Since her election a year ago November, Palouse City Council member Angie Griner has made it her mission to be disruptive, to show no respect for decent decorum and to turn her tenure into a personal vendetta against Palouse Police Chief Joel Anderson.
For those who followed council meetings prior to that election, her venomous spleen came as no surprise. Her motivation for such attacks is anybody’s guess. That she is closely allied with the Neumanns may provide part of the answer.
You see, Jerry Neumann, after a far-too-long, many thought ugly, time as police chief, was fired two years ago. In his place is now Joel Anderson, a highly regarded officer who enjoys broad public support ... something that had always eluded Neumann.
Just as he responded to being fired by the city of Brewster over what they deemed “insubordination,” Neumann and his wife are not taking this firing gracefully either.
While it is true that, represented by the Teamsters Union, he was reinstated but demoted from sergeant to patrolman, it is also true that the Palouse City Council and the committee of the council mandated to review candidates for a vacant chief’s position, were kept in complete ignorance of his background.
Punching back hard this time, it was Neumann’s wife, Lisa, who, along with Griner, filed to run for open city council seats. When the ballots were printed, only their names appeared.
Fearing the sort of personal vendetta which indeed ensued, two concerned citizens ran as write-ins. Griner’s opponent ran a weak campaign and lost. Rainy Anderson, Joel’s wife, ran and garnered over 80% of the vote. That margin is astonishing, and for a write-in, maybe unprecedented.
The huge landslide was attributed to not only Rainy’s popularity and the voters understanding that she would abstain on any vote affecting her husband’s benefits package. It also revealed a deep desire on the part of the citizens of Palouse to put the sad legacy of the Neumann years behind them.
One might think that a second firing and a drubbing at the polls would make any couple want to lick their wounds and accept the overwhelming verdict of the people.
Not so.
In what can only be regarded as a travesty against fair play and open government, last Tuesday’s council meeting set the lowest mark I have witnessed in over 50 years in Palouse. In my 11 years on the same council and serving under three mayors, I have personally observed bitter disagreements ... even seen strong friendships strained to the breaking point. But we always returned to one basic principle: We were there to serve those who elected us — not to wreak personal vengeance.
Thirty years ago, I sat on a council committee created to oversee a raw, rookie cop who somehow believed Palouse needed Dirty Harry. We agreed that the young Phineas Haglin might be just the ticket, but he needed shaping. Our committee oversaw his performance on a weekly basis, reviewed his daily reports and discussed with Phin any red flags. Within four months, we had coached our new chief into one of the best our city has known in half a century.
Then, as now, there was a perceived need to oversee Palouse’s police. Then, as now, ours was a one-person department. Then, as now, eyes turned to the mayor and both Robert Kramer and Tim Sievers demurred.
When the current council decided to kick the can down the road, there seemed only one option: farm it out. And so, at a cost of $8,000, Palouse hired a private investigating firm from Seattle Metro to review our department. This firm’s website makes it very clear that their mission is to vet candidates for police, fire and ENT. There is no mention whatsoever of auditing entire police departments. Likewise, among all the smiling faces shown as their staff, our suit from Seattle was AWOL.
Turns out, despite having served well as chief of Camas police, he had been in this current job only a year. In this role, he had never “audited” a one-person department. In fact, nothing smaller than departments of 10 to 15.
The meeting was called to discuss his report and, when he finished with a recommendation that we contract with the county, questions were opened to the council. Rainy’s hand went up. She had important questions to be asked.
On cue, Griner sprang to the attack, claiming Anderson had conflicting interests and should therefore be banned from asking questions. The mayor followed her direction and Anderson remained silent.
Among the 50 community members present, there were also questions. The mayor disallowed this as well, and thus, the voices of over 80% of Palouse’s voting public were muzzled.
Whether the council votes with Griner to do away with our city police force, there is a much more important question. When will the voices of the people be heard?
Any concerned Palouse citizen or parent of children attending Palouse’s school who wish to hear a truly open discussion, the Andersons are providing the opportunity at their home at 3 p.m. Saturday.
McGehee, a lifelong activist, settled here in 1973 and lives in Palouse with his wife, Katherine. His work life has varied from bartender to university instructor to wrecking yard owner.
