On vacation

I am out of town, without comfortable access to my own computer. I note readers' comments are being formatted in increasingly thinner columns. Ugh. Can't be helped for now. Try to bear with me.

And don't burn down the town in my absence. I'd hate not having the opportunity to voice a timely opinion about the conflagration.

Later...

Insults and questions

Greetings, readers.

I think I know how Cy Sun must feel right about now.

 Several years ago, I had a phone call from the Superintendent of the Auburn School District. She was quite distraught. There had been an awards ceremony –the  first of its kind, and it involved an honor bestowed in the name of my wife, Betty Smith, a school board member for 10 years. She died in 2002 due to complications from a stem cell transplant to cure her lymphoma, cancer of the lymph system.

Betty, a school social worker, had been active in the Auburn-Pacific community. She had worked on the library board, spearheaded the Alpac Boosters Club (which later became the Alpac  PTA), chaired the planning commission, and from there was appointed to fill a school board vacancy, and subsequently elected twice. While on the board she worked to improve cooperation among small local governments by helping create the Auburn Cities and Schools Forum. In response to the Columbine High School massacre, she promoted creation of Auburn School District's annual Reaching Out Fair. The Betty Smith Spirit of Education Award was given annually to people who had contributed to supporting community.

The Auburn School Superintendent was distraught because, after the award was presented, someone had the presence of mind to ask, "Why wasn't Robert here tonight?" The follow-up question: "did anyone think to invite him?"

The superintendent's voice said it all—she was humiliated and deeply apologetic for an incredibly demeaning oversight. I realized what had happened and told her it was not her fault. I knew that the person who began the process that led to creation of the award was puffing himself up and riding on her coattails. Remembering the man who was married to her for 31 years was not on his agenda.

It appears that the same quality of insult may have been delivered this week to Cy Sun, mayor of Pacific. I’m under the impression that no-one invited him to participate in Pacific Days this year. Yes, he has made a number of individuals angry with his approach to cleaning house at  city hall, and yes, he undoubtedly has made some grievous errors. But not even providing him the opportunity to make an appearance –which  offers at least the remote possibility to start mending fences—just looks mean, and throws gasoline on the fire.  

I don't know whether an apology would be accepted, but if he wasn’t invited, and if there is anyone who has any sense, that individual  will scramble to sincerely offer one. And the sooner the better. 

And speak loud and clear, because while Mr. Sun was earning his war medals, the grenade that didn't kill him nevertheless badly damaged his hearing. For those of you who don't suffer hearing loss, you don't have the remotest idea of how debilitating and isolating that condition can be.

Next  subject:

 I have questions about the possible recall of Mayor Sun, which would have the effect of throwing out the voters' decision in last fall's election.

• Who are the donors, how much are they giving, and how do they stand to benefit? I challenge my journalist friend, Jeanne Fancher, who publishes the Pacific City Signal, (http://pacificcitysignal.tumblr.com/) to ask the same questions and publish the answers.
• Who's waiting in the wings to snatch the mayor's seat, and could that person have paid more attention to the abuses that got Mr. Sun elected?
• Do you believe the recall will prevent the city from losing its insurance Dec. 31? If so, why?
• How is this recall going to build a better community?

These are the sorts of questions to be expected if the recall goes forward. 
Your response is invited. 

As promised: Truth and consequences

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread 

– Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

There is momentum behind the movement to recall Pacific Mayor Cy Sun. Attorneys have been contacted and a group of people are in the process of looking for money to sustain the recall.

It’s time to play Truth AND Consequences.

First of all, the truth: 

Over the past several years, Pacific’s elected officials have been told repeatedly of abuses by city representatives which went unpunished. Even the governor got involved. People’s rights were violated. People who tried to address the council were disregarded, demeaned and in some cases threatened. When the council was told about, and even witnessed abuses, the members failed to intervene. (If any of the city’s public officials want to debate this with me, I’m prepared to lay out a string of facts that they really don’t want to confront.) The chickens came home to roost, resulting in the election of Mayor Cy Sun, and now there are some individuals who are outraged at his admittedly rough manner of operating. 

Some of them just can’t wait to get a recall election on the ballot.

The voters who elected Mayor Sun were not fickle; they were outraged. Running alone, he was underestimated and dismissed as a novice. He didn’t disagree, and after he surprised all his detractors by getting elected, he asked for support. Instead, he was confronted with sore losers. The incumbent claimed Mr. Sun wouldn’t last and one member of the council tried to make sure of that by bringing criminal charges down on his head with claims that he didn’t earn his war medals. The new mayor was insulted at the door by individuals he would have to work with. In this cesspool of acrimony, some department heads quit and others have been dismissed or put on suspension, and the city’s insurance carrier has cancelled insurance coverage effective Dec. 31, with the proviso it might change its mind if it sees marked improvement in the political and administrative health of the city. Meanwhile, Mr. Sun has circled the wagons and said he will not resign, and he will only leave office if he is recalled. Recalling him will take so long the city likely won’t have time to meet the insurance carrier’s demands. The recall backers know this, and yet they press on.

There is a variety of possible outcomes in this vitriolic situation. Let’s do what the military does: play some war games and consider the outcomes:

Game A: The recall builds momentum. $15,000 is tendered to hire a competent attorney to put an effective recall together. As the case builds, Cy Sun continues to hold out, but can’t find anyone who wants to work in a city with Pacific’s reputation. The split between council and mayor is matched by a growing rift in a populace torn by the infighting and the possibility the city will shut down. Fingers are pointed.  The recall succeeds. But the city loses its insurance coverage anyway, for lack of competent staff. At the risk of incurring personal liability, city officials quickly resign to protect their own personal assets. The city sustains a blow it cannot endure and disincorporates. The residents remain mad at each other for years. Some of the deep pockets that funded the recall benefit from the dissolution of the city.

