.
Anaheim’s alleged violation of the California Voting Rights Act may soon be settled by the newly installed Council, according to the Voice of OC. The lawsuit aims to mandate better representation for the city’s Latino population. This action echoes the requests presented by many residents, to save the city additional costs spent on delaying settling the lawsuit. This sentiment has been expressed since the lawsuit was filed, and it was reiterated by everyone from the public who spoke at this month’s meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections and Community Involvement.
Members of the public also requested reconsidering the continuation of this Committee, until the new Council can comprehensively review the lawsuit. This commission was set up by the majority of the previous city Council (Murray, Eastman and Sidhu), who apparently oppose the districting reform, or at least aim to delay it. I believe that Jordan Brandman, one of the new Councilmembers, attended that commission meeting. His position is critical to resolve one of the major problems in our City. Resolving this would allow the new Council to better tackle the Garden Walk’s hotel development issue, and the outcome of the review of police use-of-force policies.
The neighborhood improvement program, also discussed by the new Council, is a significant step as well. Another action becoming more relevant is the one that Lucille Kring, the other new council member, has been advocating: community policing. The tragic event last week in Newtown, Connecticut highlights the importance of gun safety. A positive interaction between the police and residents, especially in the densely populated neighborhoods, will hopefully reduce the chances of unsafe and irresponsible use of firearms.
These issues are all related. The ultimate goal is to improve the quality of life of all the residents. One challenge is to avoid a repeat of the riots that stained our city, whose root causes still need to be addressed. The video posted in the Save Anaheim blog is a reminder of the tasks that we face.
The discussion about Anaheim is going on a blog that seems to be financed by organizations interested in maintaining their control in the city affairs. This is their take on a comment I posted here :
I’d like to share this excerpt from a comment on the Orange Juice Blog (scroll down to the bottom of the post) by Anaheim activist Ricardo Toro. He writes about his experience during public comments at last week’s meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections:
“I followed stating that as a latino I feel that the city council composition does not adequately represent latinos, and that the new council should consider saving taxpayer money by settiling the lawsuit.
The latinos members of the commision present at that moment jumped on me, that latinos have been represented, recently by Ms Galloway. Later I found that they are the ones appointed by Ms Eastman. The other latino who came late to the meeting was also against districting; he is the one appointed by Ms Murray. Overall the majority of this commission is not pro-district, reflecting the political vision of the council members who appointed them.”
Reading Mr. Toro’s claim that he was “jumped on” made me wonder if we attended the same meeting. At the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting I attended, there was indeed a Ricardo Toro who expressed those sentiments during public comments – but no committee member “jumped on” him.
What did happen was committee member Gloria Ma’ae calmly and respectfully disagreed with Mr. Toro’s contention that in the absence of a councilmember of his ethnicity, he was not represented on the city council.
Here is what Ms. Ma’ae said:
“As a Latina, I feel very fortunate that we have had plenty of representation, such as Bob Hernandez, [Richard] Chavez, Lorri Galloway. The Bobs were just the prior council to this current council, and, also, as far as the districting, there are many possibilities from what I’m hearing in these meetings – I am learning a lot about what our options are, and we haven’t even heard them all, yet.
So I would like to ask you to have some patience, and keep an open mind, and wait to hear what the experts and the two speakers that we’re going to have today from Vista and Modesto, and see what their input is, and see what we might be able to come up with, what kind of recommendation we can make that’s in the best interest of all, not just the Latino community, for everyone. There are many different cultures in this city, and personally, I want too be represented as an individual, as a human being, as a resident – not just as a Latina.”
Yeah – she really jumped all over him.
You can watch her comments for yourself on the video of the committee meeting, starting at the 19:23 mark. Not only did Ms. Ma’ae NOT “jump” on Mr. Toro, but she expressed totally mainstream views for more in synch with the vast majority of Anaheim residents than Mr. Toro’s racially-tinged viewpoint.
Mr. Toro complained on Orange Juice that the committee is not pro-district. Well, they aren’t supposed to be biased in favor of any particular system. That’s kind of the point of the exercise.
This process makes clear that core supporters of the ACLU litigation view the world through race-colored glasses: only a Latino can represent a Latino, a view that is more consonant with the structure of the parliament of apartheid South Africa than representative government in the United States.
This is my reply to the blog mentioned in the previous comment.
