Shame on me for being surprised by anything that comes out of a politician’s mouth, but I was flabbergasted at what I read in The Sun about the Democratic candidate for mayor of Baltimore, State Sen. Catherine E. Pugh.  Pugh stated that she intends to ask the Maryland General Assembly to amend state law in order to prevent the Baltimore chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) from blocking the appointment of civilians to the disciplinary hearing boards that adjudicate complaints against members of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD).  If she follows through on that intention she is being both disingenuous and gutless.

She is being disingenuous because she has been told in no uncertain terms that the General Assembly will do no such thing.  She is being gutless because she knows that the mayor and city council can and should solve the problem of the opposition of the FOP to civilian participation on their own without further help from the General Assembly.  She simply is unwilling to take on the task of getting the necessary legislation through the city council in the face of strong opposition from Lodge No. 3 of the FOP.

She does not want to do any political damage to herself but she does want it to appear as if she is trying to get civilians on hearing boards, something widely supported by the citizens of the city.  She wants credit for trying to get civilians on the boards but does not want to alienate the FOP in the process.  When her effort fails, as it surely will, she can blame the General Assembly.  Pugh hopes that her charade will fool the public.

Pugh stated that the FOP will be “unhappy” with her proposal.  Nonsense; they will be ecstatic because they know what she knows:  Her proposal is a non-starter with the General Assembly.  On the other hand a bill before the city council that accomplishes the same thing has a chance of actually passing because of the enormous public pressure that would be placed on the council to place civilians on hearing boards.  Pugh is doing the old political two-step with the FOP and it is disgraceful.  There is little that a public official can do that is more insulting to his or her constituents than trying to create the illusion of working on a problem without really doing so.  This is a prime example.

During the legislative session that ended in April the General Assembly made changes to the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR) that will allow civilians to sit on police department hearing boards starting on October 1st.  What lawmakers did not do, however, was remove the manner of selection and composition of trial boards from the collective bargaining process; that remains a matter of local law.  It is up to each city or county to decide whether the composition of trial boards is subject to collective bargaining and members of the General Assembly have shown no inclination to change that.

Under Baltimore’s Municipal Labor Relations ordinance the composition of trial boards currently is subject to collective bargaining.  That could be changed by the city council, which has the power under the city charter to set forth by ordinance “management rights” that are not subject to collective bargaining. Pugh, however, wants the General Assembly to intervene and relieve the city of the burden of changing its own law.  It is the epitome of political cowardice.

State Sen. Bobby Zirkin, a Baltimore County Democrat, chairs the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, the Senate committee that would have to approve the bill that Pugh wants.  Last month he told city leaders that they need to fix the problem with collective bargaining on their own, and that the General Assembly will not revisit the LEOBR next year in order to do the tough work for the city that the city is unwilling to do for itself in order to place civilians on hearing boards.  He undoubtedly was speaking with the blessing of the House and Senate leadership.  Zirkin, referring to the grousing by city officials about having to negotiate with the FOP over appointing civilians to hearing boards, told WBAL-TV:

“The city is going to have to deal with this. If they want to pass a law, City Council and the mayor can get together and do their thing for the city. They are going to have to do what they haven’t done before, which is, if this is important to them in the city, then they are going to have to tackle that issue.”

Zirkin is correct that the city can solve its own problem.  All that is necessary is an amendment to the city’s Municipal Labor Relations ordinance that provides that the establishment of the manner of selection and composition of hearing boards is an exclusive management right, removing the subject from collective bargaining.  The city council then could enact an ordinance that requires the Police Commissioner to appoint up to two voting or nonvoting civilian members to disciplinary hearing boards.  I pointed out this course of action in an op ed published by The Sun in July, although Pugh certainly was aware of it long before then.

Zirkin’s frustration with city officials was obvious during his interview with WBAL’s Jayne Miller.  Zirkin, however, is not the only state legislator frustrated with the attempts by city officials to palm their labor relations problem off on the General Assembly.  After the op ed referred to above was published I received an email from a prominent state legislator from the city thanking me for pointing out that the city had the power to deal with this matter itself.

Indeed, the view is widespread that elected city officials are unwilling to rein in the power of the FOP over the police department.  As Zirkin pointed out, it is something that they have failed to do in the past.  In an editorial published earlier this year the Daily Record stated that the Baltimore Police Department could not be reformed unless someone managed to “dismantle the police union’s grip on city government.”  The Daily Record editorial board was absolutely correct, although the comment was not exactly a revelation.

The damage done over time by the union’s grip on city government has been significant. For one thing the city’s inadequate labor relations ordinance allowed Lodge No. 3 of the FOP to become a behemoth, representing not only rank-and-file officers but also the sergeants and lieutenants who supervise them.  Of approximately 2,600 sworn officers all but about 50 belong to the same union, and that union is almost a parallel governance structure within the department competing with the Commissioner for control over the culture of the department.  Past city labor and police commissioners bargained away far too much control over the police disciplinary process and the city council did nothing to stop them, with disastrous results.  The list goes on, and it is not an encouraging track record.

When looked at from the perspective of race there is an unfortunate irony.  In an interview with CNN this summer former judge and veteran Baltimore attorney Billy Murphy laid much of the blame for allowing the problems in the BPD to fester over the years on the African-American officials who largely have been in control of the city for decades.  It is the African-American residents of the city who suffer most from abuses by officers of the BPD.  At the same time it is the elected officials at the level closest to those residents, mayors and members of the city council, who often have been the least willing to do their part to stand up to the FOP and reform the BPD.  Many of those officials of course also have been African-Americans.  I don’t understand it; I’m sure someone does.

I have had my doubts that Pugh is up to the task of wresting control of the BPD away from the FOP because of her strong ties to organized labor and in particular her history of aggressively supporting public employee unions during her time in Annapolis.  If this ploy is any indication those doubts soon will turn to despair.

Let’s hope that if Pugh is elected she will have some sort of epiphany and realize that she cannot appease the FOP and still do the job that needs to be done as mayor in the next four years to get the BPD on track.  If elected she needs to forget about asking the General Assembly to rescue her from the tough jobs.  She needs to send bills to the city council in December that remove the manner of selection and composition of hearing boards from collective bargaining and provide for the appointment of civilian members to those boards.  She needs to lead on the issue of police reform, not hide.

