They don't know but they sure say

Commentary from the uninformed, part 2

Let’s examine this hypothesis concerning the chronic complainers – we’ll use the abbreviation “CC” for the rest of this post. Given: The CC are forcefully demanding that the Mayor drop his lawsuit against the police union and its legal advisor.

Hypothesis; they do so primarily because they've been misled and emotionally-overstimulated by propaganda. (Scientific process, especially in medicine, starts with a hypothesis and then tries to disprove it. Once a hypothesis is found that can’t be disproven it is used as a working theory.)

Assumption 

If the CC are simply uninformed about the details of this issue, and their stand is based upon their ethics or worldview, they should hold

consistent views about similar issues. Let’s look at two current controversies.

History situation 1

Council wanted to examine the jobs of City employees with the idea that some could be less-expensively done by contractors. The MOU (which serves as a union contract) required that all affected employees be notified individually and personally that their job was being studied.

When employees were individually notified the CC and union agitators generated fear and distorted public debate by labeling the job study a prelude to termination. The reality? The Council noted firmly that no jobs were at risk, but more economical operations were being studied.

The union sued the City over alleged violations of the exact MOU procedures. The unions have continued their legal attack with appeals and challenges although the issue – a job outsourcing study – has long been moot.(1) This appears to be a legal tactic of “bleeding your opponent,” by forcing them to keep spending money defending against frivolous motions and appeals.

According to the CC, defending against the union lawsuit is needless legal expense – and the Council’s extravagance.   Also, they assert that the union lawsuit seeks justice for alleged mistakes that made City employees feel frightened and unneeded. Their own inflammatory – and false -- rhetoric at the time is ignored as a trigger of employee fear. The union’s choice to continue the suit over a moot point is missed, too.

A comparable issue

Members of the Police union drove City vehicles about the City towing signs urging Righeimer’s defeat. Mensinger’s truck was vandalized. At least one Council meeting was dominated by men in uniform blocking aisles and using intimidating gestures. “Someone” hired a disenfranchised cop to try to entice a Councilman, Monahan, to violate marriage vows. 

(See the newspaper articles where other OC police unions sought and received “special consideration” in return for not revealing embarrassing information about their council members.)

The operative, a fired cop, followed Righeimer out of the restaurant and reported him as a drunk driver in a false DUI report. The Mayor was visited at home by a police officer who gave him a field sobriety test in front of his family and neighbors.

It's not going to stop until . . .

The police union’s law firm had published a “playbook” advising police unions how to force their civilian governments to cave in to union demands – cynical advice about unethical tactics. (2) It looked like the playbook was calling the shots for CMPD’s union. The playbook was taken down, but the tactics it advocated were never disavowed by Costa Mesa’s police union. That is, the Mayor, and Pro Tem could expect the intimidation tactics to continue, and maybe to increase.

The Mayor and Pro Tem filed a lawsuit against the union and its law firm to protect themselves and their families – and all elected officials in Orange County – against such egregious abuses of power. They asked that the union and its law firm be punished for illegal, unethical, and immoral behavior to warn others against further aggression. They assert that elected officials and their families should feel safe as they discharge their duties.

CC, police union don't disavow playbook's tactics

The chronic complainers want the Mayor to drop his suit against the Police union and its law firm. They speculate that it makes police officers feel “negative.” Elected officials and their families might feel frightened, intimidated, and unfairly maligned, but . . . apparently that’s OK.

That is, punitive lawsuits over moot points are good – if they’re filed by unions. Punitive lawsuits about illegal intimidation tactics, or extortion, are bad – if they’re filed by Mayor Righeimer.

Hypothesis appears wrong

Nope, the chronic complainers aren’t being objective – or fair. The hypothesis that CC is simply mislead and overstimulated is suspect.

Next, in Part 3; another hypothesis -- cui bono?

1. Employee union  in court  Here

2. Playbook  Here