What Has Gotten Into Pacific’s Public Officials?

Americanism: When I was growing up, I totally embraced the concepts of what it meant to be an American. I still believe the ideas we were taught in childhood are close to sacred, and I think other Americans feel the same. American values are almost religious values, and they are matched by a sacred symbol (the Flag), a sacred oath (Pledge of Allegience) and sacred scrolls (the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

These are Articles of Faith for Americans. We believe that the people are king and elected officials are servants. But these ideas just aren’t honored in Pacific. I’d like to know why.

Here are some examples:

Defiance: In 2003, voters resoundedly cast city councilman Clint Steiger out of office. Shortly afterward, Members of that council thumbed their noses at the voters by immediately filling a vacancy with Mr. Steiger.

Church Raid: In 2005, the entire Pacific Police Department and Mayor Hildreth raided New Hope Lutheran Church to arrest a skateboarder. A police officer had detained the youth, then drove off to chase his companion. The youth crossed Third Avenue and joined a prayer dinner in the church’s parking lot. Skateboarding in the park is not an offense listed on the sign stating the park’s rules. Raiding a church event to detain someone for an activity not clearly prohibited by the park’s posted rules is an inexcusable display of bullying. The mayor has never apologized for the overkill.

Racial profiling: September, 2007: The Pacific Police Department had taken it upon themselves to enforce the 21st Century’s version of the Fugitive Slave Act. They would look at Latinos, determine they were suspicious because of their race and illegally detain and jail them. Even the governor protested the outrageous behavior. When people planned a protest march which is allowed under the Constitution, Mr. Calkins took on the demeanor of a southern red neck sheriff and talked about “outside agitators”. He and Mayor Richard Hildreth threatened to arrest anyone who marched, an action which seems to be a violation of federal criminal law intended to protect the rights of people to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. (18 USC 241. Conspiracy against rights) The right of free speech is sacred to Americans. Our forebearers risked their lives and their fortunes to obtain these rights. Mr. Calkins brought in police from other jurisdictions. He and the mayor only backed down after an American Civil Liberties Union attorney contacted the Pacific City Attorney.

Demeaning the public: When people address the city council, they have to run a one-man gauntlet—Mayor Hidreth, who makes a point of getting in the last word by either cutting speakers off or making dismissive comments when they are done. This is very disrespectful of the public and discourages people from speaking to the council. It is dominating behavior. The council has allowed the mayor to do this, and thus to filter the information that reaches them.

Police brutality: Fall 2008: At the time public safety director Calkins was arrested and charged with drunk driving, he was wearing a T-shirt that celebrated the night in 1968 when Chicago police rioted and committed crimes of violence against the public during the Democratic National Convention. The T-shirt carried the slogan, “We kicked your father’s ass, now it’s your turn.” Mr. Calkins was accused of trying to intimidate the officer who detained him for drunk driving. In a classic case of double standard, Mr. Hildreth went onto the World Wide Web to defend the chief, but the next day prohibited any discussion of the arrest at a city council meeting.

Defiance: I printed a T-shirt  that bore the photo of Mr. Calkins wearing his “kick your ass” message, and displayed it to the Pacific City Council to shame them into realizing what they tolerated. The response of Council Member Clint Steiger—the man voters had booted out of office—was to defiantly compliment Mr. Calkins for the fine likeness. This is similar to the attitude of the southern sheriff who was depicted in Life magazine as making jokes during an inquiry about the disappearance and brutal slaying of civil rights workers. My father was a Spokane policeman and learned from a Spokane attorney who traveled to the south that it appeared one of the dead men had been forced to leap from a crane. Mr. Steiger’s comment is different from that sheriff’s attitude only in degree. 

