? On this issue?? At this time in America?!
Of course, yes, council members could literally do that — demand that public comment stay on point to the so-called draft action plan without getting into the underlying or overarching issues. That’s how they ensure meetings have decorum, remain productive and respect everybody’s valuable time.
But effectively, what would that look like in this case? Mayor Jerry Thorne is going to tell city staff to cut the mic (or mute the Zoom audio, as it may be) if a speaker strays into their ideas for police reform instead of how to improve the “policing discussion action plan”? You can be sure it’s not just going to be one speaker who does that. It would be dozens. It could be hundreds.
Bad. That’s the answer. It would look bad. Maybe unsalvageable, politically.
So don’t even try it.
We appreciate the desire of some council members to structure the conversation for thoughtful decision-making on policing policies in the city. Pleasanton is the “City of Planned Progress” after all. An action plan to frame the months of public discussion is a great idea — after you hear from residents what they want to talk about, not before.
When’s the last time anyone saw protests of that volume or diversity of participants in Pleasanton? Not ever in our 21 years of publishing the Weekly.
Those voices (and so many more, on all sides of the issue) are crying out to be heard. Demanding it.
Hear them at the beginning, so they will know you’ll hear them in the end.
They don’t want to be told what’s on the table. They’re going to set the table. Because Pleasanton is their house. Let them in.
Thank you Pleasanton Weekly! Voices need to be heard, now rather than later. Change is necessary in policing nationwide, and we need to hear the community speak in a semi-formal setting to understand the scope of the concerns and ensure that the coming changes actually serve the people of Pleasanton and our neighbors. A listening session is a good start. Bravo.
We love our Pleasanton Police and are VERY grateful for all the years they have kept this whole community safe and functioning allowing our businesses and downtown to operate and keep patrons safe! Keep up the great work PPD!
Instigators and agitators can take their complaints about police elsewhere..go to Seattle….or Berkeley, on the way make sure to step over the poop on the street and urine in the gutter, and avoid the mental health challenged homeless laying on sidewalks with typhoid, they may get upset if you wake them. The Peace Officers in P town are awesome and keep us safe. There are WAY bigger problems in this town right now to focus on….like the fact our kids may not be able to go to school! That’s why most people moved here…for the schools and safe environment to raise our kids!
Thank you Pleasanton Weekly for writing your best editorial ever. Thank you Councilmember Testa for bringing up this important issue, and stating you wanted a public discussion. I know the council has received hundreds of emails, maybe the city manager doesn’t read them or refuses to listen. You were elected to hear us, please do the right thing, Schedule a meeting and listen to us now! I was with thousands of Pleasanton residence at the peaceful protest. We will not be silenced.
There is wisdom in the old adage “In the wake of a death or other major setback, refrain from making big decisions”. My sense is that the pandemic and stay-at-home has had a dramatic effect on our perception of reality. Pre-Covid, we could count on our daily personal interactions outside the home to give grounding to reality — a necessary counterpoint to the sensationalized media bombarding our senses. Three months of social isolation have undone that balance.
Which is the more accurate reality?….that which gets media coverage, or everything going on “out there” that doesn’t?
The same ontological question needs to be asked about policing and race-relations in America. Do you trust the good/bad balance of information you’re getting while hunkered down at home?
Should we attempt to redesign local policing this summer? I think not. We should put off the topic until post-Covid, when our perceptions will be less swayed by negative news bias.
@ Pierre Bierre
Excellent perception and a point that needs special consideration. From everything we have witnessed and heard, you underscore the the need for reason with your comment.
‘Defunding’ or ‘reimagining’ law enforcement (the new talking point of liberals) requires pause, and a deep breath. People need to understand ‘what’ and ‘why’ this is happening. Exciting one’s emotions through manipulation appear to be at play. Do any of you understand the background and manifesto of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ organization? Here is some information: https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/black-lives-matter-blm
If we are going to have a ‘conversation,’ we should avail ourselves to the data that supports the perceived problem, and that is what most people neglect to do. Politicians, locally and nationally, will not seek nor ask those questions, because they fear reprisals and losing power. They will appease or sidestep the depth of the conversation to avoid offending one group or another. Citizens should ask themselves if, in fact, the rhetoric is accurate, instead of emotionally falling in line with the groupthink.
The data doesn’t support the outrage we are experiencing today. This moment in time just didn’t ooze up from the pavement, it took decades in the making, with many moving parts to bring it to fruition. The conversation is a long one, but it will never occur if reason and understanding are shouted down.
Don’t be lectured as to what the problem is, or who is to be blamed. Ask specific questions from what you are being told, and find the data that does or doesn’t support the conclusion. I or anyone else can give you chapter and verse on this topic, but unless you do it for yourself you honestly won’t know.
Start questioning the rhetoric.
