Philadelphians shouldn’t expect change to police’s arbitration anytime soon, says the police commissioner and a former City Councilman.
—
The arbitration process that equally protects competent officers who are relieved of their duties for political or personal reasons—for example, if a Police Commissioner fired a cop because the pubic was pressing him to do so, or if the commissioner didn’t like the smell of an officers’ cologne—and those cops who are axed for tarnishing their badges, is a process that Philadelphia’s most influential people have acknowledged is a serious problem that won’t be dealt with anytime soon.
The truth is sobering, isn’t it?
Arbitration isn’t talked about often by the laymen, though it did get enough traction at last week’s Philly After Ferguson town hall to appear as the subject matter in today’s Philadelphia Daily News column by Ms. Helen Ubinas.
In her article, Ms. Ubinas reminds the public that Philadelphia Police Commissioner, Mr. Charles Ramsey, calls the process that brings the fired cops back to the force “frustrating.” Mr. Thomas Nestel, Chief, Transit Police, SEPTA, said it’s the number one problem with weeding out bad cops.
And in an exclusive interview with Techbook Online yesterday evening, Philadelphia mayoral candidate, Mr. Jim Kenney, says its “problematic” that a police commissioner has to operate under these circumstances, but there won’t be change to the process anytime soon.
“(Arbitration) is ordained in state law… I think state law would have to change,” said Mr. Kenney, who validated what Mr. Ramsey stated in a wide-ranging radio interview with WHYY’s Marty Moss-Coane last month when he also informed the public that reforms to the arbitration process won’t materialize in the immediate future.
The truth is angering, isn’t it?
I’m sure I speak for most when I say it’s not comforting to hear past and present city officials admit one of the city’s biggest problems—one that’s causing seemingly insurmountable tension between police and community – isn’t even close to being eradicated.
At the same time, however, it’s not comforting to know that given how big of a deal arbitration is to taxpayers—and that it’s technically a state issue—that no civic/community group or public interest news organization to my knowledge made it a talking point during the election of a new governor.
In fact, I don’t remember attending any gubernatorial debates where policing and/or police reforms was the topic. And, whereas, so many say that the tension between police and community date back way before Michael Brown was gunned down, it puzzles me that the needle on this topic hasn’t moved anywhere close to progress. Could the lack of movement on the issue be because no one knew it’s a state issue, thus the conversations and activism around it lacked proper context?
I think so. It’s my opinion that most people think all the power lies within the Philadelphia Police Department, thus they receive the majority of tongue lashings and protests, while lawmakers who draft the divisive and racist policies cops are required to enforce, skate on thin ice quietly by the angry mobs .
What’s missing from the police reform movement in Philadelphia is conversation and context. Though the conversation at Philly After Ferguson was tense as hell, it produced context and we need more of those types of gatherings.
But when we get context—like targeting the Fraternal Order of Police because their responsible for bringing back the “bad cops”—we have to move into meaningful, sustained and collaborative action.
When you think about it, it’s not hard for the community and the majority of police officers to find common ground, one thing everyone agrees on is “bad cops” have the ultimate shield, an unreformable arbitration process.
Thanks for reading. Until next time, I’m Flood the Drummer® & I’m Drumming for JUSTICE!™