From A Woman’s Point of View

submitted by contributing author, Deputy’s Wife

I am a woman.  I am a mother.  I am a professional.  And on every level, I cannot find a reason to vote for Laurie Smith.  Even if I was to stand from the point of view of a total outsider, she simply is not the candidate I would choose.

I am writing this because, despite the fear of retribution to my husband if I’m identified, I no longer feel that it is appropriate to remain silent about what goes on in this office.  We’ve talked about my wanting to write this and we’ve agreed that it is important to speak up or risk people believing she is the best candidate.  We talked about the fact that her campaign openly stated she would be attacked as a strong woman and how this may feed into that perspective.  I hope that I can make my argument here clear enough that it’s evident I am not attacking her nor trying to take down a strong woman, but simply a person doing a poor job as an elected official.  I feel she is exactly the opposite, that while she may be a strong women, she has proven her incompetence in her role as Sheriff of Santa Clara County to the detriment of the office, the people who work there and the people in the community.   The men and women of Santa Clara County have given her fair chance for 16 years, which in my eyes says they are not afraid of strong women, nor of women in leadership roles.

It’s hard and it’s disappointing to write this because I believe women can succeed in law enforcement or in any field or career they choose.  Sometimes in physically demanding jobs our physique may or may not require us to strive a little harder than a man, but if we can reach the bar, we can do the job.

Simply being a woman does not qualify one to do any job.  I don’t care what that job is, qualifications and capabilities are required, gender is generally speaking, not a qualification.  That is what “equal” is about.  If I can bring the same knowledge and skills to the table, I get to play too.  Not, “Hey, I’m a woman, give me my seat at the table.”

The impetus behind me writing this is noting that our sheriff held a well-publicized symposium to encourage women to enter into the law enforcement field, she has a female recruiter who appears to be assigned to nothing more than actively recruiting women into law enforcement, so much so there is the appearance of not actively recruiting male candidates and then, the reason for all this came out of the woodwork.  Just days after these programs launch, Laurie Smith announces the endorsement of the National Women’s Political Caucus of Silicon Valley on her candidate pages, as if that’s what having a Sheriff’s Office is about to these women.  It appears to me that this “caucus” has failed to look beyond gender and/or political blinders in their endorsement.  It should take more than a symposium and a personal recruiter for women to get our vote.  I understand they only support female candidates, but discretion is the better part of valor here — how about extending that to, “We only support GOOD female candidates.”  I was amused to find out, seeing the Sheriff praise the “early endorsement” over Kevin Jensen, even though Kevin Jensen clearly didn’t have any opportunity for consideration.  Isn’t that what we complain about men doing to us?  Is turn about fair play?  That is a question for someone else, but not something that we shouldn’t think about.

As a mother, I’m horrified that a women’s caucus is endorsing Laurie Smith.  I’ve kept up on Sierra Lamar, Audrie Pott, the De Anza case and several other lesser known cases to the public.  I’ve paid attention to what has been in the media, asked my husband questions about what happened internally and have found myself in tears at the tragedies these families have suffered and the lack of concern on the part of the Sheriff and her administration.  What if it was my daughter that was sexually assaulted and they delayed the investigation?  What if it was my daughter whose clothes were found by the side of the road and the police said she was probably still just a runaway and wouldn’t increase the investigation?  What if it was my child in need and the sheriff was having 4 star lunches delivered to her administrative offices while kicking active investigators off the case and paying my husband and many others overtime to do nothing but sit on a corner and “be visible” for full shifts?  I didn’t miss the complaints that the search was so disorganized due to 4th floor interference that deputies were sent to the same houses 4, even 5 times, to ask the same questions, missing large areas of the neighborhood because of the lack of organization.  I look at my children and I cringe at what I know about these cases and pray my child never has a major crisis in Santa Clara County as long as Sheriff Smith is in charge.

