According to today's paper (link), Lucas County Sheriff James Telb is over budget.
So what's new?
The Sheriff Department is consistently over budget. When I was a commissioner (years 2003 through 2006), it was a constant concern because any savings other elected officials might have had in their budgets was used to cover his overages.
The county's Office of Budget and Management constantly informed him throughout each year that he was overspending in multiple line items, but Telb always counted upon the practice of just covering his costs when the county closed out the books at the end of the year.
No matter how loudly I complained, little media attention was given to the fact that this elected official just could not live within his means. Even during election years, the lack of fiscal management never really made it into the discussion, despite valiant attempts by some challengers.
While I'm glad to see the coverage today, I'm wondering why it's taken so long to inform the public of Telb's long-standing 'tradition' of spending more than was/is allotted.
But I'm sure you have your own theories about that...
So the question now is this: What will the commissioners do? Will they complain and then just cover the costs as they've done in the past? Or will they tell Telb 'no more money' and let the consequences prevail?
What do you think?
Showing posts with label Lucas County Sheriff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lucas County Sheriff. Show all posts
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Will township residents be double-taxed for 911 dispatching?
Most people who live in a township or pay attention to the local media will know that Lucas County is trying to get townships to pay for the cost of road patrols and dispatching from the Sheriff's Department.
This is in spite of voter rejection of recent levies in several townships to cover these costs.
One of the sticking points in the discussions deals with the 911 Levy as approved over several elections by voters.
Originally, this levy was supposed to cover the cost of dispatching. From an October 20, 1996 Blade article, "LEVY PUTS 911 SYSTEM - DESIGNED TO SAVE LIVES - AT RISK 911":
It is clear from this report that call-takers and dispatchers are covered by the cost of the levy.
From the same article:
This obviously describes dispatching as part of the services provided by the levy.
The 1996 levy included funds for upgrading the equipment, as county officials currently claim as the purpose of the levy. But news reports also show that the funding of the entire system was at risk, including dispatching, if the levy failed.
But just in case there was any doubt, a February 23, 1997 Blade article, "9-1-1 SPELLS QUICK HELP," further clarifies what the system does:
But changes to the system resulted in localized call centers run by the various municipalities. However, as reported in May of 1997, "Each community is to receive about $21,000 annually to help pay for operator salaries...", meaning that levy monies were still paying for dispatching.
In September, 1997, when the suburban call centers went on line, The Blade reported:
Subsequent reports in the paper over the next two years referenced the point that the suburbs took over paying 911 dispatchers in their own communities. But those news stories fail to mention that the county continued to subsidize those salaries with levy money. It's also important to note that the Lucas County Sheriff dispatchers, which service the townships, were NOT part of the decentralization.
In 1999, the Lucas County Commissioners decided to upgrade and expand the Emergency Services Center on Monroe Street to "put Toledo police call takers and Toledo fire department and Lucas County dispatchers under one roof on the same floor."
In 2000, officials began discussions of the levy's renewal scheduled for 2001. Because of a provision in state law, this renewal was treated as a 'new' levy, taxed at the current property values and generating a bit more money as a result. News reports from 2001 show that the levy would be used to operate and maintain the 911 system. The additional funding would go toward a countywide communications system for public safety personnel. That levy was approved by voters.
In 2006, the levy was up for renewal, but officials wanted a replacement levy - the same millage charged against current property values, resulting in more money for the county. As explained at the time, the funds would continue to support the maintenance and operation of the 911 system and pay for enhanced inter-agency communications among first responders. That levy was also approved by the voters.
So what does this really mean? Over the years, the levies have been advertised as funding the call-takers and dispatchers as well as the maintenance and operation of the system. Even when the county decentralized the dispatching to the suburban cities, they subsidized the salaries of the workers. However, the townships continued to receive dispatching through the Sheriff's dispatchers, funded by levy dollars.
But with time comes increased costs in wages and benefits, along with everything else. Through the years, the funding did not keep up with the costs. New equipment, necessary for today's needs, was purchased and had to be maintained. Which is why the county finds itself in a position of asking - rather, demanding - funds from the townships to pay for costs the levy no longer covers because of decisions made by those same county politicians.
The elected officials have known for years that the increased personnel costs they approved with their votes on union contracts would mean less money for other purposes. With a finite set of money from the levy, the scenario of needing additional money is a no-brainer and easy to predict.