Tolerating unprofessional behavior: Spring 2010: Councilman James McMahon castigates me in an e-mail for producing the T-shirt. But he is silent about the appalling attitude reflected in Mr. Calkin’s garment—that  a police riot against citizens is something to display and celebrate. The message from Mr. McMahon: It’s OK for Pacific’s public safety director, on the night he is arrested for driving drunk, to attend a public sporting event while boldly displaying on his chest a message that police violence is OK. But it’s not OK for a member of the public to denounce that sort of attitude. What is really astonishing is that Mr. McMahon delivered this rebuke in a public document barely two months after he took office. His rebuke came at the same time an independent police agency was determining that Mr. Calkins most likely had been abusing his authority by, among other things, threatening an individual by brandishing a handgun.

Denial of union rights: At the time of my interchange with Mr. McMahon, a former policeman was testifying under oath that he was targeted by police management for termination after he was struck by a drunk driver, sustained serious injuries, and was unable to work. He testified that his department investigated him for his inability to work, and that his desire to speak to his union representative about that was treated as insubordination.Message: Don’t exercise your rights.

No appeal about porn: The same policeman testified that Mr. Calkins called him into his office to view pornography, including images of a women smoking a cigar with her vagina. When the city’s attorney asked him whether he reported this to anyone, he said he would have to complain to the individual showing the porn, Mr. Calkins, who worked for the mayor. In other words, there was no-one he could appeal to.

Humiliating the victim: When a woman of some standing in the community (for her service on a city commission) complained to police about a domestic assault against her, she felt the police had provided less than satisfactory help and said the same to the city council. In response Mr. Hildreth distributed to the council the police report, along with photos showing the woman’s bruised condition, further humiliating her. Police Department investigations can be somewhat controversial. In response to a City Council request that Mayor Hildreth’s misuse of a credit card be investigated, the Pacific Police Department investigated the wrong violation, resulting in the prosecutor declining to prosecute. Under these circumstances, Mayor Hildreth’s use of Pacific police department records to discredit a complaint against the department lacks credibility and smacks of ethical violations.

 Extorting drivers: in response to the city’s budget crisis, Mr. Calkins had a solution: Raise money by ticketing more drivers. The memo proposing this gave no indication that this would improve public safety. After the document's release, all copies in the city's possession were destroyed. Mr. Calkins is paid more than $100,000 a year. Although some city staff have had their hours curtailed, Mr. Calkins's salary has not been affected.

More Police State Tactics: This year, when Pacific resident Cy Sun became a write-in candidate for Mayor and distributed fliers accusing the city of corruption, Mayor Richard Hildreth treated Mr. Sun as an enemy of the state by sending police to investigate and intimidate him. 

The lame "You don’t like us excuse:" At the time Councilman McMahon was rebuking me, it was for speaking up about a public employees’ working conditions and protesting the public safety director’s haughty celebration of police violence. He suggested I was a trouble maker and an enemy of the mayor. (This is a familiar theme: “We’re not wrong, the public is. You just don’t like us.” Mr. Calkins used this excuse when he failed a polygraph examination on whether he threatened someone with a hand gun – he told the city council the examiner just didn’t like him.)

More defiance: Mr. McMahon had three suggestions:

·         Run for Mayor.  Rich is up for re-election November of next year.  File for office.  Put yourself out there and let people know what decisions you would make differently and how you would act as Mayor.

·         Sue him.  You make plenty of accusations of illegal activity on Rich's part.  Back it up.  Sue him.

·         Recall him.  If you can't wait until November to vote against Rich, file a petition to recall him, prove to a court his malfeasance or misfeasance and let the people of Pacific decide the issue.

I think we both know why you won't do any of these. 

 Translation: I’m not here to represent you. You don’t like it, use your own resources to fight city hall. Now go away.

 Insolence: 500 years ago, Shakespeare had a name for this: The insolence of office.

These people define insolence: They display contemptuously rude or impertinent behavior and speech.

And so my question: How did we get to this point? How long are we going to stay here? And why?

 Next in Speed Trap City: More about the Jowers lawsuit.

Misleading documents from Public Safety Division

Pacific City Council President John Jones

Normally, John Jones, the Pacific City Council president, is the picture of decorum. Jones is a man who comes with suit or jacket to city council meetings. He has served on the civil service commission, planning commission and park board. He is thoughtful, dignified and polite. 

