When this blog started in 2005, I posted an article with a link to Why smart people defend bad ideas. We need to keep that in mind while we honor those who have served and sacrificed and continue to serve and sacrifice in defense of freedom and our country.
We need to remember that the best and the brightest are not the only source of bad ideas. Sometimes these bad ideas are from a tyranny of the masses. History is full of examples where the majority has unfairly and unjustly taken advantage of or oppressed a minority. Much of our constitution is there to help guard against such tyranny. It is , unfortunately, still a problem at all levels of government and society.
We must guard against bad ideas, even those from very smart people or those that are popular with the majority of people. We need to do this so that those we honor today will not have served in vain.
Showing posts with label police chief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police chief. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Privacy; Not So Much
I quote here from the Standard-Times Privacy agreement offered to all posters on the gosanangelo online site, "III. We do not share personal information with any third party without your permission".
There is much more than that, but the rest is legalese ruffles and flourish, that sentence captures the promise the newspaper made to posters. That promise has been broken and the newspaper's reaction to the situation has been late and negligent at best. The print edition article in Sunday, May 4 edition is the first print acknowledgement the problem existed, and it was not only inadequate, it served to compound the error.
For those who do not follow the online version, a little background. The online edition has a feature that allows posters to register under a screen name and comment on articles or editorials in an ongoing forum. It has been a lively, close-to-real-time open comments back and forth, for the most part lightly moderated. Comments are subject to being removed for libel, obcenity, cuss words and such, many such comments have been pulled. A few posters have been outright banned for repetitive violations. In my case, the anonymity was never an item, I self-identified during the Charter Amendments debates as "barkeep". I posted often and enjoyed the free exchange beyond what deadlines and ink-on-dead-trees could possibly provide.
On April 25, I was told that lists of posters' real names were being bandied about in the Police Dept. and that officers who had posted for or against certain candidates were in fear of reprisal. Frankly, I knew that several officers from various candidates' camps had been posting under screen names, but I simply did not credit that the Standard-Times would give out a list, I blew it off as overly paranoid. That weekend, I heard from several sources the same story. Depending on which candidate a source supported, these people had varying ideas as to who had engineered this opening of user profiles, but the basic facts were congruent and stand without resort to conspiracy theories.
A change was made to the content management system that allowed, for about a day, any viewer, from any internet connected screen, to click on a screen name and get the registering user profile (real name, for those who didn't bother to lie when they registered) and complete posting history for that user. While my informants were concerned with Police Department posters, it worked for any poster, any topic, full history. One person expressed concern for teachers' privacy over a performance review topic that had been hot a few months ago. I wondered aloud had anyone bothered to check on true names of some of the FLDS posters. To be sure, blame notwithstanding, this leak was common knowledge by 4/24 PM. Personal note: by the time I heard of this, the barn door had been closed, I do not have the list so many people obviously do have.
Seeing nothing in the paper, I forwarded a heads up to Ty Meighan, along with some speculation, labelled as such, on Monday, 4/28, later acknowledged by e-mail. Late Wednesday, one WhiteHorseman "outed" 9 screen names, obviously taken from this leak. 1:15 AM 4/30, I posted as barkeep and made explicit for those who had not yet heard that which I outlined in the preceeding paragraph. This set off a flurry of "I know who you are; nyah, nyah, no you don't I lied" yadayada that continues to this day.
Finally, today, Sunday May 4, the Standard-Times publishes a story letting the rest of the world know that the privacy promised to posters had been breached 10 days before. As if the delay were not bad enough, the story in which this revelation is finally stated compounds the original breach. During that interim, nearly every correspondent to the online version has become aware the loss of privacy occured, but as in my case, not all of them had access to the full list. Readers of the ink-on-dead-trees paper were likely unaware this leak happened.
In the same edition where the Standard-Times endorses Tim Vasquez for re-election, the article announcing this violation of their privacy agreement leads off by blowing the apparent screen name of Vasquez' widely accepted as nearest contender, Jeff Davis. While not specifically naming them, the article goes on to say "At least four members of the officers' meet-and-confer team also have names attatched to comments...The city and its attorneys aren't likely to forget that when negotiations resume in the fall, and the ramifications go beyond that-the City Council could decide not to negotiate." Leave aside whether this effectively outs the meet-and-confer team, on what basis does the S-T allege the Council even can, let alone is likely to, refuse to negotiate? What part of meet and confer statute allows the city to unilaterally refuse to talk to the officers' duly elected representatives on the grounds of "we don't like what you said last spring"?
It appears Davis did handle this poorly, but, so long as The Standard-Times is "outing" posters, why not supporters of other candidates? I am unaware of any screen name directly tied to any other candidate specifically, but I have been keeping up with this race, and have probably read most of them. I can tell you this; advocates for, if not the actual candidates have played the "I know who you are" game and some made comments rude enough to rate removal. While I do not endorse, just to be honest, in the heat of this I had a first-time removal; after a poster wished I had been aborted, I responded with someting rude enough to get (justifiably) removed.
Critical to understanding this issue, for those not using the online forum, is the meaning of "user profile" the actual information revealed. When a poster registers, the one verifiable field is the e-mail address. Should one care to, one can fill in name as Mickey Mouse, address Disneyworld. At least one poster was revealed to be using three screen names, different e-mail links for each. The information that was revealed consisted of these self-proclaimed user profiles. Some people gave aliases there as a second layer of identity protection, in retrospect, not unreasonably. Those immediately revealed were those who were most trusting in the privacy agreement and didn't bother to lie, or the few, such as myself, who didn't care. I went with "barkeep" because I have used it for many years on many other forums, not for concealment.
