By David M. Greenwald
When President-elect Joe Biden surprisingly named California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services, assuming confirmation by Senate next month—by no means a certainty, the appointment opens up the position of AG for appointment by Governor Gavin Newsom.
While Becerra made a name for himself over the past four years, challenging the Trump administration on immigration and environmental legislation, he has drawn heavy criticism from the justice reform community, who believe he has been soft on police misconduct and holding prosecutors accountable.
Governor Newsom is under pressure to name a reform-minded AG, one who can take on critical issues like police accountability as well as an array of issues progressive prosecutors across the state have addressed from bail reform to decarceration.
The governor has a lot of options—the question is which way he will go. The Vanguard has learned this week that Governor Newsom has reached out to the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC) for a recommendation for AG—it is not clear if that means he is looking to appoint a Black appointee to the post, or if he is also reaching out to a variety of other groups.
While the Black Caucus expects to interview potential candidates this week, according to one source, the California Association of Black Lawyers has made three recommendations to the CLBC—Contra Costa DA and former Judge Diana Becton, Paul Henderson of the SF Department of Police Accountability, and Terry Wiley, who serves as an Assistant DA in Alameda County and is currently the third ranking prosecutor in that office.
While Paul Henderson is not a name that is likely to jump out to many voters across the state, he has a long and varied background in San Francisco. He served 16 years as a prosecutor in the San Francisco DA’s office, including the last seven years as Chief of Administration under Kamala Harris until 2011. He then moved to Deputy Chief of Staff of Public Safety under Mayor Ed Lee from 
2011 until 2017, when the mayor died in office.
Since 2017, he has served as the Executive Director of the San Francisco DPA (Department of Police Accountability).
Henderson also has a national platform as a legal news analyst, where he has appeared as a commentator on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and Fox News.
The Vanguard recently sat down with Paul Henderson in an interview over Zoom.
On the current AG’s office, he said, “I think the biggest problem is not having them take a more aggressive role about police reform when it is such the issue that I think people want from that agency, communities want reform.” He added, “I would argue that many of the leaders in many of these police departments want reform as well.
“If you talk to the chief, they want reform too. And they are challenged with the political pressure. They are challenged with budgets. They are challenged with internal affair restrictions. And it’s the state’s obligation to be doing reform at a level that is reflective of best practices. Flat out, that’s their obligation. That’s what they should be doing.”
He argued, “[A]bsolutely in my opinion, the number one missed mandate for the biggest obligation, or the most collaring mandate for the Attorney General’s Office right now, is to take up and to address police reform in a meaningful way that both reflects best practices.”
One example of the criticism that AG Becerra has received has been on the shooting of Sean Monterrosa in Vallejo. The DA of Solano County has attempted to recuse herself but the AG’s office has pushed back saying outside of a clear conflict of interest, it is on the DA to investigate.
Henderson responded, “I think that the AG’s office has an obligation to be stepping in and being more proactive.”
He explained that “this is not the first time that we’ve seen that. I would say it is the absolute role of the Attorney General’s Office to be acting more proactively in those situations. Specifically with these officer-involved shootings that I think counties and communities are sending a clear message that the subjective discretion allowed to law enforcement in evaluating those cases has to change.”
Henderson continued, saying “that doesn’t mean that we don’t respect policing, but it does mean the objective evaluation of the use of lethal force has to be a real objective evaluation.”
Paul Henderson in his role with the DPA noted that he has challenges in his own agency, because, without a specific complaint, he doesn’t have jurisdiction unless there is a specific complaint about the case.
But that has changed. “The new standard is for San Francisco, if there is an officer-involved shooting, period, jurisdiction is automatic.” That means that now he can have his own lawyers, investigators at the scene within 20 minutes of an officer-involved shooting, on the “scene conducting their own investigation at the same time that the cops are doing their evaluation.
“And it really boils down to honesty, and this is the cornerstone of it, public trust,” Henderson explained. “What is your public trust and how you define it. Either you have it or you don’t. And if you don’t have it, here’s how you build it.
“That independent evaluation really, I believe, can be transformative and that doesn’t necessarily change. It’s not a big new function for the Attorney General’s Office to have experts in this area evaluating independently, how transactions like that take life and have an opinion about it.”
The important point: “If they don’t trust the process, not just from the police, but they don’t trust that the District Attorney and the prosecutor isn’t working in conjunction, because of the pressure that the mayor is putting on them.”
