As far as the doldrums of quiet summer go, last week has had all the elements of high drama that would have undoubtedly developed into a major political conflict, had the university been in session. An open letter was recently issued, calling for Eli Judge’s resignation from his position of District 8 alderman due to his continued absences from the Communications Center Board, a committee that deals in part with 911 emergency calls. And after the botched response to a phone call by Brittany Zimmerman, who was later found murdered, the heat has been turned up to find scapegoats. The letter questioned Eli’s failure to attend the meetings – a valid point – but took a turn to the brutal when its author, Lydia Barbash-Riley, mused if Eli’s absences constituted irresponsibility that may have allowed Zimmerman’s death to occur. But what makes this letter even more suspect is its connection with Ashok Kumar, a fervent political enemy of Judge’s whose behind the scene campaign tactics some years ago led to allegations of race baiting and mudslinging that have not been seen since in student politics. In an interview last week, Kumar claimed that he did not sign the letter because he did not want to politicize the issue. The glaring problem with his statements is that Kumar admitted to editing the letter! When pressed he grew indignant and claimed that there was nothing wrong with constituents asking that their representatives be held accountable. Kumar went on to say he did not sign the letter because he found it “harsh,” but edited it as a favor to some friends. If Kumar – whose name will live in alternate infamy and renown for some time in the city of Madison – did not want to politicize the issue, why in God’s name would he edit it? Kumar seemed shocked that I had phoned him to ask about the letter, and wassomewhat offended by my implication that he was involved with it. “However, it is difficult to see why Barbash-Riley absolutely had to turn to Ashok Kumar – possibly the most divisive figure on campus – to edit the letter. It’s just as hard to understand why he accepted. As for Judge, it seems as though the reservoir of respect he has accumulated on campus will hold him through this one. And as Eli did make multiple requests to be removed from the committee – all of which were ignored by the mayor’s office – in addition to making a full apology on his blog, there is little reason to believe that this letter, whether a dirty political attack or a legitimate concern in the eyes of sincere constituents, will have any implications for Judge’s future. Indeed, the only ugly residue from the letter that will reside in Madison’s collective memory may well be a good dose of political common sense: Using somebody’s death to make a political point is about as dirty as it is ineffective.