Latest in a series of posts responding to the George Floyd killing

Allentown City Council meeting July 29, 2020, video
mins. 3:04:08 – 3:09:05

After a lengthy procedural discussion about the next step — looks like another special meeting August 12 — both Councilpeople Gerlach and Siegel made concluding statements — and things got more fiery.

We’ll take Councilwoman Gerlach first.

Gadfly always suggests that you go to the primary sources. Hear the voices for yourself.

Councilwoman Gerlach:

I just want to thank everyone. If there are still folks alive outside on both sides, Back the Blue people, the Black Lives Matter folks, I haven’t read anything, anything went down, so it’s great to see that two sides can come, do their thing, advocate, make your voice heard, and then go home and hopefully relax. And I would like to thank my fellow members of Council for entertaining this for discussing this, and thank the Chief, thank the Mayor, the Solicitor, thank everyone because we couldn’t be silenced.  Even though this may have caused a lot of division, this needed to come up. We cannot during this time of national outrage, when buildings are burning, rubber bullets are flying, riot gear is in full force, we could not do nothing. So that’s why this came about. And what passes is what passes. But at least we’re having the conversation. And I’m hoping that at some point we can get beyond this divisive you’re either anti-cop if you want reform, or you are a hard-core KKK member if you don’t want reform. There’s gotta be a way that we can start having these conversations in a civil way without pigeon-holing people. Calling people scumbags, saying that we need hoses placed on us. Ridiculous, ridiculous. That doesn’t get us anywhere. We’ve got to be able to have comfortable, direct conversations about tough topics without resorting to disrespectful name-calling, threats, towards either Black Lives Matter, protestors, calling people thugs, that’s a racist term, to call someone a thug. We’ve got to stop that, it breaks down conversations when you start using those terminologies. And I just hope that as we continue to dive into these bullet points, these issues, that we can do some internal soul-searching. I have biases, we all do, we have to start thinking how my world view, how I grew up, makes the skin I’m in, how it affects how I view these situations, because it is easy for some folks to say that it’s not my problem but maybe someone with a different life-path, a different skin tone, a different sexuality, maybe for them it is. Thank you for having this tough conversation. It’s going to get tougher when we actually have to pass things. But I needed to say that, and I don’t know who is still out there at this point, but we gotta stop using racist language. There has been racist language used toward people of color in this town and towards me, and I’m sick of it. If you want to back the blue, back the blue, go all out, buy a big flag, do what you gotta do, but there is no room for racism. There is no room, not in Allentown, that crosses the line. So that’s it. Thank you . . . . Never said that. . . . Well, I didn’t make those remarks, so please don’t accuse me of doing that.

Councilman Siegel’s response next . . .

Latest in a series of posts responding to the George Floyd killing

Allentown City Council meeting July 29, 2020, video
Mins. 2:24:40 – 2:40:20

Now we get to the heart of the matter.

Councilpeople Gerlach and Siegel are the ones behind the resolution.

No one else on Council supported the divestment and defunding proposed in the last clause of the resolution.

No one.

The Mayor said the City “needs help” from the county in regard to some of the services to which the “defunders” would like to see money reallocated. The county must “step up to the plate.”

Social workers aren’t going to respond to the call of a man barricaded with a gun.

No way hospital personnel were going to respond to the man, given the state he was in, in the recent Sacred Heart Hospital episode.

There was a recent major fire in Allentown — the police responded first.

Fire fighters say they depend on the police for their very lives and plead that the police not be cut.

The Police are out there disregarding their own safety during this pandemic.

“Our lives depend on the police department.”

Defunding “is going to turn into a disaster.”

Domestic violence calls are among the most dangerous calls there are — and not for social workers.

The police department had 242 officers in 2003, 216 now. It is not now adequately staffed.

“Our city is not shrinking,” we need more police not less.

Social service agencies already exist, with lots of money.

What we should do if we are going to do it right, is do research, partner with someone and study what’s right for our community. Such models as Eugene, Oregon, and St. Petersburg not transferable.

Need data-driven approach.

To cut the department now would be to cut (seniority basis) the most diverse part of the department — would make no sense.

What can’t the police department do without? Training. You wouldn’t want to cut that.

