I have been — for sound, inescapable reasons — a critic of the state in which Jim Coan has left our lovely, but troubled, city. He, and those who have supported him, have made life worse for others. I have watched, day after day, as he has taken this city and its police force down the wrong path.

My family have a great familiarity with police work, one having committed himself to a lifetime of intelligent, dedicated leadership in that field. We well-understand this vocation, and it is the gap in leadership between what should be, and what is, that both astonishes and infuriates. Only someone confused, or ignorant could have confidence in the leadership that burdens and embarrasses our current force, and the city it is sworn to serve.

There are many in Whitewater who would like the force to be more than it is, and I know how disappointed they are that it lacks the leadership it needs.

A few remarks —

Firearms. I have been around firearms my entire life. A sound familiarity with them assures that they will be used properly and efficiently in those rare occasions when necessary. A man should be so comfortable with a gun that he can use it dispassionately under deadly circumstances, and never so excited by it that he might consider it a toy or plaything.

Sometimes — in places without good leadership — a young or foolish officer will make the mistake of showing off with a gun, or pointing it inappropriately. No serious man can respect a person like this; it betrays an immaturity that is the subject of scorn from serious men. Any case like this, whenever it happens, should be subject to (1) real and effective coaching, (2) emotional evaluation, and (3) progressive discipline.

Warriors. Like all libertarians, I advocate “free markets, individual liberty, and peace.” Americans have always preferred peace, so that we might trade and travel freely with friendly nations around the globe.

Nonetheless, there are times when our country has faced foreign enemies, and for our own protection, we have exercised a legal and moral right to defend ourselves. Countless Americans — in your family and mine — have justly and courageously defended our country against Nazi, Imperial Japanese, and Soviet-sponsored tyranny, as we now face the Taliban and Al Qaeda. These enemies were, and are, reprehensible, and we have always had a legitimate right to wage war until their surrender or destruction.

We cannot be at war with our fellow citizens and residents. The war power is reserved for our reprehensible enemies abroad, not those who live among us. There is a powerful distinction even between suspected criminals and foreign enemies. Warriors include — for example — those who must, by sad necessity, travel abroad to defend a new, better Afghanistan against those who killed our fellow citizens, and who would do so again if given the chance. They, in combat in faraway Afghanistan, away from their families, facing a detestable enemy, are real warriors.

When Jim Coan tells us he sees the Whitewater Police Force as warriors, and goes on about it as he once did in his newsletter, he’s telling us nonsense, leading officers away from true community policing, and using a false metaphor to puff himself up. When one starts to think that way, one begins to see one’s fellow residents as an enemy. The authority of warriors is not conferred on anyone who protects the streets of Whitewater. General Bradley was a warrior, defending civilization against the Nazis; Chief Coan is not a warrior when he sits alone at Randy’s eating lunch, or any other time of the day, evening, etc. Coan might imagine himself a warrior, but it doesn’t matter — at all — what he thinks about over his plate.

Speaking to Others. Sometimes, a young or poor officer will approach someone at a traffic stop, or elsewhere, and think that he’ll make himself look more powerful if he begins with a leading or hostile question. It doesn’t work: timid people resent the encounter afterwards, and confident and clever people just think the officer’s not strong or confident enough to speak normally. Don’t allow others to drag down one’s reputation through hackneyed, third-rate phrases. People have described to me all the most transparent, foolish phrases that mediocre officers have used in conversations. Don’t let people carry on like this, and don’t think that a leader’s empty insistence that it never happens convinces anyone. It doesn’t.

Wade Into Our Community. This can be a beautiful and well-run place once again. Officers should embrace the community that they serve and be a part of it; community policing is the very opposite of a puffed-up idea of officers as warriors. Here is our invitation: Live here with us, worship here with us, send your children to our schools, and shop in our markets. We will be your neighbors and friends. Policing will be better, officers will feel better about their jobs, and our community will be safer.

If you live elsewhere, think about living with us here in Whitewater.

