THE ARROGANCE, THE IGNORANCE, AND A POWERFUL ANSWER

If you are a member of the Facebook group: You Know You Want to Talk About Watertown, MA Politics and Hot Topics, you have probably seen the brief clip from an April Zoom meeting, where police reform was the major topic of discussion. For ease of reference, I will call it the “Louise clip.” If you are not a member of the group, you can ask to join or you can read the transcript of the clip below.

Here’s the background:

A member of one of the groups participating in the meeting asked a lengthy question, laced with assumptions, about police training. That question might be summed up as: Why is police training so bad and what can be done about it?

Louise, a member of the self-appointed police reform group, volunteered to answer the question. Here is what Louise had to say:

“What we’re dealing with is an institution in our society that is a closed entity, that does not want to be told what to do, that is defensive generally, that’s why there’s not much oversight of police, and that’s what people are clamoring for right now. Unfortunately it’s not just a matter of training. It’s a matter of who these people are, how they grew up, how they were hired…you know there’s many people who go into policing and I do believe some of them are decent people but hiring practices don’t do personality assessment tests…I should probably stop speaking because I’ll say something that will put my foot in my mouth.”

If you’ve watched the clip, you probably had a strong reaction, to say the least. The Louise clip received a lot of comments. My assessment from the tone of the comments is that the general response was overwhelming outrage.

I was not as outraged as some commenters, because after forcing myself to watch and listen, multiple times, to the self-anointed police reformers’ comments at three very long Public Safety Committee meetings, beginning in March, my threshold for outrage is extremely high.

Here are my takeaways from the Louise clip:

First, these sentiments are not unique to Louise. They have been expressed multiple times, by arrogant, “enlightened” people, in public (and no doubt in private) meetings that have taken place, at least since March.

Second, the “people” who are “clamoring” for oversight are only the people in her gang. Does Louise really believe that people outside of her political bubble share her views on the police? And does she even care?

Third, It is unmistakable that Louise sees the alleged police problem as one of social class. She is suspicious of cops because she doesn’t know any, and the reason she doesn’t know any is because they must have grown up on other side of the tracks. God only knows how their parents might have raised them in those hillbilly neighborhoods.

If next Tuesday, the voters send a progressive majority to the town council, Louise & Company will likely get their wish to establish a police advisory committee, or even a police oversight committee − which should be easy to accomplish once the Louise & Company majority select their choice of a new town manager.

If the voters also pass the charter amendments (Question 2 on the ballot), members of her gang will also become prominent participants in the newly established Human Rights Commission − long overdue considering Watertown’s infamous record of stomping on human rights.

We all understand that the election has become a referendum on Chief Lawn and the WPD. Both sides have chosen their slate of candidates. By now, every registered voter has seen those slates. Right?

Wrong!

Right now there are voters who will show up at the polls barely knowing who they will vote for. Every year that I’ve held a campaign sign, someone has approached me and asked why they should vote for that candidate. Then they would ask me what other candidates I supported and why I supported them. Days before every local election, my wife gets phone calls asking for direction on how to vote.

Uninformed voters who have paid little or no attention to the candidates and issues, but believe it to be their civic duty to vote, will show up and vote based on a candidate’s appearance, the impression made by the candidate’s lawn signs, or the recommendations provided by a friend, neighbor, or even by a stranger holding a sign.

The balance of this election might hang on a very small number of votes.

So, how do you make the fastest, deepest impression on uninformed voters who look to you to make their voting experience more than a guessing game? In my experience, simple logic is often not enough. It’s best to go right for the heart.

So, here’s an idea. First you read them Louise’s quote, placing emphasis in all the right places.

Then you read them a speech − not your speech, but the eloquent speech, delivered at the May Public Safety Committee meeting, by a Watertown cop, who stood up and confronted the rampant arrogance and ignorance in the virtual room.

Here is my transcript of her speech:

(My underlining specifically addresses  Louise & Company)

“Hi, my name is Kerilyn Amedio, a resident of Watertown and proudly a member of the Watertown Police Department. I’ve been on the Police Department for seven years, and I’m currently assigned to the detective division. I hold a bachelors’ degree in criminal justice and sociology from the University of Massachusetts and am a graduate of the Massachusetts State Police Academy.

I have extensive training given to me by the Watertown Police Department notably to include crisis intervention, assisting individuals in crisis, group crisis intervention, and critical incident stress management.

I can only speak for myself and my own experiences but many if not all of my fellow brother and sister officers would agree with my following statement. In seven years, I’ve stopped cars, made arrests, when necessary, responded to calls for domestic violence, larcenies, shoplifters, sexual assaults, neighborhood complaints, barking dogs, alarm calls, medical calls, overdoses and that is just to name a few. I’ve been punched in the face, spit on, kicked, bitten, had my hair pulled, had a knife pulled on me, had cars almost strike me, feared for my safety, and been called every name in the book. I’ve held strangers, hugged children that are not mine, saved lives through the distribution of Narcan and performance of CPR. I’ve promised someone that I care and would continue to care and would help them. I’ve told families that their loved ones were not coming home.

I’ve seen unimaginable despair, empathized and sympathized with people from all walks of life. And with all of that I would not change one single day of this career.

You are all speaking of accountability and transparency and we want that too. Not only just for the Watertown Police Department but for all facets of Watertown and we want it from these groups as well. We are willing to have open honest dialogue. We want you to be heard, but we won’t allow it to be at the expense of our character or what you or the media believe what this job is.

