OK.  I personally like David Bowman.  And while I appreciate Greek Tragedy as drama, I like stories of redemption and resurrection better. I was expecting just that after Mr. Bowman's acquittal on criminal charges (Record, 11/19/07).   It would have been great to see David Bowman have the opportunity to either retire with dignity or take the time to check the waters to see if his return would be good for him and for Englewood. 

There is much to admire in David Bowman.  I've seen the former Chief do great hands-on work managing difficult people in public places.  You have to have a great instinct for people to do this as well as David Bowman does. Through the years, I have experienced him as a supremely friendly, calming presence even under the most stressful circumstances. This is a man who deserves kindness and respect.  And, after his long legal ordeal, it is certainly understandable that he wants that kind of treatment.

Yes, he has had difficulties in the past, publicly admitting "I'm no poster boy." (Record, 9/24/00)   And, yes, during his last tenure as Chief we had Police Department personnel issues (Record, 5/6/00), lawsuits (Record, 7/21/02) and expensive legal settlements (Record, 1/3/01).  And, yes,  as Chief his handling of overtime in his department was called "not fiscally responsible"  by Councilman Jack Drakeford, who was also a Councilman when Mr. Bowman was first suspended. (Record, 11/13/03).

So certainly, granted his past travails, Mr. Bowman needed and deserved the support of friends who had enough regard for him to help him realistically assess his options.  In that spirit, I regret to report the following:
 
The Mayor, Councilman Drakeford and others have attempted to promote Mr. Bowman's immediate return as Chief not by lining up broad community and professional support for him, but by opportunistically using this affable man as a political battering ram to inflame passions in an attack on the City Manager and Council.  In doing so, they did not even bother to make a case for Mr. Bowman as someone who might be a professional step up for the Department and the entire City.  Rather, they diminished Mr. Bowman, reducing him to a generic racial litmus test which, if not passed, would -- as some implied -- lead to unrest in Englewood. 

This is a clear disservice to our City and is outrageously disrespectful to Mr. Bowman. To add insult to Mr. Bowman's injury, the Mayor, Mr. Drakeford and others left him hanging and vulnerable.  How vulnerable?

At the December 18 Council meeting, a large number of diverse, uniformed officers of the Englewood Police Department stood in the back of the chambers as the President of their union, Fred Pulice, spoke at the microphone during the public session.  Mr. Pulice expressed regrets at feeling compelled ethically and professionally to weigh in on the discussion on behalf of his membership who were, obviously, concerned about the direction the process was going.  Mr. Pulice stated that a critical mass of the Englewood Police felt that Mr. Bowman's past conduct and violation of proper protocol had disgraced the Department and its reputation.  In a referendum of the Englewood Police Department, 71% of the officers voted "no confidence" in Mr. Bowman as their Chief. The same 71% of the Englewood police force voted in favor of retaining acting Chief Arthur O'Keefe as their leader.

I regret to say that now, no matter what decision the City Manager and the City Council makes regarding who will be our Chief in 2008, Englewood and Mr. Bowman will be poorer for it.  And this lamentable state of affairs rests at the feet of our Mayor who fanned the flames, Councilman Drakeford who stirred the pot and those others who saw fit to use Mr. Bowman as a pawn in inflammatory race politics. David Bowman deserved much better from his so-called friends.

What we are witnessing is the political exploitation of a man, David Bowman, not his redemption or vindication.  And that is a tragedy for Mr. Bowman and our City.

Whoa, Bob!  The responsibility to heal Englewood's tortured racial past and present should not rest squarely on the shoulders of Englewood Police Chief David Bowman.  The residents of Englewood need to first stop hiding behind their curtains and acknowledge that there is a widening racial chasm that must be dealt with.
 
In order to appease, some City powerbrokers suggest that Bowman should bite the proverbial bullet and relinquish his position to a man who was made Acting Police Chief by an Interim City Manager prior to the point that the legal system had even received a chance to work.  I don't think so!  There are a number of facts that have been seemingly ignored or minimized in the decision of whether Chief Bowman should be reinstated or not.  I would like to highlight them here:

1) Suspended Chief Bowman was acquitted of charges that he falsified documents to get an inmate out of jail for the day to attend his father's funeral as were his co-defendants, Judge Joseph Clark and Police Sgt. Emma Jackson.

2)  A central leg of the prosecution's case was that the trio concocted a false warrant to help the inmate.  According to the prosecution, the warrant was illegal because it was based on the claim that the prisoner had paid a previous fine.  As reported in the November 16th edition of The Record, State Superior Court Judge William C. Meehan concluded that the inmate did, in fact, still owe the City of Englewood the outstanding fine at the root of the warrant used in his March 2003 release.

3) There have been well reasoned concerns presented by many, questioning whether David Bowman was ever qualified to assume the role of Police Chief.  After all, aside from being a lifelong resident of Englewood and tightly aligned with City powers-that-be, what else is there that rises to the level of substantive?  It is apparent that the City of Englewood paid a great deal of money to settle cases filed against Bowman acting in his capacity as Chief of Police.  Yet, the time to correct those wrongs, if any, was at the time during which they occurred rather than in the opportunistic way in which the matter is being handled now.

4) A little noted point that should be factored into this debate is the deep and Byzantine relationship that lies under the surface involving Blacks and law enforcement.  The fact that the jury deliberated for approximately two hours and returned with a "not guilty" verdict appears like the jury reached a not too common "common sense" resolution to this observer.  The jury seemed to resoundingly say, there was nothing wrong with what the trio did.  They allowed a Black man to maintain his dignity by attending his father's funeral and repast sans shackles (reminiscent of slavery) and returned him to jail at the end of the day where he immediately resumed his sentence.

