[Vision2020] Only Christians Need Apply???

[Saundra Lund]

Roger,

I'm waiting for your answer to my questions since my question to you was on the table first  :-)



Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
- Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006 through life plus 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the author.*****



-----Original Message-----
From: lfalen [mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:55 AM
To: Saundra Lund; 'v2020'
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Only Christians Need Apply???

Sandra
If there is trouble enforcing the current law, what good would it do to pass more laws that would at best only selectively be enforced.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Saundra Lund" sslund at roadrunner.com
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:08:23 -0700
To: "'lfalen'" lfalen at turbonet.com, "'v2020'" vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Only Christians Need Apply???

> In part, Roger wrote:
> "If Hamilton had a permit, then he slipped through the cracks. That is no reason to penalize everyone. Also due to his record he was not supposed to have any weapons. Lets concentrate on enforcing existing laws."
> 
> Hi Roger,
> 
> How do you suggest concentrating "on enforcing existing laws" when those we trust to "enforce the existing laws" are the very ones who are apparently responsible for Hamilton (and hopefully *just* Hamilton) "slipping through the cracks"?
> 
> I don't mean this to be a trick question, although I realize it may be a difficult one to answer since this was apparently a LOCAL failure (it's not like Hamilton only had convictions in other states -- he had quite a history right here in Latah County).  It's a lot easier to find fault or criticize when the failures are "out there" in the big world rather than right here in Latah County.
> 
> Oh -- and as long as I'm posting on this topic again, I'd like to clarify a couple of things because I took great exception to some of the comments made in this thread.
> 
> FOR THE RECORD:  my family has a long history of working in the professions of law enforcement and corrections, so contrary to the sanctimonious responses made by some, my comments were made coming from that background.  Indeed, they were a result of a conversation with my older brother, who has worked in the profession of corrections in a county jail in CA for over fifteen years.
> 
> Also for the record, the conversation was prompted by a call from that same county corrections professional brother, who also happens to be an ultra-conservative (IMHO) Republican gun enthusiast, who called to offer sympathy about us having a nutty sheriff who thinks "the world would be a safer place if more students had concealed weapons permits."   That screwball comment *again* got us in the national news as a laughing stock even amongst other law enforcement agencies.
> 
> Roger also wrote:
> "If as it appears  Ms Neiuwsma sent the letter out representing the sheriff's office, it is inappropriate. It would however be within her right to privately encourage her friends to apply."
> 
> Oh, I don't think Nieuwsma distributed that little gem as a function of her employment -- I think she did it all on her own and through the Kirk email system to try to fill those slots with "Christian men" as she stated.
> 
> The problem is that she created the very real appearance (formal or informal, it really doesn't matter) of a religious and gender-based hiring preference at LCSO, which, of course, would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, for those of you who like to belly-ache about keeping the State out of church business when it suits you.
> 
> Funny that -- not a single one of you hypocrits has spoken out against this outrage.
> 
> And, heaven help us if someone denied employment makes a claim that they weren't hired because they weren't Christian or weren't male or decided to follow the law and keep their RELIGION -- Christian or not -- OUT of the interview and hiring process, as it rightly ***should*** be.
> 
> For those of you who missed that, try THINKING before jumping on those who've brought the problem to light, and focus your ire where it belongs rather than on the messengers.
> 
> 
> 
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
> 
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
> - Edmund Burke
> 
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2007 through life plus 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the author.*****
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lfalen [mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:47 AM
> To: donald huskey; 'Debbie Gray'; 'Saundra Lund'; 'v2020'
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Only Christians Need Apply???
> 
> Rose
> 
> If as it appears  Ms Neiuwsma sent the letter out representing the sheriff's office, it is inappropriate. It would however be within her right to privately encourage her friends to apply.
> I don't think that the sheriff is recommending that every one should carry a concealed weapon. He is a strong advocate of gun use and safety training. Any one granted a permit would have to attend such training and there would also be a background check.
