Due to the constraints of the council meetings, whether being told that I may no longer speak or members noting my ‘irritation’ after being cross-examined by the mayor or just saying that we’re done with a topic, I then have to find other outlets to express what isn’t/can’t be said in the moment, which includes the critical analysis needed to refute facile arguments and point out flaws in reasoning or the wrongness of one’s behavior. That is why I am here on this blog, again, to clarify things.

Recap Up To the Point of the Meeting

So, to catch up: at last week’s Council Committee meeting, my resolution; 32-2024 was introduced. Its intent is to come to a final understanding of charges leveled against the work environment of the Whitehall Police department, that which we have heretofore gotten little to no understanding of.
One faction are officers who either work for, or have previously worked, for the WPD who produced a survey detailing their issues with the upper brass and the work environment. The other faction has Chief Crispen and other officers claiming the report is largely without merit. Within this brouhaha you have the Fraternal Order of Police, the citizen’s, an officer claiming to have been wrongfully terminated and your city council. Several entities have weighed in, from the Mayor and Chief Crispen to F.O.P. President Brian Steel to officers on both sides of the issue. Mayor Bivens had the ability to investigate his police department but made the decision not to investigate the situation, as seen here in this news clip:
Whitehall mayor, police chief respond to FOP complaint and calls for investigation

Mr. Steel, on a few occasions, begged Council to investigate the matter as our charter gives us that ability:

However, all the while we were told that we couldn’t investigate. It was said by our city attorney and at least one councilperson, as others who heard them will attest. Even in this video, Mr. Steel is once again imploring Council to launch an investigation per their charter right. At the end, President Potter informs him that we can’t investigate, that that is an administrative situation therefore an investigation would come from administration, not the council body. When Mr. Steel says he’ll send a letter to City Attorney Nicodemus refuting that, per Section 80 of the charter, Mr. Potter says, alluding to Nicodemus, “That’s where we got our (unintelligible) from…
The timeline here has importance so, that moment is from Aug 20th of this year. It is followed by video from the Oct. 22nd meeting where Mr. Nicodemus says that council CAN investigate, this after emails and back and forth by myself and Mr. Nicodemus on our ability to investigate:

As a result of this informational uncertainty, investigation didn’t seem to be in our abilities/future. So, if we couldn’t investigate, as we were led to believe, then any effort towards that goal from council or information proffered to us from either side was useless and pointless. And yet, despite this, everyone and their brother from both factions solicited our attention on the matter to tell us their point of view. I found it amusing that we couldn’t investigate but both sides were treating us as if we could (did they understand the truth of something we didn’t?). So, given our inability in that moment I then saw no real reason to give it any effort and that is why I refused to give credence to anyone trying to persuade me in whatever fashion. In the meantime, Nicodemus spoke to council about looking for precedent regarding the question of investigations and asked for Council’s continued patience in the matter (meaning our ability was on the back burner and if it was found we could indeed investigate, it would require our impartiality in this matter). Only one week after this, some on Council decided to ignore their responsibility to remain unbiased and expressed their feelings publicly for one of the two factions in this concern: sharing their feelings about the WPD with Chief Crispen after he addressed council for over 50 minutes on Sept. 17th (I wasn’t in attendance having just had my right hip replaced the day before). First, you’ll see the Nicodemus/precedent video from Sept. 10th and then the praise for the WPD session on Sept. 17th:

The Meeting

After understanding from City Attorney Nicodemus that Council could indeed investigate the situation alleged about the police department, I worked with him to put together a resolution to proceed with that process. That which was introduced at last week’s Council Committee meeting. I gave my simple and short statement on why I thought this was the proper course to take. That was followed by a couple things; objections, viewpoints and fallacies as well as a scene out of a courtroom drama.
Let me begin with the fallacy that the arbitration related to the firing of the officer somehow precludes any investigation into the charges he brought to the Mayor in the first place. I have heard this argument before, which I felt was being used as a bugaboo, an excuse by some to either keep any investigation at bay or to investigate in a timely fashion that ultimately just benefits the Administration. It starts with Councilor Morrison simply asking the mayor if the arbitration has been completed. That begins to back up my assertion of their belief in the perceived conflict of the arbitration process in regard to the investigation of the survey’s allegations. It then moves to Council President Potter who feels that now is a bad time for this investigation and expressing his concerns that this investigation, along with the separate arbitration, will create two things running parallel at one time (even though it is said that the arbitration has yet to begin), that which is not good for the city and the citizens. Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? And how is finding out the truth, whatever that may be, not good for the city? Truth reveals, truth can point us in better directions.
Finally, Councilor Brown expresses uncertainty over what it is I’m trying to achieve by launching this investigation and so keeps referring back to that bugaboo; the arbitration, as the thing which will give us answers on this situation. At one point he asks the mayor, NOT the city attorney, “Is this gonna be involved in the arbitration at all” to which the mayor responds, “that I don’t know”. He wants clarification but asks his question to the man who is in charge of the department that will be the focus of the investigation. Finally, I speak to this concern and ask the city attorney to affirm what I’m saying, and he does. (The mayor, an attorney and former Whitehall city attorney doesn’t know how the arbitration process works but the current city attorney does?! Watch the video:

In the video you see me explain that if I didn’t have the answer or didn’t feel secure in the reasoning for the legislation (with the counsel of our city attorney), I wouldn’t have proceeded.
Thus then, their concerns about arbitration being the fact-finding tool the city should use in this matter, or the investigation being made unnecessary because there is arbitration is inaccurate, per our own city attorney. Therefore, this thing they hang onto as proof we shouldn’t investigate the charges of a troubling workplace environment in the Whitehall P.D. is both misleading to the public and improperly used as a tool of objection to resolution 32-2024.