On another level and when divorced from the players, an incredibly interesting paradigmatic conflict is playing itself out here.  Bowman and his co-defendants relied upon an ethic of care in making a judgment that was understood and valued in-community.  Yet, the same decision was reviled in the broader community that privileges an ethic of justice and seems bent on wishing away the very serious racial problems that have resurfaced here in Englewood.

Rather than using the metaphor of the racial litmus test to describe aspects of the Bowman debacle, I choose instead to use the metaphor of the "canary in the mine" conceptualized by Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres.  The Bowman case exemplifies the canary in the following respect: "their [canaries'] distress is the first sign of danger that threatens us all.  It is easy enough to think that when we sacrifice this canary, the only harm is to communities of color.  Yet others ignore problems that converge around racial minorities at their own peril, for these problems are symptoms warning us that we are all at risk."   

"80% of success is showing up." - Woody Allen

It could be that Englewood is entering a new, disturbing phase of governance and decisionmaking.

Case in point: recent City Council meetings, like that on Dec 11, have become raucous, packed gatherings of organized, vocal people demanding one particular outcome for one particular person -- that acting Chief of Police Arthur O'Keefe be immediately replaced by previously suspended Chief David Bowman.  Mayor Michael Wildes has apparently seen that it is to his advantage, if not the City's, to play to the assembled crowd and up the level of divisiveness, discord, passion and confrontation in the overcrowded room.  So far,  the Council majority remains calm and unintimidated by the Mayor and the crowd.

However, if you are one of Englewood's silent citizens who does not attend meetings and remains at home, you risk being left out in the cold having little or no say on decisions concerning your quality of life, how taxes are spent and who gets public jobs and contracts.   Leaving decisionmakers alone to confront an organized and hostile crowd leaves the impression that only those who bothered to show up and intimidate them care about the decisions about to be made.
 
If you haven't taken Woody's observation to heart, rest assured others have. And, as usual, whatever happens,  you will be writing the checks and living with the consequences.

The next Council meeting is 8 pm, December 18 in the Municipal Court Building. 73 South Van Brunt St.

Recent publicity about the office of Police Chief in Englewood has brought new focus to the important role which is played by our unelected City Manager. That role is established in our City Charter. The job is currently held by an interim Manager while the Council conducts a job search for a permanent appointee.

One of the more significant events in Englewood’s political history was the approval by the voters in 1979 of a revised City Charter, which, as the U. S. Constitution does for the government in Washington, establishes the structure of our local government. The new City Charter was the product of many months of work by a Charter Commission which had been elected in 1977. The Commission consisted of three Democrats and two Republicans, which coincidentally reflected the approximate population balance between the two parties at that time. Prior to its presentation to the voters, the new Charter also had to receive certification from Trenton that it conformed with State legislation applying to local government. A prime mover in the campaign for a new charter at the time was then City Council President Eamon Kelly, who was also elected to the Commission. A previous attempt to institute a new charter, led by then Mayor Ned Feldman, had been voted down in 1970.

In a letter to the public explaining the reasons for a charter change, the Commission wrote:

Under the present Charter, the Council serves both executive and legislative functions....it is the Council which must decide upon each and every aspect of the municipal life of the City. The Council can become immersed in endless detail and not have the proper time to devote to...major legislation and long range policy...

The Commission recommends that Englewood have a professional Manager, to be appointed by the Council and to serve at its pleasure.

The Manager is the chief executive and administrative officer of the City; all administration is centralized through his or her office.

The Manager will appoint and remove department heads with advice and consent of the Council; he or she will appoint to all subordinate positions.

The city manager form of government is not unique to Englewood. It is specifically offered under New Jersey law as an option for local communities. It is a common recommendation of good government advocates throughout the country, as a means of improving professionalism in government and reducing unduly political personnel policies. The League of Women Voters, for example, was a strong advocate of the Charter change. The rationale is that, like a business organization, municipal government has a personnel structure, income and expenses, and similarly requires good management to be successful. Opposition to the concept tends to come from persons or groups seeking to use political power for their own advantage.

The effectiveness of the manager form of government depends obviously on the competence of the manager, and also on the ability of the manager to work with and reflect the priorities of the elected mayor and council with which he or she must work. If those priorities change as a result of electoral changes, the manager must adapt or be replaced. If the elected officials are seriously divided on important issues, the manager’s job may be more difficult. On balance, since 1980, the manager form has worked well for Englewood.

Every year at this time the Mayor and Council are concerned with appointments to various citizen boards and committees to take effect in the new year. Council President Charlotte Bennett Schoen has furnished the following list of appointments to be made in January, 2008. Persons interested in serving should submit information about themselves to City Clerk Lenore Schiavelli at City Hall or to Council President Schoen at 337 Audubon Road, Englewood. For mayoral appointments, information should be emailed to mayor@michaelwildes.com.

Board of Adjustment (mayor/council confirmation)
2 positions of 4 years, 1 alt. position of 2 year term

Environmental Commission (mayor)
2 positions of 3 years, 1 alt.position of 2 year term

Board of Health (council)
3 positions of 3 year term

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (council)
2 positions of 4 years, 1 alt position of 2 year term

Housing Authority (council/1 mayor)
1 position of 5 year term

Library Board (mayor)
1 position of 5 year term

Planning Board (mayor)
1 position of 4 years, 1 alt position of 2 year term

Recreation Advisory committee (council)
3 positions of 3 year terms

Traffic Advisory Committee (council)
4 positions of 3 year terms

The Englewood Report urges all citizens to seriously consider serving their community by volunteering for one of these positions.