The grievance submitted to Director of Human Resources, Heather Lowe was turned down by Lowe, so Furniture-gate is right back where it started…with Teresa Sanders (Big Momma). Sanders will make a decision regarding the grievance, and depending on which way she decides we might be spending even more money on what is lies and kindergarten stuff originating from her office.



“The Lieutenants and Captains Association also submitted a grievance letter to Director of Human Resources, Heather Lowe.”


The Inlander continues to do their job of informing the public on all the shenanigans going on at City Hall while the Spokesman Review continues to protect their guy from any adverse publicity.



Interim Chief Meidl did respond to my follow-up pointed questions email and here it is. He even invited me for an interview which I’ll take him up on, as I have a lot more pointed questions I’d like answered.


Meidl to me 24 March 1

Meidl to me 24 March 2

Even though he didn’t answer my questions, he did give me some incomplete Organization Charts which leave out all those super-secret units.

Org Chart




I haven’t heard back…maybe Monday???  🙂 🙂

Me back to Meidl 24 Match






Continuation of Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four:



Today we return to the February 10th, 2016 twenty-minute statement of Interim Chief Craig Meidl.



When you review statements like these the crux of the issue usually surfaces early in the statement and in this case it quickly appears on page three of the transcription and is the FOURTH QESTION Major Lundgren asks Meidl that isn’t a background question.

You might think I’m taking things out of order here but I’m not, we will get to the rest, as I said the key to the issue generally shows up early in statements as it did in this case, and it is where you start to get to the truth.

Opinion question 1

Opinion Question 2


If you had read this IA Case from the beginning, and have a little experience, you would have been able to anticipate the “This guy ain’t a team player, and it is pissing me off!” questions would show up quickly in the statements simply by reading Major Lundgren’s report, and they did.

Lundgren report of Meidl Complaint


Even an inexperienced investigator knows, or at least should know, that when you are assigned a report or complaint the very first step is to establish as much as possible the motivation for the complaint as soon as possible, and try and access whether or not there are underlying issues that may have a bearing on the case you are investigating. This is true in any type of case, crimes against persons, property crimes, murders, rapes, and YES… IA Cases.


There was NO effort on Lundgren’s part documented in his IA Report that he made any effort to establish during his receipt of Meidl’s complaint on December 30th, 2015 exactly what the specifics of the complaint were, and what he and Dobrow wanted investigated.

Here are the basic questions which should have been asked of Meidl when he made the complaint against Arleth regarding what the issues really are:

1) You stated Chief Dobrow was “particularly” concerned that Arleth involved Reese and Stevens. Is that also your particular concern and is that a part of YOUR complaint?

2) When you accuse Arleth of “carrying out an order contrary to the WISHES of the Department and City Hall, SPECIFICALLY City Administrator Teresa Sanders.” what do you mean by “WISHES”, and did Teresa Sanders issue a direct order to Chief Dobrow or you?

3) You make it clear that Arleth has expressed many concerns about the move, and that he, according to what you were told by Dobrow, spoke out at a public meeting against the move. Are you making a complaint that Arleth violated the SCOTUS standards established for public employee’s free speech rights, including the most recent Lane v Franks case?


According to the Garrity warnings at some point Lundgren apparently narrowed the complaint to this:

Garrity Complaint Language


I would have had several others of course but those would have been the very basic questions. One of the important things to understand about a compelled statement under Garrity is that there are limitations to the questions the investigator can ask during the course of the statement so you have to be prepared and make sure you don’t cross the line when taking the statement and establishing exactly what the complaint entails is of paramount importance. As you can see from the above image the Garrity warning does NOT include any reference to the “public employee free speech issue”.

As any IA Investigator would know the questions asked during a Garrity Statement MUST be questions that are specifically, directly, and narrowly related to his or her official duties. Because Major Lundgren didn’t prepare for the inevitable it was thrown in his face when he took Arleth’s Garrity statement, which we will cover in that part of this series. I will note here however as far as throwing it in Lundgren’s face is concerned, I wouldn’t have been so nice about it.


As I mentioned previously I have been having a hard time getting through this series of stories because I continually find myself breaking out in laughter. Here we have Interim Chief Meidl apparently complaining about a public employee’s free speech rights, when one of the BIG defense of his participation of the organized infamous “Salute” was that it was their “free speech right”.


I’m not going to go into the non-seneschal evidence Meidl provided in support of his complaint you can read it and decide for yourself.



At this point in the story I want to update you on the response I received today from Interim Chief Craig Meidl in response to this email I sent yesterday:

Me to Fuller and Meidl


Today I received this response to my email from Interim Chief Craig Meidl (I understand some prodding may have taken place). It was nice to see the response directly from Meidl, even though it could mean I’m still off of Officer Fuller’s Christmas Card List:


Meidl to me today




When an Investigative Reporter gets an email like Interim Chief Meidl’s…you just have to ask those “pointed questions” …so I did…and I’m hoping to get some answers:

Me back to Meidl



That is, it for today folks there are other things coming to light on “Furniture-gate”, you need to know so stay tuned!