As a professional, it’s beyond my understanding how this woman has maintained the support she has for as long as she has. Her incompetence has shown in her decisions, her lack of concern for the health of the office has been shown again and again in the attacks against her own staff, both private and public.  Her background is so spotty she won’t even give the public full disclosure of her résumé!  Why would you hire someone who refuses to tell you their full career path and what they have done specifically in each position they’ve held? Even the position she holds now?  In order to apply for a new position in the office, you’re required to submit proof that you have maintained a minimum standard of CPR/First Aid/Range and a résumé — a full resume — along letters from supervisors and an interest memo that explains why you feel you have the qualifications for the position your applying for within the office.  Our incumbent refuses to meet the standard she holds her employees too.  But I guess, in hindsight of saying this, she has waived qualifications in the past for those that have favored her with gifts — promotions, special assignments, choice assignments.  Special people, special waivers — she obviously includes herself among that special class.

As a woman, I feel that all the above shows Sheriff Smith has acted in a manner that allows some to generalize  women are bad leaders. She has become part of the glass ceiling that she at one time had to bypass herself, as she likes to remind us all. She leads by fear and intimidation, she leads using the threat of destroying careers for anyone who doesn’t step in line.  If you fail to meet her demands you will pay the price with anything from an assignment as far from everything as possible to facing trumped up Internal Affairs investigations.  If you report one of her pets to IA, at best the investigation will sit on a captain’s or lieutenant’s desk until it’s too late to legally investigate, at worst you could be threatened with an IA investigation.  These are the actions of weak leaders, and unfortunately due to prejudices, this allows some to point out women are weak leaders, because the actions of one woman.  There are some very good women in Santa Clara, there may even be one or two in the office I would consider for voting for if they every chose to run.  Those capable women have for the most part been minimized as a threat to our sheriff though, just like the capable men in the office.  Capable people, men or women, scare our current sheriff and rather than using their abilities, she pushes them away.   That’s not the leadership I want when I need the services of the Sheriff’s Office.

I guess for some women all that matters is that a woman wins.   It doesn’t matter how, or if she’s qualified, or if she ultimately allows herself to become the valid representation of a poor job to those who would extend that to all women.

I hope for more.  Women must make it on their merits, and yes, unfortunately women still often have to work harder in order to prove those merits.  Even when we do prove ourselves, sometimes we still endure the backlash of prejudice from some. I would rather have someone working harder to prove themselves in their job, male or female, than anyone skating on a non-essential contributor like gender, especially someone who has proven a willingness to abused their power of office. I would love to see a woman win, but I want to see the right woman win — one that can advance all of us, not just those of us trying to overcome the gender role cultures of the past.  Laurie Smith has actually set us back in my opinion.  We need better than this, whether we are men or women, led by a woman or a man, we can do better than this.

I want a safer county, a better agency and a concerned leader in law enforcement — that’s why this woman will be voting for Kevin Jensen.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “From A Woman’s Point of View

  1. I told the DSA and everyone I could back in 2003 what the office was truly capable of. I told the DSA, “If you support her you will get what you deserve.” Thank god they finally woke up. Now that your DSA board isn’t a bunch of political animals bucking for a promotion while they screw the deputies, maybe you can have some representation even if Laurie wins. Good luck!

    Like

  2. The information written by “Deputy Wife” is exactly correct. Many people will vote because a certain person is female/male, white/black/Hispanic/Asian and some actually (fortunately) look at ALL the facts. As has been said in previous posts and replies the 2010 election choices were not always the best. Now, with the truth coming out and numerous unions and her own employees all saying ENOUGH is ENOUGH! NOW is the time

    Nancy Csabanyi is fully 100% CORRECT that many if not almost all are afraid. Those with many years left will be not promoted if they are found to have been in the “FOR” Kevin Jensen camp and those with less years do not want to rock the boat because even though it is becoming a sinking ship everyone has to work with those on both sides of this issue.

