To the editor:

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on an article that was published in the Sunday edition of the Brownwood Bulletin Oct. 12, regarding the personal use of a vehicle by a civilian employee. The sheriff stated that this was allowed due to the training of the employee as a criminal analyst. One week of training by Homeland Security is not adequate to justify this. Former civilian employees have attended several trainings and were not considered Criminal Analysts for the sake of having a vehicle to drive. Unfortunately, the sheriff made a bad decision and is attempting to cover it up.

Why?

I wanted to be sure that we all had the right information. After calling the sheriff’s office to inquire as to the reason for the take home vehicle, I was connected to the chief deputy, who repeatedly said that the employee was a very sweet person and that she had been riding her bike to work for several months. This is a personal decision made by the secretary and has nothing to do with being an employee of the Sheriff’s Office. If the sheriff or chief deputy want to loan her one of their personal vehicles for her use, I think that would be great. If I had an extra one and an employee needed to borrow it, I would do it in a heartbeat.

The interesting part is, now that vehicle is parked back at the Sheriff’s Office. Did he change his mind because he got caught or because he made a mistake? The answer matters.

Kim Gilliam

Brownwood