So now the county wants even more funds from certain jurisdictions to cover increased costs the county is responsible for. The Commissioners and Sheriff know that a levy request for such things probably wouldn't go over well. Increasing a levy to cover increased personnel costs when many who would pay the levy haven't seen pay increases or might not even have a job anymore is, well...dumb.
So rather than go after all county residents, they've decided to go after the townships, extorting cash for promised safety.
The townships are right to raise the question of what, exactly, the levy was supposed to pay for versus what it's actually covering. They've got valid reasons to believe dispatching is a service they're already paying for and the township trustees owe it to their taxpayers to ensure they are not double-taxed.
Too bad the Commissioners and Sheriff don't realize the same thing, especially knowing that township residents are their constituents as well.
This is in spite of voter rejection of recent levies in several townships to cover these costs.
One of the sticking points in the discussions deals with the 911 Levy as approved over several elections by voters.
Originally, this levy was supposed to cover the cost of dispatching. From an October 20, 1996 Blade article, "LEVY PUTS 911 SYSTEM - DESIGNED TO SAVE LIVES - AT RISK 911":
But the $5 million system - which was set up to answer calls with the speed of a computer - is on trial.
Weary of higher taxes and moved by union opposition, voters turned down a 0.9-mill levy in March.
Now, they will decide whether to approve a 0.7-mill tax to keep it alive for the next five years.
The tax would raise $4 million a year to run the system and make improvements.
Those include ``breaking up'' the downtown 911 station into six smaller centers to be scattered across the county to speed response times.
``We're talking about taking 911 to the next level - and bringing it into the next century,'' said Sandy Isenberg, president of the Lucas County commissioners.
But so far, there's no contingency plan to keep the phones ringing at 911 if the levy fails.
If it goes down, there wouldn't be any money to pay the 911 operators and their supervisors past Dec. 31.
``No one's going to be here to answer the phone,'' said Doug Kemp, data manager for 911 .
It is clear from this report that call-takers and dispatchers are covered by the cost of the levy.
From the same article:
Here's a snapshot of what the new levy would do:
* It would bring 911 calls closer to home.
As it now exists, if a frantic Sylvania mother dials 911 for help because her child has fallen down the steps, the call goes to the 911 center at 2144 Monroe St., in Toledo.
Then, the message is sent via computer to a dispatch center in Sylvania. From there, a rescue vehicle is sent to the scene.
Under the new plan, the call would go directly to Sylvania, eliminating the middleman in Toledo, and allowing the local operator to immediately send an ambulance. System officials hope to shave the response time by up to 45 seconds.
``In life-threatening situations, seconds can mean everything,'' said Tom Bodi, director of the 911 system.
This obviously describes dispatching as part of the services provided by the levy.
The 1996 levy included funds for upgrading the equipment, as county officials currently claim as the purpose of the levy. But news reports also show that the funding of the entire system was at risk, including dispatching, if the levy failed.
But just in case there was any doubt, a February 23, 1997 Blade article, "9-1-1 SPELLS QUICK HELP," further clarifies what the system does:
When a call comes in to 911 , an operator obtains necessary information from the caller, decides the priority of the call, then transfers the call by computer to the appropriate emergency dispatch system. Once the local dispatcher receives the emergency request - which takes just seconds after 911 operators obtain the needed information - a police, fire, or rescue crew is sent to respond to the call.
But changes to the system resulted in localized call centers run by the various municipalities. However, as reported in May of 1997, "Each community is to receive about $21,000 annually to help pay for operator salaries...", meaning that levy monies were still paying for dispatching.
In September, 1997, when the suburban call centers went on line, The Blade reported:
The decentralization of the main dispatch center is paid for by a five-year, 0.7-mill levy approved in November.
The levy raises about $4 million annually.
Subsequent reports in the paper over the next two years referenced the point that the suburbs took over paying 911 dispatchers in their own communities. But those news stories fail to mention that the county continued to subsidize those salaries with levy money. It's also important to note that the Lucas County Sheriff dispatchers, which service the townships, were NOT part of the decentralization.
In 1999, the Lucas County Commissioners decided to upgrade and expand the Emergency Services Center on Monroe Street to "put Toledo police call takers and Toledo fire department and Lucas County dispatchers under one roof on the same floor."