I welcome you to come share a day or multiple days at the Watertown Police Department. Come see it from my perspective or from the perspective of another officer. Come volunteer with us. Come do a ride along. Come participate in all of our community policing efforts. Experience Watertown Police for what it is. Not for what you think it is or what you’ve heard it is. We are more than arrests and statistics. The people we deal with are more than arrests, numbers, and statistics. We want the conversation to continue, but we refuse to be called uneducated, white supremacists, or say that we come from bad families.

I love this job and I love this town. I will continue to show up, be held accountable and I will continue to do what is right, just, and fair, because that is what Chief Lawn and the Watertown Police Department have trained me to do. And that is what the community of Watertown has trusted me to do. Thank you for your time and please reach out to me to continue these conversations."

And that is how you go right for the heart!

Once there, it’s a straight shot to an open mind.

JUST HOW BIG IS THE BACKLASH? WE ARE ABOUT TO FIND OUT!

In March, the self-anointed police reform group entered our lives with a long list of accusations and demands to be presented to the Town Council’s Committee on Public Safety.

Then came three Zoom meetings of the Committee, which turned the reformers into Zoom stars. The meetings were kind of a mini-series, with each episode having a similar plot.

First, the chief attempts to report on the progress being made by his department to comply with present and future mandates.

Second, the Zoom stars proceed to explain to the chief that he has no idea of what he is doing and that they are prepared come in and “help.”

Third, in each episode, mostly White people tell the councilors and us that Black people are afraid to walk and drive the streets of Watertown, for fear of police harassment.

In between those meetings came the Boston 25 News hit piece, featuring three of those Zoom stars, that depicted the Watertown Police Department in a very scary light.

That was followed by a GBH story, more professional, but again delivering the same one-sided message to a wide audience in our neighboring communities.

The collective implication of this barrage was that the residents of Watertown are too clueless about unchecked “systemic racism” to reign in their out-of-control police department.

Before reading any further, you should watch the Boston 25 horror clip. Then, once your blood stops boiling, you should read or listen to the GBH story. It will take you only a few minutes.

At some point, on the road to completing this recommended assignment, you might have found yourself scratching your head and wondering: Did they get us confused with some other Watertown in some other part of the country?

The fourth episode and season finale of the public safety mini-series turned out to be a surprising breath of fresh air, but before I get to it, there is another piece of drama that should be reviewed.

At the candidate forum at Saltonstall Park, organized by Progressive Watertown and the Watertown Democratic Town Committee, the moderator, Will Brownsberger, asked the candidates this question:

What does equity in town government look like and how would you support policies or create policies for equity?

Of all the candidates’ answers, one stood out. It was this one, which begins at 24:09:

“So to begin with, I just want to say we do have a problem in Watertown. I was knocking doors the other day and was talking to a young Black man with his family, a little baby and his wife. When his wife and his baby went in, he turned around and said, this is one of the most unwelcoming, racist places  I have ever lived.”

There is more to the candidate’s answer, which for complete context, you should listen to the entire answer. It begins at 24:09.

If you were at Saltonstall Park on that Sunday afternoon and were not paying close attention, you may have found yourself scratching your head and wondering: What Watertown is this person talking about?

And here’s the thing. If you are going to drop a thousand-pound stink bomb, you owe it to the listeners to explain exactly why you are dropping that stink bomb. Is it the candidate’s way of delivering an ugly message by having it come out of someone else’s mouth − some anonymous person’s mouth?

And shouldn’t we know the candidate’s response to the young Black man? Did the candidate say to him: I am truly sorry about your experiences here in Watertown, but I assure you that this is a wonderful community and I am going to introduce you and your wife to some wonderful people?

Or did the candidate say: I hear similar responses to yours wherever I go in Watertown and I am going to use my position as a member of the town council to make this town less racist and more welcoming?

When you listen to the entire clip, you’ll notice that the candidate’s complete comment was greeted with loud applause.

Things go out of style. Things come into style. Right now, community shaming is all the rage.

But, my friends, do not despair! Good sense endures. You just need to know where to look.

The season finale of the Committee for Public Safety was a hybrid meeting, taking place in town hall, televised on local cable, and with a Zoom option. So most of us were able to watch the chief give his progress report without having to watch the eye rolling, head shaking, and snickering being exhibited by the now former Zoom stars performing in their Zoom windows.

The three town councilors serving as members of the Committee each broke their vow of silence and strongly voiced their support for the chief and his department. One of them is retiring from the council. Another is running unopposed, and the third is running against the only “admitted” police defunder in the town council race. You can take it from here.

This was a meeting filled with drama, but the evening belonged to one actor on the stage − the outgoing town manager − whose participation appeared to come as a complete surprise to the members of the Committee.

His words were not new. They were all a matter of public record. His intention was clearly to etch them in stone. You should watch his address to the Public Safety Committee and the public at large in its entirety beginning at 45:39.

If you watch it without feeling the smoldering beneath the surface you are not paying nearly enough attention. If you watch it without feeling what he is feeling, you need to either pump up the volume or check your pulse.

 Here are some key snippets from his 10-minute address.

The committee had given voice to a proposal to cut the police department budget by $2 million, “sending twenty police officers out the door.” He wanted to make damn sure we all remember that. He referenced the Boston 25 “one-sided news report, which has obviously stuck in his mind as it has mine.

