Framed on my study wall is likely a one-of-a-kind letter. It is from the Taxpayer Advocate, Internal Revenue Service. His predecessor screwed up big-time, my Senator Chuck Robb raised hell, and the IRS apologized in detail. Notably, it asked me to draft its apology, modified it, but left it faithful to my draft and satisfactory. Ironically, after I received it, I learned that the local IRS office had misadvised me about owing social security taxes for my once-a-week housecleaner. I recovered all payments for taxes, penalties, and interest; and received interest on those funds (duly reported!). It reads:
This letter is in response to your complaint about a letter dated January 10, 1997, which was sent to you from Lee Monks, the former Taxpayer Advocate. You have stated that it has taken you well over two years to resolve this situation to your satisfaction. I apologize for the delay in responding to your complaint and hope this letter is evidence that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is constantly striving to improve service to our customers.
A member of my staff reviewed the facts of your case and confirmed you had voluntarily filed six prior year returns and paid by year all taxes you believed were owed. However, the IRS did not apply the returns and payments correctly. I regret this office did not provide better assistance in rectifying the situation initially, as requested by, and promised, to you and your Congressman.
Mr. Monks’ letter referred to a review of your income tax returns as a basis for a determination that you had not paid all your taxes. We agree that your tax returns show only tax obligations and cannot be used to verify the actual amount of tax you paid with each return.
Mr. Monks’ letter contradicted your prior claim that you had paid taxes for the June 1993 quarter. Upon review, we determined that you had paid the taxes for that quarter. As noted, you paid by a single check to satisfy the tax liability for the Forms 942 filed for that year. Our office should have asked you to provide us with a copy of the cancelled check to support your claim. The January 10, 1997, letter states that you admitted not making a payment for the June, 1993 taxes. You deny making such an admission, and our review did not establish such an admission.
Mr. Monks’ letter further states that you could have gone to a local office for computations of penalties and interest due prior to filing the returns and paying the taxes due. If you had, such computations would have neither prevented nor corrected the Service Center’s errors made by the misapplication of the payments to your accounts. We agree that this remark, made four months after you had filed and paid, could not serve any constructive purpose.
In my efforts to improve service to taxpayers, I will do my best to improve the communications sent to taxpayers and thereby to prevent a response like the one your [sic] received. Should you need anything further, please contact me at [number] or [name & title] at [number.]
This IRS apology is a touchstone for judging two draft apologies, one (8 Dec) which City Manager Ifo Pili requested from me and one (20 Jan) which I invited from him. For between them, his email (17 Dec) indicated “some concerns” but assured me “we can come to an agreement on language that would be appropriate for me and satisfactory for you.” In our 6 Jan conversation, I repeated my standard which I had stated at a 3 Dec conference, with Councilor Johana Bencomo and columnist Peter Goodman attending by Zoom: a meaningful apology had to specify the facts warranting the apology.
My draft is long because it covers many specifics, all previously reported in my blogs. It reads:
We are writing to apologize for the unsatisfactory experience which you have had with the Las Cruces Police Department since the summer of 2019 in receiving, and after complaining about, fact-free, false, or fabricated allegations of municipal code violations. After hearing about your case in our 3 December 2020 meeting and reviewing relevant documents afterwards, we believe that we have much to admit, regret, and reform to right the wrongs of LCPD conduct. The sincerity of our apology will appear in our efforts to improve the LCPD in light of what we have learned from your case. In response, we are making changes in policies and practices, and dealing with individuals appropriately.
Officer Valles was derelict in his duties. He failed to conduct an investigation to ascertain the facts and, in the absence of proof or evidence of violations, should never have alleged them. He failed to confirm the two items in the anonymous complaint and failed to check LCPD records for your pets’ licenses, shots, and permits.
IA Officer Lazarin was, as you told her and she admitted, unethical in not informing you that she was recording her interview of you.
Outreach Officer Daines was insulting in accusing you of being uncooperative simply because you refused oral instead of written communication.
IA Chief Rebecca Kinney lied that the requests for meetings by Chief Gallagher, Codes Enforcement Chief Chavez, and Daines were to ask whether you had additional complaints.
