Time to hit the 'reset' button?

Remember when President Obama suggested that we push the “reset” button and start over with Russia?

I think it’s time to push the reset button in Pacific, as well.  

As I read the tea leaves, the ongoing battle over Mayor Cy Sun has taken a life of its own, and people are forgetting how they got here. So here’s my recap: City hall was both dysfunctional and insolent. A man who wasn’t really qualified to serve in a public capacity but who had the courage to try, became incensed and got elected by a disgusted electorate. No sooner was the newcomer elected but the defeated incumbent predicted that he wouldn’t last. Then another official, who had not opposed the abuses that made it possible for Mr. Sun’s election, took some steps to nudge him over a cliff by claiming he didn’t deserve his war medals. That just threw fuel on the fire and I think it’s a leading reason that Cy Sun has dug in. And understand this: He has the city in a corner. The city can lose its insurance long before any recall election. People who let the abuses go on for so long are now angry at the amateur who turned over the applecart. But they have forgotten why he was able to do it. Meanwhile the officials who are responsible for the voter revolt are getting a free pass.

At least one of the individuals who is working for Mr. Sun’s recall has seen the human side of this individual, but feels that the recall has to go forward. I’m not sure whether there is any disinterested person who can talk with him.

Perhaps you may know this phrase from the poet, Ralph Waldo Emerson:

Things are in the saddle,
And ride mankind.

This is precisely what is happening here.  Things, not people, are in charge now.

So it’s time to hit the reset button. And here’s where to start: I think you should recognize that, while Mr. Sun is an amateur, you can say the same about all the elected officials who passed up opportunities to end the abuses. Mr. Sun is not suitable for the office of mayor, but neither was his predecessor. Mr. Sun is the only individual I am aware of in a community of 6,000 people who was willing to step up to the plate.

Having said that, I believe that Cy Sun would like to live in a decent, peaceful community where people are valued and respected. I think he wants a community where he can wave at his neighbors and know they will wave back. He would like to be able to deal with businesses and government agencies and know that he is treated honestly and with respect. He would like to feel that he belongs here. If he had children in town he would want them to have fun and feel secure. I don’t believe he wants to destroy the city. But I do believe he wants to destroy the abuses that were occurring. And if he’s like the rest of us, I believe that he wants to be respected for the effort he has made to set things right. His stubborn, brusque, aggressive manner is nothing I care much for, but I share his belief that Pacific city government fell short of the mark in terms of civility and ethics. And this went on for years.

 If Pacific is to have a city government, key individuals are going to have to recognize that they and Mr. Sun have some values in common that can be built upon. And I think they should acknowledge that many people knew about the abuses, and those people share in the responsibility for the current crisis.  While  I don’t think anyone has the courage to do this, it wouldn’t hurt for some of these luminaries to admit their shortcomings. Apologies go a long ways towards defusing such situations. Sometimes apologies accomplish more than you can ever imagine.

I’m not confident Pacific city government can be saved. But I am confident it won’t be saved unless someone  hits the “reset” button.

What do they mean by “taking back Pacific?”

There is a new Website blog you might want to tune into: http://takingbackpacific.weebly.com/

The person who apparently has spearheaded this site, Rachel Kringle, shares my concern that it’s time for the madness in Pacific to come to an end. But I’m not sure whether I share the feeling implied in the name of the site. What does “take back Pacific” mean?

Does it mean we want to restore the conditions that led up to the election of Cy Sun as mayor?

Fact: Howard Erickson served 2002-2004, and was thrown out by such a large plurality (two-thirds of the voters) that you could argue the public wanted anybody but him. He subsequently lost his further attempt at elective office.

Replacing Mr. Erickson was Rich Hildreth, a two-time loser for the State Legislature, who announced, when he took the oath of office, that he wanted to be a professional politician.  Eight years later he was thrown out by two thirds of voters, who apparently agreed with the notion, “anybody but Rich.”

I would bet that the Pacific voters right now are in the “anything but Cy Sun” frame of mind.

