July 21, 2004
Francesconi's Folly
Police Resolution Little More Than Pointless Sideswipe
Well, okay, let's just get right into what was reported by Willamette Week today:
Last week, city commissioner/mayoral candidate Jim Francesconi attacked Portland's cop shop for its lack of progress in increasing diversity and demanded a report within 60 days on plans to change that.
In reality, not only is there already an ambitious plan in place--but Francesconi has known about it for months.
After detailing this initiative, and reporting that the City's human resources director (Yvonne Deckard) says that it's working, the piece goes on to offer us this little item:
Until now, the public has not been informed of Foxworth's plans, but Francesconi has. In March, says Deckard, "I provided the chief and the mayor and Commissioner Francesconi a binder--I'd say about six inches thick."
In his original resolution (pdf), Francesconi would have asked the Portland Police Bureau to create an apprenticeship-training program and report to the Council on a plan for implementation within 60 days.
"How come we haven’t done these things sooner?," Francesconi is quoted as saying by the Portland Tribune. "I'm tired of waiting. This is an issue of citywide concern that we all have to address." And he is quoted in The Oregonian as saying: "Frankly, my patience has run out on this." And the Portland Tribune also says of him: "Francesconi said he had no sense that reform efforts were moving fast enough."
And yet, as WW reports today, Francesconi since March has had a six-inch binder detailing the current Police Bureau initiative regarding diversity. An initiative that apparently is underway (and has been since late last year, according to the paper) and, at least according to the City's human resources director, is working. All of which is after the previous Chief neglected to follow a three-year-old City Council desire for all bureaus to develop diversity programs (again, according to WW).
Now, some will argue that there were other elements to the original resolution, as indeed there are. But since taking over the Police Bureau less than a year ago, in addition to the diversity program outlined by WW, Foxworth has: required that officers write reports after pointing their weapons at someone; created a use-of-force review board including citizen representation; and indicated that all of the PARC report recommendations are either adopted or in process.
All of this, well, obvious progress in less than a year after years and years of neglect sort of begs the question: Just why did Francesconi feel the need for all of this petulant talk about losing patience?
Well, here's the latest, greatest, "way new" revision to the explanation, as seen in the WW story that we began with:
"I did talk to Yvonne and the chief" about the plans, Francesconi says, but he wanted to see more details and put the City Council "on record" as supporting diversity.
Of course, that's not what his resolution did. His original resolution reads as if it exists entirely in a vacuum, ignorant of everything Chief Foxworth has already put into place to try to change the course of the mighty organizational and cultural juggernaut that is the Portland Police Bureau.
If he wanted details, he could just as easily (more easily, in fact) have requested that Mayor Katz ask Chief Foxworth to come before Council and give a report on everything he's done in the past year. He could have then asked the Council to pass a resolution putting themselves "on record" as applauding that difficult work, and promising to back his continued efforts.
As we all know now, all too well, that's the furthest thing in the world from what Francesconi actually attempted to do.
Then again, we know from the Portland Tribune that Francesconi originally left out various other reform items being pushed by the Albina Ministerial Alliance because (according to the paper) he didn't want to "undercut" Foxworth -- only to then hypocriticially and contradictorily proceed to add some of those very allegedly-undercutting items in order to gain the AMA's support.
(Parenthetically, before we continue, we reiterate another aspect of a point we've made before: When the explanation or rationale for an action keeps changing each time new holes are poked in the story, that's another indicator that we're dealing with politics and not policy.)
To make matters worse, in his original press release (pdf) on his orginal resolution, Francesconi made this statement: "We need to re-build trust between police officers and the community."
We will be forgiven, we hope, for pointing out the sorry irony of that statement. The way to re-build trust when it comes to the Portland Police Bureau is certainly not to disrespect everything Chief Foxworth has already done in so short a time, after so long with the Police Bureau wandering in the darkness, by pretending that his good work doesn't exist.
