IT AIN’T LOOKING GOOD FOR THE BOYS IN BLUE!

 

 

Even the most strident SPD supporters have to shake their heads at this one.

Here is a link to my previous story regarding the infamous suddenly appearing “Notes”, remember I pointed out that any investigative reporter has to check the properties in the documents they receive from PRR responses to try and determine when the document was created.

Well here you go:

https://examplepro.me/2016/02/03/update-prr-notes-problems-and-the-independent-investigation/

 

So after you determine that there is a darn good chance these so called “Notes” were created recently rather than contemporaneous to the time all the various alleged naughty stuff was going on, the obvious next step is to determine if there ever were any notes (I’ve made some clients in my past life very happy when I discovered the truth about notes and what may or may not have happened to them.).

So what is the next step for the average investigative reporter… the image below shows you:

 

 

 

 

Now here is one thing to understand…all of what I have done and more would have been done by Mary Schultz or her Investigator prior to depositions and it appears like some cops may have some heavy explaining to do under oath. Notes have long been an issue with SPD…for some reason one second they are there the next second…they were destroyed…but that is a story for another day.

 

So what did I get from Teri Pfister? Exactly what I anticipated getting…nothing!

 

 

 

Here is the Deshais “Notes” story notice Schultz’s statement. It sure makes one wonder if someone got used.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/jan/29/notes-from-police-chief-frank-straubs-top-staff-sh/

__________________________________________________

Mary Schultz, Straub’s attorney, dismissed the notes as sour grapes.

“Lt. Walker’s personal log is a yearlong ‘mean girls’ diary. Whenever it was created, it certainly supports Frank Straub’s impression of him – and does so long before we get anywhere near any deposition phase,” Schultz said, referring to a likely lawsuit from Straub.

_________________________________________________

Deshais PRR

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/97ff7f40-0667-4502-af24-b9ceaf486452

 

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!

 

 

This story appeared in the Spokesman Review yesterday but really doesn’t tell us anything new regarding attempts by the Condon Administration to keep the facts surrounding the Cotton/Straub case from the public. In the end however it will give the Citizens of Spokane evidence as to whether or not the City Council’s “Independent Investigation” meets truth seeking standards.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/feb/09/city-attorneys-threaten-criminal-charges-if-spokan/

The story linked above is just a reiteration of this Inlander story:

http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2016/02/09/will-spokane-council-members-face-retribution-if-they-tell-the-whole-truth-about-straub

Poor Nancy Krier I’ve been bugging her too! 🙂

__________________________________________

Just as a heads up regarding Laura McAloon mentioned in the story and a look at her public statements from the SR story.

McAloon is longtime friend of Mayor Condon’s so her appointment to the committee by Condon was suspect to me from the beginning and it should have been to others.

_________________________________________________

“Laura McAloon, who was appointed to the committee by Condon, asked the committee’s other members if the investigation should move forward because it likely would uncover actions by city officials that would lead to lawsuits.”

_________________________________________________

 

Well of course she said that, don’t be silly, there isn’t a Condon supporter who wants this investigation to move forward and get the truth out, Condon’s political career would take a big hit and the coattail riders wouldn’t have anywhere to go.

 

___________________________________________________

 

“McAloon, an attorney, said she is on the committee “as a citizen” and as “part of my civic duty.” She said she was not providing legal advice to the city and would not speak about what was discussed by the joint committee.”

____________________________________

 

Ms. McAloon of course had to make this public comment because she may be treading on thin ice as far as the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers are concerned. It wouldn’t surprise me to see McAloon step down from the committee and her “Civic Duty” while at the same time claiming the “Independent Investigation” is a farce, or she could hold on wait tell the report comes out and do the same. If McAloon made the statements attributed to her to other members of the committee she should step down as her predisposition is obvious.

Let’s be perfectly clear…no matter what the “Independent Investigation” finds we will hear this same old tune one way or the other… “It was a political hit job.”

 

So how do we as Citizens know if the Independent Investigation is legit?

 

Pretty Simple really, all we have to do is see if the investigator used standard investigative practices to formulate questions under oath. A good investigator will go back and look at all the public statements made in the media by all the various players and ask direct and pointed questions of those individuals under oath. Because of all the media attention to this story the examples are endless but I’ll just use this SR story as an example.

 

Any investigator can easily figure out what the Condon administration is trying to do with this recently disclosed move. It is all about the private meeting that was held the day before Straub was canned and what was said during that meeting. Even a rookie could figure this one out.

__________________________________________________________

“if they disclose information from a private meeting among city leaders held the day before Police Chief Straub was fired – even if asked to testify to city committees charged with investigating potential mismanagement in Mayor David Condon’s administration.”