Thank you for this powerful message that demands the voices of residents be heard. At this time, when many have been stripped of autonomy over almost every aspect of life, the need for involvement in local government is even more vital. I’m adding my voice as strongly asking for the opportunity to be heard.
Julie Testa needs to go. Her personal biases, her toxicity, and her irrationality are tearing the community apart.
I have two words for the Pleasanton Police Department: THANK YOU!
Thanks Pleasanton Weekly for helping to shed light on the process to bring up conversations about various policing methods used in Pleasanton and elsewhere. Council Members Julie Testa and Karla Brown brought forward a motion to look at certain police policies at the May 19th City Council meeting and got a “No!” from Jerry Pentin and “ Let’s wait“ from Kathy Narum. My vote for a future mayor of Pleasanton who isn’t afraid to tackle critical and challenging issues goes to Karla Brown!
GIve me a break. Pleasanton shouldn’t fall into the left wing entitlement communist agenda of destroying the country. Pleasanton police do a fine job and aren’t a problem. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Nation wide the police aren’t a problem. The problem is people who opt to be criminals rather than contribute to society. Part of the occupational hazard of crime is that you might get caught, and you might get hurt, and you might die; that is a good deterrent. Of course cops should work by the rules within their guidelines, and 99.999+% of them do. It’s a tough job and as in any collection of humans, there are some bad apples, but they are few.
The the Pleasanton police, and all law enforcement: Thank you. Thanks for the work you do. Stay safe.
Thank you for this editorial. There is no sense in creating a plan before hearing from the residents of Pleasanton about what we want to see and why. We need to tell the City Council to let us have our say.
Great editorial. Let the people speak their minds. Certainly there will be points of view from all sides of the issue, but they should all be heard. I think constraining the initial discussion would not come off well and would result in a lot of comment censorship by the Mayor. Not a good look for Pleasanton.
“Defunding” is a very divisive slogan. I appreciate our men in blue, but it does not hurt to stop and re imagine how the police can protect us and themselves, but avoid excessive uses of force where we all lose.
“”Defunding” is a very divisive slogan. I appreciate our men in blue, but it does not hurt to stop and re imagine how the police can protect us and themselves, but avoid excessive uses of force where we all lose.”
Not a “slogan”. It’s reality from so called “progressive” cities and politicians.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-09/the-cities-taking-up-calls-to-defund-the-police
And it IS going to hurt if fewer resources are available to protect citizens/calls are not responded to because of the unproven claims of police departments/officers of being “systemically racist”. Ever hear of the “Ferguson effect”?
Wow, Pleasanton Weekly! Thank you for such a thorough and courageous editorial. You are spot on in your comments and I applaud you for the depth and detail of this editorial. It exactly expresses my feelings. Bravo!
Hello-
I think that the Police Department – who train constantly – should come up with a draft. Everyone can read it who is interested. Then they can do a town meeting to discuss what is in the document and any concerns and questions. Believe it or not, they are more in tune with what police do on a daily basis. You may be asking questions and giving advice on things they already do and may even do better than what is requested by the public. Let’s give some grace and some confidence to the police department to come up with information first. We as citizens of Pleasanton just need to take the time to read. Then we can ask questions or praise on what they are doing. Sounds reasonable?
Thank you Pleasanton Weekly! This is exactly what we need. I agree that it is an uncomfortable conversation for many, but is so necessary. Waiting (and stalling which it appears some of the City leadership is trying to do) will not help anyone. And thank you to Julie Testa, Karla Brown, and Mayor Jerry Thorne for wanting to give citizens voices and concerns an open forum. This is what democracy is all about!
Bravo, Pleasanton Weekly Editor and Publisher! I have been critical of the PW editorial policy in the past, but this generation has brought new energy and insight to what journalism should be. The fact that the Weekly published an article on the death of Jacob Bauer and pursued a FOIA request to obtain the police body-cam videos of the incident (which the city wouldn’t provide) and published links for the public to see for themselves was (as someone else said) courageous. This editorial breaks all past practice of the PW being a mouthpiece for the old-guard Chamber of Commerce and development community and for those they own (via campaign contributions) in city government and is none the less courageous. For the first time I feel we have truly independent journalism in Pleasanton!
It’s very clear what is going on here. City government (with the exception of Councilmembers Testa and Brown who we owe a debt of gratitude for their leadership) has been very resistant to police reform and are attempting to frame and limit the conversation and steer the outcome to something superficial and more palatable to their desires. This is not a new strategy but has been used over and over again for many years to dilute public input and to get results acceptable to the Pleasanton Ruling Class (e.g. the Old Guard mentioned above). The overwhelming pressure from the public in an election year is the only reason they are reluctantly agreeing to this now, but they still want to control the outcome as articulated in this proposed process.
