Friends and Media Contacts,

Copied below and attached is the last of ten columns that I have written
on the anti-crime policies of Oakland mayoral candidates. I hope that you
find it of value. Please forward it to anyone that you think might be
interested.

Can a mayor stop crime?

Dan Siegel

Campaigns are viewed, unfortunately, as “horse races.” The candidates are the horses and at various points in the election their racing capacity is compared, almost always in snap-shot slices. Financial resources are compared, as is the hiring of “successful” trainers and managers; compared next is the candidate’s volunteer resources. Often the “surprise” is some communications technology better used by one-side to reach a VOTING audience. The race is “called” prior to balloting by the exposure of a snap-shot popularity poll. Last and most importantly the candidate’s ability to “turnout” his/her vote is measured. Much too infrequently are candidates’ leadership skills, knowledge of the workings of the City, depth of commitment to the betterment of Oakland, or even a measurement of the thoroughness of their policy formulations adequately tested and compared.

This series has been a meager attempt to compare the candidates’ positions on crime policy only. There are many other very important policy issues. But note that there is just one population-body that is affected; thereby policy concerns are rarely independent from each other. One change and the whole community is jostled. To reasonably apportion your votes in our rank choice voting system, considering candidates’ capabilities in all areas of concern and in the mix is crucial. The explication of other concerns is work I leave unspoken. Therefore, I do not recommend that anyone make their mayoral vote selections totally from what I have written here in this series.

I will close out this series with an assessment of Dan Siegel’s crime policy.

Even more than Joe Tuman, Dan Siegel has presented a complete crime policy plan. Dan’s plan is a counter to Tuman’s plan; both in terms of its breadth with a multiplicity of municipal functions it offers corrections for and in terms of the relevancy of the correction plans to hot issues currently drawing attention from City leadership. He says enough about the Oakland Police Department to convince me that he has knowledge of what is going on in the criminal justice system, including with cops. He is a trained, practicing civil-rights attorney. He is an “insider” who represents “outsiders.” He is an intellectual warrior, for hire. He works for the side where money has to be “raised” not only to pay his fee but also to pay his costs. Or at least he started out that way. Please hold on to that for a moment.

Siegel is also the closest to fulfilling the community policing approach that I laid out in last week’s column. That is not surprising since Dan was also a member of the Oakland Community Policing Taskforce that crafted the language of the community policing ordinance (Council Resolutions 72727) in 1993. That year he was quoted in the Chronicle speaking of former Chief Joe Samuels who was being hired at the time. The quote was as follows: “’it has taken some time to work up to that, but I think that now he has gotten the [community policing] religion,’ said Dan Siegel, vice chair of Oakland’s community policing advisory committee.”

Joe Samuels was a Police Chief beloved in the African American community. He was the Chief most likely to fully implement community policing and heal the negative dynamics between the Department and the black community. Despite the resistance from the officers’ union and the negative influences on the local implementation of community policing caused by the Federal Justice Department’s COPS grants, Chief Samuels is the reason that Oakland got as far as we have fulfilling the dictates of the legislation. Mayor Brown fired Samuels shortly after his election in fulfillment of his stated pledge to fracture black influence in Oakland’s politics. Although Dan does not spell out the Community Policing details in his policy paper, he says enough so that we know he still has “the religion.”

Dan’s anti-crime policy paper also speaks of the importance of jobs for Oakland residents, early childhood education programs, full completion of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement, full support for restorative justice programs, civilianization of the Department by getting officers out of the building and on to the streets, neighborhood cleanup, bringing the evidence-crime-lab “up to snuff,” and a zero tolerance of the Department’s abuse of people’s rights. He does NOT call for the hiring of more officers and, therefore, does not need to justify the leveraging of more tax dollars. He hints at a less political and more rational use of crime statistics. The Oakland Moving Forward/Dellums’ Community Taskforce Report – which Quan has almost completely ignored – would be fulfilled by the Siegel plan.

Dan is not perfect; no candidate is. When “turned around” his assets can become deficits. His long engagement in Oakland politics means a depth of experience and understanding but it also means scars from past struggles and a gaggle of old enemies. He could be painted so far into the progressive/left camp that too many people would not hear him or deal with him honestly. The Officers’ union could severely frustrate positive changes. Siegel, briefly a member of the S.F. City Attorney’s Office, will get no credit from OPOA for successfully defending the San Francisco cops who raided Lord Jim’s bar in 1984 brandishing guns and holding patrons hostage for 1 ½ hours. His past left-leanings and actions are enough for some people to oppose him no matter what he says or does.

And he has historical problems among some progressives and others. While on the school board, Siegel (and Quan) helped bring armed police into the Oakland schools campuses; later, in January 2011, one of the armed police killed Raheim Brown while he was sitting in his car outside a school dance. He twice sought a Temporary Restraining Order calling-out police to evict “occupiers” from the KPFA administrative offices this year; this seems inconsistent with his earlier break with Mayor Quan for police actions against the occupiers of City Hall Plaza. There are reports of tirades during some of the Pacifica Radio struggles. These are incidents and decisions that will repeatedly rebound negatively on Dan.

Siegel has the best plan. Siegel has the experience and knowledge to carry it out. He has the ability and the passion to lead. He is our best chance for the kind of change we need to turn our approach to crime around.

The question is…as mayor would Dan Siegel be able to carry through of his plans against the knee-jerk opposition of some on the right and the grudge-filled cat-calls of some on the left. Above I referred to Dan as an intellectual warrior. Warriors have this tendency to strap on their armor – losing sensitivity to their environment -, focusing on a limited goal – losing the peripheral vision needed to see noncombatants on the field -, and demonizing the target – losing much sense of the humanity or the kernels of truth in the stance of the opposition. “Winning” becomes the only acceptable outcome. We will not end warrior behavior among our police by putting a typical warrior in place to lead them or oppose them.