The 175th item of the Settlement Agreement from US DOJ v. City of Portland requires the Department of Justice survey “stakeholders” on progress of the Agreement.
Here are the questions asked by attorneys from the DOJ.
- Do you believe the outcomes (or some of the outcomes) intended by the Agreement have been achieved?
- If not, what changes, if any, to the Agreement do you believe are necessary to achieve the intended outcomes?
- What steps do believe should be taken in order for the City to achieve substantial compliance?
The following is a response to that survey from supporters of the Mental Health Association of Portland.
Person With Mental Illness And City Attorney Have A Talk
THE STAGE IS BARE. SOMEONE IS CURLED UP ASLEEP IN A CORNER. TWO PEOPLE ENTER TOGETHER.
Person With Mental Illness: We’re glad to share our opinions with you but that experience hasn’t gone well in the past.
City Attorney: Well now it’s just you and us. We’re alone here. We’re really listening this time.
Person With Mental Illness: You’re still lawyers. That hasn’t changed.
City Attorney: Yes, but we listened to the judge and he said we need to incorporate your opinions into our policy for it to be credible.
Person With Mental Illness: That’s not quite right but I understand your intention.
City Attorney: So we can talk.
Person With Mental Illness: Sure. We can talk.
City Attorney: So let’s talk.
Person With Mental Illness: Okay but let’s also keep score. So we know how we’re doing. So we can know if our talking is going well.
City Attorney: Okay. What do you mean by keeping score? Do you mean recording this conversation? We’re just talking.
Person With Mental Illness: So remember at the hearing when you blamed us for being the problem? That was a set-back.
City Attorney: I didn’t know. What do you mean a set-back?
Person With Mental Illness: Imagine your credibility with us has a minimum of zero and a maximum of 100. Or, let’s keep score with this bucket. When it’s empty, you have no credibility. When it’s full we love and trust you.
City Attorney: It’s empty right now.
Person With Mental Illness: Yes now it’s just a bucket. And because you’re agreeable to talk with us, and to keeping score, we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt – which gets the bucket filled halfway.
City Attorney: Halfway with what?
Person With Mental Illness: Oh blood of course. We’re talking about how your police killed people with mental illness, right? About how you spent our money to defend their actions.
City Attorney: We’re talking about police use of force.
Person With Mental Illness: See that’s where we have a problem. You argue everything. You need to stop that.
City Attorney: What do you mean stop that?
Person With Mental Illness: When you tell us we’re wrong, when you say don’t or won’t or stop or shut up or that will never work you’re arguing with us. When you argue with us your credibility goes to zero. Hey you – start filling the bucket.
SOMEONE RISES, ROLLS UP THEIR SLEEVE, CUTS OPEN THEIR ARM. BLOOD STREAMS INTO THE BUCKET.
City Attorney: What are they doing?
Person With Mental Illness: That’s a mental health advocate, someone who volunteers, speaks up and speaks out. So they gets to fill the bucket halfway.
City Attorney: Halfway?
Person With Mental Illness: Right. You get to fill the top half of the bucket. Then you win and we trust you and you get your credibility.
City Attorney: I don’t understand.
Person With Mental Illness: I know. Nobody understands this game the first few times they play it. But you’re super smart. You’ll catch on. How you doing there with the blood?
SOMEONE LOOKS UP, DISTRESSED
Person With Mental Illness: You should have picked a smaller bucket. That’s always a problem with this game. The new people pick the bigger bucket.
City Attorney: So what’s going to happen?
Person With Mental Illness: I’m going to share our opinion with you about how cops can stop killing our people. And we’re going to keep score. Remember, no arguing.
City Attorney: So what’s your opinion?
Person With Mental Illness: Done with the blood? Half full?
SOMEONE NODS.
Person With Mental Illness: You should fire the cops who killed our friends.
City Attorney: We can’t do that. You see there is a collective bargaining agreement in place between the city and the police union –
PERSON WITH MENTAL ILLNESS KICKS OVER THE BUCKET.
Person With Mental Illness: Yeah you lost my respect right there. You asked my opinion and then you argued with me.
City Attorney: There’s blood everywhere. You kicked over the bucket with his blood in it.
Person With Mental Illness: Yup. That’s gotta be one or two quarts of blood on the floor. But he’s got some more. How much more blood have you got?
SOMEONE RIGHTS THE BUCKET.
Person With Mental Illness: Five I think. And if we go real slow he can make more all by himself. Want to keep playing?
City Attorney: So if we keep playing you keep keeping score, he puts more blood in the bucket? He could die.
