I believe in public officials that answer questions. I believe if the public elects you, trusts you to handle their business, you owe them answers to their questions.
Sheriff, what is your standing and active policy in regards to violent offenders who are also illegal immigrants?
I may not like or agree with the answers, but if I ask the question, I deserve the answer. As part of the LEO community and as a citizen, I am tired of the sheriff’s behavior making the loud and clear statement, “I don’t answer to you.”
Sheriff, what actions have you taken or not taken in regards to violent offenders who are also illegal immigrants?
During the election the sheriff refused to participate in any kind of public forum where she would be asked questions she didn’t pre-approve. I truly suspect she had no idea that the Mercury News debate video would be released when she agreed to sit in that room. She even went so far as to back out of the one she scheduled and refused to even talk to another organization so unbiased they don’t even make endorsements, just provide the public information on candidates.
Sheriff, have you or have you not adhered to the policy of “No Calls to ICE” as set out by the county ordinance passed a couple years ago?
Her deputies went to the public to demand answers regarding training concerns, policy concerns, morale concerns, equipment concerns — all concerns they had been trying to address with her for years… even prior to the election before last. She and her campaign called deputies bullies and keystone kops — but not once did they ever provide any evidence that the concerns of deputies were unfounded beyond their say-so. Instead they latched onto an argument that allowed them to refute everything by using public bias against law enforcment — deputies were distributing false information because a few were upset she held them accountable. A riotous statement from a woman has promoted several deputies up the ladder that should have been reported as Brady cops and even currently has one speaking for her as the face of the office.
Sheriff, as per President David Cortese, have you called ICE for release notifications of violent offenders who are also illegal immigrants?
Now her “I don’t answer to you,” attitude is directed at the public. Now she sends out her PIO to tell you she’s on vacation, whoops no she isn’t, oh yup, she’s on vacation again….sooooo sorry. The person who is supposed to embody the trust of the community in how law enforcement is run won’t answer the questions. One of her strongest political allies has claimed ground on both sides of the argument for her, making policy even less clear.
Sheriff, is the problem ICE doesn’t show up when you call, or is it that they don’t show up because you don’t call?
Reality is, the sheriff is nearly never in the office. She’s “non-existent” but she’s been existent enough to make clear to everyone she plans on running for yet another term. I would bet money her strategy is the same as the last one that got her elected — answer no questions, only show up at controlled events, and probably an added clause to her plan — no interviews for the Mercury News (or their parent group, BANG) ever again.
Sheriff, why should we trust you to make the decisions we entrust you with if you disappear when the questions get tough?
She certainly doesn’t owe you an answer about how she has correlated county ordinance and federal law in her policy involving illegal immigrants who are violent offenders and endanger all of us, regardless of our immigration status.
The sheriff doesn’t think enough of the deputies, nor the public to answer these questions. Not about the understaffing issues, not the failed investigations involving teen victims, not about the moral of her deputies, not about the PG&E attack, not about training improvements…
Sheriff, assuming you do call ICE as Mr. Cortese claimed, do you have a written policy that defines the decision process that determines if an illegal immigrant is a violent offender to ensure consistency and fair application?
See, this has been one of the ongoing issues — there is little by way of written policy. The deputies attempted to address this during the election too. Why is there little written policy? For moments just like this. Never put anything in writing, if you do then you’re committed and can be held accountable. A lot of emails…which are sometimes an issue for her, but now all which have a new policy from what I understand — all emails, public property, will be deleted from the system after 90 days. Solves that problem, though I hope she looked into the legality of such a policy regarding the management of public records.
Sheriff, if you do not call ICE, do you know where did the information Mr. Cortese gave regarding ICE failing to show up for release calls come from?
The sheriff doesn’t answer to you. She answers to her political allies, like David Cortese and Cindy Chavez, both who are on the other side of this issue from her claimed position. She answers to those on the Sheriff’s Advisory Board who give her money in a less than transparent fashion and are allowed to use public property like the range and helicopter to “fundraise” for a project that hasn’t seen improvements in a decade despite annual events to raise money. She answers to those she fails to punish and then promotes via the process of quid pro quo (hint, there’s one currently testing for lieutenant — she can refuse to promote him, but she’s already promoted him once since found falsifying records — aaahh…accountability at the sheriff’s office!). She answers to those in the media who do her the favor of ignoring hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreclosure, an 18 month long absence in her office, and the extensive conflicts of interest, and the shoddy management that has put cases unnecessarily at-risk.
Whomever she does answer to, unless you have something to offer her in exchange, she does not answer to you.
I really hope the DSA is working to convince Captain Jensen to run again, or finding an equally ethical alternative. Now is the time to start to introduce your candidate to the public so we don’t hear any of this “we don’t know what he would do” being fed to the public from the sheriff’s supporters again. We have absolutely no clue what she’s doing, and she’s not going to tell us, so at least we’ll have an idea of what one candidate will offer us.
The Mercury News got one thing right, sheriff, it’s time for you to retire, if for no other reason the major media source says in the same breath they will continue to mislead the public with luke warm non-endorsements in the favor of the incumbent for no other reason than incumbency.