POA calls for resignation of Police Commissioner David Campos
Why is the POA attacking David Campos? For advocating for medical cannabis.
Medical pot is legal under California law. And, pot arrests are, by law, the lowest law enforcement priority in San Francisco. So, why is Gary Delagnes, the head of the Police Officers Association, publicly attacking Police Commissioner David Campos for supporting these laws and advocating for medical pot? At the April 4 meeting of the Police Commission, Delagnes publicly attacked Campos and called for his resignation because Campos spoke at a medical pot event and expressed his view that officers should not be aggressively going after cannabis users. Campos stated that officers should be held accountable for doing so. That sounds like a pretty reasonable view to express, given state and local law, but the POA seems to think that its officers shouldn’t be criticized when they ignore that law. One has to wonder . . . .
April 5th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
As a proud unionist, I will say I cannot consider the POA a union but in the most negative, narrowest of its definition and scope. i.e. ALL they’re about is THEIR OWN WAGES, THEIR OWN WORKING CONDITIONS, ETC. They have no solidarity with other working people’s struggles, they have no investment in social justice or the plight of others less fortunate than themselves.
As the resident of a violence plagued community, I think enforcing marijuana law is a total waste of resources. I would rather they did more to deter violent crime, not arrests after the fact, but deterring crime. I have not made many police commission meetings but I am sure this attack is less about pot and more about the fact that Commissioner Campos is an advocate for police accountability and an advocate for the Latinos and other disenfranchised communities.
The problem with the POA is they think that ALL their members are 100% perfect, to them there is no such thing as a police officer that is not fit for the job. They defend all their boys (and girls) in blue, even when wrong.
There is no occupation with 100% success rate; meaning everyone who pursues a chosen career path is meant to work in it.
Just because someone criticizes the actions of some officers, who deserve it, does not mean one does not support the police overall.
The POA would have more credibility in the community if they would actually admit when there are officers that need to be removed from the force. It is better for the good cops to admit there are bad ones and remove them
As for Commissioner Campos, I support him fully.
I think Delagnes should know, I NEVER, EVER call the police out of my morbid fear that they will respond with unnecessary force and when they kill someone from my call, then I’d be stuck living with the guilt the rest of my life.
Is Delagnes proud to know that law abiding citizens fear reporting crimes because the police do not have the reverence for life to only use lethal force as a last resort?
April 6th, 2007 at 7:36 am
I don’t have enough knowledge to have a strong view on the POA, but just have to point out that people say this all the time about all unions.
>>
How many times have I heard this said about the teachers’ unions? Also, what would the process be for determining automatically that a member is “wrong” and thus choosing not to defend him or her? IMHO, every union is obligated to defend its members.
April 6th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Oops. This is the quote I meant to cite. My punctuation made it disappear from my post.
“The problem with the POA is they think that ALL their members are 100% perfect, to them there is no such thing as a police officer that is not fit for the job. They defend all their boys (and girls) in blue, even when wrong.”
April 6th, 2007 at 8:31 am
First off, the POA is not a union, it is a racket. The POA represents both labor and management and unites both to quite effectively challenge civilian authority over the paramilitary. In the very least, that aspect needs to be changed.
Second, the Police Commission needs to decisively assert civilian authority over the department in cases where the department is contradicting statements of political policy adopted by civilian authority. The PD has violated this in the case of consorting with the state and fed authorities on medicinal cannabis as well as the federalizing of the Josh Wolf case.
The narcotics and vice units are the source of rot within the department. As former superintendent Arlene Ackerman, a darling of the ruling class, used to do, we should declare narc and vice as “troubled units” and force all cops there to reapply for their jobs.
The SFPD is unique amongst city departments that line workers are free to basically chart their own work plan. This discretion allows for cops to subjectively determine which laws they will enforce in a given day, irrespective of community priorities or any real, tangible threat to life, limb or property.
Enforcement priorities need to track both local popular priorities as well as take input from the DPH’s assessment of public health threats due to illegal conduct.
There is simply no progressive leadership on the commission which is willing to do what it takes to reform this department even though the political power rests on the side of the reformers.
So long as Louise Renne remains in power as president, we can rest assured that we will continue to spend $323,000,000 per year on a department that does not investigate or solve crime and is powerless to protect nonviolent San Franciscans from a rising tide of violence, be it guns, rogue automobiles or violent cops.
Any commissioner who cannot advance a reform agenda commensurate with the public’s disgust over poor return on investment on $ spent at the SFPD or challenge his/her colleagues when they roll over for business as usual probably should resign.
-marc
April 7th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
David Campos should blow a kiss to Gary Delagnes for this. Having the POA blast Campos for advocating medical marijuana is the best political news Campos for Supervisor could get!
