Sheriff Laurie Smith has made a big deal in the past about Israel. There was her trip to Israel back in 2005, now the Assistant Sheriff Shervington’s trip, and who can forget the two bomb dogs from Israel.
You would think that this would pan out as a successful transfer of information to those below the Sheriff, but it seems all it’s resulted in is yet another fair labor standards law suit from a dog handler (what is this, the 4th or 5th law suit for the same reason under her administration now?) and a great food and drink tour for Skip Shervington from what we’ve heard here.
Perhaps the trip with Shervington will pan out differently, but from what I can dig up, the only people the sheriff shared her new gained knowledge with after her 2005 trip was the media. Her experience there doesn’t seem to have transferred into any real action within her office from the people I’ve talked to about it. Granted, I will openly admit, I do not have contact with some of the people who would be considered major players in this field around the SCCSO’s office, so my information may be sorely lacking. However, at this point, I can find no information or source that can tell me after her trip to learn counter-terrorism tactics was transferred in any way down the line.
Given that apparent lack of transfer, what are the planned benefits to the office of sending the assistant sheriff on this trip if there were no benefits, real or perceived, gained from the sheriff’s trip? How does this work into the sheriff’s local counter-terrorism strategy? Does the sheriff even have a local counter-terrorism strategy?
Please, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. If you know of a benefit or direct change the office experienced in policy or practice from the sheriff’s trip that makes the assistant sheriff’s trip a worthwhile expense, or heck know of any policy or plan in place in the event of an attack, please share with us in the comments or contact me at email@example.com. As always anyone who contacts me will always remain confidential.