Bob Emrich

Bob Emrich is a major bigot and a danger to the well-being of Maine and the good reputation of Maine. Of course, he is one of the hateful Christians seeking to invade the secular nature of Maine law to deny people the right to marry on the basis of gender. He also says dumb things like this.

State voters have repeatedly defined marriage as between a man and a woman when given the opportunity, with the latest vote in California, said Emrich, founder of Maine Jeremiah Project, which aims to get people of faith involved in setting public policy.

“Without exception, they’ve always voted to protect the traditional definition of marriage,” Emrich said.

And for a long time, so did the South. After all, the “traditional definition of marriage” for a very long time was that interracial unions were unholy and thus not allowed. Emrich is presenting a plainly dumb argument. “Well, we’ve been doing it for so long!”

I’m tired of parsing words or dilly-dallying around the issue. These people are fucking stupid. They have the intelligence of a glop of mud. These huge bigots (not that small bigots are okay) find homosexuality icky and/or they’re uncomfortable with their own sexuality. Often, their sexuality is repressed (see priests). They have immature views on what sex is, what its purpose is, what it means, and they are unable to make universal appeals which support any of the dogmatic inanity they embrace. Why do we listen to these fools?

Leave of absence

I will be driving up to Baxter State Park today to hike the 100-Mile Wilderness. This is the most remote section of the Appalachian Trail, so I’m pretty excited.

What this means is that I will be gone for about a week. I’ll return the night of the 25th at the earliest, more like during the 26th, and if it’s slow-going, then on the 27th. Anything beyond that will be unexpected.

In lieu of my ability to post each day, I’ve scheduled a series of posts for each day. Hopefully things will go swimmingly. In fact, to make sure they do, this post is my first test as it is actually Wednesday night right now and I’ve scheduled this for 8:00a.m. Saturday morning. Let’s hope you’re reading this.

In short, I won’t be actively posting or responding to any comments. Instead, I’ll be enjoying the beauty that is the Maine woods, as wrought by the slow processes of a godless Nature.

