1. I'll wait for further comments, but these comments have almost sealed the deal.

Posted by: swatter on August 8, 2007 02:28 PM

2. swatter: I agree, Beidler's comments show that Tom Greene is absolutely the clear choice.

Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2007 02:31 PM

3. After peeling said head off wall after getting blind-swatted by pudge in a record swat, huh?

Posted by: swatter on August 8, 2007 02:50 PM

4. Let's suppose, for instance, that there is a convicted Meth manufacturer who has numerous convictions for assault or violation of protection orders and he also has been found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm after his previous stint in prison....
he lives behind your home where you have three small kids.
He shoots guns all hours of the day and night and invites his buddies to get high with him.
Your house is burglarized and several deputies and the Sheriff of Snohomish county (who all know the family) all concur that it was most likely him that broke in.
You call 911 for help with the gunfire just so that some days you can actually walk the kids to the car to get them to school without fear of a ricochet, but first you have to explain to the deputies (more than once) that felons aren't allowed to be anywhere near firearms and you don't live in a "shooting zone."
Other neighbors call and report the gunfire. Nothing happens.
You are told that if they could just "catch him with the gun..." the problem would be solved.
One night a woman high on meth shows up at your door screaming that he's been holding a gun to her head and has assaulted her.
So, you figure, the "pro-active crime fighters" at the North Precinct will go back and at least investigate an alleged assault or make contact to see if she's crazy and to check on the residents of the home. Okay, that may be too hopeful, so you hope they'll at least walk around your property and clear it before they give her a lift home in their car. Again, wishful thinking.
But...you don't have much time to think about it because your husband is pacing around the house with his own gun ready to do their job if the scumbag actually decides to come in your house (AGAIN) this time. After all, he's watched them drive away and knows you called to report him. He's been on a meth binge.
Before you know it...it's time to try and get your three little girls out of the closet that 911 operator told you to put them in to keep them safe in case the crazy meth guy shoots the girlfriend in your entryway.

Now, let's suppose this all happened to you and the person who oversees the North Precinct and has SWAT experience, is running for sheriff. While he wasn't there that night (that I know of) should he take the credit for good things if he doesn't want to acknowledge when mistakes are made?
And, if he wants to rationalize it all away as an officer safety issue...what about the safety of YOUR family? The safety of the citizens that could be protected if the would acutally take the opportunity to go back and lock this guy up?
Do alleged assaults get investigated in Snohomish County?
Maybe instead of blowing off my questions and shouting at me, he'd like to buy my house and live with this.
Beidler likes to say that criminals will rehabilitate, relocate or be incarcerated.
My family feels like we should "relocate" since scumbag won't be rehabilitated and we feel we are the ones "incarcerated." We're doing time.
Where is this crime prevention?
Where are property rights?
I'm shocked that anyone who threw away the opportunity to investigate this and possibly take this guy off the streets, could call themselves "pro-active."
I have another word for it.

Posted by: SK on August 8, 2007 03:01 PM

5. swatter: hm? You thought Beidler made a good case for himself? I thought you meant Beidler showed himself to be a pale shadow of a sheriff compared to Greene. That's what I thought.

Beidler says he has "12 years of management and supervisory experience." Almost all of that is as a sergeant. One year of management in the private sector, and two as a lieutenant, according to his own web page. Beidler appears to me to be a novice.

Beidler incorrectly says he is the only candidate with "the support of police and fire in this race." That is, of course, false, as Greene has the support of many people in police and fire. He says he has the support of 100% of Marysville, Everett, Granite Falls etc. Police, when we know that is false, as officers from those departments have publically endorsed Greene.

Beidler dismisses his unethical acceptance of the endorsement of the deputies by saying he will "do no favors." Of course, that's what he *says.* The point of ethics is that you have to rise above the appearance of wrongdoing, and he isn't doing that. Beidler either doesn't understand that fact, or he is simply trying to fool the public into believing it isn't true. But it is. I hate to be harsh on this, but I feel strongly about this point. I've been involved in these kinds of issues before. I was chairman of my town's finance committee when we tried to deal with an officer's union that had run roughshod over the administration for years, and we were still trying to clean up the mess more than a decade later. It is a very serious problem for a Police Chief or Sheriff to be that closely aligned with the people who work under him, and I am not going to drop it just because he says he's proud of it.

(And the word is "beholden," not "beholding," for what it's worth.)

He says people who say they don't want the endorsement are people who can't get it; I say the people who do take the endorsement are those who have nothing else going for their candidacy, and either don't understand the ethical dilemma, or think that winning is more important than ethics.

Most incredibly, Beidler says he is running because no one else is running who has "the leadership, drive, strength of character, and skill sets to run this office." Praytell, Mr. Beidler, in what way does Greene not fulfill any of those characteristics *far better than you*? If you're going to say you are running because he doesn't have those things, then you should tell us in what way that is true.

You can't argue skills. That's laughable. You can argue character, but the people who know Tom overwhelmingly give him high marks on character and integrity, so you won't get far there. You can argue drive, but Tom's been working hard toward this his entire career, so you won't get far there, either. So all that's left is this handwaving at "leadership," but even there, you offer few specifics, and most of what you do offer is about Bart, not Greene, except for the endorsement, which I maintain was quite unethical of you to accept.

And I am not sure why you say "ask anyone" what the problem is in that office, since I've talked to many who do and have worked under Tom who support him and think poorly of you. It's a little dangerous to say "ask anyone," if you aren't sure what they are going to say. You keep saying there is a lack of leadership, but that's not what the deputies, current and former, and other staff I talk to say, except for those who, frankly, put blame square on Bart's shoulders, which of course doesn't reflect poorly on Greene.

Honestly, and this has been my major point all along: I see NOTHING in Beidler's qualifications that are superior, even remotely better, than Greene. Greene is better in every conceivable way. It's barely even a choice.

Speaking of Bart, I'd like you to respond to this quote from Sheriff Bart. Note that I do not endorse this comment, and I take it with the requisite grain of salt, but it is troubling, and I would like your side of it: "Mr. Beidler is in league with Mr. Aaron Reardon and the extremely militant deputy sheriffs union. Act as you may, but he is not Sheriff material. He has mishandled every command assignment given to him and is extremely disrespectful to his own command staff. He is a pretender with disaster written all over him. A Reardon puppet."

But I would much rather get Beidler's response to what SK said.

Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2007 03:06 PM

6. I want to clarify my comment about Beidler's experience: someone thought I was putting down his experience. Not at all. When I said he was a "novice," I meant that in terms of being the county sheriff, not a novice in the sheriff's department or in law enforcement.

Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2007 03:30 PM

7. I think Beidler and Greene are both strong candidates, but I'm supporting Beidler because he's a leader and I think Greene is part of the problem with the current condition of the Sheriff's office. He and Bart (don't get me wrong, I like them both personally) have had just one mantra for many years...give us more deputies. I like the fact that Beidler is looking for new solutions and smarter ways to work. That department could realize some effeciences and still manage to respond to calls in a more timely manner than they do today. He's shown very strong leadership skills and I have to say, I've been a little disappointed in Greene's debate performance...he hasn't made a case for why I should vote for him -- and originally I thought I would vote for Greene, but I really like Beidler's style and his thought processes. I've changed my mind in this race -- Beidler's a great candidate.

No matter who you support -- Beidler or Greene, both are lightyears ahead of Lovick. If you didn't see the Seattle Times endorsement in Wednesday's (8/8) paper, they hit the nail on the head (and it's so rarely I get to say that!).

Posted by: JustAnotherVoter on August 8, 2007 03:42 PM

8. pudge, sorry, but sk's issue concerns me more than others. So, I will wait a while before casting my vote.

When Biedler said he had 100%, he said those that voted at either a precinct meeting or union meeting. I never took it to mean 100% of the entire force.

As for Bart versus Reardon, I am so upset at Bart and his decision-making or lack of, that anything attributed to Bart will have the opposite effect on me. Bart should be tarred and feathered for not following through on his run for Executive if for no other reason he said he wanted it and then quit. Quit as in Q-U-I-T. He is a quitter and I'll never forget or forgive him.

But, I expect him to move out of town in the near future towards some other adventure and leave us hanging.

Posted by: swatter on August 8, 2007 03:54 PM

9. JustAnotherVoter: Greene has offered many new solutions and smarter ways to work. It is simply false to characterize his plans as simply "give us more deputies." He does talk about more deputies -- and thankfully, because I firmly believe we do need more -- but he also talks about the same sorts of things Beidler talks about, changing the way things are done, including further implementing ideas he's had since the 80s, before Beidler was even out of school.

Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2007 04:02 PM

10. pudge, sorry, but sk's issue concerns me more than others.

swatter: why are you apologizing for that? I said I'd rather have Beidler respond to that, too, than anything I said. :-)

When Biedler said he had 100%, he said those that voted at either a precinct meeting or union meeting. I never took it to mean 100% of the entire force.

At first I thought the same, but then he said, right after that, "I have the support of at least 90% of the Deputies," which sounds distinctly to me like he is talking about more than just that. If he IS talking aboutt 90% support of the people who voted, well, then this is even more deceptive, since Greene wasn't under consideration at all, so saying they support him over Greene because of how they voted there isn't logical. He can say he has the endorsement of the deputies, but to use the percent of the vote he got there as a percent of preference over Greene just can't be rationally claimed.

As for Bart versus Reardon, I am so upset at Bart and his decision-making or lack of, that anything attributed to Bart will have the opposite effect on me.