I have sworn to protect confidential statements, not necessarily to believe everything I am told, but if I tell someone I will not say where this came from, I won't. People from different camps talk to me, and I stress here, candidate advocates, no candidate personally does. I have not and will not endorse a candidate, and I try to weigh the bias of sources who talk to me. That clear, there is a huge misunderstanding about this breach of the privacy agreement. I hear from different sides "so&so outed me, everybody knows so&so is a mouthpiece for Candidate X".
Please people, the party responsible for revealing user profiles, to the extent they are true names, that party is the Standard-Times. This person or that may have taken advantage of that information in ways I would find ethically questionable, but they could never have done so had the Standard-Times not made the information available in contravention of an explicitly stated privacy agreement.
That said we move to the handling of this breach by the Standard-Times. I think in legalistic terms, my Blog partner Mr. Turner thinks in computer geek terms, I came up with "negligent", he prefers "incompetence". I only diferrentiate because negligent has legal implications in tort law that incompetent doesn't necessarily encompass.
The explanation offered in today's Standard-Times article states this was, "not a hack into the Standard-Times' site by supporters of a certain candidate, as conspiracy-minded commenters have suggested". I may have missed a comment here or there, but no one I've talked to thought this was an outside hack. By accident or no, there are people who find it remarkably coincidental that this "open door" was coincidentally tripped over by people willing to take advantage of it. I won't say that didn't happen, but I'm a fairly successful gambler and I didn't get there drawing to inside straights.
The genesis of this information leak had to be in-house, and today's article says as much. To be perfectly clear, I do not mean, necessarily, in house as to the confines of the Standard-Times Harris St. building, but corporate in-house. After that, the explanation gets thin real quick. The mistake is attributed to "new employees in Knoxville" who were in a weekly process which "reset privacy controls for newspapers across the chain, not realizing the Standard-Times wanted to keep profile data away from the public". Excuse me, but which Scripps Howard newspapers DO intend to make user profile information public? Last time I looked in on the Abilene Reporter News, they didn't. Did they last Thursday? Scripps Howard has, I believe, 19 newspapers, not all have online comments, but those which do, have identical privacy agreements.
Why did the Standard-Times wait 10 days after they say their people were advised of this breach to make a public statement alerting users it had happened? If the reader is unfamiliar with the online edition and the comments section, it has been an open free-for-all with commenters from every side calling out their opposition advocates since WhiteHorseman ID'd 9 posters April 29th. Don't bother to look for WhiteHorseman's original posts that evening, they have vanished. In fine point of fact, their reporter inquired of me had I happened to print out those comments, he could not access them. As it happens, I had, I may have the only existing copy of those comments as they originally appeared. Don't even ask which rock that is buried under.
The article states that their online director Betty Brackin "is working individually with those wishing to reclaim their anonymity". Maybe so, but even that help is limited to those posters who are already aware they were outed and ask for help. For all anyone knows, posters on say the teacher evaluation subject may not have checked in lately, may have been utterly unaware that their personal information and comment history is open to any inquiring mind who knew about this "window of opportunity". This should have been as public as an automobile safety recall. In truth, I have been too patient. The Standard-Times article Sunday says they were aware of this Friday, April 25. Give some allowance for getting the full story, the Standard-Times should have had an alert in print sometime that weekend, before I sent them my heads-up letter.
That aside, how well has their remedy worked? One case I have tripped over, a poster did ask Ms. Brackin for help. Sho' nuff, poster X was given a new screen name, and the old posts were removed. Unfortunately, when I went back to posts put up a week before the leak, I see this: The post by X in support of candidate Y was removed; two responses to that post are still there, only now they read "response to (new screen name X)" then in the body of the text response, the old screen name is used. In short, this poster has been retroactively "outed" a second time, backdated to a week before the original leak happened!
Make no mistake; I appreciate the Standard-Times, in this case I have often complimented the reporter who wrote the story I have objections to. I enjoy the online trading of opinion. In this case, the story, the revelation of identity, the remedy for it and the explanation of it has been poorly done. It cannot escape attention that in the same edition where the paper's endorsement of incumbent Chief Vasquez includes this: "the incident eventually led to a Texas Ranger investigation after Vasquez disclosed to the Standard-Times that the woman was an informant for SAPD Sgt. Jeff Davis. Revealing such information is a felony...", the Standard-Times compounds its own violation of confidentiality by disclosing the identity of Vasquez' most threatening opponent to print edition readers who may have been completely unaware of this tempest. I have my own copy of the "AP Stylebook" 2007 edition and its guidelines to confidential sources. If ya'll need one Hastings has them in stock. I gave you the Palmer file for free, this you can buy.
There is much more than that, but the rest is legalese ruffles and flourish, that sentence captures the promise the newspaper made to posters. That promise has been broken and the newspaper's reaction to the situation has been late and negligent at best. The print edition article in Sunday, May 4 edition is the first print acknowledgement the problem existed, and it was not only inadequate, it served to compound the error.
For those who do not follow the online version, a little background. The online edition has a feature that allows posters to register under a screen name and comment on articles or editorials in an ongoing forum. It has been a lively, close-to-real-time open comments back and forth, for the most part lightly moderated. Comments are subject to being removed for libel, obcenity, cuss words and such, many such comments have been pulled. A few posters have been outright banned for repetitive violations. In my case, the anonymity was never an item, I self-identified during the Charter Amendments debates as "barkeep". I posted often and enjoyed the free exchange beyond what deadlines and ink-on-dead-trees could possibly provide.
On April 25, I was told that lists of posters' real names were being bandied about in the Police Dept. and that officers who had posted for or against certain candidates were in fear of reprisal. Frankly, I knew that several officers from various candidates' camps had been posting under screen names, but I simply did not credit that the Standard-Times would give out a list, I blew it off as overly paranoid. That weekend, I heard from several sources the same story. Depending on which candidate a source supported, these people had varying ideas as to who had engineered this opening of user profiles, but the basic facts were congruent and stand without resort to conspiracy theories.