With the kind of lopsided votes that took place in these elections, it’s pretty clear the public was not happy with city government, so what do we mean by “take it back?” You can’t possibly mean you want to take back a government that racially profiled; used motor vehicle ticketing as a revenue tool; aggravated flooding potentials by depositing fill along the river; conducted a police raid on a local church in pursuit of a youth who was skateboarding in the city park – an action that apparently is not prohibited;  allowed the public safety director to be stopped for DUI, tamper with a witness in a vehicular assault case, fail a polygraph examination on whether he threatened the ex-husband of his wife with a handgun, throw screaming tantrums at city council meetings and tell probationary employees to view porn with him on city time. 

You can’t possibly want a government back whose mayor  heckled individuals who were trying to address the city council and who demeaned a domestic assault victim by showing photos of her bruises at a city council meeting when she complained about how the police responded to her complaint. You can’t possibly want the restoration of a mayor who, after claiming an executive session to review an appointment was illegal, admitted he didn’t care that it was legal, he just didn’t want the council to review the appointment – and in the face of that bald statement, the council rolled over, surrendering its obligation to review. You can’t possibly want a mayor back who feathered his nest with public funds that should have been used to educate subordinates, and traveled on a city credit card in violation of the state constitution. 

You can’t possibly want back a city that tried to suppress a civil rights march protesting police misconduct, when such attempts to suppress violate federal criminal law. 

You can’t possibly want to restore a government in which the city treasurer told Cy Sun he couldn’t look at the city’s financial records – which is one of the behaviors that energized him into running for office.

You folks can’t possible want that restored.

What I think you want is a sense of community with a name that doesn't draw catcalls and laughter. If the past 12 years have proven anything, it’s that the city of Pacific can destroy that community's reputation, but the city cannot build it. 

The Pacific community is not a creature of the government. The city government is a creature of the community. Recalling Cy Sun, which apparently is the short-term objective here, may simply lead to the restoration of the conditions that led to the choice of “anybody but Rich." The most likely individuals who might replace Mr. Sun as mayor were part of the body politic that created the conditions for the citizen revolt that got Mr. Sun elected.

According to a recent news report  (http://www.king5.com/news/cities/federal-way/Mayor-of-Pacific-lashes-out-against-critics-161736355.html) Mayor Sun is now talking to the city of Auburn about taking over some of the city of Pacific’s functions, which may satisfy the city’s insurance carrier so that they change their mind about cancelling coverage by December 31. That might be a good first step toward having the City of Pacific annexed to Auburn. Then Pacific can just be a nice neighborhood that is part of a well-managed municipality that respects all the people within its jurisdiction.

Imagine that:  A city that can act professionally toward its residents, so that they can build a sense of community.

Isn’t that really what you want? And doesn’t it make sense that the City of Pacific will never be able to deliver on that, but perhaps Auburn can?

I don't think you even need a City of Pacific. I think you just need each other, and that that's where your efforts should be directed. If the resources for a community exist, you can find them.

think creatively, Rachael. Show me what you got.

I double dog dare you. And I double dog dare the rest of you, as well.

An open letter to the emerging leaders.

Friends,

I’m writing to you because some of you have contacted me for support in healing a city that is going through turmoil. Attempts have been made before, and they failed because of the shortcomings of the participants. If you want to succeed, you have to start with good people – individuals who are not only of good character, but who care, and who are experienced enough to make sound decisions. And you have to build a community that is independent of the city’s government. I’d like to share with you what I tried to do 12 years ago and why I failed.

My background is in journalism and public relations/public information. I also have planning experience –having developed information plans for public events while in the Air Force, and later creating a small trade newspaper that met six deadlines (news, ad sales, paste-up, printer, mailing, billing) every month for ten years. I have been familiar with Pacific since the early 1970s, when I was a reporter on the Auburn Globe-News, which had an enormous “news hole.” I had to write a lot of material – 30,000 words a month. Pacific was part of my beat and I covered it like a blanket. 

At that time Pacific truly was a community. There were 2,500 people in town. The freeway was just being completed. The sewer system and sidewalks were new. The park was relatively new. The town was integrated. Kids knew each other. There was a volunteer fire department. Its members had placed “tot finders” on the windows of children’s bedrooms in case of fire. When the peat caught fire under ground, the whole community got together and paid attention. There was a great deal of internal back-and-forth communication. But there was also turmoil. The police department was riding roughshod  over the people, because city officials failed to acknowledge the excesses. Solving that issue was a wrenching experience for the community.

