Campaigns for elected positions in county government can be sleepy affairs, especially outside of the major positions such as Executive and Council or Commissioner. Looks like that might not be the case for the Snohomish County Sheriff's contest this year.
The three candidates involved do offer voters a good contrast and variety in backgrounds. They all bring something very different to the table. John Lovick as a State Representative and State Patrolman, Rob Beidler as a Lieutenant in the Sheriff's office, and Tom Greene as a top official running the administrative side of the Sheriff's operations.
For the record, Tom Greene's response in the article is exactly why I endorsed him. Electing a sheriff in a large county isn't about picking the best cop, it's about picking an executive to lead a law enforcement agency of significant size. At least that's my view.
Programming Note: I plan on putting together a questionnaire for all three candidates to answer the same set of questions, so readers can judge them with equal time. Suggested questions welcomed in the comments
Posted by Eric Earling at May 06, 2007 08:55 AM | Email ThisKinda weird.
Anyway, I've endorsed Tom too, for all those reasons and more. As have many other Repulicans and Sound Politics members. He is at least as qualified as a any other candidate in the area of law enforcement, and far moreso in administration. He's very intelligent and thoughtful and capable. He's a good man.
First, while Tom does have administrative experience, the Chief said he can't make a copy of a document for less than 80 cents per page, as evidenced by a statement he made at the AG's public records act testimony a couple of years ago in Everett. TVW video on request.
So, the old boy has administrative experience, but seems to be stuck on lesson one as to how to run an efficient shop.
Young buck Rob may be ok, I dunno. Anyone endorsed by the union of the folks he is to manage though, scares me. I rarely find that the union's interests are the same as mine, with restrictive work rules and such. He would have the same problem Sheriff Sue has in KingRonLand. Sgt. Spinmeister tells me that Sheriff Sue can't do a smackdown on the troops when they misbehave because of the contract. I pointed my finger at his boss, and he says, whoa, Sheriff doesn't negotiate the contract, King Ron does. How will today in Snoco be different than yesterday in Kingco?
Lastly, Lovick. Now, I like John. He is my guy in the legislature. He is a powerful man. He listens respectfully, even when the Geez is not respectful. He needs to pad his pension---ok, take that back, but it did pop up in my mind.
Only scary thing about John is that he is owned by the misandric hate groups that comprise the Wimmin's Industries, and has an interest in throwing away constitutional protections (mostly men's) to keep the money train pulling into the Wimmin's Industries station.
Oh, for perfect knowledge, and a clear choice of who to vote for.
All are deficient in one way or another. Perhaps the race will heat up, and we will have additional revelations, so the Geez can see the light.
The Geezer
www.hatemalepost.blogspot.com
Are you prepared to actually argue this, this time, instead of just playing hit-and-run with your arguments?
You were apparently failing to look at all the cost of doing this job, and looking only at the cost of the materials. It's not just about "making a copy," it is about everything involved, and most of that is probably just finding the record to be copied in the first place.
Let's say someone gets paid $50,000 a year. And let's say it takes them two minutes to fulfill a records request. That would be ... whaddya know, a little more than 80 cents (not including the cost of benefits and so on ... and that's not even including the cost of the copy itself). I don't know how much the people doing this get paid, and I don't know how long it takes them, but it is very easy to see how the cost could be 80 cents.
Unless you think that their time is free? Or that they should be able to locate and copy a record in much less than two minutes?
I frankly don't believe you are being fair to Tom, either because you have something against him (you are an admitted fan of one of his opponents), or because you are just not taking the time to think it through.
But whatever the reason, your only complaint against Tom simply makes no sense.
If you disagree, this time please respond as to why you disagree, instead of simply repeating the same unreasonable claim over and over.
I don't know the Chief, save for that BS he gave at Rob's roadshow on public disclosure. The guy, clearly from his comments, does NOT believe in public disclosure, or anyone poking about his business. THAT is my bitch with Chief Greene. His attitude indicated he hung around with the big (and pig) headed Rick Bart too much. The Chief does not know much about public disclosure, as evidenced by his comments. He can only charge cost of copying, not time for staff and research. He clearly stated his cost to copy, not including staff, was 80 cents per page--see my offer of "TVW video on request"
His attitude was clearly hostile to public disclosure laws, and that is what is very, very scary. Other than that one contact, and passing him in the hall the other day in the temple of doom, I have no issue with him.
