I do not blame this on the membership per se, because they are doing exactly what the City Council had in mind when they disbanded the former Human Relations Commission back in June (where my wife had served as chair). Unfortunately, I have only a limited amount of time these days and I have to choose my meetings very carefully.
The anti-discrimination ordinance grants the human relations commission with the power to be an investigative body rather than an educational body.
Section 7A-15(C) of the Davis Anti-Discrimination Ordinance:
“Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint. The Commission may adopt rules of procedure to accommodate the needs of such investigation mediation. A complaint to the Commission shall not be a prerequisite to filing a civil action under this section, and the findings and conclusions of the commission issued in response to such proceedings shall not be admissible in a civil action.”
At one point the HRC was going to review this code to see if it needs revisions. I do not know what came of that.
On the other hand, there is a strong role to play even if the HRC is to be merely an educational rather than an investigative body.
This point came up in another discussion based on comments on the Sacramento Bee website in comment section following an article on the Fischer case. (See my commentary from earlier this week on those comments).
If one reads the comments there, there is a string of anti-gay comments. The school board has implemented a series of strong rules that impose a zero-tolerance policy against harassment. But it seems obvious that what is happening at the school level reflects a deeper seated societal bias against gay people–even in portions of progressive communities such as Davis.
A number of the protesters last week against Freddie Oakley were from Davis. People are entitled to believe that homosexuality is immoral or that the lifestyle is wrong. However there is a line between an expression of political and religious preferences and an expression that is simply hate speech–some of the protesters crossed that line and some of the commenters on the Sacramento Bee drove it into a gully of hate.
The school board can change the rules at the district level but what are they going to do about society? In past years, this is where the Human Relations Commission would have a strong role–helping to educate the community and bringing awareness to this problem. In fact, this is where this human relations commission could still have a role because they are after all now an educational body. But the Human Relations Commission found out about the Fischer harassment case in November (at the same time as myself) and other than the chair of the commission going to the School Board meeting, to my knowledge they have not done a thing.
The City Council wants no eggs broken by the HRC after what happened last year. But the history of social change and the movement for social justice call for eggs to be broken and milk to be spilled in order to change the trajectory of society and the mores of citizens.
Fredrick Douglass writing in 1857 recognized this as well anyone:
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.”
The heroes of the Civil Rights struggle did so by creating turmoil against established authority.
For a body to be effective in producing social change, they must upset the current order.
The bottom here is that there remains a strong place in our city and in our governance for a body that can both educate the public and raise a ruckus to further the cause of social justice. The city council last year severed our government from such a body. While they were concerned about divisiveness in the community–how do you teach people that it is wrong to discriminate and hate gay people without causing divisiveness? How does one stop discrimination without drawing the ire of those perceived to be discriminating? How does one teach tolerance without going after those who are intolerant? How does one teach love without going after those who hate? Even the strongest teacher’s of passive disobedience and non-violent resistance recognize that in order for you to turn someone from hate with love, it inevitably requires confrontation and confrontation means that one must spill some milk.
It will take this city a long time to recognize what they lost when the City Council disbanded the Human Relations Commission. At some point they may realize that maybe we gave up too much…
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Points well taken, Doug.. Fear of
upsetting the”stability” of the Davis electorate with some inevitable controversy is not only historically unwarranted but is demeaning to Davis’ political maturity and sense of community cohesion that makes us all proud to be Davisites.
Points well taken, Doug.. Fear of
upsetting the”stability” of the Davis electorate with some inevitable controversy is not only historically unwarranted but is demeaning to Davis’ political maturity and sense of community cohesion that makes us all proud to be Davisites.
Points well taken, Doug.. Fear of
upsetting the”stability” of the Davis electorate with some inevitable controversy is not only historically unwarranted but is demeaning to Davis’ political maturity and sense of community cohesion that makes us all proud to be Davisites.
Points well taken, Doug.. Fear of
upsetting the”stability” of the Davis electorate with some inevitable controversy is not only historically unwarranted but is demeaning to Davis’ political maturity and sense of community cohesion that makes us all proud to be Davisites.
“The bottom here is that there remains a strong place in our city and in our governance for a body that can both educate the public and raise a ruckus to further the cause of social justice.”
Inside of our government, I strongly disagree. Outside of the government, as a private body which sets its own agenda, picks its own members, pays for its own investigations, etc, then fine.
“The city council last year severed our government from such a body.”
But it did not outlaw any private group from forming on its own and carrying on the agenda of the quondom HRC.
“While they were concerned about divisiveness in the community–how do you teach people that it is wrong to discriminate and hate gay people without causing divisiveness?”
It’s not the role of government to tell private citizens whom to hate or love.
“How does one stop discrimination without drawing the ire of those perceived to be discriminating?”
Perfect job for a private group.
“How does one teach tolerance without going after those who are intolerant?”
By leaving the government out of the equation as much as possible.
All that said, there is (and always will be) a need for government oversight from within the government. (That was never the charge of the HRC.) We need an impartial ombudsman to hear complaints about the police or other government agencies. We occassionally need independent auditors to make sure that our government is not corrupt (or not going down a dangerous path). What we don’t need — and where the HRC was so far off course — is a partial body that comes with a political bias to oversee the DPD or other city agencies.
“The bottom here is that there remains a strong place in our city and in our governance for a body that can both educate the public and raise a ruckus to further the cause of social justice.”
Inside of our government, I strongly disagree. Outside of the government, as a private body which sets its own agenda, picks its own members, pays for its own investigations, etc, then fine.
“The city council last year severed our government from such a body.”
But it did not outlaw any private group from forming on its own and carrying on the agenda of the quondom HRC.
“While they were concerned about divisiveness in the community–how do you teach people that it is wrong to discriminate and hate gay people without causing divisiveness?”
It’s not the role of government to tell private citizens whom to hate or love.
“How does one stop discrimination without drawing the ire of those perceived to be discriminating?”
Perfect job for a private group.
“How does one teach tolerance without going after those who are intolerant?”
By leaving the government out of the equation as much as possible.
All that said, there is (and always will be) a need for government oversight from within the government. (That was never the charge of the HRC.) We need an impartial ombudsman to hear complaints about the police or other government agencies. We occassionally need independent auditors to make sure that our government is not corrupt (or not going down a dangerous path). What we don’t need — and where the HRC was so far off course — is a partial body that comes with a political bias to oversee the DPD or other city agencies.
“The bottom here is that there remains a strong place in our city and in our governance for a body that can both educate the public and raise a ruckus to further the cause of social justice.”
Inside of our government, I strongly disagree. Outside of the government, as a private body which sets its own agenda, picks its own members, pays for its own investigations, etc, then fine.
“The city council last year severed our government from such a body.”
But it did not outlaw any private group from forming on its own and carrying on the agenda of the quondom HRC.
“While they were concerned about divisiveness in the community–how do you teach people that it is wrong to discriminate and hate gay people without causing divisiveness?”
It’s not the role of government to tell private citizens whom to hate or love.
“How does one stop discrimination without drawing the ire of those perceived to be discriminating?”
Perfect job for a private group.
“How does one teach tolerance without going after those who are intolerant?”
By leaving the government out of the equation as much as possible.
All that said, there is (and always will be) a need for government oversight from within the government. (That was never the charge of the HRC.) We need an impartial ombudsman to hear complaints about the police or other government agencies. We occassionally need independent auditors to make sure that our government is not corrupt (or not going down a dangerous path). What we don’t need — and where the HRC was so far off course — is a partial body that comes with a political bias to oversee the DPD or other city agencies.
“The bottom here is that there remains a strong place in our city and in our governance for a body that can both educate the public and raise a ruckus to further the cause of social justice.”
Inside of our government, I strongly disagree. Outside of the government, as a private body which sets its own agenda, picks its own members, pays for its own investigations, etc, then fine.
“The city council last year severed our government from such a body.”
But it did not outlaw any private group from forming on its own and carrying on the agenda of the quondom HRC.
“While they were concerned about divisiveness in the community–how do you teach people that it is wrong to discriminate and hate gay people without causing divisiveness?”
It’s not the role of government to tell private citizens whom to hate or love.
“How does one stop discrimination without drawing the ire of those perceived to be discriminating?”
Perfect job for a private group.
“How does one teach tolerance without going after those who are intolerant?”
By leaving the government out of the equation as much as possible.
All that said, there is (and always will be) a need for government oversight from within the government. (That was never the charge of the HRC.) We need an impartial ombudsman to hear complaints about the police or other government agencies. We occassionally need independent auditors to make sure that our government is not corrupt (or not going down a dangerous path). What we don’t need — and where the HRC was so far off course — is a partial body that comes with a political bias to oversee the DPD or other city agencies.
“What we don’t need — and where the HRC was so far off course — is a partial body that comes with a political bias to oversee the DPD or other city agencies.”
The HRC proposal would have allowed the City Council to select the members of the oversight commission. Moreover, the HRC itself was not proposing they take over the duties of oversight. Rather they investigated the problem and made a recommendation based on that investigation.
“What we don’t need — and where the HRC was so far off course — is a partial body that comes with a political bias to oversee the DPD or other city agencies.”
The HRC proposal would have allowed the City Council to select the members of the oversight commission. Moreover, the HRC itself was not proposing they take over the duties of oversight. Rather they investigated the problem and made a recommendation based on that investigation.
“What we don’t need — and where the HRC was so far off course — is a partial body that comes with a political bias to oversee the DPD or other city agencies.”
The HRC proposal would have allowed the City Council to select the members of the oversight commission. Moreover, the HRC itself was not proposing they take over the duties of oversight. Rather they investigated the problem and made a recommendation based on that investigation.
“What we don’t need — and where the HRC was so far off course — is a partial body that comes with a political bias to oversee the DPD or other city agencies.”
The HRC proposal would have allowed the City Council to select the members of the oversight commission. Moreover, the HRC itself was not proposing they take over the duties of oversight. Rather they investigated the problem and made a recommendation based on that investigation.
“The HRC proposal would have allowed the City Council to select the members of the oversight commission.”
The clear intent and bias of the HRC was to have an oversight panel that was partial. If impartiality were its desire, it would not have specifically recommended membership quotas from groups it believed were being discriminated against by the DPD because of their racial, ethnic or religious status.
These are the quotas that the HRC suggested for its partial oversight board:
“Made up of 11 members and one alternate, all volunteers, the citizens review board would include senior citizens, disabled and homeless people, African Americans, Native Americans, European Americans, Mexican Americans, gays or lesbians, college students and Asian Americans, as well as a senior law student at UC Davis and “a young person between the ages of 15 and 18.” The report was later amended to include representatives from the “mental illness and/or developmental disability community” and a Muslim American.”
The HRC did not say, “we want unbiased people who have a background in the law.” They said, “we want quotas for specific groups.” The very strong implication of this initiative — never mind that it completely violates California’s civil rights laws — was to put people in place on the commission who would go in with an axe to grind.
“The HRC proposal would have allowed the City Council to select the members of the oversight commission.”
The clear intent and bias of the HRC was to have an oversight panel that was partial. If impartiality were its desire, it would not have specifically recommended membership quotas from groups it believed were being discriminated against by the DPD because of their racial, ethnic or religious status.
These are the quotas that the HRC suggested for its partial oversight board:
“Made up of 11 members and one alternate, all volunteers, the citizens review board would include senior citizens, disabled and homeless people, African Americans, Native Americans, European Americans, Mexican Americans, gays or lesbians, college students and Asian Americans, as well as a senior law student at UC Davis and “a young person between the ages of 15 and 18.” The report was later amended to include representatives from the “mental illness and/or developmental disability community” and a Muslim American.”
The HRC did not say, “we want unbiased people who have a background in the law.” They said, “we want quotas for specific groups.” The very strong implication of this initiative — never mind that it completely violates California’s civil rights laws — was to put people in place on the commission who would go in with an axe to grind.
“The HRC proposal would have allowed the City Council to select the members of the oversight commission.”
The clear intent and bias of the HRC was to have an oversight panel that was partial. If impartiality were its desire, it would not have specifically recommended membership quotas from groups it believed were being discriminated against by the DPD because of their racial, ethnic or religious status.