He stood up for the chief while responding to the chief’s critics: “Chief Lawn is a very good police chief and the police department is significantly ahead of other town departments. And any department head would be defensive if there was concern about reducing two million dollars from his or her budget.”

He wanted to highlight the fact that: “Twenty-seven percent − that’s like one in four departments in this commonwealth are accredited. That’s 95 out of 351 and Watertown is accredited.” − (Reaccredited in 2021).

And he wanted to highlight the fact that: “The police department was officially awarded reaccreditation in 2018 through the Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission after being a fully accredited police department since 2015.”

“To achieve this status, the police department had to meet 322 carefully selected standards which address critical areas such as policy development, use of force, training requirements, emergency response planning, records and communications, property and evidence handling, vehicular pursuits, holding facilities and budgets.”

 

Only seven months ago, few of us would have believed that, with all the issues facing Watertown, this election would be a referendum on Chief Lawn and the Watertown Police Department. But the self-anointed police reform group, with the help of the big Zoom stage provided to them by the Town Council’s Committee on Public Safety, intentionally or not, set that wheel in motion.

And now the battle line has been clearly drawn.

I have repeatedly claimed that the reform group and their supporters represent a minority of the town’s population and that the vast majority of residents do not buy into the alternative reality presented during the first three Committee meetings and amplified by Boston 25 News.

I was recently told that I am on shaky ground making that claim, since there have been no opinion polls. My answer was that the opinion poll is already in the works and will be completed by the end of the day on November 2^nd.

Whether or not I will be proven right will depend on voter turnout. It is entirely possible that a critical number of voters will not feel compelled to show up and be counted. Some of them are people you know. Some of them are your friends and neighbors.

Make it known to all of them that you will be checking the voter rolls to see who voted and who didn’t. It’s called: Trust but verify.

 

THE CANDIDATE ANSWERED! SO, CASE CLOSED?

It was a beautiful October day in Saltonstall Park.

And excitement was in the air.

It would be a day of typical candidate forums − canned introductions, familiar talking points, and exceptional courtesy between opponents.

Fortunately for those of us who came with the hope of seeing news being made, the main event came first.

Would Nicole Gardner, Town Council Candidate for District A, own her now famous March defund the police letter to the Town Council? Would she explain why she has said nothing about her writing of that letter and has said nothing about her position on police funding since announcing her candidacy in July?

It was obvious from the beginning of their segment that she would have stayed silent on the issue had she not been called-out by her opponent, Mike Hanlon, when he announced that, unlike his opponent, he was not in favor of defunding the police department by $2 million, which would have resulted in the laying off of twenty police officers.

Candidate Gardner asked the moderator for extra time to respond.

She began by stating what we already knew. The former corporate executive believed Uplift Watertown’s (without mentioning their name) analysis of the budget. She clearly did not believe Town Manager Driscoll’s public refutation of that analysis.

She said that the letter was a “request” for information. Did you read the letter? Does it sound like a request or a demand?

Then… and here’s the bombshell. She announced that she had received a response to her letter from Town Councilor Vincent Piccirilli, who persuaded her that the police department budget was not out of line.

I hope there is an email record of that conversation. She said it was done with “transparency.” Wouldn’t that mean that we would be able to see the email exchange?

And lastly, she wanted to assure us that, if elected, she would vote to “fully fund” the police in future budgets.

But here’s the rub.

If Nicole Gardner wins in District A, and if two or three like-minded candidates also win, giving the Progressive caucus a five-to-four majority on the Council…

And if that majority prevails in hiring their choice of a new town manager…

And if the voters blindly vote to adopt the new Town Charter, which places more influence and control in the hands of a small number of select individuals…

We will have witnessed the take-over of town government by a well-organized, highly motivated minority, triumphing over a large majority of residents (our friends and neighbors) who are leaderless, complacent, and too often ill informed.

And in that new utopian experiment, “fully funding” the police will mean whatever they decide it means.

Have a nice day!

 

THE MOST DANGEROUS CANDIDATE

A heavily edited version of this article was published in Watertown News on October 9 and was removed by Watertown News on October 11.

Here is the stated explanation for the removal as it appeared in the publication:

“This Op-Ed piece has been removed due to questions over the source of the email referenced in the piece.

The author did not want to reveal the source of the email. While the email was a public document, having been sent to the members of the Town Council on their official email addresses, the description of the source of the letter was not clear enough.

The editor felt the description would likely lead readers to incorrectly infer the writer got the email from one of the Councilors who, in reality, is not the source, and other descriptions might reveal the source.”

Both the edited and unedited versions were published by the Facebook group: You Know You Want to Talk About Watertown, MA Politics and Hot Topics, on October 11 and 12. 

This is the unedited version.

Critical Resistance is a national organization, whose stated mission is to abolish the police − all police, everywhere: local, state, federal, transit, police on college and university campuses, and police in public schools. In 2020, they published the Abolish Policing Toolkit with detailed instructions for local abolitionist groups to develop police abolition strategies in their own cities and towns.

Our local abolitionist group is Uplift Watertown.

If you listen to police abolitionists, there are words, as prescribed in the Toolkit, that you will hear over and over again and words you will never hear. For example, you will never hear the words crime or criminal. That’s because those words legitimize the police. Instead, you will hear the word “harm.”

