In many ways, without this next video clip, this blog would probably not exist. On the evening of January 17, 2006 I received a call asking me to record the City Council Meeting. This is not the first time I had done this; usually I popped in the tape, and went about my business. For whatever reason that evening, I left the TV on with the meeting going and as I was working on other things. And what I heard shocked and appalled me to the point where for the first time I started paying attention to Davis City Politics.
I had known about the police issue, I had heard about the Buzayan case from that summer, but I was not paying a lot of attention to it. There are two things on the video clip that made me pay attention.
The first was, and Don Saylor had said the same thing earlier that evening–they had thoroughly reviewed the complaints against the city and found them totally without merit. Puntillo added that this would be an eye-opener for many in the city. I had by this point known about the Buzayan case, and the specifics involved and I believed that this case had a lot of merit and was very troubling. This case is going through the legal process now and I think the city is going to take a huge hit on it.
The troubling part of that statement for me is what had they actually done in “reviewing” these cases? Did they conduct a separate investigation? The city council cannot give specifics of closed door meetings, but the sense I got was a very definitive no. So if they didn’t actually conduct an investigation what did they do? Well I believe they read the report from the internal investigator, just as (the City Manager) Jim Antonen had when he sent a letter to Dr. Buzayan explaining to him that his complaint was unfounded. That letter is at the very center of the reason why there was a push for a review board and that letter is the very reason why Mr. Aaronson now sits in the position he is sitting as Police Ombudsman. As far as I can tell, they read the investigation report and Antonen’s letter and came up with their conclusions. In other words, they took the police internal review report at face value. This is exactly why we need an ombudsman who is independent of the process and can conduct their investigations into complaints.
Puntillo voted for the ombudsman but he never supported the idea of oversight. Indeed, in emails to supporters that we have obtained as parts of public records requests, he consistently said the council would be “forced” to hire an ombudsman, but he assured them that Chief Hyde was okay with this and that neither he nor the council would never support an independent review board.
The stunning statement from Puntillo, and ultimately the one that forced me into action was his later statement:
“What I want are police officers out there that are using their training and their instincts, I don’t want them thinking about oh somebody’s going to be reviewing what I’m doing. I want them to do what they are trained to do and that’s protect us.”
That may be the most offensive and irresponsible statement I had ever heard from a public official. At that point, I realized that I not only disagree with these guys, but these guys were dangerous. The fundamental principle in the rule of law and government is that of accountability. Everyone, in every job, especially in the public sector, needs to be accountable for their actions. Everyone needs to know that what they do will be reviewed and scrutinized. That is embedded in our principal of checks and balances and the provisions of oversight granted in the constitution to Congress over the President.
That applies even more when the people in question carry guns and have the legitimate authority to use them under some very specific and controlled conditions. Even with no measure of police oversight, the police have a review process and are required by law to hire someone who is going to be reviewing what they are doing. It may be their supervisor, it may be the police chief, or it may be internal affairs. But they always will have someone.
The question of oversight focuses not on whether actions will be reviews, but rather who will do that review. The question of review itself is a given. And for Puntillo to make that type of statement, he shows himself to be ignorant and more importantly complicit in the problems that face this community.
I understand full well that Puntillo was far from the most polished person on dais–he was often extremely blunt in his assessments. That was at times both a strength and a weakness. Puntillo is no longer on the council. However, and this is the point I think that needs to be driven home today–not one person on that board, not even Greenwald, said one word about Puntillo’s statement in public. Not one of them. Silence is compliance.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Accountability is key. I would like to offer an issue that may at first glance appear peripheral. Mayor Chrisopher Calbadon of West Sacramento, who I understand was just barely beaten by Lois Wolk for an assembly seat, is reported to be planning another run in 2008. He is a viable alternative to Don Saylor’s probable run for Wolk’s assembly seat. Strong Davis grassroots support for Mayor Calbadon will serve notice to our council members that not only will we not vote for them for higher office but that we will actively campaign on behalf of and offer support to their primary opponent who has a real chance to win. This will do wonders to force our Davis council representativies to serve Davis interests rather than their personal political ambition. Check out mayor Calbadon. His political credentials are much more in line with Davis principles than his most likely primary opponent from Davis.
