Number 10
Hypocrisy is not a good optic. With no data to back her claim of systemic racism, Ms. Mink has called for defunding. She has called for reducing the presence of police in our communities in order to limit interactions between police and the residents they are called on to serve (while other elected officials tout the importance of community policing). Largely as a result of such anti-police rhetoric and policies, the department now has 129 vacancies. That means shifts are short-staffed and officers are overworked. Combined with the critical shortage of dispatchers in the call center, response times are longer; when seconds count, that can have life-and-death implications. Those of us who respect and appreciate police are impacted in dangerous ways because of those who don’t. Those who don’t find value in the work of police should not be calling police for assistance.
Number 9
Ms. Mink’s letter to the ethics commission was a litany of excuses that have no relevance to the facts of the matter, and speaks to her sense of entitlement. Nowhere in the letter does she apologize for her actions or express appreciation to the officers who, she passive-aggressively says, “eventually” arrived and assisted her. She should be enlightened as to the names of Montgomery County first responders who have been killed as they selflessly attempted to assist distressed motorists or remove inebriated drivers from our roadways in recent years. It seems she takes much for granted.
Number 8
It has been reported that at the time of Ms. Mink’s call to the commander, a foot chase was on in that district. Combined with the shortage of officers, a call for a flat tire is a low priority. Even if her concern was for other motorists as she claims, that’s what hazard lights and road flares are for, and other motorists are responsible for controlling their vehicles. (I don’t carry road flares in my car, but I should; regardless, my irresponsibility doesn’t give me the right to call a district commander to assist me). Some wonder if Ms. Mink made the call out of concern for her own safety, but won’t admit that because it doesn’t serve her agenda.
Number 7
Had Ms. Mink called the non-emergency number and officers were not otherwise occupied with life-threatening matters, it’s possible that an officer would have responded and even changed the tire. Though they are not required to do so, they have a reputation for going out of their way to help when they can. That fact, however, does not fit with Ms. Mink’s anti-police narrative.
Number 6
This case represents one instance during which Ms. Mink took advantage of her power; it leads one to wonder if there are others. Councilmembers should set an example, not pull rank. We don’t know if this is a one-off or if it’s her mentality to use her office for personal gain. Now, that’s the perception.
Number 5
Is an abuse of power systemic on the council? When Mr. Jawando was unhappy about being stopped for a traffic violation, he admits he told the officer, “You should just know that I’m a county councilmember.” He would have no other reason to say that but to assert his power for personal gain. The ethics of these two councilmembers are in doubt. If we follow the “logic” in Ms. Mink and Mr. Jawando’s suggestion that Montgomery County officers are systemically racist based on association with officers from other jurisdictions who acted improperly, we must assume that all of our councilmembers are guilty of unethical behavior by virtue of association with Ms. Mink and Mr. Jawando.
Number 4
This matter is in the hands of the ethics commission. When one is in a position of sending a letter to an ethics commission, there is already a serious problem. Members of the ethics commission are confirmed by the council to whom they are then beholden. For a council that demands accountability from everyone else, this council is sorely lacking in that department. A decision should not be made by those who owe their positions to the council.
Number 3
The ethics regulations state, “A public employee must not intentionally use the prestige of office for private gain.” Some conveniently assert that regulation was meant to refer to financial gain; if it were meant to refer to financial gain only, that would have been specified. But even if it did, here is the critical financial component: The council crafts legislation, including police reform bills, and controls a $6.3 billion budget. Will Ms. Mink act to further harm the police department in retribution for this case? That possibility (probability?) is reason for her be found guilty of violating ethics regulations.
Number 2
One can overlook Ms. Mink’s hypocrisy, lack of humility, and sense of entitlement. One can disregard the service of the hundreds of Montgomery County officers who nobly honor their oath to serve and protect, running into harm’s way to help all residents, even those who vilify them, in countless ways every day. One can set aside Ms. Mink’s accusations of systemic racism with no evidence to support that claim, pointing to things that happen in other parts of the country as a reason to dismantle this department, known as one of the best in the nation. One can ignore the findings of an independent audit during which review of body-worn camera footage of 50 random traffic stops found Montgomery County officers to behave professionally, courteously and without bias. But what can’t be ignored is this:
Number 1
A clear power dynamic is in play when a councilmember – who crafts legislation, including police reform bills, and controls a $6.3 billion budget – puts a police commander in an untenable position by using her position of authority to request and expect special treatment. This is a clear ethics violation with potentially devastating consequences, financial and otherwise. All one has to do is put oneself in the mindset of that commander when Ms. Mink’s call came in to know that to be the case.