If tomorrow, a stranger comes up to you, holds a knife to your throat and robs you, that person has caused harm. The reason he should not be called a criminal is because that stranger was probably driven to commit this act of harm because he was hungry and needed your money to buy food or he was mentally ill and was too poor to receive the care that the community should have provided.

If a police officer shows up in time to arrest the stranger, the police officer will cause harm by arresting him and putting him in jail and a judge will cause more harm by putting him prison, where he will be exposed to even more harm.

If you were the victim of the harm, you should understand that it is better for the greater community that the person who harmed you goes unpunished, rather than have the cycle of harm perpetuated.

Police abolitionists have learned that to effectively spread their message and recruit new followers, they will fare better by focusing on the positive rather than dwelling on the negative. So, the average voter is less likely to hear the word harm and more likely to hear the word “life-affirming.”

Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and treating the mentally ill are all life-affirming solutions. Nothing about policing is life-affirming because the system of policing was invented to cause harm, primarily to non-white people.

Defund the Police has proved to be a political loser and has generally been replaced by the much more positive Divest and Invest − which of course means divesting from the police and investing in “life-affirming” resources and solutions.

At three different meetings of the Town Council’s Committee on Public Safety, taking place between early March and late July, Uplift Watertown made two proposals to the Town Council:

First: Reduce the police department budget by $2 million to free up money for “life-affirming” resources.

Second: Undertake a closer study of the police department budget every year to see where money can be allocated to programs that prevent the need for policing in first place. These programs would include mental health and substance use services, food security, affordable housing, and health care.

How exactly did Uplift Watertown arrive at the $2 million figure? Based on their analysis of Massachusetts cities and towns with populations comparable to ours, they determined that the Watertown Police Department was grossly overfunded and should get a $2 million budget cut to bring it in line with those comparable communities.

At one of the Public Safety Committee meetings, Town Manager Michael Driscoll, who was not scheduled to speak, felt that it was his duty to set the record straight.

He respectfully suggested that Uplift Watertown’s “comparable” communities were not all that comparable to Watertown. Had they chosen the more urban communities, contiguous to Watertown − Cambridge, Belmont, Newton, and Waltham, they would have found that our police budget was perfectly in line.

And then Town Manager Driscoll explained that a $2 million cut in the police department budget would result in a loss of 20 police officers out of the current roster of 70. For Uplift Watertown, this would only be the beginning of their campaign to starve the beast. The abolitionist playbook calls for continuous police budget cuts until the department is eliminated and replaced mainly by mental health workers.

So, where do you come down on this issue?

Do you believe that the Watertown Police Department is grossly overfunded? Do you side with the man whose parting gift to the community was to fund the building of three new schools and the renovation of another without a tax override or do you side with the abolition idealists who would like to conduct a utopian experiment where all of us are lab rats?

Or do you think that none of this really matters because good sense will always prevail? Well friends, in this election, good sense happens to be on the ballot like never before.

But you might ask, if Defund the Police candidates are going to hide their game, how can we identify them? The answer is that we have to work harder than ever to find out where candidates really stand on this issue.

Unless we happen to get lucky.

And we did.

Advocates for political causes don’t often pull their punches. They let elected officials know, in no uncertain terms, exactly what is wrong with the status quo and what those elected officials are required to do to win or keep their support.

When it comes to influencing elected representatives, blunt force can be a powerful mover.

But sometimes advocates become candidates. And when they do, they may find it more expedient to adopt a softer touch. When running for election, the game they are now playing demands that they alienate as few potential voters as possible.

The letter below comes from a Town Councilor who wishes to remain anonymous.

The underlining and bold are not mine. They are part of the original letter and were clearly added for emphasis.

 

From: Nicole Gardner <nicole.n.gardner@gmail.com>

To: Mark Sideris <msideris@watertown-ma.gov>; Kounelis, Angeline <akounelis@watertown-ma.gov>; Lisa Feltner <lfeltner@watertown-ma.gov>; Caroline Bays <cbays@watertown-ma.gov>; tpalomba@watertown-ma.gov; jgannon@watertown-ma.gov; adonato@watertown-ma.gov; vpiccirilli@watertown-ma.gov; kwoodland@watertown-ma.gov

Sent: Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 10:59 am

Subject: Police funding

Dear Council President Sideris and other Councilors,

Based on an analysis published by Uplift Watertown, Watertown's spending per capita on police $260.86 per the FY2019 budget data. However, the average per capita spending on policing in Massachusetts towns with a total population within 10% of Watertown is $196.46, per FY2019 budget and 2019 census data, roughly $65 per capita less! Only one city -- Braintree -- spends more per capita on police. 

Based on the same analysis, if Watertown reduced police funding to match the average police budget per capita of towns of a similar size, we would free up more than $2 million for community investment in life-affirming resources like healthcare, housing, and food access.  For example, these monies could

* provide housing subsidies through MetroWest Housing for 253 residents for a year.

* pay a living wage to 57 residents.

* cover the cost of providing three meals a day for a year for 555 residents.

As a tax-paying resident of Watertown, I think it is imperative that we divert funds from our bloated police budget to other services needed by residents of our community. 

I have seen some residents say we need to be "loyal" to our police, and that they have "earned" the right for us to keep to the status quo, no matter what. This is nonsense. Allocating tax dollars should be driven by what best serves the people of Watertown, not a subset of the town's employees. Many residents are struggling to make ends meet, and this must be your priority.

