As some BP residents have come to know, our Police Chief, Ray Atesiano, has resigned. A policeman who becomes a Chief, who is effective, respected, and well-liked, does not resign such a post without a good reason. Ray did not give one.
Few of us in the Village know anything about this. Those of us (Commissioners and upper level administration) who know bits of it are limited in what we know, and more limited in what we can say. Under the circumstances, there are applicable State statutes that prevent disclosure of any information. For that reason, Commissioners who knew something about it a week or two ago, have not been given any further information since, until it was made public that Ray resigned.
I have been approached by Miami Herald reporter Charles Rabin, and by a reporter from Channel 4 television news, for information about this matter. I have had to frustrate both of them, for the reasons just stated: I don't know much, and what I know, or think I know, I can't say.
Mr Rabin published a brief and unrevealing article about this matter in the Herald. He indicated he had not been told anything of substance by anyone, except by the Manager, who reportedly mentioned an "investigation" and "possible misdeeds." Mr Rabin also, as it turns out, called more people than just the Village Manager and all five Commissioners. He included a quote from one of our neighbors, Steve Bernard. Steve was requoted by another of our neighbors, Noah Jacobs, in a communication Noah sent to some others of our neighbors*. Steve commented to Mr Rabin as follows: "I don't have any problems with [Chief Atesiano]. I don't think anybody does. It's just bizarre." It was the word "bizarre" that Noah requoted.
What is important to note here is that both Steve Bernard and Noah Jacobs have been on the BP Commission. Each of them has received privileged information, and each of them has attended Commission meetings "in the shade," in which the Commission and Village brass were included, and everyone else was excluded. No one was ever heard to complain about being excluded from whatever these dealings were, and neither Steve nor Noah was ever heard to complain that their neighbors were excluded. Commissioners are sworn to confidence about the content of these communications and special meetings, and I have no reason to believe that either Steve or Noah violated the trust about confidentiality that was placed in them.
So where Steve tells Rabin that he never had any problem with our Chief, and that he thinks the matter is bizarre, unless I'm being overly sensitive, I hear him complaining. He seems to be saying he is unaware of any basis for a problem, and he is offended at the apparent fact that there is one, and that he doesn't know about it. He declares it "bizarre." He seems to be complaining that he is excluded. Noah seems to be echoing the same complaint.
What Steve and Noah did is both unfair and unkind. Each of them, having "been there," in the sense of having seen some of the behind-the-scenes dynamics that can happen, should know better. Some things, at least at a particular point in time, are not fit for publicity. Whether the reason is an active investigation or something else, there are limits, statutory limits, on what can be submitted to the public record. There was a time, and there were circumstances, when Steve and Noah understood and accepted that. It is disrespectful to propriety, process (legal and otherwise), and people for them to buck those limits now. They need the sense of perspective, concern, and decency that their time in office should have instilled in them. Clearly, it did not. To say that they should have had a sense of perspective, concern, and decency before they sought and accepted public office is a lot of water under a bridge now.
*Correction: Noah did not quote Steve in a separate communication sent by e-mail. His quote reportedly was included in other comments he made on his facebook page. I do not use or visit facebook, and I misremembered what someone else told me about where this quote appeared.
I think you are being overly sensitive about Steve's quote. The definition of bizarre is, " different from what is usual, normal or expected." This news was unexpected to me too. After being quoted several times in the paper I realized it's a no win situation and I don't speak to reporters anymore. I'm sure he said more than 16 words and most of us would probably have said the same thing.
ReplyDeleteLighten up.
I'll try to lighten up. And thanks for the correction. If you're saying you suspect Steve never said that, and you think Rabin simply invented the quote, I'm reluctant to go there. If I had been Steve, and a reporter had approached me about this, I would have said it was the first I was hearing about it (that seems to be what Steve was suggesting), and I didn't know a thing. I would have had no reason to add anything, like that I had never had a problem with Ray or that the news seemed bizarre. I will assume Steve knows what you know: that the less said to reporters, the better.
DeleteFred
You read my comment and thought I was saying I suspected Steve never said that? You criticize Steve for commenting on an ongoing investigation and you didn't think it was inappropriate to write:
Delete"A Policeman who becomes Chief who is effective, respected and well liked, does not resign such a post without a good reason."
As a commissioner, whether you know anything or not about this investigation, it is not appropriate to make a comment like that publicly.
Barbara,
ReplyDeleteSteve didn't comment on an ongoing investigation. He didn't know there was one. Neither did you. Neither did anyone, outside of a very few people. He commented that some issue regarding our police force (we have no idea what or how much Rabin told him, since Rabin didn't know much, either) and which involved something adverse about Ray, was "bizarre." Steve, being a guy of some worldly experience, certainly including municipal and governmental matters, and even including the dynamics of BP, had no reason to describe this as "bizarre." Unexpected, as far as Steve was concerned? Interesting? Possibly disturbing? Sure. But Steve should know far better than to call it bizarre, when he has absolutely no information. In fact, that is precisely what he should have said. He should have said he knew nothing about it, had no information, and was in no position to comment at all. That happens to be the truth. If Rabin offered to give him information, knowing reporters as you and I and Steve do, he should not have accepted anything Rabin told him as an adequate enough story, and he should have told Rabin the same thing: I don't really know, I don't have the details, and I am in no position to form an opinion, let alone to comment. How many times has Steve suggested that no action be taken on one thing or another, because we don't have enough facts and information? But he blurts and blabs, absent anything at all? Sheesh, Barbara. You're sure you're OK with this?
For whatever reasons, people seem to approach Steve for information and comment. That fact, what it might reflect about people's assumptions about his connections and wisdom, and the fact that he has very relevant experience, having been there himself, should cause him to be much more circumspect, much more cautious, much more considerate of people and situations than it appears he is.
I'm at a bit of a loss about your other criticism of me. I thought it would be self-evident, and that everyone would agree, that a police chief with those qualities would not resign without a good reason. The reason might be retirement age, wish to move away or take a better job, or any of a number of things. But wouldn't you agree that no one in that position would leave it without a good reason? Or were you taking issue with my characterization of Ray as effective, respected, and well liked? Do you not feel that way about him? Do you know others who don't feel that way about him?
I'm just not sure which part of my statement you thought was inappropriate.
Fred