It seemed so innocent

I wrote this for the purpose of a Facebook note, but I would love to make it more public. So, here ya go.

~~~

As I returned to town with girlfriend in company, I had a sudden idea. I had recently purchased a new driver from Play It Again Sports on Bangor Street. Good investment from a good business. The employee there – almost certainly still in high school – went so far as to virtually insist on carrying out my other, bulkier purchases for me. If not a good business sense, then he at least at a solid grasp on common decency. So in my desire to complete the satisfaction around my recent acquisition, I decided to stop by T’s Golf in Manchester to hit a couple balls.

It wasn’t far from closing time and I didn’t want to make anyone wait around for me to hit a full bucket. Besides that, I had a lovely lady to entertain. As such, I only wanted to hit 3 or 4 balls. Purchasing a full bucket wasn’t in my plans.

Upon arriving at the range, I noticed the empty lot. I always wondered why I rarely saw many vehicles at this business. This night I chalked it up to the late time and gloomy weather.

I grabbed my clubs, a few balls and set up at one of the deserted tees. It didn’t take long for Rawn “Misspelled-Name-And-All” Torrington to come out with his wife Judy. When he asked “Are you hitting your own golf balls?”, I naturally assumed the best in him, thinking he was making some friendly chit-chat. Just imagine it. The local proprietor seeking quality relations with his customers. It happens all the time, every day. As much as I’ll rag on Hannaford or McDonald’s or any other lowing-paying retail location, they usually higher good people who usually treat customers with kindness; if not always great service, then at least kindness. But we all know what happens when one assumes. It makes an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.

Rather than being the savvy owner I expected, Torrington instead showed a complete disregard for good business sense, not to mention common decency. He opened by chiding me for daring to use his facilities for free. “I have $200,000 invested in this operation!” he wailed. Okay. Let’s hang on a second.

It’s fair enough that he wouldn’t offer his services for free. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to let a person take a whack or two on range where a roaming tumble-weed may be expected, especially if said person is using his own equipment. There’s no gain or loss, regardless of the operation being worth $2, $200,000, or $2,000,000. But again, it’s fair enough. It’s his business and he isn’t supplying anyone with a free playground.

That isn’t the problem.

The problem is that Torrington’s blood was virtually boiling. He had no justification for his reaction. He was perhaps only rivaled by Mrs. Torrington’s immaturity.

I say without embellishment or revision, our reaction was nothing if not mild. I briefly explained that I just wanted to hit a ball or two to try out a new club. Judy Torrington tore into us, foam not far behind her lips.

“You should know better!”, she screeched.

Know better than what, Torringtons? Than to innocently hit a few balls into a field? I’ll concede that asking would have been prudent. But whether or not I should have known better or done differently is far from the point. The point is that bad behavior is rarely justified. This falls under no exception of which I can imagine, if there even are any.

In the interest of full disclosure, I let fly some colorful language. I regret ceding the high-ground, though not the sentiment behind the words.

We packed up our gear, constantly reminding these two horrible business owners that we weren’t maliciously attacking their livelihood. They seemed convince that any action which does not result in profit for them must also be a personal slight.

And here’s the kicker. Had either of these individuals simply explained, with calm and composure, that they didn’t allow people to hit their own golf balls, I would have asked how much a small bucket cost. I assumed at least $5, not to mention the time it’d take for me to hit them when I arrived. As it turns out, according to their website, I could have gotten 10 balls for a buck fifty. I have no doubt that I would have made the investment.

As a result of the – to be frank – dumb business practices of T’s Golf in Manchester, they have forever lost my business. In reality, I didn’t contribute an arm and a leg in the first place. Independent of all this, I’ve always thought their mini golf was one of the worst I’ve ever played; it has no pop, no pizzazz. What’s more, they don’t provide the clubs for their driving range. T’s Golf, regardless of the poorly customer-versed owners, is not a good facility from the get-go. This recent debacle only ensures that even less of my money – precisely zero dollars – ever gets spent there.

But the story doesn’t end here. And I’m not alone.

Immediately following this incident, I headed over to All Steak Hamburger on Hospital Street. It was there that I spoke with the owner (whose name I missed).

Because he has a driving range (as well as a restaurant and batting cages) I asked him what he would do if someone wanted to hit a couple of their own golf balls from his tees. He said it didn’t matter to him. Anyone who does it will obviously lose anything they hit, but people can bring entire bags of golf balls for all he cares (and they have). That’s good business sense.

After he explained his casual position to my scenario, I told him that I had just come from T’s and…his laughter quickly cut me off.

“Well, there’s your problem.”

As an anecdote, he told me that he gets about 1 customer per week as a result of Rawn and Judy Torrington and their bad business sense. I believe it. In speaking with further friends and family, that anecdote seems to be slowly morphing into a pattern.

So let’s break down what happened. I went to hit a few balls into a field. Rawn and Judy Torrington not only said no, but they practically cried it. It would be fine for them to kindly object to what I was doing. My actions were reasonable, but quality justifications can certainly be made against them. But, again, that isn’t the point. It’s the reaction to my actions which deserve the attention here. The bad moral and bad business decisions of the Torrington’s forever cost them my dollars. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say it has cost them the dollars of anyone reading this. Furthermore, it damages their reputation. Granted, the anecdotes appear to indicate that they already have awful reputations, but this certainly doesn’t help.

