click to enlarge Julia Carrie Wong

Protesters accused the Examiner and the Public Defender's Racial Justice Committee of promoting "segregated policing"

The Police Department shall make every effort to assign patrol duty in minority communities to minority officers. The RJC recognizes the limitations of this goal, including union agreements, seniority, and individual officer preferences.

The Police Department must make every effort to assign positions in black and brown communities to those officers who live in the communities they are patrolling. The City should provide financial incentives to officers who choose to live in the communities they are policing.

In his most recent column for the, Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez wrote that San Francisco moderates at times make him "want to pull out [his] red-tipped hair." About two dozen predominantly African American protesters had a different idea for what the sometimewriter should do with his head, which they plastered on picket signs for a protest outside the Examiner's and Weekly's office this morning.Carrying signs reading "#FactsMatter," "#TruthMatters," "You don't speak for us," and "Thank you SF Democratic Party," the group chanted "Black Lives Matter" and "Where is Joe?" while standing on Market Street for about an hour."We want a retraction of the article and an apology for trying to skew the reaction in a negative way," said Jackie Flin, the executive director of the A. Philip Randolph Institute San Francisco (APRI). Most of the protesters wore t-shirts identifying them as members of APRI or Aboriginal Blackmen United (ABU). Both groups organize African American San Franciscans in the Bayview and advocate for local hiring on construction projects. They are allies of Joshua Arce, the DCCC member criticized by Rodriguez in the column. Arce was not present at the protest, but reached by phone, he said of the protesting groups: "We've worked together since we passed local hire. We shut down dirty power plants together. We always look after each other."At issue for the protesters was Rodriguez's characterization of a debate within the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) over police reform. For several months, some DCCC members have been attempting to pass a resolution endorsing the Public Defender's Racial Justice Committee's 10 Point Plan for Police Reform . At last Wednesday's meeting of the DCCC, an amendment by DCCC member Joshua Arce substantially changed the resolution, leading Rodriguez to decry the "weak-sauce measure" and accuse the DCCC of being a "liberal group where the R’s [Republicans] reign."Protesters said that the third point in the Racial Justice Committee's plan supports "segregation." In the proposed DCCC resolution , the third point reads as follows:That language was a revision from the Racial Justice Committee's initial plan , which read:Joshua Arce's amendment to the resolution stripped all mention of the RJC 10-point plan for police reform, substituting instead a commendation of SFPD's "continued progress on 21st Century Policing," according to 48hills and people present at the meeting. The amendment passed 13-10, leaving some members of the DCCC, including Hene Kelly, who co-sponsored the resolution, furious.But Jackie Omotalade, who attended today's protest outside the's office, said the final resolution was "on point.""Having more cops of color is different than saying only cops of color should police certain neighborhoods," she said. "To me that implies Black people should stay in the Bayview and Latinos should stay in the Mission. That's ridiculous."James Bryant, the Western Regional Director of APRI, said that the RJC's proposal was tantamount to "separate but equal" policing.Bill Barnes, an African American Democrat who served as Fiona Ma's proxy at the DCCC meeting in question, said that he wouldn't necessarily use language like "segregation" to describe the policy in question, but that it raised concerns for him. If officers of color are forced to work in certain communities, he said, that might interfere with their ability to advance in their careers, for example. He also questioned the degree of detail involved in the RJC proposal, saying, "This isn't what the Democratic Party should be doing."In a brief phone conversation, Joshua Arce referred to the RJC language as "segregated policing" multiple times. "I think the community's response matters," he said. "You had a proposal that didn't come from the president [of the DCCC]. It didn't come from the community." Arce hung up the phone quickly and did not respond to follow-up questions.Rebecca Young, the co-chair of the Public Defender's Racial Justice Committee, said the criticism of the measure as promoting "segregated policing" is incorrect. "There's nothing about it that is a mandate," she said by phone. "It's a recommendation that if officers live in these communities, they should be asked if they want to be stationed in their own community. There are good reasons for community policing. There are a lot of benefits to people really knowing the community they police."Young says that the RJC welcomes a dialogue with the APRI, but that the protesters' criticism of the policy as promoting "segregation" echoes the response of the San Francisco Police Officers Association (POA)."The DCCC has been hijacked by Republicans disguising themselves as Democrats," Young said. "Joshua Arce is a running dog for the POA. He's their plant."Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez declined to comment for this story. SFeditor-in-chief Michael Howerton also declined to comment, but said thewill be issuing neither a retraction nor an apology.