As I mentioned before I was hoping to get this story out on Friday but was waiting for some folks to respond, they haven’t, so I’m forced to break this story into parts. I know there are folks interested in SPD’s Criminal Intelligence Unit, so hopefully I can get to it in PART TWO.

 

Thursday March 31^st, shortly after 1 PM this Reporter along with Rachel Alexander (I apologize for any previous misspellings of Rachel’s first name) from the Spokesman Review, and Mitch Ryals from the PNW Inlander had an opportunity to talk with and ask questions of Meidl and Lundgren.

I want to thank both Craig Meidl and Justin Lundgren for providing us the opportunity, I think it was healthy and a step in the right direction as far as transparency is concerned, and I was able to double and triple confirm many things, directly from them which I already knew, however because our time was limited I wasn’t able to get into some things I wanted to cover but we covered some interesting areas, and one of those areas appeared in Spokesman Review the same day, so I will start with it.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/mar/31/city-hall-investigation-into-handling-of-police-ch/

 

STRAUB/COTTON  

(Please keep in mind when you read this story that I am maintaining my holdbacks at this point)

You might recall that the issue of the Mayor being asked to invoke Garrity Statements was first reported right here at Buffalo Brian Breen. It took the Spokesman Review a long time to finally report it but at least they did.

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/12/now-what-will-the-mayor-do/

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/16/will-he-or-will-he-not/

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/29/mayor-condon-refuses-to-make-his-people-talk/

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/18/the-inlander-gets-it-the-spokesman-review-doesnt/

 

My understanding is we will be hearing from the City Council regarding this issue in the near future, possibly in a press conference.

During our Q & A with Meidl and Lundgren we learned from them, as the SR story states, that they were interviewed by Kris Cappel and according to Meidl and Lundgren those interviews were voluntary and not compelled. I found that interesting in that my information is, and apparently the SR received the same information, that there were some compelled statements taken from others prior to a change, and that change from compelled to voluntary came from City Hall.

You may recall that Interim Chief Rick Dobrow “retired” in early February 2016, and was replaced by long time Condon associate, big campaign contributor, and go to guy, Jim McDevitt. 

http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2016/02/05/interim-police-chief-rick-dobrow-to-retire-former-us-attorney-to-take-over

 

Dobrow of course is a key witness in the Cotton/Straub case. Dobrow made public statements regarding what he described as his “shoulder to shoulder” working relationship with Straub so his testimony is obviously critical and it will be interesting to see if in fact Dobrow was interviewed and whether or not he voluntarily cooperated or was compelled. Dobrow’s retirement date was March 1^st, 2016 so obviously in order to compel his testimony the investigator had to get to him prior to March 1^st, and only Mayor Condon could have compelled his testimony during that time frame.

 

Both Meidl and Lundgren made it clear they didn’t want to discuss the Cotton/Straub case, but we were able to establish some facts regarding the Cotton/Straub Investigation. During our interview Meidl, after a bit of congenial prodding, he said that in his current position he does have the authority to compel statements from any SPD Employee, he did however make it quite clear that he would not do that unless he was directed to do so by City Hall. We also discussed the fact that Jim McDevitt does not have the authority to compel statements because he does not have disciplinary authority.

Another thing we specifically established during the interview, and is widely known throughout SPD, is that Frank Straub is a lousy driver (we even joked about it), and on more than one occasion Straub did damage to his assigned police unit. The most recent damage discovered when two of Schwering’s people had to retrieve the City Vehicle when Straub was fired. This was in September of 2015, and my information is that when the vehicle was retrieved damage was noted that had been spray painted over to hide it, and the damage had to be repaired. We also established that Interim Chief Dobrow did at least one of the vehicle damage reports.

Yes, I know…you are saying to yourself… “What the hell does Straub’s lousy driving have to do with the Cotton/Straub case?” I’m sure that Rachel and Mitch were wondering the same thing. The fact is I couldn’t help myself…I think it must now be ingrained and I can’t get it out of my system.

The Cotton/Straub case if it gets to court, which I seriously doubt, will boil down to a question of “veracity” …who has the most? So if I were back in the saddle, so to speak, this is one of the many things I would be looking at regardless of who I was working for. If you have been following my Stories, you probably would have anticipated that with an opportunity like the Q & A we had… this “confused Jeremiah” would have found a way to get it in. 