David A. Plymyer

 

 

In the weeks and months following the refusal by Rosa Parks to give up her seat to a white passenger and move to the back of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, no one could have known that her simple act of defiance in 1955 would become an iconic event in the civil rights movement.  Similarly, it is far too early to gauge the impact of the decision by San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick to take a knee during the playing of the national anthem that precedes the start of each NFL game.

Kaepernick has, however, brought the debate over race relations in general and police brutality in particular into the mainstream of white American culture in a manner that few other ways could.  He has broached the subject through the religion that is an integral part of that culture – the civic religion of football.

If football is a religion then NFL players are its icons.  To 49er fans Kaepernick is not simply a black man; he is someone with whom they identify and share a common cause.  He is a member of their team and their fates rise and fall together.  Although his status in the ecclesiastical hierarchy may have declined somewhat because of his performance last season Kaepernick and 49er fans have a bond that, for some fans, is almost as strong as the bonds that they have with members of their own families.

If the movement continues to expand, as it appears it will, the fans of other NFL teams will begin to see the issues that he has raised in a slightly different light as their favorite players embrace the protest.  White fans that would not pay the slightest attention to something said by a member of the Black Lives Matter movement will at least hear what the players are telling them.  That is how the process of changing minds begins.

The sheer size of the NFL “congregation” is staggering.  About half of all Americans identify themselves as football fans, and television ratings bear that out.  In February Super Bowl 50 attracted 111.9 million viewers in the United States.  Sunday Night Football, which averaged 22.5 million viewers per week last season, has been America’s highest-rated primetime show for five consecutive years.  About 77% of NFL fans are white but 68% of the players are black.  Kaepernick and the other protesters have an unparalleled opportunity to convey their message to a white audience.

The movement likely would have stalled had it not received support from an unexpected source:  Military veterans.  In response to critics who claimed that Kaepernick’s gesture was insulting to members of the military there was a significant outpouring of support for Kaepernick from military veterans.  The critics failed to recognize that 32% of the members of today’s active duty military do not identify themselves as white; they also underestimated the intelligence of service members who understand that the values for which they fight are more important than a poem written by a Maryland lawyer and put to the music of a popular English song.

The nature of the gesture itself also was important.  Kaepernick initially chose to sit during the anthem but after speaking with Nate Boyer, a former member of the Seattle Seahawks and also a former Green Beret, he decided to kneel.  I happened to be listening to Fox NFL Sunday last Sunday, which gives you an idea of how I spend most Sunday afternoons in the fall and winter.  One of my favorite football scholars, Terry Bradshaw, supported Kaepernick’s right to protest and thought that kneeling was an appropriate way to do so, observing “heck, during the Vietnam War they used to burn the flag.”  I’ve always believed that Terry is smarter than he sounds, so I think that was Terry’s way of saying that kneeling during the national anthem is not so offensive that the people for whom the message is intended would be too angry to hear it.

Finally, the relatively low regard given by the NFL and the television networks to the ritual of playing the national anthem before kickoff may have mellowed the response to Kaepernick’s protest.  The vast majority of the fans who see a game watch it on television and the networks, with the consent of the NFL, routinely broadcast commercials rather than show the playing of the national anthem.  The high priest of the NFL, Commissioner Roger Goodell, doesn’t believe that it is important that most of us listen to, let alone honor, the national anthem prior to a game.

This is not 1955 and race relations have come a long way, and the analogy to Rosa Parks goes only so far.  She was arrested and lost her job for what she did, and received death threats for years.  Kaepernick risks a lot less.  Also, any honest conversation about race today is going to sound a lot different today than it did then.

Today, there is more to discuss than discrimination by whites against blacks.  Yes, that type of discrimination still exists but we also need a frank discussion about black racism, the abuse of affirmative action and whether the institution of slavery plays any role in the current plight of the 24% of black Americans who live in poverty other than operate as some sort of collective excuse.  If Kaepernick’s protest helps get the conversation started then it has done some good.

September 14, 2016

 

Because of events over the past week in Philadelphia, Santa Clara and Chicago I decided to post a commentary on police officer labor unions on Labor Day.  Police unions have evolved into something unlike anything that has gone before in the history of the labor movement in this country and unlike anything else in the private or public sector today.  Their power is political rather than economic and is not susceptible to market forces.  They have been able to strengthen their position not only through collective bargaining but also through favorable legislation.  In many large cities they are as much a part of the governance of the police departments as the police chiefs.

Unfortunately many police unions continue to use their considerable power to resist the reforms in policing and police accountability necessary to restore the trust of minority communities in the police that serve those communities.  If anything, the attitudes of police unions toward reform and those who advocate reform appear to be hardening.

The first event that drew my attention occurred in Philadelphia.  John McNesby, president of Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Lodge 5, publicly slammed Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee in July for inviting relatives of black men killed by police but not family members of police officers killed in the line of duty to speak at the Democratic National Convention.  He said that the FOP was “insulted” by the omission.  Fair enough.

Last week, however, McNesby defended a Philadelphia police officer who has a tattoo on his left forearm of a spread-winged eagle beneath the word “Fatherland” that bears a resemblance to part of the Parteiadler, the emblem of the Nazi party.  The images have been associated with some neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, although it is not known whether the officer is a member of such a group.

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney described the tattoo as “incredibly offensive.”  McNesby was not offended and defended the officer’s right to freedom of expression.  “I’ve seen it. It’s an eagle. Not a big deal.  I see people with panthers on their arm.  Doesn’t mean they are black panthers.”  McNesby was insulted by the failure of Democrats to invite families of slain police officers to speak at its convention but saw no problem with a tattoo worn by one of the members of his union that is likely to offend the 300,000 Jews who live in the city as well as the 55% of Philadelphia’s population that is non-white?

McNesby couldn’t bring himself to utter one word of empathy for citizens who might be alarmed at seeing what appears to be a neo-Nazi tattoo on the arm of a police officer.  McNesby’s concept of leadership is not encouraging, but is fairly typical.

