JXIndivisible

The members of the City of Spokane City Council need to hear from us. On next Monday evening, the June 15th Council meeting. The Council is supposed to vote on a new contract with the Spokane Police Guild (i.e. the Police Union). Neither for the union, nor for the mayor, Nadine Woodward, whom the union endorsed, nor for the City Council could there be a more glaring time for this contract to come up. 

The entire country has been roiling for two weeks in protests over the cold-blooded, extra-judicial killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman, an event captured in gruesome detail on a widely viewed video. Now the Spokane City Council faces a yes or no choice on a contract put forward by the police union and the mayor they helped elect.

To be fair, the City of Spokane police under Chief Meidl did well in interacting with peaceful protesters and dealing with the few agitators who tried to provoke riots during the last two weeks. They deserve praise for their efforts overall. The Spokane police have been working without a contract for three years. Many agree they deserve the raise that is part of the contract that comes up for a vote Monday night. 

BUT: What justifies a contract that grants the Spokane Police Guild more autonomy and less oversight? This is a city with a history. From Daniel Walters Inlander article from June 9th (well worth reading):

In 2006, [Otto] Zehm, a mentally disabled janitor, walked into a Spokane Zip Trip to get a Snickers, only to be tased, beaten and hogtied by Spokane Police officers. He died, and police officers lied about it. The officer who struck Zehm 13 times with his signature ironwood baton was sent to prison — though not before 50 officers in the courtroom, including future Police Chief Craig Meidl, stood up and saluted the convicted officer. 

That salute is a sickening image in an era where we are forced to reckon with video images of multiple police killings nationwide over succeeding years. We cannot know what was in the minds of those 50 fellow Police Guild (union) members as they saluted their convicted compatriot, but the symbolism of the image remains. Guild members stand in solidarity–regardless. That salute was a warning to the citizens of Spokane that resonates today.

It should escape no one that Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich is busy defending his choice to offer a course this fall, part of the message of which is the “warrior mentality,” desensitization to killing, and solidarity after the event. (for more on that: “Killology” and the Sheriff) What does this say about the overall law enforcement culture in the county and the city at its center?

Daniel Walters adds: 

…70 percent of Spokane voters supported an ordinance in February of 2013 to etch the ombudsman’s right to conduct independent investigations into city law, that power has remained at the mercy of the Police Guild’s contract.

The contract on the table next Monday at the City Council, negotiated out of the public eye between representatives of the Police Guild and the mayor the Guild helped elect, Mayor Woodward, (and her conservative predecessor, Mayor Condon) offers the Police Guild additional control over the ombudsman, the very existence of whom seems to rankle the Guild. The Guild (the union) refusing to cooperate with the Police Ombudsman is a persistent issue (See The Ombudsman & the Police Union). Now with Woodward apparently on board the union wants to diminish the autonomy and reach of the police ombudsman, an office the citizens overwhelmingly voted to establish–and right when the power and insularity of police unions is in the spotlight.

Even Councilman Michael Cathcart, a conservative and definitely a “law and order” sort of guy, is quoted by the Spokesman, “My struggle is I just don’t know how I could vote for a contract that in my opinion is outright noncompliant with the city charter,”

Daniel Walters writes in the Inlander article: “Cathcart says he wishes he could separate the financial piece from the oversight piece — granting the police department their long-overdue raises without approving the limitations on the ombudsman.”

That raises a legitimate question: Why is control of the ombudsman part of the negotiation of the police union contract at all? 

We understand the contract to be presented to the City Council on Monday is the result of three years of negotiations between the Guild and representatives of two conservative mayors leading the executive branch of city government. We might even agree that a raise is overdue. But this is not the time to weaken police oversight. 

Take this opportunity today to learn who represents you on the City Council and send them an email comment. Here’s the link for that: https://my.spokanecity.org/citycouncil/members/ They need constituents to speak up in defense of the oversight the voters endorsed in 2013. 

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

P.S. I keep returning to the image of 50 Spokane police officers in the courtroom saluting the convicted officer responsible for the death of Otto Zehm. The symbolism of that act is distressing. 

P.P.S. For more insight, check out the Fresh Air podcast, “Rethinking American Policing,” which aired Wednesday, June 10.