Look at it this way, as Nick Deshais points out in his story regarding David McCabe’s statements to him; “He said that he and many other members don’t have much faith in the investigation, considering how a previous complaint from the association against Cotton was dismissed.” One of the complaints against Cotton that was dismissed by HR was this one:

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/c048acd2-a157-40d5-b734-2d03c4572563

 

When you read the IA Complaint above, you might notice that part of the complaint was that Monique Cotton made a false police report to “Brady Cop” Lydia Taylor regarding damage to her City Assigned Vehicle, so what happened to all of the cases involving Straub’s damaging City vehicles?

Some of you might still think I’m a “confused Jeremiah” but my guess is that both Mary Schultz, and Bob Dunn would disagree with you, or at least to some extent…but who knows for sure.

 

FURNITURE-GATE!

This was another one of the issues that both Meidl and Lundgren did not want to discuss, but we were able to establish a few things. Interim Chief Meidl did state that he was “given direction” by then Interim Chief Dobrow to file an IA Complaint against Arleth. We then had some discussion as to whether or not it was a “Direct Order”, after a little bit of back and forth Meidl indicated his interpretation was that he had no choice but to file the IA Complaint. We even joked a bit about my history on SPD of not always following orders.

As a bit of a side note and to set the record straight, one of the occasions I refused to follow a direct order was SPD’s first ever introduction to Garrity when I was ordered to provide a statement to an insurance adjuster doing the insurance companies independent investigation into a lawsuit against the City in which I was named. It ended up being kind of comical because ultimately once I got longtime family friend Carl Maxey involved, and he in turn got the City Council, and the City Manager involved I never gave a statement to the adjuster, was never disciplined, and as a matter of fact the last thing said to me was by my supervisor at the time, Lt. Jerry Hickman, when he jokingly said “We never should have sent you to IA School.”. That wasn’t the first time nor the last where I didn’t follow an illegal or improper order.

My point in all that is to answer a question I have been asked more than once, and that is; “If I were Meidl, would I have made the complaint?”. Knowing what I know about the case now and what Meidl surely knew… my answer is NO! I would have told Dobrow if he wanted a complaint made to make it himself or have Teresa Sanders do it. If there were any attempts to try and discipline me for refusing, it would have been a fun ride and I likely would have added to my savings account.

After reviewing the IA Case against Arleth, and drawing my own conclusions as to what it really involved, one of the questions I had for Meidl and Lundgren was what Standard of Proof SPD used to reach a “Sustained” findings in IA Cases. Their answer was that SPD uses a higher standard of proof than many law enforcement agencies who use the lower standard of “Preponderance of Evidence” which makes it easier to discipline Cops. SPD uses the “Clear and Convincing Evidence” standard.

 

I’m would think that both Rachel and Mitch were thinking to themselves…” He is a “confused Jeremiah!” when I asked that question…but allow me to explain.

 

Just so you understand, to the best of my knowledge, SPD has never documented in writing the standard they use for a “Sustained” complaint. The only time the standard has been mentioned, other than by Meidl and Lundgren in our Q & A, is in media stories and discipline appeals, in those media stories the individual interviewed stated that the standard was “Clear and Convincing Evidence”.

SPD purchases a boiler-plate Policy Manual, like many other Police Departments, from a company named Lexipol, LLC, and like other agencies they modify the boiler-plate to fit their needs.

For this story let us compare just two other agencies to SPD. If you want to do your own comparison of more agencies…it is easy to do.

In the Images below show how the Canton Ohio PD and Duluth Minnesota PD document their “Preponderance of Evidence Standard.

Canton PD

 

Duluth PD

 

Spokane PD

 

Dobrow Standard

 

 

I’m not sure what the “ample evidence standard” is…but it is the one Dobrow used in his decision to discipline Arleth.

 

Hopefully you can see my point. If, as Meidl and Lundgren stated, in order to “Sustain” Meidl’s complaint against Arleth it was necessary to have “Clear and Convincing Evidence” … where in the hell was it?

If you use the standard of “sufficient evidence” (whatever that is) documented in the SPD Policy Manual the question becomes was there “sufficient evidence” for a sustained allegation against Arleth…not by my standards there wasn’t.

