Friday, January 18, 2008

Police Chief

There is an expanded story in today's Tribune on Reinhold's firing. Rumors are flying, as usual around here. We'll get you more facts as we can confirm them.

And there are other pressing issues to explore; the council's continued attempts to disband our fire department, the council's decision about who be awarded the contract for a town prosecutor (a job clearly assigned to the mayor). Explore the older postings to hear more. Life in our small town continues...
Posted by at
Labels: ,

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

No doubt the TACOMA CABAL would like the Mayor to resign so they could appoint Dan Albertson. But this is the second meeting in a row where Albertson has usurped the power of the Mayor without any justification. They are definitely getting thin skinned so let's increase the pressure.

January 18, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...

Dear Editor of Ruston Home,

I can appreciate what you are trying to do with the inception of your Ruston Home blog page but I think you need to rewrite your “Why we do what we do….” statement at the bottom of the page. You say that “information should be factual, timely and unbiased”. All good things. Then add that that you “hope to create a safe place where both factual information and varied opinions can be aired.”

I am having a hard time figuring out how you can have a factual opinion that is unbiased. By having read most if not all of the entries in the Ruston Home it seems impossible.

Do you really think the various comments, mostly from you, are factual and unbiased? I understand that this is your answer to the Ruston Connection of which I am not a big fan due to the sometimes biased nature of their reporting. But what I have read on these blog pages since it’s inception a short while ago are filled with more hate, bias and contempt than anything that has been printed in the Ruston Connection since it’s inception.

Do you really believe that you have done a good job of monitoring the comments for civility and accuracy as you state at the bottom of the page? When I read this one from bronto suggesting to “increase the pressure” I had had enough.

Come on Ruston Home, take the high road. We all know there we won’t run in to a traffic jam.
Patti

January 18, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...

Hi Patti,

First, for the record, I am not the author of this blog. But I saw your comments and wanted to respond.

I'm not sure where you're reading "hate" and "bias" here. I'm a bit concerned that you think that opinions that are in opposition to the council or the Ruston Connection group amount to hate and bias.

But in this forum, everybody is permitted and welcome to participate. The Ruston Connection folks shut down anything that is other than their own way of thinking.

Numerous people have had their membership to that site canceled after expressing opposition to their goals. Kind of gets you thinking about some nice places like Cuba, China, and the old Soviet Union. So which forum do you think is taking the high road?

One thing you may be correct about is the feeling of contempt. The Ruston Connection renegades that currently sit on our town council have made clear their intent to destroy the town. But they refuse to provide open, honest, and straight-forward answers about why.

They've told residents that they are unsafe because of inadequate fire department training and responses. Those are outright lies. How could you hold the RC group in anything but utter contempt?

During their campaigns, they complained about secret executive sessions. What a ridiculous argument. Executive sessions, by their very nature, are supposed to be secret. The law controls the content of those sessions.

The RC council members may not violate the letter of the open meetings act, but there is ample evidence that they are plotting their course in secret just the same. Did this come to mind by the way they instantaneously appointed Mr. Albertson to the council when Mr. Pudlo resigned? There was no discussion at all.

These are not honorable people. They are out to destroy our town and the fight is on. It just happens that this is a forum where people who love Ruston have come together with a common goal to defend the town.

As for opinions, well - informed people are going to have opinions. News reports try to maintain they don't have opinions but it comes out in their reporting, or sometimes the lack of reporting. Most of the time, we learn about their lack of reporting through blogs.

Blog authors are, by nature of their hobbies, informed people and they're going to have opinions.

I don't think you can point to much where the author of this blog has written opinions into her postings but sometimes she'll post a comment, which is most definitely a place for opinions.

The author is much more diplomatic than I. Hopefully she'll reply to you to explain her thinking on your comments.

You posted a rather lengthy comment that has nothing to do with the posting to which you attached. Perhaps a better approach would have been for you to e-mail the author.

Just the same, I would bet that your critique will stand in exactly the place you put it -- unedited and out there for all the world (literally) to see.

There's nothing to hide here. When we organize our opposition to the council, we talk about it here -- in the open -- for all the world to see -- we announce our intentions and the reasons for them. Everybody is welcome to participate, including those with opposing thoughts. Nobody is shut out.

Now that, my friend, is the high road.

Thanks for listening.

January 18, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...

Dear Patti,

Thank you for your comment. In the tag line you reference, we state: "We hope to provide an alternative method for communication in Ruston and keep you up to date on issues facing our Town. Ruston is only as strong as its informed citizenry. Information should be factual, timely and unbiased ~ and opinions should be many. We hope to help create a safe place where both factual information and varied opinions can be aired."