These are the quotas that the HRC suggested for its partial oversight board:
“Made up of 11 members and one alternate, all volunteers, the citizens review board would include senior citizens, disabled and homeless people, African Americans, Native Americans, European Americans, Mexican Americans, gays or lesbians, college students and Asian Americans, as well as a senior law student at UC Davis and “a young person between the ages of 15 and 18.” The report was later amended to include representatives from the “mental illness and/or developmental disability community” and a Muslim American.”
The HRC did not say, “we want unbiased people who have a background in the law.” They said, “we want quotas for specific groups.” The very strong implication of this initiative — never mind that it completely violates California’s civil rights laws — was to put people in place on the commission who would go in with an axe to grind.
“The HRC proposal would have allowed the City Council to select the members of the oversight commission.”
The clear intent and bias of the HRC was to have an oversight panel that was partial. If impartiality were its desire, it would not have specifically recommended membership quotas from groups it believed were being discriminated against by the DPD because of their racial, ethnic or religious status.
These are the quotas that the HRC suggested for its partial oversight board:
“Made up of 11 members and one alternate, all volunteers, the citizens review board would include senior citizens, disabled and homeless people, African Americans, Native Americans, European Americans, Mexican Americans, gays or lesbians, college students and Asian Americans, as well as a senior law student at UC Davis and “a young person between the ages of 15 and 18.” The report was later amended to include representatives from the “mental illness and/or developmental disability community” and a Muslim American.”
The HRC did not say, “we want unbiased people who have a background in the law.” They said, “we want quotas for specific groups.” The very strong implication of this initiative — never mind that it completely violates California’s civil rights laws — was to put people in place on the commission who would go in with an axe to grind.
“Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint.”
“…other than the chair of the commission going to the School Board meeting, to my knowledge they have not done a thing.”
Did the Fischers file a complaint with the HRC? What more would you want the commission to do in this case? There is a lawsuit pending, and the school district has taken action on their policy.
I don’t know that the HRC has any purpose in investigating comments made at the County Clerk’s office, or made anonymously on the Sac Bee web site.
You seem to be advocating that the HRC be a body which is actively confrontational about the general issue of bias in our society. To what end? Do you think there are people who don’t know that there is anti-gay bias?
I’m not being rhetorical. I just don’t really understand what role you think the HRC plays.
“Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint.”
“…other than the chair of the commission going to the School Board meeting, to my knowledge they have not done a thing.”
Did the Fischers file a complaint with the HRC? What more would you want the commission to do in this case? There is a lawsuit pending, and the school district has taken action on their policy.
I don’t know that the HRC has any purpose in investigating comments made at the County Clerk’s office, or made anonymously on the Sac Bee web site.
You seem to be advocating that the HRC be a body which is actively confrontational about the general issue of bias in our society. To what end? Do you think there are people who don’t know that there is anti-gay bias?
I’m not being rhetorical. I just don’t really understand what role you think the HRC plays.
“Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint.”
“…other than the chair of the commission going to the School Board meeting, to my knowledge they have not done a thing.”
Did the Fischers file a complaint with the HRC? What more would you want the commission to do in this case? There is a lawsuit pending, and the school district has taken action on their policy.
I don’t know that the HRC has any purpose in investigating comments made at the County Clerk’s office, or made anonymously on the Sac Bee web site.
You seem to be advocating that the HRC be a body which is actively confrontational about the general issue of bias in our society. To what end? Do you think there are people who don’t know that there is anti-gay bias?
I’m not being rhetorical. I just don’t really understand what role you think the HRC plays.
“Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint.”
“…other than the chair of the commission going to the School Board meeting, to my knowledge they have not done a thing.”
Did the Fischers file a complaint with the HRC? What more would you want the commission to do in this case? There is a lawsuit pending, and the school district has taken action on their policy.
I don’t know that the HRC has any purpose in investigating comments made at the County Clerk’s office, or made anonymously on the Sac Bee web site.
You seem to be advocating that the HRC be a body which is actively confrontational about the general issue of bias in our society. To what end? Do you think there are people who don’t know that there is anti-gay bias?
I’m not being rhetorical. I just don’t really understand what role you think the HRC plays.
“Made up of 11 members and one alternate, all volunteers, the citizens review board would include senior citizens, disabled and homeless people, African Americans, Native Americans, European Americans, Mexican Americans, gays or lesbians, college students and Asian Americans, as well as a senior law student at UC Davis and “a young person between the ages of 15 and 18.” The report was later amended to include representatives from the “mental illness and/or developmental disability community” and a Muslim American.”
That’s 13 categories for an 11-member panel. So presumably some of the would have to overlap!
“Made up of 11 members and one alternate, all volunteers, the citizens review board would include senior citizens, disabled and homeless people, African Americans, Native Americans, European Americans, Mexican Americans, gays or lesbians, college students and Asian Americans, as well as a senior law student at UC Davis and “a young person between the ages of 15 and 18.” The report was later amended to include representatives from the “mental illness and/or developmental disability community” and a Muslim American.”
That’s 13 categories for an 11-member panel. So presumably some of the would have to overlap!
“Made up of 11 members and one alternate, all volunteers, the citizens review board would include senior citizens, disabled and homeless people, African Americans, Native Americans, European Americans, Mexican Americans, gays or lesbians, college students and Asian Americans, as well as a senior law student at UC Davis and “a young person between the ages of 15 and 18.” The report was later amended to include representatives from the “mental illness and/or developmental disability community” and a Muslim American.”
That’s 13 categories for an 11-member panel. So presumably some of the would have to overlap!
“Made up of 11 members and one alternate, all volunteers, the citizens review board would include senior citizens, disabled and homeless people, African Americans, Native Americans, European Americans, Mexican Americans, gays or lesbians, college students and Asian Americans, as well as a senior law student at UC Davis and “a young person between the ages of 15 and 18.” The report was later amended to include representatives from the “mental illness and/or developmental disability community” and a Muslim American.”
That’s 13 categories for an 11-member panel. So presumably some of the would have to overlap!
Don: “I’m not being rhetorical. I just don’t really understand what role you think the HRC plays.”
I think there is an educational role to be played in this community by a body such as the HRC. I also think the HRC was founded in part to investigate complaints of discrimination. I don’t think that should have been their role in the Fischer case. Rather there seems to me to be a clear role in trying to work with the community for the purposes of dealing with the broader problem of homophobia.
On the point that Rifkin points out and you hit on:
The HRC made suggestions about the diversity that ought to be considered when the City Council formulated the group. There was never a quota. The newspaper article that Rifkin cites paraphrased rather than quoted from the text of the proposal. The very fact that there were 13 categories mentions suggests this was a less a quota and more of a suggestion about groups of people and in the case of developmentally disabled or homeless, representatives who work with groups of people who are impacted by the actions of the police.
Here is the ACTUAL language of the proposal:
“The CRB shall have eleven (11) members and one (1) alternate member and shall reflect the diversity of Davis by striving to represent members of many different communities”
Key word is: striving… they never mandate it. They then list those groups.
They did make two requirements (note the difference in the wording–above the word was strive, here the word is “shall”):
“One member shall be a senior law student at the University of California Davis’ King Hall Law School, and one member shall be a young person between the ages of 15 and 18. All board members shall be appointed by the City Council and will serve for two (2) years in accordance with Davis Municipal Code 2.16.010.”
Now Rich says:
“The clear intent and bias of the HRC was to have an oversight panel that was partial.”
If the proposal was for the City Council to select the members, how was the clear intent and bias of the HRC possibly to have a panel that was partial? Had a council with Souza, Saylor, Asmundson, and Puntillo put members who were partial against the police department? Is that what you are going to argue?
Don: “I’m not being rhetorical. I just don’t really understand what role you think the HRC plays.”
I think there is an educational role to be played in this community by a body such as the HRC. I also think the HRC was founded in part to investigate complaints of discrimination. I don’t think that should have been their role in the Fischer case. Rather there seems to me to be a clear role in trying to work with the community for the purposes of dealing with the broader problem of homophobia.
On the point that Rifkin points out and you hit on:
The HRC made suggestions about the diversity that ought to be considered when the City Council formulated the group. There was never a quota. The newspaper article that Rifkin cites paraphrased rather than quoted from the text of the proposal. The very fact that there were 13 categories mentions suggests this was a less a quota and more of a suggestion about groups of people and in the case of developmentally disabled or homeless, representatives who work with groups of people who are impacted by the actions of the police.
Here is the ACTUAL language of the proposal:
“The CRB shall have eleven (11) members and one (1) alternate member and shall reflect the diversity of Davis by striving to represent members of many different communities”
Key word is: striving… they never mandate it. They then list those groups.
They did make two requirements (note the difference in the wording–above the word was strive, here the word is “shall”):
“One member shall be a senior law student at the University of California Davis’ King Hall Law School, and one member shall be a young person between the ages of 15 and 18. All board members shall be appointed by the City Council and will serve for two (2) years in accordance with Davis Municipal Code 2.16.010.”
Now Rich says:
“The clear intent and bias of the HRC was to have an oversight panel that was partial.”
If the proposal was for the City Council to select the members, how was the clear intent and bias of the HRC possibly to have a panel that was partial? Had a council with Souza, Saylor, Asmundson, and Puntillo put members who were partial against the police department? Is that what you are going to argue?
Don: “I’m not being rhetorical. I just don’t really understand what role you think the HRC plays.”
I think there is an educational role to be played in this community by a body such as the HRC. I also think the HRC was founded in part to investigate complaints of discrimination. I don’t think that should have been their role in the Fischer case. Rather there seems to me to be a clear role in trying to work with the community for the purposes of dealing with the broader problem of homophobia.
On the point that Rifkin points out and you hit on:
The HRC made suggestions about the diversity that ought to be considered when the City Council formulated the group. There was never a quota. The newspaper article that Rifkin cites paraphrased rather than quoted from the text of the proposal. The very fact that there were 13 categories mentions suggests this was a less a quota and more of a suggestion about groups of people and in the case of developmentally disabled or homeless, representatives who work with groups of people who are impacted by the actions of the police.
Here is the ACTUAL language of the proposal:
“The CRB shall have eleven (11) members and one (1) alternate member and shall reflect the diversity of Davis by striving to represent members of many different communities”
Key word is: striving… they never mandate it. They then list those groups.
They did make two requirements (note the difference in the wording–above the word was strive, here the word is “shall”):
“One member shall be a senior law student at the University of California Davis’ King Hall Law School, and one member shall be a young person between the ages of 15 and 18. All board members shall be appointed by the City Council and will serve for two (2) years in accordance with Davis Municipal Code 2.16.010.”
Now Rich says:
“The clear intent and bias of the HRC was to have an oversight panel that was partial.”
If the proposal was for the City Council to select the members, how was the clear intent and bias of the HRC possibly to have a panel that was partial? Had a council with Souza, Saylor, Asmundson, and Puntillo put members who were partial against the police department? Is that what you are going to argue?
Don: “I’m not being rhetorical. I just don’t really understand what role you think the HRC plays.”
I think there is an educational role to be played in this community by a body such as the HRC. I also think the HRC was founded in part to investigate complaints of discrimination. I don’t think that should have been their role in the Fischer case. Rather there seems to me to be a clear role in trying to work with the community for the purposes of dealing with the broader problem of homophobia.
On the point that Rifkin points out and you hit on:
The HRC made suggestions about the diversity that ought to be considered when the City Council formulated the group. There was never a quota. The newspaper article that Rifkin cites paraphrased rather than quoted from the text of the proposal. The very fact that there were 13 categories mentions suggests this was a less a quota and more of a suggestion about groups of people and in the case of developmentally disabled or homeless, representatives who work with groups of people who are impacted by the actions of the police.
Here is the ACTUAL language of the proposal:
“The CRB shall have eleven (11) members and one (1) alternate member and shall reflect the diversity of Davis by striving to represent members of many different communities”
Key word is: striving… they never mandate it. They then list those groups.
They did make two requirements (note the difference in the wording–above the word was strive, here the word is “shall”):
“One member shall be a senior law student at the University of California Davis’ King Hall Law School, and one member shall be a young person between the ages of 15 and 18. All board members shall be appointed by the City Council and will serve for two (2) years in accordance with Davis Municipal Code 2.16.010.”
Now Rich says:
“The clear intent and bias of the HRC was to have an oversight panel that was partial.”
If the proposal was for the City Council to select the members, how was the clear intent and bias of the HRC possibly to have a panel that was partial? Had a council with Souza, Saylor, Asmundson, and Puntillo put members who were partial against the police department? Is that what you are going to argue?
