by Will Arnold
My friends, today I am calling for the reimagining, redesign and repurposing of our public safety system in Davis, including a fundamental transformation of our current structure as we know it, and the beginning of a new, sustainable approach to community safety.
I propose we begin this effort by changing the name of our Police Department to the Department of Community Safety, and committing to a mission of justice, equity, dignity, guardianship, community partnership and reduction of violence.
This difficult but necessary transition will take some time, but it needs to start now and begins by understanding that our current system is not well designed for its mission and is overdue for change. In recent years, we have taken some important steps in this direction, but it’s time we move our efforts to the next level.
Community safety is a cornerstone human responsibility and the most important service a government can provide. This essential public service is provided in every part of the world and in many forms.
The City of Davis, like most American cities, employs a system of community safety that relies heavily on armed officers to respond to calls for service.
On some of these calls, it is necessary and appropriate to send individuals trained and equipped to encounter violence. I commend our officers for their bravery and dedication to duty in facing these perilous situations on our behalf.
On other occasions, responding with traditional armed officers is unnecessary, inappropriate and potentially dangerous. An armed police presence can reduce violence in many situations, but it can raise the specter of violence in others.
This is particularly the case for our brothers and sisters in the Black community, and other people of color, whose lives have for centuries been 
devalued, dehumanized or simply ended by the very institutions charged with their safety.
Systemic racism is embedded in every part of our society, in every institution, including healthcare, education, business, housing and yes, political leadership. But it is our system of policing and criminal justice where the consequences of systemic racism are the most troubling and severe, including people of color avoiding police interaction, living in fear, losing their freedoms, or being killed.
As a society, and as a city, we need fewer interactions between armed public employees and the people they serve. The tragedy that can ensue runs counter to any conceivable mission of community safety.
I come to this central premise, that our police officers are tasked with too many varying responsibilities, several of which they are undertrained or ill equipped to address, through many conversations with the officers themselves. They tell me that they find themselves as our frontline workers in addressing homelessness, mental health, drug addiction, and domestic violence, to name just a few examples. I appreciate their dedication to serving us in these roles, but this is not what any of them signed up for, nor have they been properly equipped to handle them.
These are responsibilities that could instead be performed by trained professionals without the need for an armed officer of the law. I believe a reimagined and renamed Department of Community Safety will lead to such a transition, away from the traditional law enforcement approach, and toward a system that more appropriately deploys personnel for the task at hand.
Should the call come in about an individual experiencing a mental health episode, for example, a set of licensed professionals trained in mental health will respond. Should the call be about a homeless encampment, a different set of professionals, with different training will respond. And should the call come in about a crime in progress, particularly when violence or the threat of violence is involved, rest assured that an armed, licensed peace officer will respond. These professionals working together in the same department, rather than within their individual silos, will improve the effectiveness of all of them.
This is the essence of the changes I propose, that for the safety of all involved we must do better at staffing and assigning duties to appropriate personnel. While I do not propose immediate changes in personnel, as we repurpose our department and look to fill vacant positions, we must ensure that any additions to the department reflect the new mission and are targeted to serve our community’s diverse safety needs.
I call on our community to aid in developing new strategies for violence reduction and community safety. To complete this mission may require more funds, not less, which is why our partnerships are critical to its success. Our partnership with Yolo County is particularly important as we look to staff and fund positions within the new Department.
We must also work with our state leaders to assist us with any changes in state law that will allow us to carry out this vision. For some of this to be fully realized, it will require support and action from our state partners, but that should not stop us from moving forward in any way we can toward this new approach.
We know we can’t wait for the federal government to take action, and that meaningful change will need to be locally driven. It will take time, commitment and collaboration to do it right, but it will be worth it when our diverse community can feel that their safety is being adequately protected. I am confident these changes I propose will result in a safer and more equitable community, including for the professionals tasked with protecting that safety.
The fundamental reforms I propose begin with renaming and reimagining our community safety system here in Davis. It is a start, but it cannot end there. We need to take this on together in every other part of our society and culture as well.
But as an elected city leader, my duty is to help guide our community to a better place. It is critical that we set a vision of how to redefine and recommit to our safety mission and ensure our efforts are worthy of the moment.
