Frat Fight in the Sheriff's Race
From the News-Press today:
"At some point it just looks like a big fraternity fight among wealthy council members," said Mr. Davis.(sic)Overlooking the typo, "never-quite-retired-from-politics" consultant John Davies has a good point here. At some point, doesn't it look more like a soap opera?
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 1/29/2006 08:21:00 AM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
36 Comments:
I agree, plus sexism to boot!
just infighting among republicans, akin to the infighting among the dems in the 2nd District race; when it all comes down to it, the quest for power and prestige is really the holy grail it seems
Seems to me as long as they (the Counci) get to raise money to help the deputies (the real workers in that department don't forget), the Council shouldn't even care who is Sheriff.
I'd like to know why the divisions of Thomas v. Anderson run so deep.
To answer above: Thomas hand picked his successor four years ago and the Deputy Sheriffs picked Anderson, the voters picked Anderson and Thomas has been angry ever since. Thomas started the Sheriff's Council. Some in leadership at the Sheriff's Counci were and are Thomas' friends and donors against Anderson last election. Others grew to respect and support Anderson. There the rub. I agree with the quote from the News Press - these guys are just a silly bunch of frat boys - and it is boys - not men, not women.
In the end the trouble makers are Thomas supporters. Insightful story on the sad affair of things.
Thanks for the reply. Will anyone notice if Edgecomb really does give a $250,000 campaign donation to Thomas? That's the "Hot" rumor rampant thru the Sheriff's dept.
This is not the place for discussing Star Telecom stock -- I'm deleting the above posts. Please take that discussion somewhere else.
With all the republicans running for sheriff, it sure would be nice to see a Dem in the mix.
I thought Chief Brown was the dem - had some good north county democrats with him at his announcement.
Just like the attack on New York on September Eleven (year no longer important), Sheriff Anderson can take political advantage of this shooting crime and look all the more as a Sheriff on the job, with no chance for the opponents in that election to criticize anything. Just like the Dems became incapable of criticizing W Bush for a year after September Eleven.
Oh my. 2:54 that is just so distasteful. Next are we going to blame Anderson for this horrible mess?
Yes, it reads like a suggestion for the Sheriff to act sheriffy, but the intent was more that, politically, acting like the Man In Charge during a high profile tragedy is nothing but a political boost for the incumbent sheriff, who needs all the boosts he can get, especially because his opponents cannot jump on the issue, the same way the national Dems were rendered impotent by Bush for a year following September Eleven.
let's all just wait and see how the audit of the Sheriff's Council comes out.
Seems like the Goleta postal tragedy actually can make the Sheriff look like more of a confident and competent incumbent, thereby countering anything negative in the audit of Sheriff's Council.
Just see the essay of platitudes by Anderson in Newspress today (Feb.3). Like or not, that essay is politicking by Anderson to take advantage of the event. Would he have written it regardless of the upcoming election? Maybe, maybe not. But it is now a political campaign variable nonetheless, and his opponents cannot respond or comment as they definitely would look like they are politicking.
So First District Streetfighter, was the sheriff "wrong" to publicly thank the citizens for their assistance? I thought it was a rather gracious way to say thank-you to EVERY private citizen that rose to the occassion who helped out during this tragedy. Would you have taken the sheriff to task if the election wasn't upcoming - somehow I doubt it.
I am not "taking the Sheriff to task" but merely making an observation of political strategy. Comments here at Blogabarbara tend to do that.
Per a posting above, Sheriff Anderson just got his equivalent of what the Sept. 11 attack did for Bush. Bush did not cause the attack, but he certainly took advantage of it while his political foes were rendered inert.
First District Streetfighter is so typical of the "new" Santa Barbara political thinking: all politics all the time. Anderson says those things because he is the elected Sheriff of this County and it is his duty to do so. I am not a particular fan of his but he is a pro. He is dealing with the real deal right now, the likes of which you will never know. Get a job or a real life. Pick your places for your knitpicking a little better. You are way out of your depth in a real tragedy.
Okay, F.D.S., I see your POV to my post about "taking the sheriff to task", and I will concede, but not necessarily agree with, your observation of political strategy.
But do you honestly think he was consicously thinking about making political points after viewing the horrific crime scene? The sheriff I saw on the news had clearly been shaken by what he, and his deputies, saw and now had to deal with.
I just shake my head in dismay over the sheriff's political foes lamenting they can't capitalize on this tragedy. What does that really tell us about them? Perhaps they are not worthy of being a candidate.
Whatever happened to decency & compassion........ DD
if it is impermissible for anyone with the city council to accept a free pass to the film festival, is it also impermissible for the sheriff to accept favors from the council for the september gala?
The blood and brains of fathers and mothers, grandparents, sisters and brothers aren't even dry yet and the type of fools that post on this site are talking about free movie passes? Don't ever pretend again that Santa Barbara is some kind of special place. If it bleeds, it leads.
Umm, 8:25pm, the Sheriff's Council is a non-profit orgainization dedicated to raising funds for needed equipment not funded by the county. Lets not forget those brave deputies wearing state-of-the-art bullet proof vests running into that post office building, nor the SWAT team using their high-tech equipment to escort terrified postal employees to safety - all provided by the Sheriff's Council.
The PUBLIC is well served due to the Council AND the sheriffs' collaboration.