A change was made to the content management system that allowed, for about a day, any viewer, from any internet connected screen, to click on a screen name and get the registering user profile (real name, for those who didn't bother to lie when they registered) and complete posting history for that user. While my informants were concerned with Police Department posters, it worked for any poster, any topic, full history. One person expressed concern for teachers' privacy over a performance review topic that had been hot a few months ago. I wondered aloud had anyone bothered to check on true names of some of the FLDS posters. To be sure, blame notwithstanding, this leak was common knowledge by 4/24 PM. Personal note: by the time I heard of this, the barn door had been closed, I do not have the list so many people obviously do have.
Seeing nothing in the paper, I forwarded a heads up to Ty Meighan, along with some speculation, labelled as such, on Monday, 4/28, later acknowledged by e-mail. Late Wednesday, one WhiteHorseman "outed" 9 screen names, obviously taken from this leak. 1:15 AM 4/30, I posted as barkeep and made explicit for those who had not yet heard that which I outlined in the preceeding paragraph. This set off a flurry of "I know who you are; nyah, nyah, no you don't I lied" yadayada that continues to this day.
Finally, today, Sunday May 4, the Standard-Times publishes a story letting the rest of the world know that the privacy promised to posters had been breached 10 days before. As if the delay were not bad enough, the story in which this revelation is finally stated compounds the original breach. During that interim, nearly every correspondent to the online version has become aware the loss of privacy occured, but as in my case, not all of them had access to the full list. Readers of the ink-on-dead-trees paper were likely unaware this leak happened.
In the same edition where the Standard-Times endorses Tim Vasquez for re-election, the article announcing this violation of their privacy agreement leads off by blowing the apparent screen name of Vasquez' widely accepted as nearest contender, Jeff Davis. While not specifically naming them, the article goes on to say "At least four members of the officers' meet-and-confer team also have names attatched to comments...The city and its attorneys aren't likely to forget that when negotiations resume in the fall, and the ramifications go beyond that-the City Council could decide not to negotiate." Leave aside whether this effectively outs the meet-and-confer team, on what basis does the S-T allege the Council even can, let alone is likely to, refuse to negotiate? What part of meet and confer statute allows the city to unilaterally refuse to talk to the officers' duly elected representatives on the grounds of "we don't like what you said last spring"?
It appears Davis did handle this poorly, but, so long as The Standard-Times is "outing" posters, why not supporters of other candidates? I am unaware of any screen name directly tied to any other candidate specifically, but I have been keeping up with this race, and have probably read most of them. I can tell you this; advocates for, if not the actual candidates have played the "I know who you are" game and some made comments rude enough to rate removal. While I do not endorse, just to be honest, in the heat of this I had a first-time removal; after a poster wished I had been aborted, I responded with someting rude enough to get (justifiably) removed.
Critical to understanding this issue, for those not using the online forum, is the meaning of "user profile" the actual information revealed. When a poster registers, the one verifiable field is the e-mail address. Should one care to, one can fill in name as Mickey Mouse, address Disneyworld. At least one poster was revealed to be using three screen names, different e-mail links for each. The information that was revealed consisted of these self-proclaimed user profiles. Some people gave aliases there as a second layer of identity protection, in retrospect, not unreasonably. Those immediately revealed were those who were most trusting in the privacy agreement and didn't bother to lie, or the few, such as myself, who didn't care. I went with "barkeep" because I have used it for many years on many other forums, not for concealment.
I have sworn to protect confidential statements, not necessarily to believe everything I am told, but if I tell someone I will not say where this came from, I won't. People from different camps talk to me, and I stress here, candidate advocates, no candidate personally does. I have not and will not endorse a candidate, and I try to weigh the bias of sources who talk to me. That clear, there is a huge misunderstanding about this breach of the privacy agreement. I hear from different sides "so&so outed me, everybody knows so&so is a mouthpiece for Candidate X".
Please people, the party responsible for revealing user profiles, to the extent they are true names, that party is the Standard-Times. This person or that may have taken advantage of that information in ways I would find ethically questionable, but they could never have done so had the Standard-Times not made the information available in contravention of an explicitly stated privacy agreement.
That said we move to the handling of this breach by the Standard-Times. I think in legalistic terms, my Blog partner Mr. Turner thinks in computer geek terms, I came up with "negligent", he prefers "incompetence". I only diferrentiate because negligent has legal implications in tort law that incompetent doesn't necessarily encompass.
The explanation offered in today's Standard-Times article states this was, "not a hack into the Standard-Times' site by supporters of a certain candidate, as conspiracy-minded commenters have suggested". I may have missed a comment here or there, but no one I've talked to thought this was an outside hack. By accident or no, there are people who find it remarkably coincidental that this "open door" was coincidentally tripped over by people willing to take advantage of it. I won't say that didn't happen, but I'm a fairly successful gambler and I didn't get there drawing to inside straights.
The genesis of this information leak had to be in-house, and today's article says as much. To be perfectly clear, I do not mean, necessarily, in house as to the confines of the Standard-Times Harris St. building, but corporate in-house. After that, the explanation gets thin real quick. The mistake is attributed to "new employees in Knoxville" who were in a weekly process which "reset privacy controls for newspapers across the chain, not realizing the Standard-Times wanted to keep profile data away from the public". Excuse me, but which Scripps Howard newspapers DO intend to make user profile information public? Last time I looked in on the Abilene Reporter News, they didn't. Did they last Thursday? Scripps Howard has, I believe, 19 newspapers, not all have online comments, but those which do, have identical privacy agreements.