Davis has always prided itself on being a leader in many movements, including the environment, world peace and social justice. This should be no exception. We need to be a leader and not a follower. Our community deserves no less.
A bold statement.
After living in Davis for nearly 20 years I fear it’s time for my family to move on. My office is in Long Beach, CA, yet I live 400 miles away in Davis with my family because it has historically been an incredibly family friendly town. My son was born at Sutter Davis, my wife is PTA treasurer at a local elementary school, and I am a cub scouts den leader. We are very actively involved in the Davis community.
The reason we live in Davis is because we feel SAFE. That’s rapidly changing, and the draw to stay in Davis is being eroded by those who wish to militarize the city and turn it into a civil battleground. While this is just spiffy for students and faculty etc, it is far from ideal for parents and families. The sudden influx of homelessness and crime has made the decision to remain in Davis more and more difficult. We are feeling like pawns paying the price so legislature types can win WOKE contests.
I would like to remind the civil servant folks that the families are what keeps Davis afloat financially. You destroy that base and you’ll be in a financial crisis you’ve never seen before. When moms and dads no longer feel Davis is the safe haven it once was, there will be little to keep us here. Some of us go to great lengths to call Davis home, and you’re providing incredibly good arguments which make that a poor decision.
No one wants to see racism, systemic or otherwise. Especially Davis residents. Davis is one of the most diverse and tolerant cities I have ever lived in. I see no justification for ripping the city to shreds to win woke medals for a few highly motivated bureaucrats. If Davis goes down this road my family will be relocating.
Thank you
I’m getting that feeling lately, as well. Just an observation.
Not unlike what occurred in San Francisco and (some) other parts of the Bay Area, over time.
Personally I don’t think the proposal goes nearly far enough.
I wasn’t addressing the proposal. I was just noting William’s comments.
The town itself (including students, as a whole) was “friendlier” (and probably a little safer) 20 years ago. I’m pretty sure it’s not me that’s changed.
Of course, one gets a skewed vision when they spend too much time on the Vanguard.
The advantage of incrementalism is it actually gets stuff done. This lesson seems to have been lost on the hard left lately.
While I get and agree with everything written, I don’t understand this part. It seems out of place. Certainly the left in control of the city is still upset about the 2016 election and frantic in panic about the possibility of Ginsburg passing and being replaced by Trump after the 2020 election (even as the Roberts court of a majority of real jurists continues to make liberal-friendly decisions)… so they are grabbing that old trusty identity politics race brick and stick to make sure everyone else is beat back in line. But they want to demilitarize the country as then the violent mob protests don’t have any counter.
What do you mean by “wish to militarize”?
By the way, I have been harping on reducing the list of law enforcement responsibilities for decades. They are the unlucky downstream benefactors of the results of decades of failed liberal policies plus the globalism pursuits that destroyed economic opportunity in the rural and urban areas. And then we closed down the asylums and legalized drugs and stopped incarcerating lower level crimes. We have a mess and it all had fallen in the laps of police officers.
By militarize I mean weaponize. Making the citizens weapons. Maybe I used the wrong term.
Got it. That makes sense. I agree. Weaponized thought and speech police mob. Given the recent violence of the protests maybe “militarize” is a more accurate term.
A question and an opinion:
Question: After the changes, who would handle non-safety related law enforcement? Or will such laws not be enforced (as in: a law is not worth enforcing unless it is safety related)?
Opinion: Instead of a “Department of community safety” can we have a ” Community safety association”?
The difference is akin to “Department of Parents” vs “Parents Association”. Safety should not be offset to someone’s responsibility. It is everyone’s responsibility.
If you place the responsibility on each person, they can then decide to how to implement safety in reasonable ways (installing Rings, dash cams, etc). The reasonable ways include not having their safety personnel terrorizing others.
Maybe each house would get a safety stipend, which is deducted if there are valid safety complaints.
