|
minutes 10-13-99Page 30 of 31
<br />take back to their respective departments? My personal view, is that I pretty much tend to agree with the
<br />Police Department in regard to their response to the recommendations from the Police Commission, so
<br />you can pass that on from me, individual member, that I tend to pretty much support the comments of
<br />the Police Department in regard to the suggestions made by the Police Commission, and some of these
<br />larger issues, I think we all need to take the information we’ve received tonight, the public testimony,
<br />and think about it, and really put a lot more thought into some of those substantive issues, but in terms of
<br />the recommendations from the Police Commission, and the response by the department, does anybody
<br />else have anything to add to these folks, because we’re not deciding anything tonight. We’re just getting
<br />input, and I appreciate your being here, and we’ve gotten a lot more input and a lot more things on the
<br />table tonight, and we need to get Corporation Counsel involved in this discussion, as part of all this, so
<br />we’ll make sure we do that before we pull all this together. Marni.
<br />HERKES: I would agree with you because of the legislative issues, and because of some of them, and
<br />we really, actively solicited input from the Police Commission, so we appreciate that we got some, and
<br />from the Police Department. This has not been easy to get out of you guys, so it’s been great to actively
<br />get some, and maybe it was because we so actively solicited department. But what comes out of both of
<br />these testimonies, to me, is that you guys are not talking to each other. You’re not communicating well,
<br />and I think that might be something that you both can work on because there’s a real antagonism in both
<br />of these statements, and so I think it would be great if the communication would really be worked on
<br />between the Commission and the department. Because it would help all of us to have it functioning
<br />better. Thank you.
<br />RAY: John.
<br />SANTANGELO: I agree with both of you. I disagree a little bit. If there’s anything, in my experience,
<br />I’ve seen abused, because I know of a couple of instances in the past, it’s been Commissioners on the
<br />Police Commission interfering with the police, and there’s a couple of classic examples. We could go
<br />back just a few years.
<br />HERKES: I don’t think we should, though.
<br />SANTANGELO: No, we won’t. So I think, probably only surpassed by Council members who like to
<br />micro manage. And when you have a Police Department with the mission that they have to carry out, I
<br />think there is an importance and a brotherhood that goes with that, and certainly, I understand why you
<br />may not, but I do weigh in, with this particular document, with the police. But we’ve got our work cut
<br />out and I think we have a pretty good sense of where we may go with this, and I think both would be
<br />best served by it. And I appreciate the input, and like you say, it’s not the messenger that you get, it’s the
<br />message you’re looking for, so I thank you both, but I agree with the Chairman.
<br />RAY: Any more comments?
<br />MAHUNA: One more comment.
<br />RAY: Sure. Larry.
<br />MAHUNA: The Commission and their suggested changes. I think it’s healthy that they have a
<br />divergence of opinion from us because if we, as a Police Department, and we talked about it, and we had
<br />the same feelings and the same proposals to Amendments and stuff like that, I think that that’s not
<br />healthy. I think it’s healthy to have opposing views. If the Police Commission feels that they should
<br />have certain things and we disagree, that’s healthy. That’s good government. I think if we come back
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 10-13-99.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|