Again, I was not endorsing the comment from Bart. But I do want to hear the other side. I wouldn't ask you to take Bart's word for it, and I don't. But I would ask you to consider that this is a pretty harsh statement to make, and I wouldn't think it would be made if there's nothing behind it. But I won't assume anything, until I hear Beidler respond to it (or, refuse to respond to it ...).

I too am angry with Bart. I hear he's got a very high approval rating in the county, still: I'd imagine most of those who favor him right now aren't conservative political activists. :-)

Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2007 04:12 PM

11. pudge, I'm not too impressed with Turk's grasp of the issues as noted on his web page. Thanks for the notification, though.

Talked to my ultra far left liberal buddy. Their vote seems to be going Greene's way.

sk, I also got the impression that Reardon's task forces about meth are typical bureaucratic "appease the masses and do nothing about it" task forces.

Good to know which of them was the north precinct captain.

Posted by: swatter on August 8, 2007 04:58 PM

12. swatter: well, I am not too impressed with Reardon's grasp of the issues, or at least, the positions he takes on them. :-)

That video was kinda neat though ... !

Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2007 05:42 PM

13. Swatter: I am curious why your "far left liberal buddy" is supporting Greene? So far, I know very little for sure about any of the candidates, except that I DON"T want Lovick! I liked Tom Greene's answers to the questions posed but I'm curious how the rank and file view him. Biedler gave a few good responses but spent far too much time bashing his opponent and not enough giving specific proposals. Besides, if he really has been "in charge" of all those different departments in the last 12 years it kind of sounds like he doesn't stick with anything long enough to get very good at it!

Any actual Deputies out there willing to give an unbiased opinion?

Thanks!

Posted by: suzihomemaker on August 8, 2007 05:44 PM

14. It is good to read the three candidates self assessments.

Beidler did not help himself with his. It is mostly a negative rant about his opposition. I conclude he is not ready for prime time. He is very critical of another. His job resume, which though broad based is essentially as a small unit line supervisor. That does not translate to the needs of a large agency executive.

He says he bargained a labor agreement. He does not say but I guess it was as a part of the union's team once.

He says he has disciplined employees. No biggie there. That is a basic function of line supervisors.

He extolls his support base. Something any active, popular officer can obtain. It does not translate to an executive qualification.

He answers the question about recent public service that convinced him he should serve as Sheriff. He writes, "as several could see what was coming down the road." implying his competition. It that an executive job qualification? I will apply for a job because I am against someone else who is applying. Absurd.

He says the number one law enforcement issue facing Snohomish County is "Mindset." Wow! What a deep thinker.

He discusses stafing problems. Get a grip! Read the newspapers, listen to the news, talk with officers from other agencies. This is a universal police staffing problem. Just yesterday the paper said SPD was only able to hire nine officers the first quarter of the year. They need dozens. He attributes the staffing problems to his opponent and current Sheriffs lack of leadersip. Myopia defined!

Lovick had a long police career as a line supervisor and now serves in the legislature. How does that provide executive chops?

If a job applicant, like Beidler, spends most of his resume slamming an oponnent he has already lost the game.

I will vote for Greene, the only candidate qualified for Sheriff.

Posted by: Bwana on August 8, 2007 10:05 PM

15. We must remember that the "rank & file" of the Sheriff's Office is supporting Beidler because Tom Greene elected NOT to seek the endorsement of the Deputy Sheriff's Association. He didn't want to cause factions amongst the troops as the Office needs to be unified with its number one purpose of fighting crime, not each other.

There are quite a few deputies who are supporting Tom Greene as Tom is a man of integrity and has the experience.

In my humble opinion, Rob Beidler is a go-getter and he is more suited at being near the firing line.

There are those who say that Tom Greene is in the same mold or cookie cutter as the present Sheriff's Office admininstration. We must remember that Tom Greene's agenda as serving in the upper administration is to serve the Sheriff. Because he is serving the Sheriff, bucking the system is not an option. This doesn't mean that Tom Greene and the Sheriff have had radical disagreements behind closed doors. I would assume that he has. However, his boss is the Sheriff and he has to publicly support him. Otherwise, the morale and the effectiveness of the Office would greatly suffer. I would hope Rob Beidler would do the same thing if he was currently a Bureau Chief.

Posted by: FromADeputy on August 8, 2007 10:24 PM

16. suzihomemaker, I'll try to give an answer why this lefty would want Greene. First, he seems to be the more administrative one; Biedler, though, seems to be better liked by the deputies.

Lastly, and about the only things we ever agree on, why is the sheriff's office politicized and party affiliations noted? Why are the county electeds party affiliated (and if not on the ballot, they are well noted by the parties and newsmedia)? Shouldn't we all be working together locally?

pudge, your opinion on Reardon is greatly in the minority as Bart found out.

And personally, but my mind is still open, being a "bud" of the sheriffs is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes the sheriff needs to motivate and being a "bud" may be counterproductive. sk's story sounds true and I am taking it true.

Her story makes it sound like someone needs to exert stronger measures to solve these problems. The meth problem can be stopped in six months with the support of the exec, prosecutor, council, clerk and the judges. Support is also needed from the legislature. But that is the rub, isn't it? No one can pull it together.

Posted by: swatter on August 9, 2007 06:54 AM

17. swatter: since when do you care about the opinion of the majority?

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2007 07:31 AM

18. When the minority candidate doesn't show up.

Posted by: swatter on August 9, 2007 07:47 AM

19. I was all set to make a long comment and then I read posting #14 from Bwana. Hit the nail on the head! Then #15 FromADeputy capped it off! Both have the subject well covered.

As a Retired (24 yrs) City Police Sergeant I know what makes a superior law enforcement manager: Tom would make a superior one; Beidler is a line officer-not management.

Tom is the only one who is truly qualified. I wish Tom well, he has my endorsement!

Posted by: Old Sgt on August 9, 2007 08:58 AM

20. Here are some of the facts left out by SK. This is coming from someong involved in that investigation. The woman who claimed to be a victim admitted she lied. There was no assault. In fact there was no crime committed that night. SK also failed to mention that the bad man next door has been sentenced to prison for over 5 years. Thank you Sheriffs Office. Also, Beidler was the East Precinct Commander when all of this happened. Working day shift. He was moved North at the end of January. I was at the block watch meeting when he relayed to you that there was no crime. He looked into it for you just so you would be informed. He defended no one. He just gave you the facts so maybe next time you could relay the facts. You were fine with it that night so whats changed?

Posted by: Cop Friend on August 9, 2007 11:59 AM

21. Wow...24 years and you made it to SGT? You MUST know what a good leader is!

Posted by: GVL on August 9, 2007 12:06 PM

22. OK here you go. If you have questions, ask them. Ill check the site for questions once and a while. You wont always like my answers but I'll answer. My only expectation is honesty. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I certainly respect that but some of what is posted above is less than honest.

Rob Beidler

Posted by: Rob on August 9, 2007 12:13 PM

23. I too know SK's situation, and yes - that female "victim" lied, and has been arrested probably as many times as the neighbor. SK needs to realise that someone like her neighbor knows the law, and knows the limits that law enforcement MUST work within. We want nothing more than to go kick the suspect's door in, fold his teeth back and drag him to jail. The problem is, the law limits our reaction. And SK - keep in mind you are just one of many many many people in the County who have disturbing neighbors.

Posted by: GVL on August 9, 2007 12:15 PM

24. OK, I'll bite. What will Rob do to combat the meth problem in the county? As GVL has noted, crimestoppers are limited by laws, judges, etc.

How or what will Rob do to get the parties together to solve the meth and other problems? That means the legislature, council, unions (I suppose), prosecutor, executive, other cities and sheriffs and go kick some ......

Just asking. Rudy did in New York and the City is safe again. I am sure he stepped on some toes to get it done.

I do know I am asking a question that may be unsolvable, but I am still asking.

Posted by: swatter on August 9, 2007 12:37 PM

25. OK, I'll bite. Rob, first question: what specifically is dishonest, and tell us what "the truth" is.

Next question: You wrote:

There were several of us within the Sheriffs Office that could see what was coming down the road. We could see who was going to run for Sheriff and we were concerned.

What was your concern?

Posted by: Michelle on August 9, 2007 12:46 PM

26. Rob: I already asked my questions of you above: specifically, how are you better in terms of "the leadership, drive, strength of character, and skill sets to run this office" than Greene (and please, with all respect, don't bore us with talk of the deputies supporting you meaning you are a leader), and can you comment on the events that led Sheriff Bart to make the comments he did about you? Awaiting answers.

Cop Friend: thanks for some clarification on the SK matter. I am always leery of taking one side of a story (as you are a deputy, apparently, you know this lesson well, I'm sure), so I was hoping someone with knowledge would address it. Of course, now I also await SK's rebuttal ...

GVL: wow, that was incredibly rude and nasty. You have a problem with 24 years and being a sergeant? Your disdain for someone's longtime public service does not reflect well on you, or Rob Beidler, your chosen candidate: I've already heard many people say that some of the deputies supporting Rob are very disrespectful, and Bart said Rob is disrespectful, and now you are just showing that to be the case. How old are you? How long have you been on the force? What's your rank? Are you willing to put your service up against his? Why not just whip it out right now and get it over with?

