Just before the New Year, we ran our Sunday Commentary, “When Speaking Out Comes with a Price,” where we discussed Jann Murray-Garcia’s concerns about accepting an invitation from Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven to join their new Multi-Cultural Community Council, an invitation he made public at the December 1 Breaking the Silence of Racism event.
Dr. Murray-Garcia had several times declined the offer, and told him so publicly. She wrote, “I told Jonathan I was not interested, because I had accompanied too many Davis folks in Yolo County Superior Court who were inappropriately charged, investigated, overcharged, gang-labeled and unnecessarily prosecuted at great taxpayers’ (yours and mine) expense, and residents’ turmoil.”
She added, “I was called out again – this time publicly – by panelist Raven, as someone he was trying to convince to join Reisig’s community council. So, I am publicly writing ‘no’ to this D.A., as I said publicly ‘no’ during the forum.”
Jann Murray-Garcia then recounted her experiences with the DA’s handling of several cases in which Bernita Toney was wrongly accused of crimes on several occasions. Ms. Toney was once acquitted in a jury trial and the other time the charges were dropped after a last-second offer to reduce 11 felonies to one misdemeanor was rejected by Ms. Toney.
The distrust that Dr. Murray-Garcia has for the DA’s office is actually a feeling embodied by many in the minority community toward the DA’s office. The only difference is that Dr. Murray-Garcia has a platform from which to articulate those feelings.
But we, and by we I mean the Vanguard Court Watch, deal with this on a weekly basis, if not more often.
In response to Dr. Jann Murray-Garcia’s column is one written by Jesse Ortiz. Jesse Ortiz is a professor at Woodland Community college, he served on the Woodland Board of Education for a number of years, and he has just been elected to the Yolo County Board of Education.
He helped put together the group called the Yolo County Multi-Cultural Community Council.
I spoke yesterday at great length with another member of that body, and I believe that Mr. Ortiz is sincere in his effort. But he comes from a somewhat different place – he is a friend and supporter of District Attorney Jeff Reisig.
“All community members of the Yolo County Multi-Cultural Council are recognized longtime local activists,” he writes. “Like Murray-García, they, too, have fought racial injustices across a broad front for many years. They are independent thinkers and believe in the purpose and goals of the group. And because of their past and current leadership they recognized the need for change within their own communities and within Yolo County.”
He adds, “It is fair to say some members share some of the perception to different degrees of the District Attorney’s Office that Murray-García describes in her column. But one thing that they all have in common is the desire for broader acceptance, understanding and inclusion of all people in Yolo County, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.”
He adds, “I have also seen injustices, in particular in the educational and legal system. But, like the other council members, I also know that institutional systems can work to benefit those in need the most if one works within the system for change. The community members of the group are not novices in understanding there is room for improvement at all levels for the betterment of the poor and people of color.”
He also notes that Dr. Murray-Garcia was not asked to join the group by the DA’s office but by community members of the group – in fact, I am informed that the DA’s office initially opposed her joining but were outvoted by the members of the committee.
Mr. Ortiz notes, “The question may have been posed by a member of the District Attorney’s Office but it was done on behalf of the community members, where at least three members who know her felt she would be an asset.”
Jesse Ortiz notes that “the main agenda is to make Yolo County a better place for all people to live and accept each other. Only time will prove its effectiveness.”
He adds, “The two other defined purposes of the group are to forge coalitions to assure ongoing community dialogue related to cultural awareness, the criminal justice system and public safety; and to ensure community participation in educational and informational programs related to accessing and understanding the criminal justice system.”
Where I draw a distinction with Mr. Ortiz is in his closing.
He writes, “I will share that the idea of such a group as the Yolo County Multi-Cultural Community Council and its principles came from Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig.”
He adds, “In my 30-plus years of involvement with equity issues – in particular in Woodland with the Chicano/Latino community – Reisig is the first county elected official who I am aware of who has come forward with such an agenda.”
He continues: “His goal of addressing complex issues that confront people of color and the idea of making his office more sensitive and responsive is admirable. Reisig and I may not agree politically on many issues but I know that as a group we agree with this effort.”
My problem is similar to that of Jann Murray-Garcia: I am distrustful of the motivation of the Yolo County District Attorney and his office. I believe that his policies are harmful to the fabric of the minority community.
