Kittanning's new police chief: Shortchanging the public
Kittanning Borough got a new police chief this week. Certainly a town the size of Kittanning needs a police chief, somebody to not only oversee policing but to be a liaison between the department and the public, including council and neighboring towns.
Here is what Kittanning citizens did not get:
In hiring the chief, council said it was dismissing whatever complaint had been lodged against him that resulted in a temporary suspension. Citizens didn't get any further explanation because council cited prohibitions in the contract with police that stipulate neither side can discuss such disciplinary action.
So, the public be damned.
Did council ever consider hiring a chief who was not part of the bargaining unit — considering the chief is a manager with more accountability to the public than the other officers?
The new chief, former patrolman Bruce Matthews, was not given an opportunity to stand before council and publicly tell those who hired him what he likes about the department and what he wants to improve. Is the department sufficiently funded? What are the major public safety issues? How will Chief Matthews enhance communication between law officers and the community? He may well have answered these question in the interview process, but the council forum would have been the ideal place to talk about such things.
At least residents would have appreciated it. Remember those folks?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- Calling out Russia: But weakly
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- The Western Psych grand jury report: Do the right thing
- Payments in lieu of taxes: It’s worth a try in Kittanning
- Saturday essay: Beds of surprises
- Fayette County Fair: More than rides & shows
- The Chevy Volt: Short-circuited (again)
- Digitized medical records: They’ve become an unsecured threat
- Greensburg Tuesday takes