Brief Interview with Councilmember Tony Madrigal on Free Radio Santa Cruz

Tony is saying that young Hispanics were ethnically profiled on Halloween on the mall.

In 2005, there were 6 (or was it 7?) stabbings on the mall on Halloween night. I believe all of the victims were young Hispanic males, and that the perps were all believed to be young Hispanic gang members.

Well, who does Tony think the police should be looking at most closely?

If they weren't looking at young Hispanics, Tony would say that the police don't care enough about young Hispanic males to protect them.

IMO, Tonygot busted by the SC p.d. for inappropriate sexist comments while on his ride-along earlier this year, and now he's looking for payback.

The real issue here is the untouchability of the SCPD and how thoroughly the Santa Cruz City Council has bent over to kiss the blarney stone.

Madrigal is no champion of the people against police misconduct. But ANY criticism of the police department is a no-no. Madrigal mentioned--largely in passing--that one of the reasons for his voting down an increase in police power on Halloween was concerns he had about their behavior last year. The Council ignored his comment (and he didn't repeat it), and passed, as they almost always do, the police department's expanded powers.

For Sentinel editorial and comment on Madrigal's passing comments on the SCPD's now-ritual accretion of power at Halloween, see "As We See It: Madrigal's immature remarks" at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/September/16/edit/stories/01edit.htm

Shanna McCord's original story the day after the Council meeting was (as usual) inaccurate and sensationalistic (see "Santa Cruz councilman accuses Santa Cruz police of racial profiling" at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ archive/2007/September/12/local/stories/01local.htm).

At the Tuesday City Council meeting where the entire Council (as usual) went along with the SCPD expanded enforcement agenda, Madrigal noted that POSSIBLE racial profiling was ONE of his concerns. He didn't appear "upset" at City Council as McCord charged, but was quite low key (far too low-key to suit me).

Seems to me the real story was ignored by Shanna, who regularly acts as a smiling conduit for police department PR feel-good stories. That story is the SCPD's hatred of Madrigal for mild criticism and for earlier proposing an independent investigation of City Manager Dick Wilson's cover-up of the DIY Last Night police infiltration of the New Year's parade a year and a half ago. [1/24/06: "Councilman calls for further probe of parade spying" http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/ January/24/local/stories/06local.htm]

A year and a half ago, Deputy Chief Vogel "investigated" his own political surveillance and found himself innocent. This was rubberstamped by City Manager Dick Wilson. Police auditor Arenson dissented, giving the city bureaucracy and their chief apologist Rotkin a brief embarrassment. [back to the drawing board (see "Last Night Parade Organizers' Civil Rights Violated by SCPD Spying, Report Says" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/03/26/ 18110811.php]

Ducking real public hearings, City Council and its "police oversight" subcommittee, the Public Safety Committee, ended up OKing "guidelines" cooked up by SCPD Chief Skerry and City Manager Wilson that would probably have okayed the police spying in the first place (see "Reportback of Santa Cruz Police Spying Policy Process" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems /2006/06/22/18282023.php)

I asked McCord why her original two stories pumping up the "hate Madrigal" chorus had no on-line sections allowing comment. She told me the Sentinel didn't want to encourage "racial hostility" or some such thing. I didn't take it too seriously until I saw today's thread, which is pretty nasty and largely irrelevant.

Now, however is a good time for folks to call Madrigal with real accounts of racial profiling and demand they be taken seriously and investigated. His number is 420-5028.

You can also hear a discussion of the Madrigal pile-on, archived soon at http://www.radiolibre. org/ brb/brb070916.mp3 in the first hour or two of the lengthy download.

City Council Person Tony Madrigal has come under attack from the corporate rightwing Santa Cruz Sentinel for mentioning that he was an eye-witness to racial profiling. In their editorial, "As We See It: Madrigal's immature remarks", they go so far as to suggest Madrigal may need to step down:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/September/16/edit/stories/01edit.htm

These remarks by the Santa Cruz Sentinel reflect a racist cultural insensitivity by the Santa Cruz Sentinel against Tony Madrigal and all people of color that face racial profiling by the police. In addition, the Sentinel, in showing an extreme intolerance to any questioning of the actions of the Santa Cruz Police, is putting out in the open a bias that can also be seen regularly in their inaccurate reporting..