I have seen all too often that people who have either committed very minor crimes or have actually committee no crime, have been leveraged into taking plea agreements through excessive charging.
The case of Bernita Toney is instructive. She faced 11 felonies for what was a mistake in how she filed a very complex IHSS (In-Home Supportive Services) claim. She acknowledged the mistake, she paid it back, the agency found it to be an overpayment, but the DA’s office charged 11 felonies.
The fact is, I could name dozens of cases just like Bernita Toney’s and there are probably dozens more that we just do not know about.
As former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso said, at the December 1, 2012 event, in his personal experience in Yolo County: “There are real problems in the Yolo District Attorney’s Office.”
They must have realized that they had a relatively weak case against Ms. Toney because, just as it was about to go to trial, they tried to offer her a deal in which the charges would be reduced to a single misdemeanor. When she refused to accept the deal, they dropped the charges altogether.
Mr. Reisig is a shrewd politician in addition to being the DA, and he knows and understands that he has a problem in the minority community. But until I see concrete examples of policy changes in the DA’s office, I simply believe that these efforts are window-dressing.
I believe that Jesse Ortiz and the other members are sincere about their efforts on this council. Unfortunately, they have a lot of work to do to rebuild lost trust within the minority community – at least based on what I have seen and heard.
In the end, I have to question whether this is the appropriate forum for addressing these concerns. I wonder if another body, with a more neutral agenda, might not better serve the needs of the people of color in this county.
I wish I could applaud the efforts of the DA’s office, a DA’s office that refused even to meet with me to talk about some of these concerns, but in the end, I see this as more motivated toward re-election in 2014 than any concern about policy shifts, however so slight.
In the meantime, we are not simply going to sit back here. We are working on our own plans for a major announcement in a few weeks.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I also distrust the motivations of the Yolo Co. District Attorney’s office. I have sat in court and been a party, first hand, to tactics and actions of the Yolo County District Attorney’s staff. When I read that they were involved in the forming of the Yolo County Multi-Cultural Community Council, I was skeptical. A member of my family was a cop years ago, for 15 years, so I do not say negative things about law enforcement lightly. There is a sexist and racist element in the criminal justice system in Yolo and Solano County.
When I read that they’re involved in the forming of the Yolo Co. Multi-Cultural Community Council, I was reminded of my own work with state government. I worked for the State of CA for 25 years. Sometimes upper management would form committees to push an agenda forward, or to respond to a complaint. Sometimes these committees were formed to pacify someone, or a group of people. Statistics were gathered, fake consensus was reached. Then the committee would be disbanded.
“Fake” consensus occurs when a very few committee members subtly, verbally bully the other committee members until they are worn down and become apathetic. Or when their careers are jeopordized. Either way, the committee is finally disbabded after enough stats are gathered and fake consensus is reached. Gee, I sound so pessimistic when I read my words. I’m glad I have retired. I applaud Ms.Murray-Garcia. Thank you.
I speak as a neutral party in this discussion. I have virtually no contact with either local or county law enforcement or with the DAs office.
What I can address as a low level manager is the issue of puppet committees and the establishment of
“fake consensus”. I agree with JimmysDaughter that “sometimes” this is the case as it has been in my organization at times. However, there are other times when an awareness of a real problem or concern that has not been adequately addressed rises to the higher management levels. Sometimes this awareness does prompt initiating a real investigative and innovative process that is championed by a committee or working group. I think that it is very important not to allow one’s cynicism regarding previous failures to stop one from attempting to work collaboratively. An example from very close to home. If we had decided in advance that the WAC was going to be merely a puppet forum, we would have lost out on the opportunity for a very thorough, and in my opinion, valuable review of conjunctive use and the surface water project.
Having said that, I fully support Ms. Murray- Garcia in her decision not to participate if she feels her time and efforts are better spent elsewhere. My hope would be that someone else with her proven dedication and energy would be willing to step into this position to at least give this project a fair chance.
Agree medwoman. I too have seen the folks that do the work in an organization, turn around management’s preconceived ideas and come up with successful solutions through quality improvement and empowerment (I know, tired phrases but they can work).
I respect Jann Murray-Garcia’s decision, heard her give it at the forum, but am disappointed. I think she and the group could benefit.
