The Lakewood Examiner

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.

The City of Lakewood is proposing to up-light the Garry oak trees adjacent the Colonial Plaza. This means putting lights under the trees, so as to create a cool, night-time effect. Unfortunately those making the proposal seem mainly concerned with surface appearances, and haven’t fully considered the science.

As we know, a major problem of modern living is light pollution. It is not just about not being able to see the stars, but it is also about the disruption of natural rhythms.

William Chaney, from Purdue University, wrote an article titled “Does night lighting harm trees?”. He pointed out that light effects both photosynthesis and photoperiodism – photoperiodism being the role of day length in growth and reproduction.

Chaney discussed some of the variables. Clearly the negative impact of the light is going to be worse if it is on all night rather than some of the night. You also have to consider the type of light – fluorescent, mercury vapor and metal halide lights have low impact, while incandescent and high pressure sodium are high impact.

There is also the question of where the lights are, and up-lighting should definitely be avoided. In fact, Chaney states “In all cases, up lighting and shining light over great horizontal distances should be avoided”.

So the City needs forget the up-lighting, because it is no good for the trees.

I should also mention the animals, including nesting birds, that would suffer because of the light pollution.

Finally, I think that there is something quite perverse about the idea of lighting up the Garry oaks. The City wants to give the impression that it cares about this special tree, yet in the process of signally its virtue it is damaging the very thing it is claiming to love and protect.

Former Lakewood mayor Donald Anderson is an unpleasant bully, but that doesn’t excuse the spineless fawning of three of the City’s council members.

On April 11, 2022, the Council had a study session, at which members discussed council member Michael Brandstetter’s proposed resolution that the Garry oak become Lakewood’s official City tree. This would have been an acknowledgement that the Garry oak has a special importance to Lakewood, and perhaps it would have made people think twice before cutting Garry oaks down.

David Bugher, the assistant city manager and general éminence grise, made a few comments, and then Donald Anderson jumped in first to give his opinion. This was typical Anderson. Go in first, push his opinions on everyone else:

I’m a bit hesitant about this because I don’t see how it can be decoupled from having a tree committee looking at what we should do. And if we’re… As innocuous as it may seem, if we vote and say that the Oregon white oak is the city tree, then next thing anybody is going to say is that you can’t cut any down because it is the city tree, and it’s going to come right back in our face.

Naturally, Mary Moss, the low-key new deputy mayor, agreed with Anderson:

Based on what we are dealing with, I have to agree with Council Member Anderson. We don’t want to make… Let the other group help us make this decision.

Council member Linda Farmer followed suit:

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…?

Note how Linda Farmer has added a new concept to the argument, the need for more information. This leads to council member Patti Belle’s view:

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I would also like to agree with Council Member Anderson, and it seems like the majority, that I would like more information, too, and I agree that we’d get ourselves into an interesting situation if we did have to cut down a city tree. So I would love a lot more clarity on that.

Patti Belle is the newest and youngest council member, originally appointed rather than elected. Her day job is in some other municipality’s city government, and perhaps she’s used to telling city politicians what they want to hear. We can observe how she takes Anderson’s point about the problems of cutting down City trees, and tacks on Linda Farmer’s request for more information. So she’s behaving like a vacuum cleaner for other people’s opinions. And by expressing her view last, she can follow the majority without sticking her neck out.

We can see how Donald Anderson has pushed the council into line. He also gets the last laugh, when he finished the exchange by making a comment about Douglas firs:

I would note that the State tree of Oregon is the Douglas fir and they make a business of cutting them down as quickly as they can.

If you watch the video of the exchange, you’ll see that the bully ends this comment with a chuckle. In this instructive display of his modus operandi, Anderson concludes the tidy process by which he killed Michael Brandstetter’s proposal with ridicule.

Victoria Woodards is the mayor of Tacoma, and she has  a theory of leadership that comes straight out of the playbook of the Soviet politburo. When justifying the unanimous votes that had come to characterize the Tacoma City Council, she remarked “A 4-5 or 5-4 vote is politics, a 9-0 vote is leadership”. If you look at the video, note the self-satified smile when she’d made her point, as if she has just elevated political craft to a new level of excellence. Thank you to Tacoma activist Melissa Knott for provoking Victoria Woodards into making such a ridiculous comment.

Lakewood’s new mayor, Jason Whalen (with the scissors), has initiated a “Community Coffeehouse”, which meets every other month. The last meeting was on March 24, at Fort Steilacoom Park’s pavilion, and its subject was public safety.

The meeting was well attended, and there was a big effort to make everyone feel welcome. Both Jason Whalen and Heidi Wachter, the City attorney, greeted me as I arrived, and there was plenty of food and coffee. This was not the place to make political points – you would have had to have been very brave to ask questions about the shooting of Said Joquin when everyone else wanted to talk about burglary and car theft.

Which brings us to the main speaker, Michael Zaro, Lakewood’s police chief. Some might say that he shouldn’t be commenting on public safety, given his involvement in the Leonard Thomas killing, and the multi-million dollar award to the Thomas family that followed it. However, the City loves Michael Zaro, and there is no doubt that he is highly intelligent and very articulate.

