The Firing Of Lysaght Was Justified

To the Editor,

To begin, my name is my father’s, yet my thoughts are my own. As a taxpayer and an interested son, I have followed the events surrounding the termination of James Lysaght as chief of police with somewhat of a privileged perspective. I have witnessed both sides of the issues involved. I have read the evaluations and the arbitrator’s report. I have also seen how this entire affair has been represented in the local press and in letters to the editor. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a few of these letters and comment upon the events which have resulted in the firing of the head of our police department.

First, recent letters have been written to the local press calling for the resignation of the members of the Police Commission over the Lysaght matter. Ms Beres (“Give the Chief Probation,” March 3) asserted that the members of the commission are “average residents with no special background.. (who) can easily be replaced!” Should Ms Beres endeavor to do her research, she might note that at least one of the members has significant, if not extensive, experience in law enforcement policy. Aside from this point, Ms Beres is correct: the members of the commission are “average residents.” They have careers. They have families. However, they are not average in respect to their having answered the call to public service. They stand for election and shoulder a responsibility in our community. They sacrifice their time and their efforts for the welfare of this town. They run unopposed for the most part because others either lack the commitment or desire to fill such a position. They are volunteers, yet they do receive wages. Those wages, as of late, have included long nights attending meetings, tedious legal maneuverings, as well as the not-so-warm feelings which accompany the labels of “witch hunter” and “railroader.” For those of us who make such calls for their resignations, are we prepared to stand in their shoes? Should there be resignations, I would expect Ms Beres’ name, among others, to appear for candidacy to simply demonstrate the ease with which these men and women can be replaced. I look forward to seeing it, but I fail to hold my breath.

Secondly, I would like to address the commission’s lack of comment upon the Lysaght matter, as noted by Mr Gilchrist (“A Premeditated Witch Hunt,” March 10). As reported once by the local press, the commission has been asked by the town’s attorney not to publicly comment, due to any legal ramifications that might arise. This measure is indeed lamentable. Essentially, it stripped the commission of the power to clarify its position to the public. I agree with Mr Gilchrist that it is a terrible thing when our public officials are unable to answer to those who elected them.

The commission’s lack of comment is unfortunate. What is even more unfortunate, however, is the fact that the imposed silence upon the commission opened the door for Mr Lysaght and the local press to inaccurately portray him as the near-blameless victim of a conjured group of browbeating oligarchs. It is shameful that members of the press and the public have characterized this ordeal as a matter of “personality differences.” It, in fact, is not. It is a matter of public policy and effective government. Simply put, Mr Lysaght did not perform the job he was hired to do, at the cost of $65,280 per year. The evaluations and the arbitrator’s findings attest to this fact.

Granted, as Mr Murphy reported, the commission could have extended a greater degree of assistance to Mr Lysaght. However, the commission is not responsible for Mr Lysaght’s insubordination. On at least two occasions, Mr Lysaght was less than forthright with the commission and the first selectman. One such occurrence of Mr Lysaght’s lack of honesty resulted in the hire of an officer who was deemed psychologically unfit to hold the post. I find it remarkable that no mention of this fact has found its way into the local press or into the Letter Hive. Such conduct on the part of Mr Lysaght is inexcusable. As a resident, whose personal welfare and property is entrusted to the protection of an effective police force, Mr Lysaght’s actions, which weakened that force, should be grounds enough for his termination.

In conclusion, in light of the facts found by Mr Murphy, the termination of Mr Lysaght as chief is justified. The Town of Newtown requires more from its chief of police that what he has provided. Newtown deserves competent, honest, and committed administrators. We as taxpayers should demand them. more importantly, the officers and patrolmen of the Newtown Police Department deserve one.

To the Police Commission, you should also note this point. On the hire of a new chief, choose wisely. We, as a town, are watching you more closely as a result of this entire affair. Should you put us or our police department through such paces again, you will undoubtedly face a definite and formidable opposition in the next elections.

Sincerely,

S.E. Reilly

8 Grays Plain Road, Sandy Hook         March 10, 2000