Public disclosure is part of running an agency. It is unfortunate you can tie them up, staff and money wise, by making disclosure requests that you have no intention of reviewing, true. But when you bring forth perfect knowledge on how to eliminate that, without shutting down disclosure, I am all ears.
What is important is that the chief law enforcement officer in Snoco follows the law. If he doens't like it, then work to change it, but he clearly was resistant, and I found that shocking, and scary, given the attitude of his current boss.
I certainly have no preference for any of them, if you read my comment. I am seeking a defining event, so as to clarify my decision.
Lovick is scary too, as the misandric and hate organizations composing the Wimmin's Industries have his nads in their handbags.
This is not the only dirt soon coming from Snoco.
The judiciary is up to funky things also. As Paul Harvey says, stand by for NEWS! on that one.
Posted by: The Geezer on May 8, 2007 09:34 PMProve it. Give me quotes, in context, showing anything of the sort. I do not believe you, and do not believe you can back it up.
The Chief does not know much about public disclosure, as evidenced by his comments. He can only charge cost of copying, not time for staff and research. He clearly stated his cost to copy, not including staff, was 80 cents per page
No. Without looking at the video -- feel free to provide it, but I am not going to make your case for you, and therefore I won't request it, but simply note the fact that you thus far are not proving your case -- I am entirely sure that you are completely misunderstanding what Greene was talking about.
You said Greene said he can only charge 25 cents. But he is allowed to charge for actual costs, not including staff time locating the record. So what he's saying is that the cost, including his staff time looking for it, is 80 cents. If the actual cost was 80 cents, then he would be allowed to charge 80 cents. The very fact that he cannot charge 80 cents is because that is including the staff time spent looking for the records.
His attitude was clearly hostile to public disclosure laws
Your understanding of the issue is clearly flawed.
I met with Snohomish County Auditor Carolyn Diepenbrock tonight. She said she thought $0.80 was low, that she believed (though didn't have the figures in front of her) that it costs her department about $1.33. Please, tell me again how $0.80 is a sign of mismanagement.
Carl
Posted by: Carl on May 8, 2007 11:58 PMMisandric hate organizations are those that are interested more in keeping the money train rolling in that feeds their next paycheck, rather than truth, and justice.
They are the organizations that resist an open and honest discussion of issues such as child custody, and domestic violence, and react when you attempt to engage them on the issues with ad-hominem attacks, and accusations of blaming the victim.
I call it calling our personal responsibility.
Want names?
Snoco Center for Battered Wimmin (but not men!) who do not admit that any female has ever engaged in DV, even though the latest report from the Florida State Law Review states it is about 50-50.
It is the Northwest Wimmin's Law Center, who are very true to their purpose, and very good at what they do, but are the personnification of the privelege princess. It is me, me, me. It is about woman good, man bad, regardless of the issue, or the merits.
It is about the AAUW, who recently came out with another "study" that shows women make 75 cents on the dollar. I am still waiting for the entrepreneur to fire all the guys, get the same output from women, pay them 75 cents instead of a dollar, and crush the competition. The Everett Herald had an editorial last week on this one, and refused to print my compiled analysis that shows they are wrong.
Lastly, the YWCA. Yes, that warm fuzzy "christian" organization, that teaches young girls how to become women, which has been hijacked by the DV divas, and is now misandric.
If you blood pressure still allows you to see, you will want to know I am against DV, have twice been a victim (I hate that word) of female on male violence, but believe that the truth needs to be told: that it is most often mutual, the result of low social skills, or watching too much Jerry Springer, typically drug or alcohol fueled, and that when experienced, public policy should be about healing families, instead of breaking them up.
At any rate, we should quote peer reviewed and published figures on all of the above, instead of those produced after drinking the Kool-Aid.
Both Greene and Lovick have imbibed in a full share of the Kool-Aid.
The Geez, and thanks for asking.
Posted by: The Geezer on May 9, 2007 09:12 PMYour exuberance over the man is similarly subjective.
The Geez out
Posted by: The Geezer on May 11, 2007 08:59 PM