P.P.P.S. Even the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a left wing newspaper, has weighed in with an opinion piece, “The Problem with Police Unions.” A quote from that piece that is particularly pertinent to our situation in Spokane: “The AFL-CIO’s legendary chief George Meany once said ‘it is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.’ Collective bargaining in business is adversarial. But public unions sit on both sides of the bargaining table since they help elect the politicians with whom they negotiate.” (the bold is mine)

P.P.P.P.S. In the course of writing this piece I visited the Spokane Police Guild website. For a group that advertises “Serving the City of Spokane Washington” on their homepage, it seemed more than a little odd to read, “Access for the site is open to Spokane Police Guild members only.” The deliberations of the City Council are open to public view, but the police negotiate as a secret society opaque to us, the citizens.

I found some grim humor in this headline from the Washington Post on Thursday, June 4th: “Armed white residents lined Idaho streets amid ‘antifa’ protest fears. The leftist incursion was an online myth.” The article came with a photo of three militia-types decorated in flag paraphernalia on Sherman Ave in Coeur d’Alene. (It’s worth clicking on the article just to see the photo.) The caption read: ” ‘We are not counterprotesters. We’re just going to make sure Coeur d’Alene is safe,’ said Conrad Nelsen, shown holding a flag during a protest Tuesday.” But, according to the Spokesman, “many Idaho protesters don’t feel safer with armed civilians showing up.” The whole scene would be laughable, except that these people actually have convinced themselves (or been convinced) they are addressing a real threat to the community. (see P.S. below)

The previous Sunday evening, May 31st, Spokane County Sherriff Ozzie Knezovich quickly labelled the window breakers and rioters in Spokane as outsiders and “antifa socialists,” echoing Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr. Unaccountable electronic media (of dubious backing), like North Idaho News on Facebook (which seems to have one young video-producing talking head) fanned the flames of rumor with breathless posts like this one on Tuesday, June 2, “This evening’s protests in Downtown Coeur d’Alene. Peaceful so far. Black Lives Matter is peacefully protesting and the armed presence of locals are [sic] ensuring no one infiltrates the protest and turns it into a riot.” This self-appointed, self-aggrandizing, unaccountable right wing news geek would be risible if he weren’t firing up the fears and self-importance of militiamen toting enough firepower to mow down a whole parade in a few minutes. 

Sandpoint, Idaho, (pop. around 10,000) was not mentioned in the Washington Post article, but the fears of imminent rioting activated the militias from around Sandpoint, too. That prompted a surreal and disturbing scene on the Long Bridge where several hundred mostly young people, most wearing masks, and demonstrating in support of Black Lives Matter were followed closely by a cadre of older white men in camo with assault rifles and cartridge belts, claiming to “protect” the protesters. These riled-up militiamen have the endorsement of two of the three Bonner County Commissioners (Dan MacDonald and Pastor Bradford)* and Idaho State Rep. Heather Scott (a fellow traveler of Washington State Rep. Matt Shea). 

Sandpoint Police Chief Corey Coon in a Facebook Live presentationthrough the Sandpoint City Council on Friday, June 5th, avoided taking sides. Describing an encounter he had with a group of armed men at City Beach park Chief Coon said they told him, when he inquired of their intent, that if they saw anything suspicious on their patrol they would “call 911.” (“Shh. Be wery, wery quiet. I’m hunting wabbits,” to quote Elmer Fudd.) Chief Coon did not ask what the purpose was of all that weaponry if their plan was only to notify the police emergency number.

The Bonner County Daily Bee reported “a conversation” around the presence of armed militiamen “protecting the protesters,” a conversation that roiled the Sandpoint City Council meeting on Wednesday, June 3. One resident said the armed men were “fear mongers,” but I think that only captures part of it. They are not only “fear mongers” but they have, themselves, been “fear mongered,” that is, these men have been riled up by sources in their information echo chambers bent both on hyping an imagined threat and puffing up their sense of self importance. That’s a dangerous mix. All that’s missing to make this tragic is a struck match, an itchy trigger-finger.

