In response to the public statement issued by Houston City Council Member C.O. Bradford on February 7, 2011, regarding the video tape of the arrest of burglar Chad Holley, we are deeply troubled and disappointed by the positions and criticisms expressed by the former police chief.  To put it simply, these positions and criticisms are as ignorant as they are irresponsible.  At best, Bradford's opinions represent a profound misunderstanding of the issues upon which he speaks.  At worst, they may be viewed as knowing and intentional misrepresentations, calculated solely for political effect.

The Charges Against the Indicted Officers

Bradford begins his statement by expressing his opinion that the charges filed against the four indicted officers by the Harris County D.A.'s Office are "wrong," and that the officers should have been charged with felony assault.  Bradford bases this opinion solely on a conversation that he purportedly had with Chad Holley's attorney, in which it was suggested that Holley did suffer serious bodily injury as a result of the incident, but that the D.A.'s Office did not bother to speak to Holley or his attorney, or view his medical records, in order to discover these alleged injuries.  Bradford's factual assertions in this regard are patently false.

Contrary to Bradford's assertions, the D.A.'s Office does have a copy of Holley's medical records in this case, and they do not indicate that Holley suffered serious bodily injury as a result of this incident.  While conducting a thorough and responsible investigation, the D.A.'s Office did interview Chad Holley and his family, and called Holley to testify before the Grand Jury.  Based on the evidence in this case, which Bradford has not seen or heard, the appropriate charges were filed under the laws of the State of Texas.

In light of these indisputable facts, one thing is clear: either Bradford misrepresented the content of his purported conversation with Holley's attorney, or Bradford was gullible enough to believe someone else's misrepresentations without bothering to verify the facts first.  For a man who served 24 for years as a Houston police officer, including seven years as Houston's Chief of Police, and who held himself out to be qualified enough to run for the position of District Attorney himself two years ago, Bradford's recklessness and level naïveté in making such false and unsupported statements is remarkable.  One would hope that a person in Bradford's position would be a little more cautious before making such reckless misrepresentations.

Failure to Self-Report

Bradford's next criticism in his statement focuses on the alleged "serious breakdown" in the system when the "relatively large number of officers at the scene" allegedly failed to report the conduct of their fellow officers.  Again, Bradford's opinions are undeterred by the actual facts and evidence in this case.

First, to which group of officers is Bradford referring when he alleges a failure to self-report?  All of the officers who were in the immediate vicinity of Chad Holley during his arrest were either indicted, terminated, or both.  One of the infractions that those officers were officially accused of by H.P.D. in support of their termination was their failure to fully report what had occurred.  What more would Bradford like seen done to these individuals?

Is Bradford referring to other officers involved in the arrest of the other burglary suspects that had nothing to do with Chad Holley?  As can even be seen on the video tape, none of the other officers involved in the operation was anywhere near the vicinity of Chad Holley when he was arrested, and they had no knowledge of what occurred during his arrest.  These officers were busy performing their duties in pursuing and arresting the other suspects, securing the scene, and recovering property that had been burglarized from a citizen's home and discarded in the street during the pursuit of the suspects.  It sounds as if Bradford is now advocating a witch hunt in which the names of these innocent, respectable officers is to be tarnished for something they did not do.

The Arbitration System

Bradford concludes his statement by criticizing the arbitration process provided for under Texas law and relied upon for years in the civil service system.  Bradford states that he recognizes the importance to have a meaningful appeal and review process when officers are disciplined or terminated by H.P.D., but in the same breath claims that the system is flawed because he doesn't agree with the result in two cases in which two of the officers involved in the arrest of Holley were reinstated.  Bradford's position in this regard is as hypocritical as it is absurd.

Bradford suggests that the arbitration system can be ‘fixed' by limiting the selection of arbitrators to people who reside in the Houston area and have a "sense of Houston's community expectations, values, and public safety interests."  Is Bradford suggesting that local arbitrators would have reached a different result in the two cases in which the officers were reinstated?  It must have escaped Bradford's attention that one of the arbitrators in those cases was Otis King.  Mr. King is a longtime resident of the City of Houston, and has been a well-known and well-regarded member of the Houston community for decades.  Mr. King is a former City Attorney for the City of Houston, is currently the Dean of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University, and has served as a hearing examiner in Houston since the 1980's.  Perhaps Bradford would care to explain how a person like Mr. King is out of touch with Houston's "community expectations, values and public safety interests."

The fact of the matter is that Houston police arbitrations are heard by a panel of well-qualified, experienced individuals who were selected with the input and consent of the City of Houston.  They are all Texas residents who have heard police arbitration cases in Houston and other Texas cities for years, sometimes decades.  The current panel of arbitrators is well-versed in Houston Police Department policies, practices, training and disciplinary matters.  Is Bradford suggesting that we scrap the current panel in favor of other arbitrators who are less qualified, less experienced, and less knowledgeable, merely because of where they reside?  Perhaps Bradford is also unaware that the most recently held arbitration in the Chad Holley case resulted in the officer's termination being upheld, and that the arbitrator in that case resides in Dallas.

Conclusion

Thank goodness we live in a city where many public servants have the dignity and political courage to do the right thing, help ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial process, and do not resort to public fear mongering or demagoguery.  Those who should be admired for such integrity in this case include District Attorney Pat Lykos, Mayor Annise Parker, and Chief Charles McClelland.  Unfortunately, not all public servants have the same kind of integrity and courage demonstrated by these individuals.  City Council Member Bradford would do well to spend more time emulating these individuals, and less time trying to score cheap political points at the expense of the truth 

Comments (0)

Post a Comment

News Archives