“Mr Cunningham
Whether the commission members appointed by Ms Eastman jumped at me or not, it was clear that they genuinely and naively believe that there is no under-representation problem in our city.
Let’s remind ourselves of the background to the creation of this commission. You may have read the account of the OC Weekly’s editor, born and raised in Anaheim, in his piece titled Anaheim’s Tragic Kingdom. If his account is too radical for you, let’s see what the LA Times reported:
“ … Anaheim faces a similar demographic shift now, and many see it at the root of recent angry protests over the fatal police shootings of two Latino men. According to the latest U.S. census, Anaheim is now majority minority. About 52% of the city’s 336,000 residents are Latino, but only a handful of Latinos have ever won council seats.
Anaheim is also the largest city in California that still elects council members at large, meaning council members are elected on a citywide basis. Like Santa Ana in the 1990s, Anaheim is now under growing pressure to switch to district voting, which usually makes it easier for minority groups to win council seats because voting is broken up into smaller geographic segments. The City Council could decide next week to put the question on the November ballot.
Anaheim is just the latest California city to reach this threshold, where traditional minority groups attain majority status in population but still struggle to get more political power.
This gap is especially pronounced in cities with large immigrant communities, where many residents cannot vote. Only half of the voting-age Latinos in Anaheim are citizens, according to census data.
…District elections in Anaheim could dramatically change the political dynamic. A neighborhood-by-neighborhood analysis of census data by The Times shows that the city is deeply segregated along ethnic lines.
There is a strong white majority in the city’s newer, more affluent east side, including picturesque Anaheim Hills, an enclave nearly physically separated from the rest of the city. About 58% of the residents are white. The area has a median income of more than $100,000.
Latinos dominate in the central core of Anaheim generally between the 5 and 55 freeways, an area marked by barrios and dense apartments. Here, 68% of the residents are Latino and incomes fall below the Orange County average. Pockets of this community have poverty rates exceeding 25%, the analysis found.
The western section of Anaheim, near Disneyland, represents a third demographic. This area is the most diverse section of the city, where Latinos make up about 51% of the population. The majority of the city’s blacks and Asians live there.
Census records show a dramatic disparity in education.
Nearly half the adults age 25 and above in the east have graduated from college, with one in six holding a master’s degree or higher. Fewer than one in five in the central and western areas have co llege degrees, and about the same number were high school dropouts.” ( Council districts could alter power dynamic in Anaheim August 04, 2012)
At the commission meeting, the Loyola University professor presented a summary of the California Voting Rights Act. This is a similar explanation from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
“The California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) was signed into law on 9 July 2002.[1] The act expands on the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it easier for minority groups in California to prove that their votes are being diluted in “at-large” elections.[1] In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court established conditions that must be met to prove that minorities are being disenfranchised; the CVRA eliminated one of these requirements. Unlike the Federal Voting Rights Act, the CVRA does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate a specific geographic district where a minority is concentrated enough to establish a majority. This makes it easier for minority voters to sue local governments and eliminate at-large elections.[2]
In 2007, the California State Supreme court ruled the act constitutional in Sanchez v. The City of Modesto.[3] The city claimed that the act was unconstitutional because it inherently favored people of color; the court concluded that the act was not racist in nature and returned to case to trial court.[3]
Critics of the act argue that it inappropriately makes race a predominant factor in elections and that it does not make sense to eliminate the requirement to establish a geographic district where there is a minority concentration.[2] Advocates argue that at-large elections allow bloc voting that effectively keeps minorities out of office.[4]”
I feel insuting that you would compare the efforts to bring democratic changes, embodied in the Voting Rights Acts, to the apartheid South African regime. On a personal level, I would not vote for a Latino just because the candidate is a Latino. I would not vote for Chavez Lodge in any kind of electoral system. It is not a question of having racially tinged viewpoint. It is a question of addressing the roots causes of the explosive issues affecting our city.
I am a civic minded resident who cares about moving the city forward. You may read my views on the currrent developments in my recent post http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/12/could-anaheim-actually-be-moving-forward-1/ …..Your interpretation of the events in our city reflects an interest in maintaining the status quo. I understand that you are a professional blogger, and you have been reluctant to disclose whether you receive some kind of compensation for your work on this blog. Your contribution to the civic discussion and affairs of our city could be taken seriously if you answer the compensation question.”
