Showing posts with label Garr Nielsen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Garr Nielsen. Show all posts

Saturday, November 2, 2013

The City of Eureka and Your Vote

On Friday, November 1, the Times-Standard front page was "Trick or Treat" -- "New chief in town" (Change of command ceremony for Mills slated for Wednesday)

On Saturday, November 2, the Times-Standard front page was "Dia De Los Muertos" -- "A different approach" (As Eureka searches for a new manager, some hope for more thorough vetting)

I thought both title pages were extremely appropriate for what's going on in Eureka. In Mills case as the new "vetted" police chief everyone can fully expect that they are "treat(ed)" to a bonafide "trick". The selection of these two important people for Eureka is proving to be quite appropriate for a Day of the Dead. As I recall after former City Manager David Tyson, EPD Murl Harpham and his cadre of supporting officers managed to get a majority, if not all of the City Council to agree, after a successful campaign, got rid of Police Chief Garr Nielsen we, the citizens of Eureka, were fed a trough of soul-satisfying pablum.  Couple that with the abrupt resignation of the City Manager Bill Panos, leaving no one accountable for the hiring of Andy Mills, another big city cop for Police Chief.

The pablum? Definition: "trite, naive, or simplistic ideas or writings; intellectual pap." That's what we were all fed when the City Council offered to have meetings where we could have some meaningful input about the quality, qualifications and type of new chief. Andy Mills was vetted alright, by Murl Harpham. I think everyone knows what we can expect from Andy Mill, not withstanding all the hype -- status quo.

Same thing goes for the new City Manager. So, Voters, how much say did you have in the selection or future selection of these very important people? Has the City Council demonstrate in any way shape or form to the people of Eureka that they met their concerns in Andy Mills. So he walks the streets, so what? When I call for assistance from the EPD and I'm not talking about a 911 call either I certainly do not want to bring violence to my door and be threatened. But, that's exactly what happens.

I'd say you all had quite a lot of say when you voted in the current crop of council members. You can be sure they all will tell us what to do and how to do it.

So, buckle up! It looks like Eureka is in for quite a ride.
--Joe

About the picture? I found it on the Humboldt Sentinel - DEA Arrogance and Stupidity. I thought it appropriate for this article, and the current state of affairs.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Copped-Out City Council

[UPDATE Below]

That's the status of Snow White and the Three Stooges, or is it the Seven Stooges? - So says Kaci Poor writing for the Saturday, July 9, 2011, edition of the Times-Standard: Privacy vs. public's right to know --- a delicate balance.

What's "delicate" about telling the truth?

Either the people, who's rights, lives, families and property were entrusted to Garr Nielsen for four years was well placed and rightly protected or it was not. If not, then David Tyson was responsible for putting everyone's rights, lives, families and property in jeopardy and for allowing the mistrust to foment. If it was not misplaced then David Tyson's actions were irresponsible and incompetent. If so, then the current City Council is also irresponsible and incompetent if they do not fire him - cause or no cause.

Kaci Poor says that the "City officials say their hands are tied." -- "We can't let things out." Eureka Mayor Frank Jager conveniently defers his responsibility to the city attorney's opinion. Whatever "tricky balancing act" exists, it is totally of the City Council's own making. Problem is, they can't hide their votes anymore than they can hide their cop-outs.

The most telling statement in the report, aside from Linda Atkins sashay around the truth, is from Councilman Mike Newman. When obvious self-serving political and ingratiating worthless opinions rule the day you get: "[I]f members of the community wanted more information, they should ask Nielsen." He continues: "Nielsen is the only person that can shed light on it." "It" being his disputed firing, I would suppose.

Newman's remark is probably the most disengenuous statement any City Council member could make. He knows full well Garr Nielsen has absolutely no reason nor any insentive to tell the Eureka people one thing more than he's already said. What he has is every reason to politely tell them to go to hell because that is what they told him. That is the simple truth the City Council and David Tyson knows - Garr Nielsen owes the Eureka people absolutely nothing.

Of course, if the City Council wanted to reestablish their integrity to the Eureka voter they would simply own up to what they did.