The department budget has been cut but even so it is now running under even the diminished budget. We’re running a good ship. Good stewards of our resources.

I support Black Lives Matter, and I support the Police Department.

Nobody supported divestment or defunding.

Say again, nobody supported divestment or defunding.

How did the proposers of the resolution respond? See next.

Latest in a series of posts responding to the George Floyd killing

Allentown City Council meeting July 29, 2020, video
mins. 56:00 – 1:06:00 and 1:17:25 – 2:24:40

Bethlehem has now formally announced the August 11 Public Safety Committee meeting, and we are taking advantage of the fact that Allentown is in a sense a step ahead of us —  their City Council having had a meeting this week with the Police Chief — to see how they are handling a resolution regarding the department.

The Allentown meeting Wednesday night (and on the video you can hear protestors banging on the exterior of the building) was a Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss a Gerlach/Siegel resolution at which no vote was taken.

Find the resolution here.

We have posted about the public comment before the meeting here.

Now we are ready to listen to the discussion among the Councilors and the Police Chief.

We’ll break that listening into two posts, holding off focus on the defunding part of the resolution to the next post.

First, let Gadfly say that the discussion, while robust, was — except for the defunding section that we’ll look at in the next post — was low-key and cordial.

Councilwoman Gerlach started discussion of the resolution by saying that it was not anti-cop, that, though the final clause about divesting and defunding was surely to captivate attention (and we’ll get to that in the next post), the resolution was 90% about accountability and transparency (mins 56:00 – 1:08:30).

She broke the several bullets/clauses in the resolution into 4 parts:

• reporting: communication between the police, council, and the public
• the use of force
• transparency, community participation
• divestment and defunding

The Mayor and the Police Chief then took about 10 minutes for general context and background (mins. 1:06:00 – 1:17:25) before the Council president gradually settled into the format of working in order down the list of bullets/clauses in the resolution to get an idea which ones might be disposed of and which would need further discussion (mins. 1:17:25 – 2:24:40). So if you are interested in discussion on a particular item, use the bullets in the resolution as a chronological table of contents, and you should be able to find it easily in this section of the video.

Gadfly can give you the highlights:

Overall, we learned that much in the resolution was already being done or couldn’t be done (more on that below).

The Chief readily agreed that resolution requests for reports/statistics can be accommodated.

The Chief agreed with the first bullet about mandating body cam use.

The stop and frisk bullet (e. g. racial profiling) got extended discussion.

The Councilwoman looked for stronger language (in effect, certain immediately fire-able offenses) and more explicitness (racism, sexism, etc.) in directives on discipline, which occasioned discussion of officer rights.

The Chief saw difficulties with a civilian review board but was open to a citizen advisory group.

Several bullets (for instance, removing exceptions for choke holds) ran into the wall of state regulations. The local level is limited and cannot supersede state regulations. Discussion on this issue of jurisdiction resulted in a desire by the proposers to keep these items in the resolution but to use the resolution as the opportunity to advocate for change at the state level.

Overall, the discussion seemed to establish which items in the resolution needed more thinking than others before and at the next meeting.

Gadfly certainly encourages you to listen in here not only for discussion of topics that we will probably take up as well but also for the positive general tone and demeanor of all the Council members and the Chief.

Now on to the toughest nut of all in the next post: divestment and defunding.

Latest in a series of posts responding to the George Floyd killing

Allentown City Council meeting July 29, 2020, video
min. 7- 50

Let’s focus on Allentown resident commentary on the resolution regarding police operations we just posted (min. 7-50).

There was no live or call-in public comment like we might have in Bethlehem. Residents were invited to send written comments, which were then read into the record by the City Clerk.

That took about 40 minutes.

Gadfly would say that there were in the range of 40-45 written comments read into the record.

Gadfly invites you to browse through the comments through the link above.

Citizen participation in action.

Gadfly would say the number of residents in favor of the resolution outnumbered the number of residents opposed, but only by a very slight margin.

The striking characteristic of the comments by those in favor was their similarity. Many of the favorable comments followed — exactly — the same “script.” This caused agreement among Council members to consider these comments a “ditto,” and they were not read in full.