So what is the “standard”? Are there different standards for different people? Since Arleth was not allowed to have his case reviewed by his peers (The Administrative Review Panel), what standard did Dobrow use to “Sustain” Meidl’s complaint? What standard did Heather Lowe us when she denied the appeal? Since Heather Lowe’s husband left the SPD after a very, very short time, was there a conflict of interest in her decision making process? Now that the decision regarding Arleth’s complaint, at this level at least, will be made by the individual who got the complaint started, Teresa Sanders, what standard will she use, and is there a conflict? Will Mayor Condon step in and do the RIGHT thing?

According to McCabe’s letter to McDevitt, which by the way I don’t understand because McDevitt is supposed to have absolutely NO involvement in disciplinary issues, he (McCabe) states the standard used by SPD is the “Clear and Convincing Standard” so since it isn’t documented that must be it…right?

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/916a0172-2e6b-42ba-b994-17956e83c1db

 

Included in the Furniture-gate aspect of the Q & A was my question to Justin Lundgren when I asked him why all of the IA Cases were removed from Schwering’s IA Website. Justin responded “I think you know!”. It is always good to know the answer to the questions you ask beforehand and I’m sure Justin anticipated I would ask, so he was kind of ready. Justin said that the IA cases were taken down because he was “reviewing” them. We finally did get to the crux of the matter, at least to a certain extent, when Justin took responsibility for not redacting Arleth’s personal phone numbers from the IA Report in violation of the Public Records Act. I will have more about the IA Cases being removed later in this story, but for now this is all I’m willing to give up regarding the now infamous “Furniture-gate”.

Ever wonder what standard SPD uses when a Citizen makes a complaint?

The real big question of course is how much more “Furniture-gate” will cost the taxpayers?

 

TIM SCHWERING FAILING THE CITY POLICE CIVIL SERVICE EXAM!

 

Meidl was asked directly whether or not there were morale issues as a result of Tim Schwering failing the City of Spokane Police Civil Service Exam yet being sent to the State Police Academy. Meidl said he had not heard any rumblings about that issue (I sure have!) and he went on to explain that Schwering did pass the Spokane County Sheriff Civil Service Exam, but did not pass the City Civil Service Police Exam which was specifically designed by the City of Spokane Civil Service Examiners Office to test our Police Officers. Meidl did tells us Schwering did pass a national exam test which is used by some departments. SPD recently started using the same one that the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office has used for a while…if you get my drift. J

 

https://www.publicsafetytesting.com/index.php/informationcenter/info/index/page/getting-started/

 

https://www.publicsafetytesting.com/agency/view/list/

 

https://www.publicsafetytesting.com/informationcenter/info/index/page/test-requirements-policesheriff-pst-policies/

 

Of course you can always do test preparation. 🙂

http://www.policequiz.com/

 

That question of course lead to discussion of the rumor that Tim Schwering is Mayor Condon’s actual choice for OUR new Chief of Police, Meidl even referred to Karen Stratton’s statement indicating a concern that Mayor Condon already had his person picked. We weren’t able to determine if Meidl and Lundgren actually know if the rumors are true or not regarding Schwering, however we didn’t press the issue. We did however specifically ask Meidl if he was going to apply for the Chief of Police spot, he denied that he was but if he were to be chosen by whomever became Chief he would be interested in being an Assistant Chief, if not he would revert back to his Civil Service Rank of Captain…things sometimes change though…so who knows for sure.

 

THE REASON SPD TOOK DOWN ALL OF THE IA CASES FROM THEIR WEBSITE!

As I mentioned earlier Justin Lundgren stated that the reason all of the IA Cases were taken down was because he was reviewing them. When I asked the question he was quick to respond “I think you know”. Well I’m sure Justin knew I was aware of Arleth’s personal information being made public, and even a cursory reading of my recent stories would have lead almost anyone to anticipate that would be a question I would ask…so I did. But in reality because I knew part of the reason they were taken down, I wanted to get the rest of the reason with follow-ups. So we talked about the various Public Records Act Violations that existed by making public personal information in the IA Reports as well as other documents SPD has released and have been made available to the public which included personal information like full names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and in a couple of cases social security numbers. One of my pet peeves, so yes I do have copies, and the image below of emails between Terry Pfister and myself will give you some indication that Arleth isn’t the only Cop that has complained about their personal information being made public.