IA Sergeant Sean Mullens improperly made an additional complaint in your name without your permission and, as it turned out, contrary to your ethical and religious principles.
Chief Gallagher maligned you by wrongly claiming that you maligned Valles for fabricating three violations and lied to you by falsely claiming that those violations were part of the anonymous callers’ complaint.
Chavez, Mullens, and Kinney withheld from you the finding that Valles’s allegations were, as you complained, fact-free, false, or fabricated. Chavez implied the truth and Mullens stated it in internal documents, but Kinney omitted this finding from her letter closing out the case. Gallagher also withheld this finding from you.
LCPD management at all levels failed you. It failed to explain IA procedures at the start of your case, to offer a projected schedule, to give progress reports, to provide a single point of contact, and to coordinate actions among divisions.
LCPD officers at no point were respectful of you. Their delays, mixed messages, and random interventions frustrated and confused you. Yet they refused to respect your request to communicate except in writing, and they wrongly blamed you for being uncooperative and delaying the investigation.
We apologize for and regret LCPD failures and their effects on you. At the same time, we appreciate your persistence in pursuing your complaint because we can use your detailed criticisms to improve police performance. We agree with you that LCPD policy and practice should emphasize basic goals of safety, security, and service, and ensure that contacts with citizens are constructive, not confrontational.
Pili’s draft lacks any complaint- or LCPD-conduct-related specifics and is long only in its distorted representations, evasive generalities, and bland assurances approved by the City Attorney. An uninformed reader would think that my complaint was about poor interactions, poor communications, and my presumably hurt feelings. It reads:
I am in receipt of your correspondence regarding your interactions with the City of Las Cruces. Over the past year and a half, you have met and talked with various City officials on several occasions to voice your frustrations and concerns regarding City Codes Enforcement and some members of LCPD. Thank you for sharing your perspective, it has led to positive change and needed review of processes and customer service. It is the continued mission of the City to provide high-level customer service and to address citizen concerns timely and efficiently. In that regard, we failed.
Your situation began in the summer of 2019 and you have not yet received closure to your original complaint. I apologize that this situation has taken so much time. You have alleged that LCPD officers were not respectful to you and that you were frustrated and confused by the information, or lack of information, provided. It is imperative that all city employees are always respectful and professional, even when issuing simple warnings, as in your case. Your concerns and complaints have been shared with those involved and expectations regarding professional behavior have been clearly communicated. In addition, LCPD changed the document that was used for issuing warnings. As you indicated, the form was confusing and unclear, and it was your complaint that led to this change. In addition, we have reviewed specific interactions in your complaints and have identified areas of needed improvement, including more timely responses and improved communication.
I apologize that your experience has been frustrating and confusing. Thank you for voicing your concerns.
The difference between the two drafts can be explained in several ways. One is the difference in support of my complaints, from my elected representatives. In Virginia, I had the support of my U.S. Senator; in Las Cruces, I had support from not one Councilor.
Another is that between an honest apology and a pretended apology for PR purposes. Pili’s offer of an apology to me in a 3 December meeting seemed a show for Bencomo and Goodman, who were favorably impressed. Indeed, as I pushed Pili on specifics, Goodman interrupted me to say that he thought that Pili had offered me what I was still seeking. I knew better, and, since I had kept him informed, Goodman should have. The result was a draft which Pili knew was unacceptable, an act of insincerity meant to end the matter. Apparently, it has. He has long since failed to report to me on other matters which he had promised to address, including my request about expunging relevant police records and, if not, informing me about what is retained, where located, and by whom kept.
The message is clear. Las Cruces officials, elected or employed, are too small to admit mistakes, rectify their consequences, and make reforms. Their efforts go into concealing them, even excusing city lawyers who violate disclosure laws for the fun of frustrating citizens, lie to state officials, and subvert an apology. So all their talk of transparency and accountability, both requiring truthfulness, is nothing more than talk—a cool aid with mellowing, sedating, hallucinogenic effects letting imbibers perceive words to define reality or actualize promises, as Goodman eagerly expected of Pili’s words. In Las Cruces, officials live by dishonesty or denial because they make time-serving easier, citizens live in distrust and disregard because it has always been this way, and the media look away.
No comments:
Post a Comment