But in a recent e-mail to Mark Klaas, editor of the Auburn Reporter, Mr. Jones looks incoherent. His message twists and rambles and stumbles through sentences that never end. This is not the message from a man who can think straight – and for good reason. Mr. Jones looks spitting mad. He has just been tag-teamed by Pacific Mayor Richard Hildreth and Public Safety Director John Calkins.

Calkins’ department seems to have produced misleading documents relating to an investigation into Mr.  Hildreth’s misuse of a city credit card. As a result of the documents, a King County prosecutor declined a Pacific City Council request to investigate. Now the mayor is off and running to Mr.  Klaas, who gullibly published Mr. Hildreth’s claim that he has been exonerated. Thoroughly flim-flammed, Mr. Jones might now be in a position to appreciate the experience of Tom Jowers.

Who is this Tom Jowers?

Mr. Jowers is a former fire fighter for the City of Pacific. Last year his lawsuit against the city for wrongful termination was dismissed. Mr. Jowers had been fighting an uphill battle long before last year. Prior to his lawsuit, an administrative hearing judge found against him when he appealed his firing.

Forgery

However, Mr. Jowers says it was only after he lost his appeal that he got his hands on documents submitted to the judge by the public safety division. He says those documents were false and forged. When you look at the documents, it looks like the judge was in a hurry, because they contain contradictions that invalidate them. This is a story that Mr. Jones should pay close attention to.

Obstructing justice accusation

Within the last two years, Public Safety Director Calkins was accused in a Sumner Police Department document of obstructing justice. The case involved a vehicular assault charge against Calkins’ son; the Sumner police learned Calkins had taken over the drafting of a witness statement. The witness was a young woman who was sitting next to his son when he slammed his truck into two vehicles virtually head-on.

 In Tom Jowers’ case, the documents submitted for his appeal contradict themselves by the order of events they describe. According to these documents, a public safety division employee followed an order a week before it was given. The document is signed with Jowers’ name. Jowers said he never saw the document. Summary: you have  documents that can’t possibly be accurate, with one of them signed by a man who says he wasn’t there.

Here are the documents:

• A memorandum, dated September 21, 2006 and signed by a fire marshal stating that  on September 7, 2006, “the Chief” ordered him to write up Jowers for exceeding his cell phone use. The memo says Jowers was written up that evening and that Jowers signed the write-up.

• The write-up, which contains the alleged forgery, is dated August 31, 2006, a full week before it was authorized.

 Jowers argues the documents were probably invented months after the dates they allegedly were written, then submitted to the administrative hearing examiner when his appeal came up for consideration.

Sexual harassment and porn

There are some other facts that should raise eyebrows here. The September 21 document says Jowers had discussed bringing a sexual harassment complaint. Since the memo isn’t addressed to anyone, it’s not clear who saw it. But it’s noteworthy that Jowers and another former employee have claimed they were called into Chief Calkin’s office to view pornography on his computer. Maybe someone in the chain of command knew about the porn, saw that mention of sexual harassment, got the jitters and decided Jowers had to go. And if the public documents associated with Jowers’ lawsuit are any indication, there might have been good reason to have the jitters. More on that in coming blogs. 

Council honored Jowers

The time frame for these memoranda is instructive. One week after Jowers was allegedly written up for misusing his cell phone, city council minutes say he was presented with an award for “Professional Excellence.”

Quick summary:

 The public safety division has a director who tampers with a witness in a criminal investigation involving his son. His department has produced a document that contains an alleged forgery. That forged document impeaches an employe who one week later is described as “excellent” before the Pacific City Council. A little over a week after he’s honored by the council, another document is produced that says he signed his reprimand a week before it was authorized.

Documents are nonsense

Are you confused? Don’t be embarrassed.

We’re not talking about ambiguous speech; we are talking about written documents, and it is crystal clear that they make no sense.