Reminds me when I was asked by a friend to help him with some tech investments at his company. It was he was real estate guy at a real estate company that wanted to make tech company investments. So I helped my buddy out. His boss came to depend on me for my input on some tech related stuff. But he was under pressure and deadlines and I wasn’t able provide info back to him fast enough. At one point I was supposed to fly out to tech conference later in the week but was then told I needed to go immediately. I said no…I still had a day job. They couldn’t force me to go or get anything from me faster….because they weren’t paying me (I never asked them to either). Eventually they hired me…..but that part isn’t important. The moral of the story is that unless you pay somebody you can’t hold them accountable for getting a job done they way you want it done. Anyone that has tried to get a bunch of volunteers to get a difficult and complex job done knows this as well….it’s like herding cats.
So no Edgar, I do not believe in just letting the community police/manage itself (for social services issues). But I am all for more cameras and maybe community education on how we can all assist in the official and organized efforts to manage and support our community (I’m a fan of “Police Academy 4: Citizen on Patrol”)
The idea I posted wasn’t about free policing. It was about imposing a security deposit that is only refunded when the person does not violate someone else’s safety.
Each person is still responsible for paying for their own protection. The difference is each could choose their method or agency. As opposed to forcing everyone to choose the “city police”.
I think this is irresponsible language for a council member of Davis California. First of all, this isn’t the city to push this sort of activism. Minneapolis or Saint Louis yes, but not Davis. Second, the language is way too full of hyperbole and superficial language to rise to the level of responsible leadership. It is frankly cultist, inflammatory, partisan and divisive. It is the language of an activist, not a city leader in a city that is already more race aware than almost any other in the country.
Beautiful. Wonderful. The stuff of real leadership. The stuff that should have been the point of the article and not the other stuff. However, I would leave the names alone. Law Enforcement. Police. That is what they are and they are needed in that role. Natalie Corona was a police officer. We should not be allowing politics to tarnish her name and her profession. Changing the name does not create anything but confusion. But create another department that is responsible for all that misplaced work that had been heaped on these officers by the very cohort of law-making politicians that disingenuously point their finger at law enforcement as being the cause of the problem. Politicians made the mess. Now politicians need to fix the mess. Do the right things not the political things.
“First of all, this isn’t the city to push this sort of activism. ”
Why? Systemic racism permeates Davis’ police department just like any other. Need I say it… mowing while black.
Really?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=permeates+definition&cvid=cd4b0e39e3e74db3a756f2e21f4c0b8b&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=LCTS
Exists, probably… “permeates”? Really?
I have seen (working with DPD) racism, misogyny, bigotry toward young white males… in a VERY few individuals in DPD. “Permeates”? Not my experience… were they weeded out efficiently? Probably not… unions, civil service constraints…
And “just like any other”? Really?
Sounds like “profiling” to me… comparing DPD to Fresno, ‘deep South’, red-neck states/towns, etc., really? All the same?
I call BS…
Of course, as I am a white male, am just “in denial”, right, David?
And a “closet racist”?
You are not on the receiving end of disproportionate policing
David,
I asked you before if there was a systemic and you said yes. I pretty much believe you to a certain degree but I had hoped you’d publish or recount evidence of systemic racial problems with the Davis PD you’ve observed, heard about or reported on over the years.
My family has been… has yours?
You are saying (apparently) I am an insensitive, privileged, white male… OK… your first amendment right…
Claims of systemic racism in Davis – today – are primarily orphan solutions looking for a problem. I do believe that there is a history of some incidents of unequal treatment by law enforcement for certain groups. I got the treatment as a long-haired rocker in the 80s. But I think much of what happens today is explained by statistically-validated suspicion and generally meets the role and expectation for law enforcement being tasked with crime prevention. Maybe that is something to debate… do we want law enforcement to be proactive in preventing crime, or only reactive to respond to pre-qualified criminal complaints? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Dispatch is tasked with much of that pre-qualification role… or else the officer is tasks with a check and determination. The problem with an officer check and determination is that it might lead to the detention of someone completely innocent… someone that then develops a resentment for feeling that they were treated unfairly.
And resentment for being treated unfairly can burn in the heart of people that might have other experience feeling like they have been treated unfairly. In fact, resentment is one of the most common emotional challenges that makes money for the psychotherapy industry.
So, it would be good to NOT go there if possible. Resentment is terrible in that it clouds judgement in the resentful… causing them to have a hair-trigger for encounters that them might otherwise just pass off as life. The harm of resentment is one reason that I am such a fan of the main principle of Christianity… forgiveness. Letting go of resentment through a process of forgiveness can be quite healing for the victim. Thick skin also helps.