I look forward to the meeting of the Town Council Committee on Public Safety. 

 

Sincerely,

Nicole Gardner

Winsor Ave

On July 27, Nicole Gardner announced her candidacy for Town Council, District A, on Watertown News and cited problems that, if elected, she would address:

She begins with the high cost of housing, worsening traffic congestion, and pressures on local businesses. Affordable housing is mentioned two more times, so that issue is clearly high on her list. New development is also on her mind. She wants to make sure that new development “enriches the quality of our neighborhoods,” and that new companies moving-in be “good neighbors.”

She tells us that her experience and expertise will come in handy when dealing with “issues of development, democratic transparency, and much needed government modernization.”

And she wants us to know that she has “heard over and over again that our residents want greater transparency, communication, and accountability from the people in their government.”

Fair enough, but some of us would also welcome greater transparency, communication, and accountability from candidates who are attempting to become members of our government.

There is no mention of the burning issue addressed in her letter to the Town Council - divesting from the police and investing in life-affirming resources. When exactly does she plan on telling the voters that she will be leading the charge to cut the next police department budget by $2 million?

She had another golden opportunity in her interview on Watertown Cable Access, where she demonstrated her excellent interview skills, by smoothly controlling the substance and pace of the interview. She wanted to display her passion, competence, sincerity, and congeniality. And she succeeded.

When asked about the issues that most concern her, she first mentions her commitment to climate and the environment and then to equity and inclusion. You might think that as the author of the Divest and Invest letter, she would have made sure to address the harm being caused to the “people” by the “bloated” police budget and that, if elected, she would work tirelessly to right that wrong.

But she didn’t. She provided lengthy, upbeat responses on less controversial issues, while subtly hitting her talking points along the way. She may be the most skillful campaigner in the race, incumbents included.

So, there is an obvious question. Is the police department budget pretty much where it needs to be or is it bloated to the tune of $2 million? Call me crazy, but I think I’m going to side with the man whose parting gift to the community was to fund the building of three new schools and the complete renovation of another without a tax override!

What he did was quite an achievement. And here’s another − hiring, training, and retaining police officers, under a blinding spotlight and consistent with the high standards and values of President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing.

Thanks Chief Lawn!

In this election, the balance of power on the Town Council is in danger of tilting in the wrong direction. And from what I have seen so far, Nicole Gardner, candidate for Town Council, District A, is the most dangerous candidate in the race.

THE POLICE CHIEF AND THE MISSING DATA

This article was originally published as an OP-ED in Watertown News on August 16, 2021.

 

We take a lot for granted. It’s human nature to live each day believing that what we regard as normal will stay that way. We often cling to this belief even when we know, deep in our gut, that change is inevitable.

It’s one thing to deal with change that happens gradually, allowing time to digest it. Even that can be disturbing, but when change comes all at once and seemingly out of the blue, we are likely to find it jarring.

It was taken for granted that the most we had to fear from contagious disease was catching the flu. No big deal for most of us. Then Covid showed up and upended life as we know it.

In the Pacific Northwest, it was taken for granted that extreme hot days would be few and far between. Now they are having a summer with scorching days in the triple digits. One Portland neighborhood recorded a high of 123 degrees.

Because Portlanders and Seattleites took temperate weather for granted, air conditioners have flown off store shelves and are now out of stock. Many public buildings, including libraries and community centers, that could serve as shelters, are unairconditioned, leaving sweltering residents out in the heat. We won’t know the exact heat-related death toll until the season comes to an end — whenever that might be.

Depending on where we live, there are expectations about crime, including violent crime. It seems to be taken for granted that there will be frequent fatal shootings in parts of Boston. It’s tragic, but normal. It’s normal to read police reports of individuals from surrounding cities and towns coming to Watertown to steal products from Home Depot, Best Buy, and Target. Nobody is shocked by those police reports.

The recent rash of smashed car windows, car break-ins, and stolen catalytic converters is probably more concerning to residents than shoplifting, especially to residents living on or near streets where those crimes took place. But crimes against property are not crimes against people.

I think most of us take for granted that, because of its absence, violent crime will never be a concern in Watertown. But have you ever wondered why violent crime is absent from Watertown? Is it just due to luck? Or might it have something to do with a data problem?

You’ve no doubt heard that the Police Chief Lawn has a data problem, and he does. It’s a data problem that all police chiefs have. First, he cannot tell us how many crimes − including violent crimes − have been prevented due to good police work. That number is for the most part unknowable.

And because he cannot give us that number, he also cannot tell us how many residents, workers, and visitors did not become victims of the crimes that were prevented from happening.

Nor can he quantify how changes to the community might affect the rate and nature of crime.

Just look around you. With the ongoing development of large apartment complexes, condos, and industrial spaces, led by biotech, the City known as the Town of Watertown is in the midst of rapid urbanization, bringing us more residents, more workers, more visitors, and more people passing through.

Are we foolishly taking it for granted that crime will not follow our explosive growth? We could ask the chief what he thinks. There is a lot we might want to ask him. Except that these days he’s quite busy.

If you haven’t been paying attention, the chief has been held captive, since March, at Town Council committee meetings that are supposed to be about public safety but have instead been turned into a kangaroo court. The chief is on trial for the crime of either knowingly or unknowingly allowing racist behavior on the part of his police officers. There is statistical evidence, they say, that once examined may prove him guilty.