__________________________________________________________

The Mayor doesn’t want anyone to testify under oath that he and others in his administration didn’t tell the truth or the whole story about Straub’s firing and most assuredly about the Cotton/Straub issue which took place months earlier. So how does an investigator know that? It is simple. Remember the Cotton/Straub story was kept secret from everyone until the media including Nick Deshais and myself were tipped about it. The facts did not start to come out until after his PRR and my own. Months after the meeting as the true story started to come out Stuckart made this public statement about being lied to.

__________________________________________________________

“When public records were released in November showing that Condon, City Administrator Theresa Sanders and City Attorney Nancy Isserlis knew of accusations of sexual harassment against Straub months before he was forced out, Stuckart said he had been “lied to” by Sanders and Condon.”

__________________________________________________________

 

Formulating questions about what took place at the meeting the day prior to Straub’s firing is a piece of cake even if some of the individuals claim the communications were privileged and refuse to answer questions. I won’t let the entire cat out of the bag here, let’s see what the investigator does, But the very first thing she must establish is exactly who was present at the meeting and why they were asked to attend. She then has to ask if there was any communication prior to, after, or during the meeting and the type of communication, the answers, or non-answers to those questions establish the framework for further investigation.

 

So who does a good investigator interview first? The answer is right here!

_______________________________________________

“The email was also sent to Chris Wright, president of the park board; Andy Dunau, member of the park board; Rick Eichstaedt, executive director of the Center for Justice; Assistant City Attorney Mike Piccolo; and Isserlis.”

_______________________________________________

 

The very first thing an investigator notices is who was threatened by the City Attorney’s Office that was NOT employed, appointed, or elected to a position in City Government…why you might ask…it is simple and lawyers know the answer…well at least investigators do. Attorney-Client Privilege is waived when a third party is allowed to participate in conversations between clients and lawyers, so obviously you start with “Rick Eichstaedt the executive director of the Center for Justice”, and you begin with this groundwork.

• Mr Eichstaedt, are you employed, appointed, or elected, to any position with the City of Spokane?
• Did you attend a meeting of City Leaders the day prior to the termination of Frank Straub?
• Who invited you to the meeting?
• What was your role at the meeting?
• Were you asked to sign any type of confidentiality agreement?
• Did you take notes of the meeting?
• What type of communication was utilized to request your presence at the meeting?
• At any time during the meeting was the name Monique Cotton or Carly Cortright brought up?
• etcetera

 

Okay the above is SOP for investigators…we shall see what we get.

 

So how will we know if the Citizens are getting a legit “Independent Investigation?

 

That is another simple one, and it is something the City Council should be informing all of the players, the media, and the Citizens of what their intention is as far as transparency is concerned.

 

The Spokane City Charter empowers the City Council to hold public hearings and enforce the attendance of witnesses and documents, as well as take testimony under oath. Once the City Council receives the report from the Investigator if they find any unanswered questions and if they truly want transparency they must have a public hearing, take testimony under oath and let the public get the real story including the testimony under oath of the Mayor, City Administrator, and City Attorney. I wonder how many folks will take FIVE?

___________________________________________________

 

Section 117: Power to Subpoena Witnesses

The council shall have the power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and the production of all books, papers, documents, and files, and to administer oaths in all matters relating to the administration of City affairs or business.

____________________________________________________

 

In other news I received a response from Teri Pfister last evening that really casts doubt on the credibility of “notes” mentioned in this story which hopefully I will be able to report on later today.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/jan/29/notes-from-police-chief-frank-straubs-top-staff-sh/

 

I did not watch what has been described to me as a softball game between four people on KSPS last night do to other commitments so I have to catch up on that. I’m told that Mayor Condon was asked directly by Nick Deshais if he regretted anything during his last four years in office, Condon danced and went into the ongoing investigation non answer, and Deshais didn’t follow up with the obvious reporter question…” My question was Mr. Mayor do you regret anything during the last four years of your administration including the hiring of Frank Straub which you were warned against doing, an answer to the question Mr Mayor as to whether or not you now regret hiring Frank Straub has nothing to do with any ongoing investigation?”

I was also informed that Mayor Condon made an oblique reference to information first reported here regarding James McDevitt, and the fact that organizations provide experienced quality interim Police Chiefs for the same situation we are now in…but no matter how he wants to play it cronies are cronies. STAY TUNED and I’ll update this story.

UPDATE: I watched the KSPS “Talk to The City” show and my source was right on. More like “The City Talks to You”,4-5 questions from the public and NO pointed questions from the moderators they completely let the Mayor dance. Two things that came out of it were that as I reported the City Council did submit questions to Condon regarding McDevitt, and Condon came up with an after the fact phony excuse for not seeking a qualified Interim Police Chief from any of the various organizations that make them available, and which I reported here.

