Everest metro Police Chief Clay Schulz discusses a law enforcement incentive package. MWC photo by Mike Leischner
CONLEY COMMENTARY (WSAU) – What are we to make about allegations of sexual harassment involving Everest Metro Police Chief Clayton Shultz.
As I write this, there’s no specific information about the matter. We don’t know who the accuser is, supposedly an administrative staffer. We don’t know what the police chief is alleged to have done.
When nothing is publicly known, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused. I’d even suggest that it’s unfair that an allegation becomes public before the first fact is known.
I’ve met with Chief Schultz several times over the years, most recently on a panel about community-police relations. My perception is that he’s a police professional and a person of integrity. But I don’t know him personally. My opinion in this matter is subject to change as more information comes out. That’s exactly why it stinks that the allegation comes first, and the facts wait for a later day.
There’s the separate question about whether the police chief should be suspended. That seems to me like punishment first, trial later. Yet there are many circumstances where law enforcement officers are suspended at the onset of an investigation. I get it. Police have powers that others do not have. They are armed. They can make arrests. Those powers can be abused.
And yet even the best police chiefs may not be universally popular. They make hiring and firing decisions. They determine who gets promoted. Thet set policy that not everyone agrees with. In short, they could be the subject of false or exaggerated allegations.
That’s why its in the best interest of everyone to end a vacuum of a lack of information. The police commission is aware of the allegations. They are experts on running a police department. We need to hear from them, quickly, if these allegations are credible. A man’s career and reputation are on the line. And the public has a right to know.
Chris Conley
Comments