At each meeting, the chief does his best to present his case: He has wonderful young officers protecting our streets. He is committed to advancing the practices of community-oriented policing (COP). He long ago embraced the pillars of President Obama’s 21st Century Policing Task Force. And he is eagerly adopting the stringent policy and training mandates being handed down by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

But his inquisitors, the self-appointed Joint Police Reform Group (JPRG), are not impressed! When the chief speaks, they smirk, roll their eyes, and shake their heads. Every reaction and every comment screams out that the chief just doesn’t get it.

And obviously, we don’t get it either.

If we did get it, we would know that the police department needs to be dissected and examined, so that the hidden racism can be surgically removed. And since only they can do it, they are demanding the authority to do it on behalf of all of us, including you and me.

If you’ve watched these meetings, you’ve seen that they clearly don’t like the chief, even when they claim they do, but they will tolerate him, as long as he is made to dance to their tune. So, it is imperative to their mission that the members of the committee prevail upon the full Town Council to give them their way, in the name of anti-racism.

To date, the chief has been forced to sit through three two-hour trials, where he is required to subject himself to a steady barrage of attacks on his competence, his integrity, and his character. And it’s not over. The kangaroo court will be called back into session, for the fourth time, in October. The self-appointed Joint Police Reform Group (JPRG) will not give up their fight until they are installed in a corner office at the police station.

So once again, for another two hours, the Committee on Public Safety will be preoccupied with non-existent racist behavior by the Watertown Police Department. Please keep in mind that, since March, when the kangaroo trials first became must-watch TV, the Joint Police Reform Group has not found one person of color who has complained of being treated unfairly by a Watertown cop.

Not one.

They have suggested that the reason not one single person of color has come forward is either fear of retribution, or the belief that nothing would be done about their complaint.

I have said this before and I will say it again: If victims of police harassment actually exist, those individuals would soon find themselves surrounded by friends and supporters they never knew they had.

If you’ve lived here for more than a year or two and if you don’t live inside a political bubble, you already know that.

At the Public Safety Committee meeting in March, which followed a totally one-sided and sensationalized Boston 25 news report, Town Manager Michael Driscoll asked to be heard. He wanted to explain why recommendations made at the meeting and on the Boston 25 news report to cut $2 million from the police budget would cripple the department.

But he began with an emotional statement, uncharacteristic for a man known for speaking facts and figures, not opinion. He felt compelled to say: “This is a wonderful community.” He had to set the record straight that the picture being painted of his town was a false reality.

The term “wonderful community” is highly subjective and can mean whatever you think it means. I think that in a wonderful community, parents, regardless of their skin color or immigration status, can promise their child that if they are lost or in trouble, they can run to the woman or man in the blue uniform and they will be safe.

I am sadly aware that this promise cannot be made in every community in this country, and possibly not in most communities, but I know that it can be made here. When it comes to hiring, motivating, and retaining the best police officers, “the promise” is the heart and soul of the kind of community values that the men and women of the police department need to see in us before we can demand it of them.

The election on November 2nd, promises to be the most consequential election of my 40 years in Watertown. A five-to-four vote by our next town council can establish policies and pass ordinances favored by a minority — even a tiny minority — of voters.

We badly need a town council candidate who, on behalf of the vast majority, will stake out a leadership position on giving the chief the space he needs to hire, train, and manage his department through the turbulent times ahead. He or she will likely be called a racist (behind closed doors) and in written comments (anonymous, of course), so a thick skin is a must for the role.

This candidate should be a champion for the police — not a cheerleader. His or her credibility will depend on requiring continued transparency and accountability from the chief and his department.

Town Manager Driscoll is about to retire and the search is underway for his replacement. It is unlikely that the new town manager will be a Watertown resident, so this town council candidate, once elected, could be instrumental in explaining to the new town manager that there are two conflicting realities of Watertown — the JPRG/Boston 25 reality and the Michael Driscoll reality — and that one of those realities is true and the other is fiction.

Any takers?

WHO GETS TO REFORM THE POLICE?

 This article was originally published as an OP-ED in Watertown News on May 18, 2021.

 

“Owning your own narrative” is a common expression used in business, in politics, and in private life where personal reputation is at stake. Owning your narrative means ensuring that what is told about you matches the way you’d like it to be told, without distortions, mischaracterization, half-truths, or false perceptions.

If you are waging a battle in the arena of public opinion, and others succeed in owning your narrative, you have lost the battle.

If you are paying even the slightest attention to town politics, you are aware that there is a police crisis in Watertown, centered around alleged racist behavior regarding stops, citations, and arrests. In my opinion — and I believe in the opinion of the vast majority of residents — this is an invented crisis. And how we emerge from this invented crisis will depend on which side ends up owning the narrative.

The City of Minneapolis, which is engaged in a genuine police crisis, is a great example. Medaria Arradondo, Minneapolis’ first Black police chief, is the central character on that stage.

Chief Arradondo testified for the prosecution at the trial of Derek Chauvin. As a witness for the prosecution, it was anticipated that he would make it clear that Chauvin’s actions could not be defended as having followed police department policy or police department training.

He did exactly that when he stated: “… but once there was no longer any resistance, and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned-out, handcuffed behind their back – that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training, and…”

Then his next eleven words to end the sentence, went above and beyond: “… is certainly not part of our ethics or our values.”

