In reviewing the press coverage of and making a cursory review of the available replay concerning “The Meidl Show” as far as press coverage is concerned this Inlander story stood out to me for a number of reasons, but primarily because it demonstrates some of the things I addressed in my story yesterday. I would NOT disagree that the questions listed were very good questions, but I would disagree in some respects with the rankings.
I think it is important to keep in mind that the issues regarding the Zehm Case, The Salute, The Facebook Postings are mostly ancillary to the real question, which is… Does Craig Meidl have what it takes to lead the SPD? In order to determine whether he does or not the City Council and Citizens must assess his leadership history past and present.
I personally would have moved question number “8.” to the number “1.” position. The reason I would move it to the top isn’t because it was posed by Rick Eichstaedt, the Center for Justice lawyer I have obliquely mentioned in previous stories, or the fact that Rick tried to sneak in two questions instead of the ONE he was allotted while suffering the wrath, as many did, of Moderator (Not Facilitator) Rev. Canon Karen Schomburg while she held up one finger, emphasized the one question rule, and told Meidl to only answer the first question. No… not for those reasons but because the questions posed go directly to the problems facing the City of Spokane and the Spokane Police Department. There is NO legitimate independent oversight of SPD, and Meidl’s position in establishing legitimate is very telling.
This excerpt from the Inlander story although just a paraphrase of Meidl’s answer says it all. The paraphrased answer alone is 86 words Meidl used a lot more when he could have simply answered with a “NO” as his long answer clearly demonstrates.
- Do you believe the police ombudsman needs more authority to conduct investigations? Are you willing to pressure the administration to do that and will you include the community in efforts? Meidl: I don’t get the sense, from my conversation with (Bart) Logue, the ombudsman, that he needs more authority. He’s authorized to send back a case he doesn’t agree with, and can sit in on internal affairs interviews and ask questions that the investigator doesn’t ask. My sense is that he can get the information he wants by compelling the department to re-interview and ask questions that he feels did not address the issues, or he can compel them to interview other people that IA did not interview. My sense is that he actually has a fair amount of ability to compel interviews and questions.
Based upon Meidl’s NO answer to Eichstaedt’s first question the truthful answer to the second unanswered question would have to also be a long winded placating NO.
Most folks are not familiar with Meidl’s conflicts with the OPO while he was a lieutenant in IA. His statements here might give you some clue.
“If he wants that authority, he’s going to have to get the ordinance changed,” Meidl said. “It’s the law, and we’re all expected to uphold the law, whether it’s labor law or criminal law.”
As someone who has considerable background in Garrity Issues I can tell you that this statement is for lack of a better terms…. JUST PLAIN SILLY!
“My sense is that he actually has a fair amount of ability to compel interviews and questions.”