The most egregious example is the fact that Commissioner Susan Stasny has not recused herself of any dealings in the matter.
Whether or not she played any part in bringing these allegations to light concerning DeWitt’s allegedly using racial slurs when dealing with people in incidents back in 2003 and 2009, she certainly utilized them prominently in her failed campaign to retain her Precinct 2 commissioner’s seat in the Republican primary.
No matter how she tries to justify it, she comes across as a desperate politician attempting to cling to power by using any and all means, possibly even unethical.
Mrs. Stasny must deal with the fact that she lost the election. Either she needs to remove herself of any further dealings with DeWitt’s situation, because of a blatant conflict of interest, or the court should insist that she do so. Otherwise, she (and they) appear petty and vindictive.
Secondly, this still remains a case of who’s telling the truth. Some commissioners obviously have chosen to side with the alleged aggrieved persons, insisting that some “unprofessional, racial remarks” were made.
Everyone with a conscience agrees that this is not a clear-cut case, so it is inconceivable that the court would even consider terminating DeWitt as community affairs director.
If, according to the investigation, DeWitt never denied making the racially insensitive statements and could not recall the exchange with the two parties, then the court could place him on probation for a certain period.
Yet, we still find it difficult to believe that more people would have come forward with complaints had DeWitt demonstrated this type of unacceptable behavior over his long career with the state and the county.
For the court to continue to drag out these accusations against him, setting another meeting on Friday, and especially with Stasny acting as a prosecutor and juror, it becomes a travesty of justice. In fact, DeWitt may have a pretty good case against Stasny and the county.