These documents were produced by the same public safety division  that ignored instructions of the Pacific City Council and produced documents which caused a prosecutor not to investigate  Mayor Richard Hildreth for misuse of a credit card.

Given these circumstances, it might be a good time for the Pacific City Council to look over the depositions that were taken in the runup to Tom Jowers’ lawsuit. There’s information in those depositions they should see. The council has oversight over the performance of the executive branch and is entitled to that information. In fact, it has a duty to know what was going on.
Next time: Abuse of power in Speed Trap City.

Porn, forgery, and suppression: The disconcerting tale of Tom Jowers

A sidetracked investigation

At this writing, Pacific Mayor Richard Hildreth and the Pacific City Council have been wrangling over the mayor’s unauthorized use of a city credit card. Council members have said the mayor lacked authority to use the card, but he has claimed to be exonerated by a prosecutor who has declined to press charges. The alleged reason the prosecutor declined:  Mr. Hildreth didn’t intend theft or fraud. What gets lost in the translation are two points:  First, intent isn’t an essential element. Using the state’s credit for personal reasons is a serious violation all by itself, regardless of intent and even if theft and fraud weren’t involved. Second, it appears that the council’s demand for an investigation was sabotaged by the public safety division.

Background issues

This raises issues that have been raised before about the character of the individuals involved. The public safety division didn’t follow council instructions in its investigation, and the mayor ignored directives on how the card was to be used. Behind these issues lurk other issues which have been swept aside in the past year and which raise some enormous questions about the integrity of this government. The questions are raised in a lawsuit that was pending in spring 2010. The lawsuit was dismissed and cannot be filed again. That’s a disappointment for the plaintiff, but not necessarily good news for the city, because it makes public some allegations that can’t be easily ignored, if Pacific residents care about respectable government. 

Also, since the city is no longer at risk, there is no reason not to openly discuss the lawsuit.

Plaintiff Tom Jowers, and former Pacific police officer Brian Aldridge claim:

• While they were probationary employees, Public Safety Director John Calkins called them into his office to view pornography on his computer during duty hours.
• The rights of employees for civil service and union protections designed to prevent abuse of power were suppressed.
•  Public safety division documentation submitted to a hearing judge was falsified and contained a forged signature. (The document can’t possibly be true, due to contradictions it contains regarding the chronology of events.)

Naturally, there’s more to share.

Documents support allegations

 Jowers says his lawsuit was quashed for procedural reasons, not because of the merits of his claims. If his allegations are true, something awful was going on, and his story demands to be heard  even if he can’t recover damages. Jower’s claims are backed up by witnesses and by city documents.

Risk-free honesty

In the topsy-turvy world of the courts, the function of trials is not to obtain justice, but to produce winners. And city councils have a duty to preserve the city’s resources by winning court battles, even if they don’t deserve to. But now that Jower’s suit cannot be refiled, the city runs no risk from an open and honest discussion of exactly what was going on in the Public Safety Division, and whether the mayor knew.

Did mayor blindside council?

 Jowers’ lawsuit was pending at the very time that the mayor was rejecting findings by Klickitat County Sheriff Department officials that Mr. Calkins quite likely had abused his power. One of the claims against Mr. Calkins is that he threatened another individual with a hand gun.(Mr. Calkins failed a polygraph examination when he denied the allegation.) It would appear that the Sheriff’s Department investigators weren’t provided details of the lawsuit, and it would also appear that Mayor Hildreth withheld those details from city council members. Mr. Hildreth reportedly met with Councilmen Gary Hulsey and Clint Steiger  to discuss the Sheriff’s Department report, after which he disregarded its findings. Mr. Steiger and Mr. Hulsey are members of the council’s public safety committee and by virtue of that might have been compromised by Mr. Hildreth’s action.

 Is porn OK on City of Pacific computers?

It doesn’t seem credible that Councilmen Hulsey and Steiger would have consented to ignore the Sheriff’s Department investigation if they would end up looking like they were soft on using city computers for porn surfing. So what did these public officials know, and when did they know it?

There will be more details in  the  next Speed Trap City  blog.