Del Pozo has a history of acting as both a police chief and a judge, inserting himself into private citizens’ and other officials’ jurisdiction through the media and social media, while also erratically choosing if, when, and how much, public information will be shared. The recent police altercation with Burlington 16-year-old Phin Brown is especially telling of the Chief’s impulsiveness and need to stay in the limelight, while also highlighting the trouble he has separating his personal feelings from his professional work. Del Pozo’s social media presence revolves not around transparency, justice, or community policing, but rather around boosting and protecting his personal profile and narrative.
The confusion around del Pozo’s social media presence is that his public persona is so intertwined with the Burlington Police Department’s social media that it’s often hard to tell where del Pozo begins and the department ends. He seems to decide whether he is representing himself or the department in any given situation not based on any consistent or transparent system, but rather by what will serve him best.
Phin Brown’s complaint against Burlington police officers, and del Pozo’s reaction to that complaint, highlight this increasingly problematic dynamic. It’s not just del Pozo’s unwillingness to even entertain meaningful oversight over himself or his department, but his total inability, while expecting everyone else involved in the criminal justice system, to accept personal responsibility and do reparative work.
In fact del Pozo’s inability to take responsibility was front and center during Phin Brown’s media storm. Not only did del Pozo release private information about a minor, but according to VTDigger, he also stated,
“I don’t have the authority or role of analyzing or intervening or opinion-ing on Secret Service operations,” del Pozo said. “I urge people to ask the Secret Service for an account of what they’ve done and reconcile it with the concerns of the citizen.”
Yet when it serves del Pozo’s narrative, he has no problem commenting on other law enforcement and their operations. For example,
On top of this, Del Pozo seems to believe in transparency only when he can control both the narrative and outcome, which is why he repeatedly aired private information about Phin Brown, a minor. More examples include:
In each instance del Pozo made a unilateral choice not connected to department values, but rather to his public persona and personal feelings. This behavior is concerning because laws and policies should be applied equally and evenly, democratically overseen by a group of elected citizens, not decided by a single person who has a personal stake and very public reputation in each outcome. We need a police chief who is a public servant invested in the entire community, not a chief who acts more like a politician always looking for positive press and public accolades.
Who does Chief del Pozo protect and serve? Himself.
Burlington is a strange place, where oftentimes we put more effort into appearances over substance, intentions over impact. This situation is best exemplified in the recent South End District Burlington city council race. While Jafar, a low-income man of color, was held responsible for his actions, Councilor Shannon, a wealthy white woman who has been a councilor for 16 years, has never been seriously asked to reckon with her hurtful votes and policy decisions, never been called to task for her own biases.
During this race the local press focused less on policies and experience differences, less on Shannon’s track record, and mostly on Jafar’s high school and college-aged private tweets, which had leaked to the press. These tweets, which were private thoughts shared among a small group of friends, were violent, vile, and misogynistic. It was universally good and important that so many people came out to publicly condemn these tweets, including Jafar himself, who recognized the hurt these tweets caused. Shannon responded to Jafar by questioning his relatively recent move towards feminism as a ‘position of convenience‘.
As a community we are great at rallying around and critiquing bigoted language. But when it comes to systemic problems that will cost us money and social standing, we regularly abdicate responsibility. While Councilor Shannon exemplifies this behavior, her position is not unique to Burlington or elsewhere. Mayor Weinberger, the City Council, the Democratic and Progressive Parties – all who have real power to make change in Burlington – have also done little in the past decades to alleviate systematic harm and suffering.
Councilor Shannon should be held responsible for her actions in the same way Jafar was held responsible for his – by her constituents and her political party – for her repeated and consistent inability to use her position to help vulnerable constituents and alleviate suffering. She should be held responsible for saying the politically correct thing but then quickly backpedaling to protect wealth, ignore the negative impacts of her policy decisions on marginalized communities, or both. The examples are varied and many.
And the majority of councilors and the Mayor have supported her action and inaction every step of the way.
