The Lakewood Examiner

SS Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger

Kent’s assistant police chief Derek Kammerzell lost his job because he made a few Nazi jokes. People got offended, but no one was hurt. When three Lakewood police officers were involved in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man, a civil court awarded millions of dollars against them. But they still have their jobs, and one of them is currently in charge of Lakewood’s police department.

Derek Kammerzell was the Assistant Chief of the City of Kent’s Police Department. In January 2022, The Seattle Times reported that he had been disciplined for making Nazi jokes:

1. Derek Kammerzell had the oak leaf insignia of an SS Obergruppenführer on his office door. The picture above shows SS Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger, who was head of the SS Main Office. In Nazi Germany Obergruppenführer was an SS rank, equivalent to a three- or four-star general.

2. Derek Kammerzell shaved his moustache, to give himself the Hitler look.

3. Derek Kammerzell told a joke about his grandfather dying in the Holocaust, because he fell out of a concentration camp guard tower while drunk.

4. According to The Seattle Times, an investigation referenced

a photograph, taken during the city’s Octoberfest celebration in 2019, that appears to show Kammerzell, wearing lederhosen, giving the stiff-armed “heil Hitler” salute while standing behind Mayor Dana Ralph. Kammerzell explained that “someone may have taken a picture while they were waving.”

As a result of these incidents, Derek Kammerzell got two weeks off without pay. This was outrageous. An assistant police chief who behaves like this, and treats Nazism and the Holocaust so lightly, should lose his job.

The Seattle Times reported that the City of Kent wanted to discipline Derek Kammerzell a second time, but this raised legal complications, for example relating to double jeopardy. In the end, the City agreed to pay Kammerzell over $1.5 million dollars, to purchase his resignation.

Now it could be argued, not by me, that Derek Kammerzell didn’t deserve to lose his job, or even be disciplined. It was joking around between colleagues, and no one got hurt.

Contrast this with Lakewood. As I have discussed in a previous article, three serving Lakewood police officers had seven-figure settlements awarded against them, following the 2013 shooting of Leonard Thomas.

Here’s how The Seattle Times described the event:

Pierce County Metro SWAT assault-team leader Mike Wiley described the police sniper bullet that killed Leonard Thomas on the front porch of his Fife home in 2013, his 4-year-old son clasped in his arms, as a “frickin’ million-dollar shot.”

And:

The award included punitive damages totaling $6.5 million: $3 million against Lakewood Chief Mike Zaro, who was the SWAT commander that night; $2 million against Lakewood Sgt. Brian Markert, the sniper who pulled the trigger; and $1.5 million against Wiley, a Lakewood police officer.

The City of Lakewood, or its insurers, had to cover these costs. Yet none of these officers lost their jobs.

Michael Zaro was Lakewood’s assistant chief at the time of the shooting, the same rank as Derek Kammerzell. Shortly afterwards, he was promoted to chief of the Lakewood Police Department – a position he still holds.

The officers should have been fired, given that a civil jury had awarded damages against them. However, the City wasn’t happy with the verdict, and kept them on the payroll.

Even if the City had wanted to fire them, it may have been legally and contractually difficult. In which case Lakewood could have done what Kent did with Derek Kamerzell – purchased their resignation.

It might have cost a lot money, but keeping those officers on the force was a risk. If any of those officers had been involved in the death of another member of the public, a civil jury might be reluctant to give them the benefit of the doubt.  And as we know, on May 1, 2020, Michael Wiley shot Said Joquin dead during a traffic stop.

Mary Robnett, the Pierce County prosecutor, has decided that Michael Wiley won’t be facing criminal charges, but the civil case is proceeding. In dollar terms, it could cost the City of Lakewood a lot more than if they had bought three police officers’ resignations.

Melissa Knott is standing for Washington State Representative in the 29th Legislative District, Position 2. She is the best candidate for the position, and The Lakewood Examiner endorses her.

So what makes Melissa special?

