Unnecessary Democracy

When is it okay for an activist wholly dedicated to democracy to say "enough's enough?"

When the people have already spoken at the ballot box, and a run-off election is merely a waste of taxpayer dollars. That's exactly what's happening in Austin right now, in our City Council Place 3 race (all registered Austin voters weigh in on this race as we still have an antiquated at-large system - more on that later). If we had implemented instant run-off voting long ago, we'd have already cast that second vote at the same time we cast our first, and not even be in this mess...but that too, is another story for later.

Randi Shade, the incumbent, fielded 3 tenacious challengers in Kathie Tovo, Max Nofziger and Kris Bailey in the first round. Tovo came up through the City Planning Commission and more recently, received significant community praise as an Austin ISD task force member who challenged the District's plan for cutting the budget. Nofziger is a former councilperson with a populist bent and significant grassroots support and Bailey is a young up-and-comer libertarian who garnered the coveted Willie Nelson endorsement for his pro-legalization stance which he successfully packaged as re-routing local police resources.

All this to say the challengers' collective take in the general election was as much in support of them as it was for unseating the incumbent for her consistent votes in favor of big-monied interests and against the community. That total exceeded 67%, so a plurality of voters said "we won't be needing your services any longer, thankyouverymuch."

None of those votes will go to Shade as the challengers all very much ran against her platform, and their supporters were rabid anti-Shade. I'll concede there is a small handful of Nofziger supporters that are purely anti-rail that may be bent more Shade than Tovo, but Shade's not really committed one way or the other on rail - and we're only talking about a 100 or so voters that may not be motivated to show up again anyway.

All logical predictions were that Tovo would be the runner-up and that we'd surely see a run-off, but no one predicted Tovo would actually come out ahead - and by 14 points at that: 47% to 33%. The voters CLEARLY don't want Shade in office, and clearly favored Tovo as the best person to replace her. Most political gurus say, too, that going into a run-off more than 5 points behind is insurmountable.

Based on voting and election result patterns - and on who did and who didn't concede a run-off in the past, most thought Shade would concede. I, myself, predicted as much, providing examples of why that would make sense.

She didn't (in time for the withdrawal deadline). Which shows precisely why she's such a bad representative of the people.

So we traipse on, committed to spending $528,400 to determine a pre-determined outcome. Is it the heavy-handed monied interests that believe she still owes them on deliveries or pure ego? I, myself, have a hard time understanding that her large ego would allow for such smashing humiliation to befall her, so it must be the muscle behind our police union and chamber folks.

On top of trying to keep her base and re-energize them to vote again, she will have to get 1000s of new voters to the polls just to vote for her AND seek to prevent the wholly-dedicated Tovo supporters from showing up again (unlikely as Tovo's ground game is tops). Meanwhile the indications are that more people who didn't vote prior may show up this time, but to vote against Shade for the mere fact that she's wasting our money.

I predict a 75-25 outcome/70-30 at worst, but I'm alone in that steep of a prediction. Morrison, in 08, with the same base as Tovo, beat a formidable opponent in the run-off with the same politics as Shade, 65-35. He wasn't a despised incumbent (it was an open seat) so he wasn't additionally getting punished for costing us a half million dollars, and with the almost-guaranteed plurality of Tovo as a starting point, she should exceed 70%, in my mind. We shall see.

In Shade's first week of the run-off campaign, as in her general election campaign, every trick she tried blew up in her face and set her back even more. She got caught removing parody signs from the polls ("Shady the Clown" - I understand they are gaining even more traction now by her bringing attention to them!) and failed in her ethics complaint against Tovo.

Stay tuned...the election is June 18.

Better Austin Today's City Council Endorsements

The only broad community political action committee in Austin, of which I'm a member, makes its picks in the May, 2011 election and calls on even its endorsees to step up their game:

Community Coalition's Where it's AT!

