Editor, The News:

Is Councilman Chet Orelli a thief?

In his apology to the genuinely naïve, he claims to have been the victim of his own naïveté, ignorance and fear.

Granted, his fear of losing his job was justified. Ethical conduct would have disqualified him from his past position within a corrupt political machine, or his current position within the incestuous and inbred system of city government.

Orelli need not worry, though. In our corrupt system, ethical violations look good on one’s résumé.

He certainly has the qualifications and experience for a job in the treasurer’s office. Or he could assist Frank LaGrotta’s sister in teaching ethics to school children, or perhaps sell condemned homes to the housing authority.

Orelli’s apologists now come forward to reinforce the image of him as a victim. Foremost among them are, predictably, his fellow council members, and the mayor.

Most notable was Christine Sands’ attempt to rationalize Orelli’s conduct by portraying him as some kind of poor little sheep who had lost his way.

Accepting responsibility for his actions is meaningless unless Orelli also accepts the consequences of those actions. But his apologists feel that there should be no consequences.

In fact, they feel Orelli not only deserves their support, but a second chance as well. Their refusal to unequivocally condemn his betrayal of public trust demonstrates a truly appalling degree of moral bankruptcy.

By his own admission, Orelli is a man whose judgment is clouded by stultifying naiveté and a paralyzing sense of fear. He is a man with the undeveloped value system of a toddler who has yet to learn the difference between right and wrong.

Yet, his apologists feel that Orelli “has been effective and will continue to be so.” Did they mean “effete”?

It’s time to vote them all out of office.

William Burkes

New Castle