Why did the Standard-Times wait 10 days after they say their people were advised of this breach to make a public statement alerting users it had happened? If the reader is unfamiliar with the online edition and the comments section, it has been an open free-for-all with commenters from every side calling out their opposition advocates since WhiteHorseman ID'd 9 posters April 29th. Don't bother to look for WhiteHorseman's original posts that evening, they have vanished. In fine point of fact, their reporter inquired of me had I happened to print out those comments, he could not access them. As it happens, I had, I may have the only existing copy of those comments as they originally appeared. Don't even ask which rock that is buried under.
The article states that their online director Betty Brackin "is working individually with those wishing to reclaim their anonymity". Maybe so, but even that help is limited to those posters who are already aware they were outed and ask for help. For all anyone knows, posters on say the teacher evaluation subject may not have checked in lately, may have been utterly unaware that their personal information and comment history is open to any inquiring mind who knew about this "window of opportunity". This should have been as public as an automobile safety recall. In truth, I have been too patient. The Standard-Times article Sunday says they were aware of this Friday, April 25. Give some allowance for getting the full story, the Standard-Times should have had an alert in print sometime that weekend, before I sent them my heads-up letter.
That aside, how well has their remedy worked? One case I have tripped over, a poster did ask Ms. Brackin for help. Sho' nuff, poster X was given a new screen name, and the old posts were removed. Unfortunately, when I went back to posts put up a week before the leak, I see this: The post by X in support of candidate Y was removed; two responses to that post are still there, only now they read "response to (new screen name X)" then in the body of the text response, the old screen name is used. In short, this poster has been retroactively "outed" a second time, backdated to a week before the original leak happened!
Make no mistake; I appreciate the Standard-Times, in this case I have often complimented the reporter who wrote the story I have objections to. I enjoy the online trading of opinion. In this case, the story, the revelation of identity, the remedy for it and the explanation of it has been poorly done. It cannot escape attention that in the same edition where the paper's endorsement of incumbent Chief Vasquez includes this: "the incident eventually led to a Texas Ranger investigation after Vasquez disclosed to the Standard-Times that the woman was an informant for SAPD Sgt. Jeff Davis. Revealing such information is a felony...", the Standard-Times compounds its own violation of confidentiality by disclosing the identity of Vasquez' most threatening opponent to print edition readers who may have been completely unaware of this tempest. I have my own copy of the "AP Stylebook" 2007 edition and its guidelines to confidential sources. If ya'll need one Hastings has them in stock. I gave you the Palmer file for free, this you can buy.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
NAACP Chiefs Forum Last Questions Part 2
Answers to the second and last group of questions at the NAACP forum, March 1st. This is split into two videos to meet time and size restrictions.
This second clip contains answers from candidates Cunningham, Burkett, and Vasquez.
This second clip contains answers from candidates Cunningham, Burkett, and Vasquez.
NAACP Chiefs Forum Last Questions Part 1
Answers to the second and last group of questions at the NAACP forum, March 1st. This is split into two videos to meet time and size restrictions.
This first clip contains answers from candidates Kading, Davis, and Mida.
This first clip contains answers from candidates Kading, Davis, and Mida.
NAACP Chiefs Forum First Questions part 2
Answers to the first group of questions at the NAACP Chief Candidates Forum, March 1st. This is split into two videos to meet time and size restrictions.
This second clip contains answers from candidates Davis, Cunningham and Burkett.
This second clip contains answers from candidates Davis, Cunningham and Burkett.
NAACP Chiefs Forum First Questions part 1
Answers to the first group of questions at the NAACP Chief Candidates Forum, March 1st. This is split into two videos to meet time and size restrictions.
This first clip contains answers from candidates Vasquez, Mida, and Kading.
This first clip contains answers from candidates Vasquez, Mida, and Kading.
NAACP Chiefs Forum Introduction
We have been furnished a DVD taken at the NAACP chiefs candidate forum held last saturday, March 1st. This is the candidates introductory remarks. Answers to questions will follow soon.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Chief Candidates Forum
We now have the videos of the candidates presentations up on our BLOG. These are from the February 26th, 2008 forum at the River Terrace. Each candidate has a separate post, and each video is about 5 minutes long.
If you have a problem watching these videos, we will be making a DVD available this weekend as well. Leave a comment or contact me if you need one.
This is a first for San Angelo.
If you have a problem watching these videos, we will be making a DVD available this weekend as well. Leave a comment or contact me if you need one.
This is a first for San Angelo.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Candidate Bruce Burkett Presentation
Candidate Bruce Burkett's presentation at the Feb 26th Forum.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Candidate Ed Cunningham Presentation
Candidate Ed Cunningham's Presentation at the Feb 26th Forum.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Candidate Jeff Davis Presentation
Candidate Jeff Davis' presentation at the Feb 26th Forum.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Candidate Ed Kading Presentation
Candidate Ed Kading's Presentation at the Feb 26th Forum.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Candidate Steve Mida Presentation
Candidate Steve Mida's presentation at the Feb 26th Forum.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Candidate Tim Vasquez Presentation
Candidate Tim Vasquez's presentation at the Feb 26th Forum.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Be sure to check out all the candidates presentations. They will be up soon.
Produced and Copyright by ConchoInfo and MDR under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Rangers reports: Updated twice
The reports by Texas Ranger Shawn Palmer are available and they are interesting reading. There are 691 pages in the file we have just received. This contains a request letter and three reports. I have made these scanned reports searchable and more compact. Right now report 1 and report 2 are ready and online. Report 3, the largest, is split into 4 parts of about 200 pages each. They available as part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4. There may be some errors in the searchable text, but the information displayed should be accurate. We have done a lot of checking but some errors may have crept in. Let us know if you find any errors so we can get them corrected.
