Reinette Senum – the aftermath (12aug16 update)

George Rebane

It appears that enough dust has settled around Ms Senum’s unfortunate remarks about the nation’s police departments that we can bring closure to the factors involved in the considerable support she has received for her (now clarified) sentiments.  My own support of her position was published in the 13jul16 Union and in these pages which garnered an extensive comment stream (here).

The revealing part of public attitudes became quickly apparent during the NC City Council meeting where public comment against Ms Senum was a bit in excess of two to one.  At the meeting and in the media her antagonists almost uniformly demanded her apology and removal from public life.  Not only that, but these folks expected the NCCC accede to their demands forthwith.  The fact that the overwhelming part of them had no say in the matter beyond exercising their First Amendment rights did not occur to them, and upon reflection can still be seen to represent a broader national understanding of how policies should be made and implemented in the country’s thousands of electoral jurisdictions.

In this commentary I would like to expand on this audacious national misunderstanding, and clarify the various aspects about elected officials voicing and representing unpopular sentiments.  What appears to confuse people are factors associated with such events that are independent of each other, and which should also be treated as such.  These are –

• The legal expressability of an unpopular sentiment,
• Public expression of the unpopular sentiment by an elected official,
• The sharing of the sentiment by the official’s constituency,
• The right of constituents holding unpopular sentiments to be represented,
• The legal aspects of the official’s tenure in office – who/what is required to unseat,

Legal expressability:  This is covered primarily by the First Amendment right of free speech, unless specifically proscribed by a public code of conduct for the elected office.  All educated people know that the First Amendment does not guarantee the right for all possible instances of free speech.

Public expression by elected official:  First, let’s all be clear that an elected official cannot effectively parse their speech into personal and public categories.  All of their speech reflects on their duties and how they are perceived to execute their office.  And all protestations to the contrary serve only to weaken the subsequent effectiveness of the elected official.  After all, they were elected in great part for their displayed character and values which were taken by their constituents to be the ‘real person’ who would represent them.

Constituents’ shared sentiments:  Until and unless the official’s constituents, publicly and in the aggregate, disagree and/or reject the official’s stated sentiment, it is reasonable to assume that silence presumes acceptance.  Here it is important to consider the plurality of the aggregate (numbers matter), and that such disagreement does not automatically imply or dictate the official be unseated.

Representation of unpopular sentiments:  In a free country, and still in America, sentiments which one cohort of franchised citizens embrace may be totally reprehensible to and rejected by another, perhaps the majority, cohort.  Nevertheless, all such sentiments in every electoral jurisdiction have the right to representation in their governing bodies as enabled by the jurisdiction’s applicable election laws.  In America there are no extra-legal provisions by which people from other jurisdictions may peremptorily have the offending official removed.

Who/what is required to unseat:  The only provisions that exist for the removal of an official are those spelled out in the applicable laws and in any additional ‘code of conduct’ codicils to which the official is a signatory.  Absent these, the official is tenured and secure in his seat, and may vacate it only through volition or reasons of health.

To make these points as unambiguous as possible, we appeal to the following graphic.  Here we consider a universe of distinct jurisdictions within the context of the above represented by the blue squares assembled into the large rectangle.  We isolate one of these jurisdictions that is colored green, and is surrounded by the gray cross-hatched jurisdictions.

In the lower part of the figure we expand and examine the green jurisdiction which has elected ‘Representative A’.  From all the jurisdiction’s residents (the entire green square) we have a (yellow) subset that is franchised to vote.  Of the franchised residents we have a further subset (red) that could have voted for ‘Rep A’ and did cast their votes.  And finally, of all these voters there is the last subset (in light blue) of people who actually voted ‘Rep A’ into office as indicated by the arrow.

‘Rep A’ now goes public with a controversial sentiment that may or not be shared by any given green resident.  But absent an exhaustive survey, and given no contrary evidence, we may presume that there exists a subset of ‘green residents’ that also embrace the controversial sentiment.  This subset is shown by the tan square that overlaps each of the previous subsets to some extent.  Most importantly, this indicates that there are people who voted and voted for ‘Rep A’ that share the sentiment and subsequently have that elected official appropriately represent them while holding that sentiment.

Given the five factors expanded above, who in the shown universe of jurisdictions have the right to remove ‘Rep A’, the official that offends them, and which people in that same universe have only their First Amendment rights with respect to ‘Rep A’?  We may easily agree that no resident of the blue jurisdictions has any such rights beyond their right to free speech.  And that same stricture is in place for the neighboring jurisdictions in cross-hatched gray.  These neighbors cannot gratuitously reach across into another jurisdiction and effect the disposition of that jurisdiction’s elected officials.  This might well give rise to blood in the gutters, and rightly so.

