Readers may recall that I posted a series in December on the Whitewater Police and Fire Commission. I set out reasonable suggestions for a sound police policy based in part on a U.S. Justice Department white paper, entitled, “Principles for Promoting Police Integrity”
Below I have reproduced a table that lists reasonable suggestions, and progress made toward better – and normal — practices since my original posts.
| Meeting Notice: Generous notice for meetings | No progress – last announcement of meeting had no more than the minimum statutory two days’ notice. Many committees in Whitewater have meeting notice over weeks ahead based on a regular schedule |
| Meeting Content | No meeting since my series to see if content is now effectively more than merely a shallow, unquestioning, official-led session.|
| Thorough Minutes: Useful, detailed notice of minutes | No meeting since my series to see if minutes are now more than merely regurgitated agendas. |
| Citizen Complaints Process: Complaints Form | No change – no available, online complaint form |
| Citizen Complaints Process: Designated, identified person to handle complaints |
No change – no single, publicly-designated official |
| Citizen Complaints Process: Spanish Language Translation Copies |
No change – no translation tools online. |
Some additional remarks –
On the idea of refusing to respond to anonymous or pseudonymous criticism:
There may be some who can credibly and consistently contend that anonymous or pseudonymous criticism does not merit a response – but police leaders would not be among them.
The leadership of the Whitewater Police Department would almost surely respond to an anonymous tip, when they thought it in the community interest. Anonymous tip lines exist almost everywhere – would they not take a tip like that? If someone reported anonymously on a potential crime, would the leadership of our force ignore it? (Here I mean, of course, ignore it on principle, not by error, accident, etc.)
The idea of refusing to respond to anonymity or pseudonymity is not a credible refusal on principle – it’s a refusal based on self-interest.
Let’s be clear though — there is always a response: to change, to stay the same, or to act indirectly. Everyone knows this, and from the first instances of political criticism in America – or anywhere else – these three responses have always been available, and at least one has always been taken.
Whitewater is no exception. Quite the contrary – it’s likely a case type of the third response.
On the idea of using social pressure to silence criticism:
Consider something else that I wrote in December:
There are, however, two groups who argue against truly free speech, for different reasons. The first group comprises those in this town who like the position that they have, and feel that they’re entitled to special consideration. There’s a belief some people have here, that position justifies, excuses, and entitles. They think and act situationally — if they are so-and-so, then they should be trusted, and they are entitled. I reject this view. They are justified, excused, and entitled only through law and morality, not based on an appeal to their status. When the town faction acts, they act first and foremost based on status — they ask and expect trust based on who they are, or what they claim to be.
Their status is unimpressive to me. It should be unimpressive to any resident and citizen: they are just people, neither more nor less. I can be neither smooth-talked nor cajoled into support for what I oppose. I could never be co-opted onto a board, commission, etc. I lack for nothing that those I criticize could give me; the tradition of which I am a grateful inheritor gives me more than they could take. They ask that speech be curbed, but they would never curb their actions in return. In any event, my speech — and yours — is a right, yet their actions are often in disregard of others’ rights. We could never have a fair trade: some would sacrifice what liberty allows in exchange for others’ ceasing a disregard of their fellow residents’ rights. That’s the worst possible bargain.
They stand on local status as entitlement, and that’s why the exercise of speech rights is so disturbing to them. One would think that Whitewater were a small, corrupt island in the middle of nowhere, for all the difference it makes to those who oppose mere speech on the basis of their inflated sense of local self-importance. They don’t have a meritorious position; they have a mistaken view of themselves and of the rights of others in our city.
I meant what I said then, but a few critics perhaps aren’t so sure, so it’s worth repeating.