Accountability is key. I would like to offer an issue that may at first glance appear peripheral. Mayor Chrisopher Calbadon of West Sacramento, who I understand was just barely beaten by Lois Wolk for an assembly seat, is reported to be planning another run in 2008. He is a viable alternative to Don Saylor’s probable run for Wolk’s assembly seat. Strong Davis grassroots support for Mayor Calbadon will serve notice to our council members that not only will we not vote for them for higher office but that we will actively campaign on behalf of and offer support to their primary opponent who has a real chance to win. This will do wonders to force our Davis council representativies to serve Davis interests rather than their personal political ambition. Check out mayor Calbadon. His political credentials are much more in line with Davis principles than his most likely primary opponent from Davis.
Accountability is key. I would like to offer an issue that may at first glance appear peripheral. Mayor Chrisopher Calbadon of West Sacramento, who I understand was just barely beaten by Lois Wolk for an assembly seat, is reported to be planning another run in 2008. He is a viable alternative to Don Saylor’s probable run for Wolk’s assembly seat. Strong Davis grassroots support for Mayor Calbadon will serve notice to our council members that not only will we not vote for them for higher office but that we will actively campaign on behalf of and offer support to their primary opponent who has a real chance to win. This will do wonders to force our Davis council representativies to serve Davis interests rather than their personal political ambition. Check out mayor Calbadon. His political credentials are much more in line with Davis principles than his most likely primary opponent from Davis.
Accountability is key. I would like to offer an issue that may at first glance appear peripheral. Mayor Chrisopher Calbadon of West Sacramento, who I understand was just barely beaten by Lois Wolk for an assembly seat, is reported to be planning another run in 2008. He is a viable alternative to Don Saylor’s probable run for Wolk’s assembly seat. Strong Davis grassroots support for Mayor Calbadon will serve notice to our council members that not only will we not vote for them for higher office but that we will actively campaign on behalf of and offer support to their primary opponent who has a real chance to win. This will do wonders to force our Davis council representativies to serve Davis interests rather than their personal political ambition. Check out mayor Calbadon. His political credentials are much more in line with Davis principles than his most likely primary opponent from Davis.
Davisite: I normally agree with you, but not on Cabaldon. Many of the same people who support Saylor and Souza support Cabaldon–he’s a developer Democrat. He has angered the Unions. The viable alternative to Saylor if he chooses to run for Assembly, is Mariko Yamada, the guardian of hte progressive left in Yolo County. Her very nature leads her against ambition, but she is going to have a tremendous amount of pressure to run and if she runs, she will kick Saylor’s rear end back to his house on Kent.
Davisite: I normally agree with you, but not on Cabaldon. Many of the same people who support Saylor and Souza support Cabaldon–he’s a developer Democrat. He has angered the Unions. The viable alternative to Saylor if he chooses to run for Assembly, is Mariko Yamada, the guardian of hte progressive left in Yolo County. Her very nature leads her against ambition, but she is going to have a tremendous amount of pressure to run and if she runs, she will kick Saylor’s rear end back to his house on Kent.
Davisite: I normally agree with you, but not on Cabaldon. Many of the same people who support Saylor and Souza support Cabaldon–he’s a developer Democrat. He has angered the Unions. The viable alternative to Saylor if he chooses to run for Assembly, is Mariko Yamada, the guardian of hte progressive left in Yolo County. Her very nature leads her against ambition, but she is going to have a tremendous amount of pressure to run and if she runs, she will kick Saylor’s rear end back to his house on Kent.
Davisite: I normally agree with you, but not on Cabaldon. Many of the same people who support Saylor and Souza support Cabaldon–he’s a developer Democrat. He has angered the Unions. The viable alternative to Saylor if he chooses to run for Assembly, is Mariko Yamada, the guardian of hte progressive left in Yolo County. Her very nature leads her against ambition, but she is going to have a tremendous amount of pressure to run and if she runs, she will kick Saylor’s rear end back to his house on Kent.