A serious man or woman doesn’t need a lot of confidence-building talk to feel good. He doesn’t rely on silly commendations in a newsletter to be proud of himself or his department. He commits himself to self-improvement, not happy talk. When the day ends, he feels proud for his efforts, needing no sugary acknowledgment.

That’s not how weak leaders behave: they fill men up with empty praise, thinking it will make them more popular than through real coaching and accountability. One should not let a leader treat subordinates as through they are overgrown boys. It’s embarrassing, and corrosive of true excellence.

A Good Police Commission. A strong and capable force welcomes good and open oversight. That’s how you can be proud of your work: through legitimate, dedicated, believable oversight. Our Police Commission is so far removed from a good, solid body that it falls near the bottom of any commission or board in the city. People spend far more time working to make other boards and committees genuine than on the PFC. I ran a series on our PFC recently, and to say that it operates as a ‘big nothing’ would be too generous. It’s run by volunteers, and if a person volunteers, he or she should work to deliver something respectable.

Officers and citizens could ask for a real, hard-working PFC to provide true oversight of which all can be proud. There should be a real citizen complaints process, not the empty one we have, that falls far short of reasonable suggestions from the U.S. Department of Justice. I invite anyone who is a member of the PFC to write to me, and defend his or her work. I can be reached at adams@freewhitewater.com. (They know very well what I have written on this matter of public policy. I have posts entitled Introduction, Importance and Authority, Reasonable Standards, Minutes, Performance Generally, Citizen Complaints, and Hirings without Oversight?) A weak PFC and a weak complaints process erodes community confidence.

Residents and Citizens. Finally, I heard once how Coan said something to the effect that those who were upset about the Star Packaging raid were likely outsiders, were just agitating people within the Hispanic community in Whitewater, or were perhaps from the ACLU, etc. (He forgot to mention that criticism of his leadership might be inspired by Martians, gremlins, or talking squirrels. Give him long enough, though…)

Nothing is funnier. It must be clear that I am neither an outsider, nor Spanish-speaking, nor a member of the ACLU, etc. (I regret, if anything, that I understand so little Spanish.)

Coan is one of the last people on earth who should ever talk about loyalty and commitment to our community. If he expects people to believe what he says about community concerns, it must only be because he considers others ignorant, gullible, or stupid.

If we have good leadership, we can have a more effective force, and one that will offer better experiences for the community and its sworn officers.

Here’s an update on the lawsuit against former Whitewater Police investigator Larry Meyer. I will offer a chronology, information on the latest legal developments, and an assessment of the coverage from Bliss Communications, publishers of the Janesville Gazette and The Week. This will be a long post, with the advantage being that it will serve as a single spot for coverage of the case, and my assessment of the problems in our community lawsuit reveals.

Principal Chronology:

May 25, 2005, Whitewater resident Steve Cvicker filed a lawsuit in federal court against Whitewater investigator Larry Meyer, among others, alleging constitutional and civil rights violations. The case was assigned to federal Magistrate Judge William Callahan. Defendants subsequently answered, later amending their answer, to Cvicker’s complaint.

June 29, 2006, Defendant, Larry Meyer filed a motion for Summary Judgment (that is, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law).

March 20, 2007, Judge Callahan denied Defendant, Larry Meyer’s motion for summary judgment regarding alleged constitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment. Cvicker’s lawsuit on those weighty grounds would continue; only his statutory claims were set aside.

May 14, 2007, Plaintiff, Cvicker submitted reports from his expert witnesses. Those expert reports included a well-experienced expert’s assessment of (1) the evasive, incomplete answers that Meyer gave under sworn deposition regarding his ‘investigation’ of Cvicker, and (2) Meyer’s unprofessional conduct and conduct in significant excess of his search warrant, involving seizure of personal items that led to the basis of Cvicker’s constitutional Fourth Amendment claim against Cvicker.

November 15, 2007, Defendant, Meyer submitted a motion to enforce a supposed settlement agreement between the parties and to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.