Well, if you have spent any time observing Washington politics, you’ll know that successful Democratic candidates for political office tend to be self-serving conformists. They’ll boast about their progressive credentials, but as soon as they’re elected they become Stepford politicians – it’s as if they have been replaced by robot doubles.

Melissa Knott, by contrast, is clearly her own person, and she doesn’t care who she offends when she’s standing up for what she believes. I have seen her in action when confronting the mayors of Tacoma and Lakewood, and her passion and commitment to justice are obvious. I am confident that the trappings of political power won’t change this.

I know that for Melissa, education is of prime importance, as is social, racial and environmental justice. If she is elected to serve as a State Representative, I am confident that she’ll continue to be a true champion for the causes she has fought so hard for to date.

August 20, 2001. Lakewood had been a City for five years, and its mayor was Bill Harrison, its deputy mayor Claudia Thomas. Another member of the city council was Doug Richardson, who would himself become mayor.

August 20 was a Monday, and there was a meeting of the City Council. After the usual preliminaries, there were public comments. Dennis Haugen was there, and

[he] indicated that City officials and staff should not solicit members to serve on City Committees.

This is a reminder that some things don’t change, because in 2022 Dennis is still making comments, by Zoom, from his new home in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Although his recent comments tend to focus on national issues, such as immigration, crime, and drugs, his 2001 remark is still relevant.

We then had a comment from Judy Galbraith:

[who] expressed concern about the downgrading of zoning for single-family in the Oakbrook division. She recommended the elimination of daycare centers, health care and group homes zoning in Oakbrook. She expressed concern about sexual molesters moving across daycare facilities.

That’s another thing that doesn’t change – the minute-taking of council meetings leaves something to be desired.

However, what I think Judy Galbraith was complaining about was the proliferation of adult family homes in Oakbrook. And guess what? In 2022 it is still a problem, and arguably Doug Richardson and Claudia Thomas made the problem worse.

Once public comments were over, there was the usual consent agenda, followed by votes on various proposals. One vote was particularly devastating, and the City still lives with its consequences.

Doug Richardson proposed the following:

TO AMEND 18A.50.310 TO ADD THE FOLLOWING: “THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TREE PRESERVATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL ZONING DISTRICT AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, AND ARE APPLICABLE TO ALL ZONING DISTRICTS, EXCEPT FOR LOTS UNDER 17,000 SQUARE FEET IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES”; AND AMEND 18A.50.320. B. 2. A. TO REMOVE THE PHRASE,”. . . EXCEPT FOR LOTS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET GFS OR LESS IN SIZE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT.”

This means that if you are on a lot under 17,000 square feet you don’t need permission to remove trees. According to the old rules, prior to August 2001, the lot had to be under 10,000 square feet.

Deputy mayor Claudia Thomas seconded the proposal.

The vote for change was unanimous. This means that the whole City Council is collectively responsible for the environmental damage this change caused, and those who proposed and seconded it are doubly responsibility. Did Claudia Thomas unthinkingly follow Doug Richardson’s lead? Or did she make some effort to consider the consequences?

Following this change, a new group of property owners could cut down as many trees on their property as they wanted, without needing permits. As a result, it can be assumed that a vast number of trees, including precious Garry oaks, were erased from Lakewood’s landscape.

Furthermore, the change encouraged the development of adult family homes. In Oakbrook and other places, it became a common practice for developers of family homes to clear-cut their properties, to maximize the building space.

I saw this happening on a lot close to where I live. The property was over 10,000 square feet, but under 17,000. Prior to 2001, there were limits to what trees could be cut down. But because of Doug Richardson and Claudia Thomas, the owner was able to log 13 Garry oaks, without any need for permits.

Over the last year there has been pressure on the City to not just go back to the 10,000 square feet limit, but to have no limits whatsoever. This would mean that no matter how small the property, there would be some protection for eligible trees. The recent Ad Hoc Tree Committee has supported this amendment.