So we are left with the residents of the green square from which ‘Rep A’ was elected.  Now the question becomes a bit more complex.  If there is to be formal action to remove the representative, should it be limited to only franchised residents (yellow square) some of whom did not vote?  Or perhaps only to those who voted (red square) whether or not for ‘Rep A’?  Or should it be further restricted to those who actually elected ‘Rep A’ warts and all?

Surely somewhere inside that yellow square is the answer.  I’m not certain as to what it is exactly, but I do believe that any formal action to unseat taken by all those who could have voted for ‘Rep A’ (and did or didn’t) make up the largest cohort of green jurisdiction residents who should be able to jointly and legally determine the political fate of ‘Rep A’.

Back to Reinette Senum:  Sadly I report that this kind of analysis has eluded many of the loud voices responding to Ms Senum not only in our county and these parts, but also across the nation.  In the correspondence regarding my article I received kudos and also extensive criticism of my position from a learned correspondent who argues that Ms Senum’s remarks have evoked an a fortiori public mandate for her removal, one that Nevada County and specifically Ms Senum’s colleagues on the City Council of Nevada City cannot ignore without rending the fabric of our society.  Additionally, I was accused of delaying Ms Senum's needed contrition and voluntary withdrawal.  Upon reflection methinks that such exhortations (hyperventilations?) are beyond the pale both legally and also practically in the prudent exercise of our ‘live and let live’ liberties.

Finally, since everything is now decidedly quiet on the western (Nevada County) front, Councilwoman Reinette Senum should continue to devote her energies to serving the city she loves.  Her silent majority has spoken.

[28jul16 update]  In this morning’s Union we have a Mr Andy Burton, no less a member of the newpaper’s editorial board, delivering yet another misbegotten swipe at Councilwoman Reinette Senum (here).  He attempts to demonstrate that Ms Senum did violate Nevada City’s code of conduct for the City Council and cites chapter and verse.  What results is an embarrassing demonstration of poor reading skills, or is it reasoning skills?  Mr Burton cites the code’s Article 3 which states –

“The professional and personal conduct of members must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of the Council and Planning Commission; the staff or the public.”

He claims that this directly addresses Ms Senum’s sins, when everyone who knows what the lady said clearly sees that the code covered none of her Facebook remarks.  Yet Mr Burton goes on to accuse the City Council of being “irresponsible and (failing) to understand the responsibilities of elected officials” in not ejecting or censuring Ms Senum.  Even further from the man’s intellectually illuminated area are the notions that Ms Senum most likely represents Nevada City constituents who share her perceptions about the nation’s police departments, and that these constituents also deserve a voice in city government.

[3aug16 update]  Since the dust began to settle on the Reinette Senum statement, a number of people have written The Union in support of the Nevada City councilwoman.  These letters corroborate the original RR commentary first offered on the matter, and have gone on to give examples of what was graphically illustrated in the follow-on above.  Today we read another one from a Mr Tom Ferrer who in his ‘Hang in there Reinette’ letter writes -

Reinette hasn’t brought shame on Nevada City. She has voiced what many people think. Innocent people are being killed. If one person supports her in writing, then there are 10 more who do so but do not speak up. Ditto for any petition supporting her.

What we should note is that, yes, many of Ms Senum’s constituents do indeed share her original sentiments and for them she is their lawful and legitimate representative.

[8aug16 update]  Reinette’s little dust devil just keeps spinning as it pits her supporters against her detractors.  This morning’s Union had an Other Voices by a Mr Phil Zink who demonstrates that neither thinking nor writing can be included as his strong suits.  He takes me to task by name constructing and quoting statements that I never made, spread over a screed that demonstrates he understood nothing of what I wrote – e.g. have no idea from where he got Mr Rebane’s “constituent bubble” that he cites twice.

Not knowing the definition of constituent (“a person who authorizes another to act in his or her behalf, as a voter in a district represented by an elected official”) he goes on to defend hills not assaulted by me.  I would like to conclude that his emotions concerning Ms Senum’s statement have clouded his reason, but upon a careful reread I find that the cloud obscures nothing.  However, I do recommend a close study of the above post, if for nothing else than discovering what I did not say.

[12aug16 update]  I responded to Mr Zink's column (see 8aug16 update) with a letter that was published in the 12aug16 Union here.  It is reprinted below.