As an organization comprised of neighborhood, local and small business, environmental, social equity and other community leaders, Better Austin Today (BAT)’s vision for Austin’s future encompasses a wide range of issues. Thus, winning our endorsement requires candidates to go beyond appealing to a single constituency or limited area of City policy. Instead, our broad coalition of interests ensures that anyone we endorse is the “best all-around” candidate in the race who will bring a comprehensive view to office and act with the big picture in mind and a commitment to open, inclusive government. Endorsements require a challenging 60 percent vote of this diverse board (a full list of members is on our website).

The public safety unions came out before the filing deadline with their endorsements, meeting with none of the challengers, and the developer dollars started rolling in for incumbents before 2011 even began. BAT members, meanwhile, have been attending candidate forums and meeting one on one or in groups with the candidates over the last two months, taking time to give consideration to all the candidates responses in many different venues and from a variety of questionnaires.

The Buck Doesn't Stop at the Endorsement

BAT is a group representative of all the interest of all the citizens of Austin. Although there are a great many pressing issues and problems that the council has and must continue to address, one of, if not the most, pressing issue the that amount of funding that has been dedicated to improving the quality of life of the most under-served and under-resourced community (a mere $700,000 on the African-American Quality of Life Initiative in its 5-year span while millions are thrown to non-local developers).

"We, as a community, have acknowledged the need for improving the quality of life for African-Americans and Latinos, yet, the actions of the City have not reflected the urgency necessary to make the vital changes necessary to turn a declining situation around. We hope that our endorsement is not mistaken as a tacit approval of this lack of urgency." - Richard Franklin, BAT board member

BAT intends to be ever more vigilant with regards to the improvement of the quality of life for all residents of Austin and we will hold all elected officials accountable.

ENDORSEMENTS

Better Austin Today endorses Kathie Tovo for Place 3 and Laura Morrison for Place 4; no consensus was reached for Place 1.

Kathie Tovo - a strong advocate for open, inclusive and accountable government: Ms. Tovo's academic background, steady demeanor and extensive experience in a variety of public policy matters in the past 19 years she's lived here is exactly what Austin needs to bring balance to the dais. From social services to education to neighborhoods to the arts to the environment and planning, her broad swath of public service provides her much-needed context to serve our diverse population at a critical time as we grapple with an out-of-control budget where the special interests gain and the under-served lose. Her intellect is matched by her creativity when faced with difficult problems. Her forthrightness in addressing the critical issues and her integrity as an inclusive mediator of interests demonstrates her commitment to the entire community.

PLACE 3 CHALLENGERS: We feel it's important to make special note of the other challengers to the incumbent in this race. Max Nofziger has brought special attention in his candidacy to the extraordinary rise in the City's expenditures since his last time in office, when he voted on our first budget that surpassed $1 billion. Since his tenure, we've well surpassed $2 billion and are poised in one of the next few budget cycles to hit $3 billion - which he explains as an unsustainable frenzy of spending. He points out that Councilmember Shade is the biggest spender we've ever had on Council. See his explanation here. While there are some criticisms of Nofziger's tenure in office, a trait most agree on was his responsiveness as a Councilmember--one of the main characteristics BAT seeks in candidates. Kris Bailey is running primarily on a police accountability platform, which also resonates with BAT, especially in terms of setting budget priorities and implementing practices such as focusing on investigating/clearing public safety matters involving victims versus arresting increasing numbers of people for victimless crimes. We'd like to see Ms. Tovo more emphatically adopt some of these messages the other challengers bring to the table - many of which she's already aligned with; and while she's shown no indication otherwise, seek to match if not surpass Nofziger's reputation for responsiveness.

Laura Morrison - a proven leader on important community issues: Councilmember Morrison is far and away the best choice for Place 4. Morrison is BAT's only Councilmember to have achieved a perfect "A" on our scorecards published in the Austin Chronicle over the past 3 years. What we noted in her first run, her "keen intellect, deep respect for differing opinions, and a willingness to fight tenaciously for policies that protect Austin’s environment and neighborhoods" indeed proved to be the right formula for moving Austin forward. She has demonstrated a deep dedication to smart economic policy while giving social equity issues due process. Morrison has proved she has the right combination of vision, integrity and know-how for the job and Austin deserves no less an attentive public servant.

