I love small town newspapering, except for one aspect - timing. The story this week on the John Ingersoll matter in Mattawa is incomplete and won't be complete for a week or two.

It will probably be longer than that. The hearing board has to make its decision and, no matter how that goes, I suspect Ingersoll and his attorney, East Wenatchee Mayor Steven Lacy, will take the matter to superior court.

I missed the first two days of the hearing, honestly, because I didn't know it was on. I attended the most important nights, however, because of a tip phone call. Those were the nights Ingersoll, Mayor Judy Esser and Police Chief John Turley testified.

I caught the entire testimony of Esser and Turley but only the direct examination of Ingersoll before press deadline. I caught Ingersoll's cross-examination Monday evening, too late for this week's The Royal Register.

As one would expect, Ingersoll painted a pretty good picture of himself under questioning by his own attorney. I'll let you know next week how well that picture held up last night under Robert Noe's cross-examination.

Testimony prior to the three central figures - mostly by city staff - centered on incidents that led to investigations of Ingersoll's actions in those cases. Some of that testimony didn't hold up well under cross-examination.

One of the witnesses, a former police officer, admitted he practically hated Ingersoll and had told then-chief Steve Jensen he did not want Ingersoll near him while on duty. Lacy entered into evidence an incident report by that former officer that did not include a detail he claimed at hearing.

Lacy entered evidence that showed the two major incidents in testimony were investigated by a Moses Lake Police captain. And he entered evidence that neither showed up as a negative mark on Ingersoll's next evaluations, and that he was given pay raises.

I've been in this business more than 40 years, and this hearing was an eye-opener for me. It was very serious, with the swearing in of witnesses and all of that. It was almost like court, except three lay people were running it instead of a professional judge.

A professional judge, at least an administrative law judge, might have been a good idea. I suspect there were serious mistakes that will come back to haunt the city.

The question of conflict of interest alone may become a problem. Robert Noe, counsel for the city, said he did not see any conflict regarding the hearing panel. I really wonder.

You think on it. The 3-person panel which must rule for or against the city includes one woman who is married to a city council member. Another is married to a city employee.

They could rule in favor of the city and their own best interests. They could rule against the city to prove there is no bias. That's a lose-lose situation.

An independent outsider, with the panel acting like a jury, might have been a better idea. Hopefully, we'll have a better understanding of this entire matter next week.