I guess I can’t just blame the rain for their empty parking lot. After all, All Steak Hamburger had both of their parking areas filled. Funny that.

The moral elite

“Elite” is a term that generally gets bandied about when someone is stupid. Obama was elite and McCain and Palin were Real America. In other words, they were amazingly stupid and Obama was intelligent. This applies to many conservative-liberal dynamics. So in essence, this dynamic changes the definition of elite. Put bluntly, it makes faux connotations to a word which is a positive attribute or characteristic. Unfortuntely, I’m going to delve into this bastardization of the English language, too.

We have a moral elite in the world. They are the righteous religious, the men and women (but mostly men) who believe they are right because they have always been told by their dogma they are right. In truth, they are moral scum. In 2008 campaign rhetoric, they are the most elite of the elite.

We recently had the killing of the abortion doctor in Kansas. The irony should not be lost on anyone. A pro-life man killed someone. In reality, he was actually pro-some-life. He went about picking and choosing. Religion is the engine which allows this. It is the wrong model for morality. It allows – nay, often encourages – itself to be subverted for evil. If it isn’t actively advocating for evil acts (i.e., telling people to murder rape victims), then it’s propping itself up for people to be immoral. The abortion doctor was killed because a religious man believed he was defending life. Religion leads to this conclusion, unavoidably.

Locally, religion has been a motivator in my hometown. A few years back we had a lingerie shop with live models. Women stood in the window downtown and showed off some underwear. Small acts of vandalism against the owner eventually built up to the slashing of her tires. She soon moved to another part of the state out of fear bred by religion. Years later another business opened up with the same idea, though with a focus on latex. Given that reality has a huge liberal bias, people apparently recognized that window models harm no one. It turns out the religious motivations were wrong. Again.

Now we have this incident. A man opened up a topless coffee shop in the next town over. He had plans of opening a stripclub, but recently announced he planned on just having dancing waittresses (pending board approval), sans the alcohol and lap dances. Sure enough, we have an act of vandalism. I use that word very, very lightly. In truth, this was an act of arson. A person, ‘morally’ motivated, burned down a building because it housed harmless activity of which he or she did not approve. The culprit is still unknown, but is there any doubt religion has its filthy hand in this?

Oh, and just to make matters worse:

An ambulance crew from Belfast was driving by at around 1:00 a.m. and spotted the fire. They woke the building’s occupants, which included owner Donald Crabtree, four other adults and two four-month old babies. They all got out safely.

Religion makes people do inane, dangerous things for which there is no secular basis.

Maine legalizes gay marriage; society fails

Maine legalized gay marriage today. Oh, the humanity! Buildings are crumbling outside. Fish are coming up dead in the lake out back. People are dying. Animals have rabies. I saw an old guy fall. There’s a pot hole in the road. It’s all over, folks! Grab your canned beans and flashlights and hunker down. It’s May, but winter has come and it ain’t going anywhere.

Nearly six in 10 people ages 18 to 34 said same-sex marriages should be legal. Just over four in 10 people ages 35 to 49 agreed. Numbers were similar for 50- to 64-year olds, but only 24 percent of people 65 and older agreed.

My specific, cultural, particular, Abrahamic god! Once all the old geezers die, no People’s Veto is going to be able to save our non-animal, specially created souls.

What gay marriage is about

There’s this insipidly stupid argument floating around conservative (i.e., non-thinking) circles. It’s that gay marriage is all about children and societal security. This argument is designed to knock down the position that gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

Societies have a vested interest in the welfare of their children because they are the future of that society. A society is more likely to flourish if these children grow up to become responsible, productive and contributing members of that society. In the last half century, social science research has overwhelmingly validated what societies throughout history have learned through practical experience: Children do best by far on every measure of development, achievement and welfare when they are raised by their married biological parents.

In truth, this is an emotional appeal. In other words, it’s useless bull that doesn’t actually mean anything. Let’s start at the top.

The most glaring issue with this is the abuse of science. Aside from almost surely not citing any specific studies, the author is intentionally destroying context. That is, the studies he cites are comparing married parents to unmarried couples, single parents, and possibly parents who adopted. None of these categories is gay parents.

He’s begging the question here. He has set out to show that gay couples will make unstable homes for children yet he assumes that very idea in his argument. That is, he is assuming gay couples are equal to any couple which is not married and the biological parents of the children involved. But if he’s trying to prove that point, he most certainly cannot assume it in his argument. It’s a logical fallacy. “Gay parents are unfit. How do I know they are unfit? Because they are gay parents.”

But here’s the gem of the pro-bigot brigade. They argue that anti-discrimination activists are wrong to compare gay rights to civil rights.

Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell also rejects the argument that sexual orientation is comparable to race. He has testified that: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

The most interesting thing about all this is that both sides are wrong. Anti-discrimination activists are wrong because the civil rights being violated are not based upon sexual orientation. Pro-bigots are wrong because it is a civil rights issue. It just isn’t about sexual orientation.

