16 Year Report Card

So after reading the Monica chronicles, as I said before, I’ve done a lot of research; here is yet some of the information found in that process and what I found was very interesting indeed.  Maybe I should have titled this a series, because this will still not be the last of what I’ve found.

Sixteen years ago the incumbent ran for the Office of Sheriff.  During this 1998 election the incumbent and Ruben Diaz both made it through the Primary Election and into the General Election.  Reading the Political Philosophy of the incumbent on the Smart Voter page, I found the following quote made by the incumbent:

“Once elected Sheriff, I pledge to implement programs to bring proactive enforcement, crime prevention and state-of-the-art technology to the Sheriff’s Office, making Santa Clara County a model for the 21st Century.”

Let me breakdown the statement to just to make things easier for you the reader.

I pledge to implement programs to bring proactive enforcement
Merriam-Webster defines proactive as [2pro- + reactive] :  acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes.  I would ask what programs have been enacted to bring a proactive enforcement?  The Sheriff’s Office has been a reactive agency from all I have seen.  The programs that were once in place to reach out to community organizations are non-existent.  There is no DARE program, SCOPE or other community outreach.  So 16 years of being Sheriff the incumbent has yet to implement this change.  Grade – FAIL

I pledge to implement…crime prevention
Merriam-Webster defines prevention: as the act or practice of stopping something bad from happening : the act of preventing something.  Where is the crime prevention?  Santa Clara County experienced an act of terrorism at the Metcalf Substation and we find that the Administration downplays the incident as simple vandalism. Even when presented with a serious incident like terrorism the incumbent still has not implemented a task force or had the means in place to potentially detect the planning for such and incident.  Investigations and Intelligence gathering are key investigative tools to have a positive proactive capabilities to deter criminal activities.  Grade – FAIL

I pledge to implement…state-of-the-art technology to the Sheriff’s Office, making Santa Clara County a model for the 21st Century
Merriam-Webster defines state-of-the-art the level of development (as of a device, procedure, process, technique, or science) reached at any particular time usually as a result of modern methods  The incumbent has been in the top spot to make change for 16 years.  Since taking office the incumbent had the email system updated in 2014 from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook 2003.  Speaking of the computer system the Sheriff’s Office uses a report writing system that was created in house and around 2005 spent upwards of a million dollars to update the report writing system.  The update failed as the old reporting system was not compatible and the new system was scraped.  The Sheriff’s Office still uses the old system that is plagued with crashes and lost information.  Countless hours wasted by deputies correcting formatting issues when uploading the reports.  Let’s talk about logging into the computer system.  If a person is assigned anywhere but the main office log in times can reach up to an hour.  Many just laugh this off as “coffee break time.”  How many countless hours have been spent by deputies just waiting for the turning hour glass to stop and they get to start work?  State-of-the-art computing, we could talk about the MDT’s in the patrol cars to help the deputies get to their calls faster.  Oh wait many of the cars do not have MDT’s.  We have heard so much about the new tablets being issued.  It is my understanding that the tablets are still being evaluated and there is no date for the release of this 21st Century tool.  We can move on to the cars that these tablets will ultimately be placed.  That is if the cars will last long enough to see the 21st Century addition, since a high number of the patrol cars on the street have very high mileage, some into the hundreds of thousands of miles.  Grade – FAIL

Since the incumbent did not mention the Department of Correction in the political statement of 1998 I won’t address it here.

I could continue with the statement made by the incumbent about youth crimes, family violence or narcotics, but most of the deputies are aware of the lack of these programs as well.  The Narcotics are given a task force because of Asset Forfeiture.  What is “Asset Forfeiture?”  Well, that is the taking of the property or money earned through illegal activities possessed by the person and once the case has been adjudicated and the person was found guilty the property and money is forfeit.  Since the narcotics asset forfeiture brings in money there is a fund located somewhere within the Sheriff’s Office.  I keep hearing about this account, but no one can tell me how the money is being used?  Does anyone have any information on this topic? Can we be transparent here?

The last thing I would like to point out is another statement made by the incumbent as found on the smart voter page.  The incumbents quote:

I am proud to have received overwhelming support from law enforcement. I am endorsed by virtually every local and statewide organization representing all levels and ranks of law enforcement officers. When the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association polled their membership for their endorsement in the Sheriffs’ race, my opponent received a mere 16 votes!

In the last 35 years the DSA has always endorsed the position of the incumbent Sheriff.  However this year both the CPOA and DSA endorse Kevin Jensen with an overwhelming support.  From what I have been told the incumbent did not receive any votes of endorsement from the CPOA and only received 12 votes in favor to endorse from the DSA.  In reviewing the endorsements Kevin Jensen has the overwhelming support of the local area law enforcement unions as well as statewide organizations.  The incumbent has failed to gain the support of law enforcement both locally and statewide for this election.  What has changed in the 16 years the incumbent has held office?  Well that is easy to explain.  Nothing has changed except the bare minimum to keep the Sheriff’s Office chasing the pack.

Ask the hard questions of the incumbent.  Where are the programs and technology promised 16 years ago?  Where are the programs and technology promised every election since? Where is the support she was so proud of in the law enforcement community? If her opponent then only got 16 votes from their own peers then and that was a point to vote for her over him, why does she feel that 12 votes now means that people should not vote for her opponent?

Vote Kevin Jensen for Change and to move the Sheriff’s Office into the 21st Century.


4 thoughts on “16 Year Report Card

  1. Pingback: A Few Notes | Casey Thomas' World

  2. The asset forfeiture account is kept secret because the Sheriff and her imoral admin use it behind the scenes. She’s used it to pay for gas and overhaul or purchase a new engine for her toy helicopter. Maybe all those VIP trips and flights to Tahoe used a lot of gas and wear and tear to the engine?


  3. I appreciate your tenacity on these subjects, but please stop promoting the idea that the DSA was never against an incumbent or sitting Sheriff.

    There was a vote of no confidence taken against her predecessor that you all can’t take back, no matter how hard you try to ignore it.


    • I’m happy to provide that information, I’ve seen no reference to said no confidence vote either internally or via media sources that was directly in conjunction with an an endorsement vote.

      I believe the overall statement was that they have endorsed the incumbent position in elections for the past 35 years vs. endorsing an opponent. While a “no confidence” vote can be a vote to not endorse in an election, it can also be a completely separate vote and a non-election driven vote intended to drive other actions rather than election results. The two can absolutely be mutually exclusive.

      Was there an endorsement vote that went against Gillingham in favor of an opponent? Can you provide me that information? If so, I’m happy to correct prior statements to my readers to determine it’s worth in this election.


Comments are closed.