Over time the fire department was disbanded and other internal communications systems deteriorated. Pacific went from a small town to a small city in which people didn’t really know each other as well. 

About the year 2000 I formed a small organization called “Pacific Candlelighters.” Our intent was to create projects in the city that would involve others. Candlelighters was a “steering committee” which would acquire help as needed, and then shrink again, bringing people together in projects that benefited the city and built community. The intent was to identify  people who would make a positive contribution and then give them the opportunity to take part and shine. It was a natural “vetting” process that was intended to let the cream rise to the top. Candlelighters faltered when a civil war emerged in city government. It began with a controversy over the possibility an Immigration and Naturalization Service detention center would be situated in Pacific. One of the most active opponents of the center was an individual who, by her own admission, had a serious mental illness and who was given a leadership role. This person was described in a court proceeding as an “urban terrorist.” The individual was very high energy and tenacious at hounding her neighbors as well as public officials, frequently with the encouragement of people who were involved politically in the town.  A venal current was flowing through the city, it was fed by people who knew better, and it poisoned much of what it touched.

In  this environment, Candlelighters faltered. When I ran for public office and was elected, I abandoned my efforts for Candlelighters because it was never intended to be part of the city government, and so there would have been a conflict of interest.  Two years later, when Richard Hildreth became mayor, he was quick to announce the death of Candlelighters and was involved in the launching of Pacific Partnerships, which, I believe, he used as a means of bolstering his political power. My understanding is that he attempted to dominate the organization. 

Two of the individuals who were involved with me in Candlelighters are still part of the community: Pastor Mark Gause of New Hope Lutheran Church, and Glenda White, the city’s postmistress.

New Hope is a “mission church” that helps a segment of the community that has great needs. It has been a gathering place for holiday presents for children of poor families; a food bank for the poor; a school for pre-schoolers; a location for blood drives; a place where scouts meet; a farm for pea-patchers; a place where Latinos could gather to respond to racial profiling. I couldn’t ask for a better friend than Mark, and to this day I don’t understand why a former city clerk, while she was taking notes at council meeting, was keeping a second set of notes snidely mocking the public, including this good man. It was a rotten way to treat someone in the helping profession.

It was at the Pacific Post Office where Candlelighter’s most permanent project still stands – the kiosk where individuals can post notices. It’s the community bulletin board, and it’s still in use after 10 years. It bears a plaque honoring Glen and Beverly Dragseth, two of the really nice people in the community. And the post office is operated by one of the community’s best people – Glenda White, who was cheated by a city that double billed her for years for sewer service, and forced her to give up her claim for recompense, and yet she does not remain bitter. She is a builder and a mainstay in our community. She was the force behind the holiday lighting program in Pacific.

 When I was elected to my second term, my hope was to have dinner once a month with a family I had never met, and to report back to the city council who the people were, what they did for a living, how they interacted with the community, who their neighbors were, and what talents they and their neighbors might bring to bear in community building. Over the period of a year, there would be a growing cadre of talented people who had “the right stuff” to build a strong community, upon which a sound government could stand. I still believe this is the way to go.

My advice to you is to identify good people who have the stamina, interest, character and courage to do the right thing and to expect the right thing of others. They should be people who are interested first in community and secondly in themselves. And they should have the fortitude to say what they will not stand for; there has been too much tolerance of misbehavior in Pacific for too long, as well as too much reluctance to stand up for the individuals who are making the greatest contributions. Meet with them regularly, break bread with them, share stories about your families, and share your aspirations.

I would encourage you to find the right people, vet them, and then publicize them to the community. Not for the purpose of electing them. That’s a very transitory effort. Your purpose should be to build community, so that we know one another. It’s long been my belief that the values of the community were superior to the values of the city’s officials, and this has been proven time and again in elections. A good community, and not city hall, is what is going to create the Pacific you believe in. (That Pacific doesn't exist. You have to create it.)

From my own standpoint, I don’t care whether the city government survives. If it can’t operate properly, it shouldn’t. Thomas Jefferson said that a long time ago.  Cy Sun was correct – the city was corrupt. It tolerated and even fostered misbehavior. But the people are another matter. It is the people, not the government, who make community. As Carl Sandberg said,

The people yes
 The people will live on.
 The learning and blundering people will live on.
     They will be tricked and sold and again sold
 And go back to the nourishing earth for rootholds,
     The people so peculiar in renewal and comeback,
     You can't laugh off their capacity to take it.