Marriage is a secular contract between two people of sound capacity to consent to entering a legal agreement. In other words there are pertinent requirements to entering any contract recognized by the government. In this case they include being of age as determined by state, being willfull, and being able to understand the conditions of the contract. To say that two women cannot marry is discriminate based upon some external requirement to the ones listed. That “external requirement” is not sexual orientation. It is gender. Two women or two men are disallowed from entering a contract based upon gender. That is a civil rights issue. It is against the law – moreover, it is against all common sense. Pro-bigots don’t realize their rights are being trampled, too (mostly because they’re doing the ignorant trampling).

It is primarily to encourage the most positive outcomes for their children that societies encourage men and women to marry and provide special protections and incentives for this social institution. Because same-sex couples obviously cannot produce children, societies historically have never even contemplated allowing them to “marry.”

Liar. Or he’s stupid. Societies have never contemplated allowing gay marriage because societies have historically been filled with bigotry. It has nothing to do with children. But at any rate, this argument is only valid if it is extended properly. Infertile couples must be forbidden from marriage. Elderly couples beyond the ability to reproduce who do not already have children and grandchildren must get divorced; they do not fit the reason for marriage and are thus being rewarded with special protections and incentives without justification.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would so radically change the existing social institution of marriage that it would destroy its time-proven ability to provide essential benefits to society. It would transform marriage from a primarily child-centered institution into something that would be little more than governmental recognition of the professed affection of any two people for each other regardless of their gender.

This is just a bad argument. How does a married gay couple do anything to change the status of a married straight couple? Any interest there is for children in this secular contract can be maintained precisely the same as it has been for so many decades. It is nice, however, that he says “regardless of gender”. It’s good that there’s a twinkle of hope he realizes that this civil rights issue is centered around gender, not sexual orientation.

The link will eventually go dead (unless you want to pay $2.99 for access to old articles from a paper that normally costs $0.75), so I’m posting the article in full here.

Gerald Talbot (“Civil marriage about equal protection of all under the law”) is certainly entitled to his own opinion that allowing homosexuals to marry is a civil rights issue similar to the black civil rights struggle. But he appears to be outside of the mainstream thinking of most U.S. black leadership.

Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage and he is not only the most prominent black political leader in the world but a former constitutional law professor. No one would seriously argue that he is not a champion of true civil rights.

Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell also rejects the argument that sexual orientation is comparable to race. He has testified that: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

Dee Garrett, a black civil rights leader in the South in the 1960s, also rejects the claim that this is a legitimate civil rights issue. In an eloquent statement that is posted on YouTube and was widely circulated in the California black community, she said, “It’s (same-sex marriage) not about civil rights. Racism was about civil rights. Marriage is about society, the future and about our children.”

In California, seven out of 10 black voters agreed and voted for Prop 8, which amended the state’s constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage. Many credit these black voters for passing the amendment.

Garrett understands what Talbot clearly does not. Marriage is not about adult needs, desires or convenience, whether for social and governmental recognition and acceptance, for economic advantages and tax breaks or simply to make their life easier. As she points out, marriage is primarily about children and the future of society. Understanding this fundamental truth allows us to place the demands of this tiny minority to be allowed to “marry” into the correct and socially responsible perspective.

Societies have a vested interest in the welfare of their children because they are the future of that society. A society is more likely to flourish if these children grow up to become responsible, productive and contributing members of that society. In the last half century, social science research has overwhelmingly validated what societies throughout history have learned through practical experience: Children do best by far on every measure of development, achievement and welfare when they are raised by their married biological parents.

It is primarily to encourage the most positive outcomes for their children that societies encourage men and women to marry and provide special protections and incentives for this social institution. Because same-sex couples obviously cannot produce children, societies historically have never even contemplated allowing them to “marry.”

Given the critical role of marriage in society, it is easy to understand that defending man/woman marriage is not discrimination. There is no inherent “right” to marry and societies have always regulated this institution for the best interests of society. Brothers and sisters or parents and children cannot marry, for example, nor can minors.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would so radically change the existing social institution of marriage that it would destroy its time-proven ability to provide essential benefits to society. It would transform marriage from a primarily child-centered institution into something that would be little more than governmental recognition of the professed affection of any two people for each other regardless of their gender.

There is absolutely no assurance that this new social institution of “genderless marriage” would, or even could, provide these same essential societal benefits. If it cannot, society and future generations will suffer serious harm. Whether to legalize genderless marriage is much more than a minority “rights” issue.

