Carrie - I have to tell you I don’t think the chiefs remarks were unforgivable. I think they were inappropriate. Unforgivable leads us to the resignation we witnessed. Inappropriate would suggest a mistake in judgment. The city has lost a valuable asset. As to the appointment made so quickly and so secretly- you are right on the mark!
I'm sorry if I was misinterpreted. By "inexcusable" I meant she should have known better. Obviously I did think they were forgivable as I advocated in my previous post for her apology to be accepted and her error weighed against her accomplishments.
You were not "misinterpreted" at all. (Misinterpretation: to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly.) You wrote "inexcusable" (an adjective
defined as: too bad to be justified or tolerated, impossible to excuse or justify). The fault lay with the author, not the reader.
Your editor might have bought you a larger dictionary - but even a small one or a little Googling would have dissuaded you from the defense offered - that the reader misinterpreted your position. Especially since that defense presumes the reader had read your "previous post."
Your words, as have DiPino's have consequences. And she didn't publish them!
Well, that proves that 'a reader' read the previous post. Her latter post assumes that all reading it have as well and will 'interpret' the dichotomy as she suggests. I was simply pointing out that the fault was due to Carrie's choice of words and not, as she insists that "... the reader had misinterpreted the use of "inexcusable."" because the way to interpret a word is to adhere to its definition - the reason god made dictionaries.
You are spot on Carrie! I've been paying attention to city politics for years. This was easy to see. Looks like personal agendas are guiding public policy and not what's best for our citizens & our city. Thank you Chief DiPino!
Right on Carrie, as usual. This being Florida, of course I smell a rat. Florida Man is alive and well. Yeah, the Chief made a blunder, then again, it was intended as a joke amongst people she works with. I'm certain that over the years I could be found guilty of such things. At one point I was the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of my unit in the military. The job was ripe for such blunders, but I was honorably discharged. Another time, in my engineering career, I had a staff of technicians I was responsible for, once again, we joked around about many things, but it never made it into company official releases. I think you're onto something, this just doesn't smell right. The Chief's good way outweighed this minor slip-of-the-tongue.
I really believe this was a behind the scenes orchestrated event. When they announced a “No Confidence” vote did Chief De Pino really have a choice? How sad for Newtown. Let’s see how much progress will now take place with ‘policing’ now that she is gone.
On target, Carrie. If is smells like fish.... I too thought Chief DePino’s remark was thoughtless, perhaps playing to the gallery a bit, (who hasnt done that once or twice?). Her general leadeship has been good, although she clearly threatened the Union, (the leader’s comments gave that away clearly), by suggesting stricter discipline. As LEOs have watched their status and respect decline, not just in the minority community, their covering up for abuses, bad behavior, instead of rooting out the bad apples, has been a reason they are not trusted. The best thing they could do for themselves, all LEOs is get rid of bad cops. They will immediately gain respect.
You filled in a few of the missing pieces for me. I also wasn't aware that former Capt. Reisner only had 18 mos. to go before retirement in the drop program. It's all very suspicious and Chief DiPino did a great job in my opinion.
Your take is identical to mine. As soon as I read about a complaint from an officer on the scene, followed immediately by the union piling on, I knew it was orchestrated. What I didn't suspect at the time was that others higher in the organization might have been in on the plan. I agree with the community members who say that a search would have been preferable, even if Rieser were ultimately selected. It's always difficult for a city manager in a crisis to find the right balance between principle and expedience. That's why it's always best to lean strongly toward principle while not taking one's eye off the changing environment. In this situation, some city commissioners were dabbling way too deeply in the situation.
I'm in your camp, as well. As soon as that announcement was made about Chief DiPino's replacement, I felt that there was "something rotten in the state of Denmark." It has all the hallmarks of a backroom deal.
The Chief excelled at "community policing" and I worry that that now become a thing of the past.
I know, but there's also no one behind you telling you how you can, and can't, phrase things, or what angle to take in your reporting (assuming that happens.)
Actually, given the skeletal newsroom staff at the SHT now, there is (sadly) very little editorial oversight or copy editing done at all. And I was never told how to phrase something, or even what to write about (though suggestions were made); I was told what I was NOT allowed to write about.
Actually, since you are all about precision in word choice, no, that phrase would not be accurate. They didn't say, "If you write about (this particular subject), you will not be paid." They said, "You may not write about (this particular subject) at any time." Ce n'est pas la meme chose.
Carrie - I have to tell you I don’t think the chiefs remarks were unforgivable. I think they were inappropriate. Unforgivable leads us to the resignation we witnessed. Inappropriate would suggest a mistake in judgment. The city has lost a valuable asset. As to the appointment made so quickly and so secretly- you are right on the mark!
I'm sorry if I was misinterpreted. By "inexcusable" I meant she should have known better. Obviously I did think they were forgivable as I advocated in my previous post for her apology to be accepted and her error weighed against her accomplishments.
Don’t apologize!! I love your writing. I respect your words.
"Don’t apologize!!" Ahhh, the T**** Approach to image management.
I am not sure what your comment even means but I can only assume that by the use of “****” it isn’t a compliment.
You misquoted me! I wrote "the T**** Approach . . . "
Don't assume, ask!
