Deconfusing Angelo - I

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Deconfusing Angelo - I

Or at least giving it the ol' college try!

I've known Señor de la Fuente for more than 40 years, since he had the filling station on the corner of Mill and Sunset where an empty lot was built several years ago.

But until a week ago, at the end of the annual organizational meeting, we hadn'd exchanged a cordial word in over seven years.

It continued that way as Angelo rushed up to tell me that I was "power mad" and this would be confirmed during my tenure on the Ethics Committee.

"You've always been power mad," he asserted.

It's a daunting task to have to explain to any­one for whom ethics is such a nebulous con­cept, the role of an Ethics Committee, but I may have succeeded.

He seemed to "get" that while the Building Inspector and Code Enforcer are active roles, Ethics Committees (and Zoning Boards) are by their very nature, passive... he just needed it pointed out to him, apparently.

Momentarily mollified, he then said some very complimentary things, with qualifications, about OtBB...

"You're very good when you write about sports and movies and TV. I enjoy reading that very much. I don't like it when you write about people and the Village."

At that point he lowered his voice, drew in close and delivered the crux of his message.

He agreed that the "two officers who screwed around with the other one's gun" should face the consequences of their actions, "whether it was meant as a joke or something else."

"But what about the two cops who violated their Chief's direct order and let Linda Kabot off by turning off the video camera for three minutes? They didn't get disci­plined because they're pals with the Chief!"

(That's actually an easy one if he'd thought about it for a second.)

Hmmmmn... let's see:

  1. One officer takes another's pistol, then he and a second officer repeatedly lie about it during an Internal Affairs investigation.
  2. An officer turns off a dash-cam during a traffic stop, doesn't lie about it, and explains why he did it.

Dishonest cops v. truthful cop who made an error in judgment... who do you want patrolling the Village?

(And if it takes anyone more than a nano-second to make that choice, it's a good thing they aren't running Westhampton Beach.)

"They still violated a direct order from their Chief," Angelo insisted. "They should have been disciplined, too!"

"What makes you think they weren't?" he was asked.

"I never heard that they were," he persisted, clearly unaware of §50 of the Civil Service Law.

"That information is protected under the Public Employees Fair Employment Act," he was told. "By law, it's not public information."

"Well I'm going to ask that at the next Village meeting," he asserted with great conviction. "And I'm going to get an answer, too!"


Deconfusing Angelo is one thing... educating him is another, particularly in respect to the appointment of the Village Clerk.

(To be continued, perhaps even concluded.)


1. Crabby said...

Sounds to me like someone has outlived his usefulness to some earnestly social-climbing carpetbaggers.

Has anyone from that group started making jokes about your age or social status yet, Angelo?

Have you been marginalized, not invited to the nicer occasions?

You're old school, old boy. If they haven't dismissed you and your buddy "Kameckler" yet, don't blink... unless you've been hiding mucho dinero (in which case you will remain warmly received.) Nevertheless, we are all pleased the Stockholm Syndrome seems to be wearing off. Welcome back. I think.

Crabby is being more opaque than usual!

Email address is not published
Remember Me

Write the characters in the image above