Bob Emrich, Plymouth, is director of the Maine Jeremiah Project, a grassroots coalition of social conservatives, organizations and churches who support “the sanctity of life, traditional family values, freedom of religion and educational choice” and a state constitutional amendment to protect marriage in Maine; http://www.mainejeremiahproject.com.

Troopers troopers

I have updates for two previous posts. The first is about that Dallas cop – Robert Powell – that stopped a family from seeing their dying relative. He pulled a gun on these people. Think about that: a vehicle slowly runs red lights, puts on its hazards, and pulls into a hospital parking lot. What’s your first thought? Well, if you’re normal, it’s that there’s an emergency. If you’re an almost surely racist, hillbilly cop, it’s to pull a gun out on t’em t’ere niggers. That’s what Powell did, among other things. He has resigned.

“I made this decision in the hope that my resignation will allow the Dallas Police Department, my fellow officers and the citizens of Dallas to better reflect on this experience, learn from the mistakes made, and move forward,” Powell said in a statement issued through his lawyers.

No, he wants to ease his legal situation as best as possible and he knows he’s going to be fired anyway. Understandable move, but he’s lying.

My second update is about my run-in with some officer at the Augusta Police Department who had no idea how the Maine Freedom of Information Access Act works. The Capital Weekly (a local, weekly paper) has asked me to do a first person write-up of the incident. It will not be kind to the offending officer – Lt. J. Christopher Read.

Let freedom ring

Freedom of information, that is.

I recently gave an update on my experience using the Maine Freedom of Information Access Act. On two separate occasions I got stonewalled by some Lieutenant who was not familiar with the act (nor with humility). Eventually, the city manager gave me the information. A couple of days later I got this (emphasis added).

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

I have been advised you have made contact twice this week with Lt. J. Chris Read requesting copies of any disciplinary action taken against Officer Richard Dubois. I am now aware that you made your first request on Monday, Mark 9th and returned on Wednesday, March 11th. Each time you received a verbal denial from Lt. Read advising that the information you were requesting is confidential as personnel records are confidential.

I must apologize that as you are aware, should there be a final written decision relating to a disciplinary action taken against an employee, that information is not confidential and you would have a right to access of that information. Your request should have been handled differently and following a review of the individual’s personnel file, you should have been advised that there are no disciplinary action documents in the file. I have personally checked the officer’s personnel file and can state that there are no disciplinary documents of any kind in the file.

As a result of how your request for information was handled by a member of my staff, I have undertaken a review of our procedures pertaining to public access to records. All Police Supervisors are to review our Standard Operating Procedure, Public Access to Records, to ensure that a request for information is handled properly.

Again, there is no information pertaining to disciplinary action regarding Officer Richard Dubois to provide to you per your request. I am truly sorry for the inconvenience you have experienced.

Sincerely

Chief Wayne M McCamish

Quality response. This covers the department from the $500 fine to which Lt. Read potentially subjected them since it covers both my requests within 5 business days of receiving them. While it would have been interesting to see the whole process of a fine being assessed to either the police department or the city itself, I’m far happier to see that the law was followed correctly. Regardless, I’ve contacted a local paper to see if they’re interested in having me write this story for them (I’ve written for them in the past [usually about local hiking]).

Being right feels so good

I recently wrote about my experience obtaining information using the Maine Freedom of Information Access Act. I wanted any “final written decisions” relating to a local police officers disciplinary record. Another officer told me that was not public information. He asserted that his 20 years of experience trumps what the law actually (and explicitly) says. In short, the man was largely ignorant of the law – and too stubborn to admit it even when faced with undeniable evidence.

After going to the City Manager, I received a letter in the mail. Here is the body of it.

I am in receipt of your request for copies of all disciplinary action taken against Officer Richard Dubois. I have reviewed the officer’s personnel file and find no records of disciplinary action. Augusta Police Department Officers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement which prevents written disciplinary action from remaining in an officer’s personnel file in excess of two (2) years unless a similar violation has occurred (relevant language enclosed).

As an aside, I noticed your internal posting this afternoon and enjoyed it. I recommend your journalism professor give you an “A”!

In other words, I am absolutely right that the information for which I asked is public. It just so happens that the information is only left in personnel files for a certain period of time, i.e., some of the stuff I wanted simply does not physically exist any longer (assuming it did at all). For the time when the information does exist, Officer Dubois has had no disciplinary actions taken against him.

Oh, what to do now, what to do now. I can take the high road and enjoy that feeling of being vindicated humbly (minus this current indulgence). Alternatively, I can request the information of Lt. Read and be sure to post it. In addition, I can also be sure the local newspaper hears about this. Furthermore, I can be sure to explore all possible avenues as they related to the officer/police department being fined for not issuing me the required letter explaining why they feel the need to break the law. Guess which road this persistent defender of rights is going to take?

Maine Freedom of Information Access Act