You were not "misinterpreted" at all. (Misinterpretation: to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly.) You wrote "inexcusable" (an adjective
defined as: too bad to be justified or tolerated, impossible to excuse or justify). The fault lay with the author, not the reader.
Your editor might have bought you a larger dictionary - but even a small one or a little Googling would have dissuaded you from the defense offered - that the reader misinterpreted your position. Especially since that defense presumes the reader had read your "previous post."
Your words, as have DiPino's have consequences. And she didn't publish them!
I meant the reader had misinterpreted the use of "inexcusable." Did I hurt someone by trying to explain my position?
You absolutely did not hurt me!
The reader (me) did read the “previous post”. I was just expressing my view and respect Carrie’s as well.
"The reader (me) did read the “previous post”."
Well, that proves that 'a reader' read the previous post. Her latter post assumes that all reading it have as well and will 'interpret' the dichotomy as she suggests. I was simply pointing out that the fault was due to Carrie's choice of words and not, as she insists that "... the reader had misinterpreted the use of "inexcusable."" because the way to interpret a word is to adhere to its definition - the reason god made dictionaries.
Thank you for your additional reprimand. I think we can set this to rest now.
You are spot on Carrie! I've been paying attention to city politics for years. This was easy to see. Looks like personal agendas are guiding public policy and not what's best for our citizens & our city. Thank you Chief DiPino!
Right on Carrie, as usual. This being Florida, of course I smell a rat. Florida Man is alive and well. Yeah, the Chief made a blunder, then again, it was intended as a joke amongst people she works with. I'm certain that over the years I could be found guilty of such things. At one point I was the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of my unit in the military. The job was ripe for such blunders, but I was honorably discharged. Another time, in my engineering career, I had a staff of technicians I was responsible for, once again, we joked around about many things, but it never made it into company official releases. I think you're onto something, this just doesn't smell right. The Chief's good way outweighed this minor slip-of-the-tongue.
I really believe this was a behind the scenes orchestrated event. When they announced a “No Confidence” vote did Chief De Pino really have a choice? How sad for Newtown. Let’s see how much progress will now take place with ‘policing’ now that she is gone.
Great article. Not a bright move when police departments across the US are under scrutiny.
The timing should have at least provided an opportunity to have some of the discussions about race and policing that Sarasota always avoids.
On target, Carrie. If is smells like fish.... I too thought Chief DePino’s remark was thoughtless, perhaps playing to the gallery a bit, (who hasnt done that once or twice?). Her general leadeship has been good, although she clearly threatened the Union, (the leader’s comments gave that away clearly), by suggesting stricter discipline. As LEOs have watched their status and respect decline, not just in the minority community, their covering up for abuses, bad behavior, instead of rooting out the bad apples, has been a reason they are not trusted. The best thing they could do for themselves, all LEOs is get rid of bad cops. They will immediately gain respect.
Very thought provoking article. Carrie you continue to be a strong and outspoken voice for the conscience of our community.
You filled in a few of the missing pieces for me. I also wasn't aware that former Capt. Reisner only had 18 mos. to go before retirement in the drop program. It's all very suspicious and Chief DiPino did a great job in my opinion.
Your take is identical to mine. As soon as I read about a complaint from an officer on the scene, followed immediately by the union piling on, I knew it was orchestrated. What I didn't suspect at the time was that others higher in the organization might have been in on the plan. I agree with the community members who say that a search would have been preferable, even if Rieser were ultimately selected. It's always difficult for a city manager in a crisis to find the right balance between principle and expedience. That's why it's always best to lean strongly toward principle while not taking one's eye off the changing environment. In this situation, some city commissioners were dabbling way too deeply in the situation.
Thanks 🙏 Carrie for finding this venue that allows us to be better informed citizens.
Keep up the great work you do!
Sarasotavoices has been serving Sarasota for decades
You wrote what I was thinking. (Only you had the background of the department, which I did not.)
I am totally in agreement with your article.
Eye opening... and as usual.. we the people are the last ones they think about as they act on their power plays
I'm in your camp, as well. As soon as that announcement was made about Chief DiPino's replacement, I felt that there was "something rotten in the state of Denmark." It has all the hallmarks of a backroom deal.
The Chief excelled at "community policing" and I worry that that now become a thing of the past.
(Isn't it freeing now to be your own editor?) 😊
Actually, it's very nerve wracking to have no one reading behind me to catch any typos/corrections.
I know, but there's also no one behind you telling you how you can, and can't, phrase things, or what angle to take in your reporting (assuming that happens.)
Actually, given the skeletal newsroom staff at the SHT now, there is (sadly) very little editorial oversight or copy editing done at all. And I was never told how to phrase something, or even what to write about (though suggestions were made); I was told what I was NOT allowed to write about.
I share your dismay over the very obvious lack of copy editing at the SHT. The regular typos drive me crazy.
"I was told what I was NOT allowed to write about."
Sounds despotic!
Could you have phrased that as "I was told what I would NOT be paid to write about" without shading the truth?
Ce n'est pas la même chose, oui?
Actually, since you are all about precision in word choice, no, that phrase would not be accurate. They didn't say, "If you write about (this particular subject), you will not be paid." They said, "You may not write about (this particular subject) at any time." Ce n'est pas la meme chose.
Touche'
Olde men with power don’t do well with women of power!
Thank you Carrie for again clarifying issues of vital importance to our community. A very sad state of affairs