Hopefully, Lakewood will reverse the tragic change to the code that was instigated in 2001 by Doug Richardson and Claudia Thomas.

The permits for the speculative warehouse project on 123rd Street in Springbrook were issued today – almost nine acres of warehouses and parking lots will be built.

All the trees on the property will be cut down. That’s 114 Garry oaks and about 40 other trees.

This property contains “critical areas”, which are supposed to be protected. According to the Growth Management Act, there should be NO NET LOSS of critical areas.

In Lakewood, no matter how “critical” an area is, it can virtually always be cut down – as long as someone has the money to pay for it. (The exceptions are for example along shorelines and on steep slopes.) This developer will pay approximately $417,000 to cut all these trees down. They were “critical” — but apparently not “critical” enough.

But the loss of this critical area, with its 114 large Garry oak trees, cannot be mitigated.

That’s not just my personal opinion — that’s what a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat biologist told me. That’s obvious to everyone — except the City of Lakewood. There is no mitigating for that kind of loss of habitat and function.

But gotta keep the developers happy. “Bulldozing barriers,” as the City’s catchy slogan said.

The special native Garry oaks are nothing more than a barrier to these people. Cut ’em down, mill up ’em, make a buck! Who cares if they’re “critical”! That’s just some bull—- some scientists made up anyway.

You can’t replace what these trees give us and the creatures who inhabit them: oxygen, habitat, cleaner air, cooling in the summer, reduction of the urban heat island effect, carbon sequestration, psychological benefits, increased safety, infiltration of water run-off, and of course the beauty and solace that the oaks provide.

The valuable gifts that the oaks give us have no price, cannot be replaced, and yet are being stolen from us by a city who cares only about developers.

Why don’t they have them redevelop properties that have already been turned into concrete wastelands? There are plenty of those. Just look around Lakewood. There are even warehouses that have stood empty for years already (like on 84th). Fill those first!

Even their showcase “Colonial Plaza” is surrounded by a formerly upscale shopping center, now long derelict under their protective wing. That QFC has been closed since April 2010.

The “Director” has “discretion” regarding the fate of trees, according to the municipal code, but somehow it is always the developers who come out on top.

Gotta keep ’em happy. Who cares if they’re allowing entire swathes of critical areas and residential neighborhoods to be destroyed in order to do that.

Look at the complete devastation in Woodbrook, and at the Oakwood school property in Sylvan Park. Now they’re doing the same thing to Springbrook.

Remember, leaders of Lakewood — once you let it get wrecked, it is wrecked forever. You can never get it back.

And you’re the ones who have allowed this to happen.

Today we got a postcard from the City of Lakewood, telling us about possible changes to the tree code. If the recommendations of the recent Ad Hoc Tree Committee come into force, it will become more difficult to cut down trees on your property – particularly if the trees are Garry oaks.

I suspect the City was somewhat disappointed with the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. They tried to include members who were hostile to increased regulation, but overall, the Committee showed itself to be tree-friendly.

Matters were helped by the fact that members who were connected with real estate interests stopped turning up during the last few sessions. Maybe they had other commitments, or maybe they didn’t like the way things were going. Maybe they knew they didn’t really have to show up to all the meetings, since the Planning Commission would trash the recommendations later anyway.

And now the City of Lakewood is informing everyone in the City that the Ad Hoc Tree Committee has proposed stronger protections for trees.

That’s strange. The City never sent postcards to everyone in Lakewood telling them about proposals to create industrial zones. We weren’t told about plans to cut down hundreds of Garry oaks to make way for warehouses, and how we could register our opposition.

Maybe the City were just giving everyone a friendly warning. If you want to cut your Garry oaks down, you better do it now, because the rules are about to change.

Alternatively, Lakewood may regard those that care about environmental conservation as a lunatic fringe. They probably think that most Lakewood residents either don’t care about trees, or believe that property owner rights are absolute and God-given.

Then at the public hearing on July 6, the tree-huggers will be forced to wake up to the rude reality that they’re only a tiny minority.