With Ms. Tovo in Place 3, along with our previous endorsement in Place 5 (Bill Spelman) and Morrison retaining her seat in Place 4, we hope that the tenor of our Council will change dramatically, that these three good examples can gain more courage for leadership; inspiring others to improve their performance or exposing those who resist an open, accountable, fiscally responsible government.

NEXT STEPS

We now turn our efforts to raising money and recruiting volunteers to help Tovo and Morrison win election. If you believe it is time for a change at City Hall, we invite you to join us as we work to get Austin back on track. Better Austin Today is excited about this opportunity to re-establish balance at City Hall and to reclaim local government for the public interest.

Leffingwell's Email Follies: Dance a Lil' Sidestep!

Monks, PLEASE, Bless This Mess!

The Tibetian Monks are visiting again, and during the Council meeting are hard at work in City Hall creating their glorious mandala sand painting in the atrium. They will endow a blessing of compassion on our City tomorrow...let's hope some of that good Buddhist mojo actually sinks in down at 301 W. 2nd St. before gifting the remainder of the sand to our beautiful river.

...The Mess Council Got Themselves Into

Except for Morrison and Spelman, other councilmembers haven't turned over public business emails conducted on private accounts, or explicitly said they didn't have any to turn over. Meanwhile, their attorneys are telling them they don't have to turn those over despite case law, Attorney General opinions and input from other government entities that say otherwise.

So while they (sans Morrison and Spelman) claim they are in the right not to disclose such emails...they passed policy today to instruct themselves to do otherwise. (Item #14)

Yes, we've seen this before. "I didn't do anything wrong but I'll pass policy to say I won't do it again." Hence the Wednesday worksessions in place of the 2-on-1 walking quorums.

Put a white suit, boots and cowboy hat on our Mayor and watch him go. "Ooooh! I love to dance a lil' sidestep..."

We Already HAVE a Law

It's called the Texas Public Information Act. The Legal Dept. said they researched and couldn't find any other entities passing this kind of policy for a model. That's not because Austin's being progressive (hardly), it's because no one else is confused by the law. They see no need to define what's already been clearly stated by the TX Attorney General: public information is subject to disclosure, no matter where it gets hidden.

This is all for show. "See? We're DOING something." (Shuffle, shuffle). Great. But you should have been doing what this resolution says all along. It's not complicated. It doesn't matter who, where, when, what device, what account the public business is conducted on or with...the person that is elected to office takes an oath that, when asked, will turn over all public business to the public. If it takes them a lot of extra time to scour all sorts of devices and accounts to gather that info, dredging through personal information to capture public business, then that's their problem. It's up to them to organize themselves to save time later. Doing what this policy instructs -forwarding emails concerning public business to private accounts to your public account- is just common sense. It shouldn't need to be debated for 2 hours and crafted into policy.

If we really need this new policy, then we really need some new leadership.

Public Business is the Public's Business. Period.

No if, ands or buts...if an elected official meets a lobbyist at the coffeeshop, the business discussed doesn't become a private, personal conversation because they aren't physically in City Hall. Same with phones, emails, chat systems, etc.

This policy is a disingenuous gesture, but IF (a big "if") this were good policy to begin with, Councilmember Spelman is to be commended for trying to make it actually have some relevance. He is still pushing for amendments as I type, fixing the "who" and the "when" questions that I was going to bring to the podium had I been able to afford to sit there for 5 more hours waiting to speak. "Who" is "who does this cover" and "when" is "how quickly do I have to forward these emails?" As in: "can I wait two years during which time maybe several open records requests won't pick up this info and I'm already out of office so who will care what shenanigans I was involved in?"

The other question not being discussed is ENFORCEMENT. What happens if someone fails to comply? Well, the law already says what happens...so again, that makes this all an exercise in futility.

The problem with this policy is that the ones still holding out on disclosure have NO intention of releasing previous emails from private devices/accounts this policy would cover from this point forward. So why would we trust them to do it right from here on out with self-specifying an enforcement mechanism?