Game B: Miraculously, new, competent staff are hired by the mayor despite the ongoing recall fight. The council confirms them. Mayor Sun is recalled anyway, and leaves town. The insurance carrier continues coverage at the same favorable rate as before. All the residents are happy with the outcome. Life gets better. A member of the council resigns to take the office of mayor, and the Tooth Fairy fills the new council vacancy.

Game C: The mayor is recalled; the city loses its current carrier, but continues to exist by acquiring a more expensive carrier which offers more limited coverage. Chastened by the higher cost of liability insurance and the diminished coverage, city officials have no choice but to adopt more professional standards and develop the backbone to enforce them. Adopting those standards is not easy, because the same individuals remain in office, they don’t want to admit they did anything wrong, and they have already demonstrated an inability to learn. The populace, following the wrenching recall fight and the disclosures that come from it, is split. Some favor the new arrangement, others are bitter and distrustful, particularly because of the higher operating costs for city government. Because of its history and the acrimony, Pacific city government remains less likely to attract qualified individuals to participate. However, it has no choice but to exercise caution for fear of higher insurance rates or no insurance at all. Because of its fear of losing insurance, it goes lightly on enforcement, and businesses push the limits.

Game D:The recall takes a back seat to an emerging community awareness.  The fight creates the opportunity for people to reconnect, and identify common interests, which become the core of community building. There emerges a cadre of community-minded individuals who are professional in their endeavor and selfless in their outlook and who are disgusted with the numerous abuses which led to the watershed election/recall.  A true community emerges not because it is the right thing to do, but because people have rediscovered and like each other. Their shared interests have a natural way of sifting out the exploiters so that the cream rises to the top. From this emerging community of committed individuals, leaders are identified who become the new corps of city government. The lessons learned last for a generation.

Game E: As the consequences of their actions become more apparent, the city’s elected officials realize that, just as in nuclear war, there are not going to be any winners. Apologies are offered – and accepted. In a sort of private “truth and reconciliation commission” action, a tacit understanding emerges that mistakes were made and then compounded through fear and ignorance. A good-faith effort is made by the leading antagonists to recognize shared interests and values, and to work together for the sake of the population being served by the city. Residents roused to action by the ongoing fight consider how close the city has come to the brink and they step back, gaining a new resolve to expect a higher standard of conduct from their leaders and a higher level of community participation by themselves. A community blog, run by the residents, not the government, emerges that ties the community together. Despite the $15,000 outlay, the recall effort is abandoned. Some of the donors realize it would have been cheaper to demand higher standards from their government. Others regret that the city didn't implode, so that they could live life unencumbered by regulation.

Game E, addendum: The Pacific population adopts a simple truth:  Regardless of what one military officer claimed during the Vietnam war, it isn’t necessary to destroy a town in order to save it.

The emperor’s new clothes

This story didn’t make much sense to me when my dad read it to me while I was about five years old. Now I think it get it.

It seems that in the land of Cathay—the place we now call China – there were two clothiers who nowadays we would call shysters – in English of course. There probably is a Chinese equivalent, but who’s to say?

Anyway, these two clothiers showed up one day in the Emperor’s court with wondrous news: They had developed a new fabric which was so delicate and refined, that it was virtually weightless, and sheer enough in its appearance that only intelligent people could see it. So persuasive were these clothiers that, while the story seemed outlandish, the emperor was mesmerized and ordered an entirely new wardrobe. The clothiers immediately set to work, measuring , cutting and joining the rich cloth, while courtiers looking on, nodding that, indeed, it was the finest fabric they had every laid eyes on. The emperor, not to appear to be ignorant, calmly agreed, for fear that any display of disbelief on his part might undermine the confidence his minions would have in him.

Finally the great day arrived for the emperor to display his fine vestments, and he ascended the staircase to a majestic float which was part of a grand parade through the capital city of Cathay. Having been informed of the wondrous nature of the emperor’s garments, the subjects gathered from miles around to witness the spectacle, as great marching bands passed. Among the viewers was a small girl, who wanted to be part of the festivities, and therefore, sitting atop her father’s shoulders, she blew into a reed flute, whistling a tune to match the majestic song of the musicians. Everyone was in awe, and—privately—ashamed for they lacked the confidence to admit that they could not see the garments. Not so the little girl. No-one heard the whistle fall from her lips as her hands and mouth opened in surprise, but some heard her audible shout when she exclaimed, “But His Highness! His Hiney!

And yes, as the float passed, there it was in plain view, His Hinness’ Hiney was Hanging for all to see. Soon a murmur, then a rumble, then a shout, bracketed by exuberant laughter flowed from the crowd, as the paean grew in strength: "His Highness! His Hiney! His Highness, His Hiney!”

And at last, His Highness realized that indeed, he had been fooled, and that the fine vestments he thought were covering his Hiney were merely a sham, and a testament to the failure of his minions and his own blind naivety. 

But, being the emperor, there was nothing to do but finish the parade, and moon the onlookers, and so the show went on…

Now when I heard that story, it made absolutely no sense to me. Why didn’t the emperor cover up, I asked. But my father just smiled. Being an adult with many years of experience, he knew why the parade went on. And you probably do, as well.

But do you know what happened to the little whistle blower? In all the excitement she vanished in the crowd, and no-one, not even her parents, could find a trace of her. So a second lesson to take away from this story is an explanation of why people don’t speak up when they know something’s haywire.

Tomorrow’s story: Truth and Consequences.

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!