Post a New Topic
Original post made
on May 16, 2014
Considering who is supporting current Sheriff Smith, tells me that it is time for her to go. A new broom sweeps clean is an old adage that should apply here.
I think Smith is a lousy sheriff but Jenson would be a disaster. I completely agree with the PAW that this position should be appointed by the supervisors. The fact that the union supports him is the first clue to make sure he is not elected. He worked less than thirty years and now the taxpayers are going to pay him $150K (with COLA increases) for the rest of his life. That is over $5M and does take into account the health benefits. The government unions have bought and paid for most politicians including Brown. So disappointing that the voting public continues to let this happen. Our kids and grandkids are going to be paying (for this generation's lack of attention to the fleecing by the government unions) for most of their lives. Disgusting!
Anyone that Joe Simitian is for, I'm against. I agree with Taxpayer that our children and grandchildren will be paying dearly for our generous and poorly thought out benefits for government workers.
It simply isn't accurate that the only thing Palo Alto residents and others in this County have to worry about regarding the Sherrif is the security and function of our jails and courts. Many of the law enforcement issues facing our community are regional in nature and require a coordinated, regional response. It should be striking to voters that Laurie Smith has lost not only the support of her own officers, but of virtually every law enforcement organization in the County.
It appears the Editorial Staff did little to no research on this one. A myopic view of the world around the editors shows just how little real work was done on this article.
The Sheriff sets policy and enforcement in the jails which determines who is released back into the community (or not) reduction in recidivism rates by the successful support of programs in the jails (which is failing at the moment), and safety.
The Sheriff is also the coordinator of mutual aid resources for the County. Mutual aid requires precise coordination and working relationships with every police agency in this County and in the region. Laurie Smith has neither of the qualities to support this mission. Poor management of Sheriff resources may mean Palo Alto will not get support from the County in an emergency. Under staffing at the Sheriff's Office is even higher than San Jose PD and look at all the problems they are having.
Quiet contrary to the statements made by the author, Laurie Smith is supported by the largest labor union in the County, the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council which represents over 89 unions and 100,000 workers in Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. The law enforcement associations supporting Kevin Jensen who work in the Sheriff's Office represent about 1,500 people. So who has labor union backing again?
In reality, the law enforcement associations have stood against the traditional unions of this County even though they were pressured not to. Why? Because the problems at the Sheriff's Office are not monetary. Remember, the Sheriff doesn't make any decisions when it comes to wages and pensions. Only the Board of Supervisors do that.
I have talked to several politicians about their endorsement of Laurie Smith. Their response when asked why they endorsed her: "Because she endorsed me." When asked when the last time they talked to her they often can't remember. Politicians endorsing politicians are far from the "customers" the author claims in this article. The customers are the people of this County and they are very dissatisfied with Laurie Smith. Though Laurie Smith is endorsed by many politicians, she does not enjoy their "respect."
Just like most politicians, the editors here failed to actually look into the allegations. Instead choosing to skirt the real issues of ethics, accountability, and preferential treatment to donors and celebrities.
I agree that the presentation of issues has been negative, but the questions that have been brought up deserve to be answered. For instance, why are deputies required to attend training classes all over the state when South Bay Regional provides the same training close to home? This management decision requires the county and/or state pay for lodging and meals and prevents deputies from networking with other officers in the county. This is a management decision and not simply a "communication skill or political polish" misstep. I also question why the author includes Jensen's pension and future salary in this article. Is the implication that he has ulterior motives to his canidicy? Like it or not, Kevin Jensen is fighting for votes and I would like to see the same from Laurie Smith. She refuses to debate with Kevin which would give her a forum to answer questions. If lLaurie Smith refuses to answer, I am disappointed that news agencies like the Palo Alto online refuse to investigate and bring truth to concerned voters. This editorial is asking readers to trust that the editorial board has done their due diligence in researching the issues, yet there is no clear evidence from this article that they have. Did the board meet with Kevin and hear his vision and future plans for the Sheriff's office? Did they meet with Laurie and ask the hard questions that have been brought to light not to mention her vision? I hope voters will continue to demand the truth and not be satisfied with this type of surface level reporting.
I can't believe any journalist or editor would actually print or agree with this article. In this day and age of corruption in political positions, why on earth would it make sense to take away the voice of the people when deciding who the County Sheriff will be? After all of the recent felony arrests of local and national politicians, including state senator Leland Yee, and our own County Supervisor George Shirakawa, why would you want to allow the Board of Supervisors to choose who they want as the Sheriff. How quickly everyone forgets how close Laurie Smith and Shirakawa were. The political favors traded allowed Shirakawa to use the Sheriff's Office as his own personal police force. Let's also not forget Laurie has the endorsement of the largest labor union in the South Bay Labor Council, headed by disgraced prosecutor Ben Fields. Do your research and make an informed decision. The South Bay Labor Council is supported by large contributions from the M8trix Casino who is now being investigated and will likely lose their license due to structuring and hiding millions of dollars in profits to avoid taxes. It says a lot, when your own department does not support your leadership. The Sheriff has Zero control over wages, pensions, etc. It seems the men and women who work there are in need if a law enforcement leader who cares about the communities they serve, and a lot less about the politicians the current sheriff owes. Let's give them a person they can look up to and respect.