“Section 7A-15(C) of the Davis Anti-Discrimination Ordinance:
“Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint.”
A common sense reading of this ordinance would suggest that if a person has a dispute with any public agencies that may involve a violation of their civil or human rights, that they can take their complaint to the HRC, have it investigated and then, based on the facts get action through a mediation process to resolve the complaint.
Online Webster definitions of mediate say that it means “1 a : to bring accord out of by action as an intermediary b : to effect by action as an intermediary.”
It seems the City Council is violating the the law by restricting the HRC from “investigating and mediating”.
If the City Council doesn’t like the law, they should take a public vote to change it.
Because I am not merely a complainer, but wish to see solutions, herewith is suggested language for the City Council to debate and enact if they so see fit: “Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission hear his or her complaint. The Commission may adopt rules of procedure to accommodate the needs of such hearing.”
In this way, the City Council will be directing the HRC to act within its legal responsibility and thus be totally ineffective in taking any action to resolve any dispute brought by an aggrieved member of the community. We may then rest assured all is well and legal in the city of Davis.
“Section 7A-15(C) of the Davis Anti-Discrimination Ordinance:
“Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint.”
A common sense reading of this ordinance would suggest that if a person has a dispute with any public agencies that may involve a violation of their civil or human rights, that they can take their complaint to the HRC, have it investigated and then, based on the facts get action through a mediation process to resolve the complaint.
Online Webster definitions of mediate say that it means “1 a : to bring accord out of by action as an intermediary b : to effect by action as an intermediary.”
It seems the City Council is violating the the law by restricting the HRC from “investigating and mediating”.
If the City Council doesn’t like the law, they should take a public vote to change it.
Because I am not merely a complainer, but wish to see solutions, herewith is suggested language for the City Council to debate and enact if they so see fit: “Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission hear his or her complaint. The Commission may adopt rules of procedure to accommodate the needs of such hearing.”
In this way, the City Council will be directing the HRC to act within its legal responsibility and thus be totally ineffective in taking any action to resolve any dispute brought by an aggrieved member of the community. We may then rest assured all is well and legal in the city of Davis.
“Section 7A-15(C) of the Davis Anti-Discrimination Ordinance:
“Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint.”
A common sense reading of this ordinance would suggest that if a person has a dispute with any public agencies that may involve a violation of their civil or human rights, that they can take their complaint to the HRC, have it investigated and then, based on the facts get action through a mediation process to resolve the complaint.
Online Webster definitions of mediate say that it means “1 a : to bring accord out of by action as an intermediary b : to effect by action as an intermediary.”
It seems the City Council is violating the the law by restricting the HRC from “investigating and mediating”.
If the City Council doesn’t like the law, they should take a public vote to change it.
Because I am not merely a complainer, but wish to see solutions, herewith is suggested language for the City Council to debate and enact if they so see fit: “Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission hear his or her complaint. The Commission may adopt rules of procedure to accommodate the needs of such hearing.”
In this way, the City Council will be directing the HRC to act within its legal responsibility and thus be totally ineffective in taking any action to resolve any dispute brought by an aggrieved member of the community. We may then rest assured all is well and legal in the city of Davis.
“Section 7A-15(C) of the Davis Anti-Discrimination Ordinance:
“Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint.”
A common sense reading of this ordinance would suggest that if a person has a dispute with any public agencies that may involve a violation of their civil or human rights, that they can take their complaint to the HRC, have it investigated and then, based on the facts get action through a mediation process to resolve the complaint.
Online Webster definitions of mediate say that it means “1 a : to bring accord out of by action as an intermediary b : to effect by action as an intermediary.”
It seems the City Council is violating the the law by restricting the HRC from “investigating and mediating”.
If the City Council doesn’t like the law, they should take a public vote to change it.
Because I am not merely a complainer, but wish to see solutions, herewith is suggested language for the City Council to debate and enact if they so see fit: “Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission hear his or her complaint. The Commission may adopt rules of procedure to accommodate the needs of such hearing.”
In this way, the City Council will be directing the HRC to act within its legal responsibility and thus be totally ineffective in taking any action to resolve any dispute brought by an aggrieved member of the community. We may then rest assured all is well and legal in the city of Davis.
Dave Hart has hit on a persistent
MO of this council majority of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson, namely, avoiding open debate and openly voting for official change. Instead, they have side-stepped and/or ignored the commonly understood historical meaning of our current General Plan
as well as the clear wording of the HRC charter. The goal?…to assiduously avoid the political fallout…This reminds me of the Bush administration reinterpreting the meaning of torture rather than openly moving to make torture legal. Bush will be gone in 2008. The current council majority needs to follow quickly behind.
Dave Hart has hit on a persistent
MO of this council majority of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson, namely, avoiding open debate and openly voting for official change. Instead, they have side-stepped and/or ignored the commonly understood historical meaning of our current General Plan
as well as the clear wording of the HRC charter. The goal?…to assiduously avoid the political fallout…This reminds me of the Bush administration reinterpreting the meaning of torture rather than openly moving to make torture legal. Bush will be gone in 2008. The current council majority needs to follow quickly behind.
Dave Hart has hit on a persistent
MO of this council majority of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson, namely, avoiding open debate and openly voting for official change. Instead, they have side-stepped and/or ignored the commonly understood historical meaning of our current General Plan
as well as the clear wording of the HRC charter. The goal?…to assiduously avoid the political fallout…This reminds me of the Bush administration reinterpreting the meaning of torture rather than openly moving to make torture legal. Bush will be gone in 2008. The current council majority needs to follow quickly behind.
Dave Hart has hit on a persistent
MO of this council majority of Saylor, Souza and Asmundson, namely, avoiding open debate and openly voting for official change. Instead, they have side-stepped and/or ignored the commonly understood historical meaning of our current General Plan
as well as the clear wording of the HRC charter. The goal?…to assiduously avoid the political fallout…This reminds me of the Bush administration reinterpreting the meaning of torture rather than openly moving to make torture legal. Bush will be gone in 2008. The current council majority needs to follow quickly behind.
A common sense reading of this ordinance would suggest…”
I don’t know where things stand presently. However, last October it was reported that the HRC was in the process of reviewing and changing that ordinance, per the instructions of the city council.
“I also think the HRC was founded in part to investigate complaints of discrimination.”
It was not founded as as investigative body at all. It was founded to bring the community together by improving ‘human relations.’
By dint of its investigative agenda, which grew into its primary task under the leadership of your wife, it seemed to me (and I think to a majority in Davis) that it was no longer improving ‘human relations’ in Davis.
“The CRB shall have eleven (11) members and one (1) alternate member and shall reflect the diversity of Davis…”
Who are you, kidding?
This was a call for quotas for certain groups. It even defines ‘diversity’ based on immutable physical characteristics, which is moronic and offensive.
The city council could have approved the CRB and dropped the racial, ethnic, religious, and other quotas. But if it had adopted the CRB as the HRC formulated it, the effect would have been a quota system. What do you think the reaction would have been (by the HRC radicals) if the council had adopted its plan and appointed a CRB that did not have many of those groups represented?
Maybe if Davis did not have a history — albeit a relatively short history — of a group of citizens who were convinced, despite their poor evidence, that the DPD was institutionally racist, we could have had citizen oversight of the police that was fair and impartial. However, because of the behavior of the HRC and some of its supporters, including their public allegations, the atmosphere was spoiled for civilian oversight.
That still does not change the fact that oversight is necessary and that internal investigations are (while necessary) inadequate.
For now we have an independent ombudsman, which theoretically seems like a good fit for Davis. If it proves to work well, then we’re all the better for it. If not, we should consider other ideas for oversight. But never ought we appoint overseers who go into the task with a preconceived notion that the police department is inherently malicious.
A common sense reading of this ordinance would suggest…”
I don’t know where things stand presently. However, last October it was reported that the HRC was in the process of reviewing and changing that ordinance, per the instructions of the city council.
“I also think the HRC was founded in part to investigate complaints of discrimination.”
It was not founded as as investigative body at all. It was founded to bring the community together by improving ‘human relations.’
By dint of its investigative agenda, which grew into its primary task under the leadership of your wife, it seemed to me (and I think to a majority in Davis) that it was no longer improving ‘human relations’ in Davis.
“The CRB shall have eleven (11) members and one (1) alternate member and shall reflect the diversity of Davis…”
Who are you, kidding?
This was a call for quotas for certain groups. It even defines ‘diversity’ based on immutable physical characteristics, which is moronic and offensive.
The city council could have approved the CRB and dropped the racial, ethnic, religious, and other quotas. But if it had adopted the CRB as the HRC formulated it, the effect would have been a quota system. What do you think the reaction would have been (by the HRC radicals) if the council had adopted its plan and appointed a CRB that did not have many of those groups represented?
Maybe if Davis did not have a history — albeit a relatively short history — of a group of citizens who were convinced, despite their poor evidence, that the DPD was institutionally racist, we could have had citizen oversight of the police that was fair and impartial. However, because of the behavior of the HRC and some of its supporters, including their public allegations, the atmosphere was spoiled for civilian oversight.
That still does not change the fact that oversight is necessary and that internal investigations are (while necessary) inadequate.
For now we have an independent ombudsman, which theoretically seems like a good fit for Davis. If it proves to work well, then we’re all the better for it. If not, we should consider other ideas for oversight. But never ought we appoint overseers who go into the task with a preconceived notion that the police department is inherently malicious.
A common sense reading of this ordinance would suggest…”
I don’t know where things stand presently. However, last October it was reported that the HRC was in the process of reviewing and changing that ordinance, per the instructions of the city council.
“I also think the HRC was founded in part to investigate complaints of discrimination.”
It was not founded as as investigative body at all. It was founded to bring the community together by improving ‘human relations.’
By dint of its investigative agenda, which grew into its primary task under the leadership of your wife, it seemed to me (and I think to a majority in Davis) that it was no longer improving ‘human relations’ in Davis.
“The CRB shall have eleven (11) members and one (1) alternate member and shall reflect the diversity of Davis…”
Who are you, kidding?
This was a call for quotas for certain groups. It even defines ‘diversity’ based on immutable physical characteristics, which is moronic and offensive.
The city council could have approved the CRB and dropped the racial, ethnic, religious, and other quotas. But if it had adopted the CRB as the HRC formulated it, the effect would have been a quota system. What do you think the reaction would have been (by the HRC radicals) if the council had adopted its plan and appointed a CRB that did not have many of those groups represented?
Maybe if Davis did not have a history — albeit a relatively short history — of a group of citizens who were convinced, despite their poor evidence, that the DPD was institutionally racist, we could have had citizen oversight of the police that was fair and impartial. However, because of the behavior of the HRC and some of its supporters, including their public allegations, the atmosphere was spoiled for civilian oversight.
That still does not change the fact that oversight is necessary and that internal investigations are (while necessary) inadequate.
For now we have an independent ombudsman, which theoretically seems like a good fit for Davis. If it proves to work well, then we’re all the better for it. If not, we should consider other ideas for oversight. But never ought we appoint overseers who go into the task with a preconceived notion that the police department is inherently malicious.
A common sense reading of this ordinance would suggest…”
I don’t know where things stand presently. However, last October it was reported that the HRC was in the process of reviewing and changing that ordinance, per the instructions of the city council.
“I also think the HRC was founded in part to investigate complaints of discrimination.”
It was not founded as as investigative body at all. It was founded to bring the community together by improving ‘human relations.’
By dint of its investigative agenda, which grew into its primary task under the leadership of your wife, it seemed to me (and I think to a majority in Davis) that it was no longer improving ‘human relations’ in Davis.
“The CRB shall have eleven (11) members and one (1) alternate member and shall reflect the diversity of Davis…”
Who are you, kidding?
This was a call for quotas for certain groups. It even defines ‘diversity’ based on immutable physical characteristics, which is moronic and offensive.
The city council could have approved the CRB and dropped the racial, ethnic, religious, and other quotas. But if it had adopted the CRB as the HRC formulated it, the effect would have been a quota system. What do you think the reaction would have been (by the HRC radicals) if the council had adopted its plan and appointed a CRB that did not have many of those groups represented?
