What are Police, Really?

Soulcial-isms: From the Mind of Bradford

protestingJutice4All

What I’m about to say isn’t popular, and will undoubtedly tick some people off. Some will say the I’m-so-sick-of-hearing phrase, “not all cops are bad”, others will say, “Blue Lives Matter”. And I’ll say upfront that you are both correct. If you know me at all, you know that I’m not about doing or saying what is popular, but what is righteous.

I remember when I was a child, propaganda campaigns would play on the mind control box aka tell-lie-vision, in a child like voice, saying: “The man in blue is a friend to you”. This phrase would be repeated in various ways. In school, the same message was repeated by my teachers, principals, and other school administrators. They even handed out collateral to us to take home, that outlined the policemen’s role in protecting our communities, and how we are to feel safe in their presence. Even these administers of…

View original post 1,877 more words

Fred Stewart for a Portland Youth Bureau. Vote Fred Instead!

fredinsteadbw

 

Friends during this election season we have discussed a lot of issues and they are all important. One of the most important is what can we do to improve the lives and opportunities for all of our children. Especially children that are in families that are struggling to just keep a roof over their heads. Portland must always invest in our youth through the up and the down cycles we face in Portland. ‪#‎PortlandYouthBureau‬

City Commissioner Candidate Fred Stewart with Dr. Don Baham

 

 

05LgColor

 

Host, Dr. Don Baham, interviews guest about how and why he chose to become a political public servant in pursuit of his desire to be of service to his fellow citizens. Fred appears to personify dedication to progressive ideas and action.

 

 

Portland Police Visioning Committee, Part 1

 

 

 

fredinsteadbw

I will lead the City of Portland in developing the type of Police Bureau that will reflect the values of the people of Portland.  We are one of the safest cities in the United States, and we can do better. ~ Fred Stewart

Fifty years ago, our grandparents came together to decide how the Portland Police Bureau would change and develop over time. They epitomized civic engagement through their involvement with numerous agencies in our city and their governance. The decisions that they made affect us today because they shaped the attitudes and policies of the Portland Police Bureau and its response to changes in technology, society, and Portland’s cultural landscape. These decisions have helped us make real improvements to our police force, but some of the policies and practices that they developed half a century ago are outdated and simply do not work.

Today we stand in a similar place where our grandparents stood some fifty years ago. We are trying to design a police force of the future and are working to improve the decision-making process that will impact the lives and liberty of our children and our grandchildren. The choice we have before us is between a humane, socially-engaged, and responsive police force that respects citizens as it protects and serves them, and a militarized, high-tech, “Robocop” police force that might protect us, but also threatens some of the liberties we all enjoy.

What will the police force of the 2060s look like in Portland? That is the question we must answer. Our answers to this difficult question and the changes we make as a result will have a serious impact on the lives of our descendants. We owe it to them, to the people who will inherit Portland, and, of course, to ourselves, to make these decisions carefully and in an inclusive, democratic manner. These decisions must live up to the principles of self-government and liberty that were handed down by our Founding Fathers and defended by our grandparents–principles that will preserve a finer way of life for our grandchildren, and for their children as well.

That is why I propose a Police Visioning Committee made up of community leaders, business leaders, and retired police officers to help us answer the important questions that face the Police Bureau. This Police Visioning Committee will brainstorm ideas and methods that will help ensure a police force that respects and protects citizens and upholds the people’s civil rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

Some of the questions that must be answered by this committee include:

  • How can we make certain the Police Bureau is diverse and inclusive of allracial and ethnic groups in the city?
  • How can the Police Bureau become more sensitive, responsive, and aware ofthe needs of our diverse citizenry, which includes the large number of homeless and mentally ill people currently living in Portland?
  • How can police officers be held accountable for their actions, especially anytype of wrongdoing, without infringing on their rights, including their right to union representation?
  • Should police officers be armed in all situations, or are there times when anunarmed police presence is more desirable?
  • How can we protect our officers from the violence and reduce the effectsof post-traumatic stress on police officers?
  • How can we effectively deal with people experiencing mental health crises without treating the mentally ill as a threat or the enemy, while ensuring that law enforcement officers are protected from violence and “suicide by cop” attacks?
  • How can we successfully recruit new officers and deal with the policemanpower shortage without recruiting police officers from other cities? How can we avoid getting the “bad apples” that a particular department may wish to transfer out in order to get rid of them?