But back to the main point… one idea is that we have more trained pre-qualification diagnosticians answering the phone who can better decide when an officer is required, or when some other service personnel is required. This might help reduce the number of innocent people that get detained by the police.
Good comment, Jeff.
There’s not even a political bias/agenda that I can detect (unlike the majority of comments on this blog). Well, maybe a slight (but truthful?) knock on psychotherapy.
David, you keep citing a few incidents from several years ago and trying make make it into some type systemic problem. I once was stopped for walking in the park while white. So does that mean that white men are also subject to systemic racism?
No because you’re being stopped doesn’t indicate that there is a systemic issue – for a lot of reasons.
“Mowing while black” that happened what, 10 years ago?, doesn’t make it systemic either. You need to move on. The DPD is a good police force. You need to stop with this.
Traffics stops happen every day. Unfortunately the last time I saw the traffic stop data was 2015 but it was tremendously skewed. They will be required by law to release it in 2021, but are not releasing it sooner.
My thanks to Councilmember Arnold for reaching out to the community with a new envisioning of what community safety might look like. We have some limited experience with expanding how individual and group safety can be achieved with the incorporation of a homeless coordinator under the umbrella of the existing police department. This is clearly a proposal that would need a lot of fleshing out of details. I applaud his courage in stepping forward to advance the conversation.
Form follows function. We need a public health and safety department that encompasses police, fire, and public health needs. Let’s use data to determine the kinds of calls that come in to our “safety” services to assess need and move on from there.
I find it telling that our current Chief of Police has already made decisions based on need: he has hired, over the past 3+ years, two homeless outreach coordinators, has withdrawn sworn officer positions from the budget revision just passed, and has, included a position for mental health outreach.
What needs to change in our way of viewing such positions is they need to be 24/7 positions, not “9-5” positions. Mental health crises, familty disputes, issues related to homeless individuals, and other health and social crises do not happen on a 9-5 clock. Just as sworn officers currently patrol at all hours, so to must public health and safety staff who are assigned to meet other needs.
I fully support the intent and direction that Will is suggesting. Let’s use data for decision making about future staffing needs.
While you are thinking of all these progressive 24×7 roles, don’t leave out actual law enforcement. I do agree that doing an inventory of the types of calls would be useful to determine the actual need. While we are at it, consider that fire spends more of their time dealing with people that have fallen down or calls to 9-11 for a health issue. So maybe we don’t need as many fire personnel and their big expensive and somewhat intimidating fire trucks. Or maybe we do need them to deal with those few fires that do happen. That is the problem with data and public safety. Like for COVID-19, we have to chose between the extreme or some rational middle ground where the risk that someone might not get protected goes up.
But if we don’t like the role of law enforcement, I suggest ending the continuous stream of new laws.
By the way, if we end up with a law that requires all Californians to wear a mask (of course justified as a righteous law for the good of the people and public safety) who would you expect to enforce that law?
Alan Miller.
Only if yelling “F— You!” is a form of enforcement.
It’s the law in Yolo County right now. Who do you think is enforcing it?
But if they wanted to, the Yolo County Health Officer could send you a cease and desist letter outlining the penalties for failure to comply and identifying your date of closure until compliance. Law enforcement would likely then become involved only if you failed to comply.
If the city gets a complaint about excessive vegetation or other code violations, they don’t send the police. They send a compliance staff person, who addresses the issue with the homeowner. Failure to comply by a certain date will result in financial penalties, which continue to increase in the absence of compliance.
Again, Alan Miller.
Actually, mainly untrue….
I do not wear a mask, at home, in Yolo County… I do not wear one outside (in Yolo County) unless I’m in a ‘public place’ (generally, businesses) or where the general public ‘congregates’… fully legal.
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/face-coverings-required-in-yolo-county-beginning-monday/#:~:text=Beginning%20at%208%20a.m.%20on%20Monday%2C%20Yolo%20County,materials.%20Scarves%2C%20bandannas%20and%20homemade%20coverings%20are%20suitable.
