The Post's belief that the Berendzen case still merits top billing on the front page {"Berendzen Pleads Guilty to Calls," May 24} is puzzling.

Why is it that a person who resigned on April 8 from the position that made him "newsworthy" continues to dominate the headlines more than a month later, when he pleads guilty to a misdemeanor and receives a suspended sentence? Are we supposed to be surprised by this turn of events? This story has been on the front page of The Post so often that it will soon be appearing among the advertisements, which will prove its notoriety if it does not demonstrate its interest.

Six weeks after the resignation, this item deserves perhaps two inches inside the Metro section, without any pictures of the poor man's family. Otherwise, readers may well question The Post's motives. Is it moral satisfaction over the fall of the high and mighty, or do the sordid aspects of this bizarre incident titillate some repressed fancy? HAROLD C. CANNON Annandale

While his behavior prior to entering treatment can in no way be condoned, Richard Berendzen's behavior since then should serve as a model to others confronted with their own aberrant behavior.

He could have claimed that "it was the disease talking" and that he was the "victim," and initiated a p.r. campaign to distract his constituents. Instead, he resigned, entered treatment, admitted his guilt and deep regret for his actions. Marion Barry, are you listening? JOHN D. MOORE Fairfax Station