Commission Perspectives

This week, the Detroit City Council acted to pave the way for former state legislator Harvey Santana to fill the appointed, at-large vacancy on the Board of Police Commissioners. The interview of Santana, conducted by council members Scott Benson (District 3) and Renata Miller (District 5), raised serious questions about the functioning and perspective of some on the City Council.

I have been a fairly close observer of our Board of Police Commissioners since the police killing of Hakeem Little in the summer of 2020. The BOPC is established in our city charter to provide civilian oversight of police policies and practices. Over the course of these six years, the problems of the BOPC in meeting this responsibility have been evident.  These problems are not based in the personalities, skills, or limitations of the people who have volunteered to serve on the commission, however. Rather, they stem from three primary sources.

 First, the Detroit Police Department has worked to turn the oversight board into a civilian support system.  Meetings are often dominated by statements congratulating and celebrating police actions and individuals. Rather than providing oversight, the board often promotes police perspectives. Former officers find their way to the Commission, often bringing with them a protective, uncritical view of the police and a distrust of the community.

Second, the structural burden of weekly meetings, all-volunteer commissioners, lack of funding for investigative staff, and the continued blocking of an independent counsel have severely challenged the commissioners. For example, the current effort of commissioners to receive and review body camera images as part of an investigation into police behavior is hampered by the lack of independent counsel

Finally, union contracts restrict the capacity of the Commission to hold officers accountable for misconduct.

In spite of these structural issues, the current BOPC has made tremendous strides in reorienting its priorities and raising community issues. In part, the influence of Black Lives Matter, the recognition of widespread police brutality, and the use of lethal force and the assault on public demonstrations have all energized community members to demand more scrutiny of police by the Board.  

As a result, the BOPC has taken a more active role in policy, especially on issues of surveillance technologies, raised questions of promotions, and made great strides in clearing the backlog of complaints.

It appears this scrutiny, as limited as it is, has shaken those on the Detroit City Council who often vote for corporate interests rather than stronger communities.  This was evident in the first question posed to Mr. Santana.

Council member Miller asked, “Do you hate the police?”  She went on to explain that some of the members of the BOPC and the community seem to “hate the police” and “raise their kids to “hate” them.

To this, Mr. Santana replied, “I am the police.”

Santana was referring to his status as a volunteer reserve deputy for the Wayne County Sheriff.

The question raises serious questions about Councilmember Miller’s understanding of the role of the BOPC and her equation of criticism with “hatred.”  The response should be enough to disqualify Mr. Santana.

Instead, both Miller and Benson spent a good deal of their time praising Santana, saying he would bring “professionalism” and “neutrality” to the board. These framings, intended to both denigrate the existing board and buttress Mr. Santana, stem from his embrace of the police perspective.  And they stem from a clear disrespect for those who question police actions.

There are many questions about Mr. Santana’s tenure in the legislature that could have been explored by the Councilmembers, especially his support of the notorious Educational Achievement Authority, which contributed to the destruction of public education in Detroit.

But the effort to portray him as a new leader for a dysfunctional body is a disservice to all of us. It reflects the growing divide in our city between those who promote corporate developments dependent on force to control our communities and those of us who imagine strong, vibrant neighborhoods based on care and concern for one another.