These reports show the amount of detail required for an investigation. They also contain important information that hasn't been available previously. We are still studying these reports and will have analysis and comments later. I do want to say that my initial reaction is one of disappointment and we will leave it at that.
Update 2. The Standard Times now has these reports online here. They have more bandwidth so they should be more readily available, if not as easily searchable.
These reports show the amount of detail required for an investigation. They also contain important information that hasn't been available previously. We are still studying these reports and will have analysis and comments later. I do want to say that my initial reaction is one of disappointment and we will leave it at that.
Update 2. The Standard Times now has these reports online here. They have more bandwidth so they should be more readily available, if not as easily searchable.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Chief Comparisons
A comment was made on gosanangelo.com that deserves much further explanation: "(When it comes to appointing the police chief) "Hiring" a President to lead the military, would amount to the same thing." Sounds good, but the comparison is seriously flawed.
The Presidents powers as commander in chief are spelled out in Article II, section 2 of the Constitution. There he is given control over all military branches, including the militias when called into the actual Service of the United States. He also makes treaties and agreements, receives and appoints ambassadors, and appoints most other federal officers and judges with the advice and consent of the Congress. In Article I he is given the power and duty to approve laws, including the budget passed by congress (with the exception of those laws where his veto is overridden.) He is given the power and duty to enforce those laws.
At the city level, equivalent powers are distributed between the Mayor, City Manager, and City Council. The Mayor is in charge of all public safety services, including law enforcement, in an emergency because he is by ordinance and state law the Emergency Management Director. The City Manager, by city charter and state law, shall see that the laws and ordinances of the city are enforced. The city manager develops the budget, which is then approved by the City Council, including the Mayor. The number of city employees, including police officers, is set and approved by the City Council. All agreements with other government entities are approved by the city council and signed by the Mayor or City Manager as appropriate. All contracts are subject to council approval. The police chief can't negotiate or sign a contract without prior council approval for that specific contract.
The Police Chief is really closer to the Chief of Staff of the Army. He controls the largest, but not the only, law enforcement organization the city has. He has little say on the laws he must enforce. He has no control over how much money his department gets. He doesn't control the number of officer positions available. He doesn't set the pay rate for his officers, that is done by the city council. He doesn't set the promotion requirements, that is done by the civil service commission. The only positions he can promote to are the assistant chiefs positions. If he fires or suspends an officer, that can be overridden by the civil service commission. He is in very much the same position as an Army General who is given a command and told to go carry out the mission that the President directs him to.
With the Police Chief having only daily operational control over a part of the overall law enforcement or public safety resources of the city, it is hard to see his job as being in any way comparable to the Presidents. There have been countries that have tried electing their generals in the past, but they have all abandoned that as a bad idea. If you are looking for the local equivalent to the President, that would the Mayor.
The Presidents powers as commander in chief are spelled out in Article II, section 2 of the Constitution. There he is given control over all military branches, including the militias when called into the actual Service of the United States. He also makes treaties and agreements, receives and appoints ambassadors, and appoints most other federal officers and judges with the advice and consent of the Congress. In Article I he is given the power and duty to approve laws, including the budget passed by congress (with the exception of those laws where his veto is overridden.) He is given the power and duty to enforce those laws.
At the city level, equivalent powers are distributed between the Mayor, City Manager, and City Council. The Mayor is in charge of all public safety services, including law enforcement, in an emergency because he is by ordinance and state law the Emergency Management Director. The City Manager, by city charter and state law, shall see that the laws and ordinances of the city are enforced. The city manager develops the budget, which is then approved by the City Council, including the Mayor. The number of city employees, including police officers, is set and approved by the City Council. All agreements with other government entities are approved by the city council and signed by the Mayor or City Manager as appropriate. All contracts are subject to council approval. The police chief can't negotiate or sign a contract without prior council approval for that specific contract.
The Police Chief is really closer to the Chief of Staff of the Army. He controls the largest, but not the only, law enforcement organization the city has. He has little say on the laws he must enforce. He has no control over how much money his department gets. He doesn't control the number of officer positions available. He doesn't set the pay rate for his officers, that is done by the city council. He doesn't set the promotion requirements, that is done by the civil service commission. The only positions he can promote to are the assistant chiefs positions. If he fires or suspends an officer, that can be overridden by the civil service commission. He is in very much the same position as an Army General who is given a command and told to go carry out the mission that the President directs him to.
With the Police Chief having only daily operational control over a part of the overall law enforcement or public safety resources of the city, it is hard to see his job as being in any way comparable to the Presidents. There have been countries that have tried electing their generals in the past, but they have all abandoned that as a bad idea. If you are looking for the local equivalent to the President, that would the Mayor.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Chief Debate
KIDY is graciously hosting a debate on charter amendments, with emphasis on the elected vs. appointed chief, proposition 26. They are asking for questions on their website so if you have a question, please submit it to the station. The debate will air on Oct. 27th.
Kudos to FOX for this civic service.
Kudos to FOX for this civic service.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Easy? I don't recall
There are few things more misunderstood in the discussion on the upcoming appointed chief ballot measure than the procedure for recalling an elected official. I keep hearing that it's easier to do a recall election that it is to get an appointed chief fired. Most people don't understand or severely underestimate the effort and expense involved in a recall. It is a very high bar.
First off according to the city charter there are 60 days to collect the names, addresses, and voter registration numbers of at least 30% of the number of registered voters that voted in the last chiefs elections. Roughly 9,500 people voted in the May 2004 chiefs election. That means you have to collect at least 2850 valid signatures with addresses and voter registration number. Figure there will be some spoiled petitions, ineligible voters, etc., and the effort must collect 3000 signatures to be on the safe side. I have researched the results of many petition drives, and the cost has been from a low of about $10 per signature up to almost $100. Let's assume that we are very lucky and can do it for the $10 figure. We are talking $30,000 to get enough valid, verified signatures with addresses and voter registration information.