Comments (14)
pdxkona on 21 Jul 2004
I also liked the Willamette Week reported today:
"We're about to find out what happens when about two dozen of Portland's most prolific bloggers unite: BlueOregon.com, a team effort featuring such local Blogistani warlords as B!x, Jack Bogdanski and Isaac Laquedem, pitched its virtual tent last week."
I didn't know you were going to be writing elsewhere...and they had not one mention of the guy who put it all together, Kari Chisholm. Perhaps this shows what kind of factchecking the WW does, and how far one can trust their reporting.
notyouraverageblogger on 22 Jul 2004
You forgot a section of the WW article.
"A succession of chiefs has publicly vowed to make diversity a priority. But the number of African-American cops has stayed at about 40 for the past two decades, even as the number of white cops has nearly doubled to more than 900."
"Although the City Council required all bureaus to implement a diversity program three years ago, Deckard says former Chief Mark Kroeker never did."
Last time I checked, I voted for a city council, not a police chief. I hold them responsible for these past failures and I will hold them accountable for the current police policy.
I don't know about you, but from where I'm standing, the Council has every responsibility to get these issues on the record. Otherwise, as WW stated, the public has no idea the programs even exist and sure can't hold anyone accountable for their failure.
Also a question for you B!X. If at all, in what ways was the council's proposal different from that already being implemented by the police?
The One True b!X on 22 Jul 2004
You forgot a section of the WW article.
(1) What was I going to do, include the entire thing?
(2) That second "forgotten" part I did not cut-and-paste, but I referred to it: "All of which is after the previous Chief neglected to follow a three-year-old City Council desire for all bureaus to develop diversity programs (again, according to WW)."
Last time I checked, I voted for a city council, not a police chief. I hold them responsible for these past failures and I will hold them accountable for the current police policy.
Sure. But the point is that after the past series of years, Foxworth is actually doing something about it. So what's the point of bringing a resolution which makes it sound as if the Bureau is making no progress, when the reality apparently is that -- especially when compared to the awful years of Kroeker -- there's definite progress being made on more than several points?
Jaimee Mackinnon on 22 Jul 2004
He is doing something about it by passing out a binder? Without any notification to the public of the plan? Where is the accountabilty in that? I think bringing it before the council and making a public record of the plan to increase diversity is a good idea- accountability for the plan has to be a factor in order for it to be taken seriously and implemented.
doretta on 22 Jul 2004
C'mon Jaimee, we know you love everything Jim does, but really.
"Passing out a binder" isn't what Chief Foxworth has done. The point of the binder is that it contained a huge amount of information about what Foxworth and the Police Bureau are doing to improve how the Bureau operates. Much of what was in that binder has been shared with the public, b!X listed several of those things: new use of force review board, implementation of the PARC recommendations, new policy about reporting when guns have been pointed at people. There are others that have been widely reported also, the new taser policy comes to mind.
When Francesconi submitted his resolution, he behaved as though none of what is described in those pages exits.
b!X has it right. If he is truly concerned about diversity in hiring, Francesconi should read the information he has already been given, ask the Chief to come to the Council and discuss in detail what is happening and what is planned before he submits that resolution.
Taking the route he did does undermine the Chief and community-police relations and it is really hard to swallow after all those years of giving Kroeker, who wasn't even trying, a pass.
notyouraverageblogger on 22 Jul 2004
I don't know, this is kind of a hard one.
One the one hand, it is important that the council be on the record and ultimately accountable.
On the other hand, Francesconi did make a pretty big deal out of this by stepping on the mayor's toes. Doesn't seem to make much sense if the Police Chief was already doing those things.
Sounds to me that if, as WW states, the resolution is nothing more than what Foxworth is already doing, Francesconi was playing politics.
But having said that, I'm still skeptical. A majority of the council supports this resolution (including Saltzman, who has not come out in support of Francesconi for mayor.) Also, even the mayor now says that a resolution is necessary. And finally, if the police were already doing these things, why was the Albina Alliance so forcefully demanding a resolution?