Local government – including the Police Department – should be under the control of the public, not city bureaucrats or the police themselves. Police are effectively an arm of state power, and that power in many cases has been expressed by violence against our own citizens (and non -citizens). This is a fundamental question of democracy (which means much more than just voting) and I encourage people to keep up the pressure to demand responsive government in Pleasanton.
It sounds like Pleasanton city staff want to be the Thought Police and severely limit and frame what its citizens are allowed to comment on. Pure censorship.
This is limiting the citizens First Amendment rights. Then the city seems to be putting forth some draft document without even getting public input. What a sham!
What is most disturbing about this charade is the attempted muzzling of the public. The public should be able to address whatever concerns it has about the policing in this town.
For instance, having the police go to elementary schools in PUSD and haul away young children that are K-2 grade students having a tantrum and put them in 72 hour psych holds without the parents’ knowledge is appalling. This needs to stop. Now. Having parents have to go to Facebook when they go to report a potential crime that the police refuse to log as an incident is completely unacceptable as well. Why are parents and the citizens having to investigate incidents that the police refuse to log?
The broad area of police practices needs to be on the table without censorship from the city manager or a highly stage-managed set of so called public hearings. It seems like the city is hoping to avoid comments on the city’s in-custody deaths. This is not right whatsoever. There needs to be a complete discussion on police practices.
Thank you, thank you, Pleasanton Weekly for the insightful editorial and keeping this critical issue top of mind. After attending (virtually) the June 16 city council meeting and seeing the policing item pulled from the agenda, I was concerned that delaying tactics around open discussion of the issue were being used in the hopes that people would lose interest. Fortunately, council members Testa and Brown will ensure that doesn’t happen. Also, I’m happy to report that there is a growing movement among the citizenry to not only make sure the issue of policing in our community doesn’t go away, but is subjected to a robust and transparent review by the people.
I watched the City Council meeting. It appeared that the full City Council wanted to make sure concerns are listened to and that they can get information. They were trying to determine how to do this in the COVID-19 world! They even called for a special meeting on July 14th to try and do this! Anyone is welcome to speak on ANY topic during Open Session at any regular council meeting! I appreciate the facts.
We are lucky to have such dedicated men and women willing to serve in today’s challenging times! Many in our department grew up in this area, live in our community, and shop at the same grocery store we do. There are people behind the badge that are willing to show up at your door to assist YOU in 4 minutes or less!
@ Walter
I also watched the meeting on replay.
My understanding, As a point of order, during a SPECIAL MEETING, I do not thing there is a “meeting open to the public” Only the item on the SPECIAL MEETING agenda can be discussed and receive public comments.
“Meeting open to the public” segment is only part of a regular council meeting.
Thank you Pleasanton Weekly! You have nailed it. An opportunity for the citizens of Pleasanton to say what they think, express their concerns, put forth their ideas BEFORE the council takes any action is the way to go. HEAR us first, gather that info, THEN draft your draft.
Change the description…delete “police officers”…Add “peace officers”.
We strongly support the Pleasanton Police Department and can’t wait to come out in force to the meeting to say THANK YOU AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
Thank you for your thoughtful and impassioned editorial. I think it is very reasonable to hear from a Pleasanton residents before a process is put in place. The comments could change the process completely. We have a good city council that has taken on many contentious issues. I believe they are up to the challenge to move us forward on this issue – quickly!
7/1/2020 Pass This To Your Local Police Chief. https://youtu.be/ZJq6l0T7m8g
DEEP STATE PLAN TO TAKE OVER LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS
33:00 into Video. Working theory on how the deep state plans to take over the local police departments.
Webb predicted years ago, 45 major cities (based on the 45 encrypted Blackberry network) would be attacked by Antifa promoted violence.
The JTTF Plan was the Deep State strategy. The nice sounding agreement “The Strong Cities Agreement” But Trump didn’t sign it. Now the house is promoting HOUSE BILL 7120, which allows for the Federalizations Of Local Police Departments, in an attempt to remove emergency authority from POTUS and turn it over to Congress. In effect, Congress would then have Federalized local police departments.
Thank you Rich, very insightful! Christopher Ray and the rest of the Antifa lovers in the FBI need to go….and local Police departments in California need to understand the push to undermine them by the radical left democrat politicians that want to get rid of our protective local police, yet keep their armed Congressional secret service for the Elite Politicians. DISARM CONGRESS SECRET SERVICE FIRST, before they dictate a word to our incredible Pleasanton Peace Officers!
More Police officers from the Minority communities would be a better representation. Ethnic mix of Police should roughly reflect the mix of the community. Same should be the case with Fire Fighters and School Teachers.
Twenty-Five years ago the Pleasanton police department represented the community mix Many of those years Pleasanton had a black police chief.
The population has changed, without any of the minority groups stepping forward to get the minimum requirements to be considered for the job, and then completing the necessary training.
The opportunity is there for them. They are not coming forward to compete for the position.