Why fire officer for having fun on her own time?
Letters to the EditorPublished January 9, 2006
The firing of a 23-year veteran of the Largo Police Department for her actions at a birthday party seems a bit excessive.
I do not know the two female officers who are involved and don't really care for Largo police officers anyway. But for the sergeant to get fired and the other officer to get a suspension over something that they were doing on their own time - I know they take that oath of "always acting in a professional manner even when off duty," blah, blah, blah, but give me a break!
They were just trying to have fun and release some stress that they have to deal with on a daily basis. Deputy Chief John Carroll even stated, "She's an extremely talented officer." Don't they need people like that on the force?
This sends the wrong message to young men and women that want to be a police officer. You can't have a life or have fun on your own time once you join the force.
Shame on you, Chief Lester Aradi! That was a bad decision that is going to affect morale in your department.
I don't care if you are a police officer, firefighter, politician, whatever, everyone needs to lighten up and let people have fun when they are on their own time. This is America, and that's what freedom is all about.
-- Greg Herremans, Largo
More to firing than meets the eye
Re: Sergeant fired over birthday party antics, story, Jan. 5.
That her disciplinary record was taken into account when Largo police Chief Lester Aradi decided to fire Sgt. Joan Short for her inappropriate behavior in public seems irrelevant, since the incident should have had no bearing on her position in the first place. She was off-duty and out of uniform. Since when is conduct unbecoming an officer an issue when the officer in question is playing the fool as a private citizen?
Would she have been subjected to the same treatment had her shenanigans taken place in a private home?
And what about the two officers who watched without interfering, in essence giving their approval? Why no repercussions for them?
Finally, who made sure word of this event reached Short's superiors?
It appears there's a lot more to this story than a little whipped cream and some playful fondling, and I suspect I'm not the only one who would like to hear all of it.
-- Thomas C. Rizzo Jr., Largo
Official's claims on Wal-Mart contested
Re: Facts in Wal-Mart debate are not clearly stated, letter, Jan. 2.
Tarpon Springs City Attorney John Hubbard purports to provide the facts in his letter to the editor.
However, regarding the Wal-Mart issue, his arrogant assertions that, "This is a private property issue ..." and "The property is and was properly zoned ..." are not facts. These statements may represent Mr. Hubbard's opinions on the matter, but as he knows, these opinions are strongly contested by other highly qualified experts, including the attorneys who hope to argue those points and others before the court that hears the pending legal challenge.
With regard to facts on other issues, I challenge Mr. Hubbard to enlighten us with facts such as the results of the investigation into former Mayor Frank DiDonato's letter that asked the County Commission to back off its attempt to acquire the property involved for a park. Also, on Mr. Hubbard's letter to the members of the Planning and Zoning Board, which is alleged to be the reason for that board's changing its vote from 6-1 against allowing Wal-Mart to 4-3 in favor.
I would further appreciate his providing readers his justification for the city spending taxpayers' money to force a court hearing to determine the validity of the date of filing the legal appeal of the commissioners' decision to allow Wal-Mart, when it was obvious the city would lose on that issue. This is particularly relevant considering the city was so cavalier in brushing off its exceeding the 90-day deadline to consider a development agreement with Wal-Mart and Mr. Hubbard's reported dismissal of that point with the statement that it is merely "a straight procedural issue that is of no substance or consequence."
-- Andy Ennis, Tarpon Springs
Who speaks for majority on Wal-Mart?
Articles pertaining to Tarpon Springs repeatedly state "the majority" doesn't want Wal-Mart.
Well, this may be of interest: The majority of people in Tarpon Springs will not voice an opinion; they will "go with the flow." This is always evident in voter participation.
The elected officials of Tarpon Springs always side in favor of the city as a whole. Do they protect their personal interests? Sure they do, but by doing so, that silent majority also benefits.
The Tarpon leadership knows that inconvenience is no longer acceptable and substantial revenues are needed to ensure quality growth for residents. Convenience, accessibility and economic stability are what small cities are striving to attain for their residents and to assure future existence.
Tarpon leaders are very special people. Political futures depend on that handful of residents who do participate in elections. Even so, the leadership steps up and makes those decisions that they feel will benefit the community as a whole and often with their re-election chances on the line.
Do I personally agree with all their decisions? No. Have I failed to benefit from the outcome of these decisions to date? Not in the last eight years.
-- Ladd Paul, Tarpon Springs