TexasCHLforum.com

agbullet2k1 wrote:Or maybe it's the tone of complete arrogance.

that's it!

pt145ss wrote:he asked his question, we gave him a response, that’s what he is entitled to. We don’t have to debate it – nor does he have to agree with our policies or response. Don’t feel compelled to respond any further.

Wow! That right there is the difference between a city employee and an elected official.

I think if it were me, I would quite happily reply and CC everyone and let them know that if this is the attitude that the city of Kyle has towards visitors, then I will henceforth refrain from spending a single penny in that town as I drive through. Perhaps the city of Buda and/or San Marcos do not have such open disdain for the citizens' concerns.

KBCraig wrote:

mr.72 wrote:

pt145ss wrote:
Hence, effecting a custodial arrest...

I think you mean affecting

No, "effecting" is correct.

I stand corrected, my bad... Still good on the OP for following up on this with letters to the Chief. We need to do this more often!

pt145ss wrote:I plan on responding to the chief with something similar to the letter below:

OK apart from my disagreement with your position that the officer should not refrain from asking these questions, I think your letter is well-written and right on. However please correct your two spelling errors before sending it:

...back to my original correspondents in which...

I think you mean correspondence

Hence, effecting a custodial arrest...

I think you mean affecting

Other than that, rock on man!!