After they are collected, the city clerk (who does the duties of city secretary) has 30 days to certify the petitions. The official (the chief in this case) would then be notified, at which time he has 15 days to decide whether or not to resign. If he choses not to resign, then an election is scheduled by the city council not sooner then 30 days later. The city charter says that the election should be scheduled no more than 90 days from that date, but election code throws a monkey wrench into that because according to Section 41.001 of the election code, an election must be held on one of two uniform election dates. There is an exception for emergencies but an emergency election must be approved by the governor. That means that if every thing goes right it will probably take 135 days to hold the recall election. If not, it could take almost a year until you could vote the rascal out of office.
First off according to the city charter there are 60 days to collect the names, addresses, and voter registration numbers of at least 30% of the number of registered voters that voted in the last chiefs elections. Roughly 9,500 people voted in the May 2004 chiefs election. That means you have to collect at least 2850 valid signatures with addresses and voter registration number. Figure there will be some spoiled petitions, ineligible voters, etc., and the effort must collect 3000 signatures to be on the safe side. I have researched the results of many petition drives, and the cost has been from a low of about $10 per signature up to almost $100. Let's assume that we are very lucky and can do it for the $10 figure. We are talking $30,000 to get enough valid, verified signatures with addresses and voter registration information.
After they are collected, the city clerk (who does the duties of city secretary) has 30 days to certify the petitions. The official (the chief in this case) would then be notified, at which time he has 15 days to decide whether or not to resign. If he choses not to resign, then an election is scheduled by the city council not sooner then 30 days later. The city charter says that the election should be scheduled no more than 90 days from that date, but election code throws a monkey wrench into that because according to Section 41.001 of the election code, an election must be held on one of two uniform election dates. There is an exception for emergencies but an emergency election must be approved by the governor. That means that if every thing goes right it will probably take 135 days to hold the recall election. If not, it could take almost a year until you could vote the rascal out of office.
Then there is the expense of campaigning and getting the people out to vote. The election itself will cost the city significant money. If it's a close election, there will be a recount. After close to a year, after thousands of dollars in expense, you finally might get the rascal kicked out of office.
Some how that doesn't meet my definition of easy.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Free-association Sunday Ramble
My usual free-association Sunday Ramble. One thing about focusing on local items, it allows some distance from Party politics. I found myself today on the S-T site saying for the third time in a month, "a plague on both your houses" this time in reference to the SCHIP veto. Not to get too far from the local focus, basically the Democrats are deliberately asking for more than they can get, Republicans are scurrying for cover, everybody's attention is on re-election, and in the end, it is so much blatherskite and havers, by adjournment Congress will have passed, and Bush will sign, a bill insuring more children than are now covered. We pay them money for this.
SAISD is starting to appear to be genuinely concerned about a new bond measure. Workshop this Monday, but real action the next meeting. Good timing, this Monday WILL find me in front of a TV hoping Da'boys R back. New England won Sunday, but pushed on the point spread, next week, Cowboys /Patriots in big D. If Dallas can avoid looking past a badly hurt Buffalo (third string QB starting) Monday night, next week is THE gameadaweek in the NFL. If you accidentally find an end-zone ticket to that game, you can probably make the next few mortgage payments on E-Bay. Next Monday I will be at SAISD offering my usual free advice.
The Police Chief Charter Amendment is the big item on Charter amendments Nov. 6, 'nuff said there, but let us not forget the other 28 measures. Twenty-some are purely housekeeping. They will change nothing in how the city does business, we are cleaning up language, bringing Charter into compliance with state law, doing away with bodies that no longer exist, that sort of thing.
There are important issues out there aside from the Chief measure. My personal top-of-the- chart is #25, which imposes on the budget process a capital improvements presentation. Previous City Councils have ignored pipes and potholes and left us with a crumbling infrastructure. These problems obviously pre-date the tenure of anyone now serving on Council, but the steaming pile is in their laps. This year, Council and City Manager Harold Dominguez put capital improvements at the top of the budget process. Prop 25 will force any future Manager and Council to look at capital improvements first. It does not mean a future Council has to ratify whatever a future Manager gives them as a CIP report, but if we pass #25, it will mean that in the future, we will always have a five year plan for infratructure and Council will not be able to hide behind "Gee, nobody told us". If you missed the "Voices" radio program on this topic Sunday, it can be accessed on the gosanangelo website. Earned your money on that one Harold.
Prop 16 is designed to let us quit being West Texas' Police Academy. Abilene, Lubbock, Midland/Odessa, etc. have shamelessly recruited our officers. Lubbock has a portable sign on south Bell, the Border patrol has a billboard just east of Bell St. and they all go internet. I am told some cities send personal e-mails to our officers trying to recruit them. We spend the training money, they offer a little more pay, our officer jumps and takes the raise. Can't blame him, he's trying to make a living. Prop 16 allows us to make a contract with officers saying "OK, we're going to pay for some valuable schooling, BUT in return, you are going to promise you will stay with for X years or repay the cost if you leave early". Governments and industry do this all the time for sound financial reasons. It doesn't mean Officer Friendly is a "wage-slave" it just says, if you take our freebie to Abilene, you, Abilene, somebody is going to repay the Angelo taxpayer for your college credits. The major problem is in the Police Dept., but this Proposition would include firemen, water treatment plant, any employee whose continuing education is taxpayer funded.
Prop 5, increasing pay for Council/Mayor. The existing compensation, roughly speaking, doodly-squat, is lost in the mists of time. It may have been addressed in 1947, may go back to 1915. Most of us have had a pay raise since then, Council members deserve one too. I argued for higher than Prop 5 allows on the grounds that realistic pay might allow a working man to run and serve without beggaring his family. What we have in Prop 5 might help on that and in the context of an $80 million budget it is revenue neutral. I know how much time these people put in, this is the right thing to do.
