Wednesday, March 1, 2000

Questions committee

I suspect that I am not the only resident of Arlington who has refrained from writing to the editor regarding the Officer Richard Jenkins fiasco, out of fear of making a horrid situation worse. Unfortunately, the organized group who has made a campaign out of this situation does not seem to feel any such inhibition. Thus in the Feb 24 issue of the Arlington Advocate we have an unsigned letter to the editor, titled "Thanks from group," submitted by "Arlington Demands Fairness Committee." The last time that such a letter was submitted by a political group, without names, objections were made, and the editor reasserted the policy that no letters without people's signatures would be published. This policy should be enforced. The individual who was instrumentally involved with both of these letters should be recognized, by George!

Now, because I am sick of seeing one side of this issue so thoughtlessly promoted, while town officials are helpless to answer, I have to ask: is the Arlington Demands Fairness Committee mocking us when it claims, "The important thing to remember, never did they compromise the integrity of their badges and the honor found in their reputations so that another police officer could commit a suspicious act and get away with it. What these officers did do was try to find the truth in a dark night." This statement suggests that the people involved did not learn anything from the experience. It makes mockery of the Feb 10 lead article in The Advocate, in which part of the headline reads that two officers "...admit wrongdoing, apologize to town." The fact that they keep so thoughtlessly flogging this issue, knowing full well that other citizens and officials of the town are unlikely to respond, is very poor judgement.

Now this group is actively campaigning for a candidate for the selectman's office. What a poor advertisement. I am sure that the two officers in question have learned a great deal from this experience. Evidently they need to learn two more skills: how to recognize when they are being used and misused, and how to stand up and call a halt to it. My poorly-informed opinion, before the town's legally required hearing, was that the two officers involved deserved a second chance, since they had had no say in creating the bizarre situation in which they found themselves that night. Had the two officers involved been allowed to participate in that hearing in good faith, without the poor advice of an attorney who attempted to blackmail the town in the lowest way possible, we would have found out if the town would have reached some sort of accommodation as the current one. But, as the subject of blackmail, how could the town have ruled in any way other than to pass the matter to a higher court, on appeal? The officers' attorney tried to establish that the town has a pattern of protecting its own. If that were the case, why is the former secretary to the selectman not still with us? He was let go at the first hint of impropriety, for misjudgments involving loan applications, which in my opinion were not as threatening to the public welfare as the current problem. That official left without public hysterics, perhaps because he understood the gravity of the situation. When is the Arlington Demands Fairness group going to realize the gravity of this situation and stop making a game of it?

I, for one, am proud of the way the town responded to the blackmail. It does not bother me that the officers are being given a second chance, having suffered one of the worse types of experience possible. It is time to let them get past it. Please let me know if I am wrong, and why. Andrew Fischer

Editor's note: Mr. Fischer is correct in his assessment that The Advocate should not print letters with only organizations attached. A person's name should have been connected to the letter and we should have asked for one. In the future, we'll make sure that a representative is named along with the organization.

  Home | Arts All Around | Real Estate | Weathe