Mr. Les Weaver Addresses the Shady Cove City Council, September 21, 2000,

Subject: Shady Cove Police policies:

My name is Les Weaver and my companion is Karla Podlech. As does the city, we will audio tape this portion of the meeting for our personal records.

Karla and I live at 101 Train Lane where we placed a manufactured home in May of this year. In the short time we have been here, we have and are continuing to spend time and money to improve our property. We have paid for and abided by every city and county code and ordinance we are aware of.

Among the first things we did was to visit city hall and inquire into and receive that informatiuon related to our obligation to the city. We also visited the office of the police and received other information for the interest of new Shady Cove residents. It was during one of these early visits that I was asked to join a local political group and report back the plans and directions of that group to the chief of police. Of particular mention were two bar owners. Because there were witnesses to this request and to gather my wits for such a covert act, I suggested that the subject be discussed at a different time and place over a cup of coffee. The subject has never again arose but my personal exposure to city politics since has caused me to conclude that the organization is legal and includes persons who may be political adversaries to the existing city administration. I do not believe that any city employees should use their position to invade legitimate political organizations and therefore I now publicly refuse to be a mole or "plumber" on behalf of this police department or city administration. Neither should any city employee walk a line of slander and defamation of character of any citizen while in the position of representing the city.

Another problem we have been burdened with is free roaming dogs in our neighborhood. Although we mentioned them to the police on several occasions early n our residency, we did not file a formal complaint and no action was taken by the police department to enforce city ordinace about free roaming dogs in our neighborhood. In spite of the bad smell and periodic necessity of cleaning dog feces from our shoes, we progressed with property improvement. A part of the problem was solved when the loose animals from one source caused a physical confrontation between citizens which climaxed in penalty for both parties and the fencing of three dogs. Because the dog problem has been a long known continuing problem, this is fairly defined as reactive policing as opposed to preventative policing and is not the fault of the field officers but rather the result of police management policies.

After fencing our yard, planting shrubs, flowers and a lawn, the other free roaming dogs became a serious problem. Nightly they would visit our property to urinate on our patio plants, leave excrement in our yard and also damage our newly planted lawn., flowers and shrubs. Although we had seen the dogs and video taped them on the property of others, it took some time to video tape one on our property, not just departing nor just the evedence of their visit. Having the video, I first politely pointed out the previous nights damage to the dog owner and asked if he would keep his animal from my yard. That very night, they again visited resulting in our filing a formal complaint with chief Johnson on 08/21/00. When I told him I had videos of the dogs he expressed irritation. We again complained about 09/07/00 when chief Johnson and officer Fazio responded. At that time we did not sign a formal complaint for several reasons but rather hoped that police pressure representing the city, as opposed to neighbor baiting, might solve the problem without severe costs to the dog owner. Again I mentioned the continuing video and again Johnson expressed irritation, saying it was not necessary. It was at that time when I again inquired into the police ride along program. Chief Johnson suggested that I withhold until I had a "fitted bullet proof vest". Neither I, family, friends nor other law enforcement acquaintances find humor in that comment but rather suggest it as a subtle threat. A few days later, chief Johnson informed me that two neighbors had come to city hall and vouched that the dogs did not present a problem, seeming that the entire issue was now solved by majority vote. On this matter, apparently no inquiry was made about the dogs free roaming in violation of city ordinance. I am certain that these dogs are also not a problem to any citizens south of the bridge, or to Lois Holland or chief Johnson who both live in the greater neighborhood of the subject dogs. However, it has nothing to do with the ordinance nor sould it influence enforcing the ordinance. Chief Johnson boasted that it was refreshing to have someone come come down who was not complaining for a change. I won't respnd to that comment at this time.

Since the trespass of the dogs continued and in light of the preceding, I called the Jackson County Department of Animal Control. They responded particularly fast because there was an outstanding complaint that these same dogs were were reported to be annoying livestock in violation of Oregon State law. Upon inquiry, the department of animal control found that the dogs were unlicensed, an omission on Johnson's investigation and report of 8/21/00. The County cited the dog owners for being unlicenced and because the dogs roamed freely that same evening and since, a second costly complaint (with video evidence) is in the Jackson County system where it cannot be ignored to oblivion by this police department's policies.

In spite of Chief Johnson's certain ire, I again say that I have videos of the ordinance infractions and in addtion, "hard evidence" of the dogs passing. As disgusting as having hard evidence may seem, imagine for a moment that this evidence was under your desk each morning and not in a double zip-lock baggie. Now that I am retired, my yard is my office and I demand the same as you would, enforcement of an ordinance. And in addition -- restraint from the practice of neighbor baiting as vengeance for some complaints. PREVENTATIVE police action not just RESPONSIVE police action is in order. If this ordinance like so many others, cannot be enforced to the benefit of ALL citizens, I move that each in turn be repealed and the citzens be advised of their recourse through other law enforcement agencies.

Since moving to Shady Cove, we have been made aware that our experience in not only common, particularly in our neighborhood, but it is trivial compared to the experiences of some others. Some of my neighbors, as did we , have gone to higher authority. Some, express fear of retaliation at their real and personal property and their families by those who break ordinances followed by delayed or no police response, not an uncommon experience. I suggest that immediately , there be one devoted public forum and one evening public forum where the administration of this city opens the doors to unrestricted discussion of this problem. Although we have good officers in the field, it may be that the seeming police management policies of favoritism and vengence to satisfy personal animosities need to be reviewed and overturned. I, among many would look to that forum for both our personal and civic benefit.

Karla and I have concluded that we gained chief Johnson's animosity as his response to my nonresponse to becoming a political mole and in addition, our response to recent unsolicited media inquiry to our opinion about living next door to a "pig farm". This because our opinion is 180 degrees from the strongly expressd opinion of chief Johnson's feelings about the farm and it's owner. (this is a serious issue by itself and absolutely deserves open discussion at another forum).

visit Mail Tribune's story on Kathy Mason's 'pig farm'web site at: http://www.rogueforum.com/kathymason.htm

At this time, neither Karla nor I are ready to join the increasing ranks of those who suggest that the growing police policy problems be solved by seeking oversight at State level. However, if necessary, we will enthusiastically be supporting such a move if that is what it takes to provide balanced, fair, professional and responsive police coverage.

Until there is an attitude adjustment acceptable to us, Karla and I insist that any further interface between chief Johnson and us be limited to emergencies, that instead, one of his officers be used for any necessary police interface, that any call to the department for police service not result in hang up or planned delay as others have experienced and that there is no further harassment, intimidation or threats either directly or by baiting our neighbors or others to retaliate in his behalf. We deserve nothing less.

We are not here to seek answers or hear conjured up excuses without a thorough investigation covering many problems brought by a multitude of citizens. We are here to solicite change, and soon.

Thank you; Les Weaver and Karla Podlech

Return to Citizens index : Click here

Click to make comments or ask questions about anything on this website.

To contact the editor, click here: editor@rogueforum.com