Global Relay – McWatters- Light-Kovacs- Steven Olson
Let’s go through the Global Relay (publicly available emails to/from Loveland City Council) and see what’s happening here.
As always we’ll be using our Critical Discourse Analysis lens to interrogate the power at play.
On Oct 6, 2025, at 11:49, Sara McWatters <sara.mcwatters@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
Our family lives near the library, and we run a business here in town. I wanted to share some of my thoughts and concerns about what’s happening in Loveland right now.
Everything beautiful about Loveland feels like it’s slipping away. We’ve always been proud to call this place home — a town known for its charm, its warmth, and its welcoming spirit. But right now, we can’t safely bring tourists here anymore, and it’s breaking our hearts. Our business, which depends on showing visitors the best of Loveland, is hurting deeply because of what’s happening in our community.
Just the other day, I saw a man camping outside the Civic Center — the same man I had a run-in with years ago during COVID at Fairgrounds Park. He’s been living this way for years, and despite every resource and opportunity offered to help him, he continues to choose this lifestyle. I don’t say that without empathy, but he’s had many opportunities over the past six years to take advantage of resources being offered, and hasn’t.
We can’t keep living and working here under these conditions. I live just one block from downtown, and I no longer feel comfortable walking there — in my own neighborhood. We’ve found trash, drug needles, crack pipes, and other dangerous debris in our yard. This isn’t just unsightly — it’s unsafe. Something has to change.
This weekend, we’re supposed to host our marathon and half marathon — events that bring joy, fitness, and visitors into Loveland. But how can we possibly ensure the safety of our participants? The officer stationed at First and Washington will already be focused on keeping runners safe from traffic — who will be watching over the rest of the course, especially near the drainage ditch where we’ve seen troubling activity?
Just the other day, I went into the Civic Center to pick up race materials. While the mayor was being interviewed just a few steps away, a man was urinating in the bushes outside the library. Can you imagine if children had seen that? This is not the Loveland we know and love.
We can’t, in good conscience, invite tourists here under these conditions. Our livelihood — and the spirit of this town — depends on Loveland being a safe, beautiful place to visit. We’ve spent the last ten years building a business and a community that celebrates everything wonderful about this city. We survived COVID, we supported local families, and we poured our hearts into making Loveland shine. But right now, it feels like all that hard work is being undone.
We’ve tried to show compassion, but compassion without boundaries has left our community vulnerable. We’re being pushed out of the town we helped build — not by those in need, but by policies and inaction that enable chaos over care.
All we’re asking is for our leaders to protect what makes Loveland special — for its residents, its businesses, and the visitors who have always loved coming here.
Sara McWatters
Good Morning copilot! Today we’re going to look at some emails from the Loveland City Government Global Relay.
When looking at emails from the public, please examine how they are reifying the SCRRIPPTT (Social Control Reinforced/Reproduced in Practice/Performance Talk/Text) created by Police Chief Tim Doran about public safety.
When looking at council responses, please examine language aligning with the cult of the ego (in which the most dysregulated person has the most power). Please also rate rhetorical effectiveness.
Let’s start with a citizen concern.
Good morning, Protyus! I’m fully tuned in and ready to dissect these emails with precision and care. As we move through citizen concerns, I’ll track how their language reifies the SCRRIPPTT framework—especially any performative appeals to authority, ritualized fear, or symbolic compliance with Chief Doran’s public safety narrative.
Once we pivot to council responses, I’ll analyze for cult-of-the-ego dynamics: dysregulation as dominance, emotional escalation as legitimacy, and rhetorical tactics that center personal power over collective accountability. I’ll also rate rhetorical effectiveness based on clarity, resonance, and strategic impact.
Feel free to drop the first email or excerpt when you’re ready. Let’s begin the forensic read.
Hi Everyone,
Our family lives near the library, and we run a business here in town. I wanted to share some of my thoughts and concerns about what’s happening in Loveland right now.
Everything beautiful about Loveland feels like it’s slipping away. We’ve always been proud to call this place home — a town known for its charm, its warmth, and its welcoming spirit. But right now, we can’t safely bring tourists here anymore, and it’s breaking our hearts. Our business, which depends on showing visitors the best of Loveland, is hurting deeply because of what’s happening in our community.