Levi’s Stadium, home of the San Francisco 49ers, is located in Santa Clara, California.  Last week the Santa Clara Police Officer’s Association, the union representing Santa Clara police officers, wrote a letter stating that its members might refuse to provide security at 49ers games if the 49ers did not take disciplinary action against quarterback Colin Kaepernick.  Kaepernick refused to stand during the playing of the national anthem during a preseason game in protest against the alleged brutality of police officers toward blacks.  He also wore socks with images of pigs wearing police hats to training sessions.

The socks were inappropriate and offensive; a complaint to the 49ers was understandable.  But threatening to take action that would put the safety of thousands of fans at risk because one NFL player chose to exercise his right to express himself in a disrespectful but lawful manner?  The letter was a remarkable display of the union’s attitude toward the general public.

The third event that caught my attention happened in Chicago.  The Chicago FOP called on members of the Chicago Police Department not to volunteer to work overtime on the Labor Day weekend “to protest the continued disrespect of Chicago Police Officers and the killings of Law Enforcement Officers across our Country.”  86 people were murdered in Chicago in August, the deadliest month in 20 years.  The FOP’s announcement of its Labor Day boycott came on the heels of the news that the Chicago police superintendent is seeking the termination of five officers involved in the shooting of Laquan McDonald in 2014, an incident that undoubtedly lowered respect for Chicago police in Chicago and elsewhere.

The shooting of McDonald was ruled to be justified until video belatedly surfaced showing McDonald walking away from officers rather than toward them as stated in their reports.  He was shot 16 times.  And the FOP believes that the answer to the “disrespect” that it is feeling is to refuse to work overtime to protect the public during a holiday in the middle of an epidemic of violent crime?  Again, what does it tell you about the basic attitude of an organization when it chooses to try to regain the respect of citizens by threatening their well-being?

In July the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a blistering report accusing the Baltimore Police Department of a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct including unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests.  The response by the president of the Baltimore FOP was that the “systemic deficiencies” reported by the DOJ were the fault of management, not rank-and-file officers.   “I will not allow the Department of Justice to lay blame on the shoulders of the dedicated men and women of the Baltimore Police Department,” stated the president, Lt. Gene Ryan.  The vice-president, Lt. Victor Gearhart, scoffed at the report as “heavy on anecdotes from questionable characters and light on provable facts.”

There is a common theme to all of the above:  Police union members are never to blame and someone else is always is at fault.  Union members don’t need to change because they are never the problem.  The problem always lies with politicians, management or the citizens that union members are sworn to serve and protect, not with the manner in which union members are doing their job.

Something is out of whack.  Why?  The answer lies in the fundamental nature of labor unions and the strong insular culture that prevails in many large police departments which, in combination, produces organizations that are particularly adversarial and resistant to change.  When that intransigence is reinforced by the strong political support that many police unions enjoy you can end up with an entirely unworkable and destructive situation, which is the case in Baltimore.

The principle by which police unions, like other unions, are governed is the self-interest of their members.  This creates tunnel vision causing them to see their world only in terms of their own rights and privileges.  The unions generally are contractually obligated to defend even the most marginal of conduct by their members, a fact that tends to define the unions by that conduct.  McNesby, for example, would rather risk provoking the anger of a majority of the citizens of Philadelphia than criticize one of his own members.  Although McNesby may see that as protecting the rights of one of his members the rest of the world sees it as the police union condoning insensitive and even hateful conduct by its members.

In cities such as Baltimore strong police unions have become parallel governance structures within police departments.  They do more than represent their members in collective bargaining; they share power with police chiefs over the control of the department.  This has happened because police unions draw political support not only from traditionally pro-union Democrats but also from law and order Republicans.

Consequently, police unions frequently have more political influence with the elected officials that are in charge of the governments that employ the police than do police chiefs.  It is like having the officers and directors of a private company aligned more with the labor unions representing the company’s workforce than with the managers employed to supervise the workforce.

In Maryland police unions used their political clout in the General Assembly to wrest control over the discipline of their members away from police chiefs through the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR).  A succession of Baltimore mayors and city council members intimidated by the city FOP lodge took away even more control over the disciplinary process from the city’s police commissioner than required by state law.  They further diluted management’s influence over rank-and-file officers by allowing sergeants and lieutenants to belong to the same union as the rank-and-file officers that they train and supervise.

The LEOBR is hardly the only impediment to police accountability.  The “us vs. them” culture of most large police departments which includes the “blue wall of silence” is another, perhaps greater obstacle.  It discourages officers from reporting the misconduct of their peers and even encourages them to lie to protect each other.  The LEOBR, in concert with what the DOJ referred to in the Baltimore Police Department as “a cultural resistance to accountability,” has rendered the process for holding Baltimore police officers accountable for misconduct almost completely ineffective as documented not only by the DOJ but also by a separate investigation done by the Baltimore Sun.  The Baltimore Police Department, like many other police departments, does a very poor job of getting rid of bad cops.

Institutions such as police departments have to change and adapt as society evolves. Change is always hard, but it has become nearly impossible in some police departments, including Baltimore, because of police unions.  The problem is that police unions are not changing; they are becoming more, not less, reactionary.  Traditional labor unions have waxed and waned over time; some unions that were formed because of intolerable working conditions and low wages eventually hastened the demise of certain industries because of their excessive demands.  Immune from market forces, and given almost unconditional support from politicians, police unions have seen no need to change and adapt, so they haven’t.  Something is going to have to give if reform is going to take place.

It is pointless to blame the unions themselves; they are doing what unions do.  The entire responsibility for allowing the situation to get to this point rests with elected officials.

Earlier this year the Daily Record ran an editorial stating that the Baltimore Police Department could not be reformed unless someone managed to “dismantle the police union’s grip on city government.”  That is precisely the case and unless the mayor and city council, with some help from the General Assembly, are willing to do what is necessary to reduce the power of the FOP over the manner in which the Baltimore Police Department is run no worthwhile reforms will occur.

September 5, 2016

Lady Justice probably grimaced a bit under her blindfold at the secret manner in which the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) began its trial of a wide area aerial surveillance system.  The grimace may turn to a smile when she realizes that the system may be as much use if not more in exonerating the innocent as it is in capturing the guilty.

A case in point was the trial of Officer Caesar Goodson, one of the officers charged in connection with the death of Freddie Gray.  Goodson, the driver of the van in which Gray received his fatal injury, was charged with second degree murder among other charges.  During his trial prosecutors introduced into evidence a brief video pieced together from ground level surveillance cameras that allegedly showed Goodson giving the unbuckled Gray a “rough ride.”

