Claire A. Gehrman: No ‘maybe,’ Livingston officer must choose between job and council seat
Re “A badge or a council seat? Officer may have to choose” (Front page, Nov. 14): I was appalled to read the story of the conflict of interest regarding the “election” of Wapinger Kang to the Livingston City Council. Your headline “Officer may have to choose” – was incorrect. How about “According to California State Code 53227 (a), officer must choose”? Or am I missing something here?
I can’t believe Kang was not able to get honest information regarding his eligibility status; it’s online. He has done a disservice to the voting public in Livingston, not to mention the injustice done to the other eligible candidates who might possibly have gotten some of his votes and altering the outcome had he chose not to run. Now that he “won,” Kang’s choices are clear: Become a police officer in Atwater or elsewhere, or he’s out! This is disgraceful and hopefully it is remedied before egal action occurs.
Claire A. Gehrman, Livingston
This story was originally published November 17, 2016 at 1:08 PM with the headline "Claire A. Gehrman: No ‘maybe,’ Livingston officer must choose between job and council seat."