A LETTER FROM KATIE BOLGER
Open Letter to my Fellow Tucsonans:
On Friday, March 22, I conducted myself in a manner that is deeply embarrassing. I am extremely regretful and offer my apologies to the men and women of the Tucson Police Department, who were doing their jobs serving the community.
I was walking home after a night out on Fourth Avenue. I crossed Speedway at Fifth Avenue and was stopped by a Tucson police officer. The officer informed me that another car had to perform an "evasive" maneuver to avoid hitting me.
Instead of acknowledging that I had dangerously crossed the road, I became angry with the officer. Three more patrol cars responded to the scene and I became verbally offensive.
Multiple times I was asked to sign the citation for jaywalking, but I stubbornly refused and instead spent the night in jail. On Sunday March 24, I called Tucson Police Chief Villaseñor to offer my apologies for my rude, inexcusable, unprofessional conduct towards his officers.
I am a public official in that I serve as a staff member for an elected City Councilman. For this, I am held to a higher standard of public conduct—as I should be.
I write this letter not only as an apology to the officers who were witness and subject to my unbecoming conduct, but to the residents of the city of Tucson.
I was born and raised here in Tucson. I have never lived anywhere else. I am blessed in many ways. I have been given the opportunity to work for the city I love.
I have embarrassed myself, family, friends, and co-workers, and for that I am truly sorry.
I want to thank Councilman Cunningham for believing that I am worth a second chance serving in his office. My goal is to prove to him, and the Tucson community, it is a chance worth taking.
Katie Bolger
A CLARIFICATION
On March 21, we ran a letter by Gretchen Nielsen in this space with the header "We Have No Idea What This Letter Is About, But We're Running It Anyway." Ms. Nielsen responded following that issue's publication date to contend (paraphrased) that a) the text was intended as a guest commentary; b) that a line that did not appear in print would have clarified the letter's meaning; and c) that the header was unnecessary. While we believed we edited the letter fairly (and reserve the right to do so) and we still are not entirely sure what the letter was about, we apologize for any confusion and for the somewhat unnecessary editorializing.