Deciding how our Police Bureau needs to change and evolve will not be an easy process because there are so many important dynamics to consider. Some police methods are time-honored, highly effective, and should not change, while other police methods and training procedures should be examined with new eyes, in hopes of updating them.

It was not easy, to develop and sustain good leadership for the Portland Police Bureau when it was established in the 1870s, and it was not easy in the 1930s when advances in technology and changes in society required that Portland leaders once again reform the Bureau’s practices. It was not easy when changes were instituted in the tumultuous 1960s, in response to all the political and social unrest and civil rights reforms that transformed our country. The changes that resulted from that formative era shape the Portland Police Bureau of today.   

We cannot shirk our responsibility to overhaul the Police Bureau simply because it is not easy. Instead, we must make these decisions together with all citizens who hold a stake in the future of Portland.  This is what the Police Visioning Committee needs to address, for the betterment of all Portland citizens, here and in the future.

I urge all Portlanders who genuinely care about our city to support and participate in this process. As we make the decisions and lay the groundwork to provide our descendants with a Police Bureau that is humane, diverse, effective, and committed to a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Portland, we need community involvement and engagement to make that actually happen.

Portland needs a Police Bureau that will uphold the ideals of American policing: to protect and serve, while creating and maintaining positive relationships with community members of all races, all classes and from all parts of the city. My goal is that twenty five years from today, all Portlanders will consider the Portland Police Bureau the best police force the city has ever had, and celebrate its engaged, committed, and friendly officers who genuinely care for all Portland’s people.

Steve Novick’s Gas Tax is “Regressive and Unnecessary” Says Fred Stewart, “I see a pattern.”

 

05LgColor

 

 

Steve Novick’s Gas Tax is “Regressive and Unnecessary”

Says Fred Stewart, “I see a pattern.”

 

Fred Stewart, candidate for City Council, announced today his opposition to the ten-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax proposed by Steve Novick, his opponent in the primary election on May 17.

Stewart said, “The time is long past due for the City of Portland to adopt a ‘Fix it First’ approach to our city streets.”

“The truth is,” Stewart asserted, “that Commissioner Novick has demonstrated a less-than-common-sense approach to maintenance of our city streets. He is, after all, charged with running the Portland Bureau of Transportation. The Bureau has a budget of $325 million in the current fiscal year. The Bureau has 750 employees, including 95 engineers, and a personnel budget of $50 million. Yet, despite this huge operation and budget, Novick has budgeted only $8 million this year for repaving city streets. Common sense dictates that the City re-prioritize the budget to ‘Fix It First’ before we consider any kind of tax increase.”

Stewart added that, “Steve Novick has been looking for more money for transportation projects by saying the City couldn’t afford to catch up on its repairs because it has under-spent on repairs in past years. But the truth is, in the three years that Novick has run the Bureau, he has chosen to under-spend on repairs when he clearly didn’t have to do so, given the size of the Bureau budget.”

“Moreover,” Stewart said, “Novick spent a couple of years promoting his regressive street fee to give us more transportation money for pet projects like the freight projects on Columbia Blvd. and on the South Waterfront, each of which are priced at $10 million. He didn’t even plan to take his big new street fee to Portland’s voters, but the rest of City Council wouldn’t go along with him. And then he waited in hopes that the State Legislature would fill the City’s transportation coffers, which, of course, it didn’t do.”

“I see the gas tax and the street fee as extensions of the same failed policy–trying to fund our street repairs without first addressing how we allocate our existing funds. Like the street fee, the gas tax is regressive and unnecessary. And it’s guaranteed to be passed on to Portland consumers and small businesses.”

Stewart further remarked, “I would point out that, of the additional $64 million this Novick gas tax will provide over four years, some $28 million would not be spent on maintenance, but on more of his pet projects so he could raise more campaign money from the building trades and highway contractors.”

“I see a pattern,” Stewart added. “This gasoline tax will hurt the locally-owned Portland gas stations because many of the users of our city streets will choose to buy gas outside of the city limits in order to avoid the tax. This is just like the back-room meeting Novick engineered to pay his boss, Mark Wiener, for lobbying for Uber, a multi-billion-dollar corporation. This deal hurt the locally-owned taxi cab companies and their drivers, just as the gas tax will hurt our gas stations and truck stops.”

“When Portlanders go the polls,” Stewart said, “they need to remember what Steve Novick said when his street fee proposal was challenged. He said, and I quote, ‘If people don’t like what I do, they can vote me out.’ That may just be the best idea he’s had yet.”

 

Donate to Fred Stewart for Portland City Council