FROM: HENRY HARRY
DATE: DECEMBER 6TH, 2005
SUBJECT: CONTINUING CONCERNS ABOUT THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
I am writing in response to the citizens growing concern regarding the Sheriff’s Department. I urge this Board to not rush to get the issue of oversight of the Sheriff’s Department off the Board’s plate.
As a local law enforcement officer, I see issues surrounding the Sheriff’s Department from a somewhat unique position. I have appeared before your Board several times and have submitted writings, all dealing with issues concerning the Sheriff’s Department.
In December of 2003 I appeared before your Board asking for assistance fighting the high crime rate and a traditionally high number of homicides in South Sacramento. At that time, I also spoke of a need for greater oversight of the Sheriff’s Department under a comprehensive plan. (see video at www.goharry.org/board121603.wmv)
In February of 2004 I submitted a letter to your Board requesting greater budgetary oversight and more citizen involvement in the Sheriff’s Department’s yearly budget process. Now, you may want to consider forming a commission to meet this need.
In June of 2004 I appeared before your Board and questioned the “questionable” 9-1-1 telephone fee/tax that the Sacramento Police Chief and Sacramento County Sheriff were pushing.
In August of 2005 I appeared before your Board again to plead for help dealing with the crime crisis and the high number of homicides still occurring in South Sacramento.
It should be clear to anyone paying attention that we need a trusted mechanism of accountability for the Sheriff’s Department, not just surrounding custody facilities. I have not concluded what shape that mechanism should take, but I know a lot of citizens want corrective reforms implemented.
The courts may justly resolve all of the alleged jail abuse cases shortly. My concerns go beyond alleged jail abuse.
I have reported to this Board several incidents of near rioting in 2003 in South Sacramento. In June of 2005 I attended a NAACP meeting where at least three African American residents told the Sacramento Police Chief, a Sheriff’s Department Chief Deputy and a Sacramento City Councilwoman that citizens in some neighborhoods were going to turn on patrol officers if disrespectful and unfair treatment did not stop.
The situation in Sacramento is boiling over and reveals a growing tension. On several fronts citizens feel squeezed; and they are pushing back. In your Boardroom on Tuesday, November 22ND, amongst many uniformed officers and many angry citizens we could feel the tension. In that Boardroom we saw a division of our people and their government; trust was lost, hope was low and anger was high.
At times like that I think terrorists don’t have to attack us. It appears to me that if we don’t address these issues and resolve them, we will rip ourselves apart.
We have time and we have options. Your Board can:
• Consult local criminal justice scholars. (which you reportedly have done).
• Invite experienced people from other cities to share there view point.
• Seek a Grand Jury review and request a special Grand Jury hearing that is open to public and has a specific report back date (see Penal Code sections 936, 936.5 and 936.7). A clear example of the Grand Jury’s helpfulness can be seen when the Grand Jury released a special report on the city of Elk Grove and addressed conflicts of interest complaints regarding their law enforcement contract with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department.
• Pass a resolution urging the Sheriff to meet with a diverse group of citizens (not politicians) to at least work toward a framework solution to these problems; this framework may lead to comprehensive reforms of the Sheriff’s Department which will affect all citizens in the county for the next decade.
• Appoint one of your members to preside over further public hearings to be held in the Board’s chambers.
• Allow the use of the Board chambers and facilities by citizens to continue further televised public debate on this issue (similar to the chambers use during candidate debates). The NAACP is still holding meetings to gather more community input on the alleged abuse and oversight issue. This Board could allow its chambers to be used by the NAACP for additional meetings so these vitally important issues can reach more of our citizens.
I strongly encourage the Board to use an option that keeps the debate and investigation open to the public. This pending option of government officials hiring a consultant to go behind closed doors and question other government officials gives me no sense of confidence in the process.
Lastly, at the November 22ND Board meeting Sheriff’s officials told the Board they were following all of the lawful recommendations noted on the U.S. Department of Justice’s web site (DOJ). I do not believe that was an accurate statement. One DOJ recommendation calls for the department to involve community leadership in ongoing discussion of community/police concerns and involve patrol officers and all other ranks in the discussion. I am sure sheriff’s department officials will say the Sheriff’s hand selected Community Advisory Board (CAB) serves this purpose. It clearly does not.
The Justice Department’s recommendation contemplates an exchange and discussion between legitimate community stakeholders. It is clear to anyone with common sense that the Sheriff’s Advisory Board is an extension of the Sheriff Department and therefore cannot engage in challenging and meaningful debate with its own master, the Sheriff.
Thank you.
Henry Harry