damaged,
I read the article you speak of. It is disturbing that the department involved apparently decided to conduct a polygraph dragnet rather than a serious investigation, and actually relied on the polygraph to exculpate those who "passed."
As you're no doubt aware, anyone can beat a polygraph "test," and to rely on it to include or exclude suspects is just plain stupid. Similarly, no adverse inference should be inferred against those who refuse to submit to such nonsense.
Perhaps we could work together to help more people to learn the truth about polygraphs, especially in your home town, where your reputation is on the line. For example, I'd be happy to write a letter to the editor of the newspaper that published the article (and also to the reporter who wrote it). And I'd be happy to speak about polygraph issues with any print, radio, or television reporters who contact you about this matter. (Check your private messages, where you'll find my phone number.)
One thing you can do to help protect your reputation is to refer those who might question your refusal to be polygraphed (for example, members of your city council, and the officers of your department) to this website. In particular, they should see Chapter 3 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which exposes polygraphy for the fraud that it is. (You might want to print out a few copies; if you put the PDF file on a floppy disk and take it to a copy shop like Kinko's, they can print it out double-sided and put a spiral binding on it.) Those who have read it should understand why a truthful person would refuse to submit to one of these asinine "tests."
In addition, if you would like to make a formal public statement about your polygraph experience (that is, the consequences of refusing to be polygraphed), we'd be happy to publish it on the AntiPolygraph.org
Personal Statements page. See, as an example, former FBI Special Agent Mark Mallah's
statement.