Kennard's True Colors

Seems my long-standing question has been answered. Does our new Law Department head, Karen Kennard, subscribe to the David Smith Skool of Law or is she going to bring trustworthy legal analysis to the table for bettering our local government?

My eternal optimism failed me, yet again. We've heard this one MANY times before. "Council can't mandate things for the City and its staff to do...only the City Manager can." REALLY????

Let's take a look at our City Charter: "...all powers of the city shall be vested in and exercised by an elective council...which shall enact legislation, adopt budgets, determine policies, and appoint the city manager who shall execute the laws and administer the government of the city."

Eerie how you can look at this healthy, attractive black woman and see the face of an overweight white man on the edge of an aneurism superimposed upon it. But there it was, with echoes of KeyPoint-Gate, Smith's ghostly face hovering over hers conjuring up the lyrics to which Leffingwell leads his Follies in a shuffling farce.

She must have uncovered the DavidNomicon - the not-so-long hidden tome describing how to continue the horrific practice of subduing Council and their duty to excercise their Charter-given powers.

Stay tuned for the next chapter. As Molly Ivins described about the Texas Legislature, I unapologetically co-opt for our City Council: it's the finest form of free entertainment ever invented.

AustinGonzo articles at AustinPost.org

I've been posting articles for some time now over at the Austin Post - a non-profit on-line web forum for local happenings.

Please visit the page to see my take on such subjects as:

KeyPoint-Gate: the mishandling of the fall-out from the APD shooting death of Nathaniel Sanders, II. From misleading the public, withholding a publicly-led inquiry, scapegoating and avoidance of accountability and the unprecedented slap in the face to the Sanders' family and the whole community when they back-tracked on the negotiation for a settlement on the civil suit. "Austin's Schoolyard Bullies" exposes how beholden some of our elected officials are to the police union.

Email-Gate: more evidence of wrongdoing is being exposed in the uncovering of "walking quorums" and the continuing refusal to turn over public-business emails from private accounts by some councilmembers. Also as part of this series is critique of The Austin Chronicle's refusal to cover the issue, except when they attack those who are bringing it forth.

APD: focusing on non-violent crimes and pursuing costly technological toys continues to drive APD expenditures well beyond that of peer cities and well beyond the revenue stream of our general fund. Use of force reports, or the lack thereof, expose ills in accountability, while our Chief's choice of dress at an execution belies Austin's "progressive" stance.

Austin's Police Monitor: is hiring a former sheriff the best choice for overseeing police officers?

There are also miscellaneous stories about the Formula 1 racetrack boondoggle; the lack of coordination in making boards and commission appointments; note of a win for civil liberties by preventing officers from wielding needles and drawing blood; a May 2011 council election candidate roundup; and a "huzzah!" for my bud Richard Franklin, III getting national recognition for his incredible program lifting up youth.

You Say You Want a Resolution?

The following is my speech I plan to deliver at the Feb. 17, 2011, council meeting, in relation to Item #49, a directive to the City Manager to study the "risks and benefits" of body scanners and pat-downs – a proposed TSA mandate for our airport.

Mayor…Council:

I'd like to impress upon you here today that while this resolution, as drafted, speaks to the crux of the issue well ...and represents the concerns of the people in the "Whereas's"...it's the "Be it Resolved" part that's the sticking point.

While there's some validity and possibilities in tossing this issue to the City Manager...it's just that, frankly, we've tried that in the past and it's sometimes proved to be a trajectory into a black hole. No offense Manager Ott, that's just the pattern amongst City Managers here and elsewhere there's a "Council-manager" structure. Besides, our manager's got plenty of issues to deal with where he actually has to negotiate differentiating factions. Here, we already know where we all are.

The City Manager's too busy to study the studies…which we already HAVE...and know how to read.

We all know how we feel about this thing...we all know this poses grave health risks, and is not about security but instead about a couple of private entities' profit margins and a handful of bought-and-paid-for Congressmen (none of ours, luckily, that I've discovered).

