Article on chief was unclear

EDITOR: At the end of a mostly glowing article about our new police chief in the July 12 edition of the Argus-Courier, Janelle Wetzstein closed with a poorly worded, run-on sentence. She appeared to state Chief Williams received a vote of no confidence based on issues for which he was responsible and which he pointed out as problems in his administration. It seems odd that the chief would be a participant in his own no confidence vote. It was hard to discern the meaning, given the sentence construction.

As for the content, were these valid issuses coming from a named source? If so, don't the readers deserve a more thorough account after the rave reviews in this and previous articles? If the information is hearsay or unconfirmed, the reporter owes the readers that explanation. If there is a source, was his/her account checked with anyone else? Confirming sources and good grammar are basics of good journalism.

Allan Jaffe, Petaluma

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.