What Bodes Well for Eureka?

On Thursday, September 12, 2013, the Times-Standard announced to everyone that City Manager Bill Panos had hired San Diego Police Department Captain Andrew G. Mills and "plans to put him before the City Council for confirmation and is expected to take over the force". -("Next Eureka police chief announced") And that after a former Eureka police officer Mike Johnson, Panos' original choice "withdrew from the process" "sharply critical of Panos".

THEN...

On Saturday, September 14, 2013, the Times-Standard Headline says:  Eureka city manager accepts post in Wyoming.

Another worthy note of interest, Mayor Frank Jager says, among other gushing accolades, "Mills is an outstanding candidate." Considering the City Council's record on hiring City Mangers, I wouldn't put much trust in Jager's opinions and judgments.  Nor would I put much trust in Panos' judgments either.

Selecting Mike Johnson, with his record, was an insult to everyone that came forward requesting a different kind of police department as currently enforced by Murl Harpham and his so-call "tough cops." That fact alone puts Murl Harpham's unmistakable stamp on who becomes Eureka's future police chief. When you consider the history, it's obvious he's the primary reason Garr Nielsen was run off the way he was. Now he's having a major input in the selection of this new guy. ('We are one Body" - Times-Standard, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2013) Panos comes into Eureka, via the current City Council, does his dirty work and is allowed to leave sooner than - his contract says, later.

Does Andy Mills as Eureka's new police chief bode well for this town? Considering how he was hired and the City Council's facilitation of Bill Pano's quick  exit, one wonders. Did the local voices in all those so-called special town meetings for input on the new chief result in anything more than a stall for Murl Harpham to protect and reintrench his legacy? I think not.

Notice what Mills says after speaking about all the people he plans on listening to, specially the cops, before implementing any plans.

"Mills said there will be one thing that's “non-negotiable” in this process."

”We will treat people with respect, and that's both directions -- the police to the public and the public to the police,” he said. “We are one body.”

Respect is something that is earned - not demanded or dictated. I think we all know what that means, code for "keep your trap shut," "speak when spoken to," and "do what your told."

If the portend new police chief wants the community's respect then he can live and operate within the law. He can earn that respect by example as demonstrated by him and his police force by what they do, not by what they say.

One last point, I take exception to his affirmation that the Eureka community, (as he says the "people" and "the public,") and "the police" are "one body." The Eureka community and its government are one body. The Eureka voting citizens are the body, and they elect their representative governmental representatives, the City Council. It is proven that they, the voting citizens have no direct say in who is the police chief or who are it's police officers. That body's police department, including it's police chief, is it's (the body's) billy club used to enforce it's laws - it's will. The police are nothing more than a tool brought to bear on the general public by that community's elected representatives.

So, does Andy Mills as Eureka's new police chief bode well for this town? I guess we'll all find out.

-Joe

UPDATE – The Essence of Anarchy

When laws are not enforced there is no law – So says retired Eureka resident Thomas Hannah.

Actually, when laws are NOT enforced, law enforcement, codifies a new law neutralizing, invalidating or removing the old law. Example: Failure to enforce stop sign law. This is law enforcements defacto codifying a new law removing the old requirement to STOP. Consequently, no one actually stops at supposedly controlled intersections or, for that matter, even slows down enough in preparation to stop as required in an intersection WITHOUT stop signs. Law enforcement by their defacto actions mandates the state of anarchy.

When law enforcement is left to the personal discretion of the policing officer or court, law in and of itself ceases to exist as these individuals become the defacto law. In this regard, Thomas Hannah is right. Legitimate authority and right to enforce law ceases to emanate or derive its power from its justifiable base, citizen consensus and consent, and rests upon or is motivated by the “tough cop” authority, mentality and attitude.

Furthermore, the seriousness of such lawless conduct, when people deliberately, with full intent to violate the law, whatever consequence result are deliberate and with malice.

A read of Thomas Hannah's long-winded and perfunctory My Word commentary asks “what Eureka's elected and appointed executives officials are doing to protect the property owners and voters from the hazards ... Who is really looking out for the interest of the residents in the city of Eureka?” He continues: “During recent years, I have been troubled by the growing tendency to mitigate or find exceptions to laws, ordinances and regulations by our city officials. Responsible enforcement is the duty of every elected and appointed official. When laws and their counterparts are not enforced, there is no law.”