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, July 12, 2011]
Forgot about HH's contribution to this subject. Be sure to read the comment section. When you get done reading what those people think, providing your constitution can handle that much crap, you'll see why the Eureka City Council members work for the city's best interests. No hidden agendas here.

Quote of the Day

July 10, 2011
“We can’t let things out.” — Eureka City Councilman Mike Newman defending the secrecy behind the city’s firing of police chief Garr Nielsen.

Continue reading "Quote of the Day"

--Joe

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Open Letter To Murl Harpham


Talk Is Cheap :: Actions Speak The Truth
Murl Harpham is the Eureka City Interim Police Chief. He was just approved by a unanimous Eureka City Council vote after they fired Garr Nielsen. He writes in today's Times-Standard My Word, Thursday, July 7, 2011: "Preserving law and order, enforcing the laws and protecting and serving all citizens." Here Murl Harpham, by his own words is an original veteran EPD officer of 54 years. For the record, everyone must agree, such service says much that is commendable about Murl Harpham and his integrity, loyalty and ability to survive. Without any doubt he is what I would term “Old Guard” and "Professional." He makes a couple of statements that gives that away as well. As I read his words I was reminded of yesterday's My Word, Search warrant folly: An open letter to Paul Gallegos by Jeffrey Schwartz and if he had in mind Murl Harpham when he commented about "ingrained, backward-thinking Humboldt County Law Enforcement."

For instance, it could easily be said that what Murl Harpham knows about police work is what he learned working for the EPD. Nothing wrong in that, but we all know that there are more ways to run a business than just “the” way.  Over time people get entrenched and comfortable in “their” way of doing things and dealing with people. Notice his instructions to everyone: “If there are any problems with ... bring this to my attention via a letter or email and it will be dealt with immediately.” I have no doubt that what he says here is true. Experience requires, however, asking him how effective will he be in his dealings? He is demanding an awful lot of trust from everyone in this community in that what he says is what will be done. Letters and emails are extremely impersonal and disallow opportunity for any followup or accountability. The question remains, will putting our trust in him produce the meaningful change and accountability required of everyone to effect viable, legitimate protection and service?

In that regard, Murl Harpham says something quite revealing: “Fifty plus years ago the chief who hired me said, “You are here to serve all citizens and put the bad guys in jail.” That credo has continued throughout the years.” And there's a good reason that it has. I'm sure the decent, law-abiding citizens of Eureka and Humboldt County fully support that “credo.” I know my wife and I do since we are threatened by “bad guys and girls” on a daily basis just trying to back our car out of our garage.

My question, here however, is what does Murl Harpham really mean by “bad guys”? Fifty-four years ago everyone knew who “the bad guys” were. This is a fairly open-ended label that could apply to just about any police officer's bigotry and prejudice or fear of threat. He couches this issue when he explains or defines how the EPD will respond to “dangerous” people or “citizens in fear.” He says, “first an olive branch of peace is extended” and if that does not work, “they become tough.” He goes on to say: “ No one likes a tough cop until they need one, then they want the toughest cop around.” That statement says something about Murl Harpham and his method of policing. What does an "olive branch of peace" actually mean? What does "become tough" really mean? More important than physically “tough cops” are emotionally and psychologically tough people that are secure within themselves and in their legitimacy as a person and as equal citizens of the community they serve. Only then when they extend their “olive branch” can people accept it. Where in most cases eliminating the need or opportunity to get, become or show how “tough” they are.

Now to the reason I posted the picture in today's Times-Standard: Car runs stop sign, resulting in four-car collision. Murl Harpham asserts, and every citizen in Eureka needs to hold him accountable: “There are no politics with law enforcement. We simply preserve law and order, enforce the laws and protect and serve all the citizens of our town.” That means, at least to this writer, all the people in Eureka that deliberately “run stop signs” violate the law whether they cause wrecks, not collisions, or not.

Murl Harpham also says, and I believe probably the most important thing he said except giving out his telephone numbers, (441-4068 and 441-4095) : In their everyday job, “we do require your assistance as we can't do this alone. Law enforcement is every citizen's duty. Tell us where the problem areas are, and they will be dealt with forthwith.”