GVL: I've been aggressive here, but I've not attacked anyone's service: all I did was say that I don't think Rob's or John's service represents sufficient qualification that I want to see for sheriff. I even came back to clarify that point. I have problems with some specific actions or policies, but not for serving, in whatever capacity. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement service -- apparently you do not -- but I just think Rob isn't nearly as well-suited to the job as Tom is.

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2007 01:17 PM

27. I don't know pudge, but I think there is more to sk's story than the rebuttal by the sheriffs. I think sk is frightened to death to live where she does at the least. Something the local gendarmes need to address, at least.

Posted by: swatter on August 9, 2007 02:45 PM

28. swatter, sure: that's why I said I await SK's rebuttal.

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2007 03:24 PM

29. The woman alleged an assault. In the field, is it the officer's responsibility to determine, WITHOUT questioning the other party that there was nothing to her claims? In domestics, does one party not usually get taken in? Is it typical to interview both people? Would it be for the court to decide the facts? Or does the officer look at his history (which pretty much everyone knows up here) and see that he's got convictions for assaults and many violation of restraining order charges and convictions? I've spoken to seveal different people at different agencies and all say they would have at least, given the history, questioned him.
He's done time after his first drug sentence for "felon in possession of a firearm" and my neighbors and I had been reporting gunfire for months. So, is it proven that he's violent and has guns? Yes. Was this girl scared enough to change her story? And, even if she did...was there absolutely nothing to check out? Again, how about his parents and son who live there?
One of the deputies told me that night "We want to go home." Not, as in, we're tired, but as in we aren't feeling like going up against someone with a gun. I didn't so much feel like it, either.

I wasn't fine with it at the meeting.
I wasn't going to waste the time of all the people there arguing the point.
That's why I brought it up here. I want to know what will be done in the future, should this happen to someone else.
Seems like a it was a relief that she said she lied so nobody had to investigate. I have understood from the beginning that she had credibility issues.
It was determined that there was "no crime" without asking any questions.
By the way-
While one of the parties has been sentenced to some time....the rest of his family still lives back there, and, his buddies have not "magically" forgotten where he lived and where they get their meth.
Cop friend- may want to check your facts.
The Snohomish County Sheriff's department had NOTHING to do with him being arrested.
He was pulled over by the Washington State Patrol and charged with Felon in Possession of a firearm-1st degree, possession of a controlled substance and disorderly conduct. The SCSO brought a disorderly charge which was dropped.
THE WSP CAUGHT HIM and CHARGED HIM. If he hadn't gotten pulled over that day, he'd still be running around with his gun. The prosecutor was asking for only 21 months when he could have been sentenced to up to 15 years.
99% of the cases get plea bargained.
The judge received a letter from 86 of scumbag's neighbors asking that he get the maximum. On the day of sentencing, the same Judge quoted that letter and sentenced him to 54 months. Of which, he may do about half of the time. The last time he did time, he was released early on a technicality.
Saying that Rob wasn't involved is fine. I said that myself in a couple places. My point is that if he's the new Sheriff, he WILL be involved, everywhere.
Anything else I "left out?"

Posted by: Sk on August 9, 2007 07:30 PM

30. It sure seems like Rob Beidler and his supporters have some issues with being questioned. Awful lot of attitude directed at the citizens and the taxpayers who are simply trying to get a clear picture before they cast a vote. I have tremendous respect for those who wear the badge (police or firefighter) but I have ZERO tolerance for the demi-god "don't you dare question me" macho crap that a few officers display. It brings down the reputation of the whole department and I am looking for a Sheriff who will NOT tolerate that kind of egotistical protectionism. I look forward to a response from ANY of the current candidates!

Posted by: suzihomemaker on August 9, 2007 08:33 PM

31. I find Sk's story to be very compelling and so far, her facts do seem to jive. By the way, I've been following it from the thread where it began on the post of Lovick's response to the questionairre. And she DID mention that the woman was also a convicted felon as well as the fact that she had been doing meth with the guy for 3 days! Obviously, not a stable person, but how does that make the guy above suspision.

I find it a poor reflection on the Beidler campaign to throw around loose accusations of "less than honest" and "next time...relay the facts" while failing to demonstrate what was false, and also belittling the service of a retired cop just because he happens to support the opponent. Perhaps this is the kind of thing Tom was trying to avoid, division among the deputies. Beidler should have done the same, but here you are. In all three of these posts about the candidates for sheriff, I've seen nothing but nasty attacks (with no substance) on Greene and his supporters by Beidler supporters.

And in Beidler's answers to the questionairre, that asked him to highlight his unique qualifications and plans, as more of a "so there" to his opponent, Greene. It reveals a lack of maturity.

Posted by: Michelle on August 9, 2007 08:37 PM

32. Wow some people have a lot of free time. I'm glad it's being spent in political debate and not criminal activity.

I took heat for saying budget was not a crime fighting issue but I did not use any slurs or barbs in addressing it. Bwana you just step right up and say Beidler is not a deep thinker for wanting to change the mindset of those who are out there every day and night serving to help them be more proactive and efficient. The fact of the matter is he has given enough thought to the subject to know this is the change that must be made in order to take the fight to the crooks.

Oh yeah and while I'm at it for those who say the Beidler supproters are being mean spirited lets remeber the first post after the questionare went up was from gezzer calling a detective "fatboy". I think we can all agree that any real debate should focus on ideas and not be about name calling.

Before I go any farther I'll throw this right out there. I'm a Deputy with the SCSO and I have been a Deputy since 2003.

Since we all agree Lovick has no business being a Sheriff or Chief we'll just leave him out of it although it is funny that everywhere a Beidler sign is a Lovick sign is soon to follow and when the Lovick sign gets planted there seems to be some strange winds that knock down the Greene and Beidler signs in the area. OK that was a little mean but I had to get that off my chest.

Suzi - you hit the nail on the head when you say a few officers have the "don't question me" mentallity. The vast majority of us have no problem explaining why an arrest or no arrest was made. We are limited by privacy issues in some of what we can say but we will gladly talk to neighbors to share information. This is what Beidler's philosophy is all about. Getting neighbors to talk to each other who then talk to Deputies who then talk with DOC who then talks to another agenency and so on until everyone is on the same page.

SK- It sounds like a very tough situation for you and you have every right to vent and seek resolution. I think I know the house you are talking about and I have made an arrest from there and if you are the same family I am thinking of you will remember my partner and I were trying to get photos and surveillance for a search warrant to find the guns when a DV broke out. We were not detectives or in any fancy unit at the time. We were just patrol guys who saw a problem in a neighboring area that we worked and were trying to get something accomplished. If you are the same family I am thinking of I do wish you would give my partner and I (and the SCSO as a whole) some credit for A. being there to try to help. and B. running up that driveway to help a woman screaming for her life. You may have met a Dpeuty one night that "wanted to go home" but that afternoon my partner and I risked not coming home to our families in order to protect the good people like ourself as well as the woman at the suspect house who for that short period of time stopped being a crook and became a victim. That being said I don't pretend to know all of what was going on in your neighborhood and I have not read all of the threads that this situation was mentioned in but please remember there are those of us here that will still run toward the danger to help whether it is at your house for your tweeker neigbor or at the Everett Mall for carjackers

Swatter - I can not speak for Rob regarding what he wil do to fight the meth problem but I'll let you know what I have seen from hiim on the road and what I know he has done. Partnerships are a big part of it and focusing on the most harmful criminals is another. Say for example I see a person that I know is a most harmful criminal driving down the street. I know his license is suspended and he has been told several times his three options are 1. relocate 2. rehabilitate or 3. move. I stop him and make an arrest for the license issue. Now I search his car and find his dope. Even if I don't find the dope I still book him. If you do dirt in Snohomish County you should get booked as often as possible. Now back to the dope. This chuckle head is going to want to run his mouth about where the dope came from so up the chain we go. Now assume this guy is on DOC supervision. Ring Ring to DOC and the guy gets a few extra days to weeks to cool off in the gray bar hotel because dope violates his probation and so does the driving on a suspended license. Another partnership is with the prosecutor. It is crucial to stay in touch with them so they know that this person must be locked up due to the harm they are doing. Here comes another partnership...Lead on America. This group helps home owners organize to keep meth activity out of their neighborhoods. How do I know Rob will bring this to the table as Sheriff? Because this is what he helped develope with the Directed Patrol Unit within the Sheriff's Office. Also keep in mind a great deal of the meth is now coming in from outside the US so federal and state agencies are crucial to combating meth. I do however disagree that the meth problem can be solved in six months. It wil never be "solved" just like coke, heroin, or prescription meds that are abused. The goal is to make it as small of an issue as possible for the good people of Snohomish County.

What is really sticking in my craw is for people to call Rob unethical for seeking a DSA endorsement. By that logic if some big developer has given money to a campaign does he get extra Police service in return? The answer for any candidate will be "NO". This is the same for seeking an endorsement from the DSA. We know there is nothing to gain when it comes to the next contract by endorsing any candidate. This is about wanting to see the agency head in a specific direction. Saying that ethics is the reason to not seek an endorsment is just too easy. I give Greene enough credit to see he did not have the numbers to support a DSA endorsment so he chose not to fight that battle. What everyone is describing is an us vs. them style of working within the Sheriff's Office. What we need now is an us (a united Sheriff's Office)+the citizens vs. the crooks. I know I'm rambling but I just got home and I'm fading fast.

