This foot-dragging and equivocating on the part of two officials who tried unsuccessfully to sack Ms Mason is so politically artless that, frankly, it is cringe-inducing. Both are men of good character, and we expected them to respect the chain of command leading back to the Board of Selectmen. After the intense public reaction against the animal control officer’s firing on April 1, did they really think people wouldn’t notice they were hedging on the Board of Selectmen’s directives?

The Board of Selectmen gave the first selectman a great deal of leeway in assessing Ms Mason’s job performance as animal control officer going forward, stipulating “if there are any further incidents of deficient job performance… she shall be subject to such discipline as the first selectman may deem to be appropriate, up to and including termination.” Apparently, Mr Borst preferred not to give her the opportunity to perform the job prior to her job performance evaluation. He may have reasons for his actions — and if he does, he should tell us what they are — but to impartial observers, this looks just plain unfair.

The inevitable result of this continued administrative fumbling over Carolee Mason’s employment was a roomful of disbelieving and angry people at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting Monday night. When put on the spot, the first selectman’s only defense was a non sequitur: “We have to do what’s right for all 26,000 residents. We won’t be controlled by the public.”

To that, we can only reiterate: Think it through.

While the disposition of Carolee Mason’s training and return as animal control officer was not on the selectmen’s agenda Monday night, we trust the board will restate its order on this matter as soon as possible. Then, the first selectman and police chief should expedite its implementation without further delay.