Maybe if Davis did not have a history — albeit a relatively short history — of a group of citizens who were convinced, despite their poor evidence, that the DPD was institutionally racist, we could have had citizen oversight of the police that was fair and impartial. However, because of the behavior of the HRC and some of its supporters, including their public allegations, the atmosphere was spoiled for civilian oversight.
That still does not change the fact that oversight is necessary and that internal investigations are (while necessary) inadequate.
For now we have an independent ombudsman, which theoretically seems like a good fit for Davis. If it proves to work well, then we’re all the better for it. If not, we should consider other ideas for oversight. But never ought we appoint overseers who go into the task with a preconceived notion that the police department is inherently malicious.
Rich Rifkin: “It [HRC] was not founded as as investigative body at all. It was founded to bring the community together by improving ‘human relations.”
Why do you say this? Either you can’t read or you don’t want to accept that the community can only ‘come together’ when there is a sense of justice that can only be attained when human and civil rights are vigorously protected. It’s shameful that the City Council would ignore the letter of this ordinance.
The current HRC needs to follow the specific language of the ordinance and challenge the City Council to either, once again, dismiss them or change the ordinance and go on record that we, the citizens of Davis don’t support a mechanism for our citizens to petition their local government for redress of grievances.
Rich Rifkin: “It [HRC] was not founded as as investigative body at all. It was founded to bring the community together by improving ‘human relations.”
Why do you say this? Either you can’t read or you don’t want to accept that the community can only ‘come together’ when there is a sense of justice that can only be attained when human and civil rights are vigorously protected. It’s shameful that the City Council would ignore the letter of this ordinance.
The current HRC needs to follow the specific language of the ordinance and challenge the City Council to either, once again, dismiss them or change the ordinance and go on record that we, the citizens of Davis don’t support a mechanism for our citizens to petition their local government for redress of grievances.
Rich Rifkin: “It [HRC] was not founded as as investigative body at all. It was founded to bring the community together by improving ‘human relations.”
Why do you say this? Either you can’t read or you don’t want to accept that the community can only ‘come together’ when there is a sense of justice that can only be attained when human and civil rights are vigorously protected. It’s shameful that the City Council would ignore the letter of this ordinance.
The current HRC needs to follow the specific language of the ordinance and challenge the City Council to either, once again, dismiss them or change the ordinance and go on record that we, the citizens of Davis don’t support a mechanism for our citizens to petition their local government for redress of grievances.
Rich Rifkin: “It [HRC] was not founded as as investigative body at all. It was founded to bring the community together by improving ‘human relations.”
Why do you say this? Either you can’t read or you don’t want to accept that the community can only ‘come together’ when there is a sense of justice that can only be attained when human and civil rights are vigorously protected. It’s shameful that the City Council would ignore the letter of this ordinance.
The current HRC needs to follow the specific language of the ordinance and challenge the City Council to either, once again, dismiss them or change the ordinance and go on record that we, the citizens of Davis don’t support a mechanism for our citizens to petition their local government for redress of grievances.
“Why do you say this?”
Hart, I say this because the ordinance you refer to was adopted well after the HRC was founded. And as it has played out, it ultimately trumped the founding idea, which I referred to.
“Either you can’t read or you don’t want to accept that the community can only ‘come together’ when there is a sense of justice that can only be attained when human and civil rights are vigorously protected.”
Whoa, Hart, the ‘you can’t read card.’ Very nice.
I don’t know of any allegations brought before the ex-HRC that claimed that ‘human rights’ were violated. Maybe, because you read so much better than I do, you can enlighten me.
Regarding civil rights, I would agree with you — civil rights must be vigorously protected, civil rights laws must be vigorously enforced.
Our experience as a community has shown that the method you seem to believe in — a city commission which invites people to come and publicly air their allegations against other citizens or against city employees — has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.
Much better at this point would be, if a person believes that someone has violated his civil rights, or some such similar charge, he should report it to the police and if the accused is a DPD employee, the charges should also be investigated by an independent third party, the ombudsman.
“Why do you say this?”
Hart, I say this because the ordinance you refer to was adopted well after the HRC was founded. And as it has played out, it ultimately trumped the founding idea, which I referred to.
“Either you can’t read or you don’t want to accept that the community can only ‘come together’ when there is a sense of justice that can only be attained when human and civil rights are vigorously protected.”
Whoa, Hart, the ‘you can’t read card.’ Very nice.
I don’t know of any allegations brought before the ex-HRC that claimed that ‘human rights’ were violated. Maybe, because you read so much better than I do, you can enlighten me.
Regarding civil rights, I would agree with you — civil rights must be vigorously protected, civil rights laws must be vigorously enforced.
Our experience as a community has shown that the method you seem to believe in — a city commission which invites people to come and publicly air their allegations against other citizens or against city employees — has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.
Much better at this point would be, if a person believes that someone has violated his civil rights, or some such similar charge, he should report it to the police and if the accused is a DPD employee, the charges should also be investigated by an independent third party, the ombudsman.
“Why do you say this?”
Hart, I say this because the ordinance you refer to was adopted well after the HRC was founded. And as it has played out, it ultimately trumped the founding idea, which I referred to.
“Either you can’t read or you don’t want to accept that the community can only ‘come together’ when there is a sense of justice that can only be attained when human and civil rights are vigorously protected.”
Whoa, Hart, the ‘you can’t read card.’ Very nice.
I don’t know of any allegations brought before the ex-HRC that claimed that ‘human rights’ were violated. Maybe, because you read so much better than I do, you can enlighten me.
Regarding civil rights, I would agree with you — civil rights must be vigorously protected, civil rights laws must be vigorously enforced.
Our experience as a community has shown that the method you seem to believe in — a city commission which invites people to come and publicly air their allegations against other citizens or against city employees — has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.
Much better at this point would be, if a person believes that someone has violated his civil rights, or some such similar charge, he should report it to the police and if the accused is a DPD employee, the charges should also be investigated by an independent third party, the ombudsman.
“Why do you say this?”
Hart, I say this because the ordinance you refer to was adopted well after the HRC was founded. And as it has played out, it ultimately trumped the founding idea, which I referred to.
“Either you can’t read or you don’t want to accept that the community can only ‘come together’ when there is a sense of justice that can only be attained when human and civil rights are vigorously protected.”
Whoa, Hart, the ‘you can’t read card.’ Very nice.
I don’t know of any allegations brought before the ex-HRC that claimed that ‘human rights’ were violated. Maybe, because you read so much better than I do, you can enlighten me.
Regarding civil rights, I would agree with you — civil rights must be vigorously protected, civil rights laws must be vigorously enforced.
Our experience as a community has shown that the method you seem to believe in — a city commission which invites people to come and publicly air their allegations against other citizens or against city employees — has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.
Much better at this point would be, if a person believes that someone has violated his civil rights, or some such similar charge, he should report it to the police and if the accused is a DPD employee, the charges should also be investigated by an independent third party, the ombudsman.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “well after.” The HRC was formed in the aftermath of the Thong Hy Huynh’s murder. Then three years later their charter was expanded to include investigations by the City’s Anti-Discrimination ordinance.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “well after.” The HRC was formed in the aftermath of the Thong Hy Huynh’s murder. Then three years later their charter was expanded to include investigations by the City’s Anti-Discrimination ordinance.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “well after.” The HRC was formed in the aftermath of the Thong Hy Huynh’s murder. Then three years later their charter was expanded to include investigations by the City’s Anti-Discrimination ordinance.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “well after.” The HRC was formed in the aftermath of the Thong Hy Huynh’s murder. Then three years later their charter was expanded to include investigations by the City’s Anti-Discrimination ordinance.
From the January 10, 2006 City of Davis staff report:
“The establishment of an investigation mechanism outside current structures raises difficult questions regarding the city’s ability to comply with the Peace Officers’ Bill Of Rights (http://www.chp.net/rights.htm) . Likewise, the establishment of a PRC creates compliance issues with the current MOU between the City of Davis and the police officer’s union. “
From the January 10, 2006 City of Davis staff report:
“The establishment of an investigation mechanism outside current structures raises difficult questions regarding the city’s ability to comply with the Peace Officers’ Bill Of Rights (http://www.chp.net/rights.htm) . Likewise, the establishment of a PRC creates compliance issues with the current MOU between the City of Davis and the police officer’s union. “
From the January 10, 2006 City of Davis staff report:
“The establishment of an investigation mechanism outside current structures raises difficult questions regarding the city’s ability to comply with the Peace Officers’ Bill Of Rights (http://www.chp.net/rights.htm) . Likewise, the establishment of a PRC creates compliance issues with the current MOU between the City of Davis and the police officer’s union. “
From the January 10, 2006 City of Davis staff report:
“The establishment of an investigation mechanism outside current structures raises difficult questions regarding the city’s ability to comply with the Peace Officers’ Bill Of Rights (http://www.chp.net/rights.htm) . Likewise, the establishment of a PRC creates compliance issues with the current MOU between the City of Davis and the police officer’s union. “
Rifkin responds to the clear wording of the HRC ordinance by informing us that HE “knows” what the idea was that was expressed in the ordnance wording .. Such argument may work in an Enterprise column where challenge and counterargument is absent but not here.
Rifkin responds to the clear wording of the HRC ordinance by informing us that HE “knows” what the idea was that was expressed in the ordnance wording .. Such argument may work in an Enterprise column where challenge and counterargument is absent but not here.
Rifkin responds to the clear wording of the HRC ordinance by informing us that HE “knows” what the idea was that was expressed in the ordnance wording .. Such argument may work in an Enterprise column where challenge and counterargument is absent but not here.
Rifkin responds to the clear wording of the HRC ordinance by informing us that HE “knows” what the idea was that was expressed in the ordnance wording .. Such argument may work in an Enterprise column where challenge and counterargument is absent but not here.
Rifkin.. closer reading suggests that you were making the argument that the founding idea was different than the ordinance that Hart was addressng. You chose to harp on the word “founding”, when the issue was the clear wording of the ordinance.The difficulty is your technique of cherrypicking sentences and nitpicking over your perception of the exact meaning of individual words. This, plus the fragmented nature and length of your argument, makes for quite tiresome reading.
Rifkin.. closer reading suggests that you were making the argument that the founding idea was different than the ordinance that Hart was addressng. You chose to harp on the word “founding”, when the issue was the clear wording of the ordinance.The difficulty is your technique of cherrypicking sentences and nitpicking over your perception of the exact meaning of individual words. This, plus the fragmented nature and length of your argument, makes for quite tiresome reading.
Rifkin.. closer reading suggests that you were making the argument that the founding idea was different than the ordinance that Hart was addressng. You chose to harp on the word “founding”, when the issue was the clear wording of the ordinance.The difficulty is your technique of cherrypicking sentences and nitpicking over your perception of the exact meaning of individual words. This, plus the fragmented nature and length of your argument, makes for quite tiresome reading.
Rifkin.. closer reading suggests that you were making the argument that the founding idea was different than the ordinance that Hart was addressng. You chose to harp on the word “founding”, when the issue was the clear wording of the ordinance.The difficulty is your technique of cherrypicking sentences and nitpicking over your perception of the exact meaning of individual words. This, plus the fragmented nature and length of your argument, makes for quite tiresome reading.
“The difficulty is your technique of cherrypicking sentences and nitpicking over your perception of the exact meaning of individual words.”
The difficulty is not my cherrypicking, Borack. The difficulty is that words mean what they mean; and you should be more careful before you lob attacks at me or at others.
“This, plus the fragmented nature and length of your argument, makes for quite tiresome reading.”
Wow. That’s nice.
“The difficulty is your technique of cherrypicking sentences and nitpicking over your perception of the exact meaning of individual words.”
The difficulty is not my cherrypicking, Borack. The difficulty is that words mean what they mean; and you should be more careful before you lob attacks at me or at others.
“This, plus the fragmented nature and length of your argument, makes for quite tiresome reading.”
Wow. That’s nice.
“The difficulty is your technique of cherrypicking sentences and nitpicking over your perception of the exact meaning of individual words.”
The difficulty is not my cherrypicking, Borack. The difficulty is that words mean what they mean; and you should be more careful before you lob attacks at me or at others.
“This, plus the fragmented nature and length of your argument, makes for quite tiresome reading.”
Wow. That’s nice.
“The difficulty is your technique of cherrypicking sentences and nitpicking over your perception of the exact meaning of individual words.”