Prop 15 should not be controversial. It recognises we have started selling Nasworthy lots instead of leasing them, and allows the city to responsibly manage that Trust fund.
The most important thing to do Nov. 6, if you have not early-voted by then, is VOTE! This election has no Presidential, no Congresscritter, no officeholders at all. Historically, such elections run under 10% turnout and my main job as election judge is to bring a thick book to read. We can do better. You don't have to become a pain, but maybe nudge your co -worker's elbow, mention it to your neighbor, we have not done a Charter review to this extent in thirty years, may be that long doing another. It really matters, take a few minutes and vote.
Nearly forgot, happy Columbus Day. When I was in grade school we all heard the "Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Marie", and of course, Columbus discovered America. Then why aren't we Columbia? Turns out an Americus Vespucchio (optional spelling) never got around to leaving Italy, he was too busy drawing maps. If Columbus did not discover America, (and he never touched the mainland) which he obviously didn't since there were people onshore to greet him and his crew's diseases, where did the greeters come from? Was this "First Contact" a greater genocide than the holocaust or purely accidental ? Did the federal gov't establish Columbus Day to buy off politically crucial Italian immigrant voter blocs in the northeast? Does Minnesota have enough electoral votes to rate a "Lief Erickson Day"? Do I personally wish we could go back to the "Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Marie" without having to adjourn for a navel-lint introspective course in consciousness-raising?
Must be getting old and crotchety. Happy Columbus Day.
SAISD is starting to appear to be genuinely concerned about a new bond measure. Workshop this Monday, but real action the next meeting. Good timing, this Monday WILL find me in front of a TV hoping Da'boys R back. New England won Sunday, but pushed on the point spread, next week, Cowboys /Patriots in big D. If Dallas can avoid looking past a badly hurt Buffalo (third string QB starting) Monday night, next week is THE gameadaweek in the NFL. If you accidentally find an end-zone ticket to that game, you can probably make the next few mortgage payments on E-Bay. Next Monday I will be at SAISD offering my usual free advice.
The Police Chief Charter Amendment is the big item on Charter amendments Nov. 6, 'nuff said there, but let us not forget the other 28 measures. Twenty-some are purely housekeeping. They will change nothing in how the city does business, we are cleaning up language, bringing Charter into compliance with state law, doing away with bodies that no longer exist, that sort of thing.
There are important issues out there aside from the Chief measure. My personal top-of-the- chart is #25, which imposes on the budget process a capital improvements presentation. Previous City Councils have ignored pipes and potholes and left us with a crumbling infrastructure. These problems obviously pre-date the tenure of anyone now serving on Council, but the steaming pile is in their laps. This year, Council and City Manager Harold Dominguez put capital improvements at the top of the budget process. Prop 25 will force any future Manager and Council to look at capital improvements first. It does not mean a future Council has to ratify whatever a future Manager gives them as a CIP report, but if we pass #25, it will mean that in the future, we will always have a five year plan for infratructure and Council will not be able to hide behind "Gee, nobody told us". If you missed the "Voices" radio program on this topic Sunday, it can be accessed on the gosanangelo website. Earned your money on that one Harold.
Prop 16 is designed to let us quit being West Texas' Police Academy. Abilene, Lubbock, Midland/Odessa, etc. have shamelessly recruited our officers. Lubbock has a portable sign on south Bell, the Border patrol has a billboard just east of Bell St. and they all go internet. I am told some cities send personal e-mails to our officers trying to recruit them. We spend the training money, they offer a little more pay, our officer jumps and takes the raise. Can't blame him, he's trying to make a living. Prop 16 allows us to make a contract with officers saying "OK, we're going to pay for some valuable schooling, BUT in return, you are going to promise you will stay with for X years or repay the cost if you leave early". Governments and industry do this all the time for sound financial reasons. It doesn't mean Officer Friendly is a "wage-slave" it just says, if you take our freebie to Abilene, you, Abilene, somebody is going to repay the Angelo taxpayer for your college credits. The major problem is in the Police Dept., but this Proposition would include firemen, water treatment plant, any employee whose continuing education is taxpayer funded.
Prop 5, increasing pay for Council/Mayor. The existing compensation, roughly speaking, doodly-squat, is lost in the mists of time. It may have been addressed in 1947, may go back to 1915. Most of us have had a pay raise since then, Council members deserve one too. I argued for higher than Prop 5 allows on the grounds that realistic pay might allow a working man to run and serve without beggaring his family. What we have in Prop 5 might help on that and in the context of an $80 million budget it is revenue neutral. I know how much time these people put in, this is the right thing to do.
Prop 15 should not be controversial. It recognises we have started selling Nasworthy lots instead of leasing them, and allows the city to responsibly manage that Trust fund.
The most important thing to do Nov. 6, if you have not early-voted by then, is VOTE! This election has no Presidential, no Congresscritter, no officeholders at all. Historically, such elections run under 10% turnout and my main job as election judge is to bring a thick book to read. We can do better. You don't have to become a pain, but maybe nudge your co -worker's elbow, mention it to your neighbor, we have not done a Charter review to this extent in thirty years, may be that long doing another. It really matters, take a few minutes and vote.
Nearly forgot, happy Columbus Day. When I was in grade school we all heard the "Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Marie", and of course, Columbus discovered America. Then why aren't we Columbia? Turns out an Americus Vespucchio (optional spelling) never got around to leaving Italy, he was too busy drawing maps. If Columbus did not discover America, (and he never touched the mainland) which he obviously didn't since there were people onshore to greet him and his crew's diseases, where did the greeters come from? Was this "First Contact" a greater genocide than the holocaust or purely accidental ? Did the federal gov't establish Columbus Day to buy off politically crucial Italian immigrant voter blocs in the northeast? Does Minnesota have enough electoral votes to rate a "Lief Erickson Day"? Do I personally wish we could go back to the "Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Marie" without having to adjourn for a navel-lint introspective course in consciousness-raising?