There is a law in Maine similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act. It allows the public to access information that is produced through government agencies (with notable exceptions). Many states have similar laws on the books, all varying in one manner or another. One of these states is Massachusetts. Recently, the Boston Globe used the act in order to obtain the disciplinary record of asshat trooper Michael Galluccio. This gave me an idea.

I am currently taking a journalism class because I was too slow at signing up for the classes I actually wanted (though I am enjoying this class). One of my assignments is to obtain information using Maine’s FOIA. Until I saw the Galluccio story, I was at a loss of what to do. However, with the knowledge that disciplinary records are public information in one state, I decided to pursue the record of a particular officer at the Augusta Police Department in hopes that Maine law is sufficiently similar.

Backstory: Sometime ago in high school I got a parking ticket. I was parked at the end of a series of spaces where there were yellow diagonal lines. Clearly, I was illegally parked. I do not dispute that. However, on the ticket the officer wrote “sidewalk”, indicating that the reasoning for the ticket was that I was parked on the nearby sidewalk. This was not the case. 1) Those yellow lines would not extend to a public sidewalk. 2) I went to City Hall and obtained a property blueprint for my school. It was clear that I was not on the sidewalk. I brought this to the attention of several officers, including the one who issued the ticket. Of course, they refused to admit they were wrong. It would be one thing to give me a ticket I technically deserved. Unfortunately, what they did is issue me a ticket for an offense I did not commit. It would be like arresting someone for assault who actually committed theft. The sentence (for the sake of argument) may be roughly the same, but that does not mean that the thief is guilty of something else simply because the result is similar. Just the same, I was never guilty of parking on a sidewalk. The ticket is bunk.

So fast forward to my journalism class and the Globe article and I’ve got my idea. I am going to get the disciplinary record of the officer who issued me the incorrect ticket. I make out a FOIA letter (which is a courtesy, not a required form) and head on down to the APD. I am told by Lt. J. Christopher Read that personnel files are not public information. Bummer, right? Possibly. I follow this up with a call to the Globe. They say he is almost certainly wrong. I then also ask my instructor. She says basically the same thing. I go the next necessary step and find the exact wording in the act.

Personnel records pertaining to municipal, county, and state employees are for the most part confidential. For example, complaints, charges or accusations of misconduct, replies to those complaints, charges or accusations and any other information or materials that may result in disciplinary action are confidential. However, if disciplinary action is taken, the final written decision relating to that action is no longer confidential after the decision is completed if it imposes or upholds discipline.

It is clear. If a state employee is disciplined and there is a final written decision, it is public information. I am entitled to it. Now armed with this information, I make some corrections. First, I obtain the name of the offending officer. I originally only knew him as Officer 135. I now know his name is Richard Dubois. I also change my timeframe. I originally asked for all records dating to January 2001. I figured that covered a couple of years prior to my ticket and it also wasn’t so much as to be a pain in the butt. Because I was given incorrect information, however, I have updated my timeframe to date to either 1990 or Richard Dubois’ date of hiring; if they’re going to make me do extra work, I’m going to return the favor.

I bring my updated information back to the APD and speak with Lt. Read again. I present my new letter and read, verbatim, the part of the act I have bolded above. He tells me personnel files are off limits. I again inform him that the exception is when disciplinary action is taken. He tells me that is simply my interpretation and he has been “at this for 20 years”. In other words, the explicit text that says “if disciplinary action is taken, the final written decision relating to that action is no longer confidential” can be interpreted to mean something other than, well, that final written decisions related to disciplinary action are not confidential. One wonders what Lt. Read thinks it means. I guess 20 years on the job gives a person super special reading skills and insights. Or it makes them stubborn. Draw your own conclusion.

After it has become clear that Lt. Read is not going to give me the information to which I have a law-given right, I inform him that he needs to give me a written response within 5 business days because the law clearly states that to be the case. He says – and I quote – “I’m not going to do that.” I then ask him if he is aware that there is a $500 fine associated with violating the act and he says “That’s fine.” I presume that is code for “I acknowledge the fact you have just told me, but I do not want to admit that I am ignorant of a tremendous amount of this law.” I then ask Lt. Read if he wants a copy of my letter. My intention here is quite kind, if I do flatter myself: the man is wrong and I know he is wrong. If he checks with other supervisors or simply reads the law, he may realize this. Without my letter, he will not be able to contact me and will thus be forced into violating the law. He says he does not want it. I inform him that I have an identical letter addressed to the City Manager, William Bridgeo.

Once I leave, I head over to City Hall. Mr. Bridgeo was in a meeting but I gave all this information to the clerk/secretary/whathaveyou in the office. She asks for the name of the officer who refused to give a written response, makes copies of my letters along with my excerpt of the act, and tells me that, yes, a written response is required. (She said 10 days, but seemed unsure and soon qualified that it may depend on the information requested. At any rate, a written response is required.)

Further information: I originally saw Lt. Read on Monday, March 9, 2009. I saw him next, new letter (and different dates) in hand on Wednesday, March 11, 2009. He has 5 (or 10) business days to give me a written response to my first request. The second request is being handled by a more responsible entity.

Lt. J. Christopher Read of the Augusta Police Department in Augusta, Maine

Lt. J. Christopher Read of the Augusta Police Department in Augusta, Maine