The difficulty is not my cherrypicking, Borack. The difficulty is that words mean what they mean; and you should be more careful before you lob attacks at me or at others.
“This, plus the fragmented nature and length of your argument, makes for quite tiresome reading.”
Wow. That’s nice.
The current HRC could just carry on with its initial purpose and its expanded purpose, according to the Anti-Discrimination Ordinance. However, the current HRC seems to need guidance and permission from the city council before any action. I’m sorry that the HRC is so disconnected from the community that it is being left behind on ensuring social justice issues stay at the forefront for local citizens. Even the school district seems to be way more on the ball than the HRC.
I’m having deja vu here. Was this discussed before?
The current HRC could just carry on with its initial purpose and its expanded purpose, according to the Anti-Discrimination Ordinance. However, the current HRC seems to need guidance and permission from the city council before any action. I’m sorry that the HRC is so disconnected from the community that it is being left behind on ensuring social justice issues stay at the forefront for local citizens. Even the school district seems to be way more on the ball than the HRC.
I’m having deja vu here. Was this discussed before?
The current HRC could just carry on with its initial purpose and its expanded purpose, according to the Anti-Discrimination Ordinance. However, the current HRC seems to need guidance and permission from the city council before any action. I’m sorry that the HRC is so disconnected from the community that it is being left behind on ensuring social justice issues stay at the forefront for local citizens. Even the school district seems to be way more on the ball than the HRC.
I’m having deja vu here. Was this discussed before?
The current HRC could just carry on with its initial purpose and its expanded purpose, according to the Anti-Discrimination Ordinance. However, the current HRC seems to need guidance and permission from the city council before any action. I’m sorry that the HRC is so disconnected from the community that it is being left behind on ensuring social justice issues stay at the forefront for local citizens. Even the school district seems to be way more on the ball than the HRC.
I’m having deja vu here. Was this discussed before?
Yes, it was discussed before, but our friend Rifkin likes very much to distract from the essential arguments by dragging a red herring (a very smelly fish) across the main trail of thought in an attempt to get readers of this blog to get caught up in other pursuits. To wit:
Rifkin: The difficulty is that words mean what they mean; and you should be more careful before you lob attacks at me or at others.
He says this after saying that the language, i.e., the words of the ordinance creating the HRC don’t mean what they say. The ordinance says in plain words that it is the job of the HRC to investigate and mediate complaints lodged by citizens against the police, for example, and says nothing about an ombudsman. An ombudsman is fine, but the problem is that there is an ordinance on the books and it should be followed. That’s what this discussion is really about. Rifkin keeps trying to distract us from the inconvenient fact that the City Council is choosing to ignore or violate the ordinance.
I retract what I said about your ability to read, Mr. Rifkin. I can only conclude that you are simply attempting to mislead.
Yes, it was discussed before, but our friend Rifkin likes very much to distract from the essential arguments by dragging a red herring (a very smelly fish) across the main trail of thought in an attempt to get readers of this blog to get caught up in other pursuits. To wit:
Rifkin: The difficulty is that words mean what they mean; and you should be more careful before you lob attacks at me or at others.
He says this after saying that the language, i.e., the words of the ordinance creating the HRC don’t mean what they say. The ordinance says in plain words that it is the job of the HRC to investigate and mediate complaints lodged by citizens against the police, for example, and says nothing about an ombudsman. An ombudsman is fine, but the problem is that there is an ordinance on the books and it should be followed. That’s what this discussion is really about. Rifkin keeps trying to distract us from the inconvenient fact that the City Council is choosing to ignore or violate the ordinance.
I retract what I said about your ability to read, Mr. Rifkin. I can only conclude that you are simply attempting to mislead.
Yes, it was discussed before, but our friend Rifkin likes very much to distract from the essential arguments by dragging a red herring (a very smelly fish) across the main trail of thought in an attempt to get readers of this blog to get caught up in other pursuits. To wit:
Rifkin: The difficulty is that words mean what they mean; and you should be more careful before you lob attacks at me or at others.
He says this after saying that the language, i.e., the words of the ordinance creating the HRC don’t mean what they say. The ordinance says in plain words that it is the job of the HRC to investigate and mediate complaints lodged by citizens against the police, for example, and says nothing about an ombudsman. An ombudsman is fine, but the problem is that there is an ordinance on the books and it should be followed. That’s what this discussion is really about. Rifkin keeps trying to distract us from the inconvenient fact that the City Council is choosing to ignore or violate the ordinance.
I retract what I said about your ability to read, Mr. Rifkin. I can only conclude that you are simply attempting to mislead.
Yes, it was discussed before, but our friend Rifkin likes very much to distract from the essential arguments by dragging a red herring (a very smelly fish) across the main trail of thought in an attempt to get readers of this blog to get caught up in other pursuits. To wit:
Rifkin: The difficulty is that words mean what they mean; and you should be more careful before you lob attacks at me or at others.
He says this after saying that the language, i.e., the words of the ordinance creating the HRC don’t mean what they say. The ordinance says in plain words that it is the job of the HRC to investigate and mediate complaints lodged by citizens against the police, for example, and says nothing about an ombudsman. An ombudsman is fine, but the problem is that there is an ordinance on the books and it should be followed. That’s what this discussion is really about. Rifkin keeps trying to distract us from the inconvenient fact that the City Council is choosing to ignore or violate the ordinance.
I retract what I said about your ability to read, Mr. Rifkin. I can only conclude that you are simply attempting to mislead.
I personally skip over comments left by Rifkin as they are generally argumentative.
I personally skip over comments left by Rifkin as they are generally argumentative.
I personally skip over comments left by Rifkin as they are generally argumentative.
I personally skip over comments left by Rifkin as they are generally argumentative.
A la Karl Rove, if all else fails, change the subject.So, we have lovely stories about how we should be happy that we don’t have Japanese justice.
A la Karl Rove, if all else fails, change the subject.So, we have lovely stories about how we should be happy that we don’t have Japanese justice.
A la Karl Rove, if all else fails, change the subject.So, we have lovely stories about how we should be happy that we don’t have Japanese justice.
A la Karl Rove, if all else fails, change the subject.So, we have lovely stories about how we should be happy that we don’t have Japanese justice.
“He says this after saying that the language, i.e., the words of the ordinance creating the HRC don’t mean what they say. The ordinance says in plain words that it is the job of the HRC to investigate and mediate complaints lodged by citizens against the police, for example, and says nothing about an ombudsman.”
Hart,
The ordinance which you are continually referring to was written 3 years after the HRC was founded. Yet over and over again, you refer to it as its founding ordinance. And you suggest the problem is my illiteracy?
“Jeanne Belle said…
I personally skip over comments left by Rifkin as they are generally argumentative.”
I don’t deny in any sense that my comments are argumentative. Of course they are. David Greenwald’s post up front is an argument.
What is sad is that if you, or others who share your prejudices, are so closed-minded that you won’t read my arguments because you don’t want to hear a divergent perspective.
“He says this after saying that the language, i.e., the words of the ordinance creating the HRC don’t mean what they say. The ordinance says in plain words that it is the job of the HRC to investigate and mediate complaints lodged by citizens against the police, for example, and says nothing about an ombudsman.”
Hart,
The ordinance which you are continually referring to was written 3 years after the HRC was founded. Yet over and over again, you refer to it as its founding ordinance. And you suggest the problem is my illiteracy?
“Jeanne Belle said…
I personally skip over comments left by Rifkin as they are generally argumentative.”
I don’t deny in any sense that my comments are argumentative. Of course they are. David Greenwald’s post up front is an argument.
What is sad is that if you, or others who share your prejudices, are so closed-minded that you won’t read my arguments because you don’t want to hear a divergent perspective.
“He says this after saying that the language, i.e., the words of the ordinance creating the HRC don’t mean what they say. The ordinance says in plain words that it is the job of the HRC to investigate and mediate complaints lodged by citizens against the police, for example, and says nothing about an ombudsman.”
Hart,
The ordinance which you are continually referring to was written 3 years after the HRC was founded. Yet over and over again, you refer to it as its founding ordinance. And you suggest the problem is my illiteracy?
“Jeanne Belle said…
I personally skip over comments left by Rifkin as they are generally argumentative.”
I don’t deny in any sense that my comments are argumentative. Of course they are. David Greenwald’s post up front is an argument.
What is sad is that if you, or others who share your prejudices, are so closed-minded that you won’t read my arguments because you don’t want to hear a divergent perspective.
“He says this after saying that the language, i.e., the words of the ordinance creating the HRC don’t mean what they say. The ordinance says in plain words that it is the job of the HRC to investigate and mediate complaints lodged by citizens against the police, for example, and says nothing about an ombudsman.”
Hart,
The ordinance which you are continually referring to was written 3 years after the HRC was founded. Yet over and over again, you refer to it as its founding ordinance. And you suggest the problem is my illiteracy?
“Jeanne Belle said…
I personally skip over comments left by Rifkin as they are generally argumentative.”
I don’t deny in any sense that my comments are argumentative. Of course they are. David Greenwald’s post up front is an argument.
What is sad is that if you, or others who share your prejudices, are so closed-minded that you won’t read my arguments because you don’t want to hear a divergent perspective.
I generally don’t like singling individuals out, but Rich Rifkin is either sloppy or dishonest:
Hart,
The ordinance which you are continually referring to was written 3 years after the HRC was founded. Yet over and over again, you refer to it as its founding ordinance. And you suggest the problem is my illiteracy?
I think if you look back through what I’ve posted, I never said the ordinance was a “founding” ordinance or anything else about its history. However, I will assume you are right (though you haven’t proven yourself to be scrupulous with fact) about the timing of the founding of the HRC and the enactment of the ordinance.
I see no conflict. I do conclude that well after the HRC was formed, the City Council decided they needed to put the HRC’s directive into law. Hence the directive to investigate and mediate citizen complaints. On this issue, you have not engaged in debate or argument based on the objective facts of the language of the ordinance.
You repeatedly go out of your way to avoid a clear reading of the ordinance and change the subject or misstate what others are saying.
You refuse to argue your true position that the City Council can and should ignore the specific language of the ordinance. You do this through subterfuge by misquoting others, harping on non-crucial aspects of the HRC process, suggesting private groups take up the city’s responsiblities, etc., etc.
The fact is, Mr. Rifkin, you are being dishonest in the approach you take to this issue.
I generally don’t like singling individuals out, but Rich Rifkin is either sloppy or dishonest:
Hart,
The ordinance which you are continually referring to was written 3 years after the HRC was founded. Yet over and over again, you refer to it as its founding ordinance. And you suggest the problem is my illiteracy?
I think if you look back through what I’ve posted, I never said the ordinance was a “founding” ordinance or anything else about its history. However, I will assume you are right (though you haven’t proven yourself to be scrupulous with fact) about the timing of the founding of the HRC and the enactment of the ordinance.
I see no conflict. I do conclude that well after the HRC was formed, the City Council decided they needed to put the HRC’s directive into law. Hence the directive to investigate and mediate citizen complaints. On this issue, you have not engaged in debate or argument based on the objective facts of the language of the ordinance.
You repeatedly go out of your way to avoid a clear reading of the ordinance and change the subject or misstate what others are saying.
You refuse to argue your true position that the City Council can and should ignore the specific language of the ordinance. You do this through subterfuge by misquoting others, harping on non-crucial aspects of the HRC process, suggesting private groups take up the city’s responsiblities, etc., etc.
The fact is, Mr. Rifkin, you are being dishonest in the approach you take to this issue.
I generally don’t like singling individuals out, but Rich Rifkin is either sloppy or dishonest:
Hart,
The ordinance which you are continually referring to was written 3 years after the HRC was founded. Yet over and over again, you refer to it as its founding ordinance. And you suggest the problem is my illiteracy?
I think if you look back through what I’ve posted, I never said the ordinance was a “founding” ordinance or anything else about its history. However, I will assume you are right (though you haven’t proven yourself to be scrupulous with fact) about the timing of the founding of the HRC and the enactment of the ordinance.
I see no conflict. I do conclude that well after the HRC was formed, the City Council decided they needed to put the HRC’s directive into law. Hence the directive to investigate and mediate citizen complaints. On this issue, you have not engaged in debate or argument based on the objective facts of the language of the ordinance.
You repeatedly go out of your way to avoid a clear reading of the ordinance and change the subject or misstate what others are saying.