I can appreciate your concern about the strength of some of the opinions that are written here. I am sometimes uncomfortable with some of the comments, too. But it is more important to me that people are allowed to express themselves openly than to moderate that expression provided it meets the definition of civil and accurate given below.

This forum is not intended to an unbiased news outlet, unlike what the Ruston Connection has claimed in the past. It is a blog with many opinions and timely information. When I have posted my opinion, I’ve labeled it as such. I encourage everyone to get input from many sources, including the Ruston Connection.

I don’t think it’s fair to expect a blog would not express opinion. Nor does expressing contempt or frustration equate to hatred. Hatred is when you spread lies about people, when you attack your political enemies on the personal level. Ask those who have been the targeted by the RC gang about hatred. The strong disagreements expressed here with our elected leader’s decisions, their processes or reasoning is not hatred, it is honesty.

Let me clarify our stated goals:
1) Accuracy and civility: Civil does not mean that we have to be 'polite', but that we don’t allow name calling, swearing and such on this blog. We have another space for folks to cut loose (rustontruth.blogspot.com).

2) Information presented here is factual, not biased by leaving out part of the story or telling outright lies. People deserve the truth and are smart enough to make up their own minds without being lead to a conclusion.

3) Varied opinions: Nowhere do we state an expectation that opinions will be unbiased, including my own. One of my gravest concerns is that people in Ruston are afraid to talk anymore. We need a place where people can say what they think, and listen to each other as I've tried to do here by responding to your concerns.

I greatly appreciate your input. I hope this to be a place where people can disagree openly as you have done. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please let us know what you think anytime.

January 18, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Anonymous said...

I read the article in the TNT, dated January 18th, and would like to respond to one of the comments. Mr. Huson is quoted in saying he had “huge concerns over the Town’s budget, including overtime and scheduling within the Police Department”. Well, Mr. Huson, I agree with you. There are huge concerns, and you as a council member have not only a legal, but a moral obligation to fix them. I will give you some help and guidance with this.

Let’s look at the amount spent on legal fees. Look at what our former Town Attorney’s firm was paid. We paid (exact amount unknown because the final budget report hasn’t been released) a part time attorney at least $70,000 but probably more like $125,000 last year to work 7.5 days a month. Mr. Huson, you are a smart man, I hope you digested that sentence. WOW, sign me up (HUGE CONCERN!!).

How is this possible, ok, let’s see. She was budgeted to work 60 hours a month, divided by 8 hours a day = 7.5 days a month. I know you weren’t on the council for most of 2007, but you might want to take a look close look at the supplemental budget(s) the Mayor submitted, and how it changed the beginning figures dramatically. Oh, by the way, an assistant city attorney for the City of Tacoma, working 40+ hours a week, or a Pierce County prosecutor working the same, makes how much??? And while you’re at it, be sure to look at what is budgeted for the Town Attorney for this year with only a six month contract. Think you might need maybe another supplemental budget submitted after one month?? Probably not, the Mayor will make it up the next month and cut her back like he did in 2007. Oh, I forgot, he only said he would.

Let’s look at your comment regarding the police department. Have you actually seen a police schedule? Have you actually talked to the police department? Do you know the difference between a full time officer, part time officer and reserve officer? Do you know what is involved in solving crime? If you can answer yes to any of those questions I really would be interested in talking to you. If you really don’t know the answers to those questions, or haven’t talked to the police, why would you be quoted in the TNT saying your comment regarding scheduling and overtime if you haven’t educated yourself??

Let’s look at the police budget, let’s say for just 2008, which I believe you were involved in. You mentioned in the TNT you were concerned about overtime expenditures. Let’s look at what the Department submitted to you for approval for 2008, which is available to the public. I believe the information you received goes something like this.

The Department asked for 300 hours of overtime per officer, (including holidays). You demonstrated your lack of knowledge by cutting it in half to 150 hours annually. Again I’m willing to help you on this issue. Let’s figure this out.

150 hours of overtime minus 88 holiday hours= 62 overtime hours remaining for the year per officer. Now, you take the 62 remaining hours and subtract the 24 hours of State mandated training per officer, and you’re down to 38 hours remaining for the year. Now, you take subpoenas into consideration, which is a court order (think the offices might get some?). I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and only give them 8 hours per year for court per officer, now you’re down to an annual overtime budget of 30 hours remaining for the year. Now, I know the police officers are very dedicated and will probably come in to work even when they are sick, but if they don’t, how are you going to cover, say, 5 days of sick time combined for 4 officers per year? Remember, someone will have to work overtime to cover whoever is out. Let’s see, 8 hours times 5 days a year = 40 hours, but you only had 30 hours remaining in the annual budget = HUGE CONCERN!!!

