Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 10/25/2022
AMHERST – Tensions were high and tempers flared during the Amherst Town Council’s Oct. 17 joint meeting with the Community Safety and Social Justice Committee (CSSJC). Pamela Young, the town’s Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and Scott Livingstone, Chief of Amherst Police Department (APD) were also present.
The joint meeting came about as a result of a dispute that arose in the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, wherein council President Lynn Griesemer proposed a draft of a letter to the CSSJC addressing their stipulations for restorative justice following the July 5 incident which saw nine Amherst teenagers detained by the APD. One of the two responding officers was caught on video telling one of the teenagers “You don’t have any rights.” Six of the nine teenagers identified as Black, Indigenous or people of color (BIPOC).
After this incident, the CSSJC sent a letter to the town council, calling for various changes within Amherst to eradicate the abuse of police power. At the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, Griesemer presented a drafted response letter to the CSSJC. While the letter did agree to some of the CSSJC’s requests such as the establishment of a police resident oversight board, it directly denied the request for the release of all investigative reports relating to the incident and police misconduct in general, and implicitly denied the creation of a victim compensation fund for those harmed by police violence.
Multiple council members stated that they did not support the letter and would not approve Griesemer to sign the letter on the council’s behalf. After hours of deliberation, it was agreed that the CSSJC should be present for the discussion, and Oct. 17’s joint meeting was scheduled.
Livingstone was given the floor first to detail the police report he signed on the incident. The report states that he and the department “regretfully” acknowledge that the officer did tell one of the teenagers that he had no rights, but that the other responding officer corrected his statement afterward. No apology was given. The report claims that two families responded to the department’s request for statements, and that one family “affirmed the police actions” while the other family “disaffirmed” them.
The department launched an “internal inquiry” into the incident, but because of the Police Officers Collective Bargaining Agreement (POCBA), all “personnel matters remain confidential.” The report concludes by saying that the department has met and complies with all Massachusetts Police Officer Standards and Training (POST), and that the department will participate in a full-day Juvenile Law training in February 2023.
Young began her statement by explaining that because the POCBA predates her DEI position, the Department of DEI is not allowed to conduct an independent investigation of the police department or individual officers. She presented an addendum to her Aug. 14 report on the incident.
The addendum listed the claims of the victims and their families side-by-side with the police department’s statements. It described the officer’s statement as “incorrect,” but does not condemn their actions.
The addendum said, “as the town moves to be a safe and welcoming community based on?mutual respect for all, harm will occur, but reconciliation is possible. As a community we must have the courage to admit a mistake and act to correct it, the strength to do the hard work of reconciliation, and, have the capacity to forgive and show grace.”
It is worth noting that both Livingstone and Young’s reports feature spelling, grammar and punctuation mistakes.
The CSSJC gave their own statements regarding the incident and their dissatisfaction with the town and police response after the fact.
Co-Chair Demetria Shabazz said, “I believe that both statements amount to the standard language we see used by police to protect their officers without real accountability or reform.”
Shabazz emphasized the need for independent civilian review board with subpoena power and victim compensation fund, requested by the nine teenagers, “to keep police accountable and restore public trust.”
She also offered some anonymous quotes from the teenagers themselves.
“Will I always be punished because I have a tint to my skin, and now even more with me speaking up? ... I worry if I’m OK to go anywhere, especially alone … my experiences with the Amherst police have taken my concentration on school and my studies because my safety and being a person of color was something I thought I would not have to worry about in this area…The police were yelling, power-tripping, yelling that we had no rights,” Shabazz said.
CSSJC member Debora Ferreira felt that there were “lots of holes in both reports.” Some of these inconsistencies included questions as to why the teenagers were detained during a routine noise complaint, why the officers prohibited them from calling their parents or guardians, and, because the group was stuck at the location due to a flat tire, why the officers showed up in a disciplinary capacity rather than helping the kids with their car trouble.
“As a black woman, because of incidents like this one, when I see the police I don’t think ‘they’re here to help’ … These kids were violated, it doesn’t matter that the officers didn’t put their hands on them or arrest them,” she said.
Fellow CSSJC member Pat Ononibaku had a message for Livingstone and said, “Seriously, I felt after reading your report that you do not have compassion for the youth. There was no accountability, no apology, and I wonder ‘Why should tax dollars pay for your salary in this town?’ I think you need to think about stepping down.”
Ononibaku felt that the meeting was “just a show, theater…nothing will come out of this.” She also felt that the town’s dismissive response to the CSSJC’s August requests was “racist.”