Anyone else listen to the KVI forum last week? One thing I noticed was the two technology ideas presented by Greene as things he would like to see brought in to improve efficency had not only already been tested but both had already failed. Cameras that read plates (too expensive and not as effective as hoped) and card swipe readers for traffic licenses (would overwhelm the courts with paperwork). The one Rob brought up was exactly what we need to help keep Deputies on the road. Better report writting software that actually commincates with the other software used by dispatch, evidence, and records. This would cut down on redundancy (beleive me our current system is a soup sandwich).

I know I won't change any minds here as far as votes go but at least I can try to give a perspective that may be helpful.

Oh and for GVL...it's peanut butter jelly time...the pain train is coming...whooo whooo

Posted by: Monkey on August 10, 2007 04:29 AM

33. What is really sticking in my craw is for people to call Rob unethical for seeking a DSA endorsement.

Well, get used to it. It's true, and I won't stop saying it.

By that logic if some big developer has given money to a campaign does he get extra Police service in return?

No, because that is illogical. You are missing the point. You're comparing apples and oranges. The sheriff is not the developer's boss: it's not remotely the same thing. You are obviously a bright guy, so I am not sure whether you don't understand this, or you are intentionally trying to create a red herring by attacking a straw man. Either way, though, your expressed logic is flawed, because you are taking my argument and twisting it to apply to something it by my stated standards cannot apply to. That's a straw man, a textbook logical fallacy.

We know there is nothing to gain when it comes to the next contract by endorsing any candidate.

Really? How do you "know" this? Because Rob says so publically? Well, what does he say privately? And how can we take your, or his, word for that? That's the whole point of ethics rules: not to prevent you from doing something necessarily wrong, but to stay above the appearance of potential wrongdoing, and Rob chose to not do that.

At the very least, Rob Beidler chose to risk the appearance of potential wrongdoing in order to get something that he thought could help him win the election, or he simply did not understand that risk. I want a higher standard of ethics for my sheriff.

Saying that ethics is the reason to not seek an endorsment is just too easy.

Yes, it is very easy, because it is so obviously true. This, too, is poor logic: you're saying that because something is easy, it shouldn't be done. By that same logic, I could say, "saying knocking over your opponents' signs is wrong, is just too easy." (By the way, I've heard allegations that Beidler people are knocking over Greene signs, too. I hope it's not true, but since you levelled the accusation against Lovick's people, I figured I'd bring it up.)

Anyone else listen to the KVI forum last week? One thing I noticed was the two technology ideas presented by Greene as things he would like to see brought in to improve efficency had not only already been tested but both had already failed. Cameras that read plates (too expensive and not as effective as hoped) and card swipe readers for traffic licenses (would overwhelm the courts with paperwork).

Funny, I've been in jurisdictions where those things actually work very well, especially the card readers. Maybe they were implemented poorly.

Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2007 08:21 AM

34. I have a feeling I am going to end up getting about a million questions on this site so I am going to keep my responses somewhat brief.

#25- Swatter- The answer Monkey gave gives you an idea of how we combat it at the street level. It is an aggressive approach that targets the criminals that do the most harm. Right now that unit has a greater impact on crime and the criminals in this county than any other unit. When I say I want to change the mentality of the Sheriffs Office I mean that I would like all of us to addopt that crime fighting strategy and not simply be crime reporters. Become crime fighters.

As far as working with all of the entities you listed, we have had an idea from the beginning on how we may be able to do that. The list you gave looks a lot like my list of endorsements and supporters. That was not an accident. We want to move crime fighting forward and we cant do it alone.

#25 Michelle- I didn't yell any anyone. Thats silly. It was investigated, no crime. I am NOT making excuses. The men and women of the Sheriffs Office did what they were supposed to do that night. I know SK is not happy with that. I am not going to say 'they should have...' just to make someone happy or maybe vote for me. They did their job.

Second question is about our concerns. I am sorry but evidently I can not go into detail because if I write anything even close to critical of someone else I am painted as a mean egomaniac with a low IQ. I can only say that we all want some direction and a change in leadership. We all felt very strongly that the other candidates that were being talked about would not or could not move us forward in service and crime fighting.

#26 Pudge- How am I better at all the things you listed? I will start by saying that no candidate is better at everything when compared to another candidate. We all have our strengths. Tom and I have spoken about that exact issue more than once. Our strengths are just different. In his words and mine- If you could combine us you would have the perfect candidate.

You ask about leadership, drive, strength of character,.....those are not tangible assets. You can only get a grasp of those by knowing us or by speaking to those that know us. No person has the right to call themselves a leader. We all only hope that those around us call us a leader. So ask those around us about those things. Talk is cheap. I have noticed that those in politics say what they want when they want. It is sometimes less than accurate. The best indicator of what someone will do in the future is to take a look at what they did in the past. Do a little research and find out about the candidates and those skill sets. I am willing to win or lose based on that.

As far as Barts comments about me? I guess there are a couple main issues- Performance and the funny Reardon puppet thing. I am the youngest most decorated Lt in the office. Meritorious service medal, letters of commendation, certificates of merit, excellence in leadership award, DUI Task Force leadership award, bla bla bla. Just about every one of those has Barts signiture on it. Up until the day that I announced I was going to run, without his permission, we got along great. It has been a battle ever since. There is nothing wrong with my performance. Never has been. But by all means don't ask me. Ask around. Look at my evaluations and talk to my boss. As far as being a Reardon puppet....oh boy. Every person that knows me either in the police world or in the rest of my life would get a kick out of that. I will never be anyones puppet. If you knew me you would see how silly it is. Barts mad because I am a reform candidate. So be it. Also, he calls the Deputy Sheriffs Association Militant. He is clearly taking a shot at them. They are HIS people. We are all part of the same group of men and women that serve this county. One entity, one office, one agency, one family. You wonder why we want a change when our 'leader' has been taking shots at us like that for years? Sometimes in person and sometimes over email like you showed us. Thanks for sharing that with everone so they can get a little more insight as to why the Sheriffs Office is in need of change.

Last thought- Don't bore us with with talk of the Deputies supporting you- you said something like that above. Why is the support of the Deputies and the civilian staff not important to you?

Posted by: Rob B on August 10, 2007 08:27 AM

35. monkey-
your post is very well written. I'm glad someone inside the SCSO took the time to relay their perspective with respect and logic.

I know who you are. And, I have been trying to mainly focus my frustration with that night in January. I'm sure you weren't even at my home that night. I do give you credit for not walking away that day. You took your responsibility to heart and that is always appreciated. I've said before, I have close family in law enforcement and any disrespect to the job and the people in general was unintended and I apologize. Please note that I haven't once said "don't vote for Rob Beidler, or even endorsed another candidate. I will leave that up to people to make up their own minds. I started posting regarding this because of how Rob reacted when I did ask questions about the incident. I had people that night at the meeting and have had several since, tell me they couldn't believe he took a "tone" about it all. Now, I think Rob is an assertive personality, and maybe he didn't know how he was coming across, but when COPFRIEND says he looked into it to "help me out," he should have looked into it because he has an interest in sorting out this kind of thing. I'm a taxpayer and a citizen, he wasn't doing me any "favors" by doing his job, which is what he would be doing looking into something from the N.Precinct.
Rob's saying I am "less than honest" is interesting to me. People saying I was leaving things out just need to ask me anything they want.
I brought this up because:
It was a dangerous situation for my family

The SCSO didn't want me to ask questions about it

Rob was disrespectful and

His friend then tried to "take credit" where none was due, except for the WSP, for scumbag's temporary lock up situation.
It would be great if politicians would be open to being asked about situations and if this happened to a family in my area, I'd want to know what was done about it.

Someone said earlier that I need to remember that many many many people have disturbing neighbors. Which means there is the potential for things to come up again, and the fact that other people are dealing with this also is why things may need to be reevaluated.
That night, I think he may have been more "disturbing" than most. This isn't going to happen to me again, but could happen to one of those many, many, many others. All I've asked is that, maybe next time something different be done. Even just checking around the house to tell the occupants he's not out there.

I get the impression (first hand) that I shouldn't be bringing up anything questionable.
That's not right.
Beidler and supporters called me "less than honest" and said I was withholding information.
I think that speaks volumes.

The fact that a judge sentenced him to 54 months (60 mo is 5 years, COPFRIEND) tells me he thought scumbag had "earned" that time. That was after some of his charges were dropped. What might he have gotten if a court were allowed to hear about a potential assault with a gun? Even the judge thought he was dangerous, maybe he would have given him more if he'd been fully charged and not plead out...kind of validates how dangerous the deputies told me he was. One nice deputy told me not to ever have words with him, because he's "absolutely crazy."

I think we had a chance to do more and not allowing people to ask questions so we can look back and make change is not going to increase public safety.

My kids have missed school due to not being able to get them to the car because they are scared of gunfire. They haven't been able to have friends or family over for a long, long time. Every time we drive in the driveway they ask if I can tell if anyone is inside the house (burglars.) My 7 year old checks the security system lights every night to make sure it's working. My three year old can listen for the difference between gunshots and fireworks. She asked her friend on a playdate "do your neighbors shoot guns?" We couldn't leave our kids with a sitter at home due to the escalating violence.

This is all seperate from that night.

Lastly, I met with Rick Bart about this and he acted (may have been for effect, ha) like he was incredulous that they didn't question this guy.

I think people need to know where they should turn if anything similar happens to them or someone they know.
For awhile, we thought that if we all just stayed inside, we'd be fine. What kind of living situation is that?

That night, it couldn't have gotten any closer unless he actually got inside our home.

Best of luck to all the candidates, especially the ones that are open to discussions with the public.