In 2000, officials began discussions of the levy's renewal scheduled for 2001. Because of a provision in state law, this renewal was treated as a 'new' levy, taxed at the current property values and generating a bit more money as a result. News reports from 2001 show that the levy would be used to operate and maintain the 911 system. The additional funding would go toward a countywide communications system for public safety personnel. That levy was approved by voters.
In 2006, the levy was up for renewal, but officials wanted a replacement levy - the same millage charged against current property values, resulting in more money for the county. As explained at the time, the funds would continue to support the maintenance and operation of the 911 system and pay for enhanced inter-agency communications among first responders. That levy was also approved by the voters.
So what does this really mean? Over the years, the levies have been advertised as funding the call-takers and dispatchers as well as the maintenance and operation of the system. Even when the county decentralized the dispatching to the suburban cities, they subsidized the salaries of the workers. However, the townships continued to receive dispatching through the Sheriff's dispatchers, funded by levy dollars.
But with time comes increased costs in wages and benefits, along with everything else. Through the years, the funding did not keep up with the costs. New equipment, necessary for today's needs, was purchased and had to be maintained. Which is why the county finds itself in a position of asking - rather, demanding - funds from the townships to pay for costs the levy no longer covers because of decisions made by those same county politicians.
The elected officials have known for years that the increased personnel costs they approved with their votes on union contracts would mean less money for other purposes. With a finite set of money from the levy, the scenario of needing additional money is a no-brainer and easy to predict.
So now the county wants even more funds from certain jurisdictions to cover increased costs the county is responsible for. The Commissioners and Sheriff know that a levy request for such things probably wouldn't go over well. Increasing a levy to cover increased personnel costs when many who would pay the levy haven't seen pay increases or might not even have a job anymore is, well...dumb.
So rather than go after all county residents, they've decided to go after the townships, extorting cash for promised safety.
The townships are right to raise the question of what, exactly, the levy was supposed to pay for versus what it's actually covering. They've got valid reasons to believe dispatching is a service they're already paying for and the township trustees owe it to their taxpayers to ensure they are not double-taxed.
Too bad the Commissioners and Sheriff don't realize the same thing, especially knowing that township residents are their constituents as well.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Lucas County to 'governmentize' private sector jobs
Lucas County Sheriff James Telb has decided to move in house the job of appraising foreclosed properties, effectively having government take over private sector jobs.
I'm not a fan of how Telb has doled out this task, making sure that politically connected individuals get the lucrative contracts. But that concern is for how the Sheriff selects the individuals - not in the fact that the private sector is employed for the task.
You see, in Ohio, each foreclosed property must have three independent appraisals prior to auction. All three appraisers must agree on the value which is then set as the minimum amount in the auction. When the property is sold, $35 is collected from the buyer to pay for the cost of the appraisal.
The best 'political' part of the process is that state law doesn't require any special expertise in order to do the appraisal and the county sheriff gets to decide who gets the job.
Bringing the appraisals in house means that sheriff deputies will perform the appraisals. Some might say this is a good thing because the patronage will end. I'm not one of them.
If there is the potential for bias in the selection of appraisers, then revise the selection process. But it's wrong for government to take over private sector jobs just to bring in revenue.
And that's what this is all about - more money into the county coffers.
From The Blade report on the issue:
In March, Commissioner Pete Gerken said he'd rather pay UAW members to do the work. The UAW represents the Sheriff deputies:
So this all about finding work for government/union employees and bringing nearly half a million dollars into the general fund.
But having that revenue in the public coffers means that the individuals who were performing the work (and for some of them it's their ONLY income) will no longer have a job. Perhaps the commissioners have decided the only jobs they want to 'preserve' in the county are government ones?
And this may not actually save any money. The news stories report that a deputy, with benefits, costs around $65-70,000/year. Let's use the $65,000 figure for our comparison.
In 2008, nine appraisers were paid $$459,148. That means the average yearly payment is about $51,016. That's less than we'd pay the deputies. Now, some of the appraisers did more work than the others, resulting in higher payments, but that doesn't change the fact that the work needed to be done. And with foreclosures expecting to remain high (maybe even higher than in 2008), the amount of work isn't going to decrease - at least for a while.
