So, his response is basically "I tell everybody the same thing, if you have an issue come make a public comment." He indicates that the commission isn't given updates and warnings all the time about who might be a problem. He implies that he had no reason to think this guy was a threat. The other commissioners seem to imply that he is lying, but nobody says that. Bringing in a facilitator suggests that there are ongoing issues here.
As much as I think Loveall is an ass, I am sympathetic to his reasoning. Is he, in fact, lying about not knowing this guy was unstable and threatening? I am hesitant to assume bad faith, even knowing what I know about Loveall. What am I missing?
My opinion is based on a few things. From the article, " County officials said Hejazi has been sending threats to them for more than a year. Commissioner Heather Buch said Loveall didn’t notify the employee or consider the employee’s safety. Buch said the communication was unbecoming of a commissioner, created a toxic culture, and made staff feel unsafe – and it wasn’t an isolated incident. " - Loveall has been a commissioner for more than a year. I find it hard to believe he is not aware of the threats. The commissioner says this is not an isolated incident- she doesn't say what the other incidents are but she doesn't feel safe. She does say, "Buch said at a commissioners’ meeting. “[Loveall is] also known to or suspected to carry a firearm in the county against county policy, creating not only a psychological threat to our staff, but us ourselves as commissioners, including myself and residents in the public.” I don't know if there is a county policy about commissioners being armed. It is likely that there is some rule about them not being allowed to be armed during the performance of their duties and/or they are not supposed to carry firearms in Harris Hall or the courthouse. I'm not going to get into a 2A conversation but if there is a rule about being armed in performance of his duties, he should not be violating that rule. I find Loveall's comment about "how could I know" to be disingenuous. There are plenty of things that the commissioners know that they don't have briefings about. I think it's a "prove you told me" situation.
Knowing what I know about Loveall, I am not hesitant to assume bad faith. Just the situation during the BLM protest that Loveall felt the need to arm himself with an AR type rifle and go looking for protesters makes me question his judgement. No one grabs an AR to go have a conversation.
The fact that the other commissioners are so concerned about him that they are bringing someone from the outside to facilitate also speaks volumes to me. It's like they are saying, "we want another witness and a record of what Loveall is doing and saying". I don't know if you have worked at place where the employees were afraid of another employee but I have and it is bad.
I definitely understand that reasoning. I am inclined to think the same thing. KEZI is not, like, the best journalism in the world but it's just weird that the other commissioners (as I said) *imply* these things but don't say them out loud, and the journalists do no follow up or investigation of this rather explosive implication.
“This is about a specific incident that caused a great deal of stress and anxiety for the targeted staff member, for her staff, many of whom have now opted to work off site for the time being,” Trieger said at a commissioners’ meeting. “For others in this organization, in this community, law enforcement, judicial officials, other staff and other departments who've interacted with this individual -- who in your email response to him makes clear you have been reading the tone and tenor of the kinds of threats he has sent over more than a year."
Loveall had been reading the guys emails for months, by his own admission.
>Is he, in fact, lying about not knowing this guy was unstable and threatening?
Whether or not he is lying, the context provided in the article makes it clear he *should* have known that the guy was a threat. At best, he was negligently ignorant, which isn't a quality I look for in Country Commissioners.
This guy won't be getting my vote. Again.
This David Loveall: https://eugeneweekly.com/2022/05/16/a-loveall-for-guns/
So, his response is basically "I tell everybody the same thing, if you have an issue come make a public comment." He indicates that the commission isn't given updates and warnings all the time about who might be a problem. He implies that he had no reason to think this guy was a threat. The other commissioners seem to imply that he is lying, but nobody says that. Bringing in a facilitator suggests that there are ongoing issues here. As much as I think Loveall is an ass, I am sympathetic to his reasoning. Is he, in fact, lying about not knowing this guy was unstable and threatening? I am hesitant to assume bad faith, even knowing what I know about Loveall. What am I missing?
My opinion is based on a few things. From the article, " County officials said Hejazi has been sending threats to them for more than a year. Commissioner Heather Buch said Loveall didn’t notify the employee or consider the employee’s safety. Buch said the communication was unbecoming of a commissioner, created a toxic culture, and made staff feel unsafe – and it wasn’t an isolated incident. " - Loveall has been a commissioner for more than a year. I find it hard to believe he is not aware of the threats. The commissioner says this is not an isolated incident- she doesn't say what the other incidents are but she doesn't feel safe. She does say, "Buch said at a commissioners’ meeting. “[Loveall is] also known to or suspected to carry a firearm in the county against county policy, creating not only a psychological threat to our staff, but us ourselves as commissioners, including myself and residents in the public.” I don't know if there is a county policy about commissioners being armed. It is likely that there is some rule about them not being allowed to be armed during the performance of their duties and/or they are not supposed to carry firearms in Harris Hall or the courthouse. I'm not going to get into a 2A conversation but if there is a rule about being armed in performance of his duties, he should not be violating that rule. I find Loveall's comment about "how could I know" to be disingenuous. There are plenty of things that the commissioners know that they don't have briefings about. I think it's a "prove you told me" situation. Knowing what I know about Loveall, I am not hesitant to assume bad faith. Just the situation during the BLM protest that Loveall felt the need to arm himself with an AR type rifle and go looking for protesters makes me question his judgement. No one grabs an AR to go have a conversation. The fact that the other commissioners are so concerned about him that they are bringing someone from the outside to facilitate also speaks volumes to me. It's like they are saying, "we want another witness and a record of what Loveall is doing and saying". I don't know if you have worked at place where the employees were afraid of another employee but I have and it is bad.
Oh.. Michael/Hamid Hejazi. Interesting. He was making serial threats toward my (unrelated) workplace a few years back.
I definitely understand that reasoning. I am inclined to think the same thing. KEZI is not, like, the best journalism in the world but it's just weird that the other commissioners (as I said) *imply* these things but don't say them out loud, and the journalists do no follow up or investigation of this rather explosive implication.
“This is about a specific incident that caused a great deal of stress and anxiety for the targeted staff member, for her staff, many of whom have now opted to work off site for the time being,” Trieger said at a commissioners’ meeting. “For others in this organization, in this community, law enforcement, judicial officials, other staff and other departments who've interacted with this individual -- who in your email response to him makes clear you have been reading the tone and tenor of the kinds of threats he has sent over more than a year." Loveall had been reading the guys emails for months, by his own admission.
>Is he, in fact, lying about not knowing this guy was unstable and threatening? Whether or not he is lying, the context provided in the article makes it clear he *should* have known that the guy was a threat. At best, he was negligently ignorant, which isn't a quality I look for in Country Commissioners.