News The Spin at SPD
posted by on July 6 at 16:21 PM
I just got a copy of the Seattle Police Guild’s (SPOG) monthly newsletter, The Guardian. It’s a doozy.
In a spectacular show of poor taste, a quarter page of this month’s Guardian is devoted to this:
That’d be Officer Michael Tietjen, one of the two cops accused of beating and planting drugs on George Patterson during his arrest last January. Tietjen was exonerated and transfered to a sought after job at SPD’s harbor patrol.
Meanwhile, in an interminably long editorial (abridged here), SPOG president Sergeant Rich O’Neil blasts the media, OPARB and Nick Licata for daring to suggest that police accountability because, well, the Chief isn’t accountable to anyone.
Despite the fact that Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske faced a vote of no confidence from SPOG following the 2001 Mardi Gras riots, the union has - in the last few months - cozied up to Seattle’s top cop. SPOG is going to bat for the Chief when no one else will. Could it be because, according to a report released by the Office of Professional Accountability Review Board (OPARB), Kerlikowske has let a number of egregious cases of officer misconduct slide?
The past few weeks our local news media have continued their fanatical obsession with the unfounded allegations from an eight-time convicted, drug dealing felon.The OPA Civilian Review Board, chaired by Peter Holmes, continued to stoke the fire with their heavily slanted, agenda driven, review of the investigation. In their biased and leaked report, they slammed the Chief of Police for being too involved with the investigation.
Mr. Holmes thinks the Chief was "too involved" in the investigation. The report also says that the Chief should have to explain in writing anytime he "reverses a final OPA determination." Mr. Holmes is an intelligent man but he obviously has difficulty with a few points, so I'm going to go slow. #1 Mr. Holmes, YOU are NOT the Chief of Police. You sit on a board that reviews a process and gives policy suggestions. #2 The Chief of Police does not have to answer to you or your board! #3 The Chief of Police is the FINAL arbitrator of discipline cases. The OPA does not make a FINAL determination. That again is the Chief's job. The OPA, along with the Chain of Command make recommendations. The Chief can agree with those recommendations or not agree. And he certainly does not have to justify his decisions to your board.
The members of the OPA Review Board obviously do not like their limited role. [OPARB member Sheley] Secrest was even quoted as saying "We are a toothless dog with no bark." If that is the way they feel, then I have some suggestions.
#1 Resign and become a Chief of Police and then you can have the authority that you crave.
#2 Resign and run for elected office where you can have the influence on selecting a Chief of Police. (Mr. Holmes already tried that one)
#3 The next time the OPA Director's job opens up, submit an application (Mr. Holmes tried that one too).
#4 Lastly, have your ideas for a "Tooth Filled Barking OPA Review Board" brought to the bargaining table. Everything is negotiable and it just depends on how much "kibbles and bits" that you will offer us. But here is another tip. You better go to COSTCO and get the really big bags!
Resign and become the Chief of Police? Really? That's your argument? By that logic, O'Neil should be running for a spot on city council (I hear there's an election coming up) and see if he can do something about that pesky OPA review board.
Finally, O'Neil takes a swing at Nick Licata's proposal to have Seattle's police and fire chiefs reconfirmed by city council every four years:
Can you imagine being the chief and suddenly being told that you have 9 more bosses? Before you make discipline or policy decisions, you better make sure that you have at least 5 supporters on the council or your "re-confirmation" hearing may not go very well. The office of the Chief of Police should be shielded from as much political influence as possible. We must get involved and do everything possible to support city council candidates who support the police and public safety issues. Those who do not support us should face the consequences!
With council elections on the way, we'll see how many candidates think Seattle's police oversight system should be left as is.
The spin at Slog: "beating"???
Damn... they actually printed/emailed out something that rant-filled? Good lord.
With the Patterson case, the Alley-Barnes case and those undercover yahoos engaging in a high-speed chase, these cops would be wise to shut their traps for a little while. Too many dicks on the SPD.
The Guild has too much goddamned power, and they use it in all the wrong ways. If they were pushing for more benefits, better safety precautions, and the like, that's one thing, but it just makes me sick that they work so damn hard to protect the very few dirty cops that give everyone else a bad name. Shit, it's almost enough to make me wish someone would go PATCO on their asses.
Young Tietjen looks like the kind of Eddie Haskell motherfucker that would be mean as hell to potential Columbine kids in junior high. Smug face says "Go ahead. Shoot me. I dare ya."
-
Wow!
O'Neil has stated the facts as they stand: lying, abusive, evidence planting, ball twisting, taser happy cops are immune from anything the OPA, the City Council, or citizens of Seattle can do. And he makes a great case as to why so many people are questioning our SPD culture as his commments make it clear that Sgt. O'Neil and his ilk don't work for the city but are a law unto themselves.
