This is a letter in response to the editorial, “The answers on the city credit card issue” printed on Jan. 6.

In the article it states a few things that I would like to pick apart, if I may. No. 1: It states that someone with proper knowledge needs to file a complaint. Did not this former employee admit under oath that she used the city credit card herself? If so, I would think that anyone in Albert Lea has “proper knowledge” if they read the information correctly.

My next issue is what was written at the end of the article. “The reason City Hall might seem unwilling to deal with the issue now is A. They want to move on.” My comment to that would be, that I’m sure Mr. Jim Norman would have liked to have moved on with his life as well, but instead had his life publicly ripped apart. Why wasn’t he given the option to just “move on”?

B. “The people who work there now pretty much are not in a position to do anything about it.” My question is, what in the heck are they in a position to do then? Other than when they seemed to just sit and watch Mr. Norman’s life be destroyed? Didn’t they themselves have knowledge of another city employee doing the same thing when it was admitted under oath? Unless they didn’t follow the court proceedings like the rest of us living here in Albert Lea did.

C. “If they wanted to, the auditor advised against it.” Seems to me that they still had a choice at that point, as it was just advice given, not a standing order.

The bottom line for me is that a person had their life ruined, and the ones who pointed the finger forgot to point it back at themselves. To add insult to injury, we seem to have city leaders that want to “move on” in spite of the fact that Mr. Norman had to take the brunt and be left in the aftermath of a storm that others probably should of been swept up in as well.

 

Jody S. Johnson

Albert Lea