Lots of conflict in Anaheim lately.
“a blog that seems to be financed by organizations interested in maintaining their control in the city affairs.”
Didn’t see any proof of this in the rest of the post. Without that the statement is little more than hearsay and rumormongering designed to place doubt in the people’s mind. Underhanded manipulation by an unsubstantiated claim.
Any contribution to this blog or elsewhere is more likely to be “taken seriously” if it doesn’t include smear tactics.
Right, DJ — there’s no proof. Matt Cunningham — who, for all I know, could be you — will not divulge who is paying for the blog. I suppose that one can take two approaches in response. One is to say “well, he won’t say anything, so we can’t come to any conclusion at all — stonewalling wins.” The other is to use our brains, ask “Cui bono?”, and come to a tentative conclusion that until and unless the blog that is pushing the business interests of Anaheim is shown to be otherwise, it’s completely correct to say that “it seems to be” funded by them. Similarly, you “seem to be” Matt Cunningham or someone associated with him, and the response to which Ricardo objected “seems to be” obfuscation.
Moving on to that — how do you feel, DJ, about a reply to Anaheim’s Latino community that says (warning, this is a paraphrase) “hey, you had a half non-Latino Iberian on the Council recently, and a couple more before that, so what are you complaining about?” If things were different, I wonder how Disney would respond to the retort that “hey, you had two pro-Disney people on the council in the middle of the last decade, so quit your complaining!”
If I have one complaint about the discussion above it’s that the Santa Ana ward system is not at all acceptable — it’s like choosing colonial governors, not representatives. When the wealthier wards don’t pick among the choices as to who will represent the rest of the city, then we’ll have something more like true representation.
“Similarly, you “seem to be” Matt Cunningham or someone associated with him…”
Actualy, Greg, if you click on the hyperling from AnaheimDJ’s comment, it’s perfectly clear who he is, and that he is not me.
And for the record, I have never met DJ Craig nor had even heard of him prior to reading his comment today.
This blog has always been a fever swamp of conspiracy theories.
Watch, everyone — Matt’s going to slough this one off with a dismissive remark as to its length.
I’ll number these for ease of reference.
(1) He did seem like he was or could be you. That’s not a conspiracy theory.
(2) He still seems like he is or could be someone associated with you. At most, that’s a conspiracy hypothesis, not a theory.
(3) By clicking on DJ Craig’s site and his resume to see who he is, I see that … his name is Craig. No last name that I saw, including on the resume link (though that did produce his phone number, which I’m not going to call.) Having a first name does not make it “perfectly clear” who someone is — unless you know them. But you say that you’ve never met or heard of him before now.
(4) So, given the lack of a last name, how would you know whether you’ve met or heard of him? How would you even know whether he’s associated you in some way — say, if he has some association with Pringle? You either lied in your third paragraph — that is, you know who he is and know you’re not associated with him — or you are artfully not rebutting the notion that he may be someone with whom you’re politically associated.
(5) Given that you won’t release the identify of whomever it is that sponsors and funds your Anaheim blog, you are in no position to complain about conspiracy theories. You seem to think that stonewalling means that no one has the right to guess. Don’t stonewall and the rest of us won’t have to resort to guessing.
How do I know that I don’t know this Craig guy? Let’s see: for one thing, I looked at his picture on his website and don’t recognize him. And I don’t know anyone named Craig who is a DJ.
You “seem” to be an intelligent, person, Greg, but you can write some really stupid things.
What year was that photo taken? You have no idea.
Does it portray him in an unusual light? You have no idea.
Do you know the sidelines of all of the people you know? Probably not.
Do you know if “Craig” is a name he uses solely or mainly for professional purposes, while you’d know him as “Bud” or “Skip”? Presumably not.
Do you know if he’s associated with the people who are funding your blog? The answer must be “no” — you sound like you don’t even know who’s funding your blog. Could be this guy’s dad.
Are you for real? I think I know better than you do whether or not I know someone.
I don’t see why. The rest of us apparently have a better idea than you do about who’s funding your blog.
And yet again Matt manages to slip away from the basic question with a standard “squirrel” diversion. The primary issue is not whether Matt Cunningham is DJ Craig or knows DJ Craig, it is whether or not Matt is being compensated for his work on the anaheim blog. To that end, while the vast majority of OC blogs are labors of love by those of us who carve time from work, family, and laundry, Matt Cunningham is the rare bird who is able to earn a living as a keyboard for hire.
