Some time in the next couple of months, the Anaheim City Council will vote to pick a new permanent police chief. But it won’t exactly be the Council choosing between candidates, as you may think. The way it will work is new City Manager Marcie Edwards will come forward with the candidate she thinks best, the Council will vote yes or no on that candidate, and if it’s a no vote, Marcie will have to come back with another one.
Harvey and Quezada being promoted last October.
Thus far, the well-liked interim Police Chief Raul Quezada has been thought to be the top contender, to have the “inside track.” Previously deputy under Chief Welter (beginning around the Troubles of last summer) Raul speaks fluent Spanish, as does his apparent right hand man Captain Julian Harvey, who may also be a friendly rival for the position.
Quezada and Harvey have made some news in recent months by meeting several times with mothers of young men slain by Anaheim cops, as well as members of Los Amigos and other activists and community leaders, most recently in a roundtable at Lorri Galloway’s ESCRI (or Eli Home.)
Partially as a result of those meetings, they’ve agreed to make several reforms, geared toward more openness, accountability, and fostering a dialogue with troubled communities. For example,
- a couple of gang-unit officers were transferred out of neighborhoods where they had killed;
- cops (in uniform) are now required to keep their digital audio recorders on whenever they make contact with a civilian;
- Harvey has taken on the task of making all police guidelines available online, and the process of filing a complaint has been greatly facilitated;
- and the first steps have been taken toward forming neighborhood councils to communicate each community’s concerns to the police.
It could be expected that some of these changes, modest as they may be, might be resented and resisted by some of the rank and file officers, don’t you think?
********
Well, it appears that pushback has begun, in the form of a July 31 Register column penned by a Sergeant Tony Montanarella. (Skip the paywall here, thanks to Matt Cunningham.) Bubbling through the unremarkable bulk of his column is a burning resentment against a perceived culture of “favoritism and cronyism” where “qualifications and experience” go unrewarded, and against current and recent leadership, specifically Quezada and his predecessor, the originally forward-thinking but progressively more weak and pathetic John Welter.
It’s not a common thing for an officer to complain in such a public forum about his department and superiors, and it seems to me this augurs more than just one disgruntled cop letting off steam.
Both Cunningham and Gabriel San Roman are correct to catch Montanarella’s unmistakeable attacks on Quezada and Harvey, who remain unnamed:
“Currently, the department is obsessed with catering to a very angry, vocal minority with political agendas at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the population we serve who support us and appreciate what we do.”
That is how the Sergeant characterizes Quezada and Harvey’s program of outreach to troubled communities, and Cunningham heartily concurs, “I think we can guess to whom he is referring … and whoever does take the rains [sic] shouldn’t accord undue influence and attention to a vocal minority in Anaheim who believe the worst in police and view gangs and gang members through a soft-focus lens.”
But to me, what struck me hardest from the Sergeant’s column was the passage hailing…
***OVERWHELMING FORCE***
…as the only thing that saved the day during last summer’s “unrest.” To quote:
The only reason calm was eventually restored was because of the courage and professionalism of the department’s rank and file officers and overwhelming force, as officers responded to assist from all over Southern California. It was not because of the leadership of the command staff at Anaheim PD.
Remember, he’s not referring to the famous spontaneous July 24 riot, which only ended when the furious crowd of locals was worn out – there was no great police presence that night.
What he’s talking about is the generally peaceful (if angry) protests in front of the police station for the few Sundays that followed, until they gradually ebbed away in late August. And the “overwhelming force” he’s referring to is the completely unnecessary and exaggerated militarization of Anaheim’s streets, documented on this blog by Duane Roberts and by many others.
We still don’t know how many millions of taxpayer dollars were squandered defending society from those four or five Sunday protests (OUTSIDE A POLICE STATION!) The Register reported $1.7 million in Anaheim police overtime pay alone. (It’s amusing to walk past cops on days like that and overhear them laughing and chattering about what they’re going to do with all their extra pay.) Police forces from across the County and beyond joined in on the fun. Equestrian units were brought in from Santa Ana. Military vehicles, SWAT teams, snipers on the roof, the whole she-bang. And for what, really? The riot was already over, by midnight of July 24.
The vast white voting public, if they weren’t already terrified by the broken windows of July 24 and the spectacle of colorful angry protesters thronging in from outside city limits, were convinced that if the police force was putting this much manpower and firepower into protecting them, it MUST be from something truly horrible. And when it came time to lay blame for the insane costs, they held it all against the protesters and brown hordes, not a police force bent on wagging its dick. Even poor Chief Welter claimed to be shocked and surprised at the military display, and I think I believe him – at that point things seemed to be under the control of his then-deputy Craig Hunter.