 The people, yes!

An Open Letter to Cy Sun

Note: If any readers out there are friends of Mr. Sun, they might encourage him to read this.

Dear Mayor Sun:

It's my understanding that City Clerk Jane Montgomery is on leave at this writing, and there are intimations that you intend to fire her. That would be, as they say, worse than a crime. It would be a blunder. An enormous blunder that could affect you financially.

I don’t pretend to be an attorney. But I do pretend to be an individual who has observed public figures and their mistakes for 40 years. As a reporter, I had a front-row seat on the errors that officials make and the consequences they bear for making those errors. Some have been thrown out of office. Some have gone to prison. The memory of their folly was one of my greatest assets as a city councilman.

I believe if you are planning to terminate Ms. Montgomery, it could result in your being thrown out of office and also of paying for that mistake out of your own pocket. At this point, I’m not really concerned about your welfare, but I greatly respect Jane Montgomery and I find it repugnant that she should be harmed. As a former employee of the Pacific Police Department, she managed to, as the saying goes, lie down with dogs and not get up with fleas. In my personal dealings with her she has always shown the highest degree of professionalism. She has behaved ethically and courteously, as well as conscientiously. She’s among the best the City of Pacific has been blessed with in 40 years. She is the kind of employee you should be recruiting, not harassing.

Instead, you appointed Howard Erickson as your building inspector. I know Mr. Erickson. I actually like Mr. Erickson. He and I had many bruising battles when I served on the council, but for some reason I have no rancor toward him. We can have great give and take conversations. But I am also the person who takes some credit for the fact that Mr. Erickson will never be elected to public office in Pacific ever again, because of the information I published in my newsletter, the River City Wrapper. And I wouldn’t be saying this, if he didn’t bring it upon himself by forcing Ms. Montgomery to seek a restraining order against him. You had no business hiring an unqualified individual as building inspector who would then try to bully other employees.

Mr. Erickson first became a political force to be reckoned with in 1975, when Police Chief Ron Earwood, responding to an aid call, became involved in the assault on a couple of individuals, one of whom was awaiting an aid car. As I heard the story from an eyewitness, the injured man was drunk and fell off a fence, smacking the ground hard. Police responded to the call for an aid car, a scuffle ensued, billy clubs were used, and the city ended up with a million dollar lawsuit on its hands. This was not the first assault by Mr. Earwood. Some time earlier he assaulted a fifth-grade teacher at Alpac Elementary School for telling the local judge to wait until a women’s physical fitness class was over before starting court in the school gymnasium. During that assault, the city’s prosecuting attorney fled the scene, probably so that he wouldn’t have to be called as a witness against his own client. 

So the powder keg was sitting around for some time before the assault that inflamed the community and resulted in Mr. Erickson becoming mayor, and a powerful political force in the town. Then Mr. Erickson did what you have done – he set about clearing house, including firing the judge. If he had been able to, he also would have fired a popular city clerk and the volunteer fire chief, but fortunately for the city, that didn’t happen.

Mr.Erickson served two terms, then left public office, only to return in 2000 over the controversy of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's attempt to situate a detention center in Pacific. It was a contentious issue that provided an opportunity for Mr. Erickson to return. This also provided an avenue for another individual, who had been diagnosed with a mental disorder, to be insinuated  into city politics, further escalating the goofiness--and the malice.

Here are some critical things to know about Mr. Erickson's term as mayor 2000-2004:

·         He fired Police Chief Stan Aston, a retired state patrolman who had obtained the accreditation for the police department for the first time in its history.

·         He talked the council into saving money by combining police and fire departments, then hired John Calkins to the new office of Public Safety Director two days after the application period closed. Later he disclosed to two individuals that Mr. Calkins was his cousin. Mr. Calkins was not required to fill out a job application which would have required such disclosure.

·         He allowed John Calkins to go into a rage in the presence of network TV cameras when a city councilwoman inquired as to why the fire command staff was out of town when a house burned to the ground because it was being served by a dry fire hydrant.  This fiasco resulted in the hiring of a fire chief, eliminating the proposed salary savings by combining the two departments.