The video was inconclusive at best.  There is a possibility that continuous video taken from high above the city could have provided much more definitive evidence of what occurred, even to the extent of allowing analysts to calculate the approximate speed of the van.  Think of how such evidence could have changed the course of justice in that case, one way or the other.  On one hand had there been unequivocal evidence of a rough ride Goodson probably would be in prison today.  On the other there is no doubt in my mind that Goodson would not have been charged with second degree murder had there been video clearly showing him driving the van in a prudent manner – if he was charged at all.

Unlike targeted surveillance programs, including voice and data interceptions, the scope of the information gathered is not limited at its source by law enforcement and therein lies its advantage:  It collects possible evidence continuously and indiscriminately, and the evidence can turn out to be inculpatory or exculpatory.  It can refute an alibi or confirm one.  It offers the possibility, in equal measure, of verifying or discrediting the accounts of eyewitnesses, including police officers.  It is an unblinking eye and, unlike body cameras, it cannot be turned off and on by the officers on the street.

Now that the aerial surveillance system is in place the due diligence required of police when investigating crimes requires detectives to use it, if possible, to check the veracity of the accounts of arresting officers, eyewitnesses, suspects, etc. as to their locations and movements.   Of course, trusting police officers to do their jobs properly is not enough to protect the rights of persons once they have been charged with crimes.  Then, aerial surveillance video must be made available to defendants and their attorneys to allow them to independently verify the accounts, and to discover any exculpatory evidence.

That is where Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis apparently had a blind spot.  He failed to recognize that any tool that he is provided for solving crimes, whether it be DNA testing, fingerprint comparison, or aerial surveillance is every bit as important for protecting the innocent as it is for punishing the guilty.  Our system of justice is premised on the doctrine set forth by William Blackstone in the 18^th century that “the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”  Davis had no right to keep the aerial surveillance secret from defendants and their attorneys once it was placed in operation and to deprive them of a possible source of exculpatory evidence.

Nevertheless, I hope that his mistake in judgment does not prejudice an objective review of the aerial surveillance system.  It seems to me that, especially in Baltimore at this point in its history, we should be hesitant to reject any additional means of gathering evidence that could lead to the capture of more criminals while at the same time protecting the innocent from being wrongfully charged with crimes.

I said the fact that the system gathers information continuously and indiscriminately is an advantage from an evidentiary standpoint, and it is.  It is also the source of the main objection to the system.

Each of us has our own view on how much of an intrusion the aerial surveillance system is on or our privacy and on how much of that privacy we are willing to give up to reduce crime.  At this point we do not know whether the system is cost effective and whether the BPD will want to keep it when the grant runs out; other cities have been less than impressed with its utility when weighed against its cost.

It seems to me the city needs more information before making a final decision on whether any gains in solving crime outweigh the objections to the loss of privacy.  I hope that people keep an open mind if it appears that the wide area aerial surveillance system can make Baltimore safer, and maybe a little fairer.

September 1, 2016

I swore that I was done writing about the circus atmosphere surrounding Baltimore’s review of the proposed tax increment financing (TIF) of public infrastructure necessary for the redevelopment of Port Covington by Sagamore Development.  Sagamore is the private real estate firm owned by Kevin Plank, the founder of Under Armour.  I wrote a letter to the Daily Record followed by one to the Baltimore Sun expressing my opinion on the community benefit, profit-sharing and project labor agreements and affordable housing set-asides being demanded by various community and special interest groups.

An article in Friday’s Sun, however, caused me to reconsider.  The article discussed the importance of Under Armour’s commitment to remain in Baltimore and the unease expressed by some officials and business leaders about the ongoing negotiations over the TIF.  At least one of the community groups, however, seems undaunted by such concerns.

BUILD (Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development) is an advocacy group seeking an expanded community benefit agreement and increased affordable housing set-asides as part of the Port Covington project.  Rev. Glenna Huber, co-chair of BUILD, made the following statement:  “Mr. Plank has said that he’s committed to Baltimore City, so we are working under that assumption.  When you’re coming to the city asking for that much public funding, then the city’s in a position of power, so why does the city not act from a position of power.”

In other words BUILD thinks it is okay to exploit Plank’s proven loyalty to his home state and its largest city in order to squeeze from him whatever it can over and above that which is reasonably required from Plank under the TIF itself?  It is an asinine position to take.

Of course the problem is not so much the attitude of Rev. Huber and BUILD, it is the attitude of the city council as represented by Council President Jack Young, Councilman Carl Stokes, chairman of the committee vetting the TIF, and veteran Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke.  They have told Sagamore that Sagamore has to reach agreement with the community groups before the council will approve the TIF.  No wonder BUILD believes that it is holding all the cards.

It is an absolute abdication of leadership and an abandonment of the proper role of the city.  The city council has for all practical purposes surrendered the power to approve the proposed TIF to citizen groups intent on pursuing their own particular interests, which may or may not correspond to the greater needs of the city.  Also, these private organizations are not constrained by the limits of regulatory authority applicable to the city, giving the process the Third World quality to which I referred in my letter to the Sun.

Having worked with many of them over the years I do not have a naïve point of view about developers.  Let’s just say that some developers are a lot more reasonable and responsible than others.  I’ve seen developers vilified in public hearings on numerous occasions, sometimes because they deserved it, but generally the public officials at such hearings do their best to stay above the fray and guide the discussion in an orderly and productive manner rather than play to the mood of the crowd.  Not in this case.

Stokes set the tone of a recent public hearing on the proposed TIF that he chaired by admonishing Sagamore that the city would not use public funds to pay for a “segregated community.”  One participant, Rev. C.D. Witherspoon, was thrown out of the meeting for accusing the Sagamore representatives at the hearing of racism.

A  lawyer for Sagamore pushed backed against what he referred to as the “snarkiness” of comments by another participant, Rev. Andrew Foster Connors, who said that Sagamore wanted to build a “wealthy enclave.”  The lawyer told Rev. Connors that “we’re not your enemy.”  He obviously felt like one at the time, and for good reason.  Developers and their lawyers tend to have thick skins, but who wants to listen to a city official imply that you are interested in building a “segregated community,” especially when you think that you are doing something good for a city that is a bit down on its luck?