 

I should note that I have been informed that among my many followers are folks at City Hall including Mayor Condon and Brian Coddington, which is good, but it kind of skews my site visit data. The Mayor should probably talk to the new “Director of Law Enforcement”, if there is such a thing, and ask him what “Investigative Holdbacks” are. 🙂

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!

 UPDATE!!!

I would think by now that Mayor Condon has answered the questions presented to him by the City Council regarding the Jim McDevitt position. I hope the City Council will make his answers public so I don’t have to do yet another PRR. I’m willing to bet the Mayor will have said he can bypass the City Charter and everything else at any time to make a temporary crony appointment. Any bets?

___________________________________

I have learned from sources that the Spokane City Council has apparently been paying attention to my Blog as they will be confronting Mayor Condon with some of the questions I have brought up here. Unless the City Council puts the brakes on this very transparent move it will cost us and reform of the SPD BIG TIME.

 

Mayor Condon will be confronted with questions like these regarding his naming of McDevitt as Director of Law Enforcement.

 

1) State Law, RCW 35.21.333, establishes what is required of a Police Chief in a city with a population over 1,000 since Jim McDevitt does not meet the requirement to be a Chief of Police for Spokane what do we do if it takes longer than four months to hire a permanent Chief of Police?

_______________________________

RCW 35.21.333

Chief of police or marshal—Eligibility requirements.

(1) A person seeking appointment to the office of chief of police or marshal, of a city or town, including a code city, with a population in excess of one thousand, is ineligible unless that person:

(a) Is a citizen of the United States of America;

(b) Has obtained a high school diploma or high school equivalency certificate as provided in RCW 28B.50.536;

(c) Has not been convicted under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States of a felony;

(d) Has not been convicted of a gross misdemeanor or any crime involving moral turpitude within five years of the date of application;

(e) Has received at least a general discharge under honorable conditions from any branch of the armed services for any military service if the person was in the military service;

(f) Has completed at least two years of regular, uninterrupted, full-time commissioned law enforcement employment involving enforcement responsibilities with a government law enforcement agency; and

(g) The person has been certified as a regular and commissioned enforcement officer through compliance with this state’s basic training requirement or equivalency.

(2) A person seeking appointment to the office of chief of police or marshal, of a city or town, including a code city, with a population of one thousand or less, is ineligible unless that person conforms with the requirements of subsection (1) (a) through (e) of this section. A person so appointed as chief of police or marshal must successfully complete the state’s basic training requirement or equivalency within nine months after such appointment, unless an extension has been granted by the criminal justice training commission.

(3) A person seeking appointment to the office of chief of police or marshal shall provide a sworn statement under penalty of perjury to the appointing authority stating that the person meets the requirements of this section.

[2013 c 39 § 17; 1987 c 339 § 4.]

 

NOTES:

Intent—1987 c 339: “The intent of this act is to require certain qualifications for candidates for the office of chief of police or marshal, which position in whole or in part oversees law enforcement personnel or activities for a city or town.

The legislature finds that over the past century the field of law enforcement has become increasingly complex and many new techniques and resources have evolved both socially and technically. In addition the ever-changing requirements of law, both constitutional and statutory provisions protecting the individual and imposing responsibilities and legal liabilities of law enforcement officers and the government of which they represent, require an increased level of training and experience in the field of law enforcement.

The legislature, therefore finds that minimum requirements are reasonable and necessary to seek and hold the offices or office of chief of police or marshal, and that such requirements are in the public interest.” [1987 c 339 § 3.]

 

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.21.333

_____________________________________

 

2) Won’t it be necessary to also have an acting or interim Chief of Police along with the position you are creating?

 

3) How will this position fit into the organizational structure of the Police Division is there an organization chart available showing where this position will fit into the chain of command?

 

4) Since Spokane Municipal Code 03.10.010 requires the head of the Police Division to be a Police Chief, would we not be in violation of the Code or do you intend to request a change in the SMC?