Talking with folks who have worked with Henderson and the DPA, however, there are criticisms about the lack of transparency, accountability and the willingness for agencies to release documents under new laws like SB 1421, which were supposed to provide for additional layers of accountability and transparency.
“But I will say that one of the things that they are talking about is how difficult and challenging the 1421 process is. And I agree with them. If they are not getting the information as quickly as they want it or need it or want to develop it … but no one is,” he said. “I will say the challenges of the 1421 releases are very tricky at a macro level because the interpretation that I have of interpreting what’s discoverable.”
Asked if he would look to implement a series of reforms on criminal justice matters along the lines of George Gascón in Los Angeles and Chesa Boudin in San Francisco.
While he never directly addressed the entirety of their agenda, he indicated that he would love to coordinate “with legislators in a way to craft legislation, to come up with solution so that we don’t have to have individual fights over and over and over.”
He complained that “we have not had a proactive Attorney General engaged at that level, advocating for those things and motivated to work with legislation and with broader communities to get that stuff done.”
He said, “We don’t want the Attorney General’s Office to be silent when there’s an initiative about bail reform. We don’t want the Attorney General’s Office working behind the scene to talk about certification of officers at a statewide level. We want an opinion reflective of race neutral outcomes for policing. And we demand that.”
One of the big questions is what Governor Newsom is looking for when he selects a new attorney general. If he is looking at police reform first and foremost, someone like Paul Henderson could emerge on that radar.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
He obviously checks off question #1 on the list of required prerequisites.
California has had 33 Attorneys General. Prior to Kamala Harris taking office in 2011, all were white males. Did you make the same snide comment about required prerequisites then? Didn’t think so.
Was it a brazen openly “required prerequisite” as it is now?
And I thought we as a state and a nation are trying to move beyond a race based society.
You don’t get there by flipping a switch and ignoring the long legacy of racism, privilege, and oppression.
Yes.
“Was it a brazen openly “required prerequisite” as it is now?
Yes. It was absolute. It just wasn’t spoken about. Did that make it any less true?
If based upon font size, I’d say that there’s no question about it being true. 😉
Now, how that should translate into decisions going forward might be where the controversy lies. Literally lies, sometimes.
And that controversy is already involving “white” people to a lesser degree, as noted throughout the comment section this week.
Not too long ago, the same was true of a lot of different groups (and still to this day).
Apparently, you get there this way – according to Willie Brown:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Willie-Brown-Alex-Padilla-Gavin-Newsom-react-Black-15829336.php
You realize you keep undercutting your argument
I haven’t put up an argument to be undercut.
Take it up with Willie Brown, London Breed (and probably others).
No argument – that’s why you commented 25 times on yesterday’s article.
Let me know what argument you think I’m trying to make, other than observing the fighting that occurs as a result of race-based selections.
As usual, most of my comments were made in response to others.
I think this is the argument you’re trying to make: “How about if we just call it a “political prerequisite”, with only two acceptable choices regarding skin color?”
That is, in fact, part of what I’ve observed – as demonstrated by Willie Brown’s comment.
Rather than focus on my observation, what do you think of his comment – and those of London Breed? I suspect that we’ll see more of this type of thing, going forward.
The problem is that I think your observation is wrong. The reality is that Newsom was always going to piss someone off. The comments by Brown and Breed reflect that reality. That ironically freed him to make the best choice in his estimation. The reason he selected a Latino is that the ground has shifted so much, there really wasn’t a viable choice who was white. For AG it’s going to be slightly different, there are strong choices who are Asian – Rob Bonta, Ash Kalra, Ted Lieu. I might argue that the favorite at this point is an Asian. Here I think the stakes are different, Newsom will be more underpressure to select a strong reformer than to select someone of a particular race. We will see how this evolves however.
It’s pretty tough to say that my observation is “wrong”, when quoting someone directly:
Indeed. Apparently, from those who believe that they represent the non-selected skin color, in this case.
Look for that to continue, going forward.
You’re just quoting people. You lack an understanding of what’s going on. Think of it as multi-level chess. You’re playing on board one and they are playing one board three.
Seems that you’re claiming that they are using the “ruse” of skin color, to express their disappointment.
Could be – and that’s even worse for society and the goal of leveling the playing field. There are folks who listen to (and believe in) these leaders.
And even for those who aren’t “followers”, this increases cynicism regarding politics, politicians (and the professed “goals” they espouse – including “diversity”). While at the same time seemingly “requiring” diversity, if it suits their personal goals.
No, no, no. They’re not fighting the last battle, they’re fighting the next battle.