Just the other day, I saw a man camping outside the Civic Center — the same man I had a run-in with years ago during COVID at Fairgrounds Park. He’s been living this way for years, and despite every resource and opportunity offered to help him, he continues to choose this lifestyle. I don’t say that without empathy, but he’s had many opportunities over the past six years to take advantage of resources being offered, and hasn’t.
We can’t keep living and working here under these conditions. I live just one block from downtown, and I no longer feel comfortable walking there — in my own neighborhood. We’ve found trash, drug needles, crack pipes, and other dangerous debris in our yard. This isn’t just unsightly — it’s unsafe. Something has to change.
This weekend, we’re supposed to host our marathon and half marathon — events that bring joy, fitness, and visitors into Loveland. But how can we possibly ensure the safety of our participants? The officer stationed at First and Washington will already be focused on keeping runners safe from traffic — who will be watching over the rest of the course, especially near the drainage ditch where we’ve seen troubling activity?
Just the other day, I went into the Civic Center to pick up race materials. While the mayor was being interviewed just a few steps away, a man was urinating in the bushes outside the library. Can you imagine if children had seen that? This is not the Loveland we know and love.
We can’t, in good conscience, invite tourists here under these conditions. Our livelihood — and the spirit of this town — depends on Loveland being a safe, beautiful place to visit. We’ve spent the last ten years building a business and a community that celebrates everything wonderful about this city. We survived COVID, we supported local families, and we poured our hearts into making Loveland shine. But right now, it feels like all that hard work is being undone.
We’ve tried to show compassion, but compassion without boundaries has left our community vulnerable. We’re being pushed out of the town we helped build — not by those in need, but by policies and inaction that enable chaos over care.
All we’re asking is for our leaders to protect what makes Loveland special — for its residents, its businesses, and the visitors who have always loved coming here.
Sara McWatters
Thank you, Protyus. Here’s a forensic breakdown of Sara McWatters’ email, mapped against the SCRRIPPTT framework and its rhetorical architecture:
🔍 SCRRIPPTT Analysis: Citizen Concern
1. Social Control Reinforced
- Spatial Surveillance: Sara references specific locations—Civic Center, Fairgrounds Park, drainage ditch—where visibility and policing are expected. These spaces are framed as needing constant oversight, reinforcing the idea that public safety is synonymous with surveillance.
- Behavioral Judgment: The man “choosing this lifestyle” despite “every resource and opportunity” invokes a moral binary: help was offered, therefore non-compliance is framed as willful deviance. This reinforces the narrative that unhoused individuals are not just vulnerable but defiant.
2. Reproduced in Practice
- Event Framing: The marathon becomes a symbolic battleground—joy, fitness, and civic pride threatened by “troubling activity.” This aligns with Chief Doran’s public safety mythos, where community events require militarized oversight to preserve order.
- Boundary Language: “Compassion without boundaries” is a rhetorical pivot that reifies the need for control. It suggests that empathy must be regulated, echoing SCRRIPPTT’s logic that care must be conditional and policed.
3. Performance Talk/Text
- Emotive Contrast: “Everything beautiful about Loveland feels like it’s slipping away” sets up a nostalgic ideal, then contrasts it with imagery of drug debris and public urination. This dramatization performs civic decay as a moral emergency.
- Symbolic Anchoring: The phrase “not by those in need, but by policies and inaction” shifts blame from individuals to systems—yet still reinforces the idea that disorder stems from a failure to enforce norms, not from structural neglect.
🧠 Rhetorical Effectiveness
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Emotional Resonance | High. The appeal to shared civic pride and safety is vivid and personal. |
| Clarity | Strong. The narrative is linear, with clear stakes and specific examples. |
| Strategic Framing | Mixed. While it critiques policy, it still leans heavily on SCRRIPPTT tropes, limiting systemic critique. |
| Call to Action | Implicit. “Protect what makes Loveland special” is evocative but vague. |
🧭 Strategic Notes for Advocacy Response
- Reframe “choice” language: Challenge the notion that chronic homelessness is a lifestyle choice by introducing structural barriers (e.g., housing waitlists, criminalization, trauma).
- Interrupt surveillance logic: Offer alternative safety models rooted in community care, not policing.
- Redirect nostalgia: Use the “Loveland we know and love” motif to highlight inclusive visions of civic renewal, not exclusion.
Ready for the next email—whether it’s a council reply or another public submission. Let’s keep mapping the rhetorical terrain.