Shelby Rognstad, the mayor of Sandpoint, said it best at the City Council meeting, as he was quoted in the Bee article:

“The difference is that our police officers are accountable to us. They are accountable to the city, to this elected body, to you as citizens. If they mess up, we know who they are, what they did, what they did wrong, there is accountability there. There is a process we can improve so maybe there was something wrong with the protocol. Vigilantes are not accountable … The law doesn’t support them taking law into their own hands.”

These heavily armed men seem universally thrilled with Mr. Trump as POTUS. Chillingly, Trump and Barr’s posting of Bureau of Prisons riot police in D.C. without identification of their unit or their names suffers the same worrisome defect of accountability to civilian society as Mayor Shelby pointed out of the militia presence in Sandpoint. 

We live in dangerous times. Open carry of assault weaponry by strutting militiamen on our streets isn’t helping. They may feel, in their self-importance, that they are “protecting,” but their effect is to intimidate those they profess to protect. Their response to the phony threat of antifa-agitated riots should make them the subject of laughter and derision, not praise, but it is hard to point that out to a man with an echo-chamber-instilled ideology brandishing an assault rifle.

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

*These Bonner County Commissioners are the same ones spending time, effort, and the taxpayers’ money on a lawsuit against the City of Sandpoint over a prohibition against carrying guns into the Festival at Sandpoint (even though the prohibition is by the privately run Festival–which rents the grounds from the City and brings millions of dollars to businesses in Sandpoint each summer). 

P.S. The media echo chamber of the militia folk proclaims they performed a great service in “saving” the City of Coeur d’Alene from the grave threat. “Hey, they didn’t show up because they were scared of us (not because the whole threat was bogus, of course).” Check out one of their webpages, The MAC, the “Media Accountability Collective”‘s article “COEUR D’ALENE, IDAHO STANDS UP…ANTIFA STANDS DOWN!” Note that the MAC “consists of individuals around the world”–but no one actually identifiably accountable. Wow. For all the reader knows these articles by “Daniella Cross” could have been written in St. Petersburg, Russia. 

Let’s pay attention, now, when there is a chance to make a difference. This coming Wednesday, June 10, a small, but politically organized group of Washington State Republicans will submit enough signatures to put sex on the November 3 Washington State General Election ballot. There is nothing quite like sex to get people’s attention, rile them up, and get them to the polls.  Sex and children? Even better for the purpose. Prepare for a ramp up of a misinformation campaign that is already in high gear.

Referendum 90 seeks to repeal a Washington State law passed last March that requires public schools to provide “comprehensive sexual health education” to each student. The whole law, ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5395, is just six pages long. Click the link and read, and/or scroll down and read the extracted definition of “comprehensive sexual health education” below. We need to read the law, present the facts, and push back against the flood of misinformation. Most who vote to repeal in November will not read the law. They will only read the hysterical objections to teaching comprehensive sexual health education.

Requiring comprehensive sexual health education in the public schools (as defined in the law) is in the best interests of society and of the greater good. Yes, parents should discuss these issues with their children in an age-appropriate manner. The law encourages such discussion. It contains a requirement to notify parents and provide access to the content to be covered appropriate to grade level. (p.4, line 30) If this law results in parents having these discussions with their children, discussions that otherwise are often put off until too late, then the law will have the proper effect. If accurate information is not provided, children will, often to their detriment, acquire misinformation that is readily available from their friends or, worse, through the internet, either by accident or intentional search.

For parents who are still uncomfortable: 

1) Parents may excuse their child from this curriculum. (p.4, line 15)

2) Approved curricula are to offered by the office of the superintendent of public instruction and available to the public. (p.3, line 18)  Go to this website, https://www.k12.wa.us/student-success/resources-subject-area/sexual-health-education/new-legislation-senate-bill-5395-comprehensive-sexual-health-education for a detailed discussion of the what the curricula contain. 

3) There is a mechanism for a school to choose and have approved a different curriculum. (p.4, line 3) However, while the curriculum “must include information about abstinence and other methods of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases” (p.1, line 17)…”Abstinence may not be taught to the exclusion of other materials and instruction on contraceptives and disease prevention.” (p.2, line 1) 

The law bends over backward to provide interested parents options for involvement in their children’s education. For the disinterested or the uncomfortable the law mandates that children not be left in the dark. Familiarize yourself with the law. Talk about its importance for the good of society. Don’t let misinformation and fear-mongering win.

