quote:Originally posted by mb5020:
Let's just analyze this article.
". . .a repeat of sorts (of the prior termination attempt)," (Sherrod) would seem erroneous in that this termination is a result of ". . .disciplinary action based on new complaints." (Singleton)
Did you read that? NEW complaints.
Any person with average intelligence should surmise that the current termination follows policy and procedure (both Departmental and City).
"City officials said the complaints were in violation of the city and department's rules and regulations." The use of "city officials" indicates that more than just Chief Singleton was involved in this complaint/investigation/termination process. The next, and most glaring, statement is by Sherrod.
"[Sherrod] said it appears, according to the complaint filed, that "they have dug up every little thing they could find negative" about Williford for many years."
Why did PW have negatives that could be found in the first place? Is it because he has an invincibility complex and doesn't think he has done any wrong?
"Many years," implies a pattern of negatives.
In summary, the first (approx. May 17) complaint results in termination, appeal, and reinstatement with demotion. Approximately 5 days after reinstatement, the City Council gives notice to appeal the CSB's decision to Circuit Court, which places PW on admin. leave again. Now, new complaints have required that a new and separate investigation and termination occur. If you feel I've not made a point, that's fine. My intent was to state the simply obvious.
As for Singleton and his restaurant, unless one is doing surveillance on the Chief's activities, one would find that he is very seldom at his restaurant during work/duty hours for the city.
I think Charlie has been doing a little undercover work on the side and eating Singleton's Bar-b-que while he keeps a close eye on the Chief...lol