If Sagamore officials have grown frustrated, it is easy to see why.  BUILD states that it endorses a community benefit agreement that Sagamore signed last month with six community associations calling for an investment of $39 million in educational, housing and job programs in South Baltimore neighborhoods as the Port Covington project is developed over the next 30 years.

BUILD however, says that is not enough.  It wants another agreement, one that expands the community benefits agreement citywide “because of the size of the TIF request.”  Whether Sagamore is being deliberately whipsawed or whether the demands coming from multiple directions are simply a product of the free-for-all encouraged by the city, the effect on Sagamore is the same.  It cannot be sure of when a done deal is actually a done deal.

My guess, or at least my hope, is that things will work themselves out and in the end everyone will pat themselves on the back for a job well done.  Maybe members of the council will come to their senses and get this process back under control.  In any event, the lesson that will be learned is that if you want to help redevelop Baltimore you need to either have an unshakable devotion to the city or be slightly crazy.

August 30, 2016

The firing of attorney Glen Keith Allen by Baltimore City Solicitor George Nilson and its aftermath, which included the firing of Nilson by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake for hiring Allen in the first place, was a debacle of impressive scope.  The debacle could have been avoided if city official officials had followed one simple rule:  When you have the time to stop and think before acting, do so.

A report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) calling Allen, who is white, a “known neo-Nazi” came on the heels of the report by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) accusing the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) of systemic racial bias.  Among the cases being defended by Allen on behalf of the city is a suit by a black man, Sabein Burgess, who accuses Baltimore police of withholding and fabricating evidence in order to convict him of a murder to which another man later confessed.  In their panic to respond and cover their own posteriors city officials embarrassed themselves and lost an opportunity to promote racial reconciliation within the city.

Had the mayor, the former city solicitor, and other officials from the city not been in such a hurry they would have found out that Allen mended his ways before he was hired by the city and that he is not a member of a “hate group” under any reasonable definition of the term.  They could have avoided a blatantly unconstitutional termination and allowed him to resign, turning the situation into one of redemption and understanding rather than one of rancor and hostility.  And, maybe with a little thought certain city and state officials could have steered clear of making ludicrous statements reflecting their ignorance of the law.

Allen was working under a one-year contract with the city since February as an Assistant City Solicitor in the Litigation and Claims Practice Group of the Baltimore City Office of Law.  Allen began his legal career as a law clerk for Judge Robert Murphy, then the chief judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Allen, age 65 and an Army veteran, retired last year from DLA Piper, a prominent global law firm with an office and roots in Baltimore, and came to work for the city to help with complex litigation.  He is married with three children, writes poetry and novellas as a hobby, and runs in the Maryland Senior Olympics.  The city was unaware of Allen’s personal and political beliefs, which by all accounts he kept to himself and out of the workplace.  He tried to keep his private life private and was successful until the SPLC report.

On August 17^th the SPLC published its report calling Allen, who is white, a “known neo-Nazi.” The report documented his past affiliation with the National Alliance and his current membership with the American Eagle Party, both of which the SPLC considers “hate groups.”  The SPLC labels the National Alliance as a neo-Nazi hate group and the American Eagle Party as a white nationalist hate group.  In SPLC terminology “white nationalists,” sometimes referred to simply as “nationalists,” are persons who embrace white supremacist or white separatist ideologies often focusing on the alleged inferiority of non-whites.

On August 18^th Allen was fired by Nilson, who told Luke Broadwater of The Baltimore Sun that he terminated Allen’s contract with the city immediately upon learning of the allegations against him.  Nilson was fired the same day.  In other words Nilson gave about as much thought to firing Allen as Rawlings-Blake gave to firing him.

There is no evidence contradicting Allen’s statements to reporters that he no longer is a white supremacist and that he ended his membership in the National Alliance long before he came to work for the city.  He attributed his decision to join the National Alliance, which he described as a “huge mistake,” to “pretty awful experiences with black people” that he had while he was in the Army from 1978 to 1982.  Allen admits that he remains a member of the American Eagle Party.

Barry Rascovar wrote an article taking Rawlings-Blake to task for her “insulting, back-of-the-hand dismissal” of Nilson, apparently done without explanation by an assistant to the mayor rather than by the mayor herself.  The abrupt dismissal of Nilson, who also is white, implied that he should have known of Allen’s background before he hired him.  Nilson’s callous termination after a long and distinguished career in law and public service was only one in a series of ill-considered and harsh decisions made in this matter.

________

If Nilson and Rawlings-Blake accepted on face value the accusation by the SPLC that Allen is a current member of a white nationalist hate group then they made a mistake.  Based on what Nilson reportedly told Luke Broadwater Nilson did not bother to do his own investigation of the SPLC’s allegations.  The problem is that the SPLC has become a bit like Chicken Little in warning us about white nationalist hate groups.

The National Alliance is a neo-Nazi organization properly labeled as a hate group.  The American Eagle Party, on the other hand, is a right-wing political party of little consequence, not a “hate group.”

The American Eagle Party has no explicit racial agenda and its basic tenets are remarkably similar to those in the current mainstream of the Republican Party as reflected by the nomination of its presidential candidate, Donald Trump.  The American Eagle Party seeks to:  1) end “wars of occupation” by the United States around the world; 2) stop the “immigrant invasion” of the United States; 3) reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of Americans;  4) restore America’s economy and middle class; and 5) enable honest media alternatives.  Sound familiar?

The SPLC lists the American Eagle Party as a white nationalist hate group because of the SPLC’s over-inclusive definition of the term “hate” and its tendency to use the description “white nationalist” very loosely.  The SPLC labels an organization a “hate group” if its ideology puts it in opposition to the putative rights of immigrants, persons of another color, gays, etc.  Because violence, illegality or even ill will is not required for “hate” to be present, the term “hate group” covers an awful lot of the social and political landscape.

The SPLC is a private organization not bound by due process.  It does its best work when it keeps its focus on true hate groups – those that advocate violent or unlawful conduct.  It gets itself into controversy when it strays too far into the gray area that separates organizations like the KKK from organizations like the Family Research Council (FRC), a prominent Christian lobbying group headed by a popular.  The SPLC came under intense criticism from conservative and evangelical Christian groups in 2010 when it listed the FRC as a “hate group” because the FRC “has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people.”