IA 14-053, is of course the Lydia Taylor, Mell Taylor Steriod/Brady Cop case which contained personal information of the Taylor’s.

 

Heck we even talked about a time when Rachel posted an un-redacted SPD report she had received from SPD containing a lot of personal identifiers including the victim’s full name, DOB, address phone numbers, and even her social security number. After copying it, I called Rachel to give her a heads up and she took it down.

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/dec/27/lawsuit-alleges-assault-during-arrest-by-police/comments/

 

Some people might think it a bit strange that I would copy and maintain files on all the improper document releases made by SPD, but if you were in the criminal justice business as long as I was you know that sooner or later the issue will come to a head and someone will say you are full of BS in order to try and squirm out of their own mess…so it becomes a matter of SOP to be able to back your play with evidence…which I make a concerted effort to do.

 

After I asked the lead, I was hoping it wouldn’t, but things kind of went South. I asked Justin why the Taylor case was never posted on the website for the public to read, his answer was that it contained information from a Federal Agency. The problem with that answer is of course, that not only was the entire unredacted report released to several members of the media back in 2014 when the story was widely reported, but beyond that I had a copy and knew there is nothing in the report from the interviews of the Federal Agents that was necessary to redact, and if somemone felt it was necessary to redact, they could have easily done so. Another obvious problem is that IA 14-053 was indetified on the website as a case which was “Administratively Suspended” when nothing could be further from the truth, and some Citizen checking the IA Cases would think it was nothing to bother with.

___________________________

• Administratively Suspended – 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.)

___________________________

Justin said that when IA redacts a case they go through a check list provided them by the City Attorney’s Office, and they follow the check list. I’m sure both Justin and the City Attorney’s Office are hanging their hat on this RCW cite.

___________________________

Identity of Witnesses, Victims, and Persons Filing Complaints. The identity of witnesses, victims, and persons who file criminal or quasi-criminal complaints with agencies other than the Public Disclosure Commission if the complainant indicates at the time of filing the complaint that the complainant desires for it to be confidential, is exempt if disclosure would endanger a person’s life, property or physical safety. RCW 42.56.240(2).

_____________________________

And of course the problem, as I have mentioned before, is that little square box on the police report that cops never check, nor do they ask if the witness, or complainant wants their identity and personal information disclosed to the public or whether the victim is in fear that their life, property, or physical safety is in danger. Justin says they ask people but I think there are cases were that didn’t happen, or at least it sure wasn’t documented that it did.

Sometimes you just have to use common sense, even if the witness/victim didn’t expressly state they wanted non-disclosure redact it anyway to protect the witness victim from reprisal or identity theft and let the court decide if someone wants to push it. Doing that at least protects the City and SPD’s butt, as well as us tax payers.

I should note that in the Q & A referred to the IA website as Tim Schwerings website. Justin apparently didn’t appreciate that and when I pointed out that it had Schwerings name all over it…his response was “Well it isn’t his!” so I, in the interest of congeniality, quit referring to it that way. But someone else according to this letter seems to believe Schwering has something to do with records redactions.

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/362fb2db-abf2-4dd9-b974-6f830d808542

If you are wondering who Paul Zachary is, he is a PhD student at the University of California San Diego.

 

Just to give you an idea of what was on the website before everything was taken down here are just a few cases from my IA Joke/Weird Folder. Jokes because there are NO reports, or they are just kind of funny to me. If you read some of these it might make you wonder whether or not the folks from COPS/DOJ ever read what was on Schwering’s IA Website before they gave SPD plaudits for posting IA Cases for the Public to read.

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/2131c6e6-c693-4282-8eca-377f0966990d

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/3385f472-af07-4ae2-aee2-54763c139377

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/0b33928b-0f6f-4105-aca4-b936ba7feeaa

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/2946b0f0-87ca-4336-bcb2-ec4c387781dd

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/9e58b519-ee23-4ffe-bcd8-531638968fe8

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/a554d1c3-1bc2-43fc-92a5-7c5540c58ef7

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/c1126cb8-49cf-4eda-8bba-8d27ce9d87e7

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/b3301a32-6809-44e9-a6e7-a4a61c2674a2

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/1ff8a630-ee9f-4224-856b-6b395edec302

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/29b35270-bed2-4358-9b07-eaf268a8ee3a

 

There is actually quite a bit more about the problems SPD has with Tim Schwering’s IA website, and the redaction of SPD cases but what I have reported here should give you at least some idea of the mess they/we are in!