I've not met an Austinite yet who's FOR these measures.

Let's try this: who here -raise your hand- wants body scanners and pat downs in our airport? *crickets*

This resolution, as written, seems to be putting off the inevitable...or, buying us time - for something, I'm not sure. And we may not have time...enough to debate this for the next 6 months since the TSA has flip-flopped on whether they will implement this grand plan of theirs next month or next fall.

Resolutions are broad expressions of opinion and are often passed to express democratic consensus even when the subject matter is not under the purview of the governing entity.

Resolutions carry weight with those under whose purview this WOULD fall...those legislators it's addressed to...who are more suited to halt the proposed program.

We've seen Patriot Act resolutions, divestment resolutions from South Africa in the 1980s, our not-long-ago resolution on the Kyoto Treaty & greenhouse gases....even Congress passes resolutions on things it can’t control; but boy, did they have an impact, despite their supposed "toothlessness."

This resolution should express the very REAL public outrage of Austin residents, regardless of whether it can REALLY do anything about it.

This resolution should be one of outright protest against a security system that's already proven to be a failure.

We need to tell TSA we will not subject Austinites and visitors to unnecessary physical invasions (be they scanners or pat downs) and will not risk financially damaging our airport with these senseless, unfunded mandates.

Many airports are hurting financially and are in conflict with the TSA over security, according to an airline consultant an ACLU national representative spoke with. They said the security mission conflicts with airports’ other goals (for example, most airports would go out of business without their retail and parking) and they view these pointless, intrusive TSA efforts as a nuisance - a rather potent barrier to conducting day-to-day business.

We manage our airport "in cooperation with" federal authorities....not at the behest of. (S. 13-1-3 B4 of our charter)

Let's define "cooperation"...this is where folks make decisions together on an egalitarian basis, NOT a hierarchical one. That should apply to the relationship between our gov't and the people just as much as it should apply to that of federal and local entities where "cooperation" defines the relationship, and in this case, it does.

"Cooperation" can't be interpreted, in any way, as: compliance in spite of our ability to keep our airport financially afloat or limit our liability when privacy/invasion issues arise. The TSA is forcing air travelers, as it forces municipalities, into a no-win situation.

Keep in mind Congress hasn't passed any legislation to mandate this yet. As far as the TSA's administrative mandate, they, according to the law, have to provide a reasonable alternative or "opt-out" for scanners...if we say that pat downs aren't reasonable, then it gets kicked up to Congress. So TSA's "mandate" is hardly a settled issue and therefore its legitimacy is vulnerable to public opinion.

The local gov't represents the local residents in these "cooperative" relationships - if the residents say 'no' then the local gov't must represent us, even if just symbolically via a resolution. While we must "implement and enforce regulations imposed by the TSA" (S. 13-1-3 B5) - we have a say in it...a resolution is just that - "a say" - it's not legally binding, rather, it just let's the feds know we aren't going to lay back and enjoy it.

At the end of the day, sure...the feds are going to do what they're going to do; but we can put up our dukes and say, loudly, we're not going down without a fight.

WE NEED A RESOLUTION NOW THAT SAYS: "NO SCANNERS or CAUSE-LESS PAT DOWNS, PERIOD...EVER." MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD MAY BE TOO LATE.

The people have spoken. Council, please listen.

Quintana Arbitration Hearing: City Wins by Damning Themselves, Again

Well, the City and APD hasn't scrubbed its “schizophrenic mess” clean quite yet; we won’t know for certain until the arbitrator rules mid-October. But for most hearing observers, there’s little indication the arbitrator will see ANY reason to put Leonardo Quintana, gun and Taser in hand, back on the force.

Or we can hope. These hearings show how much our City gave away in contract negotiations with the police union such that one person can override the Chief’s opinion along with a whole chain of command that an officer is not fit for duty. Not a jury of his peers, much less citizen overseers, but one person, who is completely unaccountable to the community, decides. Firefighters, meter maids, municipal court judges, private sector employees; no one has such recourse if fired or disciplined in Texas. Just cops.