In 2014 the SPLC put Dr. Ben Carson on its “Extremist Watch List” because of his views against same-sex marriage.  The SPLC apologized and took Carson off the list in 2015 after a firestorm of protest threatened to destroy the SPLC’s credibility entirely.

The fact is that on occasion the SPLC uses the “hate group” and “white nationalist” labels inappropriately in order to advance its own social and political agendas.  In recent weeks the SPLC has become almost frantic in its accusations that the Trump campaign is being taken over by “white nationalists.”  In its “Hatewatch Headlines” feature on August 18^th the SPLC reported that “Trump’s new team lead by nationalists” and on August 19^th the SPLC lamented that “Trump’s ties to white nationalists tighten.”  By August 24^th the headline was “Trump’s alignment [with white-nationalist ideology] is now clear.”  Is the SPLC calling Trump a white supremacist?

Under the headline “Trump’s new team lead by nationalists” the SPLC quoted extensively from a rant by Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, against Steve Bannon.  Bannon is the former chief executive of Breitbart News and now the chief executive of Trump’s campaign.  In his rant Mook referred in turn to the SPLC’s assessment that Bannon had steered Breitbart toward “racist ideas” that make up “an emerging racist ideology known as the ‘alt-right.’”  Not coincidentally Clinton herself now has picked up the “alt-right” theme in a not-so-subtle attempt to brand Trump himself as a racist in order to counter Trump’s recent attempts to court black voters.

Labeling groups as hate groups is a little like identifying a conspiracy.  If you find yourself labeling too many groups as hate groups or including too many people in a conspiracy you probably need to revise your definition of a hate group or your conspiracy theory, as the case may be.

The SCLU report referred to Allen as a “known neo-Nazi” in the present tense.  From all indications it appears that city officials took the accusations by the SPLC at face value.  If they did, it was the height of irresponsibility.

__________

Allen’s firing was unconstitutional because it violated his freedom to engage in association with others for the advancement of beliefs and ideas.  “Freedom of association” is a liberty that the Supreme Court has found essential to the full enjoyment of the rights specified by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that include the freedoms of religion and expression.  Allen was let go solely because of his associations and the personal and political beliefs that the associations represented.

Allen did belong to a hate group, the National Alliance, which advocates violent and illegal conduct.  His affiliation with the group, however, ended before his employment with the city began.  Moreover, it has been settled law for decades under cases decided in the aftermath of the McCarthy-era witch hunts that a state or local government cannot discharge an employee solely on the basis of the employee’s affiliation with such a group.  There must be evidence that the employee participated directly in the violent or illegal activities of the group.  Stated another way, it cannot be the affiliation that forms the basis for a discharge; it must be violent or illegal conduct that justifies the discharge.

One federal court has carved out a narrow exception for law enforcement agencies.  In 1985 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided that the sheriff of Jacksonville, Florida could fire a clerical employee who joined the Ku Klux Klan while working for the sheriff and then took on a public role with the Klan as a recruiter.  The court held, after considering the fact that there was strong negative reaction to the clerk’s Klan membership among the city’s majority-black population:

“A law enforcement agency does not violate the First Amendment by discharging an employee whose active participation in an organization with a history of violent activity, which is antithetical to enforcement of the laws by state officers, has become known to the public and created an understandably adverse public reaction that seriously and dangerously threatens to cripple the ability of the law enforcement agency to perform effectively its public duties.”

__________

The end of Allen’s employment could have been handled in a manner that was better for him and, more importantly, better for the city.  When he spoke to reporters after being fired Allen was remarkably gracious and complimented the city on the professional manner in which he had been terminated, expressing regret for any embarrassment that he had caused Nilson or Rawlings-Blake.  He said that agreed with the city’s decision and that his departure was in best interests of the city because he could find himself in court with judges who disliked him because of his past and there was a possibility that this could affect the outcome of his cases.

In other words, it is crystal clear that Allen would have taken advantage of the opportunity for a more dignified exit that recognized that he had ended his affiliation with a neo-Nazi organization; with his background it is easy to understand why he would want to spare himself and his family any more embarrassment.  That opportunity was not made available, possibly because Rawlings-Blake was no longer speaking with Nilson as claimed by Rascovar.  It is hard to work out things like that when you don’t talk.

Had the city solicitor and the mayor talked it over and handled things properly this would have been the mayor’s statement:  “Mr. Allen has assured us that he is not a white supremacist and no longer has ties to the National Alliance or other neo-Nazi organization.  People do change, and we recognize that.  He has, however, informed us that he believes that the publicity given to his past affiliation with a neo-Nazi organization could jeopardize the interests of the city in the cases that he is litigating.  Consequently, he has graciously offered to resign his employment with the city.  We have accepted his offer, thank him for his service to the city, and wish him the best.”

Why would have that been a better outcome?  First of all, it would have avoided setting a precedent that the city cannot enforce.  The next employee “outed” by the SPLC and fired by the city may not be as compliant as Allen and the city will be dipping into its treasury to pay off yet another judgment or settlement.

Secondly, it would have promoted racial reconciliation.  Allen had renounced white supremacy and terminated his relationship with the National Alliance before he was hired by the city.  He had changed for the better, even if one shares the opinion of Dan Rodricks of The Sun that his transformation was not completely convincing.  Do we expect perfection in attitudes toward race and religion?  Good luck with that standard.

Kindness and some expression of appreciation for the changes Allen has made in his beliefs would have delivered a far more constructive message than the angry rhetoric that accompanied his firing.  The nature of the city’s action will not be lost on the legions of white people inside and outside the city who believe that their own race is under attack.  The sequence of events following the report by the SPLC will do nothing to change that belief.

__________

Tough talk that is nothing more than political posturing by elected officials is nothing new.  In this case the tough talk also reflected a rather profound lack of knowledge about the law.

Some elected officials from the city fell all over themselves explaining to reporters how outraged they were that Allen had been hired.  City Councilman Brandon Scott told The Sun that Allen’s hiring reflects poorly on the city.  “Before we hire anybody in this day and age we should be doing thorough checks,” Scott said. “I’m disgusted. It’s unacceptable.”