April 7th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
The POA endorsement can be the kiss of death and opposition by the POA can earn votes.
But I don’t anticipate that there will be a paucity of problems for Delagnes in D9 as the field is shaping up.
It is easy to get Delagnes mad by threatening to do something.
It is quite another to make Delagnes’ day and deliver tangible, substantial reforms at the SFPD to Mission residents.
All I’m seeing from the Police Commission in the Mission are these cameras which simply displace crime to adjacent residential alleys and give the cops more excuses to be lazy and not do their jobs.
-marc
April 7th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Hey Marc,
I admit that I am not politically or intellectually consistent at all times, but it does strike me as odd that you and others are giving David such a hard time, when Ross, someone that both you and I support, has been pushing the cameras as well.
That said, I can support Ross and David even if I disagree with them on this one issue. I urged David to vote against the cameras so I agree with you. But I think there should be some nod to consistency when David is critiqued by acknowledging that there are other progressives, even ones you may like, that are on the other side of this issue.
At the same time, I would like to move Ross and David to understand that the cameras are not helpful and simply displace crime so I support you in your critique.
April 7th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I differ with Ross on the issue of cameras. I appreciate it that he at least advanced legislation to regulate their placement. Reasonable people can differ on whether it is better to let people make choices known to be irrational because it makes them feel better or whether it is better (or possible if the fears are great enough) to try to educate them how fears drive irrational policy choices and how that is quite probably more dangerous than street crime.
If the SFPD is going to install a device that is known to displace crime, then it should have a plan to deal with the crime that the cameras displace. That is the job of the department and Commission.
I’m not so much giving David a hard time as I am the post-Prop H police commission under Renne for hiding the ball on reform.
Delagnes calls for resignations of commissioners at the drop of a hat. I think San Franciscans want to see needed reforms advanced that cause much more of a reaction out of old Gary than that.
Structural reform at the SFPD has been ignored by almost everyone, and that discussion begins at the Commission.
When Mark Sanchez runs for D9, he will run on and others will scrutinize his record at the SFUSD.
When Eric Quesada runs for D9, he will run on and others will scrutinize his record as a community organizer.
When David Campos runs for D9, he will run on and others will scrutinize his record at the SFUSD, DCC and SFPD Commission.
That’s the way it works.
-marc
April 8th, 2007 at 6:08 am
I’ve seen and heard conflicting reports as to whether the crime cameras are being looked through 24/7 or whether the tape can only be reviewed when a crime is committed. Would someone please clarify?
April 8th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Caroine wrote:
“How many times have I heard this said about the teachers’ unions? Also, what would the process be for determining automatically that a member is “wrong” and thus choosing not to defend him or her? IMHO, every union is obligated to defend its members.”
True, labor unions need our full support, but the teacher’s union in SF is slowly digging its own grave by defending its members at all costs.
Why?
Because every single parent in San Francisco has a story of an imcompotent teacher in her kids’ school or classroom who has been detrimental to learning. Every principal I have ever known has a story about a lazy and incompetent teacher who has been foisted on her/his school against everyone’s will (including the will of other teachers).
This is what parents remember about the union first and foremost. It is not all the good stuff that the union does for the teachers.
April 8th, 2007 at 11:21 am
The problem with unions, tools that were developed to check capitalist bosses, is that most (slightly more than one half) organized workers are in the public sector.
Unions are not at their strongest when they fight against elected officials and by extension the working folks who pay most all taxes which pay those collectively bargained salaries.
In any event, when public safety is being put at risk by union members and when the union sets work rules that prevent civilians from setting officers’ work plans, the needs of the union and their members are clearly secondary.
This is all put into place when the SFPD negotiators are in bed with the POA. Is the Police Commission going to address the deficiencies in the POA MOU as it is being negotiated? Have there been calls for hearings on what a progressive POA MOU should look like?
You all might think that D9 is instigating my concern about that, and to a minor extent that dynamic might be in play. But my interest in police reform predates my knowledge of David Campos by many years.
-marc
April 8th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I know this is a little late but since Caroline had replied to my comment, I think I should respond.
Yes, many people out there that feel that all unions are ONLY about themselves, their working conditions, pay, etc. But that is not the reality based on analysis of the objective facts
Besides the POA , there are a few other unions that are in fact only about their own self interests, but I can emphatically state, as a delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council, that most unions and/or their members are passionate and active in the fight for social justice for all working people. A glance at any of the minutes of the meetings would show that we take stands and actions on everything from health care, to ending the war in Iraq to immigrant rights, to name a few. Whereas you see SEIU, UNITE-HERE, ILWU, etc. front and center at protests, commission meetings, etc., you will NEVER, EVER see a POA rep or an off duty police officer testifying for a living wage in San Francisco. In fact, since we do not have a residency law, the vast majority of the police do not live in San Francisco, do not pay taxes in San Francisco and they certainly do not reflect the demographics of the communities they patrol. They, by and large, do not care about the quality of life for our citizens. There are exceptions but they are not the rule.