So what happens when the appraisal work does decline - as it surely will? Will those deputies who kept their job still remain on the payroll? Knowing the county operations and the desire for law enforcement over other expenditures, they probably will. The costs of the deputies will remain, while the 'revenue' funding them will decrease. And that's an excellent argument for using private contractors for the work.
Except in Lucas County - where the focus is on government revenue.
Is this really what government priorities should be? To get as much money as possible even if it means 'governmentizing' what the private sector is both capable of and willing to do?
Some in this area think so. It's why government has taken over the towing tasks and ambulance transportation services in the city of Toledo. And why Toledo politicians are constantly talking about 'revenue enhancements' - which translates into 'higher taxation' in one way or another for citizens.
If the Lucas County Commissioners really want to 'save' money, they should look at privatizing tasks - not governmentizing them. There is no need or logic for government to take over jobs, functions or activities that the private sector can and will do - and usually at a lower cost.
I'm not a fan of how Telb has doled out this task, making sure that politically connected individuals get the lucrative contracts. But that concern is for how the Sheriff selects the individuals - not in the fact that the private sector is employed for the task.
You see, in Ohio, each foreclosed property must have three independent appraisals prior to auction. All three appraisers must agree on the value which is then set as the minimum amount in the auction. When the property is sold, $35 is collected from the buyer to pay for the cost of the appraisal.
The best 'political' part of the process is that state law doesn't require any special expertise in order to do the appraisal and the county sheriff gets to decide who gets the job.
Bringing the appraisals in house means that sheriff deputies will perform the appraisals. Some might say this is a good thing because the patronage will end. I'm not one of them.
If there is the potential for bias in the selection of appraisers, then revise the selection process. But it's wrong for government to take over private sector jobs just to bring in revenue.
And that's what this is all about - more money into the county coffers.
From The Blade report on the issue:
Last year, the nine appraisers were paid a total of $459,148 by buyers at auction - money the county would like to have for its own. Moving the work in-house could preserve the jobs of some deputies and it would make the money available for the county's general fund.
In March, Commissioner Pete Gerken said he'd rather pay UAW members to do the work. The UAW represents the Sheriff deputies:
"...I'd rather be paying UAW-represented county employees to keep their jobs ... than to pay sub-contractors," Gerken said.
So this all about finding work for government/union employees and bringing nearly half a million dollars into the general fund.
But having that revenue in the public coffers means that the individuals who were performing the work (and for some of them it's their ONLY income) will no longer have a job. Perhaps the commissioners have decided the only jobs they want to 'preserve' in the county are government ones?
And this may not actually save any money. The news stories report that a deputy, with benefits, costs around $65-70,000/year. Let's use the $65,000 figure for our comparison.
In 2008, nine appraisers were paid $$459,148. That means the average yearly payment is about $51,016. That's less than we'd pay the deputies. Now, some of the appraisers did more work than the others, resulting in higher payments, but that doesn't change the fact that the work needed to be done. And with foreclosures expecting to remain high (maybe even higher than in 2008), the amount of work isn't going to decrease - at least for a while.
So what happens when the appraisal work does decline - as it surely will? Will those deputies who kept their job still remain on the payroll? Knowing the county operations and the desire for law enforcement over other expenditures, they probably will. The costs of the deputies will remain, while the 'revenue' funding them will decrease. And that's an excellent argument for using private contractors for the work.
Except in Lucas County - where the focus is on government revenue.
Is this really what government priorities should be? To get as much money as possible even if it means 'governmentizing' what the private sector is both capable of and willing to do?
Some in this area think so. It's why government has taken over the towing tasks and ambulance transportation services in the city of Toledo. And why Toledo politicians are constantly talking about 'revenue enhancements' - which translates into 'higher taxation' in one way or another for citizens.
If the Lucas County Commissioners really want to 'save' money, they should look at privatizing tasks - not governmentizing them. There is no need or logic for government to take over jobs, functions or activities that the private sector can and will do - and usually at a lower cost.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Death threats, cell phone numbers and politics as usual in Toledo
As a former county commissioner and someone who's had death threats in that position, I believe I can speak with some authority about the latest circumstances surrounding Ben Konop.
First, let's address the issue of his personal cell phone number being given out on WSPD's afternoon show by Brian Wilson.