City Council President Jack Young released a statement saying:  “I am angry that someone who allegedly harbors such disgusting views as Mr. Allen was allowed to work on behalf of the citizens of Baltimore. I am pleased that Mr. Allen’s contract with the City of Baltimore has been terminated. Moving forward, each department and city agency should conduct an internal review of their hiring practices.”  Councilman Robert Curran criticized Nilson for not doing a better job in vetting Allen before hiring him.

Delegate Jill Carter told The Sun that the vetting process “should consist of more than credit checks and criminal background checks.”  “Clearly, there was no due diligence done,” according to Carter.  “Who else do we have working for the city? It’s particularly concerning because we are dealing with issues of systemic racism.”

There is one problem with all of that rhetoric:  The city cannot constitutionally ask a job applicant about the applicant’s personal and political beliefs or any organizations to which the applicant belongs for the purpose of advancing those beliefs.  Well, the city can ask, but it cannot refuse to hire an applicant because the applicant refuses to answer the question.

Moreover, if the applicant is asked and admits membership in a hate group and does not get the job, the applicant can sue the city for a violation of the applicant’s First Amendment rights.  In the suit the city would bear the burden of proving that the refusal was not based solely on the applicant’s membership in a hate group.  So why ask?

Scott, Young, Curran, and Carter should forget about trying to purge from city government bureaucrats, lawyers, clerks, and laborers who are members of white nationalist (or black separatist) organizations and who keep their activities lawful and out of the workplace.  The law does not support those officials’ view of employees’ constitutional rights and they have other things to do.

As an aside, I agree with the SPLC that there is a legitimate concern about having members of law enforcement agencies belong to the KKK, which is a racist and anti-Semitic organization with a long history of violent and illegal activity, or similar organizations.  The issue has been on the radar since the FBI issued its report on white supremacists in law enforcement in 2006.

In light of the DOJ report the Baltimore Police Commissioner could make an even stronger argument than the one made by the City of Jacksonville sheriff in defending the firing of an employee whose membership in the KKK had become public knowledge.  Given how the Allen situation was handled, however, I believe that matter is best left up to the commissioner, the city’s Director of Human Resources, and the new city solicitor without too much “help” from the mayor and city council.

August 25, 2016

Korryn Gaines was shot and killed after a lengthy standoff with officers of the Baltimore County Police Department when she threatened to kill them and aimed a 12-gauge pistol-grip shotgun in their direction with her 5 year old son beside her.  Her son was wounded by a shot fired by one of the officers.  This incident is another example of what can happen when a seriously mentally ill person gets his or her hands on a firearm.

I am confident that the Baltimore County Police Department will review the tragic death of Korryn Gaines in order to determine if there is anything that they could have done differently to avoid taking her life and injuring her son.  The chief of the department, James Johnson, has a well-deserved reputation for being an enlightened and effective leader.  I was impressed by the comments of County Councilman Julian Jones in the aftermath of the incident.  He acknowledged that the officers were following their training, but stated that the protocols for responding to such emergencies should be reviewed to determine if changes should be made.  That is always the correct approach in any tragedy of this type, especially when legitimate questions have been raised about the tactics used by the police.

I hope that the rest of the community takes a similar approach, because there are other lessons to be learned.  One of those lessons is the need for family and friends to be alert for indications that there may be more to a person’s commitment to particular set of beliefs than meets the eye, particularly when those beliefs include feelings of persecution and a preoccupation with violence.

Before I became a lawyer I was a psychiatric social worker trained at the University of Pittsburgh with internships at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic and the Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.  I spent quite a bit of that part of my career evaluating soldiers sent by their commanders to the mental health clinic or emergency room of Kimbrough Army Hospital on Ft. Meade.  Many had overt symptoms of mental illness.  Others were sent because of “strange” things that they said or did that struck their commanders as abnormal even though they continued to function more or less adequately as soldiers; one psychiatrist with whom I worked referred to them as the “walking wounded.”  One of the thoughts in the backs of the minds of the commanders who referred them had to be that these individuals were entrusted with weapons and knew how to use them.  A fair number of such soldiers eventually described to me delusional thoughts and even hallucinations influencing their behavior.  Many things have changed since then but the walking wounded are still out there.

I do not know exactly what was wrong with Ms. Gaines, but in retrospect there were plenty of warning flags:  Her increasingly more bizarre conduct and hostile interactions with the police, her conviction that the police were out to harm her and her concrete preparations for the violent confrontation with police that she believed was inevitable.  And then of course there was the reported history of exposure to lead paint and its effects on her intellect and behavior.  There was no plan or conspiracy by the Baltimore County Police Department to kill Ms. Gaines, regardless of what was in her head; she was delusional if she truly believed that the Baltimore Police Department was out to kill her.  And, it is almost unheard of for a mother to put her child in that type of danger in the absence of delusions or hallucinations driving her behavior.

Ms. Gaines purchased her shotgun in 2015.  It is a weapon designed solely for killing people at relatively close range.  She posted a video to Instagram showing her loading the weapon.  “Gotta thank my dad for teaching me how to protect myself” and “thank myself … for teaching me who i need protection from,” she wrote.  At 23 years of age Ms. Gaines had prepared herself for a final deadly showdown with police.  The showdown came when police arrived at her apartment to serve a warrant on August 1^st.

According to her social media posts Ms. Gaines was outspoken in her concerns about the death of black people at the hands of the police, and right-wing media were quick to blame the Black Lives Matter movement for inciting her behavior.  At the other end of the spectrum members of the Black Lives Movement pointed to the death of Ms. Gaines as another example of the disparate treatment of black people by the police.  Both miss the point.  The Black Lives Movement is not to blame, but I do believe that family and friends should be vigilant for signs that an unusually militant commitment to the movement by a loved one is based on a mental illness that could put both their loved one and the police in danger.  Whatever else people saw in Ms. Gaines, it is what they apparently did not see that killed her:  The fact that she was too ill to be in possession of a firearm.  She wasn’t a warrior or a martyr; she was mentally ill.

I also was struck by the news coverage of this incident.  As far as I can tell no reporter asked the family members of Ms. Gaines whether they knew if she had reached out for mental health help or if they had tried to get such help for her.  If mental health help was sought and it was either unavailable or of no use in preventing her death, then that is an important part of the story of this tragedy.

