Illustration by Maytal Bach
Berkeley City Council discussed racial profiling, police reform, and police use of force at a meeting on October 31. They passed an ordinance mandating that the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) officers report all uses of force, but postponed voting on two other items due to disagreement about how to address racial profiling and police oversight. Currently, police are required to report the use of weapons, including tasers and guns, and the use of force in certain crowd control situations. After Council’s decision, the BPD must report all uses of force, regardless of the situation or type of weapon involved.
Item 28, one of the postponed proposals, would direct the BPD to track yield rates (the ratio of contraband found to stops conducted) to clarify patterns of racial bias. It would require the BPD to respond to disparate yield rates with targeted training and policy reforms.
The other postponed proposal, Item 29, aimed to strengthen the powers of Berkeley’s Police Review Commission (PRC), a civilian board that evaluates police practices. The item would refer the PRC to develop a ballot measure to give itself greater police oversight capacity.
One revision that sparked council debate was the deletion of mentions of racial disparities. Mayor Jesse Arreguin and Councilmember Hahn’s version removed reference to race in the proposal language and instead mandated that police track “any relevant criteria” regarding yield rates. Tracy Rosenberg, a member of the police watchdog group Oakland Privacy, responded, “[T]here’s no mystery what causes racial disparities: it’s racial profiling.”
Hahn and Arreguin’s revisions also shifted some of the provisions of Item 28 to the ballot measure, such as extending the time period when police can be disciplined and changing standards of proof for police misconduct. Regarding the versions of Item 28, Councilmember Kriss Worthington said, “One says ‘analysis’ and the other says … do something.” He worried that the revisions made reform expectations less specific.
Others offered a different perspective. Councilmember Lori Droste said, “The original item doesn’t specify or identify specific problems at all. That’s why I’m okay with Mayor Arreguin and [Councilmember] Hahn moving the last three provisions to Item 29 because at least it makes Item 29 more substantive.” These three provisions were to grant the PRC access to the BPD records, adopt a “Preponderance of the Evidence” standard of proof for PRC decisions, and extend the time limit for police discipline. Community members expressed concern that the revisions would affect the timeline for executing policy change. If policy recommendations are shifted to a ballot measure, decisions will wait until the November 2018 voting season. Community activist Moni Law, a black woman who sued the city for police brutality at a 2014 Black Lives Matter protest, said that postponed reforms “will languish another three to six years.” PRC Chair George Lippman expressed similar concern. In an email after the meeting, Arreguin agreed with the urgency of the proposals. “I absolutely believe that now is the time to update our system of police review … I believe the revisions I submitted are more expansive and address the reforms community leaders want.” Similarly, Hahn said that councilmembers have “The same goals, but some quibbles about how to get there.”
Several councilmembers, including Worthington, have expressed willingness to compromise.