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.