The good Sergeant lauds the “courage” of the officers at those Sunday protests. Not to take away from the actual courage of any policemen, but really, how much “courage” did it take on those days to stand there in your Kevlar and helmet with your submachine gun at the ready, and stare down sad and angry people with signs?
The ridiculous display prevented nothing, stopped nothing. After a few weeks of protests, the local people gradually began to stay home, either withdrawing into their depression or apathy, or to talk at City Hall and eventually meet with police chiefs. And the colorful angry outsiders eventually found other places to go be colorful and angry. Snipers and SWAT teams influenced not a one of them.
It’s the height of revisionist history to suggest that some violent revolution was on the verge of happening and was only prevented by this cartoonish display of “overwhelming force.” Does the Sergeant really believe that? Or does he (or whoever urged him to write this piece) just want to re-ignite that good old fear in the hearts of white voters?
“Putting our own house in order first.”
That’s another little thing that bothers me in this column, after reading it a few times: What does the Sergeant mean by “putting our own house in order first” – #3 in his 3-part to-do list for the PD? Who could be against getting their own house in order? But that could mean almost anything.
It seems that in the Sergeant’s usage, it means NOT engaging with the community as the current leadership has been doing, instead looking inward, battening down the hatches, and fostering a sense of LOYALTY within the force. As ironic as it sounds for this disgruntled sergeant to be touting “loyalty,” I’m reading that here as a code word for that trait notoriously seen among many police where their allegiance lies more to each other and their department than to the public they serve and the Constitution they’re sworn to uphold – something perilously close to what’s called the “Blue Wall” of silence, where the last thing they would dream of doing is to inform on another officer’s misbehavior. And how good is that?
Let me go ahead and copy over that paragraph, and you tell me if I’m misunderstanding it:
…Currently, the department is obsessed with catering to a very angry, vocal minority with political agendas at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the population we serve who support us and appreciate what we do. No organization has credibility with any group or entity if it’s in turmoil internally. Let’s make the changes we need to make to insure our officers and employees are respected, valued and have a strong sense of loyalty to each other and the department.
For whose benefit is this column?
It really sounds like as the Sergeant describes the ideal candidate for Anaheim Police Chief, he has somebody specific in mind that he’s not naming, and it’s not him – he specifically says the candidate must come from “outside the department” and have “more experience” than Quezada’s laughable twenty years. Gabriel points out the irony of this Welter-hater locating a magic bullet in outsiderdom, when Welter himself was hired away from San Diego originally – to me that only confirms that the Sergeant has someone specific in mind.
So I’m wagering that the next shoe to drop will be some hero appearing from outside the city, galloping in on a white horse wanting to be Anaheim’s next chief, someone with more than twenty years experience, someone who believes in overwhelming force, in police staying loyal to each other above all, and someone who looks with disdain on such effete hippie notions as community outreach and transparency. Any takers?
The most troubling part of all this, and I hope I’m wrong…
I guess what’s most disturbing to me about this column, after thinking about it for a couple weeks, is that it seems like a sign that, like everything else in Anaheim, the police chief choice is about to become POLITICIZED. That is, the Council majority and the corporate interests who back them will take the opposite side from the Mayor and the progressives and conservatives who tend to agree with him. I HOPE I’M WRONG. I had thought that the sort of modest reforms Quezada had been making were something most everyone would agree with.
But the first sign that I might be right, that it’s getting ready to be politicized, that this Montanarella column is coming from the direction of the Pringle-Chamber corner, is the haste with which Matt Cunningham – Cunningham who works side by side with Pringle and is paid by the Chamber – fell all over himself to praise it, even while admitting he didn’t understand it all. I mean, Matt thought the column was so important for you and me to read that he even provided a link to bypass the Register‘s firewall – has he ever done that before? Isn’t that a little … illegal? Crooked? But that’s how important this column was, to Matt (and his bosses.)
We already know that two things the Council majority stands for against the Mayor are:
1. Unlimited corporate welfare, and
2. LIMITED democracy (i.e. “at-large” districts.)
Will we now have to add a third leg of
3. Brutal unaccountable policing?
I hope I’m wrong. Because those sound like three legs of a very sinister stool.
“…accord undue influence”
What does that mean?
P.S.
