This campaign flier from 2005 bothers me for several reasons.

Note the two supporters who have since become the mayor's bodyguards. One is also now the "city official" on the Planning Board.

Another supporter heads the police union, whose contract expired Dec. 31. Granted three months after the expiration is early, when you consider it took three years to settle the contract the last time. But can the administration take a strong stand on contract terms when there is an implied obligation?

And how safe can citizens feel when the powers that be are dickering over who should be in charge of the police? According to press reports, this administration erred in taking action against the chief and had to postpone it. An earlier attempt fizzled.

Making a pact with lower-ranking officers suggests that somebody thinks the Police Division can be run from the bottom up instead of the top down. "To the victor belong the spoils" may be the way things have been done for a long time, but the current political climate is leaning more towards fair and ethical behavior instead of rewarding oneself and one's cronies for winning.

The really disturbing thing about seeing this flier was and still is the implication that the law might not be objectively applied to all citizens but that those on one side of the political ledger would have an edge over the others. Let's hope that is not the case.