By Rich Bockmann
If the City Council’s decision to forge ahead last week on a pair of NYPD oversight bills was, as Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed, nothing more than “election year politics” and “political pandering,” Queens politicians on both side of the debate certainly provided plenty of fodder.
After the Council voted Aug. 22 to override the mayor’s veto of the Community Safety Act, elected officials and those who hope to hold such positions simultaneously denounced and heralded the controversial legislation.
“Today’s vote by the City Council undermines the work of every single police officer in the city,” said Chrissy Voskerichian, a Democratic candidate for northeast Queens’ 19th Council District seat. “The Community Safety Act tells the Police Department that they don’t know how to fight crime. This is a victory for the criminals and a bad day for the safety of New York City.”
The Community Safety Act is made up of two bills, the first of which — a measure appointing an inspector general to oversee the NYPD — passed by a margin of 39-10, with eight Queens members voting for and four members voting against it. Two members of the delegation were not present for the vote.
The second and more contentious arm of the act — an expansion of the city’s bias-based profiling law that opens the NYPD to lawsuits in state court — passed the Council with the bare minimum 34 votes needed to override Bloomberg’s veto. The Queens delegation voted 7-5 in favor of the bill.
“Today’s vote is an example of election year politics at its very worst and political pandering at its most deadly,” Bloomberg said as he vowed to take his fight to the courts.
Councilmen Ruben Wills (D-Jamaica) and Donovan Richards (D-Laurelton), both of whom represent primarily black constituencies opposed to the police tactic, welcomed the override as a move that will mend the rift between the NYPD and their communities.
“The Police Department should be a beacon of security instead of a cautionary tale for young men of color who feel like targets every time they see a police officer,” said Wills, who pointed to a federal judge’s ruling from earlier in the month that found the department’s use of stop-and-frisk to be unconstitutional. “As we fight to keep New York City one of the safest cities in the world, it is important that the Police Department operate within its proper boundaries and decrease the unnecessary use of stop-and-frisk based on race. I truly believe that when we improve the bond between the community and law enforcement, we strengthen the city.”
Richards said the policy had created an “enormous rift” that must be mended with “common sense reforms that protect the rights and safety of all New Yorkers.”
Perhaps no one in Queens echoed Bloomberg’s sentiment as did Joseph Concannon, a candidate challenging Councilman Mark Weprin (D-Oakland Gardens) on the Reform Party line in the November election.
“If the NYC Council felt so brazen on the merits of this bill, they should have put it up for referendum so that each citizen in NYC could determine their own fate and the future direction of our fine city,” the retired NYPD captain said. “Instead, behind closed doors and with the odor of politics poisoning the air as this bill is hastily ushered into NYC, the Council chose a path in which no one but they have a say. They have forsaken the trust of all New Yorkers and put NYC police officers once again in harm’s way, while they let murderous criminals have their way on the streets of NYC.”
Reach reporter Rich Bockmann by e-mail at rbockmann@cnglocal.com or by phone at 718-260-4574.