“EVERY CITIZEN'S DUTY.” -- "DEALT WITH FORTHWITH.”

For some years the citizens of “our town” were not satisfied with how they were being policed, so they tried a different approach. They voted in a different city council that was willing to hire a supervisor (Police Chief) with a different style of operating. Yet when push came to shove they were not willing to risk fully supporting him in implementing this “new” style of, as some say, “forward-thinking.” Consequently, without the actual, de facto support of the majority voters in Eureka and their Council, neither the Police Chief or the full compliment of officers possessed any authentic legitimacy. Without legitimacy the police officers, same as anyone else, must first protect themselves. Consequently, the citizenry gets the kind of “tough,” gang-type policing Jeffrey Schwartz identified in his Open Letter to the District Attorney.

“Every citizen's duty” is best expressed by simply obeying the law – STOP AT THE DAMNED STOP SIGN. And that includes EVERYONE, police officers as well. This is how you actually SUPPORT your police and legitimize their right to serve and protect. While Murl Harpham and the Eureka Police Department do not directly answer to the people, their very existence is derived from the consent of Eureka citizens. When Murl Harpham says they first offer an olive branch, everyone should realize this is what he's talking about, willing and immediate "consent." No law enforcement officer can tolerate being deligitimized, specially when he believes he's dealing with a "bad guy." The consequences for refusal or failure are obvious. At that point the enforcing officer becomes the law, and matters get personal.

When everyone is thumbing their noses at the law they are impugning the very right and legitimate existence of all those enforcing those laws. I believe Murl Harpham understands this simple reality and is the reason why he is asking everyone to give to the EPD what they were unwilling or incapable of giving to Garr Nielsen - meaningful or actual support.

“Every citizen's duty” from the Police Chief's point of view is to have everyone “tell them were the problem areas are.” Well, Chief of Police Murl Harpham, one BIG problem area is traffic enforcement. No one stops or even intends to stop at stops signs. It may seem like a small thing compared to a “bad guy” threatening someone with a gun. Well, those cars used by those “bad guys and girls” are just as lethal.

What do you see in that picture? What do you think all of those "children" are learning that watched this wreck unfold? Are they learning that the innocent victim, the one that trusted that their fellow motorists will NOT miss a stop sign, let alone RUN one deliberately? Are they learning that it is the innocent victim that always gets hurt or killed? Or are they being taught that people can freely cause a wreck, deliberately injure an innocent person and walk free - not get arrested, handcuffed and taken off to jail and made to answer for their physical assault and the personal damage they cause?

I hope that everyone in Eureka, if not Humboldt County, takes to heart Murl Harpham's offer.
--Joe

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Special Delivery for the Times-Standard

HEY! Newspaper Editor do you get it?

Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Times Standard,
Your cartoon by Milt Priggee on page A4 is a perversion that attacks the sensibilities of all free Americans and what is right and just in American Jurisprudence.

In America , everyone is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty in a COURT OF LAW - don't you know?

PS. Actually, the message of the cartoon IS  accurate and correct for a country ruled by men and NOT by law.

If you don't believe me read the My Word commentary printed just below that so-called cartoon by Jeffrey Schwartz: Search warrant folly: An open letter to Paul Gallegos.
Before a judge signs a search warrant, the judge requires that the DA sign off on the warrant with a statement that the DA believes there is probable cause to issue the warrant. Mr. Gallegos should not sign off on these warrants unless -- and until -- the law enforcement agent answers Mr. Gallegos' simple question: “What facts do you have that suggest the suspected marijuana is an unlawful grow.”
Where is the "law" and the "legal" protection afforded by the law entrusted to judges when a judge issues a search warrant totally upon the worthless opinions or beliefs, whether signed or not, "the DA believes there is probable cause" of some man or woman? What happens to the these judges and district attorneys when it is proven there was NO probable cause? Do they manufacture the "probable cause" after-the-fact?

