City to Hold Second Police Oversight Meeting

Share:

(From Press Release) – The City of Davis is conducting its second public forum on Saturday, February 3 to talk about community perceptions on policing and engage in a discussion on police oversight models and principles.  The meeting will take place at the Davis Senior Center, 646 A Street, at 10:00 a.m. and is expected to last one and half hours.

The meeting will start with a short presentation and then move into a series of questions to elicit input from attendees. Anyone interested in police oversight issues is encouraged to attend.

At the November 7 City Council meeting, with a focus on renewing police oversight efforts, the City Council approved the hiring of consultants Barbara Attard and Kathryn Olson. The consultants will guide a community involved process to help Davis evaluate the current Independent Police Auditor Oversight program and to ultimately recommend a number of potential models that fit Davis, given its size, history of policing and community needs.

This meeting is the second of two community meetings and is in addition to smaller forums are being held. The smaller forums are geared to engage disproportionately impacted community groups. The goal of the community meetings will help to provide information in the overarching objective of the consultants; to understand the needs and concerns with policing from the widest sample of perspectives possible.  A report and recommendations will be prepared by the consultants and brought to the City Council at the end of April.

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

12 thoughts on “City to Hold Second Police Oversight Meeting”

  1. John Hobbs

    All meaningless when the CC and/or police can simply suppress any unflattering findings.  When will we see the unabridged picnic day report? My guess: Never.

  2. John Hobbs

    “How do you know the findings are unflattering?”

    Because if they were flattering, the pols and cops would take out 50 point liberty type adverts patting themselves on the back. Instead they try to bury them like a cat hiding scat.

    “Do you have some inside source or something? ”

    No, just good sense and the power of reason.

    “Otherwise you’re just speculating.”

    No more than you, but apparently I’m better equipped.

    1. David Greenwald

      It is his opinion.  But he does have a valid point that you’re ignoring in the wake of declaring it his opinion.  If the findings really were favorable to the city/ police, they would have found a way to get them out there one way or another.

      1. Keith O

        Your opinion. You might be right but we won’t know until the findings come out, if they ever do, will we? I don’t think the police got to make the call.

        1. Keith O

          It is your opinion that “If the findings really were favorable to the city/ police, they would have found a way to get them out there one way or another.”  That’s what I’m referring to.  You have no way of knowing that.

          As far as Hobbs, I could give a %$@& about his opinion.

        2. David Greenwald

          That’s not my opinion.  I simply stated that he had a valid point (that again you ignored).  My opinion is again, we have no way of knowing what’s in the report at this point in time in part due to legal constraints and in part due to an overly cautious city attorney.

        3. Keith O

          Let’s try this again.  You stated “If the findings really were favorable to the city/ police, they would have found a way to get them out there one way or another.”

          You have no way of knowing that, that’s your opinion and the opinion that I referred to in my original response to you.

        4. David Greenwald

          Sentence one and sentence two are connected: “But he does have a valid point that you’re ignoring in the wake of declaring it his opinion.  If the findings really were favorable to the city/ police, they would have found a way to get them out there one way or another.”. That was my restating of his view.  I said he does have a valid point.  That doesn’t mean that that’s my opinion.  Are we on the same page yet?

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for