Regarding Michael King's “Point Austin: Lehmberg's Scarlet Letter
,” [News, Dec. 13]: Let's say a major city newspaper editor puts out an editorial page that has flagrant misspellings and typos – and worse – totally incorrect information. As the publisher, you are not happy with the editor. In fact, his or her credibility with you, and the salary for what he or she is purportedly hired to do, are now in question.
Moreover, as a reader, would I buy your newspaper again? Probably not, unless I knew they had hired another competent editor.
The district attorney is hired to protect society – with one of his or her roles being to prosecute DUIs. To have anyone in that office display a disregard for the role and commit that very offense, means he or she is no longer credible. I don't blame Mr. Escamilla for going after Ms. Lehmberg with a vengeance. She should have resigned, period. Further, just like the newspaper referenced above, why should I give the D.A.'s office any real credibility now? And, anyone working under her probably feels resentful to have to continue to do so.
The whole scenario with Ms. Lehmberg nearly cost her her job. It certainly cost her the loss of credibility. And by not resigning, it ultimately cost us, the taxpayer, a very large legal bill.