Of course – but again, that doesn’t change their quotes and your apparent interpretation of it as I spelled out (which may be true, and ultimately – harmful).
It also seems to me that many of your arguments (in general) are part of the same game that you suggest is going on, behind the scenes. You might do so on a more “local” level.
See, I wasn’t trained in political science.
“See, I wasn’t trained in political science.”
This isn’t political science
There’s a classic Twilight Zone episode that comes to mind, which I believe is titled, “People are Alike All Over”.
Maybe more accurate to say, “politics”.
I would think that both have an element regarding the power of psychology, group identity (and how that can be used), etc. But, you would know more about that.
If you ever run an article regarding the Twilight Zone, I’m in! (The classic one, not that preachy new one – of which I only saw the first season.)
I agree Ron, the old Twilight Zone was the best. Remember the episode where the old man was the last survivor of a nuclear war but was still very happy because he had a library of books and loved to read? Then he accidentally broke his very thick glasses and had no backup pair. It might be good if Progressives today broke their only pair of glasses, then they wouldn’t see and judge everything based on skin color.
“Time enough at Last”
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hsimp=yhs-att_001&hspart=att&p=twighlight+zone+man+breaks+glasses#id=4&vid=566987fc8a0af93708242489e2142b79&action=click
I know them all – including that classic one.
Rod Serling also contributed to the “Planet of the Apes”, which (I think) had racial overtones/concepts – on more than one level. Actually, several of the Twilight Zone episodes do, as well.
Not sure, but I think he was responsible for the “Statue of Liberty” idea, in that film.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film)
Race Race Racity Race Race Race!
I think starting a reply in a discussion by stating the problem is that the other person is wrong – is wrong.
Though I fully admit, I could be wrong about that.
I think it shows a lack of understanding, to tell people they have a lack of understanding.
Thopugh I fully admit, I may be misunderstanding.
Good one, Keith! This whole comment string began because you couldn’t see anything in the article past the headline and a picture of a Black man.
It’s a good point, I wonder if Keith or Ron even read the article.
Eric: From the initial comments today, it looks like you were ready to continue that topic as well (e.g., from yesterday, the day before, etc.).
On any given day, one can probably make a comment about race/skin color and have it be “on topic” regarding the Vanguard article at hand (or at least, “underlying” it). A relatively safe assumption. 😉
Newsom will be more under pressure BY PROGRESSIVES to select a strong reformer than to select someone of a particular race.
Ron: I have no problem with engaging in discussions about race and racism. Unlike some, however, I don’t trivialize it ad nauseam by characterizing the issues as being about nothing but “skin color.” It’s not progressives who insist on focusing on that rather than the underlying societal issues and ways to address them.
Isn’t that what racism is essentially based upon? The visible manifestation of “differences”?
I believe it is “progressives” who primarily focus on that. But then again, some might think that the topic is being hijacked for political purposes (e.g., see David’s comment regarding what Willie Brown and London Breed have said).
This whole effort is going to collapse under its own weight, when politicians start making comments like that. Especially when others don’t see anything “wrong” with it, and pretend that this is an acceptable/normal thing to say:
Except that Willie Brown hasn’t been a politician in a long time. He’s an 86 year old man.
Though more thoughtful comments by Brown in his column: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Willie-Brown-Loyalty-has-its-perks-Just-ask-15827174.php
Maybe I’ll check that out, later. But it seems to me that you go back-and-forth between “defending” Brown, vs. “criticizing” him.
Of course, there’s also stuff like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Brown_(politician)#:~:text=From%201994%20to%201995%2C%20Brown,and%20launched%20a%20presidential%20bid.
Now, whether or not he’s being totally forthright regarding his concerns (related to skin color), I cannot tell. But his comment regarding the vacant seat do not serve that purpose very well.
If he (or others) actually think that way, you can already see what the future will bring. Which won’t necessarily involve “white” people.
Nor does it serve people like you and Eric to ignore them, unless you’re also playing a political game. (In Eric’s case, I don’t think so – though he certainly engages in “political gamesmanship” on here at times.)
Willie Brown has always been this way to some extent, he is the guy who wiped out the funding for the CHP after getting racially profiled on I-80 and that was 50 years ago.
Not really. Skin color is merely a convenient means of identifying groups who are subject to marginalization, oppression, and dehumanization. Racism is about belief systems for marginalizing and oppressing people of color. It’s a means of obtaining and maintaining privilege and power.