    All people need to be able to write with real names and have no fear of retribution but that will not happen until Kevin Jensen IS elected. GO ahead, place a bumper sticker on your vehicle, ask business owners to allow a “Kevin Jensen for Sheriff” poster to be put in their window, place them up whereever a gracious landowner will allow you to for it is your future that depends on it!

    Wear a t-shirt, put a cap on, give your kids stickers just get the word out.

    Like

  3. To be fair to the recruiting Sergeant in mention you can’t blame her for doing what she was ordered to do. We all know what happens to people in general who disappoint the Sheriff let alone what happens to people in that highly visible position who don’t tow the line.
    What the public would be disgraced and outraged by is how the Sheriff chooses her promotions. As long as you agree to not expose her OR agree to sell your soul by ignoring your morals you can get promoted.
    Just a few examples, but no names….committing crimes (Felonies & Misdemeanors), lying your pants off, interfering with legitimate investigations because it involves certain administrators or their families, agreeing not to sue the Sheriff’s Department, being out on a “work” related injury for 1 1/2 years but during that time competing in bodybuilding competitions, illegally raising campaign money for the Sheriff, creating media/politically generous running events and generally just acting like a bobble head whenever she’s around. So much for her statement where she claims to only promote the best/brightest and most qualified!!

    Like

  4. I want to thank the woman who wrote this article. It is very accurate and one of the best articles I’ve read.

    Like

  5. Whoever that Deputies wife is I hope he takes her out to a nice dinner as a thank you from all of us other Deputies!! I think that was one of the BEST articles I’ve read on this site in a long time if not ever! Very well written and excellent use of several hot topics. Thank you!!!

    Like

  6. I find it sad that people who post must use fake names. It is very telling about the atmosphere or fear within the agency when people have to hide their opinions. I don’t blame them though. I am close enough to retirement to speak my mind. Hopefully I will stick around long enough to see Kevin Jensen sworn in as the next Sheriff! Let Freedom of Speech Return in 2015!

    Like

    • Thank you Nancy I couldn’t agree more. We have a right to speak our mind and should not be filled with dread if we elect to do so. The value of this blog is not whether people use a pseudonym, but that they have a format in which to contribute. I concur that the above was well written and shows a deep level of introspection. Thank you to the author for her contribution.

      Like

  7. My name is Nancy Csabanyi, I am a Sergeant and I’ve been with the Sheriff’s Office for 28 years. I had been a strong supported of Laurie Smith for all of her past campaigns. I supported her because I had faith she would stand by her promises and believed she would bring the department to a better place. In the last election, I began to have doubts. I found that many of her past promises had gone unfilled. Unfortunately the other candidates were even scarier. This year we have a huge opportunity to vote for a truly great and qualified candidate; Kevin Jensen. He is what this county and citizens need. His ability to look at the whole picture, work with people within his own agency, and cooperate with all of the other departments within the area is what we need. I can not endorse Kevin strongly enough. It is time for a change! Laurie Smith has had 16 years to make positive change. Instead she has promoted some individuals with questionable morale character and abiity. She has allowed harassment and unfair treatment of female deputies, created an atmosphere of fear, denied training to those not in her circle, and brought the agency down in its reputation and standing. Please, before voting, take a hard look at which candidate is truly will be the Best for Santa Clara County. I am sure you will see Kevin Jensen is the only real candidate!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Ladies and gentlemen how this proud woman feels is a resounding commonality of how members of entire sheriffs office feel except for administrative staff. Imagine that police officers and their families in fear of standing up for the right thing because of retaliation. That is an irony at its best.

    Like

  9. I think the women’s national political Caucus should look into the numerous sexual harassment complaints against her administrative level staff and her failure to deal with those appropriately. Opting for letting them retire out without punishing them by following through on complaints and dealing out discipline. As for public information request on those internal affair complaints. The recruiting sergeant should know firsthand she was conveniently promoted after complaint.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fly guy I’ll give you one better. How about being told you can’t complain even though you’re a witness.

      Like

Comments are closed.