Michael Zaro reassured Lakewood that overall, there wasn’t much to worry about. The group of crimes that most people are afraid of, crimes against the person, are not going up. He also pointed out that crimes against the person tend to involve people who know each other, rather than strangers. And here are the numbers, in a quarterly graph put out by the Lakewood Police Department:

Where there is a problem is property crimes, and in particular, the theft of motor vehicles. This happened to my neighbor, who lives across the road from Jason Whalen.

At around 6.30 am a woman walked into his house while his family was sleeping, grabbed his keys, and took off in his car. He tried to stop her, but the woman told him, as she drove off, that she needed money to feed her kids. Fortunately the gas tank was nearly empty, and the car was found abandoned in University Place.

Here’s the graph for property crimes:

And motor vehicle theft:

Michael Zaro suggested that one of the reasons for the increase in motor vehicle theft, and other vehicle-related crimes, was state law – specicifically, the passing of House Bill 1054 in 2021.

As a result of this law, passed by a Democrat-dominated state legislature, police can only pursue vehicles in the gravest of circumstances. This means that people who have stolen cars, or being interrupted in the middle of a burglary, can drive off without any fear of being chased.

To illustrate this, Zaro showed a video taken in the Safeways parking lot. A suspected thief had passed out in a car, and as he was sleeping, the police had to barricade the car in, with patrol vehicles in front of him and behind him. Otherwise, he could have driven off the moment he woke up.

House Bill 1054 was not just about vehicular pursuit, and it covered a range of police behavior – for example relating to choke-holds and the use of military equipment. However, it has clearly encouraged certain types of crime, as Lakewood residents are discovering to their cost. And I suspect that over the next few years Washington Republicans are going to hold up House Bill 1054 as evidence that the Democrats are dangerously weak on law and order.

Something is rotten in the City of Lakewood, and one aspect of the rot may be the lengthening tenure of members of the City Council.

Lakewood became a city in 1996, and it therefore has a City Council, with seven members. These seven members have four-year terms, and every two years there are elections for three or four members. I don’t know how the City Council was formed on Lakewood’s initial incorporation, but in 1997 there were elections for all seven council members.

In 1999, three of the council members successfully stood for re-election, and in 2001 it was the turn of the other four. This gave rise to the massacre of November 6, 2001, when two of the council members standing for election lost their seats. You might think this isn’t a big deal, but in the 25-year history of Lakewood, it was the only time when sitting members of the Council have been defeated. In Lakewood, incumbents have a huge advantage, and the longer their stay in office, the longer they stay in office.

We might then ask why council members would want to stay in their positions. Maybe they enjoy the public service, or perhaps they see it as a stepping stone to county, state, or federal office. Or maybe it is a nice piece of extra income. In the modern day it is common to get income from various sources, and according to the City of Lakewood, council members get paid $16,800 a year—and a bit more if they are mayor or deputy mayor. But whatever the reason, there is a trend for Lakewood council members to hang on for longer.

I have shown this in the following graph:

On the x-axis are the years, from 1997 through to 2021, and on the y-axis the median number of years that the council members elected in any year have been in elected office. To illustrate this, in 2019 two council members stood for re-election: Don Anderson and Paul Bocchi. Marie Barth decided not to seek re-election.

At that time Don Anderson had been a council member for twelve years, Paul Bocchi for eight years. Linda Farmer replaced Marie Barth. The median number is therefore eight years. By the way, I am counting years to the last election, not years to any between-election appointment to the Council.

What we see from the graph is that since 2009 council members’ median elected tenure has been steadily rising. In 2017 and 2019 it was eight years, after the November 2021 election the graph moved to twelve years. Put another way, five of the seven council members in place in 2012 are still in office.

This is not good for democracy. For the best part of a decade, almost the same group of council members have been sitting with each other. They are used to each other’s presence, and it is going to be increasingly difficult to rock the boat. The council is part of the machine, and agendas and relationships can emerge that have a lasting impact on the City.

Lakewood citizens might feel that there is nothing they can do about the situation, given that it has been over 20 years since an incumbent council member has been voted out of office, but this depressive posture might be part of the problem. By voting against sitting council members, whoever they are, it might be possible to slow down the rot. Unfortunately Lakewood must wait until 2023 to get another opportunity.

In Lakewood the mayor and deputy mayor are not directly elected. They are chosen by the City Council. So when Donald Anderson stood down as mayor, the council chose a replacement, who was Jason Whalen, the deputy mayor.

These council-chosen positions are not just ceremonial and are not special prizes for long service. They carry real power, for example through the chairing of meetings and through influence and patronage. While usually the mayor has most of the influence, the deputy mayor must be ready to temporarily take over.

Also, the deputy mayorship is a pathway to leadership. On January 7 2008 Donald Anderson, as a newly elected council member, was appointed unanimously as deputy mayor. Five years later he became full mayor.

We would therefore expect the new deputy mayor to be a future leader. Or as the Tacoma News Tribune put it in July 2021, when endorsing council member Patti Belle, she “could be a bridge between the accomplished old guard and a well-rounded new generation of leaders”.