More to come!

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yesterday afternoon this Reporter, along with Rachel Alexander of the Spokesman Review and Mitch Ryals of the Inlander were able to sit down for a Q and A with Interim Chief Craig Meidl and now Major Justin Lundgren. We covered a lot of issues that I feel are very important for the public to know so I am in the process of writing a story covering the Q and A. I am just waiting for responses from other folks before I publish.

 

The timing of the Q and A couldn’t be better in light of the Story finally published today in the Spokesman Review.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/mar/31/city-hall-investigation-into-handling-of-police-ch/

 

It was kind of fun for me because it was the first time in the State of Washington where I was able to take my tape recorder put it on the desk and record the interview without asking permission. For folks that don’t know Reporters are able to do that because of this exception to Washington State Privacy Laws.

_________________________________

(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.

[1986 c 38 § 1; 1985 c 260 § 2; 1977 ex.s. c 363 § 1; 1967 ex.s. c 93 § 1.]

__________________________________

 

 

Another thing that was cool was that I got to see and talk with Justin Lundgren, who I like, and have known since he was a kid playing on a hockey team I coached. Justin’s dad was a Cop, and one of many Detectives I broke in when they made Detective so it was nice, as a matter of fact when I returned home and told my Direct Supervisor that Justin was present she was excited to hear how he was doing, and we talked about the good old days. It was also nice to hear from Justin that his dad is among the many Cops and former Cops that read my stories.

 

After the obligatory introductions, the explanation delivered by Chief Meidl of SPD’s intent to be transparent from now on, and his warning (For some reason apparently directed at me.) about the necessity for congeniality, we got on with it. Interim Chief Meidl apparently wasn’t aware that for over four decades’ congeniality has always played a primary role in any of my interviews.

After reviewing the interview recording…Yep…sure enough…I asked most of the questions, and perhaps should have laid off and let Rachael and Mitch get more of their questions in. However, I believe they did end up getting some of their questions answered, including some important ones.

 

Some of the topics we covered were:

1) The Furniture-gate Case.

2) The reason SPD has taken down public access to the IA Files.

3) The reason the Lydia Taylor steroid/Brady Cop case was never posted on the IA Website.

4) Garrity as it relates to the Cotton/Straub Investigation.

5) The SPD morale factor as it relates to Tim Schwering failing the City of Spokane Civil Service Exam for Police Officer and yet being sent to the State Police Academy by Mayor Condon.

6) The COPS/DOJ and Use of Force Commission Report.

7) The Criminal Intelligence Unit and the maintenance, auditing and oversight of Intelligence Files.

8) The ability of SPD to run “Parallel Administrative Investigations” as both COPS/DOJ and the Use of Force Commission recommended.

9) We even were able to establish that former Police Chief Frank Straub, apparently wasn’t a very good driver and damaged his assigned vehicle more than once. In one case the vehicle damage was investigated by Rick Dobrow.

 

AND LOTS MORE!

 

I’m hoping to get my story published later today, but it may be later depending upon how quickly some folks respond to me.

 

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

A good day for old news!!!!

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/may/11/city-of-spokane-rejects-police-captains-grievance-/

FURNITURE-GATE PART EIGHT… IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT???

 

This will be the last story, at this point, concerning FURNITURE-GATE. Because there are “moving parts” there may be more later however. One of those “moving parts” is that Arleth’s appeal is now sitting on Teresa Sanders desk awaiting her decision to make this RIGHT, or continue the threat to ALL cops not to buck the Condon Administration and their Cronies or there will be consequences.

 

If you read PART SEVEN of this Series, I don’t know how you or anyone else wouldn’t come to the conclusion that Tim Schwering’s Internal Affairs Investigations have NOT gotten any better since the Use of Force Commission Report, or for that matter the COPS/DOJ Report and Six Month Review.