I confess that I no little about Calbadon and I appreciate your info. I would certainly hope that everyone checks Calbadon out for themselves before offering their support. This was an idea that was offered to me when I was lamenting the issue of non-accountability of our councilmembers who have visions of higher office. My main focus was to gain political leverage for local Davis political issues. Would we actually have a three-way priamary race if Mariko decides to run for assembly? I don’t think I ever remember a really competitive primary race for our assembly seat in my 30 yrs in Davis.
I confess that I no little about Calbadon and I appreciate your info. I would certainly hope that everyone checks Calbadon out for themselves before offering their support. This was an idea that was offered to me when I was lamenting the issue of non-accountability of our councilmembers who have visions of higher office. My main focus was to gain political leverage for local Davis political issues. Would we actually have a three-way priamary race if Mariko decides to run for assembly? I don’t think I ever remember a really competitive primary race for our assembly seat in my 30 yrs in Davis.
I confess that I no little about Calbadon and I appreciate your info. I would certainly hope that everyone checks Calbadon out for themselves before offering their support. This was an idea that was offered to me when I was lamenting the issue of non-accountability of our councilmembers who have visions of higher office. My main focus was to gain political leverage for local Davis political issues. Would we actually have a three-way priamary race if Mariko decides to run for assembly? I don’t think I ever remember a really competitive primary race for our assembly seat in my 30 yrs in Davis.
I confess that I no little about Calbadon and I appreciate your info. I would certainly hope that everyone checks Calbadon out for themselves before offering their support. This was an idea that was offered to me when I was lamenting the issue of non-accountability of our councilmembers who have visions of higher office. My main focus was to gain political leverage for local Davis political issues. Would we actually have a three-way priamary race if Mariko decides to run for assembly? I don’t think I ever remember a really competitive primary race for our assembly seat in my 30 yrs in Davis.
My guess is that even though Saylor doesn’t like Yamada, if she ran for Assembly, he wouldn’t. I think he’s in her district, but I’m not positive, so he might decide to run for Supervisor instead. Which of course would be a another problem we would have to deal with.
My guess is that even though Saylor doesn’t like Yamada, if she ran for Assembly, he wouldn’t. I think he’s in her district, but I’m not positive, so he might decide to run for Supervisor instead. Which of course would be a another problem we would have to deal with.
My guess is that even though Saylor doesn’t like Yamada, if she ran for Assembly, he wouldn’t. I think he’s in her district, but I’m not positive, so he might decide to run for Supervisor instead. Which of course would be a another problem we would have to deal with.
My guess is that even though Saylor doesn’t like Yamada, if she ran for Assembly, he wouldn’t. I think he’s in her district, but I’m not positive, so he might decide to run for Supervisor instead. Which of course would be a another problem we would have to deal with.
The Yolo political machine, funded
by the developer and land-owner interests, may not poney up the cash for Mariko’s run for assembly. They would much prefer to have either Saylor of Calbadon( if your assessment of the mayor is correct).
In the current political climate, the unfortunate truth may be that no one can win our assembly seat without the financial backing of the Yolo Democratic political machine. If it came down to Saylor or Calbadon, a Calbadon win in Davis could have a profound effect on how our future, politically ambitious councilmembers deal with Davis issues.
The Yolo political machine, funded
by the developer and land-owner interests, may not poney up the cash for Mariko’s run for assembly. They would much prefer to have either Saylor of Calbadon( if your assessment of the mayor is correct).
In the current political climate, the unfortunate truth may be that no one can win our assembly seat without the financial backing of the Yolo Democratic political machine. If it came down to Saylor or Calbadon, a Calbadon win in Davis could have a profound effect on how our future, politically ambitious councilmembers deal with Davis issues.
The Yolo political machine, funded
by the developer and land-owner interests, may not poney up the cash for Mariko’s run for assembly. They would much prefer to have either Saylor of Calbadon( if your assessment of the mayor is correct).
