Public Comment

Response to Steve Martinot's Op-Ed Re events at Tuesday's Berkeley City Council meeting

Jacquelyn McCormick
Friday June 23, 2017 - 02:50:00 PM

First, the opinions stated are my PERSONAL opinions and experiences. But I am frustrated, a bit angry and willing to put my employment at risk to give another perspective to the events of last Tuesday night. Over the past 6 months there has been partial and inaccurate reporting about incidents in Berkeley from EVERY news source and public point of view. Even those that we consider "friendly" and "unbiased". So, I would like to state what I saw and experienced leading up to, and, including Tuesday night.  

The vote outcome from Tuesday's meeting was the best that could be obtained; just take a second and look at how the votes went down - on every item. Kate and Cheryl did not have the votes to get out of Urban Shield immediately. The Mayor didn't have the votes to suspend for a year and investigate. In defense of the Mayor, he is responsible for EVERYONE in this City - if substitute training is NOT in place prior to pulling out of Urban Shield our community is at risk. One must only look to the protests from the alt right that occured in the spring - and Milo has already announce he is coming back in late August. In order to ensure that the contract would not be extended without ANY oversight or review (which WOULD have passed) and to ensure there was substitute training in place the Mayor accepted the friendly amendment AND THEN he reduced the review from one year to 6 months. Personally, I don't support Urban Shield but this is the BEST outcome from a divided city council and one that will not lock us into longer term participation. 

There are complaints that testimony was not taken into consideration and minds were "made up" before hand. Honestly, many of you on this list ask me prior to council meetings how the Mayor is going to vote. And when I tell you I don't know, then I hear complaints about him being "uncommitted" or "wishy-washy" - so which way do you want it? Also, there was plenty of testimony PRIOR to the meeting - phone calls, emails and MANY wanted to stay in Urban Shield without question.  

The agenda was sent to Stop Urban Shield PRIOR to it being finalized and while still under discussion by City Council members - many who disagreed with order of the agenda AND the participants. EVERY participant went over time - the Mayor allowed that to occur because the Police had gone WAY over (although the police union ended up NOT presenting). AND everyone who came to speak was given time to do so. As a result there was over 5.5 hours of testimony. Should the Council have had more time to debate? Absolutely (IMO), but it was well after midnight. Every Council Member should have had the time to say everything they wanted to say and debate with each other. 

Audience participants at the Council meeting did not consist of our typical passionate community members. While initially there was a mix of new and familiar faces, almost all of the familiar faces left before 10 and there was a distinct change in the crowd. I mentioned it to my co-staff and I actually went into the crowd to let a few familiar faces know that they should be aware. I have heard from some of you that "if they had voted to suspend for a year - everyone would have been happy". That is NOT the case. When that option was presented the crowd started in - agressively yelling, holding "anti-fa" signs and even calling out "fascista". Also, I have been subsequently told, by a reputable source, that he heard plans for rushing the stage AT THE BEGINNING of council debate, so he left and actually told the police to call for back-up. (BTW - directive to the police was NEVER given by the Mayor). Tension in the room was palpable. 

As rollcall for the vote for the amended motion began, and before it was completed, people from the crowd jumped on the stage with the very large sign that blocked council members from sight. In and of itself this was not alarming, and was actually unanticipated. What happened next was not .... Once the sign was up a couple of male members from the audience, unknown to any of us, began crawling up under the sign - at that point council was still in their seats voting from behind. I flew out of my chair to try to keep one of them away and then more appeared. I ran up on to the stage as the vote was completing grabbed the Mayor's papers, returned to the floor (to find a mob running for the stage) grabbed my things and, with the rest of staff, escorted the Mayor outside and drove him away from the scene. Council members at the corridor end of the stage were trapped by members of the crowd who were trying to get on the stage. This was NOT a friendly protest - not by any stretch of the imagination. 

These were VERY frightening moments for everyone involved. In this day and age rushing elected officials by groups who have been violent in the past (there were anti-fa signs raised in the audience during the meeting) and people you do not know is alarming. It is a VERY good thing council was up on the stage (although all of them should have been advised of the street exit). 

We were not around to see what happened next but have heard, anecdotally, from other council, staff and the public. We cannot speak to the actions of the police, at this point, but we will find out what happened. No one was jailed - they were cited and released. There were injuries - that is NOT a good thing - it never is.  

Bottom line: Urban Shield is only in place for 6 months - not for the term of the entire contract. It will be reviewed, alternative trainings identified, and a decision made. NCRIC is another story altogether and the vote was a real surprise to me. Personally, I don't want to go through this again but I will. 

 


Jacquelyn McCormick is a staff member in the office of the Mayor of Berkeley.