Now, to Councilor Brown’s arguments. Watch the video below and I’ll comment after:

Outside of his concerns over the arbitration process, which I’ve already covered, Councilor Brown’s general point seems to be that because we don’t know if there are current officers in one factions findings of workplace troubles* and because police have come in and said nothing disparaging about the WPD and because I didn’t accept the WPD’s open invite to speak with them, it shows I didn’t do my due diligence, therefore all of the above renders the resolution junk. As well, all this ‘basically makes it seem like we don’t trust what is goin’ on over there’.
(I guess I should have just used trust in this important matter so no one thinks I don’t trust people and departments, because that’s what’s important here.)

Firstly, regarding speaking with the police department; with no power to investigate as written about earlier, along with any possible future scenarios where I may be able to investigate, I saw the danger in undermining my ethical credibility with the perception of bias, real or imagined, that would arise by sitting down with only one of the two factions and have them tell me what they want me to hear (which had already been deemed pointless). That is not an investigation and certainly nothing I was willing to risk my reputation or any possible future investigation’s integrity for.
Secondly, trust is earned, not merely given. It is not my responsibility to give my trust to anyone but rather for them to show me why they’re deserving of it. I’ve never felt distrust of Chief Crispen or the WPD but serious allegations have been brought forth and because those allegations deserve the fullest measure of my attention and concern, as the people’s representative, whatever trust I may have for the Chief must have no influence or bearing on the serious considerations I owe, and are due, those allegations. Full stop.
Therefore, while I do hope Councilor Brown votes with sense and reason and the commitment he owes his constituency to the truth, free from any bias he may have for the administration, I respectfully and fully disagree with what arguments he presented against Resolution 32-2024.

Finally, the mayor’s comments to me. Let me let you see them in full and I will comment afterward:

Let me say this; the impression I (and others) got from this exchange was that his inner attorney surfaced in this matter and so I was merely a witness on the stand being prosecuted. How else could anyone take this exchange? Mayor Bivens comes to us from a career as an attorney. This is what he did for years, its in his blood. Just because he’s now the mayor doesn’t make that part of himself nonexistent.
Regardless of this display, the fact remains that if this investigation goes through (that which he already chose not to pursue), it will be his administration’s police department that will be questioned and continue to be in the spotlight. Therefore, due to his clear bias in the matter, while he certainly may ask questions, what of the veracity of them and how can we trust them to be innocent and free of cunning? That should be the most important point and greatest concern one takes from his cross-examination of me: the one on council who happens to be leading the charge to get to the bottom of the truth.
Secondly, it was with the Whitehall’s city attorney, Brad Nicodemus, who I conferred on this matter and the legislation. I did so because
a) he’s the expert and
b) I wanted to get it right before embarking on any of this officially.
So, if Mayor Bivens has issues with this resolution or the correctness of its issuance, I have to say that the fault he’s finding with it is with our city attorney who I fully conferred with on this measure before proceeding.
Finally, addressing Mayor Bivens’ question that this might really be an attempt on my part to defund the police…
a) if there is no wrongful action by the police department, then even if I had devious motivations to defund the police, those findings of innocence would derail that effort
b) If the department was found to have a negative work environment and that finding ultimately improved the experiences of the rank and file, how would that win for worker’s rights be a springboard for me to take funding away from the P.D.?
c) If I hated the police and just wanted to defund them (as is the general characterizations of those calling for such things) why would my attempts to do so be done through complaints of a troubling workplace environment the police officers themselves lodged? Does this say I would use the diversion of compassion for police officer’s workplace concerns to dismantle their house?
Of course, NONE of this makes any sense. Let me be clear though, this is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on the Councilman who brought this legislation forward by the person whose administration will be the focus of unwanted attention, which includes possible findings of guilt. It is my opinion that his prosecution of me and all that is being done; the facile arguments, the misleading information, the administrative bias that exists on the dais, etc., is simply to deflect from the issue at hand, degrade and minimize the messenger, all in order to demean the resolution and topple it’s success, which stops this investigation. That’s why I called his line of questioning and concerns ridiculous.

In Conclusion

This resolution is simply about finding out the truth when it comes to the allegations made from police officers who do or did work at the WPD. Both sides have tried valiantly to make their separate cases and yet, both factions won’t investigate their side (their bias doing their own investigation of the truth would probably be suspect anyway…) Therefore, as I see it, and wanting truth and justice, this long-running question, this governmental/community drama can be fully understood using the city council as an intermediary. We (whose determinations must be free of inter-governmental bias to get the clearest, most just determination) should be the entity to get to the bottom of this issue. Plain and simply. As such, I ask you to call and email your representatives and come in and speak at poll public about it.
Thank you.

*If the effort is made to get employees to open up about their true workplace feelings, the courage to give one’s name is hard to find due to fear of reprisals. Therefore, if there aren’t names included in a report that shines an unsavory light on the workplace and their bosses (or by workers in interviews with councilors who don’t want to be called out for speaking ill of the workplace or their bosses) it may be out of fear for their livelihoods and should not be construed to suggest those with ill-opinions don’t exist.