> If Hamilton had a permit, then he slipped through the cracks. That is no reason to penalize everyone. Also due to his record he was not supposed to have any weapons. Lets concentrate on enforcing existing laws.
> Roger
> 
> 
> -----Original message-----
> From: "donald huskey" donaldrose at cpcinternet.com
> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:03:34 -0700
> To: "'Debbie Gray'" graylex at yahoo.com, "'Saundra Lund'" sslund at roadrunner.com, "'v2020'" vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Only Christians Need Apply???
> 
> > Dear Debbie, Saundra and Visionaries:
> > 
> > I can't let this thread go by without a few remarks. I have known Debbie and
> > her husband for several years.  Debbie and I both worked at the University
> > of Idaho Library, although in different departments.  She is smart, funny,
> > and exceptionally nice to work with.  I first met her husband when my son,
> > Ben, was a "guest" of the county. At the time, Phil was a jailor.  He is an
> > extraordinarily fine law enforcement officer, who combines compassion with
> > professionalism in a noteworthy manner.  It is a great loss to the county
> > that Phil is moving from the county to city law enforcement.
> > 
> > Saundra Lund is a woman of impeccable integrity.  In fact, not that Saundra
> > needs me, or anyone else, to verify her statement, Wayne Rasch denied that
> > Jason Hamilton had a concealed weapon permit. I watched Idaho Dialogue on
> > Idaho Public Television the night that Sheriff Rauch make the remark.  I was
> > especially struck by it because I had seen the concealed weapons permit in
> > Jason Hamiltons's court file (it is a public record available at the Court
> > House upon request).  Perhaps, as Debbie, suggests, the stress on the
> > sheriff was understandably so great at the time that he forgot or maybe he
> > just didn't know (in which case, it would have been wiser not to make the
> > comment.) Nonetheless, it was a fairly significant "oversight" when one
> > considers the gravity of the crimes Hamilton committed.  
> > 
> > Like Saundra, I am very concerned that our sheriff believes that carrying
> > concealed weapons is an effective way to control crime.  It is hard to
> > imagine that an untrained, armed civilian on-looker is able to assess and
> > react appropriately in any crime situation which involves a loaded gun. What
> > a recipe for disaster!  I hope that knowledgeable folks on this chat group
> > will do the necessary research to determine if, on a broader scale, it is
> > the position of law enforcement professionals that civilians with concealed
> > gun permits are a help or a hindrance to them.  
> > 
> > The unfortunate email sent by Ms. Nieuwsma to her church friends, is indeed
> > a reflection of her remarkable immaturity.  The more important question is
> > why such a very young (and I am not referring to her age) woman was hired
> > for a position that requires tact, seasoned judgment, and strong
> > communication skills - none of which are currently within her grasp.
> > Presumably, that hiring decision was made by Sheriff Rauch.  This decision
> > does not reflect well on his personal management skills.  I frankly don't
> > give a rat's ass if this is her first or last professional position.  It is
> > not a good fit.  At the very least, she needs to be informed that discussion
> > of religious affiliations is never included in a job search on behalf of a
> > public entity. If, she was not carrying out some official duty in notifying
> > Christ Church members of job openings, I am even more concerned.  What
> > assurances, given the chatty tone and adolescent comments in her email, do
> > citizens have that she doesn't share far more "exciting" and confidential
> > information with church members?  It wouldn't be unusual for an eighteen
> > year old to enjoy sharing some pretty juicy gossip with a few close friends.
> > 
> > 
> > I have been to the jail many, many times, both as a visitor and as a
> > literacy teacher.  It is not the most pleasant place, I'll agree.  But it is
> > not intended to be - it is a jail, not a hotel.  Jail Commander, Jim Lloyd,
> > runs a tight ship; for which he should be commended.  It is a difficult job.
> > What I have never seen in all my visits (granted, I have never been there in
> > the middle of the night) are jail staff idly sitting around and snacking on
> > jail kitchen food. The implication of Ms. Nieuwsma's email is that this is a
> > cushy job with lots of perks and lots of free time to squander.  It is
> > exactly the kind of insight I would expect from a teenager who lacks both
> > understanding and appreciation of what grownups do for a living. Her words
> > are (arguably, unintentionally) insulting to the hardworking, underpaid, and
> > certainly underappreciated professional staff.  I am surprised and shocked,
> > Debbie, that it appears you are defending her.  You know that working in
> > jail is challenging and certainly not a suitable job for a slacker.   
> > 
> > I am grateful that the Sheriff's position is an elected one.  The voters of
> > this county will decide whether or not Wayne Rauch's law enforcement
> > philosophy - including his position on concealed weapons for civilians -
> > budgeting skills, and personal management are admired enough to ensure his
> > re-election. 
> > 
> > Rose Huskey
> 
> 
>