I spent years working with, or more rightly explained against, the DA’s office in Yolo County. I know people want to think the best of the motivations of others, particularly when they don’t have direct experience one way or the other, but from what I’ve seen, witnessed, experienced, I’m forced to concur with David’s take that this transformation is nothing more than a political move to satiate the vocal critics, or more likely to lend credence against the vocal critics prior to re-election.
Siegel
Another thought about this situation. If indeed this were just a political ploy on the part of the DA, might not a different strategy to be to sit on the panel with dual goals. The first goal would be to make a genuine contribution if it turned out that the process appeared to have any validity. The second goal would be to call out the group and the process and make public the true nature of the process if it did indeed appear to be merely a political ploy. Perhaps just the presence of someone known to hold differing views and known to exhibit a high degree of personal integrity would serve as a monitor and potentially a break on abuse of this process. There would seem to me to be a fair amount of political risk in inviting someone to be on the panel whom you know to have a very different point of view from one’s own and who is not afraid to speak out publicly going in to an election season.
Forgive me if this is overly naive. Just a thought.
So Reisig reaches out and helps put in place a Multi-Cultural Community Council and that somehow gets twisted into being a bad thing?
Again agree medwoman. And if the latter perhaps the calling out could stimulate another candidate.
What makes you believe that it’s an effort to help rather than an effort to bolster his image? The point of the commentary as I read it is the distrust that exists between the minority community and the DA’s office, what makes you think that the minority community is going to be receptive to this move. If he’s sincere, perhaps there is a better starting place.
[quote]If he’s sincere, perhaps there is a better starting place.[/quote]
This might well be the case. But in searching for this “better starting place”, the next move would seem to me to be on the part of the minority community or representatives having credibility within that community. It would seem to me that the better response than a flat refusal to participate, would be to make a counter offer that the DA could then accept or reject. This could have a number of benefits
1) It might be a test of his sincerity.
2) It could identify members of the minority community who are truly interested in working collaboratively
3) It might inspire individuals who might otherwise not become involved
4) It might lead to a better project as you have suggested.
I think there’s a danger in assuming that a group of disadvantaged and unorganized people can make the first move.
[quote] think there’s a danger in assuming that a group of disadvantaged and unorganized people can make the first move.[/quote]
If it were “the first move”, I would agree with you. But it is not. The DA has made his proposal. If the community or appropriate representatives are not willing to participate, I do feel that it is in their best interest not to ignore or refuse the offer, but to make a counter proposal. This is where a community organizer would be useful. I do not know who might have such credibility, but I suspect that there are some who follow the Vanguard who might be able to come up with suggestions. This might also be another use of the forum that was held in the city chambers. Perhaps there is someone amongst those who signed up and provided their email addresses who might be put forth as a leadership candidate.
I guess my question in a situation like this would be, which is better for the community, no participation at all, or participation in a potentially less than optimal setting ? I don’t know the answer. But I suspect that the optimal outcome will not be achieved by total lack of engagement.
I agree with Medwoman’s approach.
Offers committee membership to a candidate with opposing perspective is only second to offering the candidate the leadership position of the committee. If the candidate thinks that the issue is important enough, the candidate should join.
The legitimate reasons not to join are:
1) The candidate is already dedicated to another issue that is more important.
2) The candidate would rather be the Leader of the committee. In this case, the candidate makes a counter offer showing why he should be the leader instead.
3) The candidate knows another person who is an even better candidate.
4) The candidate knows a plan to solve the problem without a ‘committee’. The candidate provides the plan for the committee to review, the plan can be executed by the committee without the candidate’s presence.
5) The candidate only has a perspective to provide, which is already provided.
In this case, I rule out the following reasons:
1) Priority: The issue is central to the candidate.
2) Leadership: The candidate did not make this counter offer.
3) Replacement: The candidate did not suggest a replacement.
4) Plan: This is still possible. But I don’t know if the candidate had proposed an overall plan. I know that the candidate had proposed intermediate steps, such as asking law enforcement to track/disclose racial data and statistics.
5) Perspective: This is still possible. But by doing so, the candidate is admitting that she does not know how to solve the problem either.
At this point, it is not clear to me whether the offer was declined for a legitimate reason, or because the candidate ran out of “moral chips”. I do not know the particular details of this situation. Here I just explain what I meant by running out of moral chips in general. This is not a direct comment to the current situation.