“These kids are hurting, and we’ve been waiting three months for this mediocre report? Would a black police chief get away with this in a majority white town? Hell no,” Ononibaku said.
Livingstone gave a response to the CSSJC’s comments. He explained that when the offending officer had said “you have no rights,” he definitely misspoke, but that what he had meant was that because the teenagers were minors and had Learner’s Permits, they did not have the right to drive home at that hour of night, roughly 12:30 a.m., and that because their parents were not present at the scene, the youths were “our responsibility.”
As to why they were not allowed to call a parent or guardian, Livingstone said, “They were all allowed to call a parent or guardian after the officers got the information about who they were. In the video you may hear him say ‘you can’t call your parents.’ What he meant to say was ‘you can’t call them right now.’”
On the matter of why no official apology had been issued by the department, Livingstone said he wanted to meet with the families directly.
“I wanted to have a meeting between the parents and the officers face to face, in the police station or wherever they felt comfortable…I made the comment of ‘we can get together and have pizza’ and I think a parent took that as me being sarcastic or not heartfelt, and that wasn’t the case at all. I was trying to give options to all the families to come in and have a conversation,” he said.
Livingstone responded to Ononibaku’s request for his resignation by saying “Ms. Patty wanted me to resign. Yeah, that’s not going to happen.”
Councilor Michelle Miller introduced a motion to allow the CSSJC to review the incident collaboratively with the Human Rights Commission (HRC), the African Heritage Reparations Assembly (AHRA), and the Department of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), in conjunction with the town attorney, to make a recommendation to the town council as to the best course of action. The motion was supported by Councilor Annika Lopes, and Councilor Ellisha Walker, who said she believed that “the CSSJC and those involved just want the Town Council to come to their defense the same way Lynn Griesemer jumped to the defense of the police.”
Just as it seemed the motion was about to be voted on, Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke invoked an obscure policy, Section 2.10C of the town charter, which gives every councilor the right to postpone a discussion item until the next council meeting. This sparked outrage from the CSSJC and certain town councilors alike, who felt as though Hanneke was using her power to silence their voices and the voices of the victims. Ononibaku stated “this is what white supremacy looks like.”
Co-Chair of the CSSJC Allegra Clark asked to open the floor for the joint meeting’s public comment section. Griesemer denied her request, saying that the CSSJC’s public comment window had overlapped with that of the Town Council earlier. She instructed Clark to adjourn the CSSJC so that the council may proceed with other business, but Clark stood her ground and stated that she and the rest of the CSSJC would remain on the live-streamed meeting. Griesemer threatened to kick the CSSJC members to the audience section, but did not do so.
Griesemer tried to proceed with another item on the council’s agenda, the fund transfer from the capital improvement program for the regional track and field project, but Councilor Patricia De Angelis invoked the same postponement clause that Hanneke had used previously, saying “I don’t think the damned artificial turf is more important than what we were talking about earlier.”
Miller moved to adjourn the meeting in support of CSSJC. She was supported by Councilor Dorothy Pam, Walker and De Angelis. Walker reported being “deeply ashamed” of the council and its actions. The vote to adjourn was split, but Miller’s motion passed. Once the councilors left the stream, the remaining CSSJC members took over to conduct their public comment section. Public comments, including some from town councilors, went on for roughly 45 minutes. Everyone that spoke did so in total condemnation of the council’s actions, with statements ranging from “that’s not my police chief or my town council president” to “if there was ever a reason to burn down the town charter, it’s what happened tonight.”
The next day, the discussion continued at the joint meeting of the Town Council and the Finance Committee, which under the charter section that was invoked, counted as the next council meeting.
Hanneke gave an explanation for her behavior the night before:
“Through no fault of any councilor, I was unprepared to discuss, consider or even contemplate the motion last night. I needed time that I did not have, so I invoked my right under the charter to postpone the debate to give me time … I knew there would be opposition … I was not in a safe, tolerant or compassionate space to use the charter right, but I did because I needed the time.”
Her statements were countered by Miller, who said, “there were people last night that needed to be heard and they were silenced. I understand this is frustrating, but we have to have some consistency with the way we’re managing people’s voices.”
Eventually a vote was passed to postpone the discussion to Nov. 1. Griesemer said that after surveying several councilors and CSSJC members, this was the date that could accommodate as many people’s schedules as possible. The discussion will be hosted on Nov. 1 at 6:30 p.m.