Lakewood council members are chosen by the electorate, right?

Sometimes. Council members are elected for four-year terms, but if they resign, die or become ineligible for office there is no special election for a replacement. The remaining council members choose a replacement.

We saw this happening at the beginning of 2021. Council member John Simpson announced that he was moving out of Lakewood, and as a result he resigned from the Council.

The City asked for applicants to fill the vacancy. Anyone could apply, if they were a Lakewood resident and voter.

There were fourteen final applicants and in early February 2021 they were interviewed on Zoom. Each interview lasted for 15 minutes. Applicants made a statement about themselves, answered five questions, and gave a brief  summing up. These were the questions:

1. What skills, talent or diversity of background would you bring to the City Council?
2. How would the aforementioned attributes help you be an effective council member on day one?
3. What is your vision for the City of Lakewood?
4. What are the top three priorities you believe the City Council should focus on in 2021?
5. Why you? Why now?

The winning performance was from Patti Belle. Here’s her interview:

Patti Belle’s performance was beautifully choreographed, and she had the star quality of a gameshow contestant. Most importantly, she seemed to have just the profile the City was looking for:

I work in the mayor’s office in one of the largest cities in the State. I manage a national, awarding-winning communications team that produces and designs content for video, photography, online, and all of our social channels. We support the mayor, city council and ten City departments. My leadership…

A municipal bureaucrat who is used to keeping mayors and council members happy. Little chance of her rocking the boat or asking difficult questions.

Lakewood’s six council members voted for the fourteen candidates, in a series of rounds. In the final round Patti Belle was up against local architect Jeff Brown. Five council members votes for Patti Belle.  Jason Whalen was the only council member voting for Jeff Brown.

The council made a terrible choice, and they demonstrated that committee decisions can never replace the democratic process. Patti Belle made a good impression with the interview panel, but in the process showed herself to be the wrong choice.

This has been born out over the last year or more. Patti Belle tends to parrot the opinions of other council members, and seems to find it difficult if not impossible to act independently.

Worse still, we’re stuck with Patti Belle until 2025. In Lakewood, incumbents rarely get voted out of office, and in the November 2021 election she kept her council seat by a mile.

There’s more bad news. If Linda Farmer gets elected as Pierce County Auditor, I assume she’ll step down from the City Council. This means that at the beginning of 2023 the City Council might have to choose her replacement. So if you care about democracy in Lakewood, make absolutely sure that you don’t vote for Slippery Linda as Pierce County Auditor.

Linda Farmer, Democrat and Lakewood council member, has announced her candidacy for Pierce County Auditor.

But why would anyone want to vote for Slippery Linda, much less campaign for her?

In 2019, when Linda Farmer successfully stood for Position 6 on the Lakewood City Council, she was helped by a small army of Democrat doorbellers. However, one of these doorbellers offered me the opinion that she often left the hard work to others.

A year later, the Democrats were again on the campaign trail, trying to get Jani Hitchen elected to Pierce County Council, for District 6. Jason Whalen, Lakewood’s Republican Deputy Mayor, was her opponent.

So did Linda Farmer endorse Jani Hitchen, her fellow Democrat?

Slippery Linda back-stabbed her own doorbellers by endorsing Jason Whalen, as we discover from his 2020 campaign website:

This endorsement came despite the fact that Jason Whalen sent out a mailer accusing Jani Hitchen of having radical policies, and wanting to defund the police. Hitchen countered the accusation, by saying it was possible that the “division my opponent is causing is straight out of the Trump Republicans’ playbook”.

What Linda Farmer was thinking is anyone’s guess.

More slipperiness is what we see when surveying Linda Farmer’s performance on the Lakewood City Council. On one hand she talks up her progressive credentials – for example regarding the environment – on the other hand she almost invariably defers to mayor Jason Whalen and council member Donald Anderson.