Posted by: SK on August 10, 2007 08:35 AM

36. In any case, it looks like SnoCo will get a good sheriff if Biedler or Greene were elected.

Thanks to all the candidates who have participated. Mr. Biedler- especially you for the heat you have taken here. I don't know if you have convinced me, yet, but I definitely have more information than I had before.

As a citizen who lives in the rural area with sex predators and meth labs all around me, I am kind of in sk's camp. I hope you understand that. So, we deal with the situation.

Posted by: swatter on August 10, 2007 09:18 AM

37. Pudge...go cry me a river....You sure do make a lot of inferences from one comment. You must have really thin skin.

I simply mean that 24 years, rising to the rank of Sgt. doesn't mean you know squat about what makes a good leader. What else did this Sgt. offer other than 24 years experience? NOTHING. I know lots of 20+ years "experienced" cops who wouldn't know a leader if it was tattooed on the leader's head and hind quarters.

Don't mistake an aggressive attitude and a drive to make the right decision with a rude attitude. You are the one who calls people names on this site - was it "fat" or "lard" that you called Deputy Cole? It sure does sting when the zingers come your way, but then you just cry and say how mean and rude we are. Boo hoo. Get over it - if you're going to throw them, you better learn to catch them.

You say "Greene has offered many new solutions and smarter ways to work". He says this if himself, but has offered nothing new and smarter...please give DETAILS of his plan. This is because her has none - and the Everett Herald pointed this out - zing...ouch. AND - I'm sure since you are such the consummate political professional you heard the slaying Beidler gave Greene on KVI last week. Beidler speaks of his plans to reduce call loads, improve technology THE RIGHT WAY, and FIGHT CRIME rather than keep documenting it.

Pudge - you frankly annoy me because you pander the same hum-drum, "doesn't work" mumbo-jumbo plan that Greene is pandering. You DO NOT make a case for Greene - you only try to throw mud in the face of Beidler.

Sorry if this hurts your thin skin. If you take this as rude....I'm so sorry....

Posted by: GVL on August 10, 2007 01:01 PM

38. And Pudge - it doesn't matter how old I am, or how long I've been doing this - or even if I am really a cop. Facts are facts, this race is public, so don't go looking for ammunition to use against me - I don't want mud in my face like you sling towards Beidler. If you can't handle comments from us - just go away.

Posted by: GVL on August 10, 2007 01:08 PM

39. "Pudge...go cry me a river....You sure do make a lot of inferences from one comment. You must have really thin skin."

GVL, and you don't? At least Rob B. came onto the site, did his responses in a dignified manner and left. That meant something.

sk's comments also meant something. Ergo, I have a dilemma which is where I like it for my votes.

Posted by: swatter on August 10, 2007 02:03 PM

40. GVL: huh. It doesn't matter how old you are or what you do, yet you think it matters that someone else was "only" a sergeant after 24 years?

I asked a perfectly reasonable question. You implied HE doesn't "know squat about what makes a good leader." But you -- admitting you are a deputy, although now you back away from that earlier claim -- said "give us poor dumb ground pounders some credit. We choose a LEADER to FOLLOW...not to make him beholden to us."

So I merely want to know -- based purely on your own quotes -- if 24 years of service and being a sergeant doesn't mean you know squat about what makes a good leader, then what the hell means YOU know squat about what makes a good leader?

That's a fair question, isn't it?

I am convinced, by your utter disrespect for people who have gone before you, that you are very young and inexperienced. It's extremely rare that someone with any significant experience would be so disrespectful of a sergeant with 24 years of experience. But prove me wrong, in front of people here who apparently know you, like Monkey. Tell me that you have some experience that I should trust, so that I can give you the "credit" you claim I should give you.

Also, please don't lie about me. It's a shame that my tax dollars go to pay someone with such a disdain for truth. I never called anyone "fat" or "lard," or any even remotely similar names. I don't go in for name-calling. And I know no Deputy Cole. So why are you lying about me?

Same thing with your claim that I "DO NOT make a case for Greene -- you only try to throw mud in the face of Beidler." In fact, most of what I have said on this site about this race is in favor of Greene: his superior experience, ability, expertise, and so on, not to mention his top-notch integrity and character. I have attacked Beidler on a few points, but none of that amounts to "mud," as all are directly related to issues of leadership and integrity and qualifications. Stating the fact that there is a serious ethical problem with the acceptance of the deputies' endorsement is not "mud." Asking him to respond to an allegation from Sheriff Bart is not "mud" (well, not from me anyway, maybe from Bart). Asking him to explain how he thinks he has superior skills, character, leadership, and drive than Greene is not "mud."

Also, details have been given of Greene's plans. Beidler himself knows this, because Greene talked to him about it. They have been given here and elsewhere. Frankly, I am not going to waste my timebothering to recount it to you, since you obviously don't care.

Nothing you've said, or could say, hurts me. So don't worry about being sorry. My feelings aren't hurt at all, though I was shocked at the disrespect a deputy threw toward his elder, a 24-year veteran of the police force. It doesn't appear to me that I am the one having problems here: you're the one who can't take a little criticism and questioning of his chosen candidate without making up lies about me and making ad hominem attacks against his elders.

Still awaiting Rob Beidler's promised responses to our questions ... (I know you're busy, I can wait!)

Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2007 02:07 PM

41. Look up at #34 pudge. I responded to some of the questions up there. If those are not the responses you were waiting for give me a number to refer to and I will take a look.

Posted by: Rob on August 10, 2007 08:18 PM

42. Rob wrote:

#25 Michelle- I didn't yell any anyone. Thats silly.

What are you talking about? Did you read my questions? Nothing about yelling there.

Posted by: Michelle on August 10, 2007 09:15 PM

43. I want to add a few things before you dive in pudge. You put me in an alomst impossible spot. You ask me to set Tom and I appart yet most people on this site are critical of those that are critical. If Tom were to be 'bad' at something I would get killed for pointing it out. If Tom says something in his responses to the questions that is wrong or not true and I point it out I get killed. Here is a great example for you. I guess it is me being critical of you so it's fair. You said that Im guilty of the "unethical acceptance of the endorsement" when refering to the Deputies. You have been critical over and over again of that. You said "I am not going to drop it just because he says he's proud of it." Did you know that Tom requested the endorsement of the Deputies? Didn't think so. Two and a half years ago he, in writing, requested the endorsement. Several months later he retracted. I guess if it is unethical than he was only unethical for several months. Remember, I am not being critical of Tom. I don't think it is unethical. According to you I am beholden to them because I have their endorsement. Or at least I APPEAR to be beholden which is just aweful according to you. Tom has taken money from three of them. Granted, I have taken money from about 150 of them. The only conclusion we can all come to from that is that you do not believe that money indicates that someone is beholden. So an individual in politics takes money from a special interest group and its ok as long as they do not get their endorsement. OOOOOOOOOOK.

Two last thoughts.

1. Please do not put words in my mouth or responses. You said "12 years of management and supervisor experience", "almost all of that as a SGT." My 12+ years of management and supervision started when I was 17. At 17 I was a field manager on a farm. I had 6 field bosses and up to 200 field workers under me. That is not a lot less than the number of Deputies that work for our office now. In college I was a student manager at Marriott for a couple of years. THEN I graduated and did my one year in the private sector you so kindly slapped me for. If you want to add in all my years as Sgt and Lt I guess the number is higher than 12. I guess I didn't anticipate you and didn't go deep enough into it. Suzihomemaker- Those units I listed being in charge of were not gifts. You have to earn and test your way into them. Ask any cop. I have never been removed from a unit because of performance. I either left to take over another assignment or I was promoted and had to leave. I am very proud of the units I was in and/or in charge of.

2. I can take the shots. Keep them coming if thats what you want to do. But, if you do not know me than please do not question my character or integrity. I am the youngest of six and the first to graduate from high school. I am the only one in the family who has not been in jail and/or rehab, (of course I love them all to death.) I have raised myself since I was 17. That includes finishing high school on my own and putting myself through college. I have had very little at times but my drive, determination, and strength of character have always been there. You think Im too young? Ok. Not enough management experience? Ok. Thats judging me by a reseme. My character or integrity? Get to know me first.

Posted by: Rob on August 10, 2007 09:38 PM

44. Sorry Michelle. That was kind of out of left field from me. You asked about what was dishonest. SK said that I yelled at her. Not true. I noticed that in her later blogs she changed it from 'yelled' to my tone of voice.

Posted by: Rob on August 10, 2007 09:44 PM

45. Michelle- I am having a little guilt so to feel better I am going to explain myself a little further. There was more to the honesty thing I spoke of. I was also talking about Toms responses to the questions. It is not fair for me to say that it was dishonest. It was just not accurate at times. My attempt to show that some of the things he said were not accurate made some of you all mad. It makes it look like I'm just taking shots. Things like him saying that he is the only one that has disciplined employess or the only one who has written high liability policy and procedure.....gets my blood up a bit. I have done those things of course. Most likely more than he has.

All of this makes it look like Tom and I don't get along. We do. We just don't agree on lots of things. Thats different.

Posted by: Rob on August 10, 2007 09:59 PM

46. Rob, sorry I missed a few comments when I scrolled down, and one of them was yours. You're right, you addressed the questions.

I apologize for that, and for the fact that this is going to be a bit long.

