Let’s keep using that Critical Discourse Analysis CDA lens we’re crafting. We just added 🧩 SCRRIPPTT: Social Control Reinforced/Reproduced in Practice/Performance Talk/Text to the lens. Here’s how that works.
COMMUNITY MEMO
DATE: December 1, 2022
TO: Reporter Herald
FROM: Erin Black
RE: The Business of the City of Loveland and Public Comment at Loveland City Council meetings
Adams committed the criminal act of harassment on a member of the public while serving in his official capacity as Loveland’s city manager. This has derailed and distracted many city employees and city council. This will continue until Steve Adams is held accountable for his misconduct and violation of city administrative regulations.
I agree with Mindy McCloughan, president, and CEO of the Loveland Chamber of Commerce. Yes, enough is enough. We need to get back to the business of the city. Let’s get back to the business of public safety by holding our city leadership accountable for violating policies and laws. Let’s get back to the business of the city’s risk management and finance departments being good stewards of city assets. And let’s get busy ensuring that the city’s human resources department hold Steve Adams accountable for his actions and misconduct so that city employees are shown that ALL employees are held to the same standards. This will undoubtedly lead to increased morale among employees and naturally lead to increased productivity of carrying out the business of the city.
I do not however, agree with Ms. McCloughan that the city can get back to business by suppressing public comment. She, and a group of businesses and residents, are calling for less opportunities for the community to speak about their concerns during public comment at the council meetings. This group claims that a small group of citizens who seem intent on derailing the normal business of the council is distracting from the rest of the community’s business and that they “steal” time at city council meetings.
This is typical gaslighting and it is incorrect. No time is stolen. Residents have the right to comment on issues that concern them. It’s not a small group of people that think there are big challenges within our local government and within city leadership. Many residents have shared their concerns with the city council and city leadership over many years. The facts are that since 2019, every community survey and community conversation event consistently reflected that many Loveland residents have concerns regarding our senior leadership and the local officials. Here’s a snapshot to refresh your memory or for those of you that have not read this.
2019 Loveland Community Conversations: Question-What is keeping us from making the progress we want to see in Loveland? Responses included:
-Lack of connectedness between groups
-Need better communication in the city
-People aren’t stepping up and taking responsibility
-City Council needs to listen to more people and connect with their needs
-Develop and provide opportunities for people to connect and engage
2019 Community Conversations cont.
Underlying Challenges:
People see that our community is divided, and it has a pattern of not being inclusive of community members. People shared that there are multiple forms of division within our community including political, generational, native Lovelanders versus new Lovelanders, and the “growth is good” group vs. “no growth” group. These divisions and the lack of willingness to collaborate with the other side and the limited representation within city politics is keeping the city from meeting the needs of its community members.
2020 Loveland City Council Retreat: One of the 7 Strategic Focus Areas included doing community SURVEYS to collect input for decision making.
2021 Loveland City Employee Engagement Survey:
~City of Loveland is ethical in its business dealings: only 58% agreed
~~I trust senior leadership: only 43% agreed
~Senior leadership gives me a clear picture of the direction of the organization: only 44% agreed
~Senior leadership actions are consistent with what they say: only 43% agreed
I feel free to speak my mind without fear of negative consequences: only 54% agreed
These numbers are below benchmark and have continued to decline from recent surveys. This should concern all community members, including the business sector. Would this be acceptable in private corporations? Would this spur an evaluation of senior leadership’s effectiveness to lead? I’ll add that this survey was taken prior to Steve Adams’s harassment case. Since then, I have personal knowledge of many employees that are extremely upset, confused, and angry over what Steve Adams did to a female in the community and that he has not been held accountable by the city for his misconduct. This has led to further unrest for many employees who feel like they can’t voice their concerns for fear of retaliation. They deserve better.
2022 Loveland City Wide Survey relevant to the Community Trust Commission Survey:
Of all Departments- LESS Trust: Police, City Government, and Elected officials
Top Concerns Reported:
Police, diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging efforts in the city, trust in the city, taking care of vulnerable adults, respect for residents, honesty, being open and transparent with the public, and problems with racism/sexual orientation/ageism.
These results were released without much conversation from city council, except for one council member saying that he would prefer to hear directly from the public if they have a concern. And another councilor said that he didn’t accept the survey results. This mentality doesn’t respect the community’s efforts to engage with council of issues of concern.
There’s a pattern here. Year after year, whether the community speaks out in a survey or in a community conversation or in an email, or during public comment, their concerns are not being addressed. These are not new issues; however, they have been highlighted due to recent egregious acts by city employees on the public. This only leads to more distrust. McClaughan’s group calls the public who comment on these concerns as being, “divisive” and inflicting “ongoing drama.” Holding city leadership accountable for their misconduct should not be divisive and isn’t being dramatic. Public safety is the business of every community member.
I can only speak for myself, but I have not spoken at public comment to derail anything. I have spoken at public comment because I am gravely concerned that the city is derelict in its duty to protect the public from harassment and to be fair and consistent with its discipline of those employees that break the law and violate city administrative regulations. Censoring concerned citizens is not the solution to getting back to business. I encourage Ms. McClaughan and the others who align with her views on this matter to reach out to the concerned citizens who speak at public comment and offer to sit down and have a conversation. It would be great if the business community cared as much about the residents and employees of Loveland as they do about what the city of Loveland can do for them and their bottom line. I’m not a gadfly that can be gaslighted into thinking that I’m the one who’s bad for the city.