·         He created a public disturbance one day when women were walking from Enumclaw to Seattle to raise money to fight cancer. Angry about the situation of public toilets at the senior center – something the city council had approved – he drove back and forth between Auburn and Pacific, demanding that Pacific’s firefighters abandon their station in Auburn and ordering Milton’s backup firemen to leave the town, until Mr. Calkins arrived and ordered him to allow a police officer to drive him home or be placed under arrest. One must wonder why Mr. Erickson was not allowed to drive himself home. This is all laid out in a public document, a letter from past councilwoman Bernadine Harrison to Mr. Erickson. 

·         He lost the city’s insurance coverage because he refused to attend training which the agency required, partly because of the payout for his procedure for firing Stan Aston. When Canfield and Associates held a public meeting to discuss insurance, the representative disclosed that Mr. Erickson was turned down three times before they agreed to insure the city. There are only two competitive insurance carriers for cities like Pacific, and if we had lost Canfield, alternate insurance coverage would have been more limited and very expensive.

·         When the city was notified that a local improvement district was being billed inconsistently, it was determined that a change of treasurers was necessary. The council went along with this, but when Mr. Erickson wanted to hire a former employee for the position and I suggested we should examine the person’s credentials, he became enraged. This issue was resolved at a council meeting when we agreed to hire the individual on contract to give her an opportunity to demonstrate competency. But when it came time to approve the contract, the city attorney was absent and Mr. Erickson said he didn’t know where he was at. Well, that was true. But he did know why the attorney wasn’t present – he had ordered him not to show up with the contract, and Clint Steiger, Mayor Pro Tem, was planning to convince the other council members to just go ahead and confirm the new treasurer. What Mr. Erickson and Mr. Steiger were too unprofessional to understand, was that the president of the council, Karen McIver, did what any intelligent council person would do – she had phoned the attorney to make sure everything was in place for the meeting. She and I both knew the game plan hours before it played out, but we couldn’t say anything because we didn’t want to have the attorney fired for doing what he was legally obliged to do. (He was the only professional person she could rely on.) We tried to persuade the council members not to vote to confirm, and I walked out in protest, telling them I was afraid they might do something illegal. Richard Hildreth, Wayne Strong, Ora Meyer and Clint Steiger did just that – they voted to confirm an appointment for a person whose position was supposed to be advertised – and wasn’t.

·         When Glenda White, the city’s postmistress, convinced the council that she had been wrongly double billed for years for her sewer service, the council voted to approve a reimbursement. Under the state’s fraud statute, that was the standard. But Mr. Erickson didn’t want to return the money. Ms. White said she simply would not pay her sewer bill until she was even with what was owed. So Mr. Erickson committed what I considered to be extortion – he threatened to shut off her water if she didn’t accept the half-payment he offered her. That check, which was issued by our new illegally-confirmed treasurer, was never approved by the council, which must approve all expenditures.

·         When J.J. Ramme was hired as the new community service director, we were blown away with her quality. And the council voted too quickly to confirm, because we never examined her contract. What contract? She was told she would be paid $40,000 a year. But after leaving her former job, she found out her checks were reflecting a salary of $30,000 a year. I think another employee sandbagged her, but she didn’t know, and she was in no position to complain. It took months and some very indirect and carful diplomacy to get her paid what she had been promised. My one regret is that she didn’t sue the city for back pay when she left.

Mr. Erickson's disregard for procedure and institutions was also expressed in his attitude toward the Cities and Schools Forum, an association of small local government, including Auburn, Algona, Pacific, the Auburn School District, Green River Community College and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The forum was created to share the resources of these agencies and to identify common interests. When it was Algona's turn to host the meeting, Mr. Erickson told Algona Mayor Glen Wilson, in the presence of J.J. Ramme, Pacific's community services director,  that Pacific would not attend. When I attended the meeting as a Pacific City Council member he refused to cut my reimbursement check, even though the council had set aside the money for that. When I asked him in council meeting why Mrs. Ramme had not been present, he said it was because she was on vacation. This is the individual that political novice you appear to be relying on for guidance.

Here's my message to you, Mr. Sun:

While you are not as self-serving as Mayor Richard Hildreth, you are more reckless than Mr. Erickson ever was.

