Letters to the Editor

+ Chief Hogle’s actions were by the book
Dear Editor:
Every manager should know that when problems are brought to their attention involving another employee, a file is usually started stating what was mutually agreed upon. From what I have read, this was not done in regard to Monica Simpson.

However, what did eventuate after the appointment (to interim town manager) of Chief Al Hogle, many of Mrs. Simpson’s employees brought their problems almost immediately to him. What Chief Hogle did to handle the growing problem was to go by the book and first talk to the town’s labor attorney.

Subsequently, it seems to me, that everything he did was spelled out in his job description.

The commissioners’ (majority) reaction to Chief Hogle’s handling of the case was, I believe, ill advised. In any event, Chief Hogle is deserving of a public apology, as his dismissal certainly was. I wonder if that had anything to do with his seeking employment elsewhere?
Jack Eagleton
Longboat Key

+ Online poll results were skewed
Dear Editor:
Thank you for shutting down your Nov. 11 online opinion poll for the stealth cell tower for the north half of Longboat Key proposed at the Longboat Island Chapel. We believe the lopsided results against the stealth tower are not valid and are meaningless for the following reasons:

1) The question and alternative responses were poorly worded and subject to bias. It should have been posed more as, “Do you support the application for a stealth cell tower (photo simulations below) at the Longboat Island Chapel to improve cell coverage on the north half of Longboat Key … Yes or No?”

2) Anyone could respond to the poll even if they have no stake in the issue as a Longboat Key property owner, resident, visitor or worker. Individuals could send emails to everyone on their contact lists asking them to respond, even if those recipients have no personal connection to Longboat Key.

3) This poll was subject to voting manipulation. We discovered that an individual could vote an unlimited number of times by modifying their computer after each vote. It appears that someone or a small group of individuals who are against our proposal were “voting early and voting often.” On Friday, Nov. 11, we came across the poll while checking the web for our issue. The poll was going as we expected through Friday night with “positives” heavily outweighing “negatives.” On Saturday morning, however, we awoke to find the tide had totally reversed with the negatives far ahead of the positives. That trend continued throughout the weekend. We knew something was not right. After reviewing the poll with our network/software associates, we determined and confirmed with a few tests that anyone could vote an unlimited number of times by clearing the “cookies” on their web browser. We then monitored the poll and observed obvious manipulation. For example, during the three-and-a-half hour period from 8 to 11:30 p.m. Monday, Nov. 14, 462 “negative” votes were cast versus zerp “positive” votes, which is a statistical impossibility based on the poll’s metrics.

Improving the frustrating and dangerously poor cell service on the north half of Longboat Key is a critical issue. For more than three years, we have been working as responsible business members of the community to solve the problem in an aesthetically sensitive, technically sufficient and economically viable way for the residents, property owners, visitors and workers on Longboat Key. With so much at stake for all, it is important that this issue be handled in a fair, open and honest manner.

We commend The Observer for recognizing and responding to the problems with the poll.
Kevin Barile, Ridan Industries, LLC
[email protected]
Jim Eatrides, Alpha-Omega
Communications, LLC
[email protected]

Editor’s note: Results of YourObserver.com online polls are unscientific and should not be interpreted as fact. Polls and their results do not represent the views of The Observer.