I’m a family leader, a long-time business owner, community volunteer and donor, a mental health first aider and educator, an advocate for behavioral health issues and transitional/supportive, attainable, and dignified housing for those in recovery, as well as a resource connector, civic participator and change agent. I care deeply for my community. The only reason I have recent and intense interest in city matters is because I was appalled by the Karen Garner arrest footage. I read the newspaper and have read too many headlines with our city and our police department in illegal and unbecoming behaviors. Therefore, I responded when Councilor Overcash put the call out to serve the city. When Mayor Marsh and Councilor Overcash appointed me onto the City of Loveland Ad Hoc Trust Commission to help foster trust between the city and the community, I took it seriously. I’ve spent the last year trying to do this, but it will take more people and institutions in our community speaking up and vocally demanding specific actions to compel the city and our elected officials to do their duty in fostering trust with the community.
Here’s a full-spectrum analysis of Erin Black’s December 2022 community memo using your integrated lens—CDA + SCRRIPPTT. This is a rhetorically sophisticated, emotionally grounded, and structurally disruptive document that challenges institutional legitimacy while reclaiming civic voice.
🔺 Escalation / De-escalation
- Escalation: The memo opens with a direct accusation—“Adams committed the criminal act of harassment…”—immediately elevating the stakes from policy critique to legal and ethical crisis.
- De-escalation through structure: The author tempers emotional urgency with methodical evidence: surveys, strategic focus areas, and historical patterns. This creates a rhythm of escalation followed by grounding.
- Re-escalation via pattern exposure: “Year after year… their concerns are not being addressed.” → The repetition of neglect builds cumulative tension, framing the issue as systemic rather than episodic.
🧠 Power Dynamics / Manipulation
- Naming and accountability: The memo names Steve Adams, Mindy McCloughan, and council members directly—refusing euphemism or institutional shielding.
- Countering elite framing: “This is typical gaslighting and it is incorrect.” → Challenges the rhetorical manipulation used to delegitimize public comment.
- Survey data as counter-power: The memo weaponizes internal city surveys to expose leadership failures, flipping institutional tools against their authors.
🎭 Tone / Rhetorical Strategy
- Tone blend: The author moves between formal critique, personal testimony, and strategic empathy. This blend humanizes the argument while maintaining analytical rigor.
- Repetition as emphasis: “Let’s get back to the business…” → Refrains used to reclaim civic priorities and redirect institutional focus.
- Credentialing: The closing paragraph lists roles—educator, donor, advocate, commission member—to establish moral and civic authority.
🧱 Us / Them Boundary Work
- Reframing “gadfly”: “I’m not a gadfly that can be gaslighted…” → Reclaims a pejorative label and flips it into a badge of civic integrity.
- Business vs. community: “It would be great if the business community cared as much…” → Challenges economic actors to expand their moral scope.
- Inclusive “we”: “Public safety is the business of every community member.” → Reasserts collective ownership of civic discourse.
🧬 Eugenics / Bio-Political Sorting
- Behavioral accountability vs. containment: The memo demands disciplinary equity (“ALL employees held to the same standards”) rather than behavioral sorting or institutionalization.
- No purity logic: The author does not invoke aesthetic, economic, or moral purity to justify exclusion—this is a clean break from eugenic framings.
- Karen Garner reference: Invokes disability and police violence, implicitly challenging ableist and carceral logics embedded in city governance.
🧩 SCRRIPPTT: Social Control Reinforced/Reproduced in Practice/Performance/Talk/Text
Practice
- Suppression of public comment: The memo exposes attempts to reduce civic speech as a form of procedural control.
- Survey neglect: The city’s failure to act on its own data reproduces control through institutional inertia.
Performance
- Memo as counter-performance: Erin Black’s public memo is a performative act of resistance—reclaiming narrative space and civic legitimacy.
- Commission service: Her role on the Trust Commission is used to perform accountability and expose performative governance.
Talk
- “Gaslighting,” “derelict,” “misconduct”: These terms disrupt bureaucratic euphemism and reintroduce moral clarity.
- “Enough is enough” vs. “Let’s get back to business”: Juxtaposes elite calls for order with grassroots calls for justice.
Text
- Survey excerpts: The memo embeds institutional texts (surveys, strategic focus areas) to expose contradictions between stated values and lived realities.
- Memo format itself: The genre—a community memo to the press—reclaims textual authority from official channels.
🧠 Strategic Implications
This memo is a rhetorical intervention that:
- Reclaims civic voice from institutional suppression
- Exposes symbolic and procedural control mechanisms
- Reframes public comment as a site of democratic repair
- Uses institutional texts to challenge institutional legitimacy
- Performs moral authority through lived experience and civic service
Survivor Literacy 
Leave a reply to Loveland Corruption – Building a Big Picture – InvisiblY MisdiagnoseD Cancel reply