Mr. Huson, I haven’t even mentioned any criminal incidents yet. You might want to consider what happened in your neighborhood recently, think there was any overtime involved it that???

Mr. Huson, by the end of January you will probably be over budget.

As you remember in the beginning I mentioned not only legal, but moral obligations. I would like to touch just a moment on the moral issues.

The above numbers do not include the cost of investigating certain crimes. But I believe you are covered by the Public Duty Doctrine. To verify this I will give you some more guidance. You can ask an attorney for their opinion on this doctrine, I will even help you with this. Your colleague sitting with you on the council is an attorney and will probably research the question for you; but be cautioned, he will probably exaggerate the true response. You can ask the Mayor because he’s also an attorney but he probably won’t tell you. Finally I recommend talking to the Town Attorney, and I believe she will give you correct advice after researching the question during her 7.5 days a month budgeted (hopefully she won’t use more than three days worth) amount. I’m not an attorney or a policeman but I have been informed that the police are responsible for responding and investigating only three types of crimes. Oh by the way, murder, rape, arson, burglary, theft, kidnapping, assault, and most importantly noise, are not one of the three.

Where moral comes in to play is in a couple of areas. First, the officer that is directed not to investigate a crime due to the fact it would be overtime. Secondly, the citizen who has to be told the police closed their case due to a lack of funding or third, the citizen that calls 911 and needs help and is told there is no officer on duty, and they will notify the on call officer.

I can almost assure you if something were to happen to a family in town and it could be proven that your decisions contributed due to your lack of support or your personal agenda that intentionally put their family in jeopardy, well, moral issues would probably come into play along with possibly some legal issues. Mr. Huson, you have an obligation to not only protect the citizens of this town against crime, but also provide financial support to assist in law enforcement and fire services. My advice or guidance to you is, to quit fighting it and start supporting it.

I guess this is enough training for you, for now. The next class will be on the amount of money you allocated for the rest of the Town staff. I will help you manage the 8 hours per year you gave each of them. Since you are in the learning mode, let me give you something to think about. The question of the day is, do all fairy tales begin with once upon a time? No, Mr. Huson, many start with “If elected, I promise”.

January 19, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Charlene said...

I remember the first time I met Chief Reinhold. I was outside working when I saw his car coming toward me and slowing. This was several months after I had lost the mayoral election to an opponent that I considered to be a vindictive and unknowledgeable person, who had run his police department with a heavy hand, threats and laziness and was a poor choice for the town as the Asarco redevelopment was continuing to progress and had many other challenges to face. This officer approaching me was reportedly a very good friend of his and thus he could only be an ignorant boor also. I could only think, “The man has guts”. He was pleasant and friendly and to my surprise he didn’t seem to be an ignorant boor.

The next time I spoke with him was when my older son’s truck was stolen from our property. My son’s ranger unit had been the first unit into Afghanistan and he still was gone so this was a rough time for our family. Those of you who have lived here a long time will remember that we did not have a 24 hour police patrol at that time. It was probably 5:30 AM when I called 911. I certainly didn’t expect immediate contact because there wasn’t anyone on patrol but that’s what I got. It was the Chief calling me about my report. I had to leave for work right away and he was extremely accommodating about arranging to meet with me to complete the report.

He got the information entered into the police system and when we met that afternoon, would you believe it but my son’s truck had been found at a drug house under surveillance. It was in Tacoma so he got on the radio and arranged for me to come pick it up so Tacoma wouldn’t tow it and I wouldn’t have to pay for towing. He offered an officer’s assistance, was helpful with the paperwork and took the time to explain the system and processes and shattered the rest of my misconceptions about his dedication to duty and the quality of the police department.

He would stop by occasionally if I was out working. It was hard not to contrast how he treated me as a resident to the many complaints I had heard about the previous police chief during my time on the Council.

After he and I became involved I learned more about him and gained a new insight into our police department and how different it was from what I knew previously. Those of you who knew me on the Council will really appreciate that. I learned about his ethics, values and knowledge. I saw how he treated his officers. He didn’t demand blind obedience or yes men but was truly leading and teaching his officers – how refreshing.

And oh, have we had lively discussions! He loves the exchange of ideas and sharing of knowledge and debating of positions. He enjoys people and believes in doing his job well. He has been pleased with his accomplishments and I have been proud of him. I’ve seen him called gruff and no nonsense but believe me, there is more to the man than that. Have you ever gone through a rough time and had him give you a hug of support, understanding and sympathy? And if you are one of those who have committed an offense, know that he has not acted with malice but has done the job he was paid to do – with knowledge and integrity.

If you would like to get a message to the chief to say thanks for a hug or a job well done, you can send it to my care at charhagen@gmail.com. I’ll see he gets it. It’s his turn to get a hug.

January 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)