You refuse to argue your true position that the City Council can and should ignore the specific language of the ordinance. You do this through subterfuge by misquoting others, harping on non-crucial aspects of the HRC process, suggesting private groups take up the city’s responsiblities, etc., etc.
The fact is, Mr. Rifkin, you are being dishonest in the approach you take to this issue.
I generally don’t like singling individuals out, but Rich Rifkin is either sloppy or dishonest:
Hart,
The ordinance which you are continually referring to was written 3 years after the HRC was founded. Yet over and over again, you refer to it as its founding ordinance. And you suggest the problem is my illiteracy?
I think if you look back through what I’ve posted, I never said the ordinance was a “founding” ordinance or anything else about its history. However, I will assume you are right (though you haven’t proven yourself to be scrupulous with fact) about the timing of the founding of the HRC and the enactment of the ordinance.
I see no conflict. I do conclude that well after the HRC was formed, the City Council decided they needed to put the HRC’s directive into law. Hence the directive to investigate and mediate citizen complaints. On this issue, you have not engaged in debate or argument based on the objective facts of the language of the ordinance.
You repeatedly go out of your way to avoid a clear reading of the ordinance and change the subject or misstate what others are saying.
You refuse to argue your true position that the City Council can and should ignore the specific language of the ordinance. You do this through subterfuge by misquoting others, harping on non-crucial aspects of the HRC process, suggesting private groups take up the city’s responsiblities, etc., etc.
The fact is, Mr. Rifkin, you are being dishonest in the approach you take to this issue.
“I generally don’t like singling individuals out, but Rich Rifkin is either sloppy or dishonest:”
How nice of you, Hart.
“You repeatedly go out of your way to avoid a clear reading of the ordinance and change the subject or misstate what others are saying.”
I never once commented on what the ordinance says or does not say. I don’t see why you’ve got your panties all knotted up over this. All I said was that the ordinance came years after the founding, and that in some ways it diverges from the original purpose of the HRC. For what it’s worth, I never have thought we should have had an HRC, even before its mission was changed.
“You refuse to argue your true position that the City Council can and should ignore the specific language of the ordinance.”
That’s not my position. My position is that we should get rid of the HRC entirely.
“You do this through subterfuge by misquoting others, harping on non-crucial aspects of the HRC process, suggesting private groups take up the city’s responsiblities, etc., etc.”
First, I never misquoted anyone. Second, I’m not really sure what you think the city’s responsibility is. Third, I don’t understand your hostility.
“The fact is, Mr. Rifkin, you are being dishonest in the approach you take to this issue.”
Dishonest? Where? I don’t know why you are so angry, Hart.
“I generally don’t like singling individuals out, but Rich Rifkin is either sloppy or dishonest:”
How nice of you, Hart.
“You repeatedly go out of your way to avoid a clear reading of the ordinance and change the subject or misstate what others are saying.”
I never once commented on what the ordinance says or does not say. I don’t see why you’ve got your panties all knotted up over this. All I said was that the ordinance came years after the founding, and that in some ways it diverges from the original purpose of the HRC. For what it’s worth, I never have thought we should have had an HRC, even before its mission was changed.
“You refuse to argue your true position that the City Council can and should ignore the specific language of the ordinance.”
That’s not my position. My position is that we should get rid of the HRC entirely.
“You do this through subterfuge by misquoting others, harping on non-crucial aspects of the HRC process, suggesting private groups take up the city’s responsiblities, etc., etc.”
First, I never misquoted anyone. Second, I’m not really sure what you think the city’s responsibility is. Third, I don’t understand your hostility.
“The fact is, Mr. Rifkin, you are being dishonest in the approach you take to this issue.”
Dishonest? Where? I don’t know why you are so angry, Hart.
“I generally don’t like singling individuals out, but Rich Rifkin is either sloppy or dishonest:”
How nice of you, Hart.
“You repeatedly go out of your way to avoid a clear reading of the ordinance and change the subject or misstate what others are saying.”
I never once commented on what the ordinance says or does not say. I don’t see why you’ve got your panties all knotted up over this. All I said was that the ordinance came years after the founding, and that in some ways it diverges from the original purpose of the HRC. For what it’s worth, I never have thought we should have had an HRC, even before its mission was changed.
“You refuse to argue your true position that the City Council can and should ignore the specific language of the ordinance.”
That’s not my position. My position is that we should get rid of the HRC entirely.
“You do this through subterfuge by misquoting others, harping on non-crucial aspects of the HRC process, suggesting private groups take up the city’s responsiblities, etc., etc.”
First, I never misquoted anyone. Second, I’m not really sure what you think the city’s responsibility is. Third, I don’t understand your hostility.
“The fact is, Mr. Rifkin, you are being dishonest in the approach you take to this issue.”
Dishonest? Where? I don’t know why you are so angry, Hart.
“I generally don’t like singling individuals out, but Rich Rifkin is either sloppy or dishonest:”
How nice of you, Hart.
“You repeatedly go out of your way to avoid a clear reading of the ordinance and change the subject or misstate what others are saying.”
I never once commented on what the ordinance says or does not say. I don’t see why you’ve got your panties all knotted up over this. All I said was that the ordinance came years after the founding, and that in some ways it diverges from the original purpose of the HRC. For what it’s worth, I never have thought we should have had an HRC, even before its mission was changed.
“You refuse to argue your true position that the City Council can and should ignore the specific language of the ordinance.”
That’s not my position. My position is that we should get rid of the HRC entirely.
“You do this through subterfuge by misquoting others, harping on non-crucial aspects of the HRC process, suggesting private groups take up the city’s responsiblities, etc., etc.”
First, I never misquoted anyone. Second, I’m not really sure what you think the city’s responsibility is. Third, I don’t understand your hostility.
“The fact is, Mr. Rifkin, you are being dishonest in the approach you take to this issue.”
Dishonest? Where? I don’t know why you are so angry, Hart.
Why am I so angry? Probably has to do with being at the end of a work day. Now that I’ve had dinner, I feel better, thanks. To set the record straight, I don’t wear panties, rather I wear really comfortable boxers from Patagonia that never get twisted. I recommend them.
As much as I hate to, I also have to apologize for my personally accusatory tone. Email and blogs are a poor place to convey emotion. Please accept my apologies for singling you out. I’ll try to do that at the appropriate time and place.
I am angry over the fact that it’s very difficult and expensive to seek any kind of justice against discrimination without something like the venue of the HRC. If you’re a member of a union, and have good language in your contract, you can file a discrimination grievance in the workplace which is and inexpensive and expeditious way to get bad behavior to cease without a long and drawn out legal process.
I am angry when privileged persons want to block a relatively easy and inexpensive route to relief. Instead, you suggest some kind of privatized alternative that would not only have to spend much of its resources raising resources, but would be an “outside” entity trying to get action by city government.
If I extend your argument to the rest of city government, you would eliminate all the commissions and contract everything out to some “expert” (ombudsman) or privatized planning group, city finance foundation, safety club or whatever and let these groups lobby the city as external bodies instead of acting as an official part of city government.
In re-reading what you’ve written here and elsewhere I can see that our disagreement is not over the HRC as much as it is about the role of government in our society. To attempt to get this thread back on a productive track I would like to ask you to elaborate on your statement that, “Our experience as a community has shown that the method you seem to believe in — a city commission which invites people to come and publicly air their allegations against other citizens or against city employees — has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.” Can you name names here? I consider myself a member of “the community at large” and I was oblivious until the HRC was gutted last fall.
Why am I so angry? Probably has to do with being at the end of a work day. Now that I’ve had dinner, I feel better, thanks. To set the record straight, I don’t wear panties, rather I wear really comfortable boxers from Patagonia that never get twisted. I recommend them.
As much as I hate to, I also have to apologize for my personally accusatory tone. Email and blogs are a poor place to convey emotion. Please accept my apologies for singling you out. I’ll try to do that at the appropriate time and place.
I am angry over the fact that it’s very difficult and expensive to seek any kind of justice against discrimination without something like the venue of the HRC. If you’re a member of a union, and have good language in your contract, you can file a discrimination grievance in the workplace which is and inexpensive and expeditious way to get bad behavior to cease without a long and drawn out legal process.
I am angry when privileged persons want to block a relatively easy and inexpensive route to relief. Instead, you suggest some kind of privatized alternative that would not only have to spend much of its resources raising resources, but would be an “outside” entity trying to get action by city government.
If I extend your argument to the rest of city government, you would eliminate all the commissions and contract everything out to some “expert” (ombudsman) or privatized planning group, city finance foundation, safety club or whatever and let these groups lobby the city as external bodies instead of acting as an official part of city government.
In re-reading what you’ve written here and elsewhere I can see that our disagreement is not over the HRC as much as it is about the role of government in our society. To attempt to get this thread back on a productive track I would like to ask you to elaborate on your statement that, “Our experience as a community has shown that the method you seem to believe in — a city commission which invites people to come and publicly air their allegations against other citizens or against city employees — has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.” Can you name names here? I consider myself a member of “the community at large” and I was oblivious until the HRC was gutted last fall.
Why am I so angry? Probably has to do with being at the end of a work day. Now that I’ve had dinner, I feel better, thanks. To set the record straight, I don’t wear panties, rather I wear really comfortable boxers from Patagonia that never get twisted. I recommend them.
As much as I hate to, I also have to apologize for my personally accusatory tone. Email and blogs are a poor place to convey emotion. Please accept my apologies for singling you out. I’ll try to do that at the appropriate time and place.
I am angry over the fact that it’s very difficult and expensive to seek any kind of justice against discrimination without something like the venue of the HRC. If you’re a member of a union, and have good language in your contract, you can file a discrimination grievance in the workplace which is and inexpensive and expeditious way to get bad behavior to cease without a long and drawn out legal process.
I am angry when privileged persons want to block a relatively easy and inexpensive route to relief. Instead, you suggest some kind of privatized alternative that would not only have to spend much of its resources raising resources, but would be an “outside” entity trying to get action by city government.
If I extend your argument to the rest of city government, you would eliminate all the commissions and contract everything out to some “expert” (ombudsman) or privatized planning group, city finance foundation, safety club or whatever and let these groups lobby the city as external bodies instead of acting as an official part of city government.
In re-reading what you’ve written here and elsewhere I can see that our disagreement is not over the HRC as much as it is about the role of government in our society. To attempt to get this thread back on a productive track I would like to ask you to elaborate on your statement that, “Our experience as a community has shown that the method you seem to believe in — a city commission which invites people to come and publicly air their allegations against other citizens or against city employees — has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.” Can you name names here? I consider myself a member of “the community at large” and I was oblivious until the HRC was gutted last fall.
Why am I so angry? Probably has to do with being at the end of a work day. Now that I’ve had dinner, I feel better, thanks. To set the record straight, I don’t wear panties, rather I wear really comfortable boxers from Patagonia that never get twisted. I recommend them.
As much as I hate to, I also have to apologize for my personally accusatory tone. Email and blogs are a poor place to convey emotion. Please accept my apologies for singling you out. I’ll try to do that at the appropriate time and place.
I am angry over the fact that it’s very difficult and expensive to seek any kind of justice against discrimination without something like the venue of the HRC. If you’re a member of a union, and have good language in your contract, you can file a discrimination grievance in the workplace which is and inexpensive and expeditious way to get bad behavior to cease without a long and drawn out legal process.
I am angry when privileged persons want to block a relatively easy and inexpensive route to relief. Instead, you suggest some kind of privatized alternative that would not only have to spend much of its resources raising resources, but would be an “outside” entity trying to get action by city government.
If I extend your argument to the rest of city government, you would eliminate all the commissions and contract everything out to some “expert” (ombudsman) or privatized planning group, city finance foundation, safety club or whatever and let these groups lobby the city as external bodies instead of acting as an official part of city government.
In re-reading what you’ve written here and elsewhere I can see that our disagreement is not over the HRC as much as it is about the role of government in our society. To attempt to get this thread back on a productive track I would like to ask you to elaborate on your statement that, “Our experience as a community has shown that the method you seem to believe in — a city commission which invites people to come and publicly air their allegations against other citizens or against city employees — has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.” Can you name names here? I consider myself a member of “the community at large” and I was oblivious until the HRC was gutted last fall.
“I can see that our disagreement is not over the HRC as much as it is about the role of government in our society.”