So it is not a stretch to assume the “anaheim blog” is yet another of his paid endeavors. Nor is it difficult to see who is likely to be supporting his efforts, just look at the sidebar of links. Matt’s blog is all about promoting Anaheim’s new pro-business progressive movement, built by the Anaheim establishment types who work very hard to convince the unwashed masses that “public-private partnership” means something other than government giving a fat check to private industry for a job that the private sector refuses to underwrite.
And yet, instead of holding Matt accountable to answer that question of compensation, we just let him slip once again into a discussion of semantics, in order to avoid the obvious admission that Mr. Cunningham is a paid professional who refuses to disclose his status as nothing more than a commercial advertisement for the Pringle faction.
Business as usual.
Cynthia, check out the last part of my last three comments. He may think that he’s slipping away, but all he’s doing is giving me (and now you) a chance to repeat ourselves. The “DJ Craig” thing is just playing out the line.
I don’t see what the fuss is all about. Jerbal never does anything for free. You start from the premise that he’s on someone’s payroll and extrapolate that the someone in question would rather not be overtly linked to him.
In this case it’s easy: Pringle, Disney, SOAR, OCBC. Who cares? They’re all the same enterprise.
It’s not as fun without the admission and the more strained avoidance of the admission becomes the more fun it gets.
Mr Cunningham continues his diatribe, in his blog, against critics of how the Anaheim affairs have been conducted. Now is taking on Jason, the editor of SaveAnaheim.
“Since the beginning of August of this year, local gadfly Jason Young has been plastering the Anaheim City Clerk’s office with public record act requests. As of December 13, 2012, Young had submitted 22 requests between August 1 and November 30.
Of course, it is the public’s right to request public documents, and I’m not suggesting Mr. Young is doing anything wrong. But his public record requests do provide something of a window into his mind.
Jason Young’s blizzard of requests are generally wide-ranging fishing expeditions involving the half-dozen hobgoblins who populate his cramped, distorted political universe. Many are just redundant. He even submitted one about me. You really get a feel for Mr. Young’s uber-conspiratorial view of Anaheim politics and government.
Here is one of my favorites, submitted by Mr. Young on September 19, 2012 (I removed a couple of names of people who aren’t public figures):
“I’d like copies of any correspondence between Jordan Brandman and Curt Pringle, Larry Lake, Bill O’Connell, Anna Piercy, _______, Lucy Dunn, Reed Royalty, _____ and anyone associated with the unions that support the GardenWalk Hotel development.”
“..anyone associated with the unions…”? Would you like some fries with that indiscriminate dragnet, Mr. Young? Does he think incoming correspondence is checked against a matrix of known union associates and tagged “union supporter”?
Judging from the neurotic content of Mr. Young’s blog, about the only thing he has accomplished with this blizzard of PRA request is to waste the city’s time and money chasing ghosts for him. Perhaps Mr. Young can submit a PRA request for total staff time (and the equivalent cost) consumed by his PRA requests — that would actually be something worth finding out.”
A couple of follow up comments by Mr Cunnigham:
“What SaveAnaheim publishes is your conspiratorial conjecture about GardenWalk and a variety other Anaheim issues, along with frequent and unsubstantiated attacks on the character of those you oppose politically.
Reply
December 29, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Ricardo Toro
Isn’t the ruling by Orange County Superior Court Judge Steven Perk that the City Council’s 3-2 vote in January approving the tax subsidy was a violation of California’s open-meeting law, known as the Brown Act? Is this ruling part of the conspiratorial conjecture? Was Mayor Tait opposition to the tax subsidy, which he considered it a bad deal for Anaheim, also conspiratorial?
Who is the main character that Jason has consistently exposed?: Curt Pringle & Associates, “a full-service public relations, public affairs and government relations firm, providing a wide range of services to both private and public sector clients.”
Mr Pringle’s history of benefiting his clients and/or his firm, at the expenses of public subsidies has been documented well before the GardenWalk project.” Two prominent California High-Speed Rail Authority leaders who are already under scrutiny for holding potentially “incompatible” public offices have received tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees from firms with financial interests in the $43-billion project.