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

The law, passed as ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5395 was passed by the State Senate on March 7, 27 Ayes 21 Nays and the House on March 4, 56 Ayes to 40 Nays. By clicking the blue link you can read the whole bill in its legal detail. Below is the section from the bill that defines what comprehensive sexual health education is meant to do and to cover. (I have removed the line numbering for ease of reading.) 

Comprehensive sexual health education for students in kindergarten through grade three must be instruction in social-emotional learning that is consistent with learning standards and benchmarks adopted by the office of the superintendent of public instruction under RCW 28A.300.478. 37 Comprehensive sexual health education for students in grades four through twelve must include information about: (i) The physiological, psychological, and sociological developmental processes experienced by an individual; (ii) The development of intrapersonal and interpersonal skills to communicate, respectfully and effectively, to reduce health risks, and choose healthy behaviors and relationships that are based on mutual respect and affection, and are free from violence, coercion, and intimidation; (iii) Health care and prevention resources; (iv) The development of meaningful relationships and avoidance of exploitative relationships; (v) Understanding the influences of family, peers, community, and the media throughout life on healthy sexual relationships; and (vi) Affirmative consent and recognizing and responding safely and effectively when violence, or a risk of violence, is or may be present with strategies that include bystander training; (c) “Medically and scientifically accurate” means information that is verified or supported by research in compliance with scientific methods, is published in peer-reviewed journals, where appropriate, and is recognized as accurate and objective by professional organizations and agencies with expertise in the field of sexual health including but not limited to the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists, the Washington state department of health, and the federal centers for disease control and prevention;…

This is the way Ref. 90 will appear on the ballot in November (if they, as expected, drum up enough signatures):

Ballot Title

The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5395 concerning comprehensive sexual health education.

This bill would require school districts to adopt or develop, consistent with state standards, comprehensive age-appropriate sexual health education, as defined, for all students, and excuse students if their parents request.

Should this measure be: ___Approved    ___Rejected

Ballot Measure Summary

The legislature enacted a law requiring all school districts to provide comprehensive sexual health education, as defined, beginning in 2021-22 for grades 6-12 and in 2022-23 for grades K-5. Students must be excused from this program if parents so request. The curriculum must satisfy state standards. The content and frequency of providing comprehensive sexual health education would vary by grade level and must include affirmative consent and bystander training. K-3 instruction must be social-emotional learning.