First hand I have witnessed the unjustifiable mistreatment of the Blacks in my community by the white officers. That is a fact.
Yes, Caroline, all dues paying union members are entitled to be defended by their union- but if the decision is made for the discipline or removal of a police officer for gross misconduct, then Delagnes does not need to attack those responsible for the discipline/removal as if they were scum-sucking, murderer-loving police-hating slime!
It would be like my union saying the DMV employees removed for issuing fake driver’s licenses, were unjustly terminated. The union may have had to defend them, but there was only so much they could do for them.
What is misconduct, when I said the POA never admits to being wrong?
Shooting to death a (basically) unarmed young man having a psychiatric crisis, when they were called on a 5150, knowing he needed to be hospitalized not executed, is misconduct!
Shooting to death an unarmed young man, who was lawfully at the apartment the police were called to, but feared going back to jail for a little pot (from what I understand from media accounts), so he hid in crawl space. The inept officers cornered him and shot him to death FOR NO REASON. That is misconduct.
Sexually molesting and otherwise brutalizing teenagers in the Bayview on MLK Jr. Day is misconduct!
So IMHO there are actions at work that are unequivocally wrong, murder being one of them.
Marc gave a description of the POA representing both management and the “rank-n-file”, hence, it is more of an association than a union.
I agree we need to have civilian oversight, the POA should welcome it, and when there needs to be policy changes, enforcement, recommendations or corrective actions taken, the POA needs to stop calling for the removal of commissioners that are there to represent the public interest.
As for the issue of cameras, I thought I read that even though Commissioner Campos voted for it, he would revisit it if need be.
I personally doubt their efficacy and I have privacy concerns, but like Robert states, Sup. Mirkarimi has called for more in the Western Addition and he supports them, for now anyway.
I respect Campos and Mirkarimi way too much to have a difference of opinion on one issue affect my support for them. I think they both want what is best for the communities of San Francisco, and I am sure that they are open to other solutions and revisiting ones that might prove to be unsuccessful.
April 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Hey Marc,
While we have at times had our differences, I think we share a strong concern for police reform and I share your concerns about the police cameras.
I don’t question your motives in this regard at all.
Unions are a group of workers who band together to protect their rights as workers. Teachers are public sector workers, janitors are public sector workers, nurses are public sector workers, and any number of folks work in the public sector.
If not for unions, in my humble opinion, the school district would be even more in the toilet than it is. The unions checked the boss, Arlene Ackerman. Sure she wasn’t a private sector capitalist boss, but she sure was a boss who seemed eager to smack down workers whether they were teachers or custodians.
Robert
April 8th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
“The school district would be even more in the toilet than it is.”
Robert,
To set the record straight: the SF school district is not “in the toilet.”
Public schools here in SF are doing a great job of educating our children. Anybody with a close eye on our schools–whether parent, student or administrator–can readily see that our schools are dong quite well. I suggest you go down to your neighborhood public elementary school and listen to the orchestra or band (most private schools have neither), look at the art on the walls, and all the volunteers in action.
You will come to understand that you are living in the finest urban school district in America.
That said, I think about 10% of our teachers should be canned and fired outright for incompotence, despite the union’s knee-jerk protection of them.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Unions arose and got their fighting spirit against rapacious capitalists.
There is a natural adversarial relationship between workers and capitalists which should not be present in government employment, given that government is people working for the people in the service of the people, not profit.
At the SFUSD, the UESF has put teachers front and center fighting for what is right in the classroom. Voters tend to trust teachers to know how to organize their classrooms.
At the City and County, organized labor has chosen to focus foremost on maximizing compensation, tending to defer on workplace practices to management.
The lone exception to my knowledge for public unions is the POA (maybe the firefighters, am not very familiar) which clings viciously to full control over working conditions much to our peril.
Unionism is a concept, each different union, each bargaining unit has its own preferences. Some are more progressive and some are more conservative.
I’ll break into a sweat for progressive unions who as workers support working San Franciscans as workers who pay taxes but who are not unionized. The largest single and aggregate contributors to Prop H ‘03 was SEIU.
There is a lot of good work going on towards that, with Young Workers United especially, bringing democratic workers organizing to the most marginalized segment of the workforce.
-marc
December 16th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Bravo to all of you for your passion. The future depends on each of us standing up and expressing ourselves, whether in a public forum, blog, or at the ballot!