Who needs judge and juries when you have social media?

As for research why bother with deliberate and time consuming exploration of complex issues when you can rely on 144-character Twitter feeds?

That said, it is not fair to put all the blame on Mark Zuckerberg et al because all they did was provide another tool for the age-old game of character assassination. Such mean-spirited shenanigans played for personal or political gain was once relegated to backyard fences and more sophisticated venues such as bathroom walls and scandal tabloids where stories of aliens and the tantalizing alleged “secrets” of the famous and obscure supported a cottage industry that-filled space each week at supermarket checkout stands.

This is not a column damning social media’s dark side although you could fill the New York Public Library for floor to ceiling on each story billions of times over with the printouts of the innuendo and outright lies used to bury honorable men and women.

What this is, actually, is a column about honorable men and women and perhaps a shot or two at those that use procedural cover because they lack the guts, moxie or whatever to proverbially stab someone in the chest instead of in the back.

As you read this the “consultants” are doing the dirty work of Manteca politics.

They are hired legal guns hired to investigate “complaints” leveled against municipal employees.

If you have been following the Manteca version of the Ten Little Indians saga unfolding at 1001 West Center Street on your dime, City Manager Tim Ogden is riding off into the sunset after the council and he decided “mutually to separate.”

Meanwhile Police Chief Jodie Estarziau and Public Works Director Mark Houghton are on ice — shorthand for paid administrative leave — while complaints against them are investigated. Thanks to social media there is now an endless list of innuendos attached to their names.

Politics always has — and always will be — a messy business. City department heads may not be the kings and queens on the chess board that is municipal politics, but they are the knights, bishops and rooks that are dispatched to serve the queen and the king(s).

There is no animosity attached to their “killing”. It’s just business to get to a goal whether it is what is perceived as a better way to run a city or because they are not using pawns under them in a manner that fits the game plan that can change every two years as the ballot box.

Always be wary of blanket statements, but you are going to be hard pressed to find anything on the books about Ogden, Houghton, or Estarziau that suggests they have done evil either outright or in various shades of gray. In all three cases except for perhaps what would best be described as procedural issues that most people when weighing the evidence would likely conclude it warrants a parking ticket and not a death sentence.

The reason Ogden was shown the door is the current council doesn’t like how was doing his job. It is also why Houghton and Estarziau are on the ropes. Let’s be very clear. That is the prerogative and responsibility of the city council to make that call with the city manager as it is the city manager — acting, interim or otherwise — to do so with department heads.

Department heads are at will employees. Showing them the door is OK. The problem is head rolling tends to rile people both inside and outside of organizations. Investigating submitted complaints can provide convenient political cover. That is not to say there aren’t serious complaints being made but the required response for liability issues elevates those complaints that are trivial or baseless to the same level. It is much easier to get rid of someone that you don’t like their job performance using the complaint process instead of basically telling them to their face that the goals and rules of engagement have changed and their services are no longer wanted.

Do not weep for those cut lose. They knew what the risks were when they signed on. It is also one of the reasons they earn fair and solid six-figure salaries.

Specifics are lacking on why Houghton is being vetted. But with Estarziau the door opener was an anonymous five page letter.

What can be shared about that letter is fairly disturbing. A complaint evolving around one particular employee that was named was so baseless that it could be disproved with three conversations and a check into state laws governing peace officers within one afternoon. And if there happens to be any truth to it there are a lot of other former city managers and police chiefs — not to mentioned elected city council members who you could argue had to look the other way in their haste to push political objectives — that could easily be culpable. That, by the way, was the most damning complaint in the five pages.

The police officers’ complaint about a uniform issue was over a year ago. And while the police chief that is accused of flipping could have handled it differently, it is kind of weak.

There are references to officers allegedly being forced to drive trashed vehicles, a couple of things about how the police chief worked, and a unanimous accusation about the command structure and lying.

The nice thing about the last item that sounds tantalizingly explosive that whoever submitted the letter — assuming they were a law enforcement officer — showed the courage of a career criminal trying to cut a deal. They were fearful of coming forward with more details unless they were provided cover. Yet several pages beforehand they had no problem trying to throw a fellow officer under the bus for something that not only seems like it could not ring true but it actually doesn’t ring true.

This is not a good standard when it comes to candor and being solid citizens. Police officers all the time ask people to put their name to complaints that will have to eventually face their accusers. Again while the five page letter was authored as if it came from a police officer there is no way telling that it did. Even if the city’s investigation showed that it did, it should give everyone great pause.

There needs to be blunt honesty. The public footing the bill and to whom the institution called the City of Manteca collectively belongs to have the right to it.

There are council members that have been less than satisfied with how the Manteca Police Department has responded to concerns they have had with traffic and homeless issues. This is not a state secret. It was voiced extensively in the last campaign and in the subsequent campaigning in the community after the election.

We elected the current council. If they decide change was needed by offing the city manager and installing a replacement to implement their vision, that is how the system works.

The palace intrigue is a dishonest sideshow or, at best, convenient timing to blunt community criticism about cleaning house not due to corruption or dereliction of duties but because key personnel aren’t on the same page with the council and their anointed city manager in terms of the direction they want the City of Manteca to head.

There is no malice in their purge or although there is perhaps a lack of courage.

If they wanted to get rid of a department head that doesn’t fit into the new game plan put in motion with the November 2018 election, they should have done so without piggybacking on complaints that ultimately can have little or no merit.

In doing so it creates enough smoke and mirrors that the target agrees to mutually separate.

It is akin to ambushing someone with a bazooka when a simple “thank you for your service” and a termination letter would have sufficed.