> > Carol Becker writes concerning police discipline:
> > So just because disciplinary action has
> > not yet been taken, it does not mean that disciplinary action
> > will never be taken. In fact, I expect there will be action, possibly
> soon.
>
> [Terrell Brown] Expect based on what? A hunch? Conversation with
someone who might
> know (and who might that be)? Or are you trying to throw smoke at the
> failure of the Mayor and Police Chief to properly manage the Police
> Department?
All police departments that I know typically wait to discipline an officer
until after any legal action is complete because it is possible that
additional information could come out due to the investigation and
subsequent presentation of evidence at the trial. Typically the officer is
put on administrative leave until that time.
My goal in providing this information was not to advocate for or against any
position, just to warn that just because something hasn't happened yet, it
would not be good to leap to the conclusion that nothing would happen.
> > Carol Becker again:
> > Also someone made a comment about Chief Olson not attending the closed
> > meeting. Closed meetings are closed even to City staff, and as such, it
> > would not be unusual for the Chief not to attend.
>
> [Terrell Brown] The Council can invite someone to attend a closed meeting.
One
> Councilmember (McDonald as I recall) was quoted in the Strib expressing
> dismay at the Chief being out of town and failing to attend the meeting.
> Legal counsel is regularly at these meetings.
Closed meetings occur so the Council can give legal direction to the city
attorneys. The attorneys have to be there to receive that direction. The
meetings are closed so the opposing legal counsel does not know our
negotiating strategies. Closed meetings are usually closed to everyone
except legal staff.
> [Terrell Brown] I attended the Downtown Command's CODEFOR review last
night. The Mayor made
> the opening speech but disappeared without answering any questions. She
> talked about an emphasis on livability crimes (i.e. public urination,
> panhandling), ironically the only stats that were presented were Part I
> (serious) crimes and a number of people in the audience mentioned that
they
> thought the livability crimes were not decreasing.
I don't have the 2000 statistics in front of me. From the State of the City
book, it shows Part II crimes arrests down -2.4% and reports down -1.3% from
1998 to 1999.
I feel that it is misleading to talk about Part II crimes in aggregate
because there are reports and arrests for some crimes that increase directly
with enforcement (drugs, DWI and prostitution for example) as oppose to
decreasing (assault, vandalism, etc). The Part II number in total doesn't
really give you a sense of whether crime overall is going up or down. Part
I crimes on the other hand (the more serious crimes like homicide, rape,
robbery, burglary, arson, etc) are driven by the number of reports and
arrests and are a better indicator of overall level of crime in the city.
Carol Becker
Longfellow
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
