TRANSPARENCY CRITICAL FOR TRUST

Yesterday, Jordan Smith of the Austin Chronicle published two articles that shine more light on the Sanders investigation than anything we've seen to date.  One exposes the more legitimate internal investigative report that APD and the City have been trying very hard to keep under wraps. The other raises very important questions in light of that report and of information revealed during the Christopher Dunn appeal hearing.

What's at issue here is who was disciplined (and for what) and who wasn't disciplined at all; and with that, whether Chief Acevedo is really the man, the chief, he has presented himself to be -- and before this debacle had proven himself to be.  Culpability extends here to City Manager Ott and City Attorney David Smith for assisting in  the cover-up (and perhaps directing it to some degree?) as well as to our mayor & city council for failing to expose the lies, or perhaps worse, failing to pursue the truth...all claim to have not read the unredacted KeyPoint report, much less demand it from Ott.

Why was the supervisory report from Cmdr. Johnson dismissed and what was proven to be a biased report, from an inept investigator, the one Acevedo relied on to make his disciplinary decisions about Quintana? That's the million dollar question. One might speculate it has much to do with the fact that on the day Nathanial Sanders, Jr. was shot to death, the Chief announced to the media it was a "good shooting."

For years, the community has heard our various chiefs and leaders of the police union quickly come to the defense of an officer involved in a shooting. Before reviewing the evidence, they would boldly claim it was sound. While Acevedo was hired in large part to bring more transparency to APD, and because he promised to give as much information as possible when a shooting death occured as remedy for past practices of keeping the community in the dark, we really weren't asking for a definitive conclusion within 24 hours.

There's a reason we allow 180 days for an internal investigation (and don't get me started on the District Attorney conducting the grand jury process before the investigations are anywhere near completed--such that critical information that comes out later, like the Dunn email, isn't entered into evidence, therefore NO police officer is ever criminally indicted).

It takes time to collect, analyze, assemble, send up/seek approval and review these investigations. It should be conducted with the utmost of checks and balances, not rushed for public relation purposes, as what seems to have happened here. Acevedo put the most inexperienced investigators on the biggest case since he came on board (the Olsen/Brown shooting happened before he was chief, although he became chief in time to apply discipline). Why?

Then he dismissed the findings of the more experienced LEAD investigator in favor of the report which was proven to be biased--one of its contributors being fired for that bias (but just one-why?). Acevedo claimed the bias didn't affect the results of this report...or at least the conclusion, anyway.

It's completely illogical, but its his story and he's sticking to it! One or two of Johnsons' charges might be arguable...might...but it's clear to everyone who's paid attention to the details (and from the video) that Quintana didn't announce himself. That violation can not be disputed - not even Quintana disputed it, yet Acevedo didn't discipline him for it. Why then should we believe Johnson's other charges are not founded?

When you look at the Olsen shooting of Kevin Brown, which was ruled excessive force which Acevedo fired him for, he committed the same violation Johnson charged Quintana with: different tactics, based on best practices, training and policy, would have prevented the situation for which Quintana felt compelled to unload rounds into the back of Sanders head.

Johnson also charged Quintana with the same violation that Julie Schroeder was fired for in the shooting death of Daniel Rocha - putting another officer in danger by discharging her weapon when he was too-near the line of fire. That was also ruled as excessive use of force.

Acevedo implemented a long-awaited disciplinary matrix to standardize punishment for various policy violations. This was supposed to emphasize consistency and accountability. Before this, one officer would get a few days suspension for the same violation another officer would be indefinitely suspended (fired) for. Police accountability advocates and the police union alike begged for this matrix for years, and its implementation was seen as perhaps the most major of improvements Acevedo brought to APD.

But what good is the matrix if no one is following it? It had been, though, apart from this case...so all hope is not lost. If Acevedo simply admits wrongdoing and uses this as a "teaching moment," we could move forward to make more changes to ensure better accountability.

Interestingly enough, rumor has it Acevedo will fire Quintana next week over his recent DWI, even though he has a couple of more months to make that decision. Is the timing of this about public relations vs. actual justice? Quintana hasn't even had his criminal case adjudicated for the offense yet. (Interesting sidenote: he got the DWI after drinking all night following his 6-hour deposition in the civil suit...one wonders if lying for 6 hours straight invites a karmic kickback!). Is firing him now over this supposed to allay the public's outrage as new facts come out about the shooting, the investigation and the suppression by city leaders?

It's not difficult now to speculate what's in the KeyPoint report under the almost 30 percent redacted portions. Likely they discuss at length Johnson's findings, because Johnson was the lead investigator on the case. His report was submitted as THE Internal Affairs report after revising the work of his underlings. KeyPoint's conclusion is almost fully redacted, and the City claims they are covered by law which only covers names and unsubstantiated facts - none of which should be spelled out in the conclusion. The conclusion cites whether the shooting was justified or not - and this is precisely why we hired KeyPoint to review the case, because the public wasn't convinced it was justified. Their arguments for redacting it are disputed in the petition, which I welcome all to sign!

Did KeyPoint rule it excessive force despite Johnson's conclusion? We'll likely know at some point...next week a judge may rule to have it released per the civil suit brought against the City by Texas Civil Rights Project - but naturally the City will appeal, spending more money/resources to keep it contained. Meanwhile, the Sanders family civil suit against the City will go to trial in July - because the City refused to enter into mediation which would have led to a settlement, which may or may not have kept the report under wraps. Perhaps they are crossing their fingers they will win, which would more likely keep it sealed than a settlement would - but as new information like this cover up comes out, it doesn't bode well for the City.

Also, the APD is still under a Department of Justice review for use of force, and they are also paying attention to this case - and the new facts being exposed. A federal prosecutor could apply criminal charges, but more likely will just come back to us as part of the overall review in which they may find fault, but not pursue charges.

Is all of this legal obfuscation and illogical spin by Acevedo, Ott, Smith and crew all to avoid the small possibility of federal charges and/or bad publicity against the City for a wrongful death? Is bad press so abhorrent that supressing the truth so necessary and the risk it will be exposed worth it?

Lies only make bad things worse. The longer the lie goes on, the more lies to keep it contained are generated, the worse that bad press will be once exposed. It's a vicious cycle, and its practice not indicative of the transparent goverment we've been promised by the new administration - from Ott to Acevedo to our current Council.

And what of the other investigators who are being revealed to have also shown bias? Reassigning them and cleaning up Internal Affairs is a great start, but why should Dunn be the fall guy because of a snarky email? Who is really hurting the department here by their actions?

Trust is broken, yet again, with APD and with our City. How they respond to it in the coming days will be critical. Legal maneuverings and political spin will worsen relations with the community. Honesty and humility is the less expected, but only course of action to rebuild trust. Let's see what they're made of...