CHIEFY WEBSTER’S “WHISTLE-BLOWER” BALONEY

Shortly before he sued the City of Salisbury, Chiefy Webster began to portray himself as a public-spirited whistle-blower in his protracted attempt to smear Councilwoman Campbell in the local mainstream media. This fiction – that Webster is acting as a diligent watchdog against crime – is embellished to absurdity in the lawsuit filed on his behalf by Robin Cockey, who is known for his obvious stage acting in various venues.

The allegations are designed to paint a portrait of Webster almost single-handedly saving Salisbury from an ignominious fate by his selfless effort to recover a tape recording that allegedly was given to Ms. Campbell in 1998 by Webster’s trusty ally and foot-soldier, Mark Tyler, who (some might surmise) deserves a round of sustained applause for disclosing that he did so. That Tyler’s disclosure was made more than 10 years later and came just as Ms. Campbell was standing for reelection this year is mere coincidence, of course. Better late than never, right?

This patent public posturing by Webster-Cockey is pure nonsense. The City’s “whistle-blower” policy and protection exist to promote rapid reaction to legal violations by City employees in the course of conduct in that capacity. Ms. Campbell is not a City employee, and she did not become a member of the City Council until more than 6 years after Tyler claims that he gave the tape to her. There is no suggestion that he loaned it to her or said that it should be returned.

Now, if the City should proceed to sanction Tyler for improperly disposing of what is now said to be significant “evidence,” Webster might be shielded by that whistle-blower protection against retaliation. But, it appears that Tyler has not even been reprimanded.

The Webster-Cockey ploy is to “fast forward” to this year and suggest that Ms. Campbell is in violation of the law by (allegedly) having possession of the tape that Mark Tyler gave to her in 1998. The fantasy that Cockey filed in the Wicomico County Circuit Court proclaims that Ms. Campbell is “in unlawful possession of police property (soon to be labeled “the missing tape”).” Wow, that’s stellar stuff – look for Cockey on one of those “law” shows on TV real soon now.

As Davis Ruark no doubt realized immediately upon hearing the tale told by Webster and friends, it is not unlawful to have possession of something given to you by the party claiming theft. Cockey must have been sick (or performing somewhere else) the day that point was discussed in law school.

But even if (1) Tyler gave the tape to her in 1998, which she denies; (2) Ms. Campbell still has the tape; and (3) it remains “police property” after being given to her, she has not committed any violation of law under that scenario, either. The law does not take kindly to “Indian givers.”

Also, the matters alleged by Cockey-Webster involve actions as an ordinary person and not as a member of the City Council or as a city employee. Thus, the whistle-blower protections are inapplicable.

Still, it’s nice that there is so little crime in Salisbury that Webster can spend hours if not days trying to recover a “missing tape” that the Police Department deliberately disposed of more than 10 years ago but didn’t know was “missing” until this year.

********************

[in this commentary, it is assumed that the statements by Webster and Tyler are true]