Probe faults mayor, officials for keeping Prude death secret

NEW YORK » An investigation into the official response to Daniel Prude’s police suffocation death last year in Rochester, New York, is faulting the city’s mayor and former police chief for keeping critical details of the case secret for months and lying to the public about what they knew.

The report, commissioned by Rochester’s city council and made public Friday, said Mayor Lovely Warren lied at a September press conference when she said it wasn’t until August that she learned officers had physically restrained Prude during the March 23, 2020, arrest that led to his death.

Warren was told that very day that officers had used physical restraint, the report said, and by midApril she, then-Police Chief La’Ron Singletary and other officials were aware Prude had died as a result and the officers were under criminal investigation.

“In the final analysis, the decision not to publicly disclose these facts rested with Mayor Warren, as the elected mayor of the city of Rochester,” said the report, written by New York Citybased lawyer Andrew G.

Celli Jr. “But Mayor Warren alone is not responsible for the suppression of the circumstances of the Prude arrest and Mr. Prude’s death.”

Warren said in a statement that she welcomed the report “because it allows our community to move forward.”

“Throughout

city

government, we have acknowledged our responsibility, recognized that changes are necessary and taken action,” she said, citing various measures on police practices and discipline.

In her statement, Warren didn’t address the report’s specific assessments of her own conduct.

As an alumnus and lifelong resident of Marin, I have been appalled at the proposed Sir Francis Drake High School renaming process from the onset.

After an “approved” list of 40 was narrowed down by a bracket-style vote from community members, students and teachers, the list has been narrowed down to the final four by 2,600 voters.

I was led to believe that one of the final four would be San Anselmo High. However, it was eliminated by a panel for a number of reasons, including the fact that not all students who attend live in San Anselmo, as well as the idea that it would disenfranchise, not unify.

Am I missing the basic tenets of democracy here and the voting process? Who has the right to change the candidates in the middle of an election? Since when are candidates switched out or eliminated after the votes are counted?

If this can happen at a hyperlocal level, what could happen at a state or federal level? Will we go into the voting booth to cast our vote to later find it discounted by a committee who doesn’t find that candidate acceptable?

This is a slippery slope to a very dark place in American democracy.

— Sue Engels Ream,

San Anselmo