"Lying is done with words and also with silence." Adrienne Rich
A couple weeks ago the New Broom Coalition held a forum. The topic to be discussed was why Chief Dolan should not be re-appointed. Some controversy has arisen regarding Civilian Police Review Authority (CRA) member Dave Bickings participation in the forum. CRA Chair Don Bellfield sent an email to Bicking a day before the forum was to occur basically telling Dave not to participate. Dave forwarded a link to me to the 19 page pdf, in their own words, "presents in detail the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority’s input and participation in the performance review of the Minneapolis Chief of Police. It is the Authority’s first ever participation in the performance review process of the police chief and it addresses problems and issues as well as gives feedback, suggests areas of improvement and makes recommendations of actions which should be undertaken to preserve, improve and expand upon the relationship between the Minneapolis Police Department and the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority."
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/CRA/docs/CRA-Board_Chief-Dolan_review_2009.pdf
Below are the communications that were sent between the two and various interested parties.
From Dave Bicking to TYzaguirre/MPLSMirror:
I'll give a brief account of the controversy so far, followed by email exchanges and documents as background info for anyone interested.
New Broom conducted its first public forum this past Tuesday, January 26, on the subject of Chief Dolan's reappointment to another 3 year term as Mpls Police Chief. I spoke, along with Michelle Gross and Darryl Robinson of Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB), and Kenneth Brown, former head of the Civil Rights Commission.
The day before the forum, I received an email (reprinted below) from CRA Chair Don Bellfield, telling me that if I participated in the forum, I would have to resign from the CRA. He has no such authority. I sent an email (reprinted below) to him and the board with my reasoning as to why a CRA member should have the right to speak in public. I didn't say in the email whether I would comply, but made clear I wasn't going to resign in any case.
I decided to speak that night in spite of the threat. I'm glad I did - it was a very successful and powerful forum. We also had 4 members of the press present. I mentioned the ultimatum from Don Bellfield when I spoke.
On Friday, the Star Tribune's Steve Brandt wrote an article about Chief Dolan's reappointment, in which I was quoted. Despite Steve Brandt's attendance at the forum, the mentions of me in the article actually resulted from a half hour phone interview he had with me the previous Friday, not from anything I said at the forum. The article is online at:
http://www.startribune.com/local/82994112.html?page=1&c=y
Don Bellfield may not have known that. That same day (Friday, Jan. 29), Don Bellfield wrote a letter criticizing my identification as a opponent of Dolan in the Star Tribune article. He criticized my lack of respect for the CRA board, and said I "put the CRA in a position where our mission, credibility and integrity are brought into question." He sent that letter (reprinted below) to the mayor, the head of the Civil Rights Dept, and all City Council members.
In the meantime, here are some of the emails and documents, if you are interested. They help explain my position.
The original email from Don Bellfield to Dave Bicking, copied to the CRA Board, The Ultimatum. Dated Monday, January 25.
Dave,
It has come to my attention that you are participating in the New Broom Coalition Forum on "Minneapolis Police Chief Dolan: should he be reappointed? ", scheduled for Tuesday January 26, 2010.
As you are aware, the CRA is a neutral independent board appointed by the Mayor and City Council to adjudicate cases of alleged misconduct against the Minneapolis Police Department. As you are also aware one of the responsibilities of the CRA is to evaluate the work performance of the police chief as it pertains to the CRA.
With that in mind, your role as a member of the CRA and as a participant in this forum may be a violation of the CRA's mission to remain neutral. This seems to be a conflict of interest and misrepresentation of the CRA committee.
The CRA has completed its review and published its findings of the work performance of the chief. Our task here has been completed and it is now up to the City Council to decide on whether the chief will be reappointed, taking into consideration our impartial evaluation.
As Chair of the CRA I was surprised and caught unaware, as I believe other Board members will be, that you are an unsanctioned participant on this panel. This creates a serious problem for the CRA's mission, credibility and integrity. If you plan to participate, you will need to resign your membership from the CRA. Please let the Board know your intentions.