According to Butler Shaffer "the establishment does not get it. Free individuals are withdrawing their consent to be ruled. And it is free people who create the social condition of liberty, not those who simply mouth bromides." Interesting audio where Lew Rockwell talks to Butler Shaffer on the difference between freedom and liberty, and how to be free regardless of the state.

"Withdrawing consent" -- STOP cooperating.

[UPDATE on Mr. Jeffrey Schwartz]
He lays out the actual reason Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen was fired, but misfires on who is actually responsible.
Gallegos' candid and public position on medical marijuana is a courageous stand where most of his statewide district attorney colleagues and the Humboldt County law enforcement community feel just about the opposite about medical marijuana. Of course, Gallegos' stand on what he thinks is right despite running into a freight train of ingrained Humboldt County backward politics and the fear of change that infects this county is one of the few bright spots that remain in Humboldt County politics after the November election. Think the firing of the forward-thinking Eureka Police Chief Gar Nielsen by the backward thinking David Tyson.
 "Backward thinking" won the war, but it wasn't backward thinking on David Tyson's fault. The previous city council knew full well the issues confronting Chief Garr Nielsen. Why then didn't the FIRE David Tyson when they had the chance? Did they think, (the operative question) that the "backward thinking" people in Humboldt County and in especially Eureka, that support the Humboldt County law enforcement community wouldn't give them the boot at the first opportunity?

And therein lies the rub, Mr. Schwartz' problem, right along with most everyone else that I know, is that the facts do not support his or their opinions about who actually terminated Garr Nielsen's job and who is actually responsible for issuing bogus search warrants that allows local police agencies to brutalize innocent people without any sort of accountability. In each case it is the peoples' demand to be governed by men rather than law. Free men and women that enforce personal integrity NEVER consent to be governed by such corrupt and lawless people.
--Joe

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Petition's Fiction

Petition's Fiction, read it and weep. Front-page, Sunday, July 3, 2011, Times-Standard newspaper: Petition to fire City Manager Tyson circulates in Eureka. - “Also calls for Garr Nielsen to be reinstated.”

These are the headlines posted under this picture, as captioned: City Council Member Linda Atkins helps hand out petitions calling for the termination of Eureka City Manager David Tyson and reinstatement of former Police Chief Garr Nielsen in Eureka on Saturday.

The headline at http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_18402201 is different: “Will you sign? Petitions circulate Eureka calling for the termination of Tyson, reinstatement of Nieslen”

These petitions are a joke. They do not address the real issues, moreover whats continually stated is a bald faced lie as supported and propagated by the Times-Standard's reporting. Then read what each actually said. There is a difference. These are the words of current City Councilman Lance Madsen and Mayor Frank Jager
Eureka Councilman Lance Madsen, who spent 13 years working for the EPD until leaving the department in 1986, voiced his support of Tyson's decision Saturday.

”I would not even contemplate asking him to resign,” Madsen said. “He (Tyson) works at the direction of the council. Four voting members of the council have affirmed his decision. One person who doesn't agree does not qualify as the entire council.”

Eureka Mayor Frank Jager echoed the sentiment.

”I think they are wasting their time,” Jager said. “The council supports Mr. Tyson. Their efforts would be better spent if they worked on the election next year, rather than circulate petitions to have Tyson removed.”
Actually, they would be “better served” if they worked on a petition to have these four members of the council and the mayor removed - recalled.

In truth, what is really going on is summed up in these words of this guy, Mike Rilla: “The petitions help get the stress out.” GET THE STRESS OUT? What a waste of time.

Moreover, he continues, as reported, along with Eureka businessman George Clark:
The pair believe the reason Tyson and the council members won't explain their decision to fire Nielsen is because the decision was made on personal grounds.

”People know something is going on,” Clark said. “The only answer is that this was a personal vendetta.
Since the City Council actually made and affirmed the decision to fire Nielsen, “the only answer,” according to their reasoning is that it was a “personal vendetta” and Tyson along with Asst. City Manager Mike Knight and Captain Murl Harpham got the pleasure of enforcing it.