***

Mr Phil Zink’s recent Other Voices continues the argument that people other than Ms Reinette Senum’s constituents have a right, beyond exercising their voices and wallets, to determine her political future.  Ignoring her received support, he seems to miss that Ms Senum may well and most likely does represent the attitudes of some Nevada City residents, especially those who voted for her.  In formulating our counsel concerning Ms Senum, we should understand that

• The legal expressability of an unpopular sentiment,
• Public expression of the unpopular sentiment by an elected official,
• The sharing of the sentiment by the official’s constituency,
• The right of constituents holding unpopular sentiments to be represented,
• The legal aspects of an official’s tenure in office – who/what is required to unseat,

are independent factors that bear on the matter.  To muddle these factors only confounds the public debate, and highlights our Founders’ longstanding concern about America’s Great Experiment to demonstrate that people are capable of governing themselves.  I have gone into some detail about this issue on Rebane’s Ruminations.

Comments

[Bill Tozer]

Now your city, Dr. Rebane, has a divided city council with tensions within the city council, including the mayor. How those lingering and unsolicited tensions and headaches within the city's governing board behind the scenes are resolved is the lingering question. The Aftermath. Nothing to see here, just a whole lot of unseen things you can feel. Maybe they are ghosts or something.

Odd, this whole uproar was caused by statements not supported by facts. To point this out and to counter an emotional screeching hyperventilating off the wall (and off the charts) insane statement with facts is opening the door to be called a bully at best, lol. Now the perp is called the victim, and the victims of this pile of manure dumped in their midst (the good town folk minding their own business who can't believe what that wack job uttered.....on line of all places) are now the evil doers. Those seeking facts are the problem here, lol. Those challenging false statements are the divisive ones, lol. Priceless to those in the peanut gallery.

As long as the taco stuffer is running around looking for the evil doers who conspired to sully her good name and as long as she is expending her energy and focus to expose the conspiracy by those unseen forces that have "an ax to grind", the situation will not completely magically disappear. Blame the Scopper! Blame unseen forces of The Dark Side! Lampooning foolishness and hate speech designed to inflame as well as incite passions is NOT libel, is not a conspiracy, it is art. Thanks Steve F for that good insight.

Your graphs are cool, Dr. Rebane, but an analytical approach is an exercise in futility concerning the liberal mind as well as all things Quaintytown. They are the exception to the rule. Do like your reasoned tone, if that is any consolation.

[rl crabb]

As I have stated on several occasions, the only people who can remove Reinette from office are herself or the three-digit residents of Nevada City. Since day one I have doubted that the eccentric nature of Nevada City politics would choose to do so.

[George Rebane]

rlcrabb 1114am - Well Bob, as cited above, that makes two of us attempting to inform the apparently uninformable. My only concern about your stricter requirement is the number of "three-digit residents" that still live in Nevada City.

[rl crabb]

Geo 11:26 - They are the only ones who could vote in a recall.

[Bill Tozer]

Bill Tozer
It's a Nevada City thang. No problem with that. Be like me yelling for Hillary to voluntary set aside and withdrawal from the race. Ain't going to happen.

I have no power, but if I was King of World, I would tell RS to lick her wounds and focus on healing and get back to being part of the 2% that does 98% on the work... in the place where "there is a full moon every night" And stop wasting precious energy gunning for bear and revenge. Sure, it's a natural reaction to get angry and blame when you loose something....like a chunk of pride. Blame the Scooper or me or and get pissed at those who are out to get ya. That is normal. But, if you, RS, keep throwing rocks in that pond, the ripples will keep on coming. Precious resources like time and energy will be wasted.

In time, the waters in her pond will be still. And calm in the quasi-utopia village. In the meantime, gunning for bear and exposing us in the peanut gallery as The Problem is keeping it alive, is it not? Grieve your loss...perhaps your Safe Place will never feel safe again, it has been defiled...forever...(that's what those college students who heard Milo speak on their campus said, so I can't take credit for that insight). The bell cannot be up rung.

Old King Solemn said it you want a fire to die down, quit feeding it wood. If you want a quarrel to die down, quit feeding it words.
None of my beeswax. On a personal note, I let you off the hook as a person as soon as the Dallas 5 were laid to rest..but some of your words are still smoldering deep inside and it has nothing to do with you....go figure

[George Rebane]

This post is now adorned with a 28jul16 update.

[rl crabb]

I disagreed with Andy's assessment. Even elected politicians have 1st amendment rights. On the other hand, I see Editorius Maximus is blubbering about "Grass Valley residents trying to influence Nevada City politics." Of course, Nevada City residents would NEVER try to influence Grass Valley politics. Hardy har har!!!