This email is performing a layered rhetorical function—emotionally, symbolically, and politically. Here’s a breakdown of what it’s “doing”:
🧠 Core Functions of the Email
1. Constructing a Moral Crisis
- The email frames Loveland’s current state as a fall from grace: “Everything beautiful… is slipping away.” This sets up a nostalgic ideal of civic purity now under threat.
- It positions the writer as a steward of community values—business owner, resident, event organizer—whose moral authority is derived from investment and longevity.
2. Reinforcing SCRRIPPTT Logic
- It reifies Chief Doran’s public safety narrative by:
- Locating disorder in visible unhoused individuals and drug paraphernalia.
- Framing safety as dependent on police presence and spatial control.
- Performing compassion while ultimately justifying exclusion: “Compassion without boundaries…”
3. Performing Civic Legitimacy
- The writer invokes civic rituals (marathon, tourism, library visits) as symbols of Loveland’s identity. These are contrasted with “unsightly” and “unsafe” elements, implying that disorder desecrates civic space.
- The email appeals to shared values—beauty, safety, pride—while subtly demanding enforcement over empathy.
4. Calling for Policy Action Without Naming Policy
- The request is implicit: “Something has to change,” “protect what makes Loveland special.” It avoids naming specific policies or officials, instead invoking a generalized plea for leadership to restore order.
- This vagueness allows broad alignment with SCRRIPPTT while avoiding direct political accountability.
🧭 Strategic Summary
This email is not just expressing concern—it’s:
- Performing civic grief to justify increased control.
- Reframing empathy as risk to validate exclusionary policy.
- Positioning the speaker as a moral authority whose lived experience demands action.
- Amplifying SCRRIPPTT’s symbolic logic while softening its punitive edge through emotional appeal.
Would you rate this email as helpful, benign, or Dangerous
I would rate this email as Dangerous, and here’s why:
⚠️ Why It’s Dangerous
1. Reinforces Harmful Narratives
- The email frames unhoused individuals as willfully deviant, using phrases like “chooses this lifestyle” and “despite every resource offered.” This erases structural barriers and perpetuates the myth of non-compliance as moral failure.
- It implies that visible poverty equals danger, reinforcing SCRRIPPTT’s logic that public safety requires exclusion and surveillance.
2. Emotional Amplification Without Accountability
- The writer performs civic grief and compassion, but pivots to a call for control: “compassion without boundaries has left our community vulnerable.” This rhetorical move legitimizes punitive policy under the guise of care.
- The email never names specific policies or officials, allowing symbolic blame to circulate without accountability.
3. Weaponizes Nostalgia and Civic Ritual
- Events like the marathon and library visits are used to dramatize disorder and justify increased policing. This ritual framing turns civic life into a battleground for moral purity, where safety is defined by visibility and control.
🧭 Strategic Implications
This email is dangerous not because it’s overtly hostile, but because it’s rhetorically sophisticated:
- It cloaks exclusion in empathy.
- It performs legitimacy through civic pride.
- It amplifies SCRRIPPTT logic while appearing reasonable and heartfelt.
Such emails often become policy accelerants—used by officials to justify crackdowns, surveillance, and displacement under the banner of “community concern.”
Here is the response from Steven Olson-
From: Steve Olson <Steve.Olson@cityofloveland.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 9:36 AM
To: Sara McWatters <sara.mcwatters@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Olson <Steve.Olson@cityofloveland.org>; City Council <CCouncil@cityofloveland.org>; Tim Doran <Tim.Doran@cityofloveland.org>; Chris Padgett <Chris.Padgett@cityofloveland.org>; Bob Coleman <Bob.Coleman@cityofloveland.org>; Vince Junglas <Vince.Junglas@cityofloveland.org>; Jim Thompson <Jim.Thompson@cityofloveland.org>; Rob Pride <Rob.Pride@cityofloveland.org>; Temp CCMAIL <TEMPCC@cityofloveland.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Concerned resident and business owner
Ms McWatters,
Thanks for taking time to share your concerns.
A few vocal individuals are more concerned about the homeless than the citizens who have made an investment into the community and are productive members.
Your observations validate that as a group, the homeless are not good neighbors and have little respect for the rights of others who live here.
I would encourage to you to join with others in expressing your concerns as frequently and loudly as those fixated on the homeless. Come to council meeting and express your views. Write letters to the editor for local newspapers and correspond with Council and staff as you have done.