Chief Arradondo has a narrative and the international stage provided by the Chauvin trial gave him the opportunity to broadcast it to the world. And he had more to say that is relevant to the current conversation.

In speaking about his department’s training curriculum, he went out of his way to use the term “procedural justice,” the substance of which directly connects to what he meant by ethics and values.

The principles of procedural justice can be applied to business, politics, and to areas of life where organizations hold power over individuals. And those principles are central to any discussion of 21st Century Policing.

The four founding principles of procedural justice as applied to 21st Century Policing are:

Respect: All individuals are treated with dignity and respect.

Voice: Individuals are given a chance to tell their side of the story.

Neutrality: Police decisions are unbiased and guided by transparent reasoning.

Trustworthiness: Police convey trustworthy motives about those impacted by their decisions.

Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, published in May of 2015 is a roadmap for modern-day police departments. Chief Arradondo was sending the world a message that he was an eager adopter of the principles advanced in that report. I will guarantee you that he can recite following paragraph, taken from the report, by heart: “Law enforcement culture should embrace a guardian — rather than a warrior — mindset to build trust and legitimacy both within agencies and with the public. Toward that end, law enforcement agencies should adopt procedural justice as the guiding principle for internal and external policies and practices to guide their interactions with rank-and-file officers and with the citizens they serve.”

OK, enough about Chief Arradondo. What about Watertown Police Chief Michael Lawn? What principles does he hold dear? When it comes to acceptance of 21st Century Policing, some chiefs were eager adopters, some were reluctant adopters, and others were and remain stubborn non-adopters.

At the Town Council’s Committee on Public Safety Meeting on March 12, the chief took center stage and, with the aid of slides, painted a picture of today’s Watertown Police Department. The presentation should have been a walk in the park. But it was not.

To understand why it was not, you should stop reading this letter and watch the Boston 25 News report that aired three days earlier on March 9th. It runs only 2 minutes and 5 seconds but if this piece of tabloid trash doesn’t make your blood boil, you are most likely a member of the Joint Police Reform Group — it is they who are battling for the right to “hold the chief accountable.”

“Black residents are 5 to 6 times more likely to be arrested in Watertown than the white population.” That is the bumper-sticker message, amplified by Boston 25 News that, if you are a Black resident, might cause you to give up your drivers’ license, and if you are a Black commuter, it might scare you into tacking an extra 30-minutes onto your morning drive by circling around this hot bed of predatory racism that we call home.

Did the Boston 25 reporter go the extra mile by investigating the number of complaints filed with the town or the state on behalf of Black residents, visitors, or commuters claiming harassment by Watertown police?

Of course not. There are none.

Did the Boston 25 reporter bother to do the simple research that would tell her that Chief Lawn’s policies continue to protect undocumented residents from ICE, allowing those residents to seek help from the police without revealing their immigration status?

Of course not. Even if she were aware it, that fact does not fit the scaremongering narrative.

And lastly, since one of the people being interviewed is a member of Uplift Watertown, who insists on having $2 million cut from the police department budget, was this reporter curious enough to learn that Uplift Watertown is a police abolitionist organization and not the reformist organization they pretend to be?

What’s your guess? Take all the time you need.

So now imagine that you are the police chief and you, your police officers, and the community you serve have been slandered by an influential media machine, days before the big committee meeting, knowing that the moment you finish your presentation, the assaults on your competence, your character, and your moral legitimacy will begin. You can watch or re-watch the meeting here.

Earlier I asked these questions about Chief Lawn: What principles does he hold dear? And was he an eager adopter of 21st Century Policing?

If you were at the Zoom meeting or if you watched the video, you know that he had a lot of slides and that he rushed through most of them, knowing that he had to leave ample time for the Joint Police Reform Group (JPRG) to begin attacking his data, his lack of transparency, and his supposedly bloated budget.

Of all his slides, there at least five that deserved a great deal more time, attention, and exploration. So, let’s take a look.

These are the slides that go to the heart of policing in the age of George Floyd. This is the information that fair minded residents needed to hear. But because of the environment that included the Boston 25 News report and because of the format that ended up giving more weight to the JPFG than to the chief, the narrative was lost.

At the end of the meeting, it was agreed by the members of the committee, that the conversation needed be continued in a future meeting.

The next committee meeting took place on April 22. It was a very different meeting. At this meeting, the community showed up and spoke up. At one point there were 188 people in virtual attendance. Since you are reading this article, the chances are pretty good that you were one of the 188. If not, you can watch the meeting here.

Members of the JPRG showed their slides and went over them in depth. They were not rushed. Uplift Watertown elected not to show their slides − probably because the slides they had prepared were bogus and everyone now knows that they were bogus. Just go to: Is it Really Time to Cancel the Police? And scroll down until you find their slides.

To state the obvious, the subject of policing in Watertown has become deeply personal on both sides. The emotion was on full display in the many comments made by residents supporting the police, by those supporting the JPFG, and by some trying to get their heads around supporting both.

I don’t think that, collectively, the pro-police comments, coming from members of the public, succeeded in advancing the narrative that the Watertown P.D. are honest and fair when it comes to their attitudes and dealings with the whole community.

But there was, in my view, a gamechanger – or should I say, a narrative changer? And that happened when Detective Kerilyn Amedio made her comment — or should I say, delivered her speech?

