Well! The most interesting item turned out to be such a clear smackdown that it is more open and shut than expected. Item 28 was to re-discuss Cite & Release.
[Sidebar: if we’re having 6+ hour meetings every two weeks, when do we start thinking about meeting weekly for 3 hours, instead? This is dumb.]
Background: San Marcos passed a Cite & Release ordinance a year ago. Since 2005ish, Texas police officers have been allowed to give citations and court dates for certain nonviolent offenses, instead of arresting people and hauling them down to the station, and setting in motion the turmoil of having one’s life abruptly struck. People miss work, get fired, can’t arrange childcare, CPS gets involved, etc etc. It’s the kind of thing that tips people from “barely getting by” into “abject poverty”. Since then, C&R hasn’t been applied fairly – white people were getting cited-and-released, black and brown people were being hauled down and physically arrested. So after a HUGE campaign by Ma/no Ami/ga, we made it mandatory to use C&R for seven specific offenses, a year ago.
So, tonight? Councilmember Scott has put C&R on the agenda as a discussion item. It’s very nebulous: “Hold discussion on Ordinance 2020-18, Cite and Release and provide direction to the City Manager.”
First, Mano Amiga generated a ton of citizens to show up during Citizen Comment.
[Sidebar: Citizen comment is 30 minutes. Each person gets 3 minutes. 27 people signed up to talk. The Mayor asks the council if they are okay extending Citizen Comment Period. There was exactly one dissent: Shane Scott, who preferred to cut it off after 30 minutes.]
Anyway: the community members make many great points about the benefits of C&R, the inadequacy of the data after such a weird Covid year, and so on.
Six hours later, the council finally gets to Item 28. Shane Scott has to go first, because he put it on the agenda. He basically says “I’m getting a lot of phone calls about increased crime. We just need to give Chief Dandridge some breathing room!”
(Crucially, Scott mentions that he has not talked to Chief Dandridge about this.)
Everybody weighs in, in predictable ways. Derrick points out that the chief was hired after C&R, and said he supported it in his interview.
Finally Chief Dandridge weighs:
- We need to be victim-focused. There is huge amount of victimization of violent crime in SM.
- We are nearly 50-50 on violent crime vs property crime. That’s crazy. There’s way too much violent crime here.
- Violent crime is NOT being driven by C&R. He quite clearly emphasizes and dwells on this point: He fully supports C&R. He has continuously supported C&R. It frees up his officers to make them available for more immediate concerns. A direct quote: “It would be a myth to suggest that our city is more dangerous due to C&R.”
- He goes through the 7 categories, and gives 2019 vs 2020 numbers. (Drug paraphenalia, theft, disorderly conduct, pot, driving without a license, city ordinance, mischief.) All are steady or down. He gives a big caveat about how Covid complicates everything.
- The SM/PD has a dashboard, available to the public, keeping track of C&R data. (I would link it but I’m not ready for a broader readership. It can be easily found via the city website.)
He will share a major plan soon. He has a lot of ideas. Two major themes for crime-reduction:
- Community Engagement
- Technology. Apparently we have a woeful 20 year old CAD system, and I can believe that it’s pitiful in terms of wasting everyone’s time and energy.
Basically, Chief Dandridge gave a statement that was perfectly clear and concise and laid to rest this issue completely. C&R is going to stay and is not up for debate.
The rest of the councilmembers weighed in, in predictable ways, and that was that.
Mayor Hughson did mention how she did NOT support C&R last year. I had forgotten that. She said that she wanted officers to have discretion. She says she still does, but she also supports the chief, who supports C&R, etc. So hers was a bit mealy-mouthed.
It was decided to postpone this topic until the Chief shares his business plan.
Incidentally, “business plan” for a police department is annoying. It’s not a business. Profit is not a consideration. “Strategic plan” would be better.
The San Marxist 