Penzone shouldn’t replace court-ordered advisory panel
Some activists will only be happy with Sheriff Paul Penzone if he ignores immigration laws. We know he won’t do that, and rightly so.
Still, Penzone must listen to his ardent, often not-so-polite critics and abandon the idea of nixing a court-ordered advisory panel.
Pro-immigrant activists, some of whom hailed his victory over their longtime tormentor Joe Arpaio, are accusing Penzone of seeking to dissolve the court-appointed citizen advisory board and create in its place one packed with his supporters.
“He wants to surround himself with cheerleaders,” said pro-immigrant activist Salvador Reza. “We’re not against Penzone personally, but he doesn’t want to hear us because we speak for the undocumented.”
The advisory panel was created out of the Melendres vs. Arpaio racial-profiling lawsuit — now Melendres vs. Penzone — that has cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow appointed an independent monitor and set up a six-member panel — three from each side. Arpaio chose not to participate, so the only members are those recommended by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs in the case.
Steve Kilar, an ACLU spokesman, said the MCSO proposed changes to a court order that would have eliminated the community advisory board and replaced it with a Hispanic advisory board that the MCSO would appoint.
But Kilar indicated the ACLU legal team is trying to iron out an agreement with the MCSO to comply with the court-ordered community engagement.
Penzone said he initially suggested replacing the panel with an already established community board but is now pursuing a five-person panel.
Each side would appoint two members, and one would have to be mutually agreed upon.
The sheriff said the antagonistic positions by the current panel members make the situation unworkable.
“My intention was never to silence those individuals from the advisory (board), but to ensure we meet the needs of the community,’’ said Penzone, noting that the only two remaining members of the court-ordered panel have made it clear they won’t work with him.
“I won’t respond to unreasonable demands or unrealistic expectations,’’ Penzone said.
A few weeks ago, Penzone drew criticism from some of the same activists over the department’s policy change on the terms of how and when federal immigration agents can pick up undocumented immigrants after they’re released from his jails.
The activists, of course, don’t want anyone deported.
The sheriff not only has changed the overall tone toward the immigrant community but has also taken steps to erase Arpaio’s controversial practices, including closing Tent City, the infamous outdoor jail symbolizing Arpaio’s circus.
Penzone has also set up citizen panels to advise him on other issues that are important to Hispanics, blacks and the LGBT community.
The activists say those groups are composed of Penzone’s sympathizers and that they don’t speak for undocumented immigrants.
Regardless, it’s not up to Penzone to boot out the folks he doesn’t like from this panel — and that’s a good thing. He shouldn’t have even suggested replacing it with one that he alone would appoint.
His subsequent proposal of a fivemember panel is a good idea because both sides get to have a say. Ultimately, whatever panel advises the sheriff will be up to Judge Snow.
Penzone has shown he is willing to listen and work with anyone within reason and legally possible.
The activists have every right to criticize him but should do so constructively.
They’ll be wise to remember Penzone isn’t Arpaio.
They’ll be wise to remember the mess Penzone inherited, including more than 200 lawsuits, court orders and a tarnished MCSO image of institutional racism.
They’ll be wise to remember that in four years, another Arpaio might replace Penzone.
And then what?