Tony's remarks, and his vote on the issue, were good. Much more is needed. It's about time he takes a stand on the racist and anti-poor actions of the Santa Cruz Police. Thanks to Becky Johnson for posting Tony's actual remarks.

The downtown Halloween interaction between visitors and security has been somewhat hostile. I don't want to return as a normal well-behaved person because it seemed like the entire crowd was being herded around - particularly two years ago (the year when the stabbings occurred). I think it could all be solved by setting up more opportunities of things to do on halloween night rather than just having bored young people walk up and down the street, often not old enough to get into the bars. Seriously, just allowing a couple musical groups to set up in nearby parking lots would probably reduce the number of excitable people getting into mischief.
Two years ago, there was a ridiculous practice where tall fences blocked off the center of the street so that ambulances and police cars would be able to quickly dart in after emergencies. This forced the ten thousand people into a small sidewalk area where it was cramped and pushy.
The next year, they at least had some porta-potties and ditched some of the fencing, but it still felt like the large numbers of security were a bit on edge.

Of primary importance is the context of Madrigal’s statement, ignored by the Sentinel. The Sentinel completely ignores this context when they state, “We don't really care why he made the remarks — whether it was to get back at someone, or whether it was just grandstanding.” The context was of explaining his vote against beefed up police state measures downtown for this Halloween. Madrigal was doing nothing improper, he was merely explaining his vote.

Reading the Sentinel editorial there is absolutely no indication of this context.

As for Madrigal not doing anything about it earlier, I think that he tried when he asked those who were frisked if they wanted to do something about it, and they did not.

I think that sometimes when something is so common place, not acting on it can come from a position of powerlessness. Those who are victims of police abuse rarely try to do anything about it, and when they do they rarely get any justice. All involved were likely aware of this.

It would have been better for Madrigal to bring it up earlier, but he is also likely aware of what happens to City Council People that criticize the police. Keith Sugar and Christopher Krone were also both raked over the coals by the Sentinel when they joined a demonstration I helped organize and demanded an independent investigation of the police shooting of John Dine.

The fact that the Sentinel very rarely covers issues of police abuse, and when they do it is with a spin that takes it into another dimension beyond reality and rarely mentions the point of view of the person abused, says much about the Sentinel's true concern here.

It is Tony Madrigal's right to bring up this incident now as part of the reason why he doesn't support the beefed Halloween police state measures for downtown. Tony has the right to explain his vote.

So Tony Madrigal called into Free Radio Santa Cruz to plead his case?
Isn't the broadcast of FRSC illegal?
Wouldn't that make Tony Madrigal an accessory to a crime?

Actually the entire City Council has twice voted to recognize and commend Free Radio Santa Cruz in the station's 12-year history. It's "illegal" the way "medical marijuana" is illegal. Our local community has voted otherwise and reclaimed the airwaves.

Not only was the last vote commending Free Radio unanimous, but Councilmembers like Madrigal and Kennedy came out to defend the radio station even as US Marshals looted it and stole property in October 2004. Former Mayors Rotkin and Krohn have personally been on my show.

Even though I denounce all these Councilmembers for other crimes against the homeless, the usefulness and importance of Free Radio Santa Cruz and its place in the community is not an issue.

The last time a Councilmember had doubts was back in 1997, I believe, when Cynthia Matthews was the sole dissenting vote. She changed her mind and voted to commend FRSC a few years later.

Set your radio free. One, two, many free radio stations!

To level the accusations that Madrigal does without substantiation is thoroughly irresponsible. This amounts to race-baiting and it severely undermines the legitimacy of the civil-rights movement. People like Madrigal, "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton and others do a great disservice to the rest of us people of color when they keep crying wolf. Save it for a real incident, jerks.

I expect this sort of behavior from the unemployed Robert Norse types who are bored and have never really suffered hardships or held positions of responsibility or accountability in society, but not from an actual City Councilmember. Shame on you Tony for engaging in base pandering. Shame on you.