 

PART SEVEN:

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/28/furniture-gate-part-seven-the-garrity-statements/

 

If you read PART SIX of this Series you would see that SPD is in the process of a “CLEAN-UP”, and that “CLEAN-UP” continues as I type. The CLEAN-UP however goes well beyond what I reported in PART SIX.

PART SIX:

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/26/furniture-gate-part-six-the-clean-up/

 

As I mentioned before, and many of you know, I have been railing for years about SPD’s continued violation of the Washington State Public Records Act. They have time and time again released personal information, including names, date of births, addresses, phone numbers, even Driver Licenses and Social Security Numbers to the Public. What is even worse is that they often released the personal information of people who made IA Complaints against Cops on Schwering’s Website.

 

As far as the “CLEAN-UP” is concerned my railing about it, even to the Spokesman Review, and the previous City Council did nothing to get it taken care of. My railing fell upon deaf ears. I have been criticized by some members of the Public for picking a Cop IA Case to demonstrate just how bad things are at SPD when I could have used any number of complaints made by Citizens against Cops, instead of Cop complaints against another Cop. The fact is…what the Cops get, in some cases, is the same thing a Citizen gets and this one was SO EASY. Guess what folks…it wasn’t my railing which was responsible for SPD starting the cleaning up of Schwering’s Website…nope…it was this Cop IA Case that got it started for you Private Citizens. Why?? you might ask. Pretty simple! When SPD released the Arleth IA case to the Public they DID NOT redact Arleth’s Personal Information, The Union complained, and now as you can see SPD is FINALLY in the process of trying to right all of their past wrongs…but it is far too late SPD…I have copies.

 

Part of the “CLEAN UP”, as I have noted, included getting rid of the notes Lundgren took when Arleth presented evidence to him which was never included in the IA File. If it were you as a Private Citizen, what would you think of that. Please keep this in mind as we continue.

LUNGREN’S INVESTIGATIVE FOCUS…WHY THE CHANGE???

 

Remember that this IA Investigation began on December 30^th, 2015 when Meidl at the direction of Dobrow went to Lundgen to male the complaint. Meidl’s complaint according to Lundgren’s report was two fold:

1) Arleth violated an order “contrary to the wishes of the Department and City Hall, specifically City Administrator Teresa Sanders.” (Get the drift?).

2) “Captain Artleth had expressed many concerns about moving the DTP to the Intermodal Facility and had spokane out in a meeting attended by the public against leaving the Peyton Building, according to Chief Dobrow.

 

 

The following day December 31^st, 2015 Lundgren starts his Investigatigation with a focus emails between the key players in this game with the exception of one, “BIG MOMMA” (Most of the Cop Climbers are afraid of “BIG MOMMA”).

 

 

 

Having some experience with the City of Spokane’s Enterprise Vault Storage System and the methodology used to search it I can pretty much guarantee you the bulk of the emails Lundgren received came from this request. I would also venture a guess that some of the emails Arleth presented during his Garrity statement which were ignored were also in this batch.

 

Something else that could be contained in this first batch is communication between Lukas, Simmons, and Knight that might demonstrate Lukas, or all of them, knew the NEW, PURCHASED, SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FURNITURE was all BS.

 

As you can see from Lundgren’s IA Report, he received the first email dump on 01/05/16. Fifteen days later Lundgren states in his report that he “needed to conduct a broader search”. The truth is that the second search he requested is not “broader”, actually it is NARROWER with the exception of extending the date to 09/01/2015. As you can see Lundgren’s search was narrowed to Arleth, Meidl, and Dobrow.

 

 

 

If Arleth ever decided to sue the City of Spokane, I can assure you one of the many, many questions Major Lundgren would be asked in his deposition is why he narrowed his “Investigative Focus” 15 days later and whether or not it was solely his decision as the “Independent IA Investigator”.

 

 

Lundgren’s report states that he received over 1800 email threads from his two requests and that “Some were not relevant to the investigation”

 

 

 

 

 

Lundgren makes clear in his report that of all of those email threads he only found two which were relevant to the investigation, he describes them as email string #1 and #2, which you can read for yourself.

Lundgren submitted his case file to OPO Bart Logue and Dobrow on 02/19/16, and even though Arleth had provided Lundgren, during Arleth’s Garrity Statement, with what sound to be relevant emails and would have been included in the ones Lundgren received from IT, Lundgren whether on his own or with some help decided the evidence Arleth provided was NOT relevant and it never appeared in the file. So even though Lundgren made notes when Arleth gave him the defense evidence…it wasn’t relevant???