Many are saying they wouldn't want their own cell phone numbers given out over the air, but those who make such a statement are not public officials. Such 'privacy' issues are different when an individual is in the public eye. Is Konop's cell phone listed publicly on his website for his campaign, his blog or in any other communication, like a press release? If so, then it's publicly available and all WSPD did was share it with a wider audience. If not, then I would have to question the use of that number rather than his office number when urging people to call him.
When I was on air and Konop refused to respond to my invitation to appear on Eye On Toledo, I encouraged people to call or email his office to ask him to 1) provide a response to my invitation and 2) encourage him to accept. I also encouraged them to ask him about this when he appeared in person at events or forums. There's nothing wrong in encouraging citizens to engage their elected officials.
But before anyone can take exception to the broadcast of Konop's personal cell phone number, you need to know whether or not it's already a public number. Only then can you make an informed decision about whether it was the right thing or the wrong thing to do.
Threats:
When I was first elected to the commissioner seat, but before I was sworn in, I had a death threat on my home telephone - at an unlisted number I used only for family and friends - and they left the message on the recorder. Rather stupid of them, but they did so. The details in the threat made it clear that they were familiar with my house, the people in my house and our daily routines. I probably would have just dismissed the threat if it hadn't been for the additional details which made me believe they'd observed the goings-on in our home for a while.
My reaction was to call the Toledo Police since I live in Toledo and also because I was the Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court and worked very closely with that agency. Because I did not want to encourage the caller, in any way, by publicity about the incident, I called the chief's office to ask about the best way to handle the call and my family's concerns. They sent a detective over who listened to the recording, make out a report and suggested some additional patrols in the neighborhood. It was suggested that officers in patrol cars would be asked to park at the end of our street to do their paperwork or during their breaks, to provide an additional presence that would, hopefully, discourage any unwanted activity.
We also took some additional measures and installed a security system in the house, which we'd been planning to do anyway, and went over the advice given out at most block watch meetings about being aware of suspicious activity.
Shortly after being sworn in, there was a break-in at the house. Fortunately, the alarm system worked - quite well, in fact - and while a rear basement window was broken and the perpetrator did get a foot on the table, the alarms went off and nothing was taken.
After getting the phone call from the alarm company, I arrived at home to find both TPD and Sheriff Deputies (LCSO) on the scene. While I was not surprised to find my local law enforcement personnel, I was surprised to find the Sheriff's Department had responded. As it was explained to me by then-Chief Deputy Ken Perry, the LCSO believed it was their responsibility to protect all county-elected officials, in addition to county residents, and they take threats against such individuals - regardless of the politics - very seriously. (Perry was my opponent in the 1995 election for Clerk of Court.)
Fortunately, following the investigation of the break-in (which was never solved), the police concluded that the break-in and threats were separate incidents and not related. But I know that when my family took our annual vacation a few weeks later, Chief Deputy Perry made several stops at my house just to check things out and make sure everything was okay. Though I told him that wasn't really necessary, he said he wanted to do it and, upon my insistence, assured me he wouldn't stop during his normal work schedule and take time away from his obligations to the Sheriff to do so.
So I know, first hand, the attention the LCSO places on the security of the individuals they assume responsibility for. But with the serious and detailed nature of the threat I received, I did not ask for a body guard so I wonder about the threats Konop has gotten and why this has become a rather public issue when prudence would dictate keeping a lower profile on the security.
I would like to see the emails Konop has received to judge for myself, though I know they'd probably be designated as non-public documents relating to an on-going investigation.
As an elected official, you get all kinds of communications from all sorts of people who use varying degrees of words when they don't like decisions you've made.
One of the easiest ways to handle such communications is to diffuse the issue yourself through conversation or response. Konop, unfortunately, has a reputation for not being able to do this well, if he bothers to respond at all. Is it likely that his reaction to such communications has escalated the situation? It's a good question to ask and the answer would probably only be revealed with an investigation of both sides of the communications.
When you've done your best to de-escalate the situation and it isn't working, it is logical to share the information with law enforcement. But does this warrant a body guard - a LCSO deputy to escort you various places, including within a well-protected government building? I don't know because I haven't seen the emails.