We citizens of Spokane should count ourselves as fortunate that the afternoon protests downtown last Sunday were peaceful–and even more fortunate no one was gravely injured or killed in downtown Spokane last Sunday evening and night. The media, local law enforcement, and government officials all distinguished between peaceful protests in the afternoon and agitators, some of them apparently radio-coordinated, breaking store windows, trying to stir up unrest in the evening. We in Spokane were lucky the distinction between protests and agitation seemed fairly clear.  Scenes of law enforcement officers conversing with–and sometimes kneeling with protesters–on Sunday afternoon were heartening–and a great contrast to scenes from our nation’s capitol on Monday as peaceful protestors, media people, and clergy were tear-gassed and knocked down by shield and club-wielding police so that Mr. Trump could have his Bible-hoisting photo op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church across Lafayette Square.  Law enforcement consists of individuals, individuals with lethal power, individuals called upon to make life-and-death decisions under stress. They are people, like all of us, people with a mindset honed through a lifetime of influences, background and training. Many law enforcement officers already come from military backgrounds. Part of military training involves identifying the “other,” often distinguished by a uniform, and, if necessary, quickly and dispassionately snuffing out that life.  Community law enforcement is requires a level of decency–and respect for the humanity of the people among whom the law is to be enforced. May we assume that the Spokane County Sheriff’s Department and the Spokane Police foster this decency? No, we cannot. We need to pay attention and communicate.  I encourage a visit to the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, a WA State government website. https://www.cjtc.wa.gov/training-education  There, scrolling down, you find an ad for “Mindset Bootcamp,” an educational opportunity offered this October 27, 2020, at the Spokane County Sheriff’s Training Center in Newman Lake.  Both presenters, Dave “JD Buck Savage” Smith and Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, have military backgrounds. Lt. Col. Grossman tours the country peddling instruction to law enforcement from his “Killology Research Group.” In 1995 he authored a book entitled “On Killing.” Grossman argued, based on slim evidence, that humans have an innate resistance to killing other humans, a resistance which, for the sake of military effectiveness, must be trained out of recruits in order to psychologically prepare them to kill. Based largely on his book, Grossman has a career speaking not just to the military but to civil law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and Canada, with over two hundred speaking engagements each year. Note the shift: A West Pointer, a military psychologist, a student of combat, makes a career out of training domestic law enforcement officers to lesson their resistance to snuffing out the life of another human being. Note also that it has been during the last twenty-five years since the publication of Grossman’s “On Killing,” that local police and sheriff’s departments have acquired a lot of military grade hardware, while Grossman encourages its use. Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich’s heart, I believe, is in the right place. He rightfully recognizes that the rioters last Sunday night were not from the African American community. He sympathizes with the peaceful protesters of Sunday afternoon. Unlike many local Republicans, he publicly stood up against Rep. Matt Shea (soon to be Pastor Matt Shea of Covenant). It is fair to ask Sheriff Knezovich, however, why Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a military man and self-promoter, gets a venue to preach desensitization to killing to civilian law enforcement, particularly in light of a growing number of black and white citizens killed instead of subdued by these same enforcers. What role might desensitization have played in the death of Ethan Murray, a young, unarmed man shot dead in Spokane Valley last year by one of Ozzie’s deputies?  George Floyd is dead, dead thanks to the actions of a police officer evidently with no qualms about dominating and killing a completely subdued man crying out, “I can’t breathe.” How much more of Dave Grossman’s “killology” can our society afford? What happened to de-escalation? Read more. Ask Sheriff Knezovich ( OKnezovich@spokanesheriff.org ) and Chief Meidl ( cmeidl@spokanepolice.org ) how this came about. What are thinking? What message does hosting Dave Grossman’s “Mindset Bootcamp” at a County facility send to our community? Keep to the high ground, Jerry Additional reading: https://www.insider.com/bulletproof-dave-grossman-police-trainer-teaching-officers-how-to-kill-2020-6?fbclid=IwAR3Vd3tp0Z33IIpESSBBngzBkaX9n6e1NSJsDVUKtRCOO2DvDkkHRKifgvM https://sports.yahoo.com/george-floyd-death-in-custody-puts-spotlight-on-warrior-training-for-police-195640810.html In fairness to the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, they do post a disclaimer: The courses labeled as WSCJTC are fully supported by Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, all registration, curriculum, and instructors are managed by Commission.  Courses labeled with Vendor are being advertised as a courtesy to the stakeholder agency hosting the course.  WSCJTC has not evaluated the content or presentation for these courses – these listings are merely a convenience to our stakeholders and should not be interpreted as an endorsement by WSCJTC. “Mindset Bootcamp” is labelled “Vendor,” but it is hard to conclude that the “stakeholder agency” is anything other than the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office.