Continuation of Part One, Part Two, and Part Three:


As I mentioned previously, I’m still confused about now “Major Justin Lundgren” being promoted from “Lieutenant Justin Lundgren”. As for as I know Justin Lundgren was never a Captain so I’m curious as to whether or not SPD is going back to the Kirkpatrick era where SPD had “Majors”, or whether this is a NEW exempt position that has been created.


I will see what I can find out, but as my readers know Public Information Officer Teresa Fuller, hasn’t been very cooperative with me and refuses to respond to my emails seeking answers to simple questions.


Email Fuller, Meidl, CC



I think the email interaction between the players in this case has pretty well been covered in previous stories, and you certainly should draw your own conclusions regarding whether or not Furiture-gate is the product of the “self-serving, cowardice, fear of demotion, want to be somebody attitude of Police Leadership again gets in the way of what is right and best.” I described in my first story lead in.


While you are drawing your own conclusions you might want to consider this section of the Spokane Police Department Policy Manual.


SPD Policy



So we now move on to “The IA Investigation”, and today cover the recorded statement of Interim Chief Miedl.


The best place to start is almost always with “Who Pitched The Bitch!”


According to Interim Chief Meidl it was “I da Little Boss”, “Who Pitched The Bitch!” on the day the move was taking place.


Who Pitched the Bitch 1





The images above demonstrate what I always refer to as “Oh shit…I better cover my ass better or the investigator forgot to ask something statement additions.” You see them all the time, and there is nothing wrong with them as long as they are handled properly.


If you were doing Deposition Prep the obvious questions for both Meidl and Lundgren would be; “What did you talk about during the one minute the recorder was off and who was the answer to this question important to?”

“Assistant Chief, how did you first become aware of this complaint?”


The question of course should have been asked during the intial statement but wasn’t. The problem as I see it is once Meidl answered the question it opened the door to a line of questioning that never took place. For example:

1) Then if I’m understanding you correctly Chief you are stating that this “complaint” the one I am investigating was actually the “complaint of Judy Knight?

(*The honest answer to that question would have to be “Yes” based on what Meidl stated.)

2) If I understand correctly Chief you received Knight’s complaint on the day of the move about “mid-morning”?


3) By “mid-morning” December 29th,2015 the furniture from the DTP had been moved to the Intermodal, is that correct?


4) You characterize Knights call to you as “a courtesy” to let you know the furniture had been moved into the Intermodal. So just to be clear was Ms. Knight’s call to you “a courtesy call” or a “complaint”?

( Who knows what the answer would be, but lets assume since he said it was “a courtesy” call he would stick with that.)

5) So once you received the “courtesy call” from Knight you went directly to Chief Dobrow to inform him that the furniture had been moved and had a discussion with Chief Dobrow?


6) Can you tell me when, and where that discussion took place and exactly what was discussed?

( Who knows…how Meidl might answer that one)


7) To be clear after you met with Dobrow you chose to determine if the information you received from Knight was “one hundred percent accurate” you chose to call Lt. Bart Stevens into your office and question him regarding the furniture?


8) Why did you elect to bypass the Chain of Command and contact Lt. Bart Stevens to obtain “one hundred percent accurate” information?


Well any way… you can see that honest answers to honest questions can in most cases shed light on a lot of things. The responsibility of an IA Investigator is to gather the facts and try and get to the truth, no matter who’s feet might get stepped on.


According to Major Lundgren’s IA Report Meidl came to him on 12/30/15 “at the direction of Chief Dobrow”. What that means of course isn’t clear, because it isn’t pursued but it does give us a demonstartion of the FAST time line to IA Complaint in this case. December 29th, 2015, the day of the move to the next day December 30th, 2015…is pretty darn quick in cop time.

Lundgren Report


As for “at the direction of” that is Cop Vernacular for the following two basic meanings depending on the circumstances and it always has to be clarified. There are other meanings but these are primary.

It could mean:

1) We discussed it add he gave me some direction but left it up to me.

2) The Bad Boy gave me a direct order so I had no choice.




I had intended to go into more depth regarding the Meidl statement but some folks requested I get this out today…so here it is, and there will be much more to follow. When I took this job I didn’t know my readers were going to be assigning my deadlines! 🙂





I just give my readers what the CITY and SPD gives me!!!


Redact 1


As an update: The mysterious case of Mell and Lydia Taylor (IA 14-053), even today remains as “A complaint that is closed because the investigation is unable to proceed any further at a point prior to the review process (i.e. Involved officer quits/retires, complainant does not cooperate with the process, complaint involves the elements of a crime that is in the process of prosecution, etc.)” We all know that isn’t true Tim Schwering!

Schwering 1


Schwering 3

Schwering 2