08/28/03  Character

I think we both agree that in so many ways, Ed Oakley is a great guy.  But his need to be on the "winning" or popular side of an issue rather than the RIGHT side of an issue can be a problem, certainly in this Lipscomb case.

You and I have a very strong bond on principles, and I agree that Al Lipscomb is not a good choice for the Police Review Board.  In my view, really "political animals" are not a good choice for bodies like this one.  Whoever appointed him was surely not running on all pistons if they thought that Al did not carry at least the "appearance" of a conflict of interest or was a tainted choice.

We ALL have family members who have screwed up.  We love them just the same.  But we don't let Uncle Bobby near the good silver when we know he still has a bad drug habit and the pawn shop (without legal nonconforming rights) is just around the corner.  It's unfair to knowingly put him (or ourselves) in that position.  It is also not a good way to attract the right people to serve on the board. 

Why hasn't our Council figured out that they will harm the credibility of the Board with an appointee like this?  In the same way the Board should help to weed out bad cops, the police (and citizens) should expect to have a board that is stain and odor free.

Appointing Al Lipscomb to the Police Review Board is like granting citizenship rights and privileges to illegal immigrants, which sends the message to those who bothered to come in and abide by the rules that abiding by the law just doesn't matter.

That is very sad.