I’ve watched with growing perplexity the unfolding story of the city’s response to the discrimination case against our police chief. I am impressed and deeply troubled that the jury found him guilty of discrimination but in our system, a single trial is not definitive.
It’s certainly not easy to get the unanimous consent necessary for a jury to convict but legal history is full of jury convictions overturned with new or undisclosed evidence. There is an open question whether the city should appeal the conviction. The overt accusation from some in town is that the mayor’s decision to put the police chief on paid leave represents a determination to cover up racism in Greenfield. However, as annoying as the process frequently is to us all, court judgments are subject to appeal. And until that process is exhausted, laborious and taxing as it is, it is precipitous for the mayor or council to act without making the town liable for punitive damages.
Is the appeal a ruse, a delaying tactic? Perhaps. The fact is, neither I nor you know enough to make that judgment on our own. What, on the other hand, if there is evidence, as has been suggested, of fraudulent evidence in the initial case? Isn’t that, too, also possible? If you value for yourself the protection of the law through the right to appeal, shouldn’t we be vigilant in making sure that right is extended to each of our fellow citizens? That would mean not making substantive decisions until all the facts are in.
There are those in our community, who nonetheless came before the City Council to excoriate them, as well as the mayor, for inaction. In response to these accusations of protecting racism, disgracing Greenfield, etc., the council made the baffling decision to cut the Police Department budget. In what universe does cutting the police budget address the issue of racism? And if, as was insisted by some, racism is truly systemic, and the council’s judgement is that the best response to systemic racism is cutting budgets, all departments need to be cut as well, city offices, the Department of Public Works, the library, the schools. After all, if those voices are correct and racism is truly systemic, that it spills over and is present everywhere, in every corner of society, what town department could possibly be innocent?
Deliberation is the work of the City Council, which means being deliberate. Not very sexy, and certainly doesn’t fly well with those who demand quick dramatic gestures. I understand though the intense pressure that accusations of racism, or coddling racism, or ignoring racism carry in our society today. It is easy, far too easy, to stake out a pretended moral high-ground by demanding immediate action and easy, too, to be intimidated into ill-judged action by threats of being labeled racist. So I understand why the council felt pushed to their precipitous vote. The budget cut numbers proposed, however, spanned half a million dollars. That speaks to a lack of genuine forethought, more like numbers were being tossed around like spitballs. And if the concern was truly that the department’s budget is substantially bigger than it needs to be, then the appropriate response would be to have a long, hard audit of the department’s finances, of its responsibilities, its needs, and where, without sacrificing needed services, cuts would be justified. Instead, the council is conducting an unrestricted experiment—what’s gonna happen if we cut this much?
In the past three weeks, the only level-headed behavior I have seen in public has been from our mayor. Let’s please, as a community, take from her example and let this troubling and difficult issue be examined with thoroughness, patience, and care. For myself, I am baffled how to address the racism that exists in our country and am grieved by its persistence. I am quite sure, however, that it will not be fixed, or even confronted, when our responses are driven by intimidation and grandstanding.
Stephen Hussey lives in Greenfield.