While it is difficult to discern from Jafar’s single action whether his feminism is based on personal values or political convenience, Shannon’s 16 years on the council have made it clear she regularly votes for her own personal and political convenience. Isn’t it about time she is held responsible for wielding 16 years worth of power in a way that does little to alleviate suffering of Burlington’s most vulnerable residents?
We, as a community, are at a crossroads. Recent policy decisions by our current administration continue to put the welfare of businesses and wealthy landlords over the needs of our residents. But we can change that! A case study can be the Boves family, especially local landlord Rick Boves, shows us how if we let developers and landlords build for the good of the city, even when they have caused serious damage to residents, we send out a message that large landlords can play by a different set of rules.
Folks who have never rented from the Boves may not know that, as landlords, they leave much to be desired. In fact, after researching articles for this post, I have zero qualms calling them slumlords. As a former renter, the apartment wasn’t kept nice, where mice and house centipedes were regular guests, where you could still see bits of carpet where the floor met the wall. It wasn’t fixed up from the previous tenants before I moved in, and it cost a decent deal more than it was worth. So it is fair to say I’m a bit biased about the Boves as landlords.
Fortunately for us (but not for their tenants), there is quite an extensive history of the Boves’ treatment of their tenants. In 2013, the city held the restaurants’ liquor license due to over 40 housing codes they refused to resolve at their crumbling George Street apartments. I used to live on Monroe street and had the misfortune of walking by these miserable apartments every day. I cannot imagine how miserable it felt to live inside them.
You’d think, after an article like that came out shaming the Boves, they would spend a few dollars to at least make their apartments look decent on the outside. I think any reasonable, thoughtful landlord would admit their mistakes and try to change. But the Boves made no such efforts. In May of this year, with another 38 code violations still pending, the Bove family decided to knock down the apartments to build newer, pricier apartments (and a hotel), which their current tenant certainly couldn’t afford.
In 4 years, they have received over 78 code violations.
It gets worse. The renters in those apartments were all very low income residents, some of whom I’ve been told even worked for Boves. If this feels like a Charles Dickens novel, you wouldn’t be wrong. These folks lived in abysmal housing, where “violations including broken windows, leaky plumbing, a cracked toilet seat, failed caulking, defective cooking equipment, and cracked walls and holes in the ceiling” were left unfixed. These aren’t the sort of violations that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix – they are the type of reasonable fixes ANY landlord should make.
Instead of fixing up the apartments, the Bove family has moved their tenants to other buildings and are knocking it down to build luxury housing. What are the odds that the old tenants will be given affordable units?
Once, when Boves was cited for ‘(L)live electrical wires dangling from a ceiling” at a North Williams apartment, the place was deemed uninhabiatble by Code Enforcement. What did the Boves have to say?
“You can write whatever you like. It doesn’t much matter to me.”
Now, the city, supported by Mayor Weinberger and by CEDO Director Noelle McKay, are considering selling a parking lot to Boves so he can build a boutique hotel. Land is a hot commodity in Burlington, and land this close to downtown, with support, could easily be converted into MUCH needed homeless or very low income housing – hell, it could and should be used to give Bove’s former tenants a decent place to live.
If this development happens, and if the city supports this development by selling off land, we will be sending a really terrible message, one where if you ignore our local laws, if you treat fellow human beings like shit, you will be rewarded.
We need to send our elected officials a message that this type of behavior should NOT be rewarded. Please email Director McKay, please email your city councilors and come to the city council meeting in a few weeks where councilors will vote on whether to sell land to Boves. They clearly do not deserve to be landlords, never mind to build new hotels or apartments in our beautiful city.
I received this letter today in my email, referencing a homeless man in Burlington who was recently in the news over punching someone in the chest. What I appreciate most is how compassionate Mark Redmond is, and how well he recognizes that many of the homeless folks downtown, the ones who will soon be treated as criminals, are often not 100% in control of the decisions they are making. Mental health issues, years of self-medicating with drugs and alcohol, and the numerous traumas they have experienced all play a huge role in what these neighbors of ours are going to do. I agree with the police chief that there needs to be consequences – but only for the folks who are violent and harassing others, not the ones drinking and panhandling peacefully – and we need to remember the situation all of them are in and remain compassionate while getting them the help they need.