I agree with your assessment. That “editorial” was a no-so veiled threat against anybody looking sideways at a cop.
A little loyalty to the taxpaying citizenry would nice.
Montanarella is referring to July 24th. That was in my original draft but edited due to space considerations.
What do you mean? I’m going by what he wrote in his Register column.
“Everything came to a head last summer, during the civil unrest in downtown Anaheim and the surrounding areas. The only reason calm was eventually restored was because of the courage and professionalism of the department’s rank and file officers and overwhelming force, as officers responded to assist from all over Southern California.”
That sounds like he’s conflating the whole month together. Did you actually ask him what he was talking about? Would that even be accurate about July 24? Officers responded to assist from all over Southern California that night, and otherwise much more hell would have broken loose? I don’t know if your interpretation makes sense, but I’m listening.
Vern, I’m glad you reproduced that bit. Please note how, in one breath, this meathead compliments himself on his courage and yet acknowledges the presence of “overwhelming force.”
When I first read that I had to laugh out loud. It’s like praising the Wehrmacht for their courage when invading Poland.
July 29 never got ‘out of hand.’ There was more agencies involved on July 24. It wasn’t fashionable at the time, but there was definitely mistakes made by police outside the surrounding areas of City Hall. Welter apologized for lack of coordination in an exit interview the day of his retirement on NBC4.
Montanarella is clearly referring to July 24.
Well, if you’re right, the confusion arose from Monty’s use of the fashionable word “unrest,” which has generally come to mean, like the Irish “Troubles.” a period of time – in this case the month or so when Anaheim’s underclass seemed especially unhappy and scary. And if I read it that way, I bet at least half of the Register readers did as well, so it was worth me re-telling the story.
The “overwhelming force” most people saw and remembered was the daytime militarization of the streets on July 29, August 5, August 12…
Lots of other points in my piece too, that you might want to comment on…
What “overwhelming force” was used on July 24? “Overwhelming force” was certainly used — to combat non-violent resistance — on July 29, but can one truly call the force used against the window-breakers “overwhelming”? Or maybe he’s referring to the “force” used in keeping people out of the Council Chambers?
I’m with Vern; I think that he’s (conveniently) conflating two or more events.
You two are confusing ‘overwhelming force’ that was actually used on July 24 to “restore calm” as opposed to the ‘overwhelming DISPLAY of force’ on July 29 that more than anything discouraged locals from coming out to protest in the first place – psyops.
In any regard, it isn’t the only point of contention in this faulty analysis.
Well, contend away then, comrade, that’s what we’re here for.
Refresh my memory: in what way was the force used against people breaking or about to break the law on July 24 “overwhelming”? My recollection is that it was belated and ineffective and perhaps even misdirected, but you’ve apparently reviewed the contemporaneous coverage more recently than I have.
I like Kris Murray’s Shawl, very Latina.
Vern can you please re-do your group photo.
Put a poncho on the Mayor and a big thick hairy mustache on Brandman.
Attach it to his face though.
“I guess what’s most disturbing to me about this column ..is that it seems .. the police chief choice is about to become POLITICIZED.”
No shit Sherlock – they are politicians …..
In other years, and in other towns… something like the picking of a police chief would not turn bitterly “partisan.” And I think it might here, and I hope it doesn’t.
And the reason I put “partisan” in quotes is that there’s no Republican or Democrat in Anaheim any more. There’s the Mayor with his conservative and progressive backers, and there’s the Council majority with their corporate backers.
Police chief appointments have always been politicized. Not only that, police chiefs themselves are political operatives.
Everything has to be driven into this Manichean duality here, though. I sat in on the ESCRI forum. Los Amigos and others raised issues of the council majority. Quezada didn’t indulge. He simply mentioned contentment over the recent budget delivered by council which translated into more hires and money in the coffers of the PD.
Imagine that!
I never said Quesadilla was the second coming of whoever, I called his reforms “modest.”
But what Mozzarella seems to represent is a huge step backward into Craig Hunter world.
Still too Manichaen for you? Well, maybe Marcie will come up with three, four, many candidates. Dunno how that would work though.
Do not mock cheese, Vern. If you really want to abbreviate their names, “Monty” was a good choice for the one and for the other, maybe “Que.”
Perspective #1
So Sergeant Tony Montanarella correctly and bravely steps up and talks about the problems in the leadership structure of the Anaheim police department.