In the current political climate, the unfortunate truth may be that no one can win our assembly seat without the financial backing of the Yolo Democratic political machine. If it came down to Saylor or Calbadon, a Calbadon win in Davis could have a profound effect on how our future, politically ambitious councilmembers deal with Davis issues.
The Yolo political machine, funded
by the developer and land-owner interests, may not poney up the cash for Mariko’s run for assembly. They would much prefer to have either Saylor of Calbadon( if your assessment of the mayor is correct).
In the current political climate, the unfortunate truth may be that no one can win our assembly seat without the financial backing of the Yolo Democratic political machine. If it came down to Saylor or Calbadon, a Calbadon win in Davis could have a profound effect on how our future, politically ambitious councilmembers deal with Davis issues.
“That letter is at the very center of the reason why there was a push for a review board …”
That is factually wrong. The push for a “citizens review board” began at least 2 years before anyone in Davis outside of her friends and family had ever heard of Ms. Buzayan.
Personally, I am all for independent police oversight. Unfortunately, police officers do make mistakes on the job, and some cops prove themselves unfit for that very difficult profession. When problems arise, as they have in Davis and in every other jurisdiction, it’s vital that someone (or some group) with good judgment, with independence and with a strong understanding of the applicable laws and policies investigate the complaints.
Internal investigations are necessary. But they are by definition not independent, and they will inevitably err on the side of the cops. As such, they cannot fairly be the final word on oversight.
While the ombudsman position is a very good one — so long as the person selected is really qualified — the proposal by the erstwhile HRC was patently idiotic. It had all of the failings designed within it, though from the opposite point of view, as the police’s own internal investigations had. While the cops would inevitably err on the side of their own, the HRC’s concept was designed to err on the side of the complaintant.
Even worse, the HRC proposal 1) would have been very costly, 2) would not have (due to the make-up of the panel) good judgment, and 3) would have included people who were inexperienced with the applicable laws and department policies. The HRC proposal was designed to harrass the cops rather than serve the community.
While a lot of (in my opinion) unfounded venom is spilled on this blog in the direction of Don Saylor and Steve Souza, the fact is that those were the two who fathered the idea of an ombudsman. I don’t yet know if the ombudsman is working out well — it’s too early to tell — but thankfully we had some members of the council 10 months ago with the good judgment and fair-mindedness who were willing to stand up to the mob that was pushing for the HRC’s idiocy.
I tend to agree with anonymous here on Cabaldon. He’s part of the problem in this county.
I think Mariko will be able to raise a lot of money for a run–she’ll have strong support from the unions and the progressive establishment. I don’t see Saylor wanting to challenge–I see him using her upward move to try to move into the supervisor seat. We’ll see how this plays out though.
“That letter is at the very center of the reason why there was a push for a review board …”
That is factually wrong. The push for a “citizens review board” began at least 2 years before anyone in Davis outside of her friends and family had ever heard of Ms. Buzayan.
Personally, I am all for independent police oversight. Unfortunately, police officers do make mistakes on the job, and some cops prove themselves unfit for that very difficult profession. When problems arise, as they have in Davis and in every other jurisdiction, it’s vital that someone (or some group) with good judgment, with independence and with a strong understanding of the applicable laws and policies investigate the complaints.
Internal investigations are necessary. But they are by definition not independent, and they will inevitably err on the side of the cops. As such, they cannot fairly be the final word on oversight.
While the ombudsman position is a very good one — so long as the person selected is really qualified — the proposal by the erstwhile HRC was patently idiotic. It had all of the failings designed within it, though from the opposite point of view, as the police’s own internal investigations had. While the cops would inevitably err on the side of their own, the HRC’s concept was designed to err on the side of the complaintant.
Even worse, the HRC proposal 1) would have been very costly, 2) would not have (due to the make-up of the panel) good judgment, and 3) would have included people who were inexperienced with the applicable laws and department policies. The HRC proposal was designed to harrass the cops rather than serve the community.