On the other hand, comments by those opposed to the resolution were characterized by individualized personal specificity.

Gadfly leaves it to you to determine whether this difference in rhetorical approach means anything.

But Gadfly loves citizen voices, and he encourages you to listen in on the commentary that this resolution generated.

And what we’re doing is trying to open ourselves up to all the info and thinking that we’ll need to bring to bear on our own upcoming Bethlehem discussions.

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts responding to the George Floyd killing

Paying attention to what’s happening in neighbor Allentown. Citizens debate outside while Council members debate inside.

from Andrew Scott, “Black Lives Matter, Back the Blue protests face off outside Allentown City Council hearing on police funding. Morning Call, July 30, 2020.

Two groups of protesters, one calling for police reform and the other supporting police, held separate rallies Wednesday outside Allentown City Hall, at one point facing off against each other, as City Council members discussed police reform proposals.

Raising their fists and carrying signs, protesters with Black Lives Matter to the Lehigh Valley chanted “Black lives matter” while the pro-police Back The Blue group chanted “All lives matter” and “USA.” Members in both groups yelled at each other while some on both sides got between them to keep the groups separated.

“We’re not here to counter-protest,” Parker said. “We’re here to peacefully express our support of the proposed resolution.”

“We’re not against the police,” Black Lives Matter protester Latarsha Brown of Allentown said. “I have many officers that I know in Allentown. I’ve always had a great relationship with them. When you don’t have proper information, it’s easy to assume someone is against you.” Brown said she and others on the Black Lives Matter side don’t want a completely defunded police department, but simply a portion of the funding reallocated to parts of the community that need it most. She said they also want to see police officers held accountable for using unnecessary force and abusing their authority in other ways.

“Growing up in Allentown, I’d hang out with friends and watch police harass them but leave me alone,” fellow protester Jay Bickford of Allentown said. “Things need to change.”

Those on the Back The Blue side said the issue isn’t one of race, but of police going after those breaking the law, regardless of skin color.

“Defunded police are less effective police,” Back The Blue rally organizer Danielle Scott of Allentown said. “We feel there’s a little bit of an anti-cop rhetoric. We want to show that we don’t support that either. We do have a good rapport with our local law enforcement. We want them to be well-funded and resourced to do their jobs.”

Protesters on the Back The Blue side waved balloons and American flags and carried signs with pro-police messages. Joining them with banners displayed were members of America Needs Fatima, a Catholic nonprofit organization supporting the police, which prayed aloud and sang “Ave Maria.” Also present was a pro-police motorcycle club.

“By defunding the police, you’re not going to help anybody because now their response times are going to be even slower,” motorcycle club member Ski Bischof said.

Brendan Schoepflin of Allentown, who said he was a former Maryland police officer, said, “Police need as much funding as possible for upgraded vehicles and equipment so they can be more effective in serving and protecting us.”

to be continued in the next post . . .

Latest in a series of posts responding to the George Floyd killing

We should be paying attention to what’s happening in Allentown.

from Andrew Wagaman, “Allentown City Council debates police reform proposals, including reallocation of funds.” Morning Call, July 29, 2020.

A package of proposed police reforms, including cuts to the department’s budget, roused lively debate between Allentown City Council members Wednesday night and solicited passionate letters from the city’s police supporters and community activists demanding change.

Council’s meetings remain closed to the public, so it spent another hour listening to some of the 200-plus comments on a resolution emailed by Wednesday afternoon. Council then spent two more hours reviewing proposals point-by-point with city Police Chief Glenn Granitz, Mayor Ray O’Connell and other administrators.

The resolution calls for a number of police reforms, including:

Ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, Lehigh Valley Stands Up, which is among the organizations keeping reform at the forefront, asked council to pass the resolution as written and to develop a plan for shifting $25 million from the police department to other forms of public safety and community support. The city police budget is about $40 million, and 95% of that is personnel costs.

Allentown’s public unions and some business owners were among those who adamantly objected police budget cuts.

Jeremy Warmkessel, president of the Allentown firefighters union, called the defunding proposals “short-sighted and dangerous” and if passed would jeopardize the security and safety of firefighters and other first responders, among other unintended ripple effects. “I along with my membership have a right to be protected, and it’s this council’s responsibility to ensure that protection,” he said.

