WTH - State's Attorney Office says "not a crime"

Late this afternoon (4:59PM) the Northwest Herald published an article online about the suspension of a Woodstock Police Department sergeant. Why are important matters held to the end of a business day? And the end of a business day preceding four days when government offices are closed?

Is City of Woodstock government open on Friday? When you look at the Community Calendar on the City's website, it doesn't even show Thanksgiving Day as a day when City offices are closed. I'll bet they are.

Sgt. Chip Amati was given a 30-day suspension by the Board of Fire & Police Commissioners on October 28th at its Special Meeting.

The Northwest Herald did not report this until today, November 27. How in the world could a month pass without this hitting the news?

The Northwest Herald's Kevin Craver's wrote, "The Chicago Tribune reported that Amati had texted the girl back in August asking her to send him "sexy pictures" – she did not reply." Does anyone at the Northwest Herald read the Tribune? Did the Northwest Herald print anything about this in August or September? Not according to its search engine. Doesn't the Northwest Herald have contacts within the Woodstock PD who could have told a reporter that something was up?

Amati supposedly sent "inappropriate" text messages to the 12-year-old daughter of his former girlfriend and also allegedly improperly used the LEADS system to look up the criminal record, if any, of the girlfriend.

The Chicago Tribune article is much more aggressive and says the girl's parents are irate at the light punishment. Read the Tribune article for a different take on what happened. Why did the Northwest Herald play softball with Woodstock PD?

These are crimes. But what did Mick Combs, Assistant State's Attorney and Chief of the Criminal Division, have to say? "I felt, based upon character and attitude and his years of service that it wasn't appropriate to charge him. He's a human being, we all make mistakes and we're all fallible."

I don't generally use foul language on this blog. And so I'll try really hard this time not to do so.

I remember a case outside of Harvard in 2005 where a former police officer defended himself against a vicious, loose, attack dog and shot it to death, when it charged him in the officer's own back yard. Where was the State's Attorney's compassion then about "character" and "attitude" and "years of service"?

When the Board of Fire & Police Commissioners met on October 28, they would have met in Executive Session (i.e., in private; some would say, in "secret"). But they had to return to Open Session and make (and announce) their decision about the suspension in public. One problem is nobody goes to those meetings. I did, for a while, after I forced them out of the chief's conference room and into public view at City Hall for their meetings. 

I was out of town in August. Maybe I'd better start attending those meetings again, so that news reaches the public in a timely fashion. The Commission (or the Police Department or the City) should have issued a press release following that meeting. Did they just hope no one would find out?

How weak is the Woodstock Police Department (or how strong is the union?) and how weak is the Commission? Sgt. Amati gets to choose when he wants to serve his suspension. What kind of nonsense is that? The Department tries to soft-pedal it by saying that Amati "can take (his suspension) in pieces so as 'not to have a detrimental effect on police department operations'."

To quote Lily Tomlin, "Well, isn't that special?" It's B.S.; that's what it is.