Regarding no candidate being better in everything, you're right. Whether or not anyone has a right to call themselves a leader, I don't know. But you are the one who said, "We needed someone that had the leadership, drive, strength of character, and skill sets to run this office," which implies that you think you're a leader, but now you say you don't have a right to call yourself a leader. Further, while now you say no one is better than anyone else, you did imply that you were better equipped in all of those characteristics for this job. It's a bit confusing.

However, I won't press further on this; I only add these comments to let you know what I see and where I am coming from. I agree, what is said about oneself is not what matters most, but I was just curious about the quote about "leadership, drive, strength of character, and skill sets," and wanted to see if you would expand on it. It seemed to be an obvious shot at Tom. Clearly, you would rather not discuss it further, because -- as you said -- it's an impossible situation. But you're the one who was criticizing Tom in those areas, and talking about "concerns," so you put yourself in this situation, not me. Just be grateful I am not pressing you further for answers. :-)

I will, however, expound a bit on the effect this has. I've got a degree in journalism. Reagan famously said, "trust, but verify," but for me, it's "do not trust until it's verified." So I won't say you're wrong about your concerns, whatever they are, but I will say that since I can't examine them myself, I cannot in good conscience consider tham as valid for myself. I am on the outside looking in, so if you don't tell me, I can't know. If you won't back up the allegation, it is worth nothing to me. This is how my mind works. As a law enforcement officer, I'm sure you can understand that.

Thank you for your perspective on Bart's comments.

Now, I did not put words in your mouth. I said, specifically, that what I said was "according to [your] own web page." There was nothing about being a field manager on a farm there, that I could see, and no mention of managing when you were 17, or managing in college. All I saw was that you graduated college, worked for a year for Payless, and then became a police officer the next year. So I think I was fair: I said what appeared to be true from your web page, and explicitly stated that I was only going by what was on your web page. And I stated it that way specifically so you could correct the record if it was inaccurate. Thank you for doing so.

Also, I did not question your character or integrity. I was very careful to avoid that. That is why I said, for example, that Greene has "superior" experience, but used a different adjective to describe his character and integrity: "top-notch." That way I am not implying he has more character or integrity than you, as the word "superior" would imply, but merely that he excels in both categories, which does not exclude the possibility that you could also.

As to your question of me: "Why is the support of the Deputies and the civilian staff not important to you?," I never said it was not important. Now you are putting words in MY mouth. However, it is a cornerstone of your campaign, and I don't think it is important enough to elect someone on. As I already said in another thread (not that I expect you to have read it, of course!), many of your supporters (like the "enthusiastic" GVL) act as though we should support you just because they do. And that's just not the case.

I am on the outside looking in, and it is just as possible, from where I sit, that the deputies could be supporting the best candidate as it is that they will be supporting the worst one, who will benefit themselves but not us, the rest of the citizens. As I mentioned earlier, I've seen firsthand how a police union can run roughshod over the city if there's not a leader who will keep the best interests of the taxpayers and citizens in mind. To those of us on the outside, your actions as sheriff may be tainted by this endorsement, depending on what those actions are, even if those actions were the right thing to do. You may know you would "do no favors," and maybe the deputies know that too, but I don't. And I can't simply take your word for it. Ethics is about rising above the appearance of wrongdoing, not just avoiding wrongdoing and telling people to trust you.

And yes, actually, I did know about Tom. He considered it and realized what harm it would cause, so he retracted it. That shows the strength of character I was talking about. If he had stayed in it, you surely would have gotten far less of the vote than you did, so it would have hurt him less to stay in, since you couldn't claim the 90 percent endorsement of the deputies. He dropped out because he knew it would be bad for the department to stay in.

And frankly, saying it is "most likely" that you've disciplined employees more than he has is befuddling. He's been doing those things for far longer than you've even been in the workforce. However, your point is noted, but let me ask, since this touches on the resume thing: have you officially disciplined deputies or other law enforcement officers under you? How often, how many times (roughly)? It's not the most important point, but I am curious.

Also, taking money from an individual contributor under you is far different from the endorsement of the union as a whole. The two are very different things.

Rob, thank you very much for your responses (and an extra thanks if you bothered to read this whole thing!). I appreciate the time you took, as well as what you said, and how you said it.

Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2007 10:49 PM

47. Pudge...you're right....you didn't say that about Deputy Cole....it was someone else with skewed thoughts. I do apologize for getting you two mixed up.

And once again you ask about me - not that I care what you think about my background. But here you go, I have been all over the world as a US Marine in a Recon Unit - as a Squad Leader in charge of life and death decision making. I have been through just about every leadership training available and live and die by the 14 leadership traits set forth in the "green bible" in the US Marine Corps manual. Yes I graduated Squad Leader in boot camp after being chosen to do so by my fellow Marines...and I was not beholden to anyone. If you stick to the 14 traits you can lead like a General....or a Sheriff. This is why Beidler gets the vote. He displays all 14, and displays great character...which I admit I lack at times.

What I fear is uneducated voters like you who follow a paper resume. Remember - apples which sit on a tree too long fall. It's best to pick the apple while it's ripe. Two candidates running for Sheriff have NOT been "street cops" in a looooong time. The Trooper was a "highway cop" - not a street cop. WAY different jobs. And the administrator hasn't seen the streets in a long time and is out of touch as well. This "out of touch" leadership rolls downhill and truly does affect the ground pounder Deputies with unrealistic goals and direction.

Posted by: GVL on August 11, 2007 07:23 AM

48. GVL: again you say things about me that are not true. I have come to know Tom Greene over the past year or so. I am not voting for a resume, I am voting for a man, who also happens to have the best resume. Tom Greene also displays all 14 of the leadership traits, as well as any man I know.

Yes, Tom's not been a "street cop" for a long time, but he was one longer than Beidler. To say he is out of touch when he did it for longer than most of you, and it has been his job to make sure that you have what you need when you do go out on the "streets," comes off as complete nonsense to me. You talk about generals: how many generals have seen significant "action" recently? By the same logic, we should put Marine lieutenants in charge of the entire Corps, instead of having them go up through the ranks. I'm not buying it.

Thank you for your service. However, though I respect it and am gratfeful for it, I don't think it makes you any more capable of judging leadership than a police sergeant who served for 24 years. You're right that just because someone is a police sergeant doesn't mean they can judge leadership, but unfortunately, I can say the same about being a squad leader (such as the one who directed his squad to fire on Pat Tillman's location in Afghanistan, assuming that happened as they said). But in both cases, both you and Old Sgt, I will assume the opinions are valid opinions until proven otherwise.

My basic opinion has not changed: I strongly and without reservation support Tom Greene as the best man for this job. However, until this discussion, I was not sure whether I would vote for Beidler, if it came down to Beidler and Lovick, and I am now leaning much closer to Beidler if such a tragedy should befall. :-) I am curious: can any of you say the same about Greene? That is, do you agree with the Seattle Times endorsement that Beidler and Greene are the two best people for the job, or are you leaning that way?

Posted by: pudge on August 11, 2007 08:53 AM

49. I guess the idea or feeling that my strength of character was being challenged is simply my perception. Another quote from pudge above when responding to -We know there is nothing to gain when it comes to the next contract by endorsing any candidate- The response from pudge- "Really? How do you "know" this? Because Rob says so publically? Well, what does he say privately? And how can we take your, or his, word for that?" I am not thin skinned but I have to take that at least a little bit personal.

There was some reference to knocking over and/or steeling signs. Everyone believes it is happening and everyone says they are a victim. We have decided to let it go and move on. Lake Stevens Police arrested and booked someone for ripping one of my signs. I have a time, date, and statement from a Tom supporter about one of his people breaking and taking one of my signs from their yard. Thats right, a Tom supporter. I even have the name of the person who did it. We need to let it go. I do not hold Tom responsible for it and draging his name and campaign into that individuals illegal activty would be wrong.

Leadership- No person has the right to call themselves a leader. I am very proud that a vast majority of the Deputies, Police Officers, and Firefighters in the county call me one. I did say that we need someone with leadership pudge. That person has to be called a leader, not simply claim to be one. In speaking about support from within, once again, you said that "it is a cornerstone of your campaign, and I don't think it is important enough to elect someone on." I will admit that the support is not why someone should be elected. The REASONS they have that support is a great reason to elect someone. The reasons someone does not have that support can be a good reason to not elect someone.

Last but certainly not least. You said that it is just as possible that "the deputies could be supporting the best candidate as it is that they will be supporting the worst one, who will benefit themselves not us, the rest of the citizens." My perception of that is that you believe it is possible that well over 90% of them, most of the rest of law enforcement in the county, and a majority of Firefighters would do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. Someone doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons is certainly one of the definitions of individuals that are weak of character. They are doing the right thing for the right reasons. I believe that and I am sorry that it appears you may not. At least it appears you belive it is possible. They do not support me because they know me or because they believe I will do them favors. They support me because they know all three of the candidates. Like you have pointed out many times, Tom has worked in this county longer than me. You would think he would have the inside track, as well as Lovick, when it comes to their support. They support men or women, not tenure or resemes.

(By the way, I did read the whole thing)

Posted by: Rob on August 11, 2007 10:44 AM

50. Rob: feel free to take it personally, but it isn't personal. My default position for EVERYONE is a lack of trust; it's not about you. I do not assume anything unless it is proven to me. I cannot trust you, because I don't know you well, and you therefore haven't earned my trust. Tom's already been there, and over time he has earned my trust, and the trust of everyone I've met who knows him.