Ms. Montgomery was ethically, if not legally correct, in questioning Mr. Erickson's qualifications as a building inspector. In my opinion, if she acted under the whistleblower's act, and if she is correct, she is virtually "fire proof." The last thing you want to do is punish people who have found you in egregious error, who have reported it, and who are correct. You not only open the city to a great liability, you probably have opened yourself up as well. If you are acting contrary to your city attorney's advice, I doubt that you have any liability coverage.

You are not fighting the Korean War any more. You are not a war hero this time. You are out of your element. You may not “buy the farm” in this battle, but you might have to mortgage it to cover your legal costs and the payout. If you try to punish a competent and respected public servant who is serving the public well by blowing  the whistle for your misfeasance, you’ve got it coming.

  

Cy Sun was my neighbor

If Pacific's Mayor Cy Sun has demonstrated anything, it is that we should have confidence in democracy.
Just imagine—What if he were king?

There. Now don't you feel better?

Without getting involved in the rumors that are flying,  What I'd like to tell you is about my personal experience with Mr. Sun.

Until moving to Seattle, I lived just a few doors away from him, and we got to know each other. I learned that his life has not been easy, and perhaps because of that he is tough and determined. And perhaps those hardships are also the reason that he is arbitrary, capricious and thick headed. Even if his hearing were excellent (which it is not), he does not listen to opposing points of view.

Here is what Mr. Sun told me about himself:

On August 6, 1945, he was a child, visiting a relative in the country, with  a clear view of the city where his family was situated that day: Hiroshima. He probably didn't see the package labeled "Little Boy" descend from the Enola Gay, but he couldn't miss the firestorm that arose from the blast. Sometime later, as a young man, he was starving, and stowed away on a boat that took him to Hawaii, where he lived on the streets. Somehow—the details have escaped me—he made it into the army, serving in Korea. (He has the medals to prove he served with valor.) That an individual who can't speak English can work himself into the military and end up a war hero is a testimony to his determination. On the other hand, perhaps enduring the trauma to earn those medals might raise questions about a person's fitness for the demands of public office.

Mr. Sun told me he operates farms in Oregon. He also told me about his attitude as a business operator—tough with bankers, and rough-talking with people he disagreed with. I learned early-on there is little room for diplomacy in his black-and-white world. Farmers are practical: They slaughter animals, thin crops, clear land; and they are not sentimental about it.

Mr. Sun shared that he had Mexicans who worked his farms seasonally and then returned home. He built houses for them to live in when they worked. And these Mexicans appreciated it, but had no respect for illegal immigrants, he stated.

Somehow Mr. Sun has forgotten that he had once been an undocumented immigrant living on the streets in Hawaii.

I believe it was before he was elected that Mr. Sun slammed his fist into the palm of his hand and said he was going to get all Pacific's public officials out of office. He told me that when he was in the military he had been an axe man for a top ranking officer. I concluded he thought he could do the same thing once he was elected. At the same time he talked about working for "the people" and following the Constitution, which he apparently has great reverence for.

Following the election in which he became mayor, I reminded the city council of the abuses that had occurred in the past, including  police misconduct, racial profiling, and allowing a mayor to demean and dominate people who came to speak to the council. (It wasn't just the mayors who would be high-handed. For example, when I served as a member, the city council outlawed skatebording in the core of the city, but decided they wouldn't notify the public of the prohibition or even post "no skateboarding" signs. And the public safety director admitted he didn't know the boundaries for the no-skateboarding area.) 

I told the council they now had a mayor who once had been an undocumented immigrant. I said this was a case of "chickens coming home to roost." I left them with a copy of my comments.

And afterward I told Mr. Sun what I had done.

He told me not to bring up how he had come to America. I told him I had already done so, and that I had handed a statement to the council in a public meeting.

He told me to get the document back. I told him that was impossible—it was a public record.

He ordered me to get it back.

I was surprised, because there is nothing demeaning or damaging in what I said. He earned his United States citizenship at great risk to his life, and I don't see what risk there is in telling a story that is 60 years old.

