Shari,

none of our stories are intended to make chris doherty or anne marie stulgis look good or bad. we let their words speak for themselves. i think so many people underestimate the intelligence of readers because if chris doherty makes a statement that's false or anne marie makes a statement that's false, the public knows it and it only makes them look foolish. just like nelson ancherani, he spouts off at council having no clue what his president or what others in the union are saying. perhaps others are speaking out of both sides of their mouths but i doubt it because i have a lot of respect for the police officers here and i don't know that to be their style. i've spoken to several in the past few days and they seem to simply just want the best deal possible and this stuff to end as quickly as possible. for many of them, now, its not about chris doherty or anne marie, it's about their families, their livelihood. keep in mind this too, when the administration decided to respond to anne marie, we gave her ample opportunity to have the last word and set the record straight. if she chooses to send nelson to council or respond through DD or at council herself on 61 that's her business, makes the story easier for reporters. just like someone emailed me and said about the arbitration story in saturday's paper, why would anne marie call you back? hey, it doesn't matter to me who calls back, i only have a responsibility of at least affording them the opportunity to state their side. lastly, it's a joke to assume that the reporting is biased in that i don't have a dog in the fight. eventually it'll get resolved not because of any reporting.