What bothers me is: how could you expect anyone who doesn't know you, to trust you? Trust is earned, not assumed. You say you take this personally, as though I should just take your word for something, for no good reason. Sure, you may have good reasons, but unless I know what they are, why on Earth do you think I should accept it? You're a cop. If someone says to you, "so-and-so broke the law," but gives you no evidence, do you take their word for it? Of course not.

As to signs: shrug. It was your supporter who brought it up. Tell it to them.

And yes, the reasons why someone has that support may be a great reason to elect someone, or, of course, a great reason NOT to. It depends on the reasons for their support, and since I am on the outside looking in, I do not know what those reasons are, since you won't tell us any details.

And yes, I do assume it is quite possible that the majority of the deputies would support you for the wrong reasons, because as I've said, I've seen it before, from the inside. To tell me it is not possible, or extremely unlikely, is to deny my own experiences. However, no, I am not talking about the rest, I am only talking about the deputies, because they are the only ones who would be under your command. I don't know why you can't understand that, but you and your supporters keep making this logical fallacy, attacking my argument irrationally as directed at anything but the deputies' union.

You can believe what you want. But you are running for office, and your job, as such, is to convince me you are doing the right things, not just ask me to take your word for it. Tom's been there and he's been doing the right things for a very long time. And you give me not one reason to take your word that you would do better, or even as well, as him. You just ask me to trust you, and I logically cannot, because you give no evidence, but ask only for trust, but trust is earned, and you haven't been there to earn it.

You were right when you said you are in an impossible spot, but again, you put yourself in that spot. I merely drew attention to it.

Good luck to you.

Posted by: pudge on August 11, 2007 12:25 PM

51. Pudge- Thanks for the time but I need to be done with this clear waste of your time. You dont know me so you cant trust anything I say. Ok. You made it clear to everyone reading that even asking for the DSA endorsement was wrong. You at the very least implied it. Tom asked for it as well and you attempted to sweep/explain it away. The $$ he has taken.....explained away. According to you, you can't trust me. You know and trust Tom so everthing he says is etched in stone. You refuse to admit that any of your statements are even close to wrong. As a matter of fact you spend most of your time defending those statements instead of constructive conversation. How do you converse with someone that refuses to be wrong.....? You refuse to admit that anything Tom has done or said could be wrong. And your love affair with his reseme is becoming legendary. I love conversations, debates, etc.....Thats not what this is. This is pudge is right and others are not so just try and convince him otherwise.

I mentioned that Toms questionare states he is the only one that his disciplined employees. I say I have. How can I win that battle. You trust him and not me. If I show you proof will you then trust me and not him? He says he is the only one who has written high liability policy. If I show you about 10 pieces of high liability policy I have written AND implimented will you then trust me and not him? I didn't think so. I can't win so why continue?

Posted by: Rob on August 11, 2007 02:34 PM

52. I do agree with the times as the article is written....Lovick just needs to step out of this race because he has no valid reason as to why he's in it - which leads us to assume...and assumptions can be dangerous. Am I to assume that he is padding his retirement which he has already earned from WSP - and now he gets another from Snohomish County? That's one theory I've heard.

And if - God forbid - this came down to Lovick/Greene, yes Greene would win my vote over Lovick.

If this scenario were to happen - be prepared to see Deputies jumping ship faster than they already are. The Deputies want to see promise for their future, and with Greene Deputies fear the same old, same old.

Beidler has touted his plan to reduce call load and use other resources to "document" your crimes. He has stated that Deputies will police in a more pro-active way - hunting down criminals rather than just taking reports on what the crooks did. He states he wants a better reporting system for the Deputies which also would cut paperwork time in half. This system has been researched nad has been used in other parts of the Nation and proven cost efficient and effective.

Greene wants computerized tickets and electronic plate readers?!? This does not streamline Deputies work loads as writing tickets and manually running plates is not very time consuming at all. This shows an administrator who is out of touch with what is really needed on the road. These technology additions would be handy, and neat...but c'mon. The SCSO has HUGE technology issues at hand, and Beidler sees them - Greene doesn't.

Pudge - Did you hear the KVI radio interviews with Beidler and Greene? You have to admit that Beidler came out as the best candidate with the clearest plan. AND - if you do know Greene so well - and he trusts you as you trust him, give him some advice...stay off the radio. I think Greene lost lots of votes based on those interviews which is fine with me.

Posted by: GVL on August 12, 2007 08:12 AM

53. Rob: I didn't say I didn't trust that you have disciplined employees. Can you not read, or are you intentionally trying to misrepresent me? What I said is that your claim that you have done so MORE than him rings false, and I asked you to tell me how many employees you have disciplined, and in what capacity. Instead of answering, you mischaracterize what I actually said and turn it around as a pretty comprehensive attack on ME personally.

I didn't "admit" anything about Tom because I am asking about *you.* You already said you won't comment directly on specifics about Tom when I gave you the chance to, so why do you expect me to "admit" anything about him? *I* am asking about *you.* And who cares whether I "admit" anything anyway? I don't matter. I am not running for office here.

Yes, I do greatly admire Tom's resume. How could anyone not? If you're telling me you don't, then that makes me lose significant respect for you.

To say I don't engage in constructive conversation is nonsense, as any impartial observer could see. I've brought up a large number of valid points and questions, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt more often than not, such as on the Bart quote. I've not pressed you to explain yourself when you're the one who put yourself in an awkward position. You say, "How do you converse with someone that refuses to be wrong?" Couldn't I just as easily ask how I could VOTE for someone who not only refuses to be wrong, but makes personal attacks against citizens who criticize him?

I regret that while before I was leaning closer toward supporting you as a second choice, now I am not, because this shows a very disagreeable side to you. If you cannot accept rational criticism without turning it around as an attack on others; if you cannot accept that someone will not give you, or any public official, his trust without taking that lack of trust personally; if you won't answer simple questions about what you've done; if you throw out vague accusations, then refuse to give details, then blame others for the "impossible spot" you put yourself in ... how can you be the leader of the Sheriff's department?

It's not about "winning." It's about informing the public. I'd be asking you the same questions even if you weren't running against Greene, or even if you were running unopposed, or even if you were already elected. You are trying to win an election to serve us, but you're acting like it's a burden to answer simple questions or take simple criticism.

I know you say no one can call themselves a leader. But I don't think I can call you one, either, because what you've demonstrated here is not the stuff of a leader.

Posted by: pudge on August 12, 2007 08:17 AM

54. Pudge - what exactly is your deal? Beidler has answered questions and explained himself very well. You just don't like his answers, and you clearly don't accept criticism at all. YES - a Sheriff or a candidate CAN criticize citizens and SHOULD. He shouldn't bend over and take it when he's running his campaign and certainly not when he gets elected. What so often happens in these campaigns is that the candidates kiss our asses and tell us exactly what we want to hear - not what needs to be said.

Sure Beidler is up front - sure he direct. I'm sure this is hard for you to hear especially after you are used to hearing exactly what you want.

Posted by: GVL on August 12, 2007 09:54 AM

55. pudge - if it were a burden for Rob to face criticism or answer questions why is he the only candidate taking the time to address this forum?

also pudge - please address Greene asking for the DSA endorsment in writing two years ago. Why is it always ignored with everyone just focusing on the second letter he sent out saying he did not want to divide the DSA. By the way I think we would have done just fine with the 95/5 split that might have occurred in the DSA over the election.

Please also address the issue of Deputies donating money and or time to the Greene campaign. Does this mean these Deputies will expect special treatment?

Here is what I expect in treatment from Rob when he is elected. Fair review of discipline issues (which he does now), technology improvements to make a huge difference in efficency, and a dedicated crime fighter who has a vision of the future.

I do not expect any extra consideration in regards to contract. In fact I think our current contract is already being negotiated and the incoming Sheriff will be coming into the process after most of the work is done and set in stone. Late in the process no one can come in and make a sweeping change because only a few issues will still be on the table. Issues like money are mainly driven by comparable agencys and cost of living, not at the whim of the Sheriff or the DSA.

Posted by: Monkey on August 12, 2007 12:34 PM

56. Having read all the posts about SK's situation I have to say that at this point it doesn't really matter to me if Mr. Beidler was on scene at the incident or not-his reaction to situation even after the fact is not one that I would choose for my leader. His grade school response to the danger this family was in is gross. I have a friend who has 20+ years with another local agency and I had him read the thread and according to him his agency would not have left the scene without contacting the possible suspect. It may not have led to an arrest but it would at least been checked out. We are talking about children and families here who cannot go out of their house - this isn't a war zone it's Snohomish Couty Washington and I expect to be protected from this type of activity. It sound to me like SK may have a lawsuit if someone in her family were to be injured by these neighbors and they would deserve every penny. This seems like something the voters should be aware of before marking their ballots. I wonder if SK has considered contacting any media organizations and telling this story so we can hear how the other candidates would(and will) handle such a situation.

Posted by: regularjoe on August 12, 2007 12:49 PM

57. GVL: he did explain himself fine on a few things, and not on others. This is really indisputable: he made direct attacks on Greene's leadership, strength of character, drive, and skills and said he had "concerns" with Greene, and then refused to explain any of that. And then there was the question about him disciplining citizens, which he refused to respond to, but instead attacked me for asking.

Sp let's not pretend he explained himself very well on everything, when it's a fact he did not. He even admitted it when he blamed me for putting him an "impossible spot" that he put himself in.

Yes, he can criticize citizens, but it depends on what the basis is. What is he criticizing me for that is rational? For disagreeing with him on an ethical matter? For daring to ask for details about his own claims? For not simply taking his word for something, but demanding evidence?