[Bill Tozer]

It ain't Nevada City, but Quaintytown, Massachusetts is close enough.

http://m.wcvb.com/news/somerville-police-officers-plan-protest-of-black-lives-matter-banner/40915184

[Bill Tozer]

We got to find out who is giving the orders to shoot and who benefits from this. That is what I would like to know.

Er, don't look this way. You must not look this way.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SHOTS_FIRED_AT_POLICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-02-13-34-12

[Bill Tozer]

http://www.fox29.com/news/184399756-story
,

[Bill Tozer]

https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.217983685002343.55586.217926015008110/884634645003907/?type=3&theater..

[Bill Tozer]

Psst, good doc. Perhaps the occasional yet interested reader could find this Post much easier if "Reinette Senum, the Afterbirth" was moved back up into your home page left hand column under the heading "Recent Post". But, then again, I could be wrong once again. Geeze, them army guys.

[George Rebane]

BillT 955am - Good idea Mr Tozer, but Typepad in their wisdom only allows the last so many posts to be shown there. But let me puzzle on it some more. Thanks.

[Bill Tozer]

Who is ordering cops to shoot Skiddles out of black teens's hands? Haven't a clue but I am giving The Trump against the Universe a night off.

http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Hacked-Soros-e-mails-reveal-plans-to-fight-Israels-racist-policies-464149#article=7783QTMwNUU1MzRGNjM1RUZDQ0QyQjU1RTEzRjc0Mzk3N0Y=E-mail stuff. Getting warmer, but he is not the man behind the curtain.

[Bill Tozer]

Ah, the plot thickens.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/16/soros-group-brags-accusing-european-police-discriminatory-policies/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/blm_leader_lives_in_home_owned_by_soros_open_society_institute_board_member.html

[George Rebane]

BillT 504pm - Pray tell Mr Tozer, what in hell does Soros have to do with the trials, tribulations, and travails of Ms Senum??

[Bill Tozer]

Simple good Doc. As briefly explained in my August 15, 5:27 pm, I am pointing RS and the reader to the taco lady's question that started the dust up in homeless city. 'Who is giving the orders, who is benefiting from this (cops killing innocent black people), THAT IS what I want to know"' my paraphrase,
My intention is not to give a pat answer, but rather to put out in public view dots that the reader may or may not connect. That is the purpose. Since RS asked the question at the end of her pronouncement, I figure it is only decent that at least one person attempt to solve the mystery she wants uncovered.

Figured that since these comments are buried in this specific post, only the interested reader would seek them out. There are hundreds of comments needed to answer her pleas as to WHO and perhaps why. Hint: pointing to a powerful entity with Stalinist leanings.

If this disturbes you, Dr. Rename, I will cease. Your point is that she cannot be forced out of office and many voters in Nevada City like her and want her to stay. Only they have a say in the matter. But, who is trying to help her get to the bottom of this besides moi? First a post about fighting discrimatory policies in Israel and funding by a known anti-Semite. Next, a seemingly benign post about getting rid of search and seizure practices by police in Europe. Then an article about the financial backers and free housing in a mansion provided to a particular student who happens to be the most recognizable leader of the BLM movement. Are the three related? Where does this road take us?

Just laying seemingly disconnected groundwork to point to who is benefiting from this and why. Who wins the most by stirring racial tensions? Average Americans? Black Americans? Cops? Native Americans? Our President? Globalists? Who has the most to gain? Ah, we are barely into chapter but two paragraphs.

[George Rebane]

BillT 748pm - Thank you Mr Tozer, go for it!

[Bill Tozer]

Reposts from other comments found on Rubaneruminations: more dots

https://www.facebook.com/lastamericapatriots/photos/a.235087906641439.1073741826.235086849974878/693160144167544/?type=3&theater

"Pro-Palestinian messages are commonplace at Black Lives Matter protests, which routinely attract a hodgepodge of activists ranging from the Communist Party USA to fracking foes to opponents of food made with genetically modified organisms.
What the ambitious policy agenda shows is that Black Lives Matter itself is a creation of the progressive movement, not an organic response to outrage sparked by recent police shootings of unarmed black men, said Republican strategist Michael McKenna.
In addition to condemning Israel, the platform includes demands for race-based reparations, breaking up large banks, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a “universal basic income” and free college for blacks.
Said Mr. McKenna sarcastically: “I’m shocked that Black Lives Matters turns out to be a political movement holding down the left flank of the Democratic Party. I mean, what are the chances that an organization bankrolled by the usual suspects would turn out to be shills for the policy prescriptions of … the usual suspects?”
The billionaire Mr. Soros donated in one year more than $33 million through his Open Society Foundations"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/15/black-lives-matters-anti-israel-platform-blindside/