It was just last year about this time that the Chief's reappointment to another three year term was before the City Council.
We drew a mighty large crowd for the public hearing before PS&RS committee of the City Council. I was in the opposition camp at the time. Right now I feel a little like Gary Schiff who was quoted in the Strib as saying he was against any contract buyout. I've read Peter Dodge's reasons for wanting the Chief out and I cannot say I disagree with any of them. I would add to that list, and in the same vein, Chief Olson's over-reaction to ISAG. As much as I've studied the police force in the past 1&1/2 years I'm still not sure I entirely understand CODEFOR. The Chief likes to say it really is no different in many ways from what police have always done but that now the data is computerized and fresh and easily understandable whereas before it was more like putting pins in a map. That's only part of the story though. What in effect happens is that by picking up trends more quickly the police are able to flood a particular area with more manpower. Sometimes we're talking about some mighty small areas so that the concentration is proportionataly greater than residents had been used to seeing. This stategy also makes it much easier for police to converge on crime scenes and if necessary institute searches or chases which seem to invariably go awry. The former Mayor would point to the crime stats over the past six years(during the Chief Olson's tenure) and say "See how good we are doing." It's pretty hard to judge the success or failure. The stats relate the incidence of crime from one period of time to another so to some degree you are comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be(have been)the incidence of crime in similar neighborhoods at the same time, one utilizing CODEFOR, the other using the old style. Then we might have better data to inform our decision of the Chief's crime fighting capabilities aside from the issues Peter Dodge raises. Another factor rarely mentioned is the growth of the force between 1994-2000. Remember Clinton Cops for which we are now paying full freight. More cops on the street ought to have translated into lowered crime and better performance one would think. Ought to have. in some cases it just meant more cops with little experience stumbling over each other as they did on June 12, 2000. My opposition to the Chief really started after the shooting of Barbara Schneider and as much as anything spurred me to run for Mayor though I had no idea what that meant in practical terms. I was to find out. What I heard from the Chief were excuses. At one point he was quoted by a reporter as saying about crisis intervention training, "I had it in my mind at the time" referring to the event of Barbara's shooting. Well this was not the first instance the police had tragic encounters with the brain diseased. Seven months before Rocco D'Andrea was shot by police near the Metrodome when it was believed he was brandishing a real gun rather than a toy. And subsequently another death, this one of Abuka Sanders had to happen before the Chief finally got the idea out of his mind, on to paper, and into action. This was unprofessional and irresponsible and it made me angry that here was a guy under whose watch the pay for Chief had risen dramatically based upon his past experience as professional and all I heard was whining and excuses. Another upshot of this was the toll it took on police officers individually and as a force. Any supervisor who puts their charge to work without proper training and preparation does not deserve their job. In the end though I think the failure was at a higher level and may not have been something that could have been avoided. Ultimately the performance of the Chief and for that matter the entire force rests primarily on the Mayor's shoulders and I don't think the Mayor had a chance with the force. The police do not like seeing any Mayor go outside the existing force for a Chief. Bouza made it tough for Fraser I suspect and Olson made it tough for SSB. I remember one of the things that former Mayor Fraser said was that he approved of SSB because she had kept the force out of the political mix. At least I think I recall him having put it that way. John Derus might have pulled off appointing Olson but not SSB. I don't think the force, and by the force I mean the Police Federation, saw SSB as the Leader and as such never really bought into the Chief as a leader the way you would have liked and expected. Neither the Mayor nor Olson seemed to have had sway over the Federation. Of course I'm not in the culture so much of this is speculative and opinion. As to whether or not to force the Chief out and pony up a couple hundred thou I think it's too early to make that sort of decision. One of the comments I heard at the time of the hearing vis a vis the perceived problems the community had with the Chief was that there was no silver bullet and an incoming Chief might not prove any better. I'm not of the "Corky Finney as Saviour Club." I also think the constant comparison between Minneapolis and St.Paul is not helpful. They are completely different cities with different cultural histories that make a comparison once again like the proverbial "apples and oranges." Corky was a St.Paul homeboy, he ain't squat across the river. The key is, always has been, and will be forever the issue of leadership and it starts in the sw corner of the third floor of City Hall. The idea that anything the Police Federation would say relative to who the Mayor ought choose for Chief of Police might be is all wrong. The Police Federation is part of the problem not the solution and the Mayor needs to understand that very clearly from the start. The police force is not a democracy and there is room for only one leader. This isn't like a bricklayers union where the workers carry trowels. The stakes are a lot higher. If the Federation President eclipses the Chief as he has done in many instances it is not a good situation. This is one of those times that a Mayor in this city can really shine and cement the very real power they have. Just because this is a weak Mayor government does not mean a Mayor has no power or influence. The Mayor ought not worry though. Anyway he decides he will find a critic. And some of us can argue both sides of the same point. Tim Connolly Dowtown Resident Member/Friends of Barbara Schneider __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
