Few things are more gratifying to a columnist than seeing other columnists jump on the bandwagon they set in motion.
So I took great joy and satisfaction this morning when I opened The Star and saw that KC Star editorial board member and op-ed columnist Melinda Henneberger had taken a cudgel to our do-nothing, afraid-of-his-shadow police chief, Rick Smith.
It was 10 months ago that I first said Smith liked to hide behind his blog post and his public information officers, instead of answering reporters’ questions face to face or even holding news conferences. I accelerated the criticism in January, focusing on the need for local control of KCPD. Last week, as many of you will recall, I wrote saying local control had become a matter of urgency with Smith and his predecessor, Darryl Forte, at the helm.
Now, I don’t know if Henneberger, a Pulitzer Prize finalist in each of the last two years, even reads my posts (I’m honored if she does), but in today’s column she certainly picked up on my theme.
Her lead sentence summed up the situation in funnier and more penetrating words than I have been able to come up with. (She’s not a Pulitzer finalist for nothing.) She wrote…
“I was about ready to see if we couldn’t put Kansas City Police Chief Rick Smith’s face on a milk carton: Have you seen this man?”
Bravo, Melinda, you nailed it!
I know a lot of you readers don’t have subscriptions to The Star and might not be able to open the above link to her column. So, here are some of the highlights…These are direct quotes:
— (U)ntil Sunday, when he finally appeared at a news conference at Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas’ personal invitation, Smith had said zero words publicly about the sight of George Floyd pleading for air and for his mama, as dying men have always done.
— For six days, Smith had no comment on the officer who’d held his knee on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. For five days, he kept to himself his thoughts on the protests Floyd’s murder had set off in other cities. For two days, he said nothing about protests here in Kansas City.
— Smith didn’t have the week off or anything; he was at the protests, though not visible, working from the police command center. But it was Capt. Dave Jackson, a public information officer, who was sent out to speak. That’s not leadership.
— When Smith finally did show himself on Sunday, and was asked why it had taken him six days to make a sound, this was his answer: “I think we put out a statement when it happened.
— And still, he couldn’t bring himself to say these two words: George Floyd.
— Kansas City should be better than this, he said to protesters, and he’s right about that; breaking glass and throwing rocks helps nobody. But Kansas City also deserves better than this, better than a police chief in hiding.
**
I think Henneberger’s column could be a breakthrough in terms of how the public and The Star’s editorial board views Smith and the issue of local control.
The public doesn’t pay much attention to the chief, or the police department in general, until they start to worry about their personal safety. It’s not really a major concern to most people when they read reports of high murder rates, as long as they don’t feel threatened themselves. But with what has been taking place on the streets the last few days, it’s starting to become personal. People can’t help but wonder what might happen to them if they’re out in their cars and encounter a seething group of protesters.
Protesters in Kansas City
The editorial board, on the other hand, has been sitting back watching Smith, giving him the benefit of the doubt, since he was named chief in July 2017. Unlike me on my little blog, the editorial board has to be extremely cautious, because once it collectively decides to shift positions, it’s hard to turn back.
That’s why I say this could be a turning point.
Also, I hope the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners is paying attention and not hiding behind their big titles, bestowed by the governor.
Maybe, if they don’t have their hands over their eyes and plugs in their ears, this will be the beginning of the end of a guy who is clearly a bad police chief.
Maybe, even, a significant number of people will start wondering if local control (which would be difficult to attain) isn’t such a bad idea.
It’s a damn shame that Lucas is just one member of that five-member board and has a minor, though important, voice in who we have as police chief. As I’ve said before, the other commissioners (lawyers Nathan Garrett and Cathy Dean, minister Mark Tolbert and businessman Don Wagner), as well as commissioners before them, have been virtual rubber stamps for the chief.
Damn it, that’s got to stop. As they’re saying on the streets, enough is enough. Rick Smith must be sent packing, and we need local control of KCPD now more than ever.
…And, finally, thank you, Melinda, for calling out our commander-in-hiding.
Excellent column, Jim. As we know all too well, one’s silence, particularly if that one is in a position of leadership or influence, often speaks volumes about a particular situation, and that appears to be the case here with the KC Chief of Police. Of course, my own theory is that these police chiefs are hesitant to speak out against the actions of law enforcement officers in other cities because they want that “cover” just in case one of their own officers should come under close scrutiny later on for their actions while wearing the uniform. Still, the citizens of KC deserve better, much better, than what they’re currently getting out of their current police chief. You and Melinda – great minds think alike, right?
Many thanks for the comment, Rick…I feel like I’m pounding away at the proverbial brick wall on this, but I intend to keep swinging.
“I think Henneberger’s column could be a breakthrough in terms of how the public and The Star’s editorial board views Smith and the issue of local control.”
I think the Star editorial board made its feelings on local control known six months ago: “Why doesn’t KC control its own police department? It’s past time to tackle this issue”
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article237175028.html
Thankee.
Is this editorial what you were hoping for relative to local control? It supports local control, but notes it is likely to be difficult and controversial to achieve. One reason for the potential difficulty is that Mayor Lucas has not, up to this point, supported moving to local control. (And he has also been all talk/no action when it comes to promoting/funding body cameras.)
FWIW: It’s interesting to me how small the expectations are for the Public Safety Study Group the City Council created. I don’t think the editorial even mentions that group, which is charged with coming up with the pros/cons for local control so that a reasoned community discussion can occur.
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article243177671.html
Precisely, Mark…I hope this is the first of many such editorials.
Frustratingly, it’s the lead editorial in this morning’s print edition but not played prominently on the website. Getting much higher billing is an editorial that mentions Quinton Lucas and Rick Smith in the headline but focuses almost entirely on Lucas.
They should at least have given the two editorials equal billing…The one you link to will be much more important in the long term. I trust you agree?
Since you asked:
In all honesty, I don’t think it makes much difference whether the Star shows the link to this morning’s print-edition editorial as the first or second item under “Opinion.” Readers will easily see the references to both editorials (assuming they scroll down to ”Opinion ” in the first place).
I’m a little surprised this morning’s print editorial met your expectations. “Local control” was addressed last among the eight bullet points shown. I would have thought you would have wanted it to be the first bullet point. In fact, I would have thought you would have wanted an editorial devoted solely to local control.
One final point: For the sake of Mayor Lucas and our city, I do wish him well. I know he has a virtually impossible job these days, and I very much admire his willingness to go into the crowds and speak with them. But, he needs to stop his too-frequent tendency of not giving direct/specific answers to difficult questions. For example: I have never heard him give a direct answer to my question below (which I posed in a Tweet) either to me, the protesters, or reporters. In short, he needs to be less evasive and more direct with his words.
” @QuintonLucasKC , please provide a direct “yes” or “no” answer, and then feel free to elaborate: Do you think there were some situations over the weekend in which the KCPD was justified in using tear gas? “
Most people don’t explore the website as thoroughly and methodically as you, Peavy. They look at the stories featured on the front and trust that’s the most important stuff. That’s the way it should be, but often the more important stories and opinion pieces are “buried” in the bowels of the site. I hope you understand the difference between the way you “read” the paper online and the way casual readers do.
That’s one reason this website is a veritable disaster; it’s superficial and slap-dash. When you look at the NYT or WAPO websites, you can see the entire panoply of stories and opinion pieces and immediately click on those that interest you. You don’t have to go on a fuckin’ treasure hunt!
And with that, we close out this discussion…