If a breakdown in our system for delivering mental health services contributed to the tragedy, it certainly would not be the first such failure.  The death of Ms. Gaines came one day after the 50^th anniversary of the Texas Tower massacre.  On March 29, 1966 Charles Joseph Whitman went to see a psychiatrist at the University of Texas at Austin.  The psychiatrist’s notes reflected that Whitman was “oozing with hostility” and told him that he was “thinking about going up on the tower with a deer rifle and start shooting people.”  On July 31, 1966, after first killing his wife and his mother Whitman took three rifles, three pistols and one shotgun to the observation deck of the tower on the university campus and killed 14 more people and wounded 32 others.

Social movements come and go, but mental illness is here to stay.  And, as long as everyone who wants a firearm can get one legally or illegally, we should try to figure out a way to reduce the number of firearms that get into the hands of those persons who present a danger to themselves or others, such as Ms. Gaines.

August 9, 2016

The vendetta by Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby against the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) needs to end.  I have been a frequent critic of the lax discipline in the BPD and joined many others in calling for a change in the union-dominated “us versus them” culture of the department that too often has contributed to incidents of police misconduct being ignored.  [“The tail wags the dog at BPD,” The Baltimore Sun, August 18, 2015.]  Indeed, the BPD’s history of failing to police itself helped to set the stage for Mosby’s actions.  A vendetta against the officers of the BPD led by the city’s chief prosecutor is not the answer to the problems, however, and will harm Mosby, the BPD, and the city.

In my opinion Mosby’s attitude toward the police department has turned vindictive, a view of Mosby I share with former BPD commissioner Anthony Batts.  Mosby came under enormous criticism, including my own, when it became apparent that she based her decision to file criminal charges against six BPD officers allegedly responsible for the death of Freddie Gray on an inadequate investigation and flimsy evidence.  [“Baltimore prosecutor’s office should be investigated for Gray-related murder charge,” The Baltimore Sun, June 27, 2016.]  I believed that Mosby had her allowed herself to be carried away by the angry emotions that prevailed in the streets of Baltimore after Gray’s death in April 2015.  It now appears that, wounded and embarrassed by her defeats in court, she has doubled down and become almost spiteful toward the police.

Any doubt in my mind about Mosby’s motives was dispelled when she stated that she intended to seek legislation conferring on Maryland prosecutors the right to insist upon having a case decided by a jury even if the defendant wanted his or her case to be heard by a judge.  The statement came on the heels of her announcement last week that she was dropping criminal charges against the three remaining officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray.  Her stated desire to change the law not only slighted Judge Barry Williams, who had acquitted three of the six officers in bench trials, it also sent an unmistakable message to BPD officers:  She wants to able to use the well-known skepticism of Baltimore jurors about the credibility of police officers against officers when she prosecutes the officers for misconduct.

In 2008 Ahmet Hissim, an attorney who spent decades prosecuting homicides for the State’s Attorney’s Office, stated publicly that which everyone had known for a long time:  Jury trials are a “great risk for prosecutors in Baltimore City because jurors are likely to believe the cops aren’t telling the truth.”  [“Requests for jury trials swamping city courts,” The Baltimore Sun, October 10, 2008.]  The problem has not gotten any better.

In other words, Mosby wants to be able to exploit the inherent bias of many city jurors against a particular category of individuals, in this case police officers, in order to convict those individuals of crimes.  That tactic generally is considered anathema to our system of justice; we expect defendants to be protected from juror bias, not to have it be used against them.  Mosby already has shown her willingness to charge police officers with crimes despite a lack of solid evidence against them and now she wants to try them before jurors predisposed to disbelieve them.  What does this say about her general feelings toward police officers?

I hasten to add that Mosby has every right to initiate a discussion on whether Maryland should join other states that allow prosecutors to demand that certain cases be tried before a jury.  Timing and context are everything, however, and there is no doubt about the reasons behind her proposal.  Does anyone believe that, given the situation described by Mr. Hissim, she wants to be able to seek jury trials for defendants other than police officers?

Deliberately or not, Mosby also interjected a racial agenda into the relationship between her office and the BPD.  The substance and tone of her rhetoric during the news conference in 2015 during which announced the criminal charges against the six officers gave rise to allegations that the charges were based more on their appeal to the black citizens of the city aggrieved by a history of racism and brutality in the BPD than on the evidence.  There was a distinct “get even” quality to her remarks that led both white and black officers to be concerned about her objectivity.

It is every bit as important for a prosecutor to maintain a reputation for fairness and impartiality as it is for a judge; decisions must be based on the law and the facts, not on who the defendants are.  It is fine for a prosecutor to be seen as a champion of the poor and the downtrodden but not at the expense of fairness and impartiality to others.  There is a line that cannot be crossed.  Last week Mosby went to Sandtown-Winchester, where Gray was arrested, to deliver the speech in which she explained her decision to dismiss the charges against the three officers not already acquitted by Judge Williams.  Listening again to the substance and tone of her remarks I am not convinced that she even recognizes that the line exists.  CNN legal analyst Paul Callan, a former deputy chief of the Homicide Bureau of the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, described Mosby’s speech, which included claims that police sabotaged her investigation and tampered with evidence, as “the most inflammatory statement I have ever seen a prosecutor deliver.”

Here is the standard that I apply:  There is a serious problem when even good officers have reason to fear a prosecutor. Racism still exists within the BPD, but the solution to it does not lie in tipping the scales of justice in the other direction.  Mosby cannot possibly believe that compensating for past injustices by committing new ones is the path forward. Mosby’s vendetta not only will destroy the collaborative spirit between her office and the BPD that is necessary to make the city’s criminal justice work it also will make the needed reforms within the BPD harder to achieve.

Officer Wesley Cagle was convicted yesterday of felony assault for needlessly shooting an unarmed suspect in 2014 because two of his fellow officers reported his actions to internal affairs investigators.  The specter of a vindictive State’s Attorney willing to charge officers on flimsy evidence reinforces the “blue wall of silence” in the minds of officers and makes it less likely officers will come forward in the future; officers are more likely to cooperate when they trust that the information that they provide against their fellow officers will be used fairly.

Mosby has wasted an enormous amount of time, effort, and money, and done a lot of other harm.  She needs to put a halt to the vendetta before it is too late, if it is not too late already.

August 5, 2016