The Editor's Back Fence

Who’s in charge here anyway?

Someone just texted me what seems to be a copy of a mailer. It shows a picture of an unsightly makeshift tent with a superimposed title, “Berkeley CAN do Better””, plus a headshot of District 4 Councilmember Kate Harrison, captioned “Kate Harrison Pushed for City-Approved Homeless Encampments in Berkeley” and the slogan "Vote Anyone But Kate". And here’s the kicker. "paid for by the Berkeley Police Association PAC".

What? Is that the Political Action Committee of the same organization which collectively bargains with the city of Berkeley, and just got the cops a hefty pay raise?

Yes, it is. From the BPA web site:  

The Berkeley PA Serves The City of Berkeley And Its Members With Honor and Pride  

The Berkeley Police Association was founded in 1953 by the sworn officers of the Berkeley Police Department. The goal of the Berkeley Police Association is to partner with the community and provide quality police service through community interaction, emphasizing the highest degree of cooperation, professionalism and ethical behavior, and to create an atmosphere of safety and security. Our community policing approach helps neighborhoods keep safe by working with our police officers daily. 

 

Tell me just exactly how sending out this snarky attack on one of Berkeley’s elected officials aids in achieving such high-minded goals. NOT. Is this "partnering with the community"? I don't think so. 

This just in: Councilmember Harrison did not cause homelessness—she’s only been in office for a fraction of a term, and it’s a problem bigger than Berkeley. Many of us are not one bit fooled. It’s widely recognized that what some—not all—Berkeley police have against her is that she favored Berkeley’s withdrawal from Urban Shield, the militaristic “training” exercise run by the Department of Homeland Security. The BPA, aided and abetted by the city manager, was able to veto the vote of the Berkeley City Council to withdraw from the program by dragging out contract negotiations long enough to miss the deadline for exiting from the program. 

Presumably the action against homelessness favored by the BPA is the kind of raid on homeless encampments repeatedly ordered by the city manager and executed by the Berkeley Police Department, sweetened by extravagant overtime for participants. That's so much more profitable for the cops than the policy they attribute (without documentation) to Kate Harrison: “city approved homeless encampments”. 

And anyhow, why is that such a bad idea? It's being tried in all sorts of places, except Berkeley. 

Putting on my First Amendment hat, I recognize that even as city employees members of the Berkeley Police have the right to express negative opinions of those elected by the citizens to govern Berkeley. On the other hand, the Hatch Act, on the books since 1939, has always prevented federal employees and now even some local employees who are paid with federal funds from participating in partisan politics, and it’s not hard to understand why many favor this restriction. Certainly my respect for the Berkeley police dropped a notch when I saw this disingenuous document. 

Here we might also take brief note of two other recent actions by city employees to disregard the wishes of many of their employers,who just happen to be us taxpayers: 

This memo from the City Clerk’s office went out on October 16: 

 

“All campaign signs in street medians within the City of Berkeley must be removed no later than Friday, October 19, 2018 due to regularly scheduled maintenance. If not removed, the City will need to remove the signs which will result in thousands of dollars of maintenance staff costs and Parks Tax Funds being diverted toward the removal of these illegally placed signs.  

“As a reminder, Title 20 of the Berkeley Municipal Code governs the placement of campaign signs on public property in the City of Berkeley. Committees, or any person acting on behalf of the committee, are prohibited from placing campaign signs of any kind on wooden utility poles, public sidewalks, crosswalks, median strips, curbs, hydrants, trees, fire alarm or police alarm systems or any traffic control fixture of the City.”  

 

Election signs on median strips, especially on Sacramento on the old Key System right-of-way, are a time -honored Berkeley tradition. They are a harmless way of reducing the ridiculous cost of running for local office. Previous administrations have simply left signs alone until after the election—did anyone ask the City staff to change that policy? Will two more weeks make a big difference? 

 

The way you can tell that this edict is designed to chill political expression is the memo’s reference specifically to campaign signs, whereas the cited code section actually covers all kinds of signs. This raises a classic First Amendment issue. Government cannot regulate the content of speech, so since city staff ignores the real estate ads which are often on medians while enforcing the law regarding campaign signs, they’re asking for a lawsuit. 

And one more example of the current city staff’s disregard for long-established public policy: their completely unnecessary agreement to mess around with the landscaped traffic circles, a civic amenity which are a point of pride in flatland neighborhoods. As a correspondent today aptly points out, accepting this provision in the settlement of a liability suit for a traffic accident was completely unnecessary, the product of lazy negotiation on the part of some city employee who should know better. Is it too late to get the plaintiff to waive this? 

There's a meeting about this tomorrow from 6:00pm to 7:30 pm at the Frances Albrier Community Center at 2800 Park Street. Come and speak your piece, but don't necessarily expect the City staff to listen. That doesn't seem to be part of their job any more.