Alan Bernstein is reporting in his article on the Chronicle website about Kelly Siegler calling for Chuck Rosenthal to resign. Admittedly, she isn't the first candidate in the race to do so. Jim Leitner did it first.
But as Mark Bennett points out there are two candidates who have still failed to do so: Pat Lykos and Doug Perry.
Why wouldn't they?
Well, Lykos is probably still being the ultimate politician, listening to her advisors who are telling her "the longer Chuck is in Office, the more people will associate Siegler with him". So, she is waiting to decide whether such a statement will play favorably with the voters.
And Perry is still probably trying to figure out who this Rosenthal guy that everybody keeps talking about is.
So, Kelly states her opinion when asked, and what are they saying on the Chronicle blogs? They are saying she stabbed Chuck in the back. Man, those bloggers over there are fickle. They call him the devil in all of their other blogs, and then they blast Siegler for stating her opinion that he should resign. Talk about "can't win for losing"!
So, while Lykos and Perry consider whether or not they want to go on record for saying Rosenthal to resign, Kelly Siegler probably had to say one of the hardest things of her life:
That her boss for the past seven years . . . her friend . . . a person who promoted her to division chief and then bureau chief . . . should resign.
How do you think that made her feel?
And in addition to that, don't forget that Chuck Rosenthal is still Kelly's boss. He could fire her tomorrow. Fire her from a job that she's devoted over 20 years of her life to.
So what? you say. She's married to a doctor, for crying-out-loud! She doesn't need the money.
Well, she was married to a doctor seven years ago when Rosenthal took office, so she probably "didn't need the money" back then any more than she would "need it" today.
Maybe, just maybe, Kelly does the job because she genuinely cares and knows she's helping the people of Harris County.
And yeah, Ron in Houston, it may seem like I've got my lips firmly pressed against Kelly's posterior (as you mentioned on Mark's blog), but is it really so wrong to stand for the proposition that if a person accused of a horrible crime is entitled to hiring a high-powered defense attorney like Dick DeGuerin that a victim's family doesn't deserve someone with Kelly's talent on their side?
People will keep talking. I know that. I can pretty much guess what the responses to this posting are going to sound like, already.
Her statement came too late. Her statement was politically motivated.
But her statement came.
And it came with consequences.
She lost a friend. She may have even lost her job.
What she said today was probably one of the toughest things she's ever had to say in her life.
Kind of makes you wonder why Lykos hasn't said the exact same thing . . .