It was obvious from the very beginning, that she was intent on setting the record straight — a goal that she accomplished in tone and substance. She could have said that she was fed up with being disrespected by people who had no idea what she faces each and every day on the job, but she said it more eloquently: We are willing to have open honest dialogue.

“We want you to be heard, but we won’t allow it to be at the expense of our character or what you or the media believe what this job is.”

She could have said that people should stop buying-in to a false one-dimensional narrative and should come see the department with their own eyes. This is how she said it:

“Experience Watertown Police for what it is. Not for what you think it is or what you’ve heard it is. We are more than arrests and statistics. The people we deal with are more than arrests, numbers, and statistics.“

Both of these statements work better in the context they were written, so I will be ending this letter with her complete speech, which I transcribed from the Zoom video.

We later heard from two other officers — King Lam and Detective Catherine DelloRusso. All three officers extended the same invitation — Come in and see what we are about. Come in and have a conversation.

I have said repeatedly that the number of Black people claiming to be harassed by Watertown police officers is zero. The answer to that statement, coming from members of the JPRG, is that those invisible victims were either too afraid to come forward or they believed nothing would be done if they did come forward.

So now, after the Boston 25 News report, the two public meetings of the Committee for Public Safety, and the WGBH news story — which I haven’t yet mentioned, is it likely that those unknown victims are still too afraid or too cynical to accept the invitation from Detective Amedio, Detective DelloRusso, and Officer Lam to come in and have a conversation?

The WGBH news story was published and aired on May 6. It is less sensationalized than the Boston 25 News report, but almost as one-sided and superficial. It is the lack of depth that makes this story, coming from a respectable news source, just corrosive enough to feed the one-dimensional false narrative that Watertown police target Black people.

The next meeting of the Committee on Public Safety will take place in July. It is expected that after hearing more public comment, the committee will determine how to proceed.

The Watertown Police Department is currently a work-in-progress. All police departments that have accepted police reform, consistent with the principles of 21st Century Policing and practice the four founding principles of procedural justice are now — and will forever be — works-in-progress.

Perfection in policing has to be the goal of the Watertown Police Department, and to paraphrase Vince Lombardi: Perfection is not attainable, but if they chase perfection, they can catch excellence.

Excellence is what most of us want.

I believe Chief Lawn has been trying to tell us, in these meetings, that his time and attention are consumed with jumping through hoops — necessary hoops — at the same time that he is trying to assure us that he is not complaining, just explaining.

Mandates coming down from the state will guarantee more and more hoops arriving on his doorstep, demanding a constant shifting of priorities. And now, the Joint Police Reform Group — a well-intentioned (except for the police abolitionists) group of concerned citizens are demanding that their hoops get jumped through first. I think that if they get their way, their interference will demoralize the department and make us all less safe.

The chief and the department have a great narrative that is not getting the vote of confidence from our elected representatives that it deserves. The counter-narrative is being allowed to drown it out.

That has to change.

 

As promised, here is my transcript of Kerilyn Amedio’s speech, which should be used to recruit our police officers of the future:

“Hi, my name is Kerilyn Amedio, a resident of Watertown and proudly a member of the Watertown Police Department. I’ve been on the Police Department for seven years, and I’m currently assigned to the detective division. I hold a bachelors’ degree in criminal justice and sociology from the University of Massachusetts and am a graduate of the Massachusetts State Police Academy.

I have extensive training given to me by the Watertown Police Department notably to include crisis intervention, assisting individuals in crisis, group crisis intervention, and critical incident stress management.

I can only speak for myself and my own experiences but many if not all of my fellow brother and sister officers would agree with my following statement. In seven years, I’ve stopped cars, made arrests when necessary, responded to calls for domestic violence, larcenies, shoplifters, sexual assaults, neighborhood complaints, barking dogs, alarm calls, medical calls, overdoses and that is just to name a few. I’ve been punched in the face, spit on, kicked, bitten, had my hair pulled, had a knife pulled on me, had cars almost strike me, feared for my safety, and been called every name in the book. I’ve held strangers, hugged children that are not mine, saved lives through the distribution of Narcan and performance of CPR. I’ve promised someone that I care and would continue to care and would help them. I’ve told families that their loved ones were not coming home.

I’ve seen unimaginable despair, empathized and sympathized with people from all walks of life. And with all of that I would not change one single day of this career.

You are all speaking of accountability and transparency and we want that too. Not only just for the Watertown Police Department but for all facets of Watertown and we want it from these groups as well. We are willing to have open honest dialogue. We want you to be heard, but we won’t allow it to be at the expense of our character or what you or the media believe what this job is.

I welcome you to come share a day or multiple days at the Watertown Police Department. Come see it from my perspective or from the perspective of another officer. Come volunteer with us. Come do a ride along. Come participate in all of our community policing efforts. Experience Watertown Police for what it is. Not for what you think it is or what you’ve heard it is. We are more than arrests and statistics. The people we deal with are more than arrests, numbers, and statistics. We want the conversation to continue, but we refuse to be called uneducated, white supremacists, or say that we come from bad families.

I love this job and I love this town. I will continue to show up, be held accountable and I will continue to do what is right, just, and fair, because that is what Chief Lawn and the Watertown Police Department have trained me to do. And that is what the community of Watertown has trusted me to do. Thank you for your time and please reach out to me to continue these conversations."