San Antonio Express-News (Sunday)
What would a justice director mean for S.A.?
It would be easy to look at San Antonio’s proposed Justice Charter amendment and conclude that the ballot proposition is meaningless.
After all, the Act 4 SA proposal — with its calls for the decriminalization of abortion and low-level marijuana possession, and the banning of police choke-holds and noknock warrants — would, for the most part, merely attempt to codify already existing local policies. And City Attorney Andy Segovia has repeatedly stated that the city can’t codify those policies.
Segovia says that if the charter amendment passes, the city will not enforce those provisions because they violate state laws.
With that in mind, only one of Proposition A’s proposals is sure to be implemented if voters approve the ballot measure: the creation of a municipal justice director, who would be appointed by City Council.
That provision has been overshadowed by the heated local debate over abortion, marijuana, graffiti and property-theft policies. Even among those who have given the justice-director proposal serious consideration, there is a wide range of opinion about what it would mean for the city.
One former council member I recently spoke with expressed concern that the charter amendment would create a justice czar with unchecked powers to tamper with the city’s budgeting process and the San Antonio Police Department’s operations.
The more commonly heard response from the proposition’s detractors, however, is that the proposed justice director would serve no purpose and draw a salary that wastes taxpayer money.
Manny Pelaez, the Northwest Side councilman who has probably been the proposition’s staunchest critic on the dais, had this to say:
“If you look at the description of the justice director, it’s a person without any authority. I mean, their job is to basically just sort of look at everything through the lens of justice and then tell us what it looks like. And it sort of begins and ends there.”
Pelaez also took issue with the proposition’s requirement that the justice director not be someone with a background in law enforcement. He described it as akin to hiring a health director who never worked in a hospital.
“This justice director would really only have something to do if the Justice Charter were enforceable,” Pelaez said. “It’s such an amorphous thing. I can’t wrap my head around what they think the end impact will be of having a justice director.”
Ananda Tomas, the executive director of Act 4 SA, envisions the justice director as someone who will not only take a comprehensive look at public-safety policy but also serve as a bridge between members of the community and city leadership on the issues of policing and criminal justice.
“For advocates on the ground, I think we’ve always really felt like there’s been a disconnect with ourselves and the city, including our police chief and even our city manager’s office,” she said.
“It really highlighted to us that there is a need to have a better conduit, somebody to hold those quarterly or monthly stakeholder meetings.”
As Tomas sees it, the justice director could scrutinize city policy through the prism of a commitment to reduce mass incarceration and racially discriminatory policing.
She cited last year’s $396,000 city purchase of an armored vehicle (known as the Rook) for the police department’s SWAT unit as an example of a situation where a justice director could be helpful.
“It cost quite a bit of money … and seemed completely unnecessary,” Tomas said. “You would have had an extra person there that could inform City Council.”
Pelaez said the charteramendment provision that worries him is the one stipulating cite-and-release for graffiti with damage less than $2,500, property theft under $750 and criminal mischief with damage under $750.
The councilman added that this provision is causing anxiety for his Muslim, Jewish and Asian constituents, who fear that it will embolden perpetrators of hate-fueled graffiti and vandalism.
Danny Diaz, president of the San Antonio Police Officers Association, told City Council on Feb. 16 that the role of a justice director already is being fulfilled by Deputy City Manager María Villagómez, who oversees SAPD.
Pelaez has picked up on that idea. He suggests that if Proposition A passes, the council should simply give Villagómez the title of justice director.
“I completely respect María,” Tomas responded. “I think she’s really sharp. I know she works very hard.
“But on the same note, she has a lot of things to cover. We need somebody that is dedicated full time to this, which she can’t give. So we’re filling a gap we have found that exists.”