Please join us to give a public comment in favor of the Berkeley ordinance on militarized equipment,
The zoom link to attend and speak is here: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88131245345
This is a special meeting convened to consider only the Equipment Ordinance – and will be the last before it goes to the full Council, after the recess, in late April or early May. Public comment will likely be at the beginning of the meeting. The meeting agenda is here.
Send your email comment to: PolicyCommittee@cityofberkeley.info
Subject line: Public Safety comment: Controlled Equipment Ordinance
In Bcc (important that it is bcc) put: council@cityofberkeley.info
Talking points you can include in your email or public comment:
- Ordinance sponsor Kate Harrison has inserted amendments that address points raised in the last meeting of the Public Safety Committee, including reducing the time for Police Accountability Board consideration of equipment if there is a time-sensitive grant opportunity for controlled equipment.
- BPD has said that “standard issue” equipment should not be subject to reporting or use policies. But for people in the community, it doesn’t matter if assault rifles are “standard issue”. If BPD is using these weapons often, the community, Accountability Board and City Council should know how often and in what neighborhoods the weapons are deployed. If they not using assault weapons often, then it is not a reporting burden.
- The Police Review Commission worked extensively on the ordinance to make it clear and respond to Department and community concerns, in more than half a dozen meetings – some of them devoted solely to the ordinance – since last summer. This included an in-depth discussion of what is “use” of militarized equipment to be reported, concluding that “display” of equipment is active and should be included in reports.
- As the comprehensive report on Fair and Impartial Policing pointed out, Berkeley PD uses force on Black people at a rate six times more than white people in Berkeley. This puts Black people at greater risk of being subjected to militarized equipment than white people – another reason why BPD should have clear and reasonable use policies for equipment and transparent reporting on its use.
- There is new academic research, published in December demonstrating that there is no positive impact on public safety from the acquisition of military equipment. This suggests the importance of documenting the use of such equipment in order make the Department as effective as possible in strengthening community safety.
- The ordinance is modeled after Berkeley’s surveillance equipment ordinance, enacted in 2018, which has the same provisions for use policies, Council approval and reporting. This ordinance fills a gap not addressed by policies on surveillance equipment, use of force, or the reforms adopted by the City Council this week.
- Militarized equipment lacks transparency and civilian-directed decisions on acquisition and use policies. This ordinance creates a process for oversight and transparency about the acquisition and use of militarized gear.
- BPD currently is not required to disclose what or how much equipment it currently has, the financial costs, adverse impacts, alternatives to the equipment, locations of use, whether use was connected to a warrant, whether equipment involves third parties, or number of times the equipment was deployed. This ordinance helps to remedy that lack of transparency.
- The ordinance does not ban any equipment. Instead, it creates a process for civilian oversight and transparency. Oversight can include recommendations from the Police Accountability Board and decisions by City Council to exclude the use of specified weapons in Berkeley.
- The Alameda County Labor Council issued a resolution last year in favor of this ordinance.
Oakland is also moving a similar ordinance forward. We expect it to be introduced in the Oakland City Council sometime soon.