That is probably true. I don’t know your views on enough things to say for sure. But if you read my work, then you likely know where I’m coming from.
I should clarify, nonetheless, that I am a city commissioner. (I’m on the HRMC.) So obviously I don’t oppose the idea of commissions, at all. I think when they serve in a limited advisory capacity to the city council, or when commissioners are experts in specialty areas, the city commissions are a beneficial arm of the elected city council. They should never have their own agendas, though.
“I would like to ask you to elaborate on your statement that ‘…the method you seem to believe in … has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.'”
I’ll start with the complainants. There seemed to be a large number of people who were bringing complaints about discrimination to the HRC. The HRC was, as you point out, charged with investigating and mediating these complaints. However, the HRC was not in a position to really solve the specific problems. As such, the complainants were not finding satisfaction. (To address that lack of satisfaction, the HRC proposed a citizens’ review board. That was not inherently a bad idea. But the structure they suggested seemed to lack the necessary impartiality. Additionally, it probably would have cost a lot more money than the ombudsman model.)
As far as the accused were concerned, I think their dissatisfaction with the HRC’s public investigations was obvious. The accused were the cops. From about a dozen different emails I got from DPD officers, I can fairly say that they felt the HRC process was unfair to them. I should add that I concluded, based on the HRC report to the city council, that the HRC’s conclusions based on its ‘investigation’ were not substantively fair to the people they were accusing.
And for the community at large, I don’t have a public opinion poll. I know how many people I spoke with who felt that way. I know the emails my column generated on this topic. But I don’t think those are fair representations of public opinion. I simply think that the votes of the public’s elected representatives suggests wider public distaste for the HRC investigations.
As I’ve stated a number of times on this blog, I believe in independent oversight. It’s especially important to have oversight of the police, because of the power cops wield. As such, it’s a question of what type of oversight works best and retains its independence. Unless the evidence proves otherwise, I think the ombudsman model is a good one. Time will tell on that.
People who feel that the police have discriminated against them, who feel that their civil rights were violated, or feel that the police were not doing their jobs professionally ought to take those complaints to 1) the police themselves, 2) the city ombudsman, and 3) the city council or a member of the city council. If the evidence suggests that the complaint is valid, hopefully the problem can be solved.
“I can see that our disagreement is not over the HRC as much as it is about the role of government in our society.”
That is probably true. I don’t know your views on enough things to say for sure. But if you read my work, then you likely know where I’m coming from.
I should clarify, nonetheless, that I am a city commissioner. (I’m on the HRMC.) So obviously I don’t oppose the idea of commissions, at all. I think when they serve in a limited advisory capacity to the city council, or when commissioners are experts in specialty areas, the city commissions are a beneficial arm of the elected city council. They should never have their own agendas, though.
“I would like to ask you to elaborate on your statement that ‘…the method you seem to believe in … has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.'”
I’ll start with the complainants. There seemed to be a large number of people who were bringing complaints about discrimination to the HRC. The HRC was, as you point out, charged with investigating and mediating these complaints. However, the HRC was not in a position to really solve the specific problems. As such, the complainants were not finding satisfaction. (To address that lack of satisfaction, the HRC proposed a citizens’ review board. That was not inherently a bad idea. But the structure they suggested seemed to lack the necessary impartiality. Additionally, it probably would have cost a lot more money than the ombudsman model.)
As far as the accused were concerned, I think their dissatisfaction with the HRC’s public investigations was obvious. The accused were the cops. From about a dozen different emails I got from DPD officers, I can fairly say that they felt the HRC process was unfair to them. I should add that I concluded, based on the HRC report to the city council, that the HRC’s conclusions based on its ‘investigation’ were not substantively fair to the people they were accusing.
And for the community at large, I don’t have a public opinion poll. I know how many people I spoke with who felt that way. I know the emails my column generated on this topic. But I don’t think those are fair representations of public opinion. I simply think that the votes of the public’s elected representatives suggests wider public distaste for the HRC investigations.
As I’ve stated a number of times on this blog, I believe in independent oversight. It’s especially important to have oversight of the police, because of the power cops wield. As such, it’s a question of what type of oversight works best and retains its independence. Unless the evidence proves otherwise, I think the ombudsman model is a good one. Time will tell on that.
People who feel that the police have discriminated against them, who feel that their civil rights were violated, or feel that the police were not doing their jobs professionally ought to take those complaints to 1) the police themselves, 2) the city ombudsman, and 3) the city council or a member of the city council. If the evidence suggests that the complaint is valid, hopefully the problem can be solved.
“I can see that our disagreement is not over the HRC as much as it is about the role of government in our society.”
That is probably true. I don’t know your views on enough things to say for sure. But if you read my work, then you likely know where I’m coming from.
I should clarify, nonetheless, that I am a city commissioner. (I’m on the HRMC.) So obviously I don’t oppose the idea of commissions, at all. I think when they serve in a limited advisory capacity to the city council, or when commissioners are experts in specialty areas, the city commissions are a beneficial arm of the elected city council. They should never have their own agendas, though.
“I would like to ask you to elaborate on your statement that ‘…the method you seem to believe in … has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.'”
I’ll start with the complainants. There seemed to be a large number of people who were bringing complaints about discrimination to the HRC. The HRC was, as you point out, charged with investigating and mediating these complaints. However, the HRC was not in a position to really solve the specific problems. As such, the complainants were not finding satisfaction. (To address that lack of satisfaction, the HRC proposed a citizens’ review board. That was not inherently a bad idea. But the structure they suggested seemed to lack the necessary impartiality. Additionally, it probably would have cost a lot more money than the ombudsman model.)
As far as the accused were concerned, I think their dissatisfaction with the HRC’s public investigations was obvious. The accused were the cops. From about a dozen different emails I got from DPD officers, I can fairly say that they felt the HRC process was unfair to them. I should add that I concluded, based on the HRC report to the city council, that the HRC’s conclusions based on its ‘investigation’ were not substantively fair to the people they were accusing.
And for the community at large, I don’t have a public opinion poll. I know how many people I spoke with who felt that way. I know the emails my column generated on this topic. But I don’t think those are fair representations of public opinion. I simply think that the votes of the public’s elected representatives suggests wider public distaste for the HRC investigations.
As I’ve stated a number of times on this blog, I believe in independent oversight. It’s especially important to have oversight of the police, because of the power cops wield. As such, it’s a question of what type of oversight works best and retains its independence. Unless the evidence proves otherwise, I think the ombudsman model is a good one. Time will tell on that.
People who feel that the police have discriminated against them, who feel that their civil rights were violated, or feel that the police were not doing their jobs professionally ought to take those complaints to 1) the police themselves, 2) the city ombudsman, and 3) the city council or a member of the city council. If the evidence suggests that the complaint is valid, hopefully the problem can be solved.
“I can see that our disagreement is not over the HRC as much as it is about the role of government in our society.”
That is probably true. I don’t know your views on enough things to say for sure. But if you read my work, then you likely know where I’m coming from.
I should clarify, nonetheless, that I am a city commissioner. (I’m on the HRMC.) So obviously I don’t oppose the idea of commissions, at all. I think when they serve in a limited advisory capacity to the city council, or when commissioners are experts in specialty areas, the city commissions are a beneficial arm of the elected city council. They should never have their own agendas, though.
“I would like to ask you to elaborate on your statement that ‘…the method you seem to believe in … has not satisfied the complainants, the accused or the community at large.'”
I’ll start with the complainants. There seemed to be a large number of people who were bringing complaints about discrimination to the HRC. The HRC was, as you point out, charged with investigating and mediating these complaints. However, the HRC was not in a position to really solve the specific problems. As such, the complainants were not finding satisfaction. (To address that lack of satisfaction, the HRC proposed a citizens’ review board. That was not inherently a bad idea. But the structure they suggested seemed to lack the necessary impartiality. Additionally, it probably would have cost a lot more money than the ombudsman model.)
As far as the accused were concerned, I think their dissatisfaction with the HRC’s public investigations was obvious. The accused were the cops. From about a dozen different emails I got from DPD officers, I can fairly say that they felt the HRC process was unfair to them. I should add that I concluded, based on the HRC report to the city council, that the HRC’s conclusions based on its ‘investigation’ were not substantively fair to the people they were accusing.
And for the community at large, I don’t have a public opinion poll. I know how many people I spoke with who felt that way. I know the emails my column generated on this topic. But I don’t think those are fair representations of public opinion. I simply think that the votes of the public’s elected representatives suggests wider public distaste for the HRC investigations.
As I’ve stated a number of times on this blog, I believe in independent oversight. It’s especially important to have oversight of the police, because of the power cops wield. As such, it’s a question of what type of oversight works best and retains its independence. Unless the evidence proves otherwise, I think the ombudsman model is a good one. Time will tell on that.
People who feel that the police have discriminated against them, who feel that their civil rights were violated, or feel that the police were not doing their jobs professionally ought to take those complaints to 1) the police themselves, 2) the city ombudsman, and 3) the city council or a member of the city council. If the evidence suggests that the complaint is valid, hopefully the problem can be solved.
Taking a complaint to the police themselves should poll about 85% of the public thinking “bad idea”. Scratch that one.
When you take it to the City Council, you are by definition entering into a “political” environment for resolution. Is there any way to know how many complainants have sought help directly from a city councilperson or the council as a whole over the last ten years and their relative level of satisfaction?
Taking a complaint to the police themselves should poll about 85% of the public thinking “bad idea”. Scratch that one.
When you take it to the City Council, you are by definition entering into a “political” environment for resolution. Is there any way to know how many complainants have sought help directly from a city councilperson or the council as a whole over the last ten years and their relative level of satisfaction?
Taking a complaint to the police themselves should poll about 85% of the public thinking “bad idea”. Scratch that one.
When you take it to the City Council, you are by definition entering into a “political” environment for resolution. Is there any way to know how many complainants have sought help directly from a city councilperson or the council as a whole over the last ten years and their relative level of satisfaction?
Taking a complaint to the police themselves should poll about 85% of the public thinking “bad idea”. Scratch that one.
When you take it to the City Council, you are by definition entering into a “political” environment for resolution. Is there any way to know how many complainants have sought help directly from a city councilperson or the council as a whole over the last ten years and their relative level of satisfaction?
Dave: Jamal Buzayan first came before the city council and they ignored him. The only people that helped him were Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald.
Bernita Toney whose story was posted yesterday, first went to the council and was ignored.
Dave: Jamal Buzayan first came before the city council and they ignored him. The only people that helped him were Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald.
Bernita Toney whose story was posted yesterday, first went to the council and was ignored.
Dave: Jamal Buzayan first came before the city council and they ignored him. The only people that helped him were Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald.
Bernita Toney whose story was posted yesterday, first went to the council and was ignored.
Dave: Jamal Buzayan first came before the city council and they ignored him. The only people that helped him were Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald.
Bernita Toney whose story was posted yesterday, first went to the council and was ignored.
The ombudsman hasn’t been in place long enough for us to evaluate his track record so that leaves the record of the HRC. Rich Rifkin claims none has been satisfied with the HRC as a forum to deal with discrimination. What is the record with satisfaction for the HRC over the last five years up to the fall of 2006? Anyone?
The ombudsman hasn’t been in place long enough for us to evaluate his track record so that leaves the record of the HRC. Rich Rifkin claims none has been satisfied with the HRC as a forum to deal with discrimination. What is the record with satisfaction for the HRC over the last five years up to the fall of 2006? Anyone?
The ombudsman hasn’t been in place long enough for us to evaluate his track record so that leaves the record of the HRC. Rich Rifkin claims none has been satisfied with the HRC as a forum to deal with discrimination. What is the record with satisfaction for the HRC over the last five years up to the fall of 2006? Anyone?
The ombudsman hasn’t been in place long enough for us to evaluate his track record so that leaves the record of the HRC. Rich Rifkin claims none has been satisfied with the HRC as a forum to deal with discrimination. What is the record with satisfaction for the HRC over the last five years up to the fall of 2006? Anyone?
“Taking a complaint to the police themselves should poll about 85% of the public thinking “bad idea”. Scratch that one.”
No, it is a good idea. Even if the police bury their heads in the sand and ignore or brush off the complaint, in a legal sense it is still a good idea. It creates a public record. How can the brass be held accountable if the individuals who believe that some cops have violated their civil rights or just mistreated them never report the violations?