But I do know that the Commissioners used to have a Sheriff Deputy on duty for all the commissioner meetings. Shortly after Tina Skeldon Wozniak and I were sworn in, we examined the need for this person and Tina, Harry Barlos and I decided that we had enough protection in the building from the State Highway Patrol officers and really didn't need a deputy at our meetings. Besides, we figured we really had nothing to fear from our own constituents, especially in Government Center. So we asked the Sheriff to use that deputy more productively within his organization. And we never had a problem. In fact, I don't believe subsequent boards of commissioners have had any such issue that would warrant changing that decision.
So where does that leave us, as taxpayers footing the bill for all of this? Wondering, speculating and opining - which is all we can do under the circumstances. We do not have enough details to make an informed decision and it is likely that we never will.
So we are left with questions:
Is it likely that Konop is taking advantage of the situation in order to generate sympathy for his position and get in a few digs at a radio station he hates? Yes.
Is it likely that people are more angry at Konop's actions with the trampling of the U.S. Flag than what he expected? Yes.
Is it possible that he is at risk of physical harm? Yes.
Is it possible that the threats against him are real, credible and worthy of the concern of law enforcement? Yes.
Is it possible that he requested a body guard rather than have the LCSO insist upon one? Yes.
Is it possible this is being blown out of proportion? Yes
Will we ever really know the answers to these questions? No.
So some comments:
To the people who read my comments and other news stories or blogs about this: take a step back and ask yourself if you really have enough information to establish an informed opinion about the incident ... or if your preconceived ideas about Commissioner and mayoral candidate Konop are influencing your perspective.
To the media who cover the 'what' without asking for the supporting evidence to justify the 'who' and 'why': get the whole story and share it without bias.
To Konop: if you really believe you are in danger, protect yourself. Only you know the truth about that. But if you're taking advantage of the situation for political purposes, know that such a strategy can and will backfire when facts are revealed.
Also to Konop: while you have the 'right' to not speak to any media outlet, news department, reporter, TV news show or radio talk show host, your constituents also have the 'right' to hold you accountable for such decisions. Just because you can and should make such decisions, you are not immune from the consequences of those decisions and you should expect the public to respond as they see fit - which includes calling you out on the issue.
To the law enforcement officials involved in this: thank you! Your willingness to serve and protect is always, always valued and appreciated.
First, let's address the issue of his personal cell phone number being given out on WSPD's afternoon show by Brian Wilson.
Many are saying they wouldn't want their own cell phone numbers given out over the air, but those who make such a statement are not public officials. Such 'privacy' issues are different when an individual is in the public eye. Is Konop's cell phone listed publicly on his website for his campaign, his blog or in any other communication, like a press release? If so, then it's publicly available and all WSPD did was share it with a wider audience. If not, then I would have to question the use of that number rather than his office number when urging people to call him.
When I was on air and Konop refused to respond to my invitation to appear on Eye On Toledo, I encouraged people to call or email his office to ask him to 1) provide a response to my invitation and 2) encourage him to accept. I also encouraged them to ask him about this when he appeared in person at events or forums. There's nothing wrong in encouraging citizens to engage their elected officials.
But before anyone can take exception to the broadcast of Konop's personal cell phone number, you need to know whether or not it's already a public number. Only then can you make an informed decision about whether it was the right thing or the wrong thing to do.
Threats:
When I was first elected to the commissioner seat, but before I was sworn in, I had a death threat on my home telephone - at an unlisted number I used only for family and friends - and they left the message on the recorder. Rather stupid of them, but they did so. The details in the threat made it clear that they were familiar with my house, the people in my house and our daily routines. I probably would have just dismissed the threat if it hadn't been for the additional details which made me believe they'd observed the goings-on in our home for a while.
My reaction was to call the Toledo Police since I live in Toledo and also because I was the Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court and worked very closely with that agency. Because I did not want to encourage the caller, in any way, by publicity about the incident, I called the chief's office to ask about the best way to handle the call and my family's concerns. They sent a detective over who listened to the recording, make out a report and suggested some additional patrols in the neighborhood. It was suggested that officers in patrol cars would be asked to park at the end of our street to do their paperwork or during their breaks, to provide an additional presence that would, hopefully, discourage any unwanted activity.
We also took some additional measures and installed a security system in the house, which we'd been planning to do anyway, and went over the advice given out at most block watch meetings about being aware of suspicious activity.
Shortly after being sworn in, there was a break-in at the house. Fortunately, the alarm system worked - quite well, in fact - and while a rear basement window was broken and the perpetrator did get a foot on the table, the alarms went off and nothing was taken.