December 6, 2007, Plaintiff, Cvicker requested an extension of time to file a reply to the motion to dismiss.

December 7, 2007, Defendant, Meyer filed a brief opposing an extension of time for Cvicker to file a reply.

December 7, 2007, Judge Callahan granted an extension of time for Plaintiff, Cvicker to file a reply.

December 20, 2007, Plaintiff, Cvicker filed his brief in opposition to Meyer’s motion to dismiss.

Recent Legal Developments, Assessed:

A. Meyer’s Motion to Enforce a Supposed Settlement Agreement.

Readers recall that, before Meyer’s motion to enforce a supposed settlement agreement, I speculated in “Questions on the Settlement in the Larry Meyer Case,” that Meyer and his attorney (Ryan Braithwaite) might be seeking confidentiality as part of a settlement agreement. Here’s what I wrote:

Defendant may be insisting that the plaintiff agree not to discuss any aspect of the lawsuit as a condition of settlement. If [that] is true, then it involves worry over embarrassment to someone bigger than Meyer.

I was right. Braithwaite’s November 15, 2007 motion to enforce contains these almost cryptic words about a supposed release that Meyer wants to enforce: “The release will contain a confidentiality provision.”

Readers know that I am opposed — completely — to confidentiality in municipal litigation involving claims against public officials, during public action, at public expense, involving public matters. I wrote a post entitled, “Against Confidentiality in Municipality in Municipal Litigation,” stating seven arguments against confidentiality in this litigation.

I invite Chief Jim Coan to defend the principle of confidentiality in this matter. If he is unwilling or unable to offer a defense, he may designate anyone he thinks more capable. I will print his defense in full, and reply thereafter. I may be reached at adams@freewhitewater.com.

It’s not that Coan can’t talk, or write, at length. He does both, as I pointed out in my post entitled, “Cat Has Your Tongue?” We are regaled with any number of vain and wasteful travelogues of his adventures in cities nothing like ours. A man who receives a pricey uniform allowance to look good should be able to defend a policy matter on principle.

B. The Affidavit of the Attorney Opposing Meyer’s Motion.

You may have read that Attorney Braithwaite alleges in his affidavit there was a supposed settlement. There are opposing affidavits, though, including one from an opposing attorney in the case, who have also offered sworn statements under oath. I will offer relevant excerpts from the opposing affidavit. You’ll quickly see that Braithwaite’s account, and press accounts that follow the defense line, are either (1) disputed under oath, or (2) omit important information.

From Attorney George Mistrioty, in a signed, sworn affidavit from December 20, 2007, Paragraph 4:

Any discussions or offers regarding resolution of the criminal case and the pending post-conviction motions were conducted between Attorney Resar and and the [Walworth County] District Attorney’s Office. I was not involved in those discussions, but was aware that Attorney Resar believed that agreement would be reached. Based on the belief that settlement would be reached, I adjourned a scheduled deposition of D.A. Koss.

From Paragraph 5:

Walworth County District Attorney Phillip Koss is a long-term acquaintance of mine. District Attorney Koss did contact me as a courtesy after September 20, 2007 and informed me that he had reconsidered a settlement proposal that he had discussed with Attorney Resar, and would not reduce or otherwise change Mr. Cvicker’s criminal convictions.

Emphasis added in blue font.

From Paragraph 9:

I have not acknowledged or told defense counsel that I believed that he is correct and that he is entitled to enforce either of the two claimed settlement agreements he has identified in his declaration to the Court.

This affidavit, and the filed brief that the affidavit accompanies, contends that
(1) there were ‘global’ settlement discussions between the D.A.’s office and Cvicker’s criminal lawyer,
(2) that ‘settlement’ was first announced to Court and the press before D.A. Koss was to be deposed in the matter,
(3) that D.A. Koss must have considered a global settlement, as he ‘reconsidered‘ it later, and
(4) it’s laughable to contend that any discussions that took place voluntarily between D.A. Koss and Attorney Resar were ‘coerced.’

