The latest pact made last week among city lawmakers in the enduring political game of chicken against dedicated city-council protesters carves out time for public comment and appears to be a reasonable solution to a vexing problem.
City council members and protesters linked to the police shooting death of Kilyn Lewis have reached a cumbersome stalemate at every city council meeting since last June.
Lewis was fatally shot May 23 last year by Aurora Police SWAT officer Michael Dieck while being arrested in connection with attempted murder charges stemming from an earlier Denver shooting.
Lewis was unarmed at the time of his fatal shooting by police, but body-cam video shows him reaching into his pocket and removing his mobile phone as five SWAT officers are yelling at him. As Lewis held the phone in one hand level with his head, raising both arms, Dieck alone fired a single shot, killing Lewis. It all happened in seconds.
Former District Attorney John Kellner declined to press criminal charges against Dieck for the fatal shooting. After an internal Aurora Police investigation, Police Chief Todd Chamberlain said Dieck did not stray from APD policy during the arrest and subsequent shooting.
For months, family and friends of Lewis, and numerous police-reform activists, have appeared at every bi-weekly city council meeting to protest Dieck’s continued tenure with APD. At times, protesters have demanded the city council fire Dieck. The city charter prohibits city lawmakers from such intervention.
The protests have run the gambit from being repetitive and emotional to profane, disruptive and bombastic.
Aside from the profound question as to whether Lewis was wrongly killed by Dieck during his arrest, the protests themselves have taken on a life of their own, aggravating city lawmakers and emboldening protesters.
For months, city council members have stopped meetings, met behind closed doors and switched up rules applying to the public’s ability to address the city council. Protesters have taken each of the challenges as a dare, finding ways to get to the council lectern and chide lawmakers.
At this point, the protesters’ argument, that Dieck violated state law and city policy by wrongfully shooting and killing Lewis, has moved beyond the scope of Aurora city hall.
Without a criminal indictment or charges, the family’s only recourse is the courts.
None of this actually speaks to the larger question of whether police are qualified to investigate themselves, or other officers, after an officer-involved shooting, or whether the local district attorney should handle cases among police it routinely works with.
More importantly, the case highlights the fact that there is no qualified, independent oversight of the Aurora Police Department that can provide credible transparency and accountability for this and similar incidents.
Those issues, however, have no bearing in a possible civil lawsuit against the city, or this city council.
Only a truly independent entity can provide needed clarity on whether Dieck wrongly shot and killed Lewis. This city council, however, can press for transparency and accountability for the community about how a substantial and targeted SWAT operation failed to safely make an arrest in what police by their own admission said was a “high value” target.
Continued berating of city lawmakers from the lectern won’t make that happen. That’s a call for the Colorado attorney general and governor.
Meanwhile, the need for city lawmakers to hear the concerns of residents on all matters is critical.
While there is no city charter rule or law requiring the city council to allow for comment from the public on non-agenda items, the expectation is sound. Public address and redress are the cornerstone of local government and critical to transparency and accountability.
Last week, Councilmembers Danielle Jurinsky and Francoise Bergan offered yet another proposal, this time creating about 40 minutes before each council meeting for the public to talk in two-minute segments about anything they want.
It’s a practical compromise from previous efforts to make it all but impossible for the public, including and especially Lewis protesters, to tell elected officials what’s important to them.
We agree with critics of the measure that part of being a city lawmaker is the need to listen to people you do and don’t agree with. This evasive, city council cat-and-mouse game with Lewis protesters and uncivil obstinance by protesters is making an already dysfunctional city council nearly incapable of governing.
All sides should stipulate this new process and move ahead.
Left undone from this proposal, however, are two critical items. First, the city absolutely should video record these public meeting sessions and post them for public consumption, along with all city council meetings, which are all of public interest.
Also, it’s unclear whether city council members must actually attend these public comment sessions. They absolutely should be required to do so, in person, following the same rules that apply to all other city council meetings.
Adding those caveats creates a workable way to ensure this critical part of city government is preserved, and the city council’s work can get done.
It is nice that the City Council has these venting sessions where people can be ignored by a Council that doesn’t have to answer any questions. What I have learned through the years is that the City has these token meetings where you get to express your opinion so it appears like they care about the public opinion. If it is a meeting where you are allowed to ask questions, they usually have you submit your questions and pick which ones they want to answer. Like most elected government officials, they’re aware that they only have to appear to be doing something. It doesn’t have to work. It just has to look good. They also understand that the public will lose interest if they simply do nothing and string it out for a long time. They also know, as admitted by a prior mayor in private, that they only care about the 35% needed to keep them in office. In actuality, they seldom answer any questions and will not allow any situation where they have to answer questions from anyone who knows something about the subject. They only really have to answer questions when confronted by the media. Since the media has become politicized, important questions are no longer asked. It is all political now with little question as to honesty, integrity, or the welfare of the public.
The case involving two wrongfully prosecuted Aurora officers in the dramatic pistol whipping is a classic example of how the Consent Decree and the idea of transparency are a collective sham. The officers were immediately prosecuted without anyone but the detective looking at videos that would have cleared the officers. One officer was convicted when the videos were not shown and the main officer was found not guilty when the videos were shown to a jury. The charges were made within a few days of the incident in a highly unusual rush to judgement. There was no real interview of the suspect (victim) who lied in some initial questions. There was no interview of the officers. Five civilian witnesses statements were ignored. It was great press for the then Chief ,Vanessa Wilson, who loudly declared that the officers’ actions were criminal. Any real review of the evidence and the highly unusual rush of the case shows incredible dishonesty and incompetence on the part of all involved in the investigation. The Use Of Force Review, chaired by a Division Chief, Chris Juul, does not resemble the actual incident. There are untruthful statements and complete omissions of the facts. I brought this all before Council and gave them copies of my Internal Affairs complaint against those responsible, as well as copies of a video that no one ever saw (except the one jury). It has been many months of complete silence. It will all just magically go away, regardless of the supposed oversight of the Consent Decree. It doesn’t matter the truth or how corrupt the actions of those in APD and the City Government. The only way that they will be forced to deal with this major injustice will be if the media finally asks questions that they must answer. So, it should be understood that they know the game and they know they won’t be forced to really be accountable.
“They know the game” as you put it can also apply to criminals such as Kilyn Lewis. He knew the laws he violated and he knew the dates he was to appear in court and yet he played fugitive and got shot while resisting arrest. The Sentinel should stop giving column space covering the death of this violent gang member or to the disruptive alligator tears of his so-called loving family.