After getting the phone call from the alarm company, I arrived at home to find both TPD and Sheriff Deputies (LCSO) on the scene. While I was not surprised to find my local law enforcement personnel, I was surprised to find the Sheriff's Department had responded. As it was explained to me by then-Chief Deputy Ken Perry, the LCSO believed it was their responsibility to protect all county-elected officials, in addition to county residents, and they take threats against such individuals - regardless of the politics - very seriously. (Perry was my opponent in the 1995 election for Clerk of Court.)
Fortunately, following the investigation of the break-in (which was never solved), the police concluded that the break-in and threats were separate incidents and not related. But I know that when my family took our annual vacation a few weeks later, Chief Deputy Perry made several stops at my house just to check things out and make sure everything was okay. Though I told him that wasn't really necessary, he said he wanted to do it and, upon my insistence, assured me he wouldn't stop during his normal work schedule and take time away from his obligations to the Sheriff to do so.
So I know, first hand, the attention the LCSO places on the security of the individuals they assume responsibility for. But with the serious and detailed nature of the threat I received, I did not ask for a body guard so I wonder about the threats Konop has gotten and why this has become a rather public issue when prudence would dictate keeping a lower profile on the security.
I would like to see the emails Konop has received to judge for myself, though I know they'd probably be designated as non-public documents relating to an on-going investigation.
As an elected official, you get all kinds of communications from all sorts of people who use varying degrees of words when they don't like decisions you've made.
One of the easiest ways to handle such communications is to diffuse the issue yourself through conversation or response. Konop, unfortunately, has a reputation for not being able to do this well, if he bothers to respond at all. Is it likely that his reaction to such communications has escalated the situation? It's a good question to ask and the answer would probably only be revealed with an investigation of both sides of the communications.
When you've done your best to de-escalate the situation and it isn't working, it is logical to share the information with law enforcement. But does this warrant a body guard - a LCSO deputy to escort you various places, including within a well-protected government building? I don't know because I haven't seen the emails.
But I do know that the Commissioners used to have a Sheriff Deputy on duty for all the commissioner meetings. Shortly after Tina Skeldon Wozniak and I were sworn in, we examined the need for this person and Tina, Harry Barlos and I decided that we had enough protection in the building from the State Highway Patrol officers and really didn't need a deputy at our meetings. Besides, we figured we really had nothing to fear from our own constituents, especially in Government Center. So we asked the Sheriff to use that deputy more productively within his organization. And we never had a problem. In fact, I don't believe subsequent boards of commissioners have had any such issue that would warrant changing that decision.
So where does that leave us, as taxpayers footing the bill for all of this? Wondering, speculating and opining - which is all we can do under the circumstances. We do not have enough details to make an informed decision and it is likely that we never will.
So we are left with questions:
Is it likely that Konop is taking advantage of the situation in order to generate sympathy for his position and get in a few digs at a radio station he hates? Yes.
Is it likely that people are more angry at Konop's actions with the trampling of the U.S. Flag than what he expected? Yes.
Is it possible that he is at risk of physical harm? Yes.
Is it possible that the threats against him are real, credible and worthy of the concern of law enforcement? Yes.
Is it possible that he requested a body guard rather than have the LCSO insist upon one? Yes.
Is it possible this is being blown out of proportion? Yes
Will we ever really know the answers to these questions? No.
So some comments:
To the people who read my comments and other news stories or blogs about this: take a step back and ask yourself if you really have enough information to establish an informed opinion about the incident ... or if your preconceived ideas about Commissioner and mayoral candidate Konop are influencing your perspective.
To the media who cover the 'what' without asking for the supporting evidence to justify the 'who' and 'why': get the whole story and share it without bias.
To Konop: if you really believe you are in danger, protect yourself. Only you know the truth about that. But if you're taking advantage of the situation for political purposes, know that such a strategy can and will backfire when facts are revealed.
Also to Konop: while you have the 'right' to not speak to any media outlet, news department, reporter, TV news show or radio talk show host, your constituents also have the 'right' to hold you accountable for such decisions. Just because you can and should make such decisions, you are not immune from the consequences of those decisions and you should expect the public to respond as they see fit - which includes calling you out on the issue.
To the law enforcement officials involved in this: thank you! Your willingness to serve and protect is always, always valued and appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
