Hostility between sheriff and commishes still rages

by David Grand
June 4, 2008

If one didn't know better, you'd think that the only thing they had in common was working for the same county.

The latest evidence of that is the mano a mano over a pension plan for the deputies, where they've agreed only to disagree on a equitable plan that would give deputies an incentive for remaining with the sheriff's office rather than seeking employment with another law enforcement agency that offers a better pension plan.

But that's only the outgrowth of the initial clash over the commishes electing to create a county police department that would serve as the primary law enforcement agency instead of selecting the sheriff's office to fill that role.

From that time on, the line in the sand was drawn so deeply it would take a plank (or perhaps a drawbridge) to cross it, which resulted in all dialogue between 'em coming to a screeching halt.

And any doubts I may have had on that score were quickly removed, when the three deputy positions initially included in the 2009 budget for the sheriff's office were instead given to the resident state troopers. Talk about being vindictive!

Now, shortly after the commishes' decision, the state delegation got into the act, challenging the commishes' authority to go down the road they chose without enabling legislation from the General Assembly. (Hardly a surprise move on their part considering the longstanding feud with the present and previous boards).

To that end, they submitted a bill in both houses that called for a referendum to be conducted to resolve the matter of whether the sheriff or the chief of police would be the "top gun" in the county.

Here's where it got more muddied up than the Mississippi River. For after the governor signed the bill into law on May 22, I along with other Carrollians wouldn't of known about it had not a Carroll delegate appearing in the form of a bird landed on my deck to inform me of it. (I could tell who it was by its ample girth.)

Why the local media saw fit not to cover that landmark decision in headlines is beyond me. And the same is true for the redistricting bill (establishing five commissioner districts), which was also signed into law the same day.

I'm sure that those considering running for a commissioner's slot would be as mad as a bull among bumblebees to find out that they were kept in the dark over the bill being enacted.

And as regards 2010, that's the same year the census in to be conducted, which could alter the lines of the five districts. But since it takes a year or more to be completed, it wouldn't have any effect until the next election in 2014.

But what I find more perplexing yet, is why an amendment was attached to the so-called policing bill that would make it null and void as of 2010.

Don't know which member of our delegation slipped it in at the last moment. But whatever his or her intention was, the practical result of it will be that it'll be up to the new, five-member board to decide whether to go forward with an ordinance calling for a referendum on what the primary law enforcement agency should be.

Of course, the present board could do it right away. But I sense, that the enmity that at least two commishes feel towards the sheriff for offering an alternative proposal for policing the county that ran counter to their choice would prevent that from ever happening during their tenure in office.

Hate to say it, but that's what's called being vengeful and poor losers.