Maybe the real answer is that WW left out some salient facts. This brings me back to my original question.
What's the difference between what the police were already implementing and what the resolution proposes?
Jaimee Mackinnon on 22 Jul 2004
Yes Doretta I will admit I may be a bit biased when it comes to my personal opinion of Jim, and it does irk me when I see him blasted all of the time by people who have no knowledge of him as a person, his motives are constantly questioned. But I guess that is what these public forums are for, so people can share their ideas and expierences with one another so people can take that info and come to their own conlusions.
Totally irrelevant to the topic above but here is why I think Jim is a pretty decent guy:
I have met Jim only on a couple of occasions, but a very close friend of mine has had a closer relationship with him than I have, one that changed his life in a big way. 13 years ago, before Jim was ever a politician he was an activist. He became involved in a youth employment program in inner NE Portland and helped a friend of mine who had recently left a street gang through the program. Once he completed the program Jim helped him get placed in a good job where he introduced him to more people who were willing to help him. My friend went on to get his degree and is now a youth advocate in NE. That was 13 years ago, Jim is still in contact with him today. My friend has told me that any time he needed Jim's ear, had a concern about the community etc. Jim has always had time for him. That goes a long way with me, having a close friend with such a positive personal expierience, one that came years before he ever was in the public eye, no motivation at all other than just wanting to help people be better people, and help our community be a better community.
Jaimee Mackinnon
The One True b!X on 22 Jul 2004
Personal value only counts for so much. Hypothetically, someone could be Mother Theresa personally but still not be satisfactory when it comes being Mayor.
In this instance, to take a related issue, I've said before that I don't doubt Francesconi's commitment to or love for the City.
But there's a pattern of decisions (that we've laid out a number of times before, so we won't beat them to death here) that I believe demontrates his inappropriateness to be Mayor.
The One True b!X on 22 Jul 2004
As to the content differential between Foxworth's agenda and Francesconi's proposal, I don't know for certain. I also happen to believe its vaguely irrelevant, since my point is that given what's already on Foxworth's plate, he's already making a decidedly direct effort to start changing the course of a fairly heavy ship that possesses alot of intertia. To willy-nilly and without concern for what he's already doing throw him more to do -- and give a 60-day window to report back -- is asinine.
Anne Dufay on 22 Jul 2004
Jamiee writes>>>I think bringing it before the council and making a public record of the plan to increase diversity is a good idea- accountability for the plan has to be a factor in order for it to be taken seriously and implemented.
When the foundation’s been poured and the walls are going up is no time to go shopping for a new blueprint. An inspector, sure. But, you’ll have to tell him/her that there **is** something to inspect, and, reveal the address...
The time spent honing and crafting that resolution could have been spent productively. By, fer instance, READING the 6 inch-thick report...
Then we might have an answer to the question - what was being asked for, that wasn’t being pursued?
(btw - B!X look up “begs the question” please. The mis-use of this term of formal logic is a personal pet peeve of mine. If nothing else, the next time it's mis-used in The O, you can make a nasty comment. That would be great :-))
(if I've screwed up and posted this twice, my apologies.)
The One True b!X on 22 Jul 2004
For what it's worth Google informs that "begs the question" and its usage/meaning is in dispute. I leave it to the reader to follow that link and examine the difference of opinion.
The One True b!X on 22 Jul 2004
I should say that prior to this being mentioned, I had no idea that the way I used the phrase was not necessarily the commonly-accept manner. Heh.
Anne Dufay on 22 Jul 2004
EVERYBODY uses it in the "not necessarily commonly-accept manner" these days.
Thereby stripping it of its marvelous language-power and interest, and turning it into a pale, forgettable, bit of toss-off verbiage.
Argghh! (never, when it comes to pet peeves, "fair and balanced.")
Jasper on 23 Jul 2004
However much it may irk us, language is more defined by usage than by prescription.
But speaking of usage, isn't "begging the question" a fallacy of informal logic, not formal logic?