To the Honorable Bernard C. “Jack” Young, Mayor of the City of Baltimore:
I have a proposal that could help you and the city. Your statement last week that you are considering a run for mayor in the 2020 election was met with considerable skepticism. It appears that there are doubts about your leadership abilities that you need to overcome.
Some people scoffed at your claim that you are being encouraged to run because of your performance in office thus far, citing your lackluster handling of the disastrous ransomware attack as well as the water outage calamities at Poe Homes and now on Howard Street.
Given these crises, your declaration last week that “my team and I have weathered the storm and we’ve moved the city forward” rings a bit hollow.
Here is action that you can easily take to move the city forward and kick-start your mayoral campaign:
Instruct your city solicitor not to appeal the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding that the non-disparagement clauses insisted upon by the city when settling claims of police brutality and other misconduct are unconstitutional.
Last Thursday, a three-judge panel of the appellate court reversed a lower court ruling and held that the clauses (commonly referred to as “gag orders”) violated the First Amendment.
The majority opinion offered a slashing indictment of the city’s policy of buying the silence of victims of police wrongdoing.
In a tone-deaf response, City Solicitor Andre Davis stated that he intended to appeal the ruling to the full court.
If you end the use of non-disparagement clauses, you will do what your predecessor lacked the wisdom and courage to do.
Former Mayor Catherine Pugh and her administration continued to defend the clauses despite strenuous opposition from a coalition that included 20 media organizations, the ACLU and numerous grassroots groups.
These non-disparagement clauses are a disservice to the public, motivated by the city’s desire to protect the reputation of its police officers. Make a statement acknowledging the obvious: The reputation of the Baltimore Police Department already is in tatters.
If city officials had spent half the time and effort on reforming the department that they spent on trying to hide police misconduct from the public, the department would probably not be in the shape that it is in today.
Action, not Talk
Calling for an end to the non-disparagement clauses will not endear you to the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the union representing rank-and-file police officers.
In the past, you have been reluctant to antagonize the FOP. As president of the City Council for nine years, you could have introduced an ordinance banning the non-disparagement clauses. But you didn’t.
You are hardly alone, however, in your reticence to take on the FOP. If you listen to what members of the Maryland General Assembly from Baltimore say, you might believe that they are committed to combating the pervasive mistrust of the police department by making the actions of its officers more transparent and subject to public scrutiny.
But if you watch what they do, you realize that the nothing could be further from the truth. The prime example is the absence of any progress by the General Assembly on allowing reasonable public inspection of police disciplinary records – a failure for which the Baltimore delegation bears a large part of the blame.
Here is an opportunity to set yourself apart from the big-talk, little-action crowd.
City voters are aching for an infusion of fresh ideas and bold leadership. They want their elected officials to get beyond business-as-usual and fix things. Here’s your chance, Mr. Young, to grab the bull by the horns and take a step toward actually solving a problem.
Don’t blow it.
[Published as guest commentary by the Baltimore Brew on July 15, 2019, but not posted to my blog until December 18, 2019. The date of posting that appears above was backdated to place all posts in the order in which they were written.]