Herein lies the answer as to why everyone seems to think they have a choice as to whether or not to comply. His use of the word “duty.” Elected and appointed officials are legally obligated to enforce the law and their sworn oath. Failure to do so violates their legitimate right to hold that office or position. The only way they can justify retaining their elected position or other office is by getting the people, to a certain extent using coercion, threats and force to go along with their lawless conduct. In effect, codifying their lawlessness.

In the Eureka City Council's case they think to bribe Eureka citizens with: Council courts public input on hiring new police chief – "City to hold pair of public forums, poll residents online."

They hope to mitigate their actions and they say as much, for firing police Chief Garr Neilsen without cause. When they go ahead and hire the kind of person they want, they can hide behind their fig leaf of some sort of independent “public forums.” Wishful thinking at this point: “That might be a way to heal some of the huge rifts in the community.” I wonder how they plan to heal this rift: Mayor Frank Jager seems to think: “”We've got the police department right now in the able hands of Mr. (Interim Chief Murl) Harpham, and I think it would behoove us not to rush this,” Mayor Frank Jager said.”

Thomas Hannah shows that there is more of a problem than just wanton failure to stop. He may try to hold the elected officials, in particular the Eureka City Council, accountable for their chicanery, but I see it as everyone's responsibility. Everyone is obligated to obey the law and as a consequence, enforce the law. When everyone practices anarchy, their elected representatives, as anarchists, shall enforce anarchy.

--Joe

The Supreme (City) Council Speaks War

Yeah! That's right. They went on record about the firing of Eureka City Police Chief Garr Nielsen. Remember, the facts are in what people do -- NOT what they say. In a working Democracy people select representatives to REPRESENT them. That means the voting public needs to see exactly what their representatives are doing, since they ostensibly work for the people and the people's best interests. That requires an open and transparent process. To aid in that responsibility we have a (supposedly) free and unbiased press.

The latest Times-Standard report Friday, July 1, 2011, demonstrates and defines the attitude of a representative that works for himself and is not answerable to anyone. Notice what Mayor Frank Jager said to Thadeus Greenson in the front page article "Eureka calls special meeting on Nielsen."

Mayor Frank Jager, who called the meeting, declined to specify why he wanted the matter to be addressed at a special meeting today rather than at Tuesday's regularly scheduled council meeting.

”(There are) a number of reasons, but I just don't want to discuss it with you right now,” Jager said when contacted by a Times-Standard reporter late Thursday afternoon. “I'm not interested in fighting this battle in the newspapers. You do what you do, we'll do what we have to do. Other than that, that's all I'm going to say.”

"Not interested in fighting this battle in the newspapers," he says. What "battle" exactly is he talking about? He says he has "a number of reasons." Well, then, tell the paper, lay out his "reasons" so everyone can see what and why he's doing the things he's doing. Then ALL of us can make up our own minds if his reasons are valid or if he's just being an insulting, worthless representative skulking around in the dark.

This sounds exactly like a declaration of war: "You do what you do, we'll do what we have to do."

Considering the tone of today's editorial, this is certainly NOT a "war" anyone at the Times-Standard has any backbone for fighting. The Editorial concludes by saying:

While the actual decision to fire Nielsen was made by City Manager David Tyson -- which is part of his authority -- it was done so after consulting with council members in a closed session meeting last week.

The decision may have already been made and the council majority is unlikely to be swayed by public comment, but they still have a responsibility to listen to their constituents -- whether it's pleasant or not.

So, while David Tyson did the actual firing, it was the City Council's decision. ULTIMATELY the City Council speaks and votes by what they do. That's their irrefutable record.

"Responsibility to listen"? What kind of nonsense is this? If the decisions already made, the council made up their minds and acted totally out of sight of "their constituents," then what's the point of trying to talk to them? It is demeaning and a total waste of time and energy. Jager set down the City Council's rule: "You do what you do, we'll do what we have to do."

Accept their dictates, it's nothing about "talking" or "listening," and act accordingly.

If you think the city (YOU) are going to get a pass on this "war," think again. Interim Police Chief Murl Harpham is already on record stating that he's making changes. Be interesting to know what they are.
[Source]

--Joe