Nicos Elias, a city funeral home owner and former city 911 dispatcher, said knee-jerk reactions to recent disturbing incidents would lead to a “sharp rise in crime and lawless behavior.” “This police department needs more funding, not less,” he wrote, adding, “We have a very good police chief and a department to be proud of.”

Resident Jadyn Sharber argued that Allentown needs to increase funding of nonpolice community safety resources for the benefit of residents and police officers. “It has become undeniably clear that expecting police officers to fill the roles of domestic violence specialists, drug crisis specialists, mental health experts, student support staff, social workers, and soldiers simultaneously is unreasonable, unrealistic, and unsafe for our communities,” she wrote.

Chief Glenn Granitz Jr. said he agreed that systematic reform of policing is needed, but the primary way to go about it is statewide legislation that supports, among other things, more training.

Granitz indicated that some of the proposed reforms, such as removing all exceptions for use of neck restraints, making body camera footage public and demanding investigations by the attorney general, runs afoul of state law and is not in the city’s authority to change.

The police chief also urged council members to next time take up his offer to participate in a use-a-force simulator offered this year before the protests. The police chief said he “saw moments like this coming,” and that to prepare for such moments, “we owe it to ourselves to educate ourselves.”

After listening to City Clerk Mike Hanlon read public comments Wednesday night, Gerlach said she was disappointed the final sentence about reallocating a portion of the department’s budget crowded out more discussion on the numerous proposed accountability and transparency measures. She asked her colleagues to think long-term and embrace policies that remain effective regardless of the capabilities of future police leaders, and may in fact act as safeguards against bad leadership. She also reiterated her conviction that it’s not radical to suggest the city rethink how it deals with mental health, substance abuse and homelessness issues, among other things.

O’Connell suggested the city needs the county government to “step up to the plate more” to address deficiencies in those service areas, and Council President Daryl Hendricks pointed out that the pandemic forced police officers to take on more responsibilities of furloughed social workers rather than the other way around.

Hendricks also pushed back against the contention that social workers can handle domestic disturbance calls (which statistically prove more dangerous than most) or mental health situations similar to the one that unfolded outside St. Luke’s-Sacred Heart last month. “There’s no way a social worker was going to confront that gentleman in the condition he was in,” he said.

Granitz reiterated that more resources rather than less would help him enact community policing measures he believes will rebuild trust between the most marginalized communities and officers. He also noted that divestment would set back efforts to increase the force’s diversity given the success of recruitment efforts in more recent years.

The conversation concluded with a few council members addressing some of their loudest critics. Gerlach lamented the number of commenters whom she felt were trafficking in divisive language in order to dismiss reformers and shut down debate, and specifically called out those calling protesters “thugs” or using other racist caricatures.

Councilwoman Candida Affa said Gerlach should also call out those chanting “F*** the police,” chanting derogatory remarks about Hendricks at previous protests or “calling up the mayor in the middle of the night” — a jab at Siegel, who shared the mayor’s personal cell phone number with protesters.

Siegel apologized to the mayor but also pushed back against drawing what he considers false equivalencies between chants of protesters representing marginalized communities that have “faced 400 years of structural oppression and death and violence” and the “racism and vitriol” he perceived in many of the letters opposing police reforms.

“We can both praise the cops for doing good work while re-imagining public safety in this country and looking for ways to spend our money better,” he said. “…Change and real leadership is about confronting institutions and having uncomfortable conversations, not doing something we all agree on.”

to be continued in next post . . .

Latest in a series of posts about the Bethlehem Police

video City Council meeting July 21, 2020

We know that the public comment on the Community Engagement Initiative at the July 7 City Council meeting was, as the newspaper report characterized it, “lukewarm at best.” There was, for instance, a series of what we might call “activist” comments in favor of various ways of what we might call defunding the police — the need for radical change.

A balance of a sort was struck at last night’s City Council meeting when we at last heard several calls from the “other side,” indicating that those comments at the previous meeting did not speak for the whole community, counseling Council to go slowly, and to have broader dialog.

Gadfly will get to that later today, focusing on that “other side.”