Don Bellfield
Chair, Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority
Dave Bicking's Tuesday response (the day of the forum) to Don Bellfield's email:
To Don Bellfield and the rest of the CRA board,
This is in response to the ultimatum that has been issued: that if I plan to participate in the forum tonight, I will NEED to resign my membership on the CRA.
I sincerely hope that this is based on a simple misunderstanding. I will be VERY clear, as I always am, that I am speaking for myself, not on behalf of the CRA or in any other official capacity. I have been asked to speak on areas where I have personal knowledge and experience. That includes, but is not limited to, my knowledge of the relationship of Chief Dolan to the CRA. Among other things, I will tell people about our recent report on the Chief. That report, of course, is already available to the public.
If this ultimatum is based solely on a concern that I might misrepresent my remarks and opinions as being those of the CRA, please let me know this as soon as possible, so that I can participate in the forum tonight without threat. Don, will you withdraw this ultimatum on the condition that I represent my views as only my own?
Unfortunately, the forum tonight starts just hours from now, so I feel it necessary to respond further on this issue while there is still time. If this is not just a misunderstanding, this is an important question, which could affect the ability of any of us to speak our mind in public regarding issues of police and police accountability.
First, for clarification: the event we are speaking about is a public forum on the re- appointment of Chief Dolan, an important and timely topic. If city residents are to participate in the decision (at the public City Council hearing, by letters to their Council members, etc.) it is helpful for them to know more about Dolan's record during his last term. The forum will cover his record in most areas, not just the CRA or police accountability issues. I have worked with the sponsoring organization, New Broom, for the last year, so it was natural for them to invite me to speak. New Broom is a loose non-partisan coalition working to change Mpls city government. Many members are former candidates for City Council and Mayor in the last election. Though none of us defeated incumbents, we continue work on the issues that motivated the campaigns.
Whether I speak tonight or not, I welcome you to come and participate in this public discussion. Tonight, Tuesday, January 26, 7pm, at Walker Church, 3104 16th Ave. S., in the basement.
Whether I speak tonight or not, my views on Chief Dolan and MPD leadership and policies are already well known, and a matter of public record. In 2006 I testified against his original appointment at the City Council public hearing. Police issues were an important part of my City Council campaigns in 2005 and 2009. As far as my "neutrality" is concerned, whether I speak tonight or not won't change what I think or who I am - it would only be a matter of perception. Which is not to say that perceptions are not important. But anything tonight would not change or add to the knowledge or perceptions of me that were widely known before my appointment to the CRA.
It is possible for me, or any of you, to have personal opinions (whether expressed or not), and still be "neutral" in the sense stated by Don: "the CRA is a neutral independent board appointed by the Mayor and City Council to adjudicate cases of alleged misconduct.. ." I am and will remain neutral in adjudicating cases of misconduct. But that does not mean I must remain neutral in my feelings against police misconduct or those who condone it - any more than a judge must remain neutral as to whether s/he is for or against drunk driving, or a social worker must remain neutral as to whether s/he is for or against child abuse. The point is to remain neutral in any given case, something I think we have all done very well.
Of course, given my public stance, if a complaint against Dolan himself were brought to the CRA, I would recuse myself from that hearing panel. I can think of at least one other officer for whom I would do the same, based on a personal experience with that officer. Officers may request the recusal of any hearing panel member, and to my knowledge, no one has ever requested my recusal.
I don't believe that I give up my rights to free speech and free association by being on the CRA. An important test of whether a
restriction violates free speech rights is whether it is "content neutral." If the CRA had written a generally favorable report on Dolan,
and I were speaking at a forum in favor of his re-appointment, would I have received such an ultimatum? I think the answer is obvious.
The CRA board does not remain neutral by ONLY excluding those who disapprove of the MPD's current leadership. It is better that the board be representative of the community at large. I believe that my views are well within the bounds of mainstream public opinion: my views were an important part of my campaign, and I received a higher vote percentage than any other non-DFL challenger (27%).
My participation would not be a "conflict of interest" as that is defined in the city's ethics policy. That policy refers only to a financial
conflict of interest.
Also, I was unaware that there was any procedure by which the board or its chair could "sanction" or not "sanction" our participation in outside activities (Don states that I am "an unsanctioned participant on this panel.") Is anyone else aware of this?
