LETTERS: Firing officers at O’Hare doesn’t solve accountability problem

Will the city of Chicago ever learn when it comes to accountability? Regarding the firing of two Chicago aviation security officers and the resignation of another who was involved in removing Dr. David Dao from United Flight 3411 on April 9, the term “low-hanging fruit” comes to mind.

Without question, there is more to this incident and it goes directly to supervision and accountability. The airline called the security officers — a supplemental layer of security of about 250 unarmed officers. Their orders were to remove an unruly passenger. He resisted and they reacted. It was an ugly scene, no question. The confusion over authority and just what their role is at O’Hare became apparent at the city’s hearings on the matter when the then chief of security could not produce general orders for his department’s marching orders.

Anyone who thinks this mess of confusion is going to vanish with the firing of a few lower ranking individuals is asking for big trouble in the future. The CTA solved this problem in 1989 when it started a “special employment” program that assigned Chicago Police officers to patrol their rolling stock and bus routes on their days off and vacations. Supervisors assigned to that unit were permanently assigned so there would be no confusion on assignments and general orders.

It would seem to me that the powers that be at O’Hare should take a serious look at the CTA’s program, which will end the confusion and leave no doubt about who is responsible for the day-to-day security.

Bob Angone, retired Chicago Police lieutenant

Miramar Beach, Florida

Go with flow of Chicago River

In seeing “Water Wait” in the print edition of the Sun-Times (Oct. 17), I hope the submersion of the Riverwalk finally convinces the public that this waterway complex is only a conveyance to carry wastewater. Its recreational value has limitations, and it’ll never be a swimming pool, so accept it for what it is.

Fred J. Wittenberg, Evanston

Billionaire vs. billionaire isn’t so bad

Reader Scot Sinclair predicts he’ll sit out the coming gubernatorial election because it’s a race between billionaires (“Letters” — Oct. 18.) Sadly, this was predicted and in effect made the new standard when the Roberts Supreme Court ruled that election money was equal to political speech, and “dark money” donors need not be identified.

Thus, grass-roots elections seem quaint artifacts of history. Today, running takes so much money (for TV ads, a ground game, etc.), some politicians must sell their souls to the highest bidders or be blessed with millions or billions of their own to have a viable chance of prevailing. Today voters decide more between celebrity image than on principle and suitability. Which may require a new paradigm: A wealthy candidate is less likely to be bought off than a striving candidate with more self-serving secret ambition than money.

Better we should look past the hoopla surrounding wealthy candidates to read carefully their track record and character. Being born rich need not automatically be a basis for rejection. Actually, it may inoculate them against nefarious temptations bad for the rest of us.

Ted Z. Manuel, Hyde Park