APD's Dizzying Definition of "Good Cop"

“Nominally, the firing and this hearing addressed every bad moment in Quintana's APD career except the most notorious, his May 2009 shooting of Nathaniel Sanders II…” noted Michael King of the Austin Chronicle. But former “nine-year APD veteran Leonardo Quintana appeared relaxed, smiling at times as his supervisors revealed a list of dirty laundry,” as described in KVUE’s next-day coverage. So “relaxed” it was eerie, seemingly full of confidence in his claim that he "had an exemplary career.”

But his bosses painted an entirely different picture…or did they?

Reminds me of a another personnel issue where APD rookie Ramon Perez believed himself unfairly dismissed and diligently attempted to seek justice through a federal civil suit with a religious discrimination claim. Up until the last month of his employment, APD documented Perez as a competent officer, recognizing his leadership and people skills, but after a small cabal of supervisors decided ‘his kind wasn’t needed here,’ ended up saying he was a bad cop: “unsafe” (complete with new, contradictory documents). This officer has since served Pflugerville and hasn’t yet put a bullet in the back of anybody’s head, much less been arrested for drunk driving.

It is amazing how a story changes at APD depending on internal personality conflicts or external political factors, and how many red flags are -or should be- raised from the resulting gaps in logic. Was Quintana a good cop, according to superiors when he shot Sanders and all those previous times they chose not to discipline him on other infractions and only became a bad cop only the moment he drank and drove? They had given other officers with off-duty DWIs multiple-day suspensions vs. termination, so what makes him a “bad cop” and them “good,” worthy of keeping? (There is the small matter of his also carrying a firearm; attempting to flee the scene –which could/should have been another charge on him-- and refusing the breathalyzer, yet this wasn’t mentioned at the hearing by the City in context with the other disciplinary actions).

Should a Cop Be a Cop if He Breaks the Law?

Quintana didn’t actually “break the law” as far as the courts are concerned, but at the hearing, never did speakers insert the word “allegedly” before saying “driving while intoxicated.” Heck, not even Tom Stribling, Quintana’s attorney, used it. This speaks volumes about how law enforcement takes for granted that all their arrests are, in fact, valid arrests. He hasn’t been indicted by Williamson County yet, a hand-ringing situation for them, if you were to judge by WilCo prosecutors’ actual hand-ringing during the hearing (and some frustrated tears by one in the hallway). In fact, they are so worried about how the publicity of this hearing will affect their proceedings, they asked the City to not air this hearing on Channel 6 until they adjudicate their case…months from now. Thankfully, the City didn’t grant the request (it aired the following two days, but it is not downloaded on the City website for viewing).

He didn’t “break the law” either in 2005, when he shoved his way into his girlfriend’s home against her wishes, since she was later convinced by others to drop the charges and change her 911-call story from: Quintana shoving her onto the ground/hurting her; to: her “accidentally tripping” and Quintana trying to prevent her fall. She was a fellow officer; females don’t seem to be afforded as much leeway as the males at APD.

Interim Chief Cathy Ellison (herself a pawn during the police chief selection game), waved off filing a criminal charge for Quintana but did, however, grant a 15-day administrative suspension, stating in her memo that his actions "constituted criminal trespass." This was later reduced to a verbal reprimand by Chief Acevedo because…well…he felt sorry for pobre Leonito that the basis of the domestic dispute – cruise ship tickets that would go to waste now that the couple was at odds — had cost him some personal money and that his unpaid suspension was going to cost him even more (he made $88,000/year thereabouts and drove a Cadillac Escalade, not exactly indigent). Or something to that effect. I asked reporters at the hearing their take and all were as confused as I. Definitely doesn’t pass the smell-test.

So the story is: he was “officer of the year” from 2002 until December of 2009, except if you exclude his not turning on the video camera in May, 2009. Although by dismissing the other infractions found around the shooting by the Police Monitor/Citizens Review Panel as well as by KeyPoint, the narrative became that not turning on the camera was 'simply an oversight,' so he was still a “good cop,” essentially. The 15-day suspension didn’t exactly send the message that he’d done wrong, since it simultaneously insulted the community by being so minimal considering an unarmed young man was dead.