Rail board chairman and Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, a public affairs consultant, has been an advisor to a major construction supplier that owns property along proposed bullet train routes, records and interviews show.” http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/31/local/la-me-high-speed-ethics-20101031
Jason has documented the lack of transparency involving Mr Pringle’s firm and some city council members. He has clearly exposed their connections in his blog, and as far as I know, they have not rebutted him:
“Curt Pringle has a business and friendship relationship with Disney President George Kalogridis. Disney’s main consultant is Curt Pringle and Associates.
He advises George Kalogridis on all Anaheim governmental matters, especially transportation issues, such as ARC (Anaheim Resort Connection) and ARTIC (Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodel Center), both projects worth in the billions of dollars. Pringle is the consultant for ARC and for contractors for ARTIC.
He is the consultant for Bill O’Connell, a private hotel developer, who, with the votes of Murray, Eastman and Sidhu, just received $158 million of taxpayer TOT for his hotel development.
Curt Pringle created SOAR (Save Our Anaheim Resorts) originally in 2007, to fight against one residential development in the fringes of the resort area because HE was not their consultant. SOAR advocates for anything that involves Curt Pringle and Associates.”
Many residents appreciate Jason’s efforts to promote transparency and fair deals for the city. Your take on his efforts shows your bias towards the interests exposed by Jason.”
Another Cunningham’s comment:
So, according to you, Cynthia, unless I talk about what you want to talk about, my posts are “squirrel” tactics (is that your new favorite word?). Blogo-narcissism doesn’t only afflict Art Pedroza.
I don’t think I have ever seen you take exception to the many examples of character assassination on Jason’s blog, but I write about his PRA requests and I am attacking him.
And frankly, Cynthia, after reading your comment, you aren’t too far behind Jason in the fantasyland category.
Reply
December 29, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Cynthia Ward
I live in fantasyland because i think our elected leaders are arrogant elitists who ignore the cries of the governed while they support their well-connected friends? Then i do not live there alone, there are enough others out there that the City is getting sued over their shenanigans. have you already forgotten that the City just lost in court over violating the State’s open meeting laws? And because the leaders use their personal email accounts to discuss government business (a habit that just cost the head of the EPA her career) the only way to get information is to throw the net as wide as possible hoping they cc’ed someone whose email is officially under the authority of a PRA. If City Hall wants the requests to stop being so broad, they need to start conducting the people’s business in a more transparent manner. period. Speaking of transparency, Matt still has not answered whether he is receiving compensation for his work here.”
Has Vern made it verboten for you to link to Anaheim Blog? Is that why you engage in the wholesale copy-and-paste of Anaheim Blog’s content over to here?
Not very liberal (of self-confident) of Vern, is it?
Here’s the link for the curious:
http://anaheimblog.net/2012/12/27/the-jason-young-public-record-act-request-blitz/
We’ll see how long before the Ministry of Truth pops it down the memory hole.
It is my prerogative how to present what I think is relevant in my comments. I pasted your comments entirely, to accurately present your views on the subject I was higlighting.
This is not the first time that you have attacked Jason. One of your accusations this time is that he “publishes conspiratorial conjecture about GardenWalk and a variety other Anaheim issues”. The ruling voiding the GardeanWalk’s council decision, and the opposition of many residents, including Mayor Tait to this subsidy, are clear facts that Jason was correct in questioning the transparency of this deal. It is obvious that you defend Mr Curt Pringle and his associates. Isn’t Mr Pringley the consultant for Bill O’Connell, the private hotel developer, who, with the votes of Murray, Eastman and Sidhu, received $158 million of taxpayer TOT for his hotel development?
Who is that handsome man in the dark glasses and cap??? Mr. T is that you???
The anonymous contributors of Mr Cunningham’s blog are busily commenting in the Voice of OC’s coverage of the hotel subsidy. By not disclosing their names, their statements lose veracity and put them at the same low level of credibility as their blog “operator. They are pushing Jordan Brandman to prematurely define his position in the eventual new vote on the subsidy.
They are also criticizing Jason Young for what they consider “shameful vilification” of Bill O’Connell, the hotel developer.
I appreciate Jason’s passion for a transparent and better Anaheim. I say goodbye to Jason as he is moving out of Anaheim but will continue to fight for our town.