You might argue that putting such a complaint on the public record would do no good for the individual who makes the complaint, because the cops are sure to take the side of their fellow cops in a complaint, regardless of the facts. But insofar as that is true, we (as a community) need to hold the cops accountable. Such a case would be investigated by the ombudsman, too. And if his investigation reveals a true problem with the police actions, while the internal investigation showed no problem with the cops, we would have grounds to penalize the internal investigations officer and or his superiors. However, if the complainant never went to the cops with his complaint, then there would be no way to hold the police brass accountable.
Ideally, the police should run their own affairs properly. But that won’t happen if they don’t have the right incentives to do so.
“When you take it to the City Council, you are by definition entering into a “political” environment for resolution.
I never said that you should go to a city council member (or the city council) for resolution. I think that would be a bad idea. Rather, I think you should go to a member of the council or to the council as a body in order to make our elected officials aware of the situation. This doesn’t have to be done during a public meeting. It could instead be done with a letter cc’d to all 5 elected representatives. My point with this is that the council should be made directly aware of such complaints. And members of the council ought to advise citizens to formally file their complaints with the police and with the ombudsman; and in some cases to seek legal representation.
“Is there any way to know how many complainants have sought help directly from a city councilperson or the council as a whole over the last ten years and their relative level of satisfaction?”
I don’t know. But that, as my above explanation makes clear, is not the reason to go to a councilmember. It’s just so the council knows what is going on; and in the future might be able to shape new policies that prevent the problems in the first place.
“Taking a complaint to the police themselves should poll about 85% of the public thinking “bad idea”. Scratch that one.”
No, it is a good idea. Even if the police bury their heads in the sand and ignore or brush off the complaint, in a legal sense it is still a good idea. It creates a public record. How can the brass be held accountable if the individuals who believe that some cops have violated their civil rights or just mistreated them never report the violations?
You might argue that putting such a complaint on the public record would do no good for the individual who makes the complaint, because the cops are sure to take the side of their fellow cops in a complaint, regardless of the facts. But insofar as that is true, we (as a community) need to hold the cops accountable. Such a case would be investigated by the ombudsman, too. And if his investigation reveals a true problem with the police actions, while the internal investigation showed no problem with the cops, we would have grounds to penalize the internal investigations officer and or his superiors. However, if the complainant never went to the cops with his complaint, then there would be no way to hold the police brass accountable.
Ideally, the police should run their own affairs properly. But that won’t happen if they don’t have the right incentives to do so.
“When you take it to the City Council, you are by definition entering into a “political” environment for resolution.
I never said that you should go to a city council member (or the city council) for resolution. I think that would be a bad idea. Rather, I think you should go to a member of the council or to the council as a body in order to make our elected officials aware of the situation. This doesn’t have to be done during a public meeting. It could instead be done with a letter cc’d to all 5 elected representatives. My point with this is that the council should be made directly aware of such complaints. And members of the council ought to advise citizens to formally file their complaints with the police and with the ombudsman; and in some cases to seek legal representation.
“Is there any way to know how many complainants have sought help directly from a city councilperson or the council as a whole over the last ten years and their relative level of satisfaction?”
I don’t know. But that, as my above explanation makes clear, is not the reason to go to a councilmember. It’s just so the council knows what is going on; and in the future might be able to shape new policies that prevent the problems in the first place.
“Taking a complaint to the police themselves should poll about 85% of the public thinking “bad idea”. Scratch that one.”
No, it is a good idea. Even if the police bury their heads in the sand and ignore or brush off the complaint, in a legal sense it is still a good idea. It creates a public record. How can the brass be held accountable if the individuals who believe that some cops have violated their civil rights or just mistreated them never report the violations?
You might argue that putting such a complaint on the public record would do no good for the individual who makes the complaint, because the cops are sure to take the side of their fellow cops in a complaint, regardless of the facts. But insofar as that is true, we (as a community) need to hold the cops accountable. Such a case would be investigated by the ombudsman, too. And if his investigation reveals a true problem with the police actions, while the internal investigation showed no problem with the cops, we would have grounds to penalize the internal investigations officer and or his superiors. However, if the complainant never went to the cops with his complaint, then there would be no way to hold the police brass accountable.
Ideally, the police should run their own affairs properly. But that won’t happen if they don’t have the right incentives to do so.
“When you take it to the City Council, you are by definition entering into a “political” environment for resolution.
I never said that you should go to a city council member (or the city council) for resolution. I think that would be a bad idea. Rather, I think you should go to a member of the council or to the council as a body in order to make our elected officials aware of the situation. This doesn’t have to be done during a public meeting. It could instead be done with a letter cc’d to all 5 elected representatives. My point with this is that the council should be made directly aware of such complaints. And members of the council ought to advise citizens to formally file their complaints with the police and with the ombudsman; and in some cases to seek legal representation.
“Is there any way to know how many complainants have sought help directly from a city councilperson or the council as a whole over the last ten years and their relative level of satisfaction?”
I don’t know. But that, as my above explanation makes clear, is not the reason to go to a councilmember. It’s just so the council knows what is going on; and in the future might be able to shape new policies that prevent the problems in the first place.
“Taking a complaint to the police themselves should poll about 85% of the public thinking “bad idea”. Scratch that one.”
No, it is a good idea. Even if the police bury their heads in the sand and ignore or brush off the complaint, in a legal sense it is still a good idea. It creates a public record. How can the brass be held accountable if the individuals who believe that some cops have violated their civil rights or just mistreated them never report the violations?
You might argue that putting such a complaint on the public record would do no good for the individual who makes the complaint, because the cops are sure to take the side of their fellow cops in a complaint, regardless of the facts. But insofar as that is true, we (as a community) need to hold the cops accountable. Such a case would be investigated by the ombudsman, too. And if his investigation reveals a true problem with the police actions, while the internal investigation showed no problem with the cops, we would have grounds to penalize the internal investigations officer and or his superiors. However, if the complainant never went to the cops with his complaint, then there would be no way to hold the police brass accountable.
Ideally, the police should run their own affairs properly. But that won’t happen if they don’t have the right incentives to do so.
“When you take it to the City Council, you are by definition entering into a “political” environment for resolution.
I never said that you should go to a city council member (or the city council) for resolution. I think that would be a bad idea. Rather, I think you should go to a member of the council or to the council as a body in order to make our elected officials aware of the situation. This doesn’t have to be done during a public meeting. It could instead be done with a letter cc’d to all 5 elected representatives. My point with this is that the council should be made directly aware of such complaints. And members of the council ought to advise citizens to formally file their complaints with the police and with the ombudsman; and in some cases to seek legal representation.
“Is there any way to know how many complainants have sought help directly from a city councilperson or the council as a whole over the last ten years and their relative level of satisfaction?”
I don’t know. But that, as my above explanation makes clear, is not the reason to go to a councilmember. It’s just so the council knows what is going on; and in the future might be able to shape new policies that prevent the problems in the first place.
Jamal Buzayan first came before the city council and they ignored him.
I’m not sure what it is they did not do that you think they should have done?
The council is not an investigatory body. They cannot resolve complaints between a citizen and the police, as the ombudsman (or the courts in the Buzayan case) can.
All they could do was to listen to his story (or in this case, his wife’s and daughter’s story). Did they cover their ears when he spoke?
You might have wanted members of the city council to publicly interogate the DPD over this case. But that would have been highly inappropriate. Why this one case over all others? Or should the city council interogate the cops whenever a citizen complains about perceived mistreatment by the cops?
I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the council to publicly question the chief or his surrogates over police misconduct in a general sense. And if they, as a body, have received many complaints by their constituents, they not only ought to bring that up to the chief, but they ought to consider new policies which help prevent or solve the problems. (I think this is just what the council did in adopting the ombudsman.)
“The only people that helped him were Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald.”
You say helped, and not resolved his problem. So forget the fact that they did not solve the problem — that, of course, is now the subject of his lawsuit against the city of Davis — what did they do to help Buzayan that the city council should have done?
“Bernita Toney whose story was posted yesterday, first went to the council and was ignored.”
Again, did they cover their ears?
Jamal Buzayan first came before the city council and they ignored him.
I’m not sure what it is they did not do that you think they should have done?
The council is not an investigatory body. They cannot resolve complaints between a citizen and the police, as the ombudsman (or the courts in the Buzayan case) can.
All they could do was to listen to his story (or in this case, his wife’s and daughter’s story). Did they cover their ears when he spoke?
You might have wanted members of the city council to publicly interogate the DPD over this case. But that would have been highly inappropriate. Why this one case over all others? Or should the city council interogate the cops whenever a citizen complains about perceived mistreatment by the cops?
I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the council to publicly question the chief or his surrogates over police misconduct in a general sense. And if they, as a body, have received many complaints by their constituents, they not only ought to bring that up to the chief, but they ought to consider new policies which help prevent or solve the problems. (I think this is just what the council did in adopting the ombudsman.)
“The only people that helped him were Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald.”
You say helped, and not resolved his problem. So forget the fact that they did not solve the problem — that, of course, is now the subject of his lawsuit against the city of Davis — what did they do to help Buzayan that the city council should have done?
“Bernita Toney whose story was posted yesterday, first went to the council and was ignored.”
Again, did they cover their ears?
Jamal Buzayan first came before the city council and they ignored him.
I’m not sure what it is they did not do that you think they should have done?
The council is not an investigatory body. They cannot resolve complaints between a citizen and the police, as the ombudsman (or the courts in the Buzayan case) can.
All they could do was to listen to his story (or in this case, his wife’s and daughter’s story). Did they cover their ears when he spoke?
You might have wanted members of the city council to publicly interogate the DPD over this case. But that would have been highly inappropriate. Why this one case over all others? Or should the city council interogate the cops whenever a citizen complains about perceived mistreatment by the cops?
I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the council to publicly question the chief or his surrogates over police misconduct in a general sense. And if they, as a body, have received many complaints by their constituents, they not only ought to bring that up to the chief, but they ought to consider new policies which help prevent or solve the problems. (I think this is just what the council did in adopting the ombudsman.)
“The only people that helped him were Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald.”
You say helped, and not resolved his problem. So forget the fact that they did not solve the problem — that, of course, is now the subject of his lawsuit against the city of Davis — what did they do to help Buzayan that the city council should have done?
“Bernita Toney whose story was posted yesterday, first went to the council and was ignored.”
Again, did they cover their ears?
Jamal Buzayan first came before the city council and they ignored him.
I’m not sure what it is they did not do that you think they should have done?
The council is not an investigatory body. They cannot resolve complaints between a citizen and the police, as the ombudsman (or the courts in the Buzayan case) can.
All they could do was to listen to his story (or in this case, his wife’s and daughter’s story). Did they cover their ears when he spoke?
You might have wanted members of the city council to publicly interogate the DPD over this case. But that would have been highly inappropriate. Why this one case over all others? Or should the city council interogate the cops whenever a citizen complains about perceived mistreatment by the cops?
I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the council to publicly question the chief or his surrogates over police misconduct in a general sense. And if they, as a body, have received many complaints by their constituents, they not only ought to bring that up to the chief, but they ought to consider new policies which help prevent or solve the problems. (I think this is just what the council did in adopting the ombudsman.)
“The only people that helped him were Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald.”
You say helped, and not resolved his problem. So forget the fact that they did not solve the problem — that, of course, is now the subject of his lawsuit against the city of Davis — what did they do to help Buzayan that the city council should have done?
“Bernita Toney whose story was posted yesterday, first went to the council and was ignored.”
Again, did they cover their ears?
Rich Rifkin claims none has been satisfied with the HRC as a forum to deal with discrimination. What is the record with complainant satisfaction for the HRC over the last five years up to the fall of 2006? Anyone?
Rich Rifkin claims none has been satisfied with the HRC as a forum to deal with discrimination. What is the record with complainant satisfaction for the HRC over the last five years up to the fall of 2006? Anyone?
Rich Rifkin claims none has been satisfied with the HRC as a forum to deal with discrimination. What is the record with complainant satisfaction for the HRC over the last five years up to the fall of 2006? Anyone?
Rich Rifkin claims none has been satisfied with the HRC as a forum to deal with discrimination. What is the record with complainant satisfaction for the HRC over the last five years up to the fall of 2006? Anyone?
No one.
No one.
No one.
No one.