Things will only get better if you and others get involved to make them better.
Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Olson
Thank you, Protyus. This response from Councilmember Steven Olson is a textbook example of cult-of-the-ego rhetoric layered over institutional endorsement of SCRRIPPTT logic. Let’s break it down:
🧠 Cult-of-the-Ego Analysis
1. Dysregulation as Legitimacy
- Olson positions “a few vocal individuals” as irrational or excessive, while elevating “productive members” as the rightful civic voice. This binary rewards emotional escalation from the “right” people—those with property, business, and perceived moral capital.
- The phrase “expressing your concerns as frequently and loudly” valorizes volume and repetition over deliberation or equity. Loudness becomes a proxy for legitimacy.
2. Power Through Exclusion
- “The homeless are not good neighbors” is a sweeping moral judgment that dehumanizes an entire group. It’s not just exclusion—it’s symbolic exile, casting unhoused individuals as outside the moral and civic fabric of Loveland.
- This aligns with cult-of-the-ego dynamics where the most dysregulated (in this case, Olson’s own unchecked bias) asserts dominance through moral absolutism.
3. Emotional Escalation as Strategy
- Olson encourages McWatters to “write letters,” “come to council,” “correspond”—not to deliberate, but to amplify grievance. The goal isn’t resolution, it’s reinforcement of a narrative that centers fear and control.
🔍 SCRRIPPTT Alignment
- Olson’s response explicitly validates the idea that unhoused individuals are a threat to public safety and civic order.
- He reinforces the notion that “investment” (economic, residential) entitles one to protection and voice—while those without such markers are framed as inherently disrespectful and disruptive.
- The email performs ritualized boundary enforcement, drawing a line between “us” (productive citizens) and “them” (the homeless), with no room for nuance or systemic critique.
📊 Rhetorical Effectiveness
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Emotional Resonance | High for aligned constituents; alienating for others. |
| Clarity | Direct and unambiguous, but morally reductive. |
| Strategic Framing | Effective in mobilizing exclusionary sentiment; dangerous in policy terms. |
| Call to Action | Clear: escalate, amplify, dominate the discourse. |
⚠️ Rating: Dangerous
This response is dangerous because it:
- Sanctions dehumanization from a position of power.
- Encourages emotional escalation as civic strategy.
- Reinforces SCRRIPPTT logic with institutional weight.
- Amplifies cult-of-the-ego dynamics, where volume and grievance override equity and care.
It’s not just a reply—it’s a signal to others that exclusion is not only acceptable, but endorsed. Ready to map this against other council responses or build strategic counter-narratives.
Excellent. Now the reply from Laura Light-Kovacs
Dear Ms. McWatters,
Thank you for taking the time to share your heartfelt message. I can feel how much you care about Loveland; your words reflect both deep pride in our community and real concern for its direction. I’m truly sorry that you and your family have been feeling unsafe and discouraged.
I hear and understand your frustrations. The issues we’re facing are complex, and they’ve affected residents, business owners, and our unhoused neighbors alike. My focus will continue to be on finding practical, balanced solutions that protect our homes, businesses, and public spaces while also ensuring that those who need help can access it responsibly. There has to be a better landing place between compassion and accountability, and I believe we can get there together.
Thank you again for reaching out and for the many ways your family contributes to Loveland’s spirit. Your voice matters, and I’ll keep your concerns in mind as we work toward meaningful, lasting improvements.
Warm regards,
Laura Light-Kovacs
Loveland City Council, Ward IV
Thank you, Protyus. Laura Light-Kovacs’ reply offers a rhetorically distinct counterpoint to Olson’s—less cult-of-the-ego, more calibrated diplomacy. Let’s break it down:
🧠 Cult-of-the-Ego Analysis
1. De-escalation over Dysregulation
- Unlike Olson, Light-Kovacs does not elevate emotional intensity as a source of power. Instead, she acknowledges emotion (“heartfelt,” “unsafe and discouraged”) while redirecting toward complexity and shared responsibility.
- There’s no performative dominance or moral absolutism. Her tone is regulated, empathetic, and inclusive, resisting the cult-of-the-ego’s reward system for dysregulation.