The fight for Jordan’s soul continues. I repeat my prediction: he’s going to be sorry that he won this last election. The moneysuckers think that they bought him outright. If it turns out that they didn’t — there will be consequences. If it turns out that they did — there will also be consequences. And they could have him in place just fine if they just weren’t so damn greedy, such as by turning the subsidy into a loan and letting Anaheim issue a bond for it. But they can’t or won’t think creatively like that. Maybe Jordan will.
It’s nearly impossible to imagine Jordan not approving this. Remember, one thing he was very clear about throughout his campaign was supporting the giveaway, and he came in as the top vote getter. To him that obviously means the people WANT the GardenWalk giveaway, and all his friends will remind him of that.
Of course you and I know that when most Anaheimers hear about the Giveaway they’re outraged and want to sign “Let the people Vote” – but your average voter who cast a ballot for the friendly, smiling, young Labor-backed Democrat with the familiar name and the dozens of Disney-funded glossy mailers wasn’t thinking about corporate welfare when he or she went to the polls.
I don’t think that he’d vote to turn it down flat. I do think that he might consider converting it into a loan that would be repaid over time out of TOT revenues, funded by a municipal bond. I still might not favor that myself, but the Anaheim Arranged Loan would be a hell of a lot more defensible than the GardenWalk Giveaway. I’m sure that others with more relevant experience than I might have even better suggestions for political compromises.
And, you know, we could always beat the drums for such a compromise. That always works!
The Voice of OC has become one of the best media reporting on Anaheim. Their coverage of yesterday’s council meeting highlights the City Council unanimously directing City Manager Bob Wingenroth to develop a specific proposal for a police oversight body that would include civilians.
It also reports on a confrontation between the Police Chief and Duane Roberts, former council candidate and blogger. “During public comments, Roberts challenged Welter’s claim in an Al-Jazeera documentary that he didn’t know about a military-style police unit that had been dispatched to patrol the city after a downtown riot in the wake of a string of fatal police shootings. Rioters damaged 20 downtown businesses.
In video aired by Al Jazeera, cadres of officers in military fatigues are seen brandishing assault rifles while hitched to sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks. Critics had said the scene looked more like a military occupation of a foreign country than an American police patrol.
Roberts had said during public comments that he saw an officer on a motorcycle who looked like Welter. Roberts speculated that he struck a nerve with the chief by indicating that Welter may have been overseeing what he acknowledged to Al-Jazeera was a regrettable and excessive display of force.”
http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_north/article_cc5ce0e2-5fd9-11e2-9c48-001a4bcf887a.html
Agreed. They’ve really stepped it up on this issue.
This week city council meeting’s events confirms that the shaping of the political solutions rests decisively on Jordan Brandman. The appointment of Diane Singer from Anaheim Hills, to the Public Utility Board, is an early indication of what was expected from Brandman’s : voting as a block with Murray and Eastman.
A most significant decision was the unanimous vote on directing the City Manager to assemble a police oversight proposal. This decision is not a recognition of the complaints against the APD, but it could set up a mechanism to address the allegations and recommend corrective actions if needed. Taking into account Brandman ‘s reluctance to acknowledge police brutality in the incidents triggering the riot, the unanimous decision shows that he is willing to address the perceived problem, and to convince or reassure his allies in the council. His next two important moves will be regarding the hotel subsidy and the lawsuit .He will not only define the solutions to these problems, but also may define the future of his young political career.
The incident with the Police Chief, and today’s announcement of another Gang Injuction Zone, now in Anna Drive, are also relevant . Gang Injuction is criticized by some as counterproductive. The measures to address crime in our city should consider the concerns expressed by experts in the same video that prompted the incident with the Chief. In this video he said that “he was shocked when he saw photos of an armored vehicle travelling down Anna Drive, with SWAT people hanging on the outside with fully automated weapons. He did not know about it.” See 20:39 time of the video.
Duane Roberts appropriately questioned whether the Chef was not aware of his Department being deployed as a militarized force. However, Duane could have checked the whereabouts of the Chief during that day, before stating that he saw an officer on a motorcycle who looked like Chief Welter overseeing the police operation. Where was the Chief that day, anyway?
Although It did not clear him of his responsibility, his candid recognition in the video that ”I am not naïve…I know we have problem with trust, that we have to make changes in the organization in order to gain that trust” was encouraging. Incorporating the concerns regarding the counterproductive impact of the Gang Injuction program would be a step to establish trust.
I’m working on a new Mishegas / Desmadre story, amigo …. should be ready tomorrow