[CPRB] Today's DI

[Esther Patt]

Please do not criticize them for the "whining" comment.  This is a super-positive editorial.  I'd already forgotten that comment was in the editorial until I read this message.  When something in the paper is 99% positive, it's unwise to remind readers of the 1% that wasn't.  Letters thanking the DI edit board -- or just expressing agreement with their position -- will keep the issue in the press with a positive spin.

Esther Patt

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 13:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: [CPRB] Today's DI  
>To: coalition policereview <cprb at lists.chambana.net>
>
>Hey folks-
>
>Anybody want to write a letter th anking the DI for
>their enlightened opinion (dfn: agreeing with us)?  Or
>calling them on the whining thing?  Here's our chance!
>
>Ricky
>
>Daily Illini p.7
>EDITORIAL: Board could restore faith in Urbana cops
>Citizens police review board would investi gate
>complaints against cops, increase accountability
>Posted: 8/2/06
>
>Given the state of affairs in the Urbana police
>department, the proposed citizens review board could
>only strengthen both the force and citizens'
>confidence in their law enforcem ent officers.
>
>Creating a review board, discussed at last Monday's
>public hearing, would work to prevent situations like
>the alleged rape of Amber Grohall by uniformed police
>officer Kurt Hjort last year. Hjort had a history of
>at least three previo us incidents of sexual misconduct
>while on the job, a red flag that a review board would
>be likely to catch.
>
>The main responsibility of the board would be to
>investigate the validity of complaints against police
>officers. But a secondary result wou ld be an increase
>in the accountability of the police force to the
>community they serve - a goal that the department
>seems to have forgotten.
>
>Though some of the comments heard at last week's
>hearing may have sounded like whining, many included
>leg itimate concerns. These concerns were not just over
>a single incident of individual misconduct but the
>police force as a whole. For instance, both Urbana and
>Champaign face accusations of discrimination against
>their traffic stop practices. A review b oard would a
>proactive step in resolving such accusations and the
>general mistrust of law enforcement authorities that
>many citizens seem to possess.
>
>The fact that the police force is showing resistance
>to the proposal is troubling. As public serva nts,
>police sworn to uphold the law should have nothing to
>hide from the people of Urbana.
>
>One argument against the board, that officers already
>have a difficult job with a large amount of paperwork,
>holds little water. As a non-binding entity, the
>review board is unlikely to create additional red tape
>for cops. The additional inconveniences that
>individual officers might face because of a review
>board should seem like small sacrifices to maintain
>the reputation of Urbana police as protectors and
>servants.
>
>Police officers do have a difficult job, and they
>should be respected for their work. But a review board
>is not meant to make a good cop's job harder; it is
>meant to eliminate the bad cops. More than anything,
>it is meant to forge th e one tool essential to making
>the system of law enforcement work well: trust between
>officers and the citizens they are sworn to serve. 
>
>© Copyright 2006 The Daily Illini
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>_______________________________________________
>CPRB mailing list
>CPRB at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cprb
∞