I reported on this recently, when council member Michael Brandstetter proposed having the Garry oak as Lakewood’s official tree. Predictably Donald Anderson opposed the suggestion, and Linda Farmer followed his lead, saying

I would like a little bit more information about what it would mean to designate a city tree, to Council member Anderson’s point. What would happen if we needed to cut one down…?

Back in 2019, the Tacoma News Tribune endorsed Linda Farmer in her bid for Lakewood City Council:

In our estimation, Linda Farmer separates herself from the herd, in part because of her spot-on diagnosis of what ails the city: Lakewood, she told us, has “reputation issues.”

In 2019 Linda Farmer may have been the best of a bad bunch, but right now, in 2022, that endorsement rings hollow. Linda Farmer has not separated herself from the herd – indeed she has shown herself to be a pliant creature of the Anderson-dominated City Council.

If Linda Farmer had genuinely cared about Lakewood’s reputation, she would have posed some fundamental questions. For example, how was it that the City continued to employ three police officers who had been involved in the 2013 killing of Leonard Thomas? How could the City continue to employ officers who had had seven-figure sums awarded against them by a civil jury?

That’s the nature of collective responsibility. It doesn’t matter if Linda Farmer had only been a council member for four months when Said Joquin was shot dead by Michael Wiley, who was one of those three officers.

A grove of Garry oaks and a historic school were leveled to make way for parking lots and warehouses in Woodbrook on Linda Farmer’s watch, too. The annihilation of Lakewood’s Woodbrook neighborhood represents an indelible stain on Lakewood’s reputation.

Saying that the plans to destroy Woodbrook had already been decided, that there was nothing that could have been done, would be no excuse. As a self-proclaimed environmentalist, Linda Farmer should have moved heaven and earth to prevent this catastrophe from occurring.

Slippery Linda, through her behavior and track record, has shown herself to be unsuited for elected office.

Update: Lakewood mayor Jason Whalen is returning the favor and is endorsing Slippery Linda. Click here to read my comments on the matter.

Russell Garrison is buried in New Tacoma Cemetery, in the Veterans Honor Garden. During World War Two he graduated from Lincoln High School in Tacoma, and joined the 11^th Airborne, as a paratrooper. The unit fought the Japanese in the Philippines, seeing action in Leyte and Luzon. That’s quite something, for a family to send their only son, just out of high school, into a major conflict zone.

The teenage soldier became part of the forces occupying Japan. He was promoted to staff sergeant and ended his service as chief of a drafting section. He drew up many of the maps that were included in a book titled The Angels: A History Of The 11th Airborne Division, 1943-1946.

Russell Garrison’s time in Japan had an impact on him. We can see this in Lakewood Library, which was designed to bring us close to nature, and which originally had a Japanese Garden, on the Gravelly Lake side.

Lakewood Library was the pinnacle of Russell Garrison’s career as an architect, and in 1964 it won the First Honor award from the American Institute of Architects and the American Library Association. I should also mention that in 1962 Russell Garrison was Lakewood’s Man of the Year.

Lakewood Library is special, and it is fitting that a City taking such pride in its military connections has a library shaped by the vision of a World War Two veteran, a vision which won a prestigious national award.

Two years ago, on May 1 2020, Said Joquin was shot dead by a police officer from Lakewood Police Department. Said was a 26 year old African American, stopped in his car for erratic driving. It was less than a month before the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, yet there were few mass demonstrations, no grovelling statements from city officials, and media coverage was muted.

There was perhaps a perception that Said was responsible for his own death. He shouldn’t have been driving erratically and he shouldn’t have had a loaded Browning pistol under his seat – particularly without a concealed carry permit. However, did his behavioral lapses mean that he deserved to die?

Said Joquin, with a passenger, was driving on Steilacoom Boulevard when he ran a stop sign and brought his car to an abrupt halt in the middle of the road. There were two police cars behind him, so it was inevitable that he would be pulled over.

The police car immediately behind Said was driven by Officer Michael Wiley. After all cars had stopped, Michael Wiley approached Said’s car on the driver’s side, and he noticed a gun on the floor. Reports say that it was under the driver’s seat, with the handle protruding.