_______________________________________________

Title 03 Administration and Personnel

Chapter 03.10 Police Division

Section 03.10.010 Police

1. The chief of police heads the police division and the police volunteer force, and regulates the extra-duty employment of officers in private security.
2. The police division is the primary law enforcement agency of the City with investigative, arrest and incidental powers over violations of federal, state and municipal laws, both criminal and traffic. In addition to patrol, surveillance, investigation and crime prevention education, division personnel perform administrative, communications, community relations, planning, records maintenance and training functions.
   1. The chief of the police division administers the Spokane police department and the police reserve force and has the authority to make rules and issue orders for the proper functioning of the division, consistent with law, council policy and the rules of the civil service commission.
   2. The commissioned members of the police division are, and have all the rights and authority conferred, by law, on law enforcement officers, peace officers and constables.
   3. Specifically, but without limitation, members of the police division have the duty and the power to investigate and arrest in connection with suspected violations of any law of the City, the State of Washington or the United States; to serve the process, writs and warrants of municipal court; and to enforce all orders issued in cases of emergency, including the establishment of cordon lines.
   4. Upon the retirement of a member of the police division, the mayor is authorized and is directed to deliver over to such retiring officer, to become the officer’s personal property, the pistol which, as a part of his service equipment, has been previously given over into the officer’s custody; that such pistol shall, by such delivery, be considered an added extra compensation for his services to the City and, upon such delivery, shall become the personal property of such officer. This provision shall have continuing effect from year to year, and shall be considered a part of each and every annual appropriation ordinance to be made hereafter.
   5. The division’s noncommissioned employees are in many cases classified as specialists by virtue of the City’s civil service classification system. Noncommissioned police employees are required to receive specialized training and certification from the State of Washington depending upon their assignments. They also work in shifts and are held to the same standards of on-duty conduct as commissioned police officers.

Date Passed: Monday, April 8, 2013

Effective Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013

ORD C34965 Section 1

_______________________________________

5) What authority will this position have will Jim McDevitt be able to hire and fire civil service and exempt police division employees?

6) Is there a specific job description for this position?

7) SMC 07.09.010 requires that any new positions created must be approved by council, is this new do you intend to bring this new Director position before the City Council?

_______________________________________

Title 07 Finance

Chapter 07.09 Intrafund Budget Transfers

Section 07.09.010 Permitted When

1. Intrafund budget transfers may be made during the current fiscal year by order of the mayor, or in the library fund by the library director, or in the park fund by the director of parks and recreation. Provided, however, that the following transfers shall be approved by ordinance passed by the vote of one more than the majority of all members of the city council:
   1. The creation or abolishment of employee positions, except for:
      1. classified employee positions which are created or abolished solely for the purpose of downgrading a specific position in order to hire at a lower level of the classification; or
      2. progressive promotions, certification advancements or position reclassifications of classified employees governed by civil service rules or bargaining unit contracts.
   2. The decrease, revocation or recall of all or any portion of the total appropriations provided for any one fund.
   3. All transfers from a budgeted line-item to a defunded line item as adopted by the City Council.
   4. Emergencies as specified in state law or City charter.
2. Provided, further, that the following transfers shall be approved by ordinance passed by a majority of all members of the city council:
   1. Changes to the wages, hours and conditions of employment of appointive employees.
   2. Adjustments to the salary or compensation of City officers, assistants and employees.
3. The city council shall approve any regulations implementing this section.

Date Passed: Thursday, February 19, 2015

Effective Date: Sunday, March 22, 2015

ORD C35227 Section 1

________________________________

 

As you all know I would have many, many more questions but this is a good start for the City Council!!

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!

The question in my mind is whether or not there are different standards applied by the Condon Administration when it comes to the investigation of, and placing on paid administrative leave, of City Employees. In the case of Lynden Smithson, a City Prosecutor and Brad Arleth a City Cop, at this point it appears there is. As we all know Arleth is and has been the subject an SPD Internal Investigation involving Furniture Gate, Smithson was placed on paid administrative leave for some type of involvement in a large scale widely publicized Federal Drug Case. Both are employees in the City of Spokane Criminal Justice System.

Many people including SPD Cops believe that the investigation of Arleth was a political hit job because he spoke up with the truth to Teresa Sanders about Mayor Condon’s failed and expensive Precinct Model, the brainchild of his crony and stupid hire Frank Straub. When the Internal Investigation of Arleth is released to the public we should get a better feel for whether that is true or not. Keep in mind that Interim Chief Rick Dobrow bailed out even though he many times expressed an interest in being the permanent Chief of Police, which I find quite interesting as it relates to Furniture Gate.

 

HERE IS THE UPDATE!

As Laurie Farnsworth promised I did get an email from her yesterday with records regarding the Smithson paid administrative leave. As anticipated every effort was made not to be transparent which is the cornerstone of the Condon Administration.

 

 

 

 

This link provides you with some heavily redacted emails Farnsworth provided. Transparency…???

 

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/cb0d6e6d-9e49-4876-8e07-9581dcabfd72

 

You won’t see any of this information in the Spokesman Review…the question is why? Perhaps they don’t think it is newsworthy…or there is some other reason. 🙂

I would update you on my Cotton/Straub PRR from back in September of 2015, but of course there is nothing to update you on…Oh Heck…maybe we will all forget…right? 🙂

I have developed more information from sources on the James McDevitt fiasco which I will report on later today…so stay tuned…it ain’t over folks!!

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!