Mr. Trump has promoted hydroxychloroquine as a game-changing drug in the treatment of Covid-19 ever since mid-March when he first acknowledged the threat of the disease. Detractors of Mr. Trump looked for a personal financial interest in Plaquenil, the brand name version of the drug, but he holds only a minor interest (around $1500 of Sanofi stock held by a mutual fund). The truth, as I see it, is more worrisome. The president and many of his followers, some of them otherwise well-educated, simply fail to understand the nature of scientific inquiry. Mr. Trump has faith in what he “hears from a lot of people,” people he trusts. At the same time he is deeply distrustful of the motives of “experts,” defined as all those who question the truth of the statements he makes.  Hydroxychloroquine was approved for medical use in 1955. Its multiple side-effects are known, manageable, and less serious than the conditions it treats, primarily rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus, and malaria. Previously approved and relatively safe drugs are often considered for treatment of emerging diseases. So it was with chloroquine (the parent drug of hydroxychloroquine) during the original SARS epidemic (2002-2004). A group of scientists (mainly at the CDC) tested chloroquine in a culture of monkey kidney cells (what we think of as “in a test tube” or “in the laboratory”). They found that chloroquine inhibited the spread of the original SARS virus from cell to cell. Their findings were published in 2005, a year and a half after the last cases of the original SARS were reported (in January 2004) by the World Health Organization. On account of the timing, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for treatment of the SARS-1 understandably gained little attention.  Fourteen years later Covid-19 appeared. Prof. Didier Raoult, a flamboyant, outspoken, iconoclastic French researcher in Marseilles was ready. In early March, Raoult and his institute tried hydroxychloroquine against Covid-19 in a tiny, open-label, non-randomized human trial (36 virus-positive patients divided into three groups), comparing viral shedding in treated versus untreated groups. On the basis of six-day results of this tiny trial, Raoult announced, “We know how to cure the disease.” Is this science or self-promotion? It is certainly not an adequate human trial to justify treating hundreds of thousands of patients. Raoult’s story was covered in a lengthy article in the May 12, New York Times Magazine, “He Was a Science Star. Then He Promoted a Questionable Cure for Covid-19.”  A cure offered by a medical researcher? That’s headline material. “Lots of people” talking about it, especially reporters on Fox News? That’s proof enough for Mr. Trump, reason enough for his enthusiastic, headline-grabbing endorsement.  But that’s not how actual scientific progress happens. (See P.S. below) Raoult’s study, with only thirty-six patients, raises far more questions than it answers. How does a reduction in viral shedding relate to the disease process? How old were these patients and in what state of health? Most importantly: were Raoult’s results any better than chance?  In Fox News and Trump world, the world of science illiteracy, none of that mattered, nor has it much mattered that a number of much larger studies since Raoult’s have looked at chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, and failed to demonstrate any benefit. More alarming, several studies suggested that more treated than untreated Covid-19 patients died–of cardiac complications known to associated with these drugs. In a sane world with a president whose background included more science than reality TV, hydroxychloroquine would have been mentioned as one treatment being tested, not as a wonder drug. If we don’t rid ourselves of this man in November along with many of the elected officials that prop him up, our country is doomed to slide back to a time when policy was determined not by progress of scientific understanding but by whatever bright and shiny idea is whispered in the king’s ear. Keep to the high ground, Jerry P.S. The general story of excitement over a new drug or the new use of an old drug is familiar to every physician and scientist. A physician tries a drug that is already on the market as treatment of a few patients with a different disease. (That’s ethical, as long as the drug has only well understood and manageable side effects.) The patients’ condition improves (See P.S. below). The news media, sensing an eye-catching story, hype the new “discovery.” Sober medical researchers then invest time and effort running blinded, placebo-controlled studies of the new use of the drug, testing it in much larger groups of patients. Often these studies prove the initial enthusiasm was overblown. Either the drug shows some benefit (often rather minor and statistical) and becomes an accepted treatment OR the large studies demonstrate the drug to be no more effective than a sugar pill OR, worse, the frequency of nasty side effects is greater than the marginal benefit. Finally, the news media barely cover the more sober assessment of the new use of the drug and the whole episode drains out of the public consciousness.   P.P.S. Scientific illiteracy is distressingly common–and it is used by some for political advantage. One of the confirmatory voices Mr. Trump heard in support of his faith in hydroxychloroquine came from this April 7 article in the right-leaning New York Post: “Michigan Democratic lawmaker says hydroxychloroquine saved her life.” The article is an inspiring and sincere testimonial to humanity’s overwhelming desire to “connect the dots.” We naturally tend to credit the next thing that happens to the last thing we did, especially if the thing that happens is dramatic and apparently life-saving. No one will ever convince this Democratic legislator that her dramatic improvement after taking hydroxychloroquine might have been pure coincidence–or that proof of the cause and effect relationship she perceives depends on further study. (I am certain Mr. Trump referred to this legislator’s testimonial in one of his press conferences, but I cannot put my finger on the reference at this moment.) P.S.P.S. For those who enjoy podcasts, a May 13th Fresh Air on NPR, Doctor With Rare Disease Decides To Find His Own Cure, is not only a fascinating story about a rare disease, but a window into how real medical science is trying to test for drugs useful in the treatment of Covid-19. It stands in stark contrast with Trump’s headline grabbing.