You might find the blue eyes/brown eyes classroom demonstration from 50 years ago of interest. It illustrates how readily such belief systems can take hold based on any superficial characteristic.
https://youtu.be/1mcCLm_LwpE
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/08/888846330/we-are-repeating-discrimination-experiment-every-day-educator-says
In regard to the references to Willie Brown, one might view him as engaging in racism, using that definition.
Regardless, it is a myth to claim that only people of “no color” engage in this, or are the only ones in positions able to do so. (Actually, I’d use much stronger language than “myth”.)
We’ll leave out for the moment discrimination (racism’s “sibling”) based upon other characteristics, or how one “identifies” oneself.
I’ll be sure to have my great-grandson thrown that comment back in your face when you are 86.
I won’t hold my breath.
Thank God Jews are Purple so they can be so identified. What would we do if they looked like ‘white’ people?
Tell a politically conservative person of color your theory. And speaking of politically conservative persons of color, talk about a minority!
Maybe you should rely a little less on ‘convenient’ means.
Don’t ask me, as I still haven’t figured that one out. Didn’t Nazi Germany come up with a means of “identification”?
Of course, some people think that they are white people, for the most part.
Given this (and other recent conversations, including one regarding those from Greece), we really ought to “settle” exactly who is in the “white people’s club”.
I guess we won’t go into how they (and others) might have identified gay people, etc.
But really, this all points to discrimination – of which racism is a subcategory of, for the most part. Not really a “sibling”.
Alan – Do you intentionally misconstrue what people say to be witty, or can’t you help yourself? Racial groups are not the only victims of bigotry and discrimination. Nowhere have I said that skin color is the only means of identifying a “disfavored” group (e.g., women, Jews, Muslims, people with disabilities, etc.).
In the case of Willie Brown and Kamala…
Nah, never mind…
For some reason, I think the conversation is moving away from skin color. I blame myself for thinking that. 😉
Preachy? More like screechy . . . it’s unwatchable. It’s like Woke Twilight Zone.
October 14th I believe. The day I stopped beating my wife. Or was it November 12th?
I only misconstrue what you say EG. Everyone else I construe just fine.
9.6 – pegged the landing
We train police as warriors, tell them to control every situation, hand them a gun as their ultimate authority and tell them to “stay safe.” What do we expect? The problem isn’t the way police do their job, its the job we give them to do. The racism is in the job description and blaming cops is not going to get us anywhere.
Actually I think it’s both, but you do raise a good point that we need to train police differently.
In any closed profession in which arising to the highest level requires mentorship and selection by the existing partners, the people who are going to become partners are those who look like the existing ones. The law profession has a well-established problem with diversity in the higher ranks.
If you draw from Harvard Law School, for example, and 1/3 of the students at Harvard are there as legacy admittances, and all of the senior partners are white, you are automatically going to be selecting for people who look like those senior partners unless a conscious effort is made to do otherwise.
“The class of 2022 was over 1/3rd legacy, meaning one-third of admitted freshmen (up from the year before) had either a parent, grandparent, sibling, aunt, uncle, or other relative who attended Harvard before them.”
https://www.koppelmangroup.com/blog/2020/3/4/harvard-acceptance-rate-for-legacy-students
And while many law firms have done significant work to hire in lawyers from more diverse backgrounds, it’s getting them up the next rung of the ladder that has proven much more difficult.
It is not mandatory, but it seems like a basic prerequisite that an attorney general needs to be an attorney, preferably with some experience. That prerequisite essentially guarantees that the AG will be white if one is looking primarily at the CV.
It takes a conscious effort to step outside of the legal profession’s bias in order to bring in an AG who is from an ethnic minority because there are simply far fewer of them with the requisite experience.
So if I am reading this interview correctly, it seems he is saying that the state Attorney General’s office should take a direct role in police shooting incident investigations (automatically? Or under certain specified conditions?), that the AG should advocate or get involved in legislation with respect to bail reform and officer certification, and that he has positive attitudes generally (but not specifically addressing the details in this interview).
I don’t think the AG’s office would normally get involved in the crafting of legislation. That isn’t generally considered an executive agency’s role. Perhaps Mr. Henderson would be more effective in reaching his goals if he were to run for state assembly or senate.
That’s incorrect. I was the legislative director for a state department in the Health and Human Services Agency. While departments infrequently take official positions on pending legislation (e.g., support or oppose), they work with legislators all the time in crafting bills. I also worked with state and local agencies when I was with the Legislature as a policy committee consultant.