 

If Arleth decided to sue the City, the Investigator for the Law Firm hired by Arleth would be going through all 1800 emails Lundgren “reviewed” and would be picking a bunch out that would be used in Lundgren’s deposition (Trust me I know, and it is a pain in the ass, but the money is good!).

 

At this point, I think I’ve pretty much filled in most of the blanks…. so let’s move on.

 

On Friday, February 19^th, 2016, Lundgren submits his case to Interim Ombudsman Bart Logue. I forgot to mention that Major Lundgren back when he was a Lieutenant was one of the individuals along with Dennis Hession who put Logue’s name forward to the OPOC (Long story another time).

 

TWO working days later on the morning of Wednesday, February 24^th,2016 at 9:30 AM Logue and Lundgren meet in person and discuss the Arleth case, after the discussion between the two on the same day at 6:44 PM Logue delivers his written “Certification” Lundgren.

I wonder what Bart Logue would have to say in a deposition about the conversation he had with Lundgren prior to his certification.

I wonder how an individual other than a Cop making an IA Complaint would feel if they knew the OPO went in and talked to the IA Investigator, made recommendations about the handling of the case prior to a certification, and then came up with this weird “Certification”?

 

 

 

 ATTENTION OMBUDSMAN LOGUE!

 

 

When you read Logue’s “Certification” you have to understand that Logue is a former Marine Corps Lt. Colonel and it takes them a while to learn what the world outside the Marine Corps and the UCMJ really is, so I’ll try and help him out.

 

Colonel Logue you document in your recommendation “1.”, and that would be a… “No shit sir!” … there isn’t any “substantive documents or statements” regarding Arleth’s “general attitude or demeanor about the move”.

Yes, Colonel you were right! Even though on 12/30/2015 it was part of Meidl’s complaint, and it was hit hard on by Lundgren in Meidl’s and Arleth’s Garrity Statements ZERO effort was made to Investigate it, and here is why it wasn’t. The list of witnesses, as you know, for Garrity Statements would have been:

Teresa Sanders

Ed Lukas

Scott Simmons

 

It should have been plain to you that they were OFF-LIMITS, to coin a military term. As a Civilian OPO part of your job try and establish the underling motive behind a complaint and determine whether or not it played a role in the complaint itself or the way the investigation may have been conducted, it doesn’t matter whether the complaint originates from a Citizen against a Cop, or a Cop against a Cop.

If you have a concern about underlying motives or any other aspect of an IA Case DO NOT Certify it. Submit in writing your questions to IA and ALWAYS get the answers in writing…in other words CYA, the need for CYA out here is much more important than it was in the Corps.

 

You are right again in your recommendation “2.”! She did say to “mark the furniture” and a statement should have been taken from her…but once again… obviously OFF-LIMITS.

 

Colonel you are WRONG in both “1. And 2.” when you state “it does not impact the charges of whether Captain Arleth disobeyed or was insubordinate between 12/23/15 and 12/30/15”.

Of course it does Colonel, and based upon your Certification documentation you were able to figure that out.

When you state “as Judy Knight was not in a position to provide an order to Captain Arleth.” It ain’t that way our here Colonel and Lundgren’s IA Report clearly delineates the “Chain of Command”; Teresa Sanders to Ed Lukas, Ed Lukas to Judy Knight…this entire gig was City Hall’s NOT SPD’s. So when Sanders granted supervisory authority to Lukas, and Lukas granted Knight her authority everyone from Dobrow on down were GRUNTS. So when Arleth followed Knight’s orders to mark and move he did.

 

Your 9:30 AM meeting with Lundgren obviously had the element of “Between The Four Corners Doctrine” which in essence means the only thing that counts is what is written inside the four corners of the document. The case you certified had more that the Four Corners of the charging document, there were lots of pages containing Four Corners, and just so you know the whole truth will never be between the Four Corners of ANY document you receive whether it be from Cops or Citizens, your job Sir is to go outside the Four Corners and get to the TRUTH. Just in case Arleth does sue or you are called to testify in an Arbitration Hearing you might want to have your notes from your morning conversation with Lundgren on February 24^th, 2015 at 9:30 AM handy.