How Much Support is Too Much Support?

So there were supposedly no red flags on this man, despite the numerous complaints filed on him, despite the 2005 community report on his abuse of Tasers (5 times in 9 months is an extraordinary record), until he admitted to having a drinking problem in late 2009. Even then, he wasn’t mandated to go to rehabilitation. It was voluntary — and he volunteered not to go.

It also seems his “tumultuous” relationship with APD Officer Lori Noriega wasn’t any indication that he had issues that might affect his work because as APD Lt. Jessica Robledo stated in testimony (and other officers echoed in theirs), it’s quite prevalent that officers have unhealthy personal relationships; considerably more unhealthy than the general population, it seems.

What are APD’s psychologists doing over there besides getting good cops fired (as in Perez’s case)? What kind of “support” are they offering officers?

None of the other officers the night of his DWI were investigated (others likely drove drunk if they drank alongside Quintana, they just didn’t put their car in a trench). “The entire episode reflects an alarming, if unsurprising, casual drinking culture among cops, not the most recommended form of stress-relief for armed officers” (Michael King). While it’s no one’s business what an officer does off duty unless he breaks the law, if they are going to overuse substances, the public safety is impacted on and off-duty if they drink to excess or pop steroids, as both contribute to aggressive behavior and alcohol has the added bonus of depression.

Given all the red flags we can now see in hindsight, and that the City admitted to in the hearing despite trying to paint a completely different picture of him as they defend him in the civil suit, we must ask: what’s APD’s distinction between support and enabling; or abetting, even?

“Schizophrenic Mess” Describes APD Too

There’s no support if you buck the politics that keep the blue shield firmly in place, but if you are an overtly aggressive, girlfriend abuser who carries his gun off duty (as a matter of habit?) with the mindset to flee the scene of your own crime…you get one or two slaps on the hand for the ‘mishaps,’ then a few pats on the back and an “Officer of the Year” or two award!

APD holds THIS guy up as the MODEL officer…then comes to testify what a bad cop he’s been all along – or was it only since May or was it December of 2009? Meanwhile, they gave Ramon Perez the Ernie Hinckle Humanitarian Award — but later (their psychologist) deemed him too humane to safely serve in the department.

In 2007, Perez received another award, being named the ACLU-TX Central Texas Chapter "Civil Libertarian of the Year," for “his courage, bravery and unwavering commitment to protect the Constitution and serve with integrity.” He chose NOT to use excessive force and buy into the “forget what you learned in the academy, this is how we do it on the streets” mentality, despite pressure to do otherwise. His story, extraordinarily documented by Michael Brooks, is a must-read for APD police accountability advocates. It intimately describes the “schizophrenic mess” that is our police department: holding officers to certain standards on paper, but actually expecting something different.

Perez lost the case despite the City contradicting itself throughout the trial. Still, the City won because juries won’t indict their government for fear of having to face up to bigger issues that need to be addressed, and darn it, we just don’t have time to pay attention! Like the Quintana hearing, they tried to prove what a “bad cop” Perez was despite not taking any action during that time to address those supposed issues.

But if Perez was so “unsafe,” then, as The Austin Chronicle posed, “why allow him to resign and keep his peace officer's license?” We don’t know yet how the DWI will affect Quintana’s peace officer’s license, he may lose it if he pleas…but as of now, he is working in private security and maintains it.

When a Leonardo Quintana is coddled, but a Ramon Perez is run out on a rail...Austin – we have a problem.

“Poor Judgment is a Mitigating Factor” – for Cops…or at least for cops who play the game right

“Back to Work. I'm ready to go at it again. Here we come so bring on the bad guys.”

This was the headline under a picture Quintana posted on his FaceBook page holding an AR-15 in his uniform – before being ordered by superiors to take it down immediately (a fact not revealed until this hearing). “In yo’ FACE!” he essentially said to the Sanders family and community of Austin. He had just come off of his 15 day suspension for not turning on his video camera before shooting a person who was asleep 2 seconds prior to having the first bullet in his shoulder.