Think for a minute how this works. In baseball a batter get a “hit,” “hits abase run” or hits a home run,” or the “batter hits the baseball out of the park.” Does the “batter” hit the baseball or does the “bat” he uses actually hit the ball? David Tyson explained exactly how it works. He's the bat and the City Council is the batter.
[Source]
--Joe

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Who REALLY Fired Garr Nielsen WITH Cause?

[UPDATE Below]
According to everything I read, including today's Times-Standard front page story dated Saturday, July 2, 2011, "Eureka council affirms Nielsen firing in 4-1 vote," it was Eureka City Manager David Tyson. According to reports, the Eureka City Council,  Marian Brady, Linda Atkins, Mike Newman, Melinda Ciarabellini, and Lance Madsen along with Mayor Frank Jager, presided over a closed door council meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 2011, where they "discussed" firing Garr Nielsen, but they didn't take a vote. Well, they sure voted yesterday July 1, 2011. That sure does look like the Eureka City Counsel fired Chief Nielsen, even though David Tyson may have authority to physically act, he does so at the council's good pleasure. And it's certainly obvious that getting rid of him was their good pleasure. The unanswered question remains, why?

The last time I looked none of the council members attained that station in life through birth. That means they serve at someone's good pleasure - that being the person or persons that gave them the authority to rule or govern the city. Ultimately, that "person or persons" are responsible and accountable for what the Eureka City Council does or fails to do, including the City Manager David Tyson.

Does anyone remember why Garr Nielsen was hired in the first place? Or for that matter, does anyone remember the nature and makeup of the City Council doing the hiring four years ago. Only Linda Atkins had a stake in, as a carryover from the previous council, to defend her and their actions over four years ago. Obviously, none of the newly elected council agreed with their decision and did what they had to do to get rid of him since he represented the thinking, management style and policies of the previous council.

My question is, if the people had such a great love for Garr Nielsen and his newly "people oriented" police department, why did the city of Eureka vote in this different breed of people that clearly supported the OLD STYLE of policing? Personally, I believe the answer is a little more pragmatic and personal and goes to the very heart of the driving philosophy of David Tyson and those that hired and supported him all these years - HIS everlasting legacy. A hint of those legacy effects is contained in the words Mary Beth Wolford expressed to the Times-Standard:
Mary Beth Wolford, who served on the Eureka City Council from 2002 to 2006, said she worked closely with Tyson during her tenure on the council and that he always made decisions based on the best interests of Eurekans. She said she's sure he did the same with Nielsen's firing. [Emphasis added]

”It's a difficult situation, but I know our city manager has acted wisely,” she said.
Notice the dates she was on the City Council, 2002 to 2006. Then there is this from Former City Councilman Mike Jones that said, "Tyson made the right decision." This is pure crap. Tyson never made "the decision." The City Council had already "made up their mind" AFTER the voters gave them the "go ahead." All Tyson did was implement their decision. All these voters are trying to do is insulate the people they put into office and justify their vote.

As it turns out, that legacy served him well when he was on his way out along with three high-ranking police officers. He played his hand, bluffed his retirement and came back stronger than ever with the new supportive council members, pushed through the new tax and consolidated the required change back to the way it was BEFORE Eureka learned its lesson.

Ask yourself, who is the new police chief right now? Any layoffs or early retirements scheduled for the future? Any changes that would allow a new chief to actually make lasting changes of any real consequence?
[Source]

[UPDATE :: Sunday, July 3, 2011]
If anyone has any doubts about the validity of what I said here, with regard to who really fired Police Chief Garr Nielsen, read for yourself what David Tyson says in his own words in today's Times-Standard:
Earlier in the week, Tyson defended himself against criticism over Nielsen's termination.

”I have confidence that I'm doing my job according to the rules and regulations in front of me,” Tyson said, adding that he works at the direction of the city council.

”I'm the council's CEO. They're the board of directors. They're not supposed to be managing the city every day,” Tyson said. “They hire a CEO in a city manager to do those things for them based on the city charter, the municipal code and their direction.” [Emphasis added]
Because of the closed door meeting prior to the firing where they admittedly discussed that issue and then their 4 to 1 vote affirming their decision, establishes the fact that David Tyson was merely the errand boy carrying out what the Council wanted.
--Joe