Person With Mental Illness: No, probably he’ll just quit playing an we’ll need to find someone else to play with you.
City Attorney: And they’d put blood in the bucket?
Person With Mental Illness: Yes. That’s the only way to keep score.
City Attorney: And what’s the purpose of this – to scare me into silence?
Person With Mental Illness: No. You don’t have a rock bottom on that one. You’re a lawyer.
City Attorney: So what’s the purpose?
Person With Mental Illness: We need to get some more blood in this bucket.
City Attorney: Not my blood.
Person With Mental Illness: No, you’re blood only goes in the top half of the bucket. The bottom half is always us, never you.
City Attorney: So what’s the purpose of this game?
Person With Mental Illness: The answer to that question requires an opinion. And remember we’re keeping score on opinions, right?
SOMEONE BEGINS TO FILL THE BUCKET AGAIN.
City Attorney: So?
Person With Mental Illness: So we keep score with a bucket of blood. I don’t know, it makes sense to us. Maybe we play for a while and it will start making sense to you.
City Attorney: And somehow I win?
Person With Mental Illness: Oh you always win. Or other way around, we always lose. It’s in our natures. We’re cast in these different roles from birth. Scientists say it’s probably genetic.
City Attorney: The bucket’s empty.
Person With Mental Illness: No. He’s got some in there already. But we’re going to need someone else if you keep arguing.
City Attorney: I didn’t mean to argue.
Person With Mental Illness: It’s not your fault. You’re just not cut out for this business.
City Attorney: You mean this game?
Person With Mental Illness: No you’re great at the game. Notice you have not split any blood of your own yet. You’re way way ahead. You’ll definitely beat this guy I think, he’s half dead already.
City Attorney: Then what do you mean?
Person With Mental Illness: You’re not cut out for listening. You don’t know how to do it.
City Attorney: I have ears. I can hear you. I’m hearing everything you say.
Person With Mental Illness: Ah you’re getting close there aren’t you? Almost arguing again.
City Attorney: No just facts. Just stating a fact.
Person With Mental Illness: Okay. Facts are fine. You can use all the facts you want. Facts aren’t at issue. Yes you have ears. I stipulate you have ears.
City Attorney: What do you mean I don’t know how to listen.
Person With Mental Illness: It’s hard to explain. That’s why we have this game and with all good games you keep score. In this game, because your cops killed our friends, we keep score with blood. Hey – looks like we’re ready to play again.
SOMEONE IS LYING ON THE STAGE NEXT TO THE BUCKET.
City Attorney: Play again?
Person With Mental Illness: Yes. You asked our opinion about how you could regain your credibility. You argued with our first response. Do you want to ask again? Might get a different answer.
City Attorney: Okay. I really need to know your opinion about police use of force. The judge says it’s necessary to get our credibility back.
Person With Mental Illness: There’s several false assumptions with his logic but oh well.
City Attorney: What do you mean? What’s wrong with the judge’s logic? Credibility and trust from the community are essential to police work.
Person With Mental Illness: Probably so. Having credibility and trust is not our speciality.
City Attorney: So what’s the false assumption? His false assumption, I mean.
Person With Mental Illness: Perhaps that you had credibility to begin with.
City Attorney: Are you being mean?
Person With Mental Illness: No. Credibility comes by knowing someone, not by title. We don’t know you, you don’t know us. To us you’re just a lawyer who represents cops. There seem to be a lot of you. We like people one at a time.
City Attorney: That’s why I am here. I want to get to know you and earn your trust.
Person With Mental Illness: So you want to play the game?
City Attorney: If that’s what I have to do to get your opinion, yes.
Person With Mental Illness: Shoot.
City Attorney: That’s not a good thing to say.
Person With Mental Illness: Nope. I’m full of things which aren’t good to say. It’s part of having a mental illness. My thoughts and feelings are a little out of control.
City Attorney: So where do we start?
Person With Mental Illness: You wanted to ask me a question.
City Attorney: Yes. How can the city and the police force regain the trust and confidence of people with mental illness?
Person With Mental Illness: You could hire some people with mental illness to be police officers and pay them $60,000 a year – what about a proportional number to the city demographics, like 15% or 25% of the force?
City Attorney: We can’t do that! People with mental illness – you were just saying – their thoughts and feelings are out of control. Who knows what would happen. Police officers have guns and have to follow –
PERSON WITH MENTAL ILLNESS STEPS OVER SOMEONE AND KICKS OVER THE BUCKET. BLOOD FLOWS OUT OVER THE LIP OF THE STAGE.
Person With Mental Illness: Now you’re really a winner.
END