While a lot of (in my opinion) unfounded venom is spilled on this blog in the direction of Don Saylor and Steve Souza, the fact is that those were the two who fathered the idea of an ombudsman. I don’t yet know if the ombudsman is working out well — it’s too early to tell — but thankfully we had some members of the council 10 months ago with the good judgment and fair-mindedness who were willing to stand up to the mob that was pushing for the HRC’s idiocy.
I tend to agree with anonymous here on Cabaldon. He’s part of the problem in this county.
I think Mariko will be able to raise a lot of money for a run–she’ll have strong support from the unions and the progressive establishment. I don’t see Saylor wanting to challenge–I see him using her upward move to try to move into the supervisor seat. We’ll see how this plays out though.
“That letter is at the very center of the reason why there was a push for a review board …”
That is factually wrong. The push for a “citizens review board” began at least 2 years before anyone in Davis outside of her friends and family had ever heard of Ms. Buzayan.
Personally, I am all for independent police oversight. Unfortunately, police officers do make mistakes on the job, and some cops prove themselves unfit for that very difficult profession. When problems arise, as they have in Davis and in every other jurisdiction, it’s vital that someone (or some group) with good judgment, with independence and with a strong understanding of the applicable laws and policies investigate the complaints.
Internal investigations are necessary. But they are by definition not independent, and they will inevitably err on the side of the cops. As such, they cannot fairly be the final word on oversight.
While the ombudsman position is a very good one — so long as the person selected is really qualified — the proposal by the erstwhile HRC was patently idiotic. It had all of the failings designed within it, though from the opposite point of view, as the police’s own internal investigations had. While the cops would inevitably err on the side of their own, the HRC’s concept was designed to err on the side of the complaintant.
Even worse, the HRC proposal 1) would have been very costly, 2) would not have (due to the make-up of the panel) good judgment, and 3) would have included people who were inexperienced with the applicable laws and department policies. The HRC proposal was designed to harrass the cops rather than serve the community.
While a lot of (in my opinion) unfounded venom is spilled on this blog in the direction of Don Saylor and Steve Souza, the fact is that those were the two who fathered the idea of an ombudsman. I don’t yet know if the ombudsman is working out well — it’s too early to tell — but thankfully we had some members of the council 10 months ago with the good judgment and fair-mindedness who were willing to stand up to the mob that was pushing for the HRC’s idiocy.
I tend to agree with anonymous here on Cabaldon. He’s part of the problem in this county.
I think Mariko will be able to raise a lot of money for a run–she’ll have strong support from the unions and the progressive establishment. I don’t see Saylor wanting to challenge–I see him using her upward move to try to move into the supervisor seat. We’ll see how this plays out though.
“That letter is at the very center of the reason why there was a push for a review board …”
That is factually wrong. The push for a “citizens review board” began at least 2 years before anyone in Davis outside of her friends and family had ever heard of Ms. Buzayan.
Personally, I am all for independent police oversight. Unfortunately, police officers do make mistakes on the job, and some cops prove themselves unfit for that very difficult profession. When problems arise, as they have in Davis and in every other jurisdiction, it’s vital that someone (or some group) with good judgment, with independence and with a strong understanding of the applicable laws and policies investigate the complaints.
Internal investigations are necessary. But they are by definition not independent, and they will inevitably err on the side of the cops. As such, they cannot fairly be the final word on oversight.
While the ombudsman position is a very good one — so long as the person selected is really qualified — the proposal by the erstwhile HRC was patently idiotic. It had all of the failings designed within it, though from the opposite point of view, as the police’s own internal investigations had. While the cops would inevitably err on the side of their own, the HRC’s concept was designed to err on the side of the complaintant.
Even worse, the HRC proposal 1) would have been very costly, 2) would not have (due to the make-up of the panel) good judgment, and 3) would have included people who were inexperienced with the applicable laws and department policies. The HRC proposal was designed to harrass the cops rather than serve the community.
While a lot of (in my opinion) unfounded venom is spilled on this blog in the direction of Don Saylor and Steve Souza, the fact is that those were the two who fathered the idea of an ombudsman. I don’t yet know if the ombudsman is working out well — it’s too early to tell — but thankfully we had some members of the council 10 months ago with the good judgment and fair-mindedness who were willing to stand up to the mob that was pushing for the HRC’s idiocy.
