We've had some questions on the News & Observer Web site and by e-mail about our story on Matt Czajkowski's insider-trading case, dismissed in 2005.
One reader wanted to know why we didn't elaborate on who has been questioning Czajkowski about the issue. The fact is, we didn't have room. So, for the record, Czajkowski himself told me he's been getting questions about it.
A letter to the editor in the Independent brought it up last week, concluding that he "got off on a technicality," which is not exactly true. Insider-trading cases often fail to go forward in Delaware because the burden of proof is high. The plaintiffs did not provide any evidence that Czajkowski had material nonpublic information that led him to sell off part of his stock holdings in the company.
At a public election forum held by the League of Women Voters earlier this month, Czajkowski took exception to a question about how management of his personal finances would reflect on how he would handle the town's finances.
"I've tried really, really hard to keep this campaign focused on the issues," he said. "It's almost sad that I have to address questions which are simply innuendo. I personally have a surplus, I have savings which I've worked hard for over the course of my life, and I hope that the town can have the same."