Guns, Students, a Survey and a Board

The Police Services Community Review Board in perspective

One of the more tangible contributions of the Geoduck Student Union (gsu) this year has been appointing student representatives to the Police Services Community Review Board (pscrb). Sky Cohen, Tasha Glen and Aaron Lee all went through the process of interview and approval by the Union in order to become the students’ voting representatives, alongside faculty and staff, on the Board.

Since arriving on the Board, the students, in tandem with non-student members have focused their attention on the issue of Evergreen Police Services (eps) proposal to acquire ar-15 assault rifles, body armor, helmets and training. Cohen and Glen were eager to share their insight and experiences with the larger campus community; we began with what the pscrb is designed to do.

“The literature says a system of checks and balances in conversation with what eps is doing on campus, especially regarding the proposal. It also says it’s designed to give students, faculty, and staff a say regarding potential infractions and power dynamics. But it only has the power to recommend,” says Glen. “It presents the illusion of checks and balances; a semblance of power,” elaborated Cohen. Expanding upon the potential of the pscrb Glen explains that “the pscrb doesn’t have to wait for a proposal from eps, it can bring its own proposals forward. The police don’t necessarily control the dialogue.” In light of these assessments, Cohen and Glen went on to consider their role as student representatives.

According to Cohen, the adequacy of student representation is not solely dependent upon numbers. “We have to have some sort of balance. Art and others may disregard student voices, but it wouldn’t change with more students.” Glen expands, “Just with the case of numbers, it’s adequate. But they don’t stick to the consensus model they supposedly have; student proposals are often disregarded or brought to a majority vote.” When asked about this comment, voting pscrb member Andrea Seabert replied, “We’ve only had a couple of votes: whether to have comments or not on the rifle survey, two or three questions on that survey and next meeting times.”

Cohen elaborated on the issue of representation and equity on the Board saying, “On occasion they, especially Tim Markus and Michael Vavrus, listen to students.” Tim Markus is the pscrb chair and Michael Vavrus is a voting faculty representative. Glen was more specific in her criticisms of the Board’s internal dynamics. “It’s more non-voting members, by which I mean Art Costantino and Ed Sorger, who undermine student opinion.” Art Costantino is the vice president of student affairs at Evergreen and Ed Sorger is the chief of eps. Regarding the students’ criticisms, Seabert concluded, “I’m grateful for the feedback so I can be more attentive in future meetings. I don’t want to disregard their experiences; it wasn’t my perception, but I don’t sit in their shoes.” The students had further observations on the non-voting membership of the board, including Sorger and police officer Tim Marron.

According to Cohen, Sorger is often fingering his walkie-talkie during meetings and looks “physically uncomfortable” during discussions of the rifles. Glen noted that Marron winks across the table. Beyond these observations, the students offered insights into the evolution of the Board’s response to the proposal to acquire rifles. “Delay tactics got students on the Board in the past,” says Glen, and that to forego a recommendation on the proposal has been a strategy since its release. Regarding the current campus-wide survey however, the students don’t agree on the benefit of delay.

“Two weeks [before releasing survey results] is a delay tactic, and it has been voiced multiple times,” they both agree. Glen added, “When students voiced concern [with the delay], it was disregarded.” They went on to say that they have the results of the survey and will release it in the face of “excessive censorship.” Glen also said that she was glad for the public records request recently filed to acquire the survey results and added that Seabert had suggested censoring the results.

Seabert explains her perspective on the survey by saying, “My goal had been for the Board to look at the information first and to make a determination of when and how to release it.” She added that she “always assumed it would go out,” and doesn’t “think there are any secrets in it.” The discussion of the survey brought up a piece of historical information that had recently been revealed to the students by another pscrb member.

According to Glen and Cohen, when the rifle proposal first came to the pscrb in late spring of last school year (according to Tracey Johnson, who takes notes for the Board, Ed Sorger first gave background and reason for the request at their October 27th meeting), at a time when there were no students on the Board, member Andrea Seabert proposed passing it “then and there,” and following up with public forums to inform the campus of the decision.

It was intentional delaying and regular reassertion of the issue on the part of certain Board members that managed to get the decision out to the public and hold forums to generate input from the campus. Regarding this, Seabert replied, “I don’t think I ever made that proposal,” stressing that it was difficult to recall exactly when and at what meeting this occurred. She added that she has been uncertain of her role on the Board – either representing herself or as representing the staff on campus and that she has been “all over the place” on a “variety of information” regarding the proposal. She concluded, “I’ve always been in a place of wanting as much information as possible so we can make the best recommendation to Art.”

The conversation with Glen and Cohen was concluded with a discussion of student media on campus and what they desire of a productive, student-oriented paper. For Glen, a student paper should get “alternative voices heard and present a variety of voices rather than one voice, and should approach the people directly involved.”

Cohen had specific critiques of the practices of the Cooper Point Journal (CPJ) to add to the discussion. “The CPJ has refused to print more articles on the issue of Israel–Palestine. The CPJ gained credibility this past quarter by publishing both sides; articles in defense of Israel’s actions and those combating pro-Israel statist propaganda. It’s unfortunate that the CPJ editors became uncomfortable with the subject and reverted back to publishing overly simplistic, apolitical articles and made the CPJ an invalid means of student dissent.”

According to Glen, students need “an effective tool for cultivating a dialogue, not censoring one perspective and not overly fostering another. Even if it is submission based, reporters should be sent to cover alternative viewpoints.”

Cohen wanted to explicitly state that students should contact him with questions or comments; to let him know if their voice is not being represented by the students on the Board. He stressed that, “Even though we have our perspectives, we are student representatives and I hope to represent that entirely, even views not my own.” Sky can be contacted at sky.cohen@gmail.com.