The idea of coercion is a bad joke: it’s what you tell gullible people who have not read (or will not report) on this case.

What’s so important about a deposition of D.A. Koss, by the way? I don’t know, but someone might ask a question about how well-experienced A.D.A Dennis Krueger filed a sworn affidavit in which he affirmed that Larry Meyer disregarded prosecutorial direction, in which Krueger affirmed that Meyer said that he, Meyer, destroyed evidence seized.

Perhaps someone at that deposition might also ask D.A. Koss about the circumstances under which Krueger left the Walworth County District Attorney’s office shortly thereafter. (Krueger is now with the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office — Krueger ‘fell up,’ so to speak.) They might even ask about statements that D.A. Koss made at Police Day May 2007 in which he offered personal regard for Meyer. (Ask for the video from Cable Channel 13, if they have kept it. You’ll see what I mean.)

When they’re done asking those questions, they should ask Coan and Lisa Otterbacher about Coan and Otterbacher’s leadership and management of someone like Meyer. Our community deserves better than this.

Recent News Coverage, Assessed:

I will review the latest news story on the case, from Mike Heine of the Janesville Gazette and The Week (both Bliss Communications publications). I am not sure what to make of Heine: he has broken some news in this case, but as I will show, his latest story is startlingly weak and incomplete. So much so, that I am not sure what to make of it.

On December 22, 2007, the Janesville Gazette ran a story under Heine’s byline entitled, “Cvicker Decides Not to Settle Suit.” I don’t know if Heine writes his own headlines — at many papers that’s an editor’s job — but this headline is one-sided, as you can see if you have read (1) all the briefs in the case, and (2) all the affidavits in the case.

Did Heine read all the documents in this case? I am not sure. In past stories, he has referred to court filings, but I cannot tell how much work he did for this story. He uses a dateline of ‘Milwaukee,’ but that does not tell me if went to the courthouse, and reviewed filings. If he didn’t, then he hasn’t worked hard enough. Solid reporters probe deeply. If Heine did, then I’m shocked by some glaring omissions.

Let me show you how carefully he quotes D.A. Koss:

Walworth County District Attorney Phil Koss said he never agreed to a reduction of criminal charges in exchange for a settlement in Cvicker’s civil case. “If I reduced this, everyone who is unhappy with their criminal conviction is going to sue the investigating officer and then go for a reduction by going to the federal court,” Koss said. “It’s bad precedent to reward someone for suing an officer.”

Koss said it was Cvicker and his attorneys who tried to tie the reduction of criminal charges to the civil case.

“I’ve never contacted them saying, ‘Settle this, and we’ll reduce in exchange for a release,’” Koss said….

Koss agreed that kind of action would be improper.

“We didn’t do that,” he said. “We were contacted by them. They made an offer to make sure everybody was held harmless if there was a civil settlement.

“Never in all my years have I seen some sort of criminal settlement tied to a civil settlement (like this),” Koss said.

Heine omits the one question to ask, based on the sworn affidavit of Attorney Mistrioty and the latest brief in Cvicker’s lawsuit against Meyer:

Did D.A. Koss ever hold discussions with criminal Attorney Resar about a global settlement? A sworn affidavit contends that Koss did hold those discussions.

If discussions are such a bad idea, why would Koss even entertain them, if — as others allege — he did entertain these discussions? Koss never denies those discussions took place. Never. You can see it yourself, at the Gazette article to which I have linked, how carefully Koss answers, to avoid that direct issue.

Did Heine bother to ask? If he did, what answer did he get? If he got an answer, then why didn’t he report it? If Heine knows that discussions took place, why be part of a story that laughably pretends that these were ‘coerced’ discussions?

Heine’s story is incomplete and evasive to me, and it reads more like a press-release for the district attorney than solid reporting.

If you can’t bother to ask the obvious questions, you’re not serving our community. more >>