Our police chief del Pozo is often described as a progressive reformer looking to humanize and bring compassion to 21st century policing. Mayor Weinberger and del Pozo often work hand-in-hand on finding ways to solve our city’s biggest public health issues. And in many, many ways that is exactly what he does. But too often our chief’s words do not agree with his actions.
What makes our chief the ‘most progressive chief in America’? Del Pozo has regularly pushed his officers to carry the heroin overdose drug Narcan, collaborated with health professionals to get at the root of public health issues, increased officer foot patrols, opted out of militarizing his department, advocated for drug treatment in prison, has spoken up against given heroin addicts a criminal history, and was fairly patient with a homeless man who legally carried a rifle around town for several weeks. These have all been forward-thinking ways of dealing with many of the issues our city faces, and the police chief can often be found touting similar progressive-minded measures. There is no question his willingness to treat addiction as a public health issue and his work collaborating with mental health and social service agencies has saved countless of lives and improved everyone’s quality of life.
Yet del Pozo’s history of not following through on his words, along with his unwillingness to compromise with those he disagrees with, is worrisome and needs to be looked at more closely. He often seems quick to dismiss groups and professionals that disagree with him, while often acting swiftly and independently, regardless of how the community may feel. A few examples below highlight this failure of consistency and follow-through.
When del Pozo was first hired as police chief in 2015, he held a compassionate view towards drug-fueled shoplifting.
“The other thing is getting on … the heroin problem we have here in Burlington and in Vermont. Not only the dealing itself but addiction — how to help handle the addiction problem and also the crimes associated with heroin such as property crime, burglary, robberies…So what I mean specifically is being caught in the act shooting up or committing petty property theft, those are the folks that we want to divert from a life of being saddled by a criminal record. But there does come a point where you cross over into crimes that genuinely endanger citizens physically or that are really disruptive to the community and that’s criminal, that’s the full-bore police response that you’ll get.”
A year later, with pressure from businesses and business lobbies, his tone had changed.
“I think there comes a point, after innumerable arrests for retail theft, a person can be considered to be taking an unacceptable toll on his or her community, and meaningful jail time seems appropriate,” del Pozo said.
It’s rare for shoplifting to lead to that, the chief said. He thinks it’s time for prosecutors and judges to take a new approach when it comes to chronic offenders. “Retail theft to jail, to treatment, to sobriety is a success story. An endless cycle of retail theft to fuel addiction with no consequences doesn’t help anyone, including the person with the addiction,” del Pozo said. “We need to break the cycle.”
This past April, as fentanyl overdoses and deaths were steeply climbing and the situation was feeling hopeless, Mayor Weinberger and Del Pozo, both of whom advocated for compassionate and expanded drug treatment, went back on their desire to give addicts and petty drug dealers (often the same) on-demand treatment. Instead, they advocated for harsher criminal penalties for fentanyl users anddealers. In doing so, Del Pozo not only dismissed the exhausting work of mental health professionals, trying to make his voice the most important one in the room, but also tried to shut down their valuable community voice – a deep irony for a police chief who loves making public comments.
Bob Bick, executive director of Howard Center, which opposes the new criminal penalties, compared them to the disparate penalties created by the federal government in the 1980s for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine: a well-intentioned but misguided effort to address a serious problem.
“I think that there could be potential negative outcomes, in terms of targeting whatever subset of the population sees fentanyl as their drug of choice,” Bick said. When asked about Howard Center’s opposition, del Pozo suggested it’s not the social service organization’s place to weigh in on how drugs are policed.
“Once someone dies (of a drug overdose) they’re no longer under the care of the Howard Center,” del Pozo said. It then falls to his officers and other police agencies to notify family members and conduct death investigations, he added.
The chief said that in the same way he respects Howard Center’s clinical judgments about how to treat drug addiction, the organization should respect law enforcement’s determinations about how to clamp down on the illegal drug trade. Bick described the chief as “a passionate advocate for addressing the opiate issue” but rejected the notion that Howard Center’s involvement ends when someone dies of an overdose.
