NYPD Will Stop, Frisk, Then Explain...But Kelly Won't Talk To City Council About It

The NYPD, as regressive as they are with the heavily used "stop and frisk" policy, made a slightly beneficial change in procedure as to how they deal with the minorities they love to search. Instead of just stopping people and frisking them for weapons, at the end of the intrusion they'll hand each person a card stating why they were searched. It's a step forward, but that doesn't mean City Councilmembers reviewing NYPD practices are happy.

From The NY Times:

While Mr. Kelly was discussing the new policy, at a news conference devoted mainly to the introduction of hybrid patrol cars, the department was skipping a City Council Public Safety Committee hearing about the “stop and frisk” practice. Instead of attending himself, Mr. Kelly sent an assistant commissioner to read his letter but to take no questions.

“The speaker and I are very disappointed, first of all, that the Police Department did not answer questions and secondly that they only advised us eight days ago that they would not be testifying when they had well over three weeks’ notice that we were preparing for this hearing,” said Peter F. Vallone Jr., the committee chairman.

Mr. Vallone hailed the new procedure, but objected to the way those plans were made public.

“It seems that some of their best policy improvements, like this one, come on the eve of a public safety hearing, which then slants coverage of the hearing toward their new policy,” Mr. Vallone said. “If that works to improve the Police Department, I am O.K. with it, but I would rather it not happen that way.”

Vallone of course, is the NYPD's biggest cheerleader, so to at least hear him disapproving of Kelly's actions is considerable. The reason he didn't attend, according to the Times is the impending lawsuit against the Police Department for their use of the "stop and frisk." So it seems like the NYPD's addition of "explain" to their stopping and frisking is a way to please the Court so that they do not strike the practice altogether.

Term Limit Vote Scheduled For This Thursday!

As of this afternoon it has been made official. The Council has decided to vote on the Mayor's legislation to allow him to run for re-election by extending term limits. In two days time, we should know how the Council feels about doing an end run around the will of the voters who enacted term limits in 93' and 96.' As the opposition grows to the Mayor's plan backed by the Speaker and as of now sixteen of her fellows, their arguments are being debunked and the response is to speed this thing up so the public can quickly forget. Now that we have a set date to vote, things are moving a bit more rapidly.

From The Daily Politics:

Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., a member of the Government Operations Committee which must cast the first votes on Mayor Bloomberg's bill, told me last week he was leaning toward "no." But he announced today that he has changed his mind.[...]

Republican Council Minority Leader James Oddo, who is close to Council Speaker Christine Quinn and used to share a party affiliation with the mayor, announced he will vote "no" on the mayor's bill.

Of course Vallone Jr. was on the Bloomberg's list of slush recipients and his Dad is lobbying for the Mayor. The rest of the undecideds should quit playing around and say which side they are on. Rumor has it that Yassky is trying to make a deal with one of Bloomberg's men behind the scenes. On that note, the other twelve in his group are starting to stink to high hell of trying to do something similar the longer they sit on the fence. With thirteen of them left, five members need to stand up to defeat this thing once and for all. If James Oddo can defy King Bloomberg (especially since he took his money too), so can they.