But he also downplays the “small vocal” group of people voicing concerns/complaints about the Anaheim officers out in the field. He wants to maintain the position that there are serious internal problems with his department while also claiming that these internal problems never spilled over into the community – aka the cops on the street are all misunderstood little angels. The implication: the concerns voiced by these “small groups” in the community are unfounded (because we were bored “keeping up with the Kardashians” and decided hey let’s pick a fight with city hall and the local police department – that’ll be exciting!)
Tony, take it from this one cop accountability advocate: you sound like you are trying to have your cake, eat it to, kill the baker and then get an award from the city at the next council meeting. The position doesn’t add up for me.
Perspective #2
If we start with the assumption that Sergeant Tony Montanarella:
1. is a good cop
2. who bravely spoke about dysfunction in his own department
3. who honestly believes that 99.99% of his fellow cops are like him therefore making him not understand or believe the complaints levied by many in the community of Anaheim.
Then it would confirm something that I have long suspected based on my 15+ years of pondering this OC police community.
That several of the police/sheriffs departments are structured in the same way that Bernie Madoff structured his investment company. One section of the company consisting of legitimate investment work and the other section of the company involved in unspeakable acts of human depravity. The good half of Madoff’s company supposedly never understood what he was doing upstairs. Bernie would also hide behind the good members of his company as cover for the criminal crap occurring literally on another floor of the office building.
So good cop Sergeant Tony Montanarella detects that something is rotten in Denmark, correctly identifies part of the problem but honestly doesn’t understand the full scope of the problem.
If Tony and any other good cop in Orange County knew how they were used and how badly their trust is betrayed, the next protest would contain many a cop.
Anyway those are my two takes on Sergeant Tony Montanarella.
Thanks for at least speaking out about a real and significant part of the problem. Been waiting for you for quite some time.
I saw those comments of yours, German, on the Weekly. I think you ought to maybe read my story, and then read Montaranella’s piece again. I believe you misunderstood what his criticisms of his department are, they are ANYTHING BUT what yours and mine would be.
Yes Vern understood.
But I also know how good cops are exploited so I toss in the second perspective in case it pertains to the Sergeant. Either way, the leadership structure of your law enforcement community here in Orange County California is dysfunctional. And the dysfunction enjoys a huge support base. Pinocchio would blush.
The preceding comment was from the perspective of an Hispanic American engineer working on “surveillance state” type projects (1992 -2005) who became a victim of that very surveillance state.
It’s why I vote NO on the surveillance state
Two of several reservations about Chief Raul Quezada:
With respect to myself and my eternal love affair with the Anaheim PD (and the entirety of Orange County law enforcement for that matter), the harassment routines changed not one iota with the new Chief. Side note, he was bestowed the interim Chief title on my birthday 5/17 – nice touch.
Mr. Quezada has been in the Anaheim PD for 20 years now – there is no way on this planet that this man is unaware of some of my assertions about Orange County police depravity (excuse me – misconduct).
The meme that the “we have problems with the cops on patrol and we need to have the leadership fix it” is hilarious to me. The biggest problem with Orange County law enforcement starts with the leadership. These people don’t care about betraying the trust of their officers and don’t care about putting their officers in legally precarious situations. I’ve seen the look on many an officer’s face – the “I don’t really want to be doing this” look. I’ve also seen cops that weren’t even aware of certain scenarios occurring around them. In other words, using their own like worthless pawns. I’m worthless – their cops are worthless – and they are “MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE”. Except they are not masters of the universe – they are masters morons heading to federal prison with boy toy Carona.
Forget Raul Quezada, the city council etc.
How to quickly start fixing the Anaheim police department:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZxcrIK-HbI&feature=share&list=UUPI7sv8xxXT6pYFR6S2gM6w
Exit question: why do you think black and Hispanic New Yorkers welcome the idea and NYPD doesn’t?
NYPD cops claiming that wearing cameras violates their civil rights:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/nypd-cops-proactive-stop-frisk-article-1.1427255
The only right that would be violated is their self proclaimed and very criminal right to harm others in order to meet quotas.
Well, that’s certainly one of the most interesting arguments I’ve seen in a while.
Update: A source high up in the APD tells me “I don’t think Tony got the response he was hoping for from his column.” LOL. What, Cunningham loving it wasn’t good enough?
I think we knew by then that the cops were all in as members of Pringle’s kleptocracy.
And wasn’t this about the same time Jerb set a teddy bear on fire and set it up in front of City Hall with votive candles to make fun of grieving Lantina moms whose kids were shot by the Anaheim PoPo?
Yes! The ten-year anniversary of THAT story is coming up… in December I think.