Must be getting old and crotchety. Happy Columbus Day.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Chief misconceptions
I decided to wait on the debate Monday night sponsored by the Tom Green Democrat Club as to the elected/appointed Police Chief. Glad I did. A few minor hitches. Councilman Dwain Morrison was unable to be there, and Floyd Crider attempted to work from Dwain's notes as well he could. I point this out in case there was a slip up in communication in that process, otherwise, we have a crucial misapprehension by one of the appointed Chiefs' more prominent opponents.
One reason I was able to support this version, after going against it last time. we have clarified the appointment process, or we thought we had. The appointment itself is made by the city manager, then ratified by the City Council. Should it become necessary to remove a Chief, that is done by the City Manager on his sole authority.
If Mr. Crider's reading of the notes was accurate, Mr. Morrison seemed to believe a Chief could be removed anytime four Council members disliked him.
I suppose the case could be made, but it is a heck of a stretch. Yes, a bloc of four Council members can remove the manager, so in theory they could either threaten to exercize that authority to bend a manager to their will, or in the extremity, actually fire and replace the manager to get to the Police Chief. In practice such a move is nearly always a public relations disaster. Those of us who are old enough to recall the Nixon years can remember how well it worked for him as Nixon went through two Attorneys General in a weekend before a third finally fired Archie Cox.
I mentioned our meeting with WTOS. I do not intend to characterize their postion as a group, so I stress, these were questions from individual members. One set of questions went to the the possible process of removal/replacement under the current elected system. Well, in between four year elections, there isn't much. The recall mechanism was mentioned, but as a political reality, it is virtually undoable. A recall election would need over 5,000 valid signatures just to be scheduled and the group capable of mobilising that effort in San Angelo is non-existent.
A point that came up, what if the police dept. has become so factionalized that we might want to bring in a Chief from outside San Angelo, a qualified candidate with no ties to any group or internal candidate? Under the elected Chief system, that is not an option. While the qualifications for an elected Chief don't even mention a law enforcement background, a candidate has to be a two year resident of the city. On that, under the appointed Chief, by state law, we could hire a Chief from anywhere, but a candidate must have five years experience minimum, with at least an Intermediate Master Officer's certification.
I add, on this last, I would like it if we could "promote from within" when possible, having a new Chief familiar with the city. That would require stability in the Dept. and a process aimed at training a few promising candidates who show leadership potential. We have neither. The "house divided against itself" has been mentioned too often, by too many to be a fantasy. Under the elected system, what encouragement does any Chief have to train up a potential electoral opponent?
I think it is time to tackle this problem. The timing suits. If approved by the voters, the appointment process would take effect at the end of this term in May. We have, aside from the usually divisive election, a felony investigation of Chief Vasquez underway. However that investigation turns out, it points up a huge defect in the elected method.
I know of and understand the reluctance of many voters to yield direct elective say on any office, but in this case, I believe it's time to do so for good reason. Too few voters know the "rest of the story" well enough to make the best decision on this crucial office.
One reason I was able to support this version, after going against it last time. we have clarified the appointment process, or we thought we had. The appointment itself is made by the city manager, then ratified by the City Council. Should it become necessary to remove a Chief, that is done by the City Manager on his sole authority.
If Mr. Crider's reading of the notes was accurate, Mr. Morrison seemed to believe a Chief could be removed anytime four Council members disliked him.
I suppose the case could be made, but it is a heck of a stretch. Yes, a bloc of four Council members can remove the manager, so in theory they could either threaten to exercize that authority to bend a manager to their will, or in the extremity, actually fire and replace the manager to get to the Police Chief. In practice such a move is nearly always a public relations disaster. Those of us who are old enough to recall the Nixon years can remember how well it worked for him as Nixon went through two Attorneys General in a weekend before a third finally fired Archie Cox.
I mentioned our meeting with WTOS. I do not intend to characterize their postion as a group, so I stress, these were questions from individual members. One set of questions went to the the possible process of removal/replacement under the current elected system. Well, in between four year elections, there isn't much. The recall mechanism was mentioned, but as a political reality, it is virtually undoable. A recall election would need over 5,000 valid signatures just to be scheduled and the group capable of mobilising that effort in San Angelo is non-existent.
A point that came up, what if the police dept. has become so factionalized that we might want to bring in a Chief from outside San Angelo, a qualified candidate with no ties to any group or internal candidate? Under the elected Chief system, that is not an option. While the qualifications for an elected Chief don't even mention a law enforcement background, a candidate has to be a two year resident of the city. On that, under the appointed Chief, by state law, we could hire a Chief from anywhere, but a candidate must have five years experience minimum, with at least an Intermediate Master Officer's certification.
I add, on this last, I would like it if we could "promote from within" when possible, having a new Chief familiar with the city. That would require stability in the Dept. and a process aimed at training a few promising candidates who show leadership potential. We have neither. The "house divided against itself" has been mentioned too often, by too many to be a fantasy. Under the elected system, what encouragement does any Chief have to train up a potential electoral opponent?
I think it is time to tackle this problem. The timing suits. If approved by the voters, the appointment process would take effect at the end of this term in May. We have, aside from the usually divisive election, a felony investigation of Chief Vasquez underway. However that investigation turns out, it points up a huge defect in the elected method.
I know of and understand the reluctance of many voters to yield direct elective say on any office, but in this case, I believe it's time to do so for good reason. Too few voters know the "rest of the story" well enough to make the best decision on this crucial office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)