Michael Wiley pointed his gun at Said, who was still in the driver’s seat, and said to him:

So real quick, I see there’s a weapon in the (unintelligible) in the car. If you reach for anything, alright, you will be shot. Do you understand? Put your hands on your head. Do you have a permit for the weapon?

The situation seemed under control. Said apparently complied with Wiley’s instructions, and said “I don’t want to get shot”. Then it all went wrong. The Cooperative Cities Crime Response Unit’s (CRU) investigation reported that

According to Officer Wiley’s statement, Mr. Joquin suddenly lunged
down toward the gun with his hands, which he believed created a
grave risk of the officers being shot.

Note the use of the word “lunged”. It’s a highly charged word, and according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, it is about moving or reaching forward in a sudden, forceful way. Contrast this with the more neutral way Wiley described the event on a public safety form, when asked in what direction Said fired the rounds:

He didn’t, he just reached for his weapon.

That was certainly Wiley’s view of Said’s action, that he was reaching for his weapon. But do we really know what Said’s intention was, if any, when he lowered his arm?

And it doesn’t appear that Said ever reached his weapon, because Wiley shot at him four times, mortally wounding him.  According to another officer’s account, there were

two gunshot wounds to left his left breast and one above his left clavicle…

and

Another gunshot wound was apparent to Joaquin’s left forearm and lower left abdomen.

Even if Said had reached the weapon, would he have posed an immediate threat to anyone? The CRU report said that the gun was a .22 caliber handgun. It did not mention that it was in a holster, and neither did the statements of the officers at the scene that I read. Yet the crime laboratory report stated:

A loaded Browning Arms Company Model Buck Mark .22 LR caliber semi-automatic pistol (SN: 655NM29208) in a holster was underneath the front driver seat.

The question of whether the gun was in a holster is important, because if it was, it would have added an extra layer of difficulty to its effective employment,

Regardless of whether the gun was holstered, Said’s lowering of his arm almost certainly did not present sufficient cause for Michael Wiley to open fire. After all, Wiley is a trained professional, who appears to have been in complete control of the situation.

There therefore seems to be grounds for criminal charges to be laid against Michael Wiley. Yet in March 2022 Mary Robnett, the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney, announced that he would not be facing charges, and that “[his] response was consistent with the applicable good faith standard”.

Good faith is covered by Washington State law, in RCW 9A.16.040(4):

A peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force in good faith, where “good faith” is an objective standard which shall consider all the facts, circumstances, and information known to the officer at the time to determine whether a similarly situated reasonable officer would have believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious physical harm to the officer or another individual.

Michael Wiley may not have known that the gun was in a holster, but deadly force, at that moment, appears unnecessary. Said’s hand was not touching his gun, and surely a trained police officer, in control of the situation, should not have pulled the trigger at that particular moment?

Of course it may be argued that a criminal case would have never got very far, because of the high burden of proof. In a civil case it may be a different story, and one can look further afield for evidence of negligence and mismanagement.

In 2013 Michael Wiley was part of a police operaton that led to the killing of Leonard Thomas. The killing was widely reported, not least because an unarmed Thomas was shot by police while holding a child.  A jury awarded Thomas’ family $1.5 million dollars against Michael Wiley (and larger sums against two other officers), yet his employer, the City of Lakewood, was unhappy with the verdict. Not only did the City indemnify Michael Wiley, but it kept him on the payroll. This is shocking, not least because Michael Wiley responded to Thomas’ shooting by calling it a “frickin’ million dollar shot”.

One might expect a jury in a civil case to accept that Said’s behavioral lapses were not sufficient cause for Michael Wiley to shoot him. It could be further argued that the City of Lakewood was fundamentally negligient in having a police officer on its payroll who had cost them (or their insurer) $1.5 million. After all ordinary working people, many of whom don’t earn the six-figure salary of a police officer, would be fired on the spot if their actions had cost their employer over a million dollars.