Last Wednesday, May 27, the Spokesman published an article entitled, “Restrictions loosened on religious services in Spokane, other Phase 2 counties,” in which the Phase 2 guidelines for such gatherings were laid out: 

“The numbers in the limitations [no more than 50 people or 25% the buildings’ capacity, whichever is smaller] do not include the staff from the religious organization, who should wear personal protective equipment when appropriate. The facilities should be cleaned and sanitized frequently.

Participants must follow social distancing rules, so no physical contact between participants and no communal sharing of food or beverages is allowed. They must wear face masks, even when singing, and no choirs can perform.”

(Note that most or all of these guidelines have been pointedly ignored by Pastor Ken Peters’ of the Covenant Church for the last four Sundays.)

In view of our improving understanding of the spread of Covid-19, these Phase 2 guidelines are entirely reasonable. Pushback against these guidelines seems at best ill-informed, at worst. profoundly stupid.

Jim Camden, author of the Spokesman article, quotes comments from a number of faith leaders, all of who expressed support for the guidelines and judged the guidelines reasonable and prudent. Then Mr. Camden adds:

But Mark Miloscia, executive director of the Family Policy Institute, called the limitations disappointing after churches have been closed for more than two months.

“Tribal casinos, big box stores, even pot shops have less regulations,” Miloscia, a former state legislator, said during a video on Facebook. “We still have the First Amendment.”

First off, people sing, hug, shake hands, and gather in clusters in churches, not in casinos, big box stores, or pot shops. Mr. Miloscia’s comparison is thoroughly off-base. And what gives this man and this “Institute” standing to be quoted as representative of the faith community? Why isn’t his opinion relegated to the Letters to the Editor page?–monetary backing, a divisive political agenda, and the internet.

The Institute has a professional looking website, The Family Policy Institute of Washington. (But professional-looking websites may be had for a few hundred dollars investment.) The Institute’s featured “Team” consists of just two people. Mike Miloscia is the “Executive Director” (over a staff of one?). His bio details experience as a state legislator, politician, and lobbyist, not as a faith leader. Among five of the group’s “Issues” on the website are “religious freedom, parental rights, and marriage,” all hot-button topics routinely exploited for political gain.

To merit quotation as an authority one might reasonably expect the commenter to be supported by prominent institutions and people of the community for which the commenter claims to speak. The Family Policy Institute’s listed endorsements consist of written statements by 22 people with a smattering of titles, one “Rep.,” one “Dr.,” and three pastors. Of the pastors two are associated with west side Assembly of God congregations and one with the West Seattle “Calvary Chapel” (based on web searches of their names). 

The website gives no indication of the Family Policy Institute’s funding sources and no explicit endorsements by any religious institutions (apart from personal endorsements by the three fundamentalist pastors noted above). The money comes from an unspecified source. The Family Policy Institute is also a “lobbyist employer” listed with the WA State Public Disclosure Commission as “Family Policy Action,” at the same address in Lynnwood WA as the institute itself. 

Mr. Camden responded to an email inquiry about his inclusion of comments by Mark Miloscia, writing, “The Family Policy Institute is a very active organization that lobbies for certain issues that would generally be described as conservative Christian: they are opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage and assisted suicide and recently have been vocal in their opposition to the comprehensive sex education legislation. They have some strong supporters among the evangelical Christian communities…His comments were part of the story as a way of offering different voices of reaction to the new rules.”

I understand Mr. Camden’s wanting to offer different voices, but the leap from the opinions of faith leaders who are actually responsible for the details of opening houses of worship in phase 2 to the opinion of a political operative responsible only to unspecified funding sources is a jarring shift. That Mr. Miloscia does not speak for all Evangelical faith leaders is already evident in Spokane from the contrasting comments and actions of Pastor Ken Peters of Covenant Christian and the Reverends Wittwer of the Life Center here in Spokane on the re-opening of in-person services

As we try to re-open during the Covid-19 pandemic (and at other times as well) it is important to sort out who is given standing to rile us against one another. The Family Policy Institute of Washington ought not be allowed a voice without better scrutiny of whom–and whose money–it represents. Setting up with a  name and a fancy website seems to be the Family Policy Institute’s prime claim to legitimacy. The broader religious community does not subscribe to Mr. Milosocia’s political belligerence. He should send in a letter to the editor, not be offered standing as an authority on how the Evangelical Community feels about Phase 2 regulations.