And, note that ‘face coverings are required’, not ‘masks’, even then…
Jeff B
Why do we need fire trucks to respond to people falling down or other health issues? I never understood that action. It’s probably cheaper to have a van to run those calls.
Which is what is behind Will’s proposal. You’ve been calling for rethinking all sorts of government functions, including education, to make them more efficient and effective. Why should law enforcement be exempt, especially when so many find it just as dysfunctional as the education system? The fact is that our current police force is not well situated to to deal with the mental health crises that its called upon to answer. Why not shift law enforcement spending to addressing that problem (which likely will lead to a reduction in many crimes)?
As to additional laws, we create those because people act irresponsibly without regard to how their actions impact others. So long as some people have the attitude that what they do is of no concern to others when in fact that’s not a scientifically acceptable attitude (e.g., second-hand smoke), we’ll need to legislate. Encourage considerate behavior (not well modeled by our current President) and we can have fewer laws.
I fully agree Robb.
Are y’all totally behind the times? Newsom declared mandatory masks the law of the land last week.
I guess my subtle sarcasm is lost on you maskaholics.
The point was/is that politicians like the author are fond of making rules that then flow to the role of rule enforcement which is often put in the lap of police.
Here is an example for you.
Cop sees a black male without a mask and attempt to detain him. David Greenwald publishes an article on the VG about racist cops targeting blacks because he saw at least three white people without a mask the same day.
That should not happen, regardless of the race or ethnicity of the individual. Cops should not “detain” someone who is not wearing a mask.
Hear, hear! I am all in favor. But a name change is not enough (and I’m not suggesting that is all councilmember Arnold is talking about). To ensure that more changes than just the name, I believe we need a roadmap to establish the initial part of this process – and a timeline. I say ‘initial’ because this is a process that needs to continue. One of the problems with the current system is that we do not regularly assess the system as a whole, what it is addressing, and the success of its functions. We will need metrics of success and a regular schedule of assessments of those metrics, and/or a real-time dashboard of the metrics. This will enable us to use data for the decision making process, as suggested by Mayor Davis above.
I am unimpressed with this proposal. I know how government generally changes things with calls from politicians – name changes, title changes, new bureaucracies, time wasted, looking good for the politicians instead of doing real work.
Davis PD becoming something else doesn’t address the problem and never will.
Also, Davis PD has done many of the things being demanded by society today — unsworn employees doing things like so-called homeless outreach, mental health outreach, parking, etc. Creating a new bureaucracy will only cost more money and cause coordination problems.
And changing the name? That will do nothing. Except we can say “Look at Us! Davis is so woke we don’t have po-lice no mo”.
Why won’t it work? Because racism and bad policing is in the hearts of individual officers. And generally in policing, like in almost all professions – lumberjacks, psychologists, auto mechanics — about 1/4 – 1/3 of them s@ck at their jobs. And this gets entrenched by systematic structure like public employee unions and officers ‘looking out for one another’, i.e. protecting mistakes.
And that has been my experience in Davis. Most officers I’ve been impressed with; about a quarter of them . . . not so much.
Yes, some further reforms can be done, and should be thoughtfully considered and accelerated. But spare me the woke speech and the rearranging of the deck chairs on the ship formerly named Titanic, until it was renamed.
I have great respect for Councilmember Arnold and the merits of our need to reimagine. Domestic violence, however, should not exclude law enforcement. These are extremely dangerous circumstances for victims and bystanders and it took us decades to obtain protections through law enforcement. They are also trained to manage this crisis response (it’s not perfect, but domestic violence doesn’t yield to the ideal). Counseling for abusers takes years and is often unsuccessful—by the time violence escalates to a call for help, abuse is usually extreme. Law enforcement is required to determine the primary aggressor and, after a risk analysis, sometimes remove that individual from the home. This gives victims time to plan for safety. When this didn’t happen years ago, victims would suffer more extreme violence and sometimes death. We can’t go backwards in this area.
Good catch Heidy, I’m sure Will will be open to refining his proposal.
Still a big question is will Will run for re-election or will he not. If he does this might be seen as a rough draft of a second term agenda. If not he will have limited time or opportunity to work on this agenda.
Run Will run!
How do you keep a turkey in suspense Will? Your silence on your intentions is deafening.