My red pen ran out of ink in reviewing this editorial after highlighting errors and making notes in the margins. (Yes, I printed a hardcopy to review.)
1. "this criticism won Jensen the backing and financial support of the deputy sheriffs' union and the union of correctional officers" The Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Santa Clara County is registered with the IRS as a non-profit corporation. Likewise, the Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers’ Association is also a non-profit. The editorial board's labeling of non-profit associations as unions is clearly misleading.
2. "Jensen and his supporters are slinging lots of accusations against Smith with
little substance to back them up." The editorial board didn't do their homework. There's plenty of substantial backup. For starters, go to the DSA website or the SCCCPOA's Facebook page. Not a difficult internet search exercise.
3. "Smith enjoys the support and respect of all five county supervisors, including Joe Simitian, and a long list of elected officials." Who's missing from this picture? Go to the kevinjensenforsheriff.com website and look at the list of endorsements. Compare the his against Smith's endorsements. Which list are you more comfortable with?
4. "we are uncomfortable with his campaign tactics, union backing and distorted criticisms of the incumbent." And so it seems the editorial board is more comfortable with Sheriff Smith's political consultant Rich Robinson's campaign tactics. Ask yourself why would Smith refuse to debate Jensen at an April 26 event by the League of Women Voters. Rich Robinson's piece on "Why Debates Don’t Matter" just didn't do it for me.
Well, so much for impartial journalism. Readers, go research and look for yourself www.kevinjensenforsheriff.com vs www.sherifflauriesmith.com learn why your neighbors and friends are putting up lawn signs everywhere, see what Kevin really believes in and his vision for the Sheriff Office. I dare you to find any vision for what the Sheriff is going to do the next 4 year on the incumbents website. Don't be sucked into the politics by politicians. Look at the endorsements very carefully, read the comments and ask, who's list are you more like?
Looks like the Jensen campaign is doubling down on its Internet campaign to anonymously attack Smith. Yes, please folks, do your own research, and you will see why you do not want Mr. Jensen as the chief law enforcement official in this county. The Weekly got it right.
Thank you for endorsing Smith. She has really done a good job. Don't worry about the negative anti-Smith posters. They are same five or six that are part of Jensen's professional blogging force that appear in other forums. They are just using different "monikers." And, boy they are nasty. You should talk to one in person!
Jim W and "don't be fooled" couldn't be any more incorrect. To start, its not just a few people who are posting about Smith and her unethical and deplorable behavior. There are many that are frustrated and disgusted by her actions and the disgrace she brings to the profession. When you look at the facts, the facts that are well documented, its enough to make anyone wonder how she has remained in office so long. If the treatment Aldon Smith received while being investigated by her office isn't enough lets look at others (by the way everyone, including the editors of the Palo Alto Online should watch the NBC 11 interview where Smith lies and lashes out at the reporter).
Why don't we talk about the fact she regularly has members of the Sheriff's Advisory Board at the firing range blowing through ammunition like the taxpayers are paying for it. Wait, the taxpayers ARE paying for it. And the fuel in "her" helicopter as they take VIP rides at the annual SWAT competition, the taxpayers are paying for that too. If she was "really doing a great job", all of law enforcement, victims groups, Marc Klaas, Fugitive Watch and a large contingency of retired police chiefs wouldn't be endorsing her challenger. If she was "really doing a great job" she wouldn't have cases shroud in controversy and making national news such as; the DeAnza Rape incident, the tragic death of Audrie Pott (whom she never spells her name correctly), the error plagued Sierra LaMar case and the act of domestic terrorism at the Metcalf Power Sub-Station that she responded to as an act of vandalism.
The bottom line here folks...whether or not you've been "fooled" by Smith or not, 16 years is long enough for any politician to be in one office. Smith has lost the support of her staff which is crucial for her to remain effective as the Sheriff. She is out of touch with the department and in fact graduated the academy long before many of her deputies were even born. [Portion removed.]For the readers of this article, do yourself a favor and research Kevin Jensen. You too will see he IS the right choice for Palo Alto and the County.
Pretty obvious what the choices are. The political candidate Smith, or the law enforcement candidate...
Look at who Smith gives conceal weapons permits to...people who send money her way:
Why would you remove Joshua's story from your page, Do you not think the people need to know about Sheriff Smith's misconduct concerning Joshua's death, even more so since his death has been reopened after 25 years, as of 63 Days ago, and the new information has even more Deputy misconducted involved. Contact Sheriff Smith and ask her why she doesn't have a seasoned Homicide Deputy in charge of his investigation instead of one of her hand picked yes men who has never ran a Homicide investigation ever, let alone a death that was tossed aside 25 years ago
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Happy Valentines – Let’s Be Friends
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 19,321 views
Our Valentine’s Day baby
By Sally Torbey | 5 comments | 3,237 views
Engagement Rings: Myths and Options
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,229 views
Talking about baby
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 824 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Palo Alto
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2017 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.