As to anymore "kibbles," let's face it SPD members are paid well (47K to start-67K in 6 years excluding overtime). Over half of the SPD operational budget goes to administration and traffic & parking enforcement. That's plenty of "kibbles."
A few points to consider...
@6) $47-67k per year is not a good salary in a town like Seattle, where a home costs upwards of $400k. That's more a comment on the ridiculous real estate prices in Seattle, but it needs pointing out that "good" salaries are not that good in Seattle.
@4) Welcome to the reality of contemporary unions - and I say that as a union member, and a strong supporter of organized labor.
Too often, unions protect bad members, and work for benefit increases only for the older members, because they are the only ones that tend to be active in the upper echelons of the unions. The rank and file doesn't want to get involved.
Unfortunately, that's the greatest threat to the future of the unions. It's not the corporations or the GOP - although they are plenty evil - it's the members themselves.
RON PAUL supports --
-- legalizing medicinal marijuana
-- legalizing industrial hemp
-- small government
-- no more Iraq war
-- no more pre-emptive war
-- abolishing the IRS
-- getting rid of the Federal Reserve
-- efficient use of taxpayer money
-- reduced inflation of the US dollar
-- I'm just getting started here people...
By Seattle standards, you would have to a complete nutcase to argue against Ron Paul. Which means most of the nutcases posting anti-Ron Paul material on this blog are not from Seattle.
If you are worried about not having the IRS or Federal Reserve anymore, all you need to know is that 100% of the income tax you pay out of your paycheck gets pocketed as pure profit by the private international bankers who comprise the "Federal" Reserve. None of it goes toward American services or infrastructure -- NOT ONE PENNY.
RON PAUL supports --
-- legalizing medicinal marijuana
-- legalizing industrial hemp
-- small government
-- no more Iraq war
-- no more pre-emptive war
-- abolishing the IRS
-- getting rid of the Federal Reserve
-- efficient use of taxpayer money
-- reduced inflation of the US dollar
-- I'm just getting started here people...
If you are worried about not having the IRS or Federal Reserve anymore, all you need to know is that 100% of the income tax you pay out of your paycheck gets pocketed as pure profit by the private international bankers who comprise the "Federal" Reserve. None of it goes toward American services or infrastructure -- NOT ONE PENNY.
@ 1-
Yes, beating. Mr. Patterson claimed that Officer Neubert repeatedly hit him in the face while he was handcuffed at the West Precinct. That's called a beating where I'm from.
@8 Ron Paul also supports DADT, is anti-Choice, and is pro-gold standard. And don't give me this bullshit about the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Save it for the tinfoil hat crowd.
This is rich. It's a kind of drama I haven't seen since I used to watch novelas on Univision when I was unemployed. This type of spin (the SPOG piece) is just humorous, that's all. Humorous. And keep Lyndon La...I mean, Ron Paul out of it.
Gitai wrote:
I've heard some seemingly-crazy things about the IRS and the Federal Reserve lately, but I haven't found the time to research it. What, specifically, about Jah's comments are you referring to as bullshit?
jonah - Have any of the reviewers (OPA, OPARB, Ms. Pflaumer, Mr. Frederick) found any substantiation for the use of force accusation?
At this point, it's inflammatory window dressing ... spin.
Number one, the Federal Reserve Bank is run by a board of governors that's appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Yes, the member banks are privately owned, but the 12 Federal Reserve Banks are not, and the "stock" in them that member banks own is not an actual ownership percentage, like private stock. That "stock" does pay dividends, a legally mandated 6% maximum, In addition to setting interest rates, one of their main purposes is to loan money to individual banks that haven't met their fractional reserve, the percentage of total deposits that must be maintained as cash. The dividends are considered compensation for the interest they don't make on those fractional reserves, and lemme tell you, it ain't a great return, since banks need to have around 10% of total deposits as cash reserves. That's a lot of money they're not making money on, since they can't loan it out. Mind you, it's good for us, because it's a safeguard against insolvency, and the '80s hold plenty of reminders about what happens when you deregulate banks.
Also, in 2003, the IRS collected nearly $2 trillion in taxes, half of which came from individual income taxes (only part of payroll taxes go directly to the federal budget through shenanigans like spending the Social Security surplus on government bonds). Spending for that year was $2.1 trillion (hello, budget deficit). That means that we had to borrow some money to pay for government functions that year, but we didn't borrow $2.1 trillion to pay for services or infrastructure. We borrowed $347 million. The shit this nut is talking about really is tinfoil hat conspiracy stories. Again, there are enough shenanigans that are real and that we know about, such as the Social Security surplus scam that's used to hide the true size of the deficit, to worry about crackpot theories.
Separated at birth?
Seattle Police Officer Michael Tietjen
Seattle cellist Joshua Roman
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).