Whether I speak tonight or not, I do not intend to resign my membership on the CRA. I greatly value the opportunity to participate with all of you in the important work we do. I see it as a positive contribution to a better police department.
Don doesn't have the authority to kick me off of the CRA board. Don, is this letter your own initiative, or does it at least partially come on behalf of others who have expressed concerns? In making my decision, I am very aware that whatever it might take to remove a board member, I happen to be up for re-appointment to the CRA (I was appointed to an unexpired term, rather than a full four-year term).
In any case, I think this general issue needs to be discussed at our board meeting next week. The same logic or principle could apply to any of us who might wish to testify at the City Council public hearing on Dolan, or even write to the Council, or otherwise express our opinions.
I would appreciate any comments, and I will certainly take your thoughts into consideration as I make a difficult decision.
Dave Bicking
Don Bellfield's response, again copied to the whole board, was a simple restatement of the ultimatum:
Dave, as I have mentioned in my email; this creates a serious problem for the CRA's mission, credibility and integrity. If you plan to participate, you will need to resign your membership from the CRA.
Don Bellfield
On Friday, after seeing the Star Tribune article, Don Bellfield took the next step and wrote to the entire board about the article, and copied it to the City Council, etc. Dave received it as a pdf file of the scanned letter on CRA letterhead. The contents of the letter were retyped below:
January 29, 2010
Dear Board members:
The Star Tribune ran an article in today's paper discussing the reappointment of Police Chief Dolan. Dave Bicking is featured as a member of the CRA opposing the reappointment of Chief Dolan. I have previously reminded members of the importance of maintaining a position of neutrality in our dealing with the public when it comes to matters involving the police department. Also, it is the Chair that publicly speaks for the CRA.
With Mr. Bicking publicly stating his opposition to the reappointment of Chief Dolan he has again put the CRA in a position where our mission, credibility and integrity are brought into question. I have mentioned and believe that with the completion and publishing of the
Participation in Performance Review of Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan that our task has been completed and it is now up to the City Council to decide on whether to reappoint the chief, taking into consideration our impartial evaluation. As a board, we stand ready to work with this chief or any chief the City Council appoints.
I am deeply disturbed at Mr. Bicking's comments and lack of respect he is showing for the Board and staff of the CRA. These comments do not reflect the position of the CRA nor has Mr. Bicking been authorized to speak on behalf of the CRA.
Sincerely,
Don Bellfield, Chair
Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority
cc:
Sandy Colvin Roy, City Council
Elizabeth Glidden, City Council
Lisa Goodman, City Council
Cam Gordon, City Council
Betsy Hodges, City Council
Diane Hofstede, City Council
Barbara Johnson, City Council
Robert Lilligren, City Council
John Quincy, City Council
Kevin Reich, City Council
Don Samuels, City Council
Gary Schiff, City Council
Meg Tuthill, City Council
R.T. Rybak, Mayor
Michael Jordan, Director of Civil Rights
Finally, Dave Bicking emailed Cam Gordon in response to his inquiry. According to Dace, he didn't need to say all that he did in that email, but the bulk of the email is roughly what he planned to say to all the City Council members in response to Don Bellfield's letter:
Yes, I have re-applied, and am prepared to vigorously defend my position on the CRA, should that be necessary. The letter from Don Bellfield is a tempest in a teapot - there is virtually no substance to it. It is stretching it to say that I am "featured" in the article. I am one of five people quoted (including you). I am mentioned in two paragraphs out of 22:
"One opponent of reappointing Dolan still thinks that council will back him. That's Dave Bicking, a member of the Civilian Police Review Authority, a city body that investigates and makes recommendations on complaints against police and recently held a hearing on the reappointment. 'I don't think there's any significant opposition to this on the council,' he said"
and later:
"Bicking and others say the chief hasn't disciplined officers often enough when the Civilian Police Review Authority finds they have mistreated citizens."