"It was an ass-chewing. ... I'd never been talked to like that before in this department,” Quintana described of his supervisor’s demand he take it down...testimony so rife with symbolism it was dubbed “Quote of the Week” by the Austin Chronicle. Unfortunately, it seems “exemplary” Lenny didn’t understand why posting the picture was in poor taste which caused APD to finally admit that it’s that kind of disconnect that makes him a “bad cop.”

So the real problem is that he’d “never been talked to like that before.”

"We believe he should have been fired for the shooting. We believe he should have been fired for a number of incidents before the shooting...There were many red flags in this officer’s career that predicted something like this occurring." – Adam Loewy, Sanders family attorney

“But cops are human too!” was Stribling’s and the APA’s defense. Quintana was 'basically' a good cop, he’s just prone to messing up...a lot, it seems, according to his superiors who nonetheless didn’t see fit to discipline him over multiple complaints or only offered a hand-slap if they did.

We, the People, don’t get to use the “oops, I’m human” excuse in officer encounters, but aren’t THEY supposed to be held to a higher standard, not the other way around?

So “poor judgment” can be tolerated over and over until the public is paying attention and it reflects poorly on the department. Only then will APD out a truly unsafe officer, or quash one who speaks against officer abuse of power.

The Disappearing Victim Card Trick

“Lenny Quintana is not the victim here,” said Michael Cronig for the City, which is ironic because after the shooting that’s all we heard about, what a victim Officer Quintana is! It’s about time they admitted otherwise.

There are many victims in his wake, however: from fellow female officers to people shot with 50,000 volts in the back (fleeing means they aren't posing a threat to the officer), to the countless complaintants and likely many more who didn’t complain (for fear of retaliation or understandable lack of faith in the oversight system), and, of course, Nathaniel Sanders, II and his survivors.

“It's still difficult to this day,” Quintana, attempting to reclaim the victim role, testified about his shooting Sanders. But if he is so certain it was justified and that the public outcry and the hired consultants’ findings were baseless, then what was driving him to “self-medicate” with alcohol?

What ARE They Saying About Us Down at 8th and Colorado?

The City tried to get the Perez case thrown out after the Federal District Court ruled it should go to trial. Until this point, I had seen the City stomp their feet with the courts when defending officers (or in this case defending APD against an officer) and mostly get their way. I had not yet seen such a harshly-written response from a federal judge to our City (“Defendants”) essentially telling them to stop wasting the court’s time with their crap:

“Although they couch their arguments in various legal forms, Defendants essentially quibble with the district court's determination that there is a genuine factual issue as to the reasons for Perez's termination. But the district court expressly found that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants terminated Perez for his religious beliefs, and in an interlocutory appeal of qualified immunity, this determination is unassailable.”

The judges saw the writing on the wall, unfortunately, in four short days of reviewing 1000s of pages of information and hearing +/-25 hours of testimony, the jury could not.

THEN came the letter from Judge Sparks to our City after our Council voted down the Sanders settlement, a negotiation they had previously ordered go forward. The Judge ordered the City vote more than 25 days before a scheduled trial begins since judges “cannot rely on the City of Austin to support the recommendations of its lawyers.”

He went onto say that his “court accepted the lawyers at their word and removed the case from the July 19, 2010 trial, a mistake (I) will not make again,” adding that it had already resulted in “a substantial expense to the American taxpayer.”

I don’t see the City being able to stamp its feet and get what it wants in any federal courtroom anytime soon, but the question is…how much will our loss of credibility cost us in future litigation?

Worst Case Scenario

If Quintana gets back on the force, it will be to the detriment of Austin…as our loss of Officer Perez to Pflugerville was. The community will become even more negatively impacted over the furor that would surround such a ruling, but it would be the City’s fault for their own lack of accountability over some officers and for all their missteps following the Sanders shooting.

And the saga continues…