A war of words broke out yesterday over the secret appendix to an in-depth report on the state of Bermuda's Police force by a UK expert.

The news came as an unsigned statement from the Bermuda Police Association was released through the official Police media office slamming recent editorials in The Royal Gazette over evaluations by Her Majesty's Inspector of Dependent Territories Police Lionel Grundy.

Mr. Grundy's secret appendix to his original report gives "pen pictures'' of senior officers in the force.

He said the brief reports on the 15 senior officers were "based on my impressions of that officer following my meetings with them during my inspection and our discussions about their specific role and the development of the force overall.'' Mr. Grundy added: "In each case, with one or two exceptions, the discussion was on a one-to-one basis.'' And he said his evaluations of some of the senior officers were also influenced by earlier meetings in 1994.

But the statement from the Police Association -- which represents officers up to the rank of Chief Inspector insisted its members had not been interviewed by Mr. Grundy.

Chief Inspector Jonathon Smith, who assisted with the draft of the statement, did not deny senior officers had met Mr. Grundy. But he said the interviews were not a part of a formal assessment.

He added: "What did take place was that several officers, including Chief Inspectors, did presentations in January 1996 -- but they were based on the department's performance and how their departments had fared in the restructuring.'' He added: "An interview that determines an officer's career development, one that speculates as to his or her career aspirations and which includes career performance, it should be very clear that that interview is taking place.'' Chief Insp. Smith quoted a letter from Governor Thorold Masefield to Acting Commissioner Jean-Jacques Lemay assuring him that Mr. Grundy's opinions, thought to have included harsh criticism of some officers, were not intended as a substitute for a formal assessment process.

Mr. Smith said the Governor wrote that Mr. Grundy's notes "consist of solely personal impressions or brief pen pictures based on relatively short discussions on non-personal matters.'' The letter added that Mr. Grundy's reviews of individuals "were never intended to be part of or substitute for a full assessment process.'' Confusingly, the statement from the Police Association said no interviews had taken place.

It added recent editorials in The Royal Gazette may have led the public to form "opinions and/or conclusions about the capabilities and aspirations of officers... .This is both unfortunate and unfair.'' "The Grundy Report appendix apparently contains evaluations on senior officers from interviews that never took place. These evaluations are fundamentally flawed.'' The Royal Gazette Editor David L. White said yesterday: "What we have reported from the Second Grundy Report and its evaluation appendix is absolutely accurate. If the Police Association believes Mr. Grundy behaved improperly in evaluating officers as it seems to be suggesting, that is a different matter and it should be reported to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office immediately by them or the Governor. But I would point out that Mr.

Grundy is the highly respected Inspector of Dependent Territories Police. This is the senior man. His appendix says in the preamble that his brief reports were based on, and I quote, `my impressions of that officer following my meetings with them during my inspection and our discussions about their specific role and the development of the force overall'.

"For my part I now must decide if printing Mr. Grundy's allegations is in the public interest. I have previously worked on the conclusion that it would be too destructive to publicise what was written about some officers.'' Chief Insp. Smith -- head of the force's training department -- said he was one of the officers of his rank who took part in discussions with Mr. Grundy.

But he added: "It was never made clear to them that their career was being assessed during his visit. The motive given was that it was an update on the implementation of the service strategy.

"Various Chief Inspectors in charge of departments were tasked with providing overviews of their department's performance. At no time were we invited to participate in career development interviews.'' And he said: "The membership of the Association is left to wonder how these pen pictures and evaluations were arrived at, because we have not been told.''