HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/16/2021 Item 7, Greening
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Eric Greening <
To:E-mail Council Website; AD-Board-Clerk; iparkinson@co.slo.ca.us
Subject:Eric Greening questions on SLO City "After Action Review Council Agenda Report"
Hello!
The questions below are being shared with Sheriff Parkinson and the SLO County Board of Supervisors, because they
represent an inquiry into the County's role in the happenings of June 1st and raise the possibility that the County needs
to undergo a process analogous to that now being carried out by the City of San Luis Obispo. These questions are,
however, also directed at the San Luis Obispo City Council; they should show up on the record for the Council's February
16th relevant agenda item, and also be in the file for non-agenda public comment for the Supervisors' meeting of
February 9th, as well as being carried forward into the record of any relevant agenda item that may ultimately land in
front of the Supervisors.
The report being considered by the City is very city-centric. It indicates that Chief Cantrell was overseeing the
operations from a command post in City Hall, and tacitly gives the impression that she, and the City, were the sole or
primary decision-makers during the events that unfolded. One divergence from that impression is the following quote
from the report: "Mutual Aid agencies assisting self-deployed and lacked sufficient direction from the Command Post."
Given that SLO City Police officers were outnumbered by Sheriff's deputies (50 city police, 60 deputies, and 68 officers
from multiple other cities and agencies), it is worth inquiring into the role of the County Sheriff and perhaps of other
cities and agencies before all the needed lessons from this examination of the events of the day can be learned.
I am particularly puzzled because the "California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan," and the code sections it
implements, appear to indicate that once a police department requests mutual aid that includes the County, the County
Sheriff becomes the "Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Co-ordinator. If this is indeed the standard practice, was it followed,
with the City's report failing to note this important factor in responsibility for the day's events, or was there deviation
from this standard practice, and, if so, why? Or was there confusion, with both City and County acting
autonomously? Who was the official "Officer in charge?" Did they use the "Incident Command System" outlined in the
Mutual Aid Plan? What autonomy may have been exerted by the chiefs of other forces involved? In other words, how
many places does the buck need to stop before the examination of the events of June 1st, and consequent reform of
policies and practices, addresses all the issues raised by the events of that day?
I encourage especially the County, and possibly the other jurisdictions and agencies, to participate in the process
currently being carried out by the city, and would encourage The County Government to undertake its own process of
examination and reform, with transparent public process, as may be necessary.
This message is not intended to delve into the SUBSTANCE of the report and the lessons that should be drawn and the
changes that should be made; I hope to get such a separate message out in coming days. The purpose of THIS message
is to suggest the likely need for a broader inquiry and process that moves beyond the city to include the County.
Many thanks, Eric Greening
1