The actual article is at:
http://www.startribune.com/local/82994112.html?page=1&c=y
Of course Don is right that I haven't been authorized to speak on behalf of the CRA. I was NOT speaking on behalf of the CRA and nothing in the article indicates that I was - the article just identifies me as a member. I was careful, as always, to indicate to Steve Brandt that my views were my own.
As for being identified as an opponent of Dolan's reappointment, that it is nothing new to anyone who knows anything about me, or has followed the issue in City Hall. I spoke against his original appointment - I recall that I was quoted in the Star Tribune at that time. It was a public position during my Council campaign - I distributed 10,000 pieces of literature that said, "Accountability starts at the top. We need a better Police Chief." (And, of course, my literature also identified me as a member of the CRA.) I participated in a joint press conference of candidates who opposed Chief Dolan.
My inclusion in the Star Tribune article stems from a half hour phone call on Friday, February 22, initiated by Steve Brandt. He called me not just as an opponent of Dolan, but also as someone who has been following the issue for years, and as someone who is familiar with what's going on at City Hall and knows the history and procedure. Brandt already knew that I oppose Dolan's reappointment - I didn't have to tell him that, in fact I rather doubt that I did. As a member of the CRA, do I have to hang up on an interested reporter?
By contrast, it appears that in this letter, Don Bellfield IS speaking on behalf of the CRA board. He signs it as such, and never indicates
otherwise, as he copies this letter to the City Council, mayor, and Civil Rights Department head. He never asked for or obtained any permission or direction from the board to send this letter. As it turns out, not all board members agree with him. One member sent a strongly worded critique to other board members, calling this a "McCarthy-esque witch hunt," and defending my "highest standards of impartiality and fairness." As he said, "there is nothing whatsoever improper about Board Members holding and expressing personal views that do not relate to non-public data or pre-judgment of complaints before panels."
If there is a problem, an obvious question is, is it holding the views that is a problem, or is it expressing them? If the first, what views are acceptable for a CRA member? If a person favors the current chief, is that also a problem? Do we have a "neutral" board by only excluding one side? If it is expressing views that is a problem, then we are talking only about perception, not actual "neutrality. " Will the CRA have more credibility with police officers if they simply don't know my views? (Especially when they already know or could easily know?) How about credibility with the community or potential complainants?
In the end, my personal views on all kinds of political issues should not matter. The key question is whether I am unbiased when hearing individual cases. I am, and no one has accused me of not being fair. All other board members have participated in panels with me. We almost always come to a consensus. Personally, I am impressed with all members of the board in regard to their fairness and the seriousness with which they approach the cases. I care very much about accountability for police misconduct - otherwise I would not spend the time and effort. As a result, it is just as important to me that we not punish officers who have NOT engaged in
misconduct.
I have had a good relationship with Don Bellfield, personally and professionally. We have worked well together. I hope we can restore that relationship, because we have much work to do together.
I'll write a response to this letter, addressed to all its recipients. It will be based on what I have said above. Do you have any sense of the
reaction to Don's letter? Any sense of whether I was likely to be reappointed even before this?
Also, I have a hard time believing that this was initiated entirely by Don Bellfield. I wonder if someone suggested it. Do you have any knowledge or even a sense of this?
I hope I can count on your support. And of course, I intend to continue to participate in the process regarding Dolan's reappointment.
Thanks,
Dave Bicking
I attended the New Broom Forum to which Dave is referring and recorded it. I edited it down to Dave's segment for you to view below, so that readers can draw their own conclusions. It's my opinion that Dave made it clear that he wasn't representing CRA at the forum.
With such attempts by individuals, well-meaning or not, I question how the community would know about the actions of the CRA or their December 2009 report card on Chief Dolan?
Had Bicking not brought it to the community's attention that this review is available on the City's website, how many Minneapolis residents would think to go in search of it? I question the value of silence of a City board made up of civilian volunteers. Why would Chair Don Bellfield feel that silence serves the residents of Minneapolis? Was there outside influence exerted over him in this matter? The outcome of Bicking's reappointment is still unsure. With the decision in the hands of City Council and the Mayor, Minneapolis residents will simply have to wait and decide for themselves whether or not the decision was fair and balanced or politically motivated.
Related link: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/CRA/