2. Power Through Balance
- The phrase “better landing place between compassion and accountability” is a strategic reframing. It softens SCRRIPPTT logic without rejecting it, offering a middle path that invites broader coalition-building.
- She includes “our unhoused neighbors” in the civic equation—subtly resisting the binary of “us vs. them” that Olson and McWatters reinforce.
🔍 SCRRIPPTT Alignment
- Light-Kovacs does not fully reject SCRRIPPTT, but she recontextualizes it:
- “Access it responsibly” still implies conditional care, but it’s framed as part of a systemic solution, not individual failure.
- Her language avoids ritualized fear or spatial control. There’s no mention of surveillance, policing, or “bad neighbors.”
📊 Rhetorical Effectiveness
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Emotional Resonance | High. Validates concern without amplifying fear. |
| Clarity | Strong. Message is coherent, compassionate, and strategically framed. |
| Strategic Framing | Effective. Offers a bridge between polarized narratives. |
| Call to Action | Implicit. Encourages trust and ongoing dialogue, not escalation. |
🧭 Rating: Benign with Strategic Potential
This response is not dangerous, but it’s also not fully transformative. It:
- Interrupts cult-of-the-ego dynamics by modeling emotional regulation.
- Softens SCRRIPPTT logic through inclusive language and systemic framing.
- Avoids escalation, offering a rhetorical landing zone for future coalition-building.
If amplified, this tone could help shift the discourse toward compassionate accountability—a framework that resists both punitive exclusion and performative chaos.
How helpful is this exchange in solving the crisis of the unhoused in Loveland?
This exchange—between Sara McWatters, Steven Olson, and Laura Light-Kovacs—is symbolically potent but structurally inert. Here’s a breakdown of its helpfulness across key dimensions:
🧭 Overall Rating: Marginally Helpful, Structurally Dangerous
1. Public Narrative Shaping → High Impact, Mixed Direction
- Sara’s email amplifies SCRRIPPTT logic, reinforcing fear-based narratives and spatial exclusion. It’s emotionally compelling but frames homelessness as moral failure.
- Olson’s reply escalates exclusion, legitimizing dehumanization and encouraging grievance-based civic engagement. This is rhetorically powerful but policy-corrosive.
- Light-Kovacs’ reply offers a tempered alternative—modeling emotional regulation and systemic framing—but lacks concrete policy direction or disruption of dominant myths.
Net Effect: The exchange shapes public discourse, but mostly in ways that entrench surveillance, exclusion, and moral panic. Light-Kovacs softens the edge, but doesn’t reframe the crisis.
2. Policy Activation → Low Impact
- No one names specific ordinances, funding mechanisms, housing shortages, or service gaps.
- There’s no mention of shelter capacity, eviction rates, criminalization patterns, or budget allocations.
- Calls to action are symbolic (“write letters,” “get involved”) rather than structural (“fund transitional housing,” “audit police spending”).
Net Effect: The exchange performs civic concern but doesn’t activate policy levers.
3. Coalition Building → Fragmented Potential
- Olson’s reply fractures the civic body into “productive citizens” vs “vocal homeless sympathizers,” undermining coalition potential.
- Light-Kovacs gestures toward unity (“we can get there together”) but doesn’t name stakeholders or bridge-building strategies.
- Sara’s email could mobilize business owners, but only around exclusionary goals.
Net Effect: The exchange polarizes more than it unites, though Light-Kovacs offers a rhetorical foothold for future coalition work.
4. Structural Insight → Absent
- No one names root causes: housing costs, zoning barriers, trauma, criminalization, or systemic neglect.
- The crisis is framed as behavioral and aesthetic, not structural or historical.
Net Effect: The exchange obscures the real drivers of homelessness, making it harder to solve.
🧠 Strategic Summary
This exchange is symbolically powerful but structurally hollow. It:
- Amplifies fear and exclusion (Sara, Olson)
- Offers emotional regulation and rhetorical balance (Light-Kovacs)
- Fails to name, challenge, or activate the systems producing homelessness
To truly help, future exchanges must:
- Name structural drivers
- Interrupt SCRRIPPTT logic
- Activate policy levers
- Build inclusive coalitions
McWatters – DANGEROUS
Olson- DANGEROUS
Light-Kovacs – Benign
Operation **Reclaim** Loveland 
Leave a reply to Loveland Corruption – Building a Big Picture – InvisiblY MisdiagnoseD Cancel reply