I tried to explain to Mr. Sun that he had been a candidate for public office and that he was a public official. It was of interest to the public. He said it was his personal information. I tried to explain to him that when you run for public office this type of information is fair game. He insisted it was nobody's business, ordered me to retrieve the document, and threatened to sue me if I didn't get the document back from the city.

At this point I turned and walked away and I have not spoken to Mr. Sun since.

Any why would I? What is the point of trying to make sense out of nonsense? While Mr. Sun loves the idea of the Constitution, he doesn't appear to care much for the document itself.

Mr. Sun hasn't destroyed the town. The government was corrupt and a lot of public and private individuals had their heads in the sand. Mr. Sun  holds office because he knocked over a shakey house of cards which Pacific's public officials had erected over the prior 12 years. He was correct that the system was corrupt. But he also is corrupt, because he has further vandalized the body politic and further corroded any possible faith Pacific citizens could have in self governance.  He has turned a neglected mess into a disaster.

In that sense, Mr. Sun has brought us together. We're all in agreement that it's past time for him to go.

But where are the leaders who will craft a government that can act intelligently and selflessly? Show me a group of people who not only can work together constructively, but who also have the gumption to stand up to the bad apples so that Pacific gets out of the morass it's been in for the past 12 years and stays out. As disgusted as people are with Mr. Sun, they overlook the fact that they allowed the deterioration that led to his election.


As Pogo is so famously quoted, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

In 2001, I ran for public office on the slogan, "We Can Do Better." I no longer believe that. There is no evidence that Pacific has what it takes.

It's up to the residents of Pacific to prove me wrong.

Insurance Retrospective

In her Pacific City Signal, (http://pacificcitysignal.tumblr.com/) my friend, Jeanne Fancher, has been reporting on the Pacific mayor's dismissal of the city attorney and has intimated some concerns about the loss of insurance coverage. Here's a little "blast from the past" about insurance:

Back in the summer of 2001 the city's insurance carrier, Canfield and Associates, met with city officials and candidates to discuss city issues. This meeting was held after then-mayor Howard Erickson had drawn unflattering press coverage for causing the city to lose one of the two big insurance carriers for cities in Washington. (Canfield was the only other competitively priced insurer.)

At that time I was operating a Web site for all candidates, and on that site I included a report about what Canfield had told the officials and the candidates. Here's what I reported then, 11 years ago:

The city's new insurance carrier gave some pretty clear advice to the city council in a public meeting Tuesday, August 28: Get along with each other, follow established procedures and take your attorney's advice.

The city has already lost one insurance carrier, and it can't afford to be dropped by another carrier, Eric Homer, vice president of Canfield & Associates, Inc., told the council. Being dropped again could make the city uninsurable, or only able to purchase much less coverage at a far higher price.

Attending the insurance training session were Mayor Howard Erickson, Council President Karen McIver, Member Bernadine Harrison, and Rich Hildreth and Robert Smith, candidates for the council.

City Denied Insurance Three Times
After being dropped by its insurance carrier effective July 1, the city was turned down for insurance three times by Canfield & Associates before being accepted, Homer told those present.

He diplomatically but clearly stated what he expects of city leaders: "You're not going to fight on our dime." If Pacific is dropped by this carrier the prospects won't be good. According to Homer, "a two-time loser will be in a world of hurt to get insurance." 

He said his agency would be willing to hold a retreat for council members to help them learn how to work through disagreements. It's possible to agree to be agreeable even when you strongly disagree with another council member, he said.

Elected Officials Are The City

 
City council members represent the city 24 hours a day. They are always on duty, and they ARE the city, Homer said. They need to follow established procedures and they need to understand the limits of their roles, in order to avoid liability.

They also need to follow their attorney's advice. Homer said failing to follow procedure might mean that the insurance carrier won't protect them, and they could become personally liable in a lawsuit.

 An important implication of these comments still rings true today: Canfield insures Pacific with the intent of making a profit. It is not going to extend insurance if it looks like hefty payouts will exceed income.

If the city becomes uninsured, then the elected officials (who ARE the city) are unprotected from lawsuits, and only a fool would continue to serve, particularly in the current adversarial climate. In a nutshell: No insurance? No City.

One final comment here: If by "corruption" we  mean rot and the loss of integrity, I don't see how the election of Mayor Cy Sun has ended corruption. The disintegration seems to be continuing.