Unfortunately Patti Belle has shown very little aptitude for political leadership. Last spring she was appointed to the City Council, following the resignation of John Simpson, and she appears to have been appointed for her ability to mould herself to a pre-existing organizational culture. When commenting on policy she tends to parrot other council members, and it is possible that she feels a debt of gratitude to the people who appointed her.

In terms of a new generation of leaders, it seems that the few realistic candidates for deputy mayor declined to put their names forward. One might have expected Linda Farmer or Paul Bocchi to put their names forward. They are both in their fifties, so have at least another fifteen years of political life. But instead they stood back and allowed Mary Moss to become deputy mayor.

Mary Moss was first elected in 2009, and as a city leader she is ineffective – almost as ineffective as Patti Belle. I would assume that she won’t be standing for re-election when her term runs out at the end of 2025, so it does look as if the deputy mayorship is little more than a long service award.

As for the new mayor, Jason Whalen, whose term also runs out in 2025, one wonders if Lakewood is the summit of his political ambitions. In 2020 he narrowly failed to get elected to Pierce council and I find it difficult to believe that he won’t try again for higher elected office.

So what happens next? As it stands Lakewood is approaching a leadership vacuum. And it almost feels that Mary Moss was given the deputy mayorship as a way of keeping the seat warm for someone else. We then have to look very carefully at the 2023 election, and see who puts themselves forward to replace Donald Anderson on the council.

If I had to speculate, I think it might be Anderson’s daughter, Alyssa Anderson Pearson, the current board president of the Clover Park School District. She might also be Lakewood’s next deputy mayor and then mayor, unless an excellent, well-funded candidate can stop her getting elected in 2023.

British politician Enoch Powell wrote that “All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs”. And with Donald Anderson’s announcement that he is standing down as mayor of Lakewood, yet another political life bites the dust.

Of course Anderson might argue that being mayor of Lakewood was the summit of his political ambitions. He was mayor for eight years, and what more can any man want? He had eight years as a big bully in a small pond, and an enduring part of his legacy will be the permanant destruction of many aspects of Lakewood’s ecosystem.

Yet it is a sad end for someone who boasts that in 1971, as a teenager, he was elected to the Puyallup School Board, and was the youngest school board president in the United States. But I suppose not every child prodigy can do a Michael Jackson, and make the transition to adult stardom.

Lakewood City Council has seven members, and this year, 2021, four of them were up for re-election. Not surprisingly, no one lost their seat.

Deputy mayor Jason Whalen easily beat off a challenge from Siabhon Ayuso, getting 75.28% of the vote. Michael Brandstetter did almost as well against Amelia Escobedo, getting 74.6%. Recently appointed council member Patti Belle did fantastically well against Ria Covington Johnson, getting close to 80%. Then there was Mary Moss, whose only opponents were write-ins.

It is depressing that no one bothered to stand against Mary Moss. I believe she’s a Democrat, in which case she’s a Democrat In Name Only (DINO). She’s utterly patronized by other members of the City Council, and she endorsed Republic Jason Whalen when he stood for Pierce Council in 2020. Though libertarians and progressives should take some solace in the fact that in 2018 she voted against Lakewood’s Ordinance 683, to prohibit the production, processing, and retail sale of marijuana.

So far, Patti Belle has been even less impressive than Mary Moss. In the Spring she was appointed to the Council, after John Simpson’s mid-term resignation. She works for the City of Kent, and she impressed Lakewood’s Council when she interviewed for the vacancy.

The Tacoma New Tribune endorsed Patti Belle, writing that she “could be a bridge between the accomplished old guard and a well-rounded new generation of leaders”. Do the Tribune‘s journalists ever visit City Council meetings? Patti Belle is a follower rather than a leader, who appears beholden to the people who appointed her. Having said that, Ria Covingdon Johnson ran a fairly invisible campaign and the result was never in question.

As for Siabhon Ayuso and Amelia Escobedo, we should credit them for being the almost lone voices of opposition to Lakewood’s monolithic council. At least until this summer, when the Garry oak scandal broke. However, their election campaigns left much to be desired.

In the August primaries, Siabhon Ayuso got 1503 votes compared to David Howarth’s 1170 votes. In some ways it is a shame that David Howard didn’t knock her out of the race. He had some progressive policies and he might have gained valuable political experience running a main challenge to Jason Whalen. And then Siabhon Ayuso, having got through the primary, largely disappeared. This underlines the fact that if you put yourself forward for election you have an obligation to your community to be 100% committed.

Amelia Escobedo ran a better campaign than Siabhon Ayuso, but her apparent advocacy of loud noise, in the Voters’ pamphlet, seemed unwise:

The third reason I am running is because our current City Council members are living in the “Foot Loose” ages. They do not allow night clubs, you are not allowed play loud music on Edgewater Park, and we are losing millions in tax revenue from lack of marijuana dispensaries.

If Amelia and Siabhon are going to stand again in 2023, they need to play to win. They both have strong connections with the community, and they understand that Lakewood is crying out for a vision, which includes both social and environmental justice. Amelia and Siabhon must now rise from their defeats, and start committing themselves to electoral victory.