June 26, 2011
Dear Editor;
I am writing this letter in response to the upcoming Peace Officer information meeting. I re-read your article a few times thinking that perhaps my aging eyes were playing tricks on me, but alas barring a misquote on someone’s part there it is.
It seems that our council has been gracious enough to rearrange the meeting to better suit the schedule of the “working citizen.” Wow, my cup of gratitude runneth over. Despite this very generous concession it seems that we, the members of the general public, will not be invited to express concerns or comments.
Mr. Editor, this comment sums up nicely for me the attitudes of the administration of this county. In previous meetings held by the two Ladies concerning this issue, everyone was invited to attend and all comments were welcome. The consensus coming from these meetings was that there should be an open and honest public forum on the subject where ALL sides of the matter could be heard.
Now, we are graciously allowed to attend the meeting but we dare not voice an opinion. Are we suddenly living in some sort of banana republic where the ‘Glorious Leader’ does our thinking for us? This type of attitude is not acceptable to me and while I do not wish to speak for anyone else, I believe we have to “nip this in the bud.” I am not content to sit back and let these types of decisions be made without accountability and openness. As a case in point I would like to remind your readers of the recent “drug house” issue. As I recall council decided that the best way to resolve this issue was to purchase the house in question using public funds. The house was then sold at a later date at a substantial loss to the taxpayers of this county. While this is a novel approach to both law enforcement and real estate investment (buy high sell low), it is not one that we as taxpayers will be able to sustain over a protracted period of time.
Having spent almost two decades in law enforcement I came to learn that in any investigation there are at least two sides to every story and that the first person to tell their story is the most believable because of something in the psychological makeup of human beings. If the Mayor, council, and county administration are truly interested in an equitable and fair resolution of these issues why is the public not allowed to question and comment? Are these not the basic fundamentals of a democracy?
In closing Mr. Editor, it is not my intention to impose my views on anyone; however, I would like to respectfully make two suggestions to my fellow taxpayers of the county. First, I believe that this meeting in its present form is little more than window dressing and does not go anywhere near properly and equitably addressing the issue at hand. As such I believe that it is not only a complete waste of our time but is actually something of an insult to our intelligence. Another vitally important thing I learned in investigation is that sometimes more can be learned by paying attention to how something is being said rather than by what is actually said. Is this attitude of sit down, shut up, and listen to what we tell you more closely reflective of the Peace Officer program in this county?
I do not know if you recall Mr. Editor, but in a previous letter to your fine publication, I predicted a publicly funded campaign of “damage control”. We have been recently been inundated by photos of smiling Peace Officers interacting with children. Fair enough, this is a good thing, but if everything is all smiles and stickers, why is our voice being silenced? I encourage a complete boycott of this meeting in its present form.
Secondly I will say that this type of action by our council, along with their penchant for “in camera sessions” on issues that are very important to us as taxpayers, speaks volumes. I encourage the good folks of this county to take the time to voice their opinions to their respective councilors regarding this and other issues, such as the recent excessive postage incurred to correct and re-mail tax assessments, and the need for a “few tweaks” to the Farmer report to make it “more presentable to the public.”
To the Mayor and Council I say how about taking the approach of actually listening to what the People are telling you and facilitating those wishes? If you are unwilling or unable to do so you may find that we, the electorate of this County, will speak quite clearly to you come the next election.
To the fine Citizens of this county I say that if you are satisfied with the Peace Officer program as it exists, fair enough. It is not my intention to sway anyone’s opinion. To those of you, if any, that have concerns I strongly suggest making your voice known to your Councilor. If we do not stand up and question we must then content ourselves with the status quo.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mel BOBOCEL
