'Cartoonish cronyism'
4 years ago | 158 views | 0 0 comments | 1 1 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Dear Editor:

The plot's so tacky, cheap and transparent it wouldn't make even a bad "B" western:

Three newly elected town councilmen, one barely prevailing by a single vote, exercise their freshly invested powers to reinstate a dog catcher and part-time cop to his job after his suspension for "allegedly" attempting to frame the one-vote losing candidate by planting dope at his home.

The suspension doesn't come as a whim of the previous council, but as the result of an investigation by the town's police department.

Of the five-member council, the new trio stands alone in voting for the reinstatement.

The flimsy plot thickens:

It's "rumored" that prior to the vote the three, a quorum on the council, are witnessed by another town official meeting illegally outside the public purview along with the town's former attorney and - guess who? - the suspended cop/dog catcher that cozy little quorum ultimately returned to the city payroll.

Rumored? How can it be mere rumor of a meeting when one of the newly elected trio openly denies discussing town business at it in response to a reporter's question?

"We didn't discuss nothing about this town," he's quoted as saying, his cloddish grammar confirming that the illegal confab, a violation of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, did indeed occur.

What were they all chatting about?

If town business weren't the subject, why logically would a suspended cop/dog catcher be included in a private meeting of three town councilmen, along with the former town attorney, presumably there to offer "unofficial" legal advice, suspiciously just prior to the dog catcher's reinstatement votes?

Were they all planning a fishing trip? Did they bump into each other by happenstance?

Yeah, right...

Will the corrupt Snidely Whiplashes in this shoddy little melodrama leave Lady Justice tied to the railroad tracks and ride off into the sunset happily clutching the spoils of office?

You betcha they will. It's the accepted business of blatant cronyism-as-usual around here - not even well concealed.

And the good townsfolk obviously couldn't care less what low caliber of public official runs their burg.

If they did, they'd be screaming themselves hoarse at the county's district attorney, who himself seems to operate under the strange notion that unless someone files an official complaint the likely possibility that state law was violated is none of his business, even after being told of it by a city official who witnessed the illegal meeting.

Which dumps the D.A.'s chances of ending up as much of a Dudley Do-Right in this sleazy little plot of small-town cronyism and corruption, whose ending turns out to be anything but surprising.

HENRY BAKER

SEQUOYAH COUNTY

After an experiment that lasted several months, the editors at Your TIMES decided this week to end the practice of allowing anonymous comments on our website because most of the comments involve personal attacks and unfounded accusations. These comments do not add information to a story, or add any true insight. While we believe in the free exchange of ideas, it had become evident that was not what was happening in the comment section of our website. Readers can also become fans of Your TIMES on Facebook and may comment on our postings there. Readers are also encouraged to write letters to the editor to the newspaper about matters of public interest. The newspaper circulation is several times that of the web site, so readership is much higher. Letters must include a name and phone number so that we may contact the writer to verify authenticity of the letter. Letters are limited to 500 words and one letter per writer per month is accepted.