“My staff is routinely confronted with the horrible aftermath of an untimely death,” he said.
Leaving alone the irony of del Pozo telling one group how to do their job but asking them not to do the same to him, this attitude, which has been increasingly pervasive, gives the impression that the police department is not interested in collaborating and listening when disagreements arise.
While the city and del Pozo have more often than not been on the compassionate side of heroin addiction (this instance notwithstanding), the city’s attitude towards alcoholism has been anything but compassionate. Research shows there’s no reason to treat one harmful addiction significantly different than another, as both require compassion, on-demand treatment, and patience.
And yet, after the recent downtown stabbings and assault, which I will talk about in another post as a larger issue of mental health services and not just alcohol consumption or ticketing, del Pozo took a decidedly different tack.
The lack of consequences is a root cause of what is an unfair burden on the rest of the community,” del Pozo said. Criminalization would allow police to bring a repeat offender before a judge and could result in jail time.
Instead of advocating for stronger mental health services, which del Pozo has done repeatedly regarding heroin abuse, del Pozo focused on criminalizing ticket-able offences, advocating for in essence a debtor’s prison. It’s important to note, too, that in this instance one of the cosponsors of the bill, Republican city councilor Kurt Wright, has made it clear that his desire is to rid the city of 10 to 25 individuals, and that they “won’t be deterred through more funding and services, as critics of the proposal contend”. This flies directly in the face of our police chief and mayor’s stated values.
His Way or the Highway
Del Pozo’s ‘my way or the highway’ approach, especially in the face of criticism, came creeping up again in June of this year. In a VTDigger article about the police chief’s Compstat and Substat meetings, we saw a rare glimpse of professionals not only making decisions for a woman who was not in the room, but also trying to double her prison sentence even though she had already agreed to 18 months.
“If she’s got an 18-month minimum, as much as you want her to stay in there, the doors might open, and she might walk out. So just be aware of that,” Thibault said…
George, the prosecutor, said that even if the SubStat team goes to great lengths and is able to get a spot for the woman in a secure out-of-state treatment facility, she might refuse to go, preferring instead to complete her sentence.
The chief asked whether the judge would be receptive if George pushed for a 36-month sentence. The prospect of a longer jail term could make treatment a more attractive option, he said.
Research shows that involuntary treatment rarely works, and when I tweeted about this and expressed my concerns about taking away a woman’s agency, del Pozo, in a since-deleted tweet, said that the concern was all on his end, and in a later response gave the impression that he and others at the table were there to single-handedly save this woman who had been addicted to heroin, detoxed in prison, yet still refused treatment. It cannot feel good to spend so much effort to try to help someone who has no interest in being saved, and yet changing the goal posts of an agreed upon sentence is legally and ethically questionable at best.
A Culture of Defense
Lastly, we come to del Pozo’s unwillingness to admit mistakes, which will be explored in more detail in another blog post about the seemingly empty promises of combating racism made by our mayor and police chief. While the chief deserves credit this past year for immediately firing an officer who lied under oath, he is often quick to defend actions of his officers, even in the face of damning evidence and public outcry.
I don’t write these words because I enjoy pointing out what I see as a growing trend of brash, uncompromising, and unapologetic behavior by our police chief. While the chief and I often disagree, I take no pleasure in writing this – I want our city to always use compassion to help our most vulnerable citizens. Yet I write this for a few reasons: 1) It is often incredibly difficult, as a regular citizen, to sit down and speak with del Pozo or communicate with him effectively. 2) It is concerning to me how often our police chief seems to miss that he is the second most powerful person in the city, and how much privilege and sometimes intimidation he exerts (especially when it comes to folks who have a history of police targeting them). 3) I believe that to best combat our opioid and alcohol public health issues, we need to not only be open and honest about our city’s troubles, but also be fair and consistent, which seems to be missing from our police chief and mayor’s actions.
Hopefully this piece will shine a light on these inconsistencies and open up more dialogue so that we can move towards a more just and collaborative city and police department.