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

The German state of Hesse relaxed restrictions on worship as of May 1, provided that parishioners maintain 5 foot social distancing and hand sanitizer made available. The Evangelical Christian Baptist Church in Frankfurt held in-person services on Sunday, May 10. Church officials said they followed the rules. Thirteen days later on May 23 the BBC reported there were “over 40 cases” of Covid-19 traced to that one church service. By the next day there were numerous media reports (led by the Wall Street Journal) that German authorities had traced “over 100” cases of Covid-19 back to that single church service–and contact tracers were still working on the case.  This is entirely parallel to the now infamous Skagit Chorale case in Mt. Vernon, Washington, in March where more fifty-two out of sixty participants became infected and two died over several weeks following a socially distanced choir practice.  Mr. Trump, apparently oblivious to the detailed report of the Skagit Choral case presented on the CDC website, threatened to “override” governors who refused to allow reopening of churches.  Neither of the state governments of Washington or Idaho loosened regulations on in-person large gatherings in response to Trump’s pandering to his base, but his grandstanding stirred up defiance of regulations on both sides of the border among his far right supporters. Here we have a “leader” stirring up rebellion against legitimate government. In Spokane the spotlight shown once again on Matt Shea and his prime ally, the Reverend Ken Peters of the Covenant Christian Church (3506 W Princeton Ave in near north Spokane). Peters and his flock held in-person church services without any attempt at social distancing on May 3rd, 10th, 17th, and 24th in self-righteous open defiance of state health regulations. The Spokesman article from May 24th is worth reading. The cast of characters and the organization are familiar: Ken Peters, pastor at Covenant and leader of “The Church at Planned Parenthood”; Matt Shea (State Rep, LD4), according to Peters “in the audience” and “fighting for the Constitution.” Pastor Gabe Blomgren, another fixture at Covenant, was one of the speakers at Shea’s May 1st stay-home protest.  Meanwhile, next door in north Idaho, Matt Shea’s right wing ally, ID Rep Heather Scott, was busy holding a crowded meeting in a church in Bonners Ferry three days earlier:

Another meeting was advertised for last evening, May 28, at the Priest River Community Church in Priest River, ID, entitled “The Virus that tried to kill our Constitution and What You Can do about it” in open defiance of Idaho health regulations. Many local churches besides those mentioned in the Spokesman article chose not to hold in-person services on May 24th, in deference to the health of their members, their members families, and the community at large.  The gatherings of unmasked, shoulder-to-shoulder, singing worshipers seem mostly confined to churches allied to certain far right politicians in our region, particularly Matt Shea, whose ties to Ken Peters, Gabe Blomgren, and the Covenant Church were manifest at Shea’s May 1 protest of the stay-home order. Ken Peters’ and his Covenant Church’s open defiance of state Covid-19 public health guidance serves primarily as political nose-thumbing, a denial of the common interest of disease prevention. Ken Peters and his Covenant Church apparently believe that their political/religious faith exempts them from epidemiology. Will they “get away” with their defiance? They might. but just one unwittingly infected and still asymptomatic, bare-faced, singing parishioner could convert a Covenant Church service into a case study worse than the Skagit Chorale or the Frankfurt Baptist Church. (In both of those outbreaks at least social distancing and hand-washing were practiced,) Should Peter’s and Shea’s and Scott’s risky defiance result in an outbreak, contacts in the wider community would be infected and some eventually die before contact tracers are even aware of the origin of the outbreak. For the time being the odds are not high of such an event and, sadly, lack of a Covenant Church-associated outbreak of Covid-19 will be cited by Peters, Shea, and Scott as evidence of their political and religious righteousness. No law enforcement challenge of Covenant in-person services will occur, in spite of their whining about violation of their “constitutional rights.” Compliance with public health regulations in these United States is largely dependent on community opinion.  To that end we all should recognize, separate out, and shun pastors, parishioners, and politicians who flaunt public health regulations. Familiarize yourself with these people, their names and their ideologies. Then thank your church and the churches of your neighbors and friends for sensibly following regulations meant to protect us all.  Keep to the high ground, Jerry