I tend to agree with anonymous here on Cabaldon. He’s part of the problem in this county.
I think Mariko will be able to raise a lot of money for a run–she’ll have strong support from the unions and the progressive establishment. I don’t see Saylor wanting to challenge–I see him using her upward move to try to move into the supervisor seat. We’ll see how this plays out though.
Rich:
“That is factually wrong. The push for a “citizens review board” began at least 2 years before anyone in Davis outside of her friends and family had ever heard of Ms. Buzayan.”
The HRC’s involvement in that issue began with the letter. If we want to be technical these discussions have come up on numerous occasions since the mid 1980s.
“the proposal by the erstwhile HRC was patently idiotic.”
I disagree on this.
“Even worse, the HRC proposal 1) would have been very costly, 2) would not have (due to the make-up of the panel) good judgment, and 3) would have included people who were inexperienced with the applicable laws and department policies.”
Well this was claim. The actually way these boards operate is not all that different from the current ombudsman. The costly issue was based on the cost of the Berkeley model. But Berkeley is a much larger city than Davis. Basically the initial cost is the cost for the professional investigation (i.e. ombudsman) and his staff. That’s not all that dissimilar to the current costs. Although it would require a full-time ombudsman, we probably need that anyway.
Point two is false, the council would control the make up of the board.
And point three is false, the people on the board would make recommendations and hear complaints, but the investigator is ultimately the one who sifts through the laws.
A lot of people I respect do not like the civilian review board and that includes Mr. Aaronson, the current Ombudsman. I think that view has merit. But to call the HRC proposal idiotic, is patently unfair.
“While a lot of (in my opinion) unfounded venom is spilled on this blog in the direction of Don Saylor and Steve Souza, the fact is that those were the two who fathered the idea of an ombudsman.”
This is simply a false statement. The issue was brought forward in the summer of 2005 by the HRC in response to the Buzayan case. The council directed Antonen to study the issue and make an alternative proposal, he came up with the ombudsman as one of the possible alternative proposals. The council never would have taken up this issue without the strong pressure by the HRC and Souza and Saylor by no means fathererd the idea of the ombudsman.
Rich:
“That is factually wrong. The push for a “citizens review board” began at least 2 years before anyone in Davis outside of her friends and family had ever heard of Ms. Buzayan.”
The HRC’s involvement in that issue began with the letter. If we want to be technical these discussions have come up on numerous occasions since the mid 1980s.
“the proposal by the erstwhile HRC was patently idiotic.”
I disagree on this.
“Even worse, the HRC proposal 1) would have been very costly, 2) would not have (due to the make-up of the panel) good judgment, and 3) would have included people who were inexperienced with the applicable laws and department policies.”
Well this was claim. The actually way these boards operate is not all that different from the current ombudsman. The costly issue was based on the cost of the Berkeley model. But Berkeley is a much larger city than Davis. Basically the initial cost is the cost for the professional investigation (i.e. ombudsman) and his staff. That’s not all that dissimilar to the current costs. Although it would require a full-time ombudsman, we probably need that anyway.
Point two is false, the council would control the make up of the board.
And point three is false, the people on the board would make recommendations and hear complaints, but the investigator is ultimately the one who sifts through the laws.
A lot of people I respect do not like the civilian review board and that includes Mr. Aaronson, the current Ombudsman. I think that view has merit. But to call the HRC proposal idiotic, is patently unfair.
“While a lot of (in my opinion) unfounded venom is spilled on this blog in the direction of Don Saylor and Steve Souza, the fact is that those were the two who fathered the idea of an ombudsman.”
This is simply a false statement. The issue was brought forward in the summer of 2005 by the HRC in response to the Buzayan case. The council directed Antonen to study the issue and make an alternative proposal, he came up with the ombudsman as one of the possible alternative proposals. The council never would have taken up this issue without the strong pressure by the HRC and Souza and Saylor by no means fathererd the idea of the ombudsman.