An offer you shouldn't refuse

Some Pacific residents seem to be upset about the current chaotic conditions in their city government. Well, it took them long enough.
 

This is the town that tolerated racial profiling and a public safety director who proudly wore on his chest -- on the night he was arrested and charged with DUI -- a T-shirt that celebrated the Chicago police riots of 1968 and proclaimed, "We kicked your father's ass, now it's your turn." When I placed a photo of his DUI booking on a T-shirt of my own, a city councilman complimented him on the likeness, and another councilman berated me for wearing the shirt, while ignoring the dishonor the public safety director had brought on the city.

This is not a city that has been blessed with enlightened leadership. The elected officials have  included alcoholics, an individual who used the advantage of public office to promote and benefit himself and individuals who encouraged the mentally ill to vilify their opponents. It takes a long time to close wounds like that, and the newest mayor shows no inclination to try.

I am absolutely convinced that at least eight out of 10 Pacific residents are disgusted with the kind of behavior I've mentioned here. And I understand why many haven't gotten involved. No intelligent person wants to hug the tar baby. But something has to be done and someone has to do it to move this city in a more positive direction. Either that, or get real and disincorporate.

Occasional feel-good stories about limited activities that warm the cockles of your heart aren't going to solve the problem. The turmoil is going to continue until a set of leaders emerge who understand what it means to operate a democratic government. Ignoring obvious abuses didn't cut it, and now the fat's in the fire, and rightly so.

It's going to take more than one or two leaders to get things back on track. It's going to take a village.

What has happened over the past 30 years is that the village has disappeared. When Pacific had 2,500 residents, people knew each other. There was a definite sense of community. There was a volunteer fire department that had a lot of local participants. People pitched in and paid attention. As the town became a city, things changed. For example, volunteer fire fighters were displaced by paid staff, many of whom didn't live in town and therefore didn't see residents as their neighbors. When your kids don't play together, that's a significant qualitative difference.

Twelve years ago, when I organized a small group of individuals into Pacific Candlelighters, we hoped we could launch projects that would attract Pacific residents in a community-building drive. But that got sidelined with the ongoing grudge matches in the city government and self-serving power grabs. Building community infrastructure became impossible. 

It is no coincidence that "community" and "communication" are so similar in appearance. They rely on the reality that "community" depends on "communication."

And so I'm going to make an offer to this aggregation of individuals who live within the boundaries of the corporate entite we refer to as "Pacific". The numbers on this blog site indicate about 10 people visit every day. That's a lot for a city this size.

My invitation is for the village to emerge through these pages. People who have something to offer are invited to use the space on this site to share their ideas about what they think should be happening in Pacific. I don't care if you are 18 or 80, rich or poor, or who you are. What I want to know is what you think can be done to make this a better city. Let's start simple: An open letter of up to 1,000 words from anyone who wants to submit it. I'll proofread it for libel and decency, but otherwise I will run it as is. 

Replies and expanded dialog will be encouraged.

And I'd like to include a little bit of information about the writers, so that people get to know each other. You can even submit a photo of yourself, if you like.

Given the current rate of hits on this site, your message likely would be seen by at least 50 people over the course of a month. And if you strike the right chord, people may just share what you have to say with others.

You don't have to express an opinion. You might want to point out something you think has gone unnoticed in the town. Maybe there is a neighbor, a city employee or an organization that deserves some recognition. Or maybe you have an activity you would like people to participate in. It don't care what you have to say. It's what's important to you that's important. I would only ask that the contributions be thoughtful, constructive, and not self-serving.

What I'm hoping for is that this will begin connecting people who can feed off each other in a manner that will heal this community, and by which new leaders can emerge and be recognized who have the gumption to work on the city's problems and build community.

I believe it was President Harry Truman who believed that any community of 5,000 people could probably generate a man fit to be president.

It's not all that new of  an idea. The Greek philosopher Plato said that the ideal republic would have 5040 citizens. (Athens had only about 20,000 people at about that time.)

Pacific likely has the human talent to address this city's problems and solve them, but it's going to take a village--and people who are committed to the concept of village--and open dialog.

Anyone who is interested may submit their statements to me at dancingpotter@gmail.com.  I'll post them here.

Sincerely,


Robert Smith