The recent controversy concerning the release and the news media’s reporting of the tape of September 2005, involving an elected official has raised many questions regarding that release.

I, like many others, have questions about how the tape found its way into the news media’s hands; who authorized the release of the tape, and why the tape was released? I went looking for answers and this is what I found.

The tape was removed from the police vehicle and instead of being placed with other used tapes, it was given special treatment. Within the police department a decision was made to make copies of the tape since an elected official was involved. Two copies were made of this particular tape with one copy being given to a high unelected official within city hall. The other copy was kept by the individual who made the copies and the original was put under lock and key within the police department.

Shortly thereafter, additional copies were made by the unelected official who had received the only copy provided by the police department. A copy was provided to a prominent news reporter who decided not to report this news. There was another news person who was aware of the tape and its contents but decided not to report the news. This should evoke the question: What is the basic tenet for journalism and the reporting of news? Yet, the public was not made aware of the event of September 2005 until another incident occurred involving the same elected official in December 2-3, 2006.

The local newspaper was provided a copy of the tape on Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2006, and they published an article concerning this incident on Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2006. Then one of the local television stations did a newscast concerning this same incident on Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2006. Video and audio portions of the tape have been made available for all who wish to see and hear. Should one presume the release of the September 2005 tape of the incident was contingent upon the incident of Dec. 2-3, 2006, and was it politically driven?

An even more serious question concerning this whole episode: Was this original tape from the police care “Public” or “Private” information prior to copies being made? Does the party involved have to first be charged or arrested before the information becomes public? It would seem so, otherwise how many other incidents may be on tapes awaiting their release. Unfortunately, there seems to be an apparent lack of written standard operating procedures within the police department concerning the handling of video tapes from police cars. And, if these tapes were not “Public” has there not been a serious breach of security within our police department as well as city hall. Words to me are, “No one has called from city hall to the police department since the release of the tape.” In the past such a call has been forthcoming whenever there was a controversy involving the police department.

While my questions were never totally answered by those asked, no one denied any of the above assertions. Therefore, one can presume even though the whole story has not yet been told, there is an apparent lack of control of police tapes. The idea that we have elected and unelected officials within the city who would obviously use such tapes for political benefit to the detriment of others, should be a grave concern for all.