A candidate runs out of “moral chips” when:
1) The outspoken candidate declines to join because he knows his accusations against the committee are fabricated by distorting data and the truth. If he joins the committee in collect the data, and become accountable for the data, he would have no margin left to distort the data the fuel the conflict. Instead of taking the role to collect the data himself, he prefers the committee to collect the data so that even if the data shows no wrong doing, he could: a) accuse that the data was falsified or fake; b) cherry-pick the data to prove his own position. The candidate avoids being on the same “side” as the committee so that there is someone to blame. In this case, the candidate ran out of moral chips because the candidate has no true intention to resolve conflict, but to promote conflict to satisfy a self-interest (i.e. to be a hero).
2) The candidate shies away from the offer because he realizes that when all concerns are accounted, he might not have done anything differently than what the current committee does. He is afraid of the embarrassment to admit that he was so outspoken only because he was ignorant. It means that he would have to take back all the accusations against the committee, and accept that the committee in fact acted out of goodwill. In this case, the candidate had ran out of moral chips because the candidate does not have the integrity to admit his own mistakes.
When a person has moral integrity, and afraid that they would be corrupted by the committee if he joins, the person would become reserved in attacking the existing committee members because he knows that:
a) If he is afraid that the committee would corrupt even himself, he must admit that the existing members could be just as much of a hero as he is now. Then, his attacks would not be against the people in power, but the power itself. A candidate who attacks the actual members for being evil would have no problem joining the committee, because the candidate believes that his presence would clean up the committee.
b) He understands the possibility that the conflict is not caused by the ill wills of the existing members, but an inefficiency of communicating their intentions and perspectives with non-members. In this case, the candidate would not attack the existing members nor the system, instead, the candidate would want to participate in the system to figure out exactly what got wrong in the communication.
Communication faults is a common problem in diverse communities. When people come from different disciplines and cultures, their concerns, perspectives, and words they use could be all different. To one culture, a certain word or action could indicate ill-will. Without an innate intention to understand the other perspectives, mistrust is created, people start to demonize one another, and the committee becomes riddled with conflicts even when everyone wanted to do good and are innocent at heart.
medwoman,
[i]If indeed this were just a political ploy on the part of the DA, might not a different strategy to be to sit on the panel with dual goals. The first goal would be to make a genuine contribution if it turned out that the process appeared to have any validity. The second goal would be to call out the group and the process and make public the true nature of the process if it did indeed appear to be merely a political ploy. [/i]
That is precisely what I was thinking, which would be a pragmatic approach to one’s participation in this council. If the council proves to be ineffective or heavily influenced by the DA’s Office, then members should speak out. Writing it off from the outset seems unwise. For prospective members to presume to know the motives, function, etc. of the council and base their decision to participate on that is too bad.
Seigel,
[i]What makes you believe that it’s an effort to help rather than an effort to bolster his image?[/i]
Even if the DA’s doing this for his own self-interest, facilitating the formation of a council to critique and assess the pertinent issues could be a very positive thing. As was mentioned above, the fact that the DA’s Office is permitting (by letting the votes dictate membership) such a prominent and vocal critic of its own policies indicates that this council has some promise.
[i] The point of the commentary as I read it is the distrust that exists between the minority community and the DA’s office, what makes you think that the minority community is going to be receptive to this move.[/i]
Receptive to it politically or just in support of the council effort?
[i]I think there’s a danger in assuming that a group of disadvantaged and unorganized people can make the first move. [/i]
Who are you referring to?
One way to grow some trust would be for District Attorney Reisig to allow David G. to interview him.
UC Davis, Beginning Sociology Course 1: to co-op the opposition, put them on a community committee and give them a title.
I doubt anything Reisig could ever do would get a fair shake from his haters. He could end world hunger and his detractors would say he had some ulterior motive. Reisig is right to ignore the Vanguard as I’m sure he feels he most likely wouldn’t get fair treatment.
JimmysDaughter
I agree that an interview with the Vanguard would have the potential for portraying himself in a different light. However, I suspect that the level of mutual distrust may be high enough to prevent him from seeing this as advantageous.
+-
Excellent critique Michael. Concise and to the point.
Sorry about the above malfunction. Maybe Don can delete that one for me.