Ever wonder why Lundgren pulled the Intermodal contracts, found that there never was any new, specifically designed furniture, and that entire aspect of the case ended. Does it make you wonder who ended it?

 

TIMELY? Can’t argue with that it went pretty quick, of course as you point out not all the witnesses were contacted. THOROUGH? You even noted in your recommendations it wasn’t. OBJECTIVE? Wow…just Wow!

 

LET’S TREAT EVERYONE THE SAME DON’T YOU THINK?

 

I would hope I have pointed out to the folks reading this what a JOKE this was, and it may end up a costly JOKE. As far as I’m concerned a real sloppy investigation. If you don’t believe me that this was sloppy just take a look at what I saved for last:

 

I must have been dreaming when I took a look at the Arleth IA Case File…because the record is clear between the Four Corners…FURNITURE-GATE…hasn’t even happened yet. So I’ll wait and take a look at the case when Arleth is scheduled to be Disobedient and Insubordinate on 12/29/2016!

 

I swear…I do not make this stuff up!!!

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have learned that Mayor Condon is refusing the City Council’s request to utilize the power he has to force OUR employees to talk to the City Council’s Investigator.

 

You might recall that news of the Council’s request was reported here on March 12^th,2016.

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/12/now-what-will-the-mayor-do/

 

I did a follow-up story on March 16^th, 2016.

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/16/will-he-or-will-he-not/

 

And again on March 18^th, 2016 after the Inlander ran their story.

http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2016/03/18/stuckart-asks-mayor-to-compel-participation-in-the-straub-investigation

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/18/the-inlander-gets-it-the-spokesman-review-doesnt/

 

It is somewhat fitting that Mayor Condon’s refusal has come to light now since I have just done stories covering the compelled statements, under Garrity vs New Jersey, of Cops in IA Cases.

Despite what may come from City Hall as an excuse not to invoke Garrity the facts are clear that he has the power to do so, and it is standard procedure all over the US for Cities, Towns, and Counties. Only in Spokane as the saying goes.

Can Condon’s choice be considered “Obstructionist”? Well sure it can! Does Condon’s decision establish a precedent for the City of Spokane? Hopefully only for his Administration. Should Mayor Condon force Erin Jacobson a key figure in the investigation to talk? Well of course he should.

It is important to keep in mind that the Investigation is not only looking into the conduct of City Employees but also Condon’s conduct as well. If the players involved are not forced to talk how will the truth come out?

Is it fair? I can tell you a lot of Cops don’t think it is, simply because Condon through his Chief of Police forces them to talk, but refuses to force the people close to him to talk. I haven’t talked to any Garbage Collectors, Secretaries, or Maintenance Folks, but I would assume they have the same feelings that Cops do, as the Mayor can force each and every City Employee to talk, if he wants to, and he has in the past.

 

So were all of Mayor Condon’s election promises of transparency, just that…election promises? Well…you be the Judge.

 

So what can the City Council do to overcome the obstruction? The answer is they are limited, and whatever move they make it will likely cost us more money. The City Council is relying on the subpoena power granted them by the City Charter to force OUR City Employees to talk. Will it work? I have my concerns (It ain’t my first rodeo) and here is why. The City Council has the power to issue what are referred to as Administrative or Non-Judicial Subpoenas. That means they aren’t signed by a Judge. So here is how the process works you serve the Administrative Subpoena on the person, or business, depending upon the situation, the person or business gives the subpoena to their Lawyer, the Lawyer calls the folks who issued the subpoena and says… “We ain’t going to comply!”. Then whomever issued the subpoena has to go before a Judge plead their case as to the validity of the subpoena and get a Judge to sign one. Then the person or business is again served with the Judicial Subpoena and must comply or possibly face contempt charges. What a hassle right?

There are a lot of billable hours that take place once the Judicial Subpoena is served, but what happens often in a case like this is the individual shows up with their Lawyer who has already advised them to stand on their Fifth Amendment Rights so they do. I don’t know about you folks but I would love to join George McGrath in the City Council Chambers and watch that scenario play out…the question is will it?

 

I think you can see how much more expedient, and cost-effective it would be if OUR Mayor simply did the right and honest thing…but this is Spokane after all!

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!