Get our free newsletter
Despite Mr. Pittman’s assertion of receiving only “canned” responses on his answering machine from my staffer (The Mail, 7/9), a considerable amount of time and energy was spent responding to his complaints. Pittman contacted my office on numerous occasions between March 4 and Oct. 19, 1998. As a result, my staff was in almost continual contact with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), working to resolve a difficult personnel matter. The matter involved Mrs. Pittman’s employment with MPD. The chief of police personally reviewed the matter and made a commitment to address her concerns about sexual harassment in the workplace. It is not within a councilmember’s power—nor should it be—to overrule the MPD on a personnel decision.
Three separate letters, dated April 22, June 24, and Aug. 19, 1998, were sent under my signature to Chief Ramsey, indicating a high level of involvement by my staff. It is true that the staff person assigned to the issue was attending law school and studying for the bar exam during this period of time. However, these circumstances did not deter this staffer from literally making dozens of calls on Mr. Pittman’s behalf.