Go to the City Council video of last night’s proceedings if you can’t wait for Gadfly to get his life in order today. Start about min. 15:00.

But let me jump to the big news, the long anticipated big news.

Chair Colon announced that the Public Safety Committee will be held in three weeks, August 11 at 6PM (video min. 1:15:15).

It will be a virtual meeting.

An announcement with instructions and details will be forthcoming “soon.”

The agenda for the meeting, said Councilman Colon, will be “Policing, to go over the use of force policy that the city released, The Mayor, and we’ll talk further before the meeting, but the presentation that has been presented at different meetings by the police department I think would be good, for members of Council to see that presentation about the use of force, and then also have the discussion about the Community Engagement Initiative and that resolution that was passed. . . . I encourage anyone to reach out prior to a Public Safety Committee meeting, after a Public Safety Committee meeting. . . . As we move forward through the process and as we tackle different meetings, and this Public Safety Committee meeting is going to be the first of what would be many since the goal isn’t to have a bunch of Public Safety Committee meetings but to move forward that Community Engagement Initiative which I expressed last time will be something that will be gaining shape and something that’s going to be dynamic moving forward.”

Councilwoman Crampsie Smith, sensing confusion that, frankly, Gadfly feels, followed Councilman Colon in an attempt to bring clarity (min. 1:21:50): “There seems to be still a lot of confusion about the Community Engagement Initiative. . . . I feel like some of the callers . . . are not feeling what I’m feeling about what it’s going to look like. The Community Engagement Initiative is really to allow another avenue for public input beyond City Council meetings or a Public Safety Committee meeting. And from there to provide some framework to the City and the Council and the police to move forward to address systemic racism as well as build bridges and build better relationships within the community and with our police department. I’m going to read what the resolution states . . . time to create a consistent public space for the long-term discussion of issues surrounding systemic racism, discrimination. . . . A community-wide coalition. . . . People need to feel validated and that they matter, and I hope this Community Engagement can help to meet that goal at least partially. . . . A way to engage all members of the community.”

Gadfly, again, frankly, is still in a bit of a muddle.

We have the Mayor participating in an NAACP “Community Advisory Board.” Gadfly expected a report on a major meeting of that Board last week with a presentation by the Police. Now this is not the Mayor’s Board, so maybe he feels that it’s up to the NAACP to make commentary. But no mention at all? Gadfly is still confused about where this CAB fits in. And the Mayor didn’t say anything about anything regarding this whole ball of systemic racism wax and the City’s response to it. Is Gadfly the only one who feels this is odd? What is our leader thinking, doing?

We have the Public Safety Committee. We now have a date for a meeting. And details will follow. Gadfly assumes that Chair Colon is in charge. But, to Gadfly anyway, he felt so tentative. He will talk “further” with the Mayor about the format of the meeting but “thinks” a reprise of the police presentation would be a good thing. We know Gadfly is impatient, but it doesn’t sound like there’s a clear idea of an agenda. And there’s been plenty of time to think. And Gadfly feels vague focus — the meeting will be about policing, the use of force directive, ok, but also about the Community Engagement Initiative? What role does the Public Safety Committee have regarding the CEI? Does the Public Safety Committee meet once, then it morphs into the CEI? Wasn’t the CEI turned over to the Mayor to create? Policing . . . Community Engagement initiative — two huge issues. Gadfly is not a young man anymore. He has to pee every time he stands up. But to him these two topics feel much too big for a single meeting.

And then there’s the Community Engagement Initiative. Councilwoman Crampsie Smith certainly sensed Gadfly’s confusion, but, frankly, her attempt at clarity failed him. She repeated the rhetoric of the resolution. Gadfly gets it, gets the concept, and loves it. But he can’t “see” the CEI yet. And he’s not sure who is in charge of its creation. Yes, Gadfly gets the concept. He’s heard it over and over. Now he’s looking for the road map to that goal and wants to hear from the driver. It’s time to be on the road. Didn’t the Council resolution “urge” the Mayor to set up the CEI? And yet aren’t both Councilman Colon and Councilwoman Crampsie Smith talking and acting as if Council is in control?

Gadfly feels precious time passing and doesn’t feel firm direction.

I know, I know, poor Gadfly.