The Film Festival is a for-profit event. There is no greater-good for the public involved here, except for the tax dollars it generates. DD
10:09, I appreciate your comments but need to know when you think it will be appropriate to start asking the Sheriff some real questions about his relationship to the Sheriff's Council?
1008. Anytime. Just don't tie everything the Sheriff's Department does on a everyday basis to the Council. There is a serious component to what they do. Do you think that those Deputies are having nightmares about Chris Edgecomb or what they saw the other night? Do you think they think about Jim Petrovich or do they worry about notifying next of kin? This political season will pass and all of us disturbed junkies will move on to our next fascination. The real world will continue to move on without us.
10:08/10:09 - it is appropriate to ask the sheriff about his ties the Sheriff's Council anytime. However, I want Jim Thomas - declared sheriff's candidate and former sheriff in charge of the same group - to answer the same exact questions too. They both have had a hand in the development & evolution of this Council.
For the moment, let's leave the Edgecomb/Towle affair off to the side, and deal with the financial allegations that have been plastered in the N.P. Make no mistake though, this Edgecomb fiasco needs to be addressed by BOTH candidates, but for the sake of not mixing too many issues for the moment - save that arguement for a future lively debate.
Why should they both answer questions, you might think. Here are my reasons why they BOTH should without any stupid nitpicking about the nuances:
1. They both were in charge of the same group.
2. They both held fundraising events.
3. They both attended the last Gala.
4. They both agreed this is a proper avenue to raise money for the deputies
5. They both dealth with the Board of Supervisors regarding the monies raised
6. They both had no problems with their previous/present bookkeepers
7. 501 (c)3 rules and regulations have been in force since the Council's creation - have they both followed the laws
DD
The current state of affairs within the Sheriff's Council has nothing to do with the "Edgecomb/Towle affair." It has to do with the accounting for of $2 million. It has to do with the fact that the current President of the Sheriff's Council is an ardent supporter listed on Sheriff Anderson's re-election campaign website, a fact which is entirely inappropriate for the leader of a 501(c)(3). It has to do with the fact that if you had read the Sheriff Dept. and DA reports of the incident between Edgecomb and Towle on the old NP website you would know that the current President was also the subject of the brouhaha between Towle and Edgecomb. The "Edgecomb/Towle affair" would never have had such a devastating impact on a healthy organization with strong leadership. When, and why, did it become so fragile to a little public scrutiny?
I beg your pardon, 3:14pm, but Edgecomb/Towle were arguing over who got to review job applications first and the now-current president's name was mentioned in that little "frat fight" but other than her name being said, it seemed more like testosterone (or lack thereof depending on your pov) fueled pushing contest over protecting "turf". I don't recall seeing in that documentation mention of the current president's financial management (or lack thereof depending on your pov).
Let's not forget Edgecomb was the president the previous year and one should be careful about throwing stones at glass houses.
What happend AFTERWARDS from the mudsling is the subject of great debate, and the devastating impact you refer seems to be hand-fed and fueled by the former-Sheriff (who was at the last Gala event and didn't seem to have a problem sitting at the Edgecomb table) and his buddies.
No allegations of ANY financial misconduct have been proven at this point.
As I recall, the former-Sheriff had several of those same Council members endorse him when he ran for election(which is their right as a private citizen). Even Edgecomb attended the former-sheriff's campaign kick-off announcement - as is his right. The Council President has the right to endorse whomever she pleases. So where in the 501(c)3 regulations does it say you cannot endorse political candidates? And remember, the rules flow both directions, if it's not valid for one party to use, it is not valid for the other party to use either.
As far as strong leadership, I believe the Council has it in Mrs. Jepsen and she is well within her rights to defend herself against allegations. Just as the past presidents have the right to make the accusations - they must also bear the scrutiny it brings. Saying "it happened" doesn't necessarily make it so. DD
Well, like someone said earlier, let's just wait and see what the audit says shall we? And why is Ms. Jepsen going to DSA functions?
Was Edgecomb a President when he went to Thomas's campaign annoucement? Jepsen is President.
What DSA functions?
4:52 pm, are we splitting hairs here? Please give a better reason that a past-prez is okay to go but a current-prez isn't. Geez!
I coulda swore Jim Anderson was Sheriff when Chris Edgecomb was President
And your point is.......?
If Edgecomb is dirty where was the County's "top Cop" when Edgecomb was President of the Council? Was the Sheriff staying at the Bacara like he did when Jepsen was President? Was Edgecomb putting himself and his family up at the Bacara?
Boys, boys, boys. Let's just wait and see what the audit says.
Let me clarify my statement about living in glass houses.
If the current president is & was following the SOP (standard operating procedures) established by the prior presidents (Cavaletto, Grimm, Pira, Edgecomb, Miller & Towle)then the former presidents will appear, well... silly.
DD
If the current president was not following the SOP of the past presidents what will she appear like? Does Sheriff Anderson contend that he and his family stayed at the Bacara on donated funds in previous years?
You seem determined to denigrate & villify Mrs. Jepsen at every turn. She has been on the Council for years, is an accomplished fundraiser for several local charities, and I have not heard one peep of discontent regarding her 'til the pushing contest betwixt the boys.
If Mrs. Jepsen has been follwing accepted procedures, or charted a different approach, then GOOD FOR HER & the Sheriff's Counci. Sometimes new paths and new visions open other doors to success - to raise monies for the deputies.
We'll all have to wait for the auditor's report to see if there are misdeeds. IMHO, this will probably end up being much ado about nothing......
Post a Comment
<< Home