|
I appreciate the input of inside
information to this topic. But your answers do bring up more questions in
my mind, that I hope you could also answer:
1) You say that part of
the reason for fewer (or just lower dollar?) lawsuits is the aggressive strategy
of the City Attorney. I remember when we had the large unfavorable
settlements years ago, we were assured that if the cases went to trial the City
would probably lose even more. Do you think they were wrong when they sent
that - perhaps the City Attorney was just looking out for his own butt? Or
maybe the City Attorney is simply better at winning these cases than he was a
few years ago? I realize that any answer by you might be pure speculation,
so I understand if you don't respond to this one.
2) You also claim the council is more
aggressive about standing up to officers who don't follow the rules. Why
does this help? Isn't the City responsible for the actions of the Mpls
police? The only way I can think of to rid us of that legal responsibility
is to have precise rules of what constitutes "bad" behavior, and consistent
punishment of officers who break those rules (I'm not an attorney, but I believe
an organization can disclaim responsibility of one of their agents only if they
are vigilant in stopping the applicable behavior whenever they can). If
this is the case, that sounds more like good management by Olson than a
change in council behavior.
3) Don't the rank and file vote for the
Federation leadership? It is true that an election doesn't necessarily
mean true representation, but I assume good representation unless I
have evidence otherwise.
Thanks for your previous reply, and I
hope more are coming.
Mark Anderson
Bancroft Neighborhood
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:16
PM
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Olsen out?
Yes, in the last few years lawsuits have been down. Partly because of an
aggressive litigation strategy by the City Attorney and also because the
council has decided to be more aggressive about not standing up for officers
who don't abide by the rules. Overall if you look at our payouts on lawsuits
(and deduct the kondirator) the City Attorney's office is winning more and
payouts are down considerably.
As to the Federation issue. Sometimes where the Federation stands isn't
necessarily where the rank and file is. That's why the chief issue is such a
loaded one and should be approached with caution. The Federation may like Lucy
Gerald but that doesn't mean the rank and file agrees. While I have the utmost
respect for Lucy and think she is an able administrator,
many rank and filers don't feel she has enough time on the street
as a cop in order to be the chief.
Lisa McDonald
East Harriet
----- Original Message -----
From:
Anderson & Turpin
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:21
AM
To: mpls@mnforum
Subject: [Mpls] Olsen out?
I'm not sure where I come down on the likely ouster of the
police chief, but
I am going to play devil's advocate to all those who
can't get rid of him
soon enough.
A few people have suggested that
a $300,000 buyout fee is cheap, in
comparison to all the lawsuits (of
police brutality I assume) we may be
avoiding. But it just occurred
to me that I haven't heard of such a lawsuit
in several years. For
a while there, it seemed like we had a couple of
lawsuits per year.
Is it just that the Strib has stopped reporting on them
because they
happen so often they are no longer news? I find that
unlikely,
because the Strib loves to highlight troubles in
government. Maybe the
current chief really has stopped most of the
police thumping. Sauro is
still with the Department, but I haven't
heard anything bad about him for
awhile. Is it possible that Olsen
has laid down the law that police
thumping will no longer occur, and the
street police are listening? I'm
sure there's still some thumping
going on, but the decline in lawsuits
suggests to me that at least the
most egregious acts have ended.
Olsen has gotten into most of his
trouble, at least on this List, for the
massive police interventions, and
perhaps mistakes in judgment (I don't
believe anyone can reasonably call
the Somalian action thumping). My
biggest concern with Olsen is
simply that he doesn't explain himself. When
each of these episodes
come up, the police need to be right there in the
middle of the
discussion, explaining why they did what they did. Instead,
we get
a bunch of hotheads attacking the police force, and one can only
respond
by guessing the intent of the police.
It also scares me a bit that
Rybak could be somewhat in the thrall of the
Police Federation. the
Police Federation's goals are certainly not those of
the people of
Minneapolis. I remember when I first decided that the
Federation is
run by bad guys. When Jerry Haaf was shot in the back in the
Pizza
Shack, the head of the Police Federation (Berryman I believe) blamed
this
murder on the current chief's work on rapprochement with the gangs
in
Minneapolis. This was an absurd comment - how could working with
the gangs
result in a gang member deciding he had to shoot a cop?
Berryman must have
known this was absurd, but said it anyway, to get a
political benefit from
the goodwill generated towards the police because
of the shooting. He used
the death of one of his own for political
benefit. I've seen no indication
since that the Federation has
become more civic minded since then.
Back to Olsen, he may also be
partly responsible for the decline in crime
during the last several
years. If we go looking for a Chief that is good
at community
work, we may lose the management skills that help fight crime
and
decrease thumping. Do we want to go back to Murderapolis and
twice
yearly lawsuits? I don't know if Olsen was responsible for
the
improvements, but it certainly is possible.
Mark
Anderson
Bancroft
_______________________________________
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
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
|
