Our local government has failed us… now what?
May 23, 2023 | Dan Torunian
Our local government has failed us… now what?
The primary role of government at any level is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens. We should expect our leaders to perform this role in a respectful manner, debating issues of importance with supporting data and in keeping with their charter to the public, whom they serve.
After witnessing the recent San Mateo County Board of Supervisors (BoS) meeting in which the board voted 4-1 to adopt a controversial sanctuary ordinance that restricts the county from cooperating with ICE without a federal judicial warrant – even if the suspect in question was previously convicted of violent crimes such as murder, rape or child molestation – it’s clear that the BoS failed not only in fulfilling their primary role as providers of safety, but also in the basic task of conducting their behavior with decorum. This flawed decision and the manner in which it was determined is indicative of a board that is not capable of fulfilling its most basic civic duty!
For those interested, this decision and the conduct (or lack thereof) was reported on by Stephanie Sierra, a local ABC7 reporter and can be found on the ABC7news website or the BoS website.
The controversial bill was introduced by David Canepa of District 5 and was supported by Dave Pine, District 1, Noelia Corzo, District 2 and Warren Slocum, District 4. The one vote against the measure was from Ray Mueller of District 3, who was seeking specific exclusions for repeat offenders of violent crimes.
In this article, I will focus purely on the case for and against adding the exclusion to the current sanctuary status and will refrain from any broader discussion of immigration, asylum law, or sanctuary cities and counties.
The available evidence suggests that the ordinance in question was decided based on an emotional argument rather than a data-driven one: that those who have been convicted of violent crimes such as murder, rape or child molestation and who are seeking asylum (i.e., are not here legally), have paid for their crimes and should not be punished by being turned over to ICE just because they are suspected of another crime. And, further, by allowing these individuals to remain in our community, we are helping maintain family-unit structure.
The counterargument is that there is a high rate of recidivism (repeat offense) among these individuals, especially for the most heinous crimes, thus placing the lives of victims and their families secondary to that of the person committing the crime. For example, a Justice Department study that looked at 5-year recidivism rates found that 16% of released sex offenders were arrested for commission of a violent crime within 5 years. More locally, the San Mateo County Sherriff’s Office stopped cooperating with ICE in November 2021, but data from 2018-2021 indicates that there were at least 35 cases where individuals convicted in San Mateo County had a long history of prior arrests, including those convicted of multiple lewd acts with children under 14, child abuse, DUI, grand theft and drug transporting. One can only surmise what current data would indicate if our Sherriff’s Office had not been pressured into making such an ill-informed decision.
Afterward, when pressed by the ABC reporter for recidivism rates, Supervisor Canepa was unable to respond and stated ... "I don't know, I don't know.” He went on to say, "When it comes to those types of crimes’ you're exactly right... we're not going to cooperate with ICE. Why should there be double punishment?”
Supervisor Canepa’s response is illuminating in that it shows that he is committed to a social change agenda untethered from facts or data. When government puts social change (regardless of how well intended it may be) above public safety, we have a problem. Change will only benefit society when it is managed responsibly, and some of our supervisors seem to have lost sight of that.
But setting aside the merits of either side’s case, the behavior toward Supervisor Ray Mueller by his colleagues was appalling. It is simply unacceptable for a sitting Supervisor to shut down a reasonable policy debate by labeling one of his or her colleagues as a racist or white supremacist simply for disagreeing. The conduct and lack of decorum displayed in particular by Supervisors Canepa and Corzo would not be permitted in any business conference room or company board room and should not be allowed in the halls of our government.
The recent behavior and decisions coming from the BoS constitute a breach of the public’s trust, and I urge every resident of San Mateo County to reach out to their supervisor and insist that they do better. We have every right to expect that.