Every citizen should demand more than just an elected official's word, and no elected official should ever take that personally. That shows an extreme lack of maturity, a lack of what it takes to be a leader in any organization, let alone a public one. Every elected official must be prepared to answer basic questions, which is all I've been asking, and he's not. Instead, he comes after ME, as if I matter.

I am glad he is direct, because if he were less direct he might not have revealed his true self, which I believe is proven to be a poor choice for sheriff: someone who is clearly incapable of accepting any criticism, who takes a citizen's criticism personally, and who won't answer a citizen's questions.

As far as I am concerned, in this discussion Beidler has proven himself to be, for the time being, a very poor choice for any elected official, because of the disdain he shows those who dare question him. Maybe someday he will grow up and realize how foolish he is being.

Monkey: I already did address that. Please read comment #46. I ignored nothing. I also addressed MANY times, including in this thread, about individual deputies supporting Greene. I am not sure what is so hard about understanding how individuals are very different from the whole union. If you dislike any part of my response on these issues, then tell me what in particular, and I can respond to it.

Fine, you don't expect special treatment. The problem is, once again: how do *I* know that? Why should I take your word for it? The same thing happened in my town. No no, the officers wouldn't take advantage of the situation. Ten years later we were in a terrible situation. I am not saying this is what will happen; I am saying I can't take anyone's word for it, and that the whole point of ethics is to stay above the appearance of wrongdoing, and true leaders know that.

Posted by: pudge on August 12, 2007 03:13 PM

58. I agree, regulargoe.

Posted by: Michelle on August 12, 2007 08:12 PM

59. Regularjoe and Michelle. SK can go public of course. I certainly would welcome it. I know all the facts and I believe that any cop that also knew all the facts would agree with what was done. I will meet with your friend Regularjoe. I will give him/her the facts and let the chips fall where they may. I will even let that person read the report so they do not have to rely on my word. To at least some on this site it is being questioned. I understand why SK is upset. She does not understand the facts, law, or tactics involved in that call. I can see that if I started to sugar coat things for some people they would be a lot more understanding. That night at the block watch with SK I could have simply said, "oh thats terrible, I will make sure it doesn't happen like that again." I don't have that in me.

Pudge- Thanks for the response.

GVL and Monkey- just thanks.

Posted by: Rob on August 13, 2007 08:23 AM

60. Rob: so, you won't tell the voting public if you have officially disciplined deputies or other law enforcement officers under you, or roughly how often.

I thought this was an easy question for you to answer. I guess not. My only conclusion can be that you have not disciplined law enforcement officers, since you won't say that you have or have not.

I also wonder why you are so hostile toward a citizen asking these types of questions, and whether you will continue to be this hostile to citizens should you be elected.

Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2007 10:14 AM

61. Regularjoe and Michelle-thanks.
At least some people can get a regular citizen's view of how certain situations have gone in regard to requesting help.

I don't feel a need to go public, right now. A couple of people have contacted me off of these threads and asked if I'd like to tell the story. Obviously, if people had questions about my particular situation, I'd answer them honestly.
I've not been anything but honest here.

Rob-
I don't need you to sugar coat anything for me.
And, yeah, I get your subtle inference....

I'm not some idiot who needs you to "dumb it down" for me. I met with Rick Bart and he already tried. I wasn't buying. Obviously, I'm just too thick headed for your liking. As in, I'm merely conveying my situation, whether you disagree or not.

I don't need you to do me any "favors" looking up information. I don't pay my taxes as a "favor" to you.

I didn't want to go here, but it seems that I'm hearing more and more about "Happy deputies = safe public." There was a quote in the Herald about that the other day. (letters to the editor) In the private sector, many people are "happy" just to have their jobs...without the great benefits afforded to county employees. We do need to retain good deputies and people should feel good about their jobs, but it should never be a threat to hang over the citizen's heads. "If we're not 'happy', we'll all leave." Not every day is perfect on any job.

I don't need monkey to ask me to acknowledge that, yes, he actually did what he gets paid to do that day he arrested him for beating his girlfriend in the driveway.
No offense, Monkey, but you are SUPPOSED to run towards it and help. No extra credit given.

You, actually doing what you were supposed to do, is appreciated, and draws more attention to the fact that, on that night, the ball was dropped.

If, Rob, you are pro-active, and deputies have offered to go back and talk to him about the gunshots previously why would you not at least make contact with him and warn him or question what might have been going on that night. It seems to me that pro-active would have been to let him know that the SCSO was hearing things and would be keeping an eye on him.
Do you guys want to only make arrests of the very obvious nature to get the "credit?" Or, would you have considered addressing this guy, and letting him know what a "true crime fighter" you really are? That, to me, is pro-active. By going back and talking to them, the SCSO would have shown them who is supposed to be in control.

If I had called about barking dogs, sounds of him beating his girlfriend, or cries of "help" from back there, would you first have to know, categorically, that there was a crime being committed before you went back to make contact?
Or, do you ever just "investigate" issues and ask questions? I'm not even saying he could have been arrested for a crime, but nobody even checked out the facts. Victims of D.V. change their stories all the time, because they're scared. Something scared her enough to BEG me to call 911 and for here to stick around my house for over 20 minutes. Why, if she had drugs on her, would she risk getting caught- if something hadn't happened to her?

Again, Rob, I think you and some of your supporters may be mistakenly thinking that you are doing the citizens a favor by answering our questions. You can blow me off by saying I don't understand, if that makes you feel better...you'd be right. Because I don't.

And, don't think that I expect any answers to these questions.

I do, however, expect that you'll keep your same attitude.

If this had happened at your house, would your deputies have gone back and made it known that they were around?

Just something to think about. Which, I think is the point of public discussion...to get people thinking. That is still acceptable- right?

Sadly, in politics, perception is everything- you might want to reconsider how you come across. Not just on these threads. "Assertive personality" can only take you so far. "Open and willing to listen to other viewpoints" could take you much farther.

Posted by: SK on August 13, 2007 11:43 AM

62. Pudge-I have disciplined Deputies. Everything from verbal to written letters of discipline in their file. I have been involved in some that went all the way to termination. It's not a badge of honor, its just part of the job. Now will you kindly respond to the issue of Tom saying he is the only one who has given discipline and written high liability policy?

SK- Thanks for your point of view. We will never agree. Thats ok. You think we did it wrong and we think we did it right.

My offer still stands to meet with the 20 year veteran.

Posted by: Rob on August 13, 2007 12:39 PM

63. Rob: thanks for the response, finally.

As to the rest: are you KIDDING me? You won't respond to your OWN ALLEGATIONS about Tom -- your claim that he has insufficient leadership, strength of character, drive, skill set to be sheriff, and your claim that you had "concerns" about him -- and yet you demand that I answer questions about him?

Are you really and honestly serious? Really?

Because that's just crazy.

If you answer all the questions asked of you about Tom, then sure, I'll answer your questions about him. Until then, why on Earth should I, if you won't? I'm not even a candidate, or a representative of a campaign. I am just a voting citizen, nobody important. Yet for some reason you think I should meet a higher standard than you!

Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2007 02:37 PM

64. Thanks for the anticipated answer pudge. Or non answer rather.

Posted by: Rob on August 13, 2007 10:41 PM

65. Pudge - it's not about any higher standard. You appear to be the know all, be all of Tom Greene - and are definately leading the rally here on this site. Rob has been completely up front and direct on this site - which I know is hard for you who are used to getting your tails kissed by the prospective candidates. Are all your lives so easy that no one gives you direct answers - or tells you how it is or has to be? Of course not - why should it be different for our Sheriff? I want him/her direct - no matter what I think. Honest! If I thought different I would be choosing a different candidate.

SK - PLEASE!!! Understand that we work within the limits of the law. If we don't, we stand to lose everything we own PERSONALLY! Not only are we held liable as a County employee - but we are civally liable as well...meaning I lose my job, my home, vehicles, etc if we cross the gray line we hover over every day. Do you honestly think we haven't talked to your neighbor before? Do you think he believes that we DON'T watch him? Do you think he was just going to give a dumb chuckle and admit he had/has a gun and fires them off? He knows who we are, and knows EXACTLY what we can and can't do. We live in a VERY liberal state as far as law enforcement goes, and we just can't cross the gray line. We can't be everywhere, all the time. Our Deputies log into service and the calls for service are already waiting. The pro-active units are handling houses just like yours EVERY DAY. Feel free to look into the SCSO statistics and see how many have been shut down. The time, and situation has to be JUST RIGHT for units to act, to move in and get a SEARCH WARRANT which requires PROBABLE CAUSE - not just reasonable suspicion, or "the neighbor said so"... a Judge just won't buy it. We arrest people all the time around your house - probably going to your neighbor - maybe not. We work informants which we can't go into detail about. I bet you haven't even seen us - in unmarked cars, in plain clothes late into the night watching over your neighborhood, as time allows. SK you paint this picture that nothing - zero has been done. That makes us all feel real good about all that we have done for you and your neighbors. Even though while you are sleeping, we sit in the dark and wait. You have NO CLUE how many hours have been spent on your street in the dark.

By the way - did you know it's illegal to watch a problem house like your neighbor's and make traffic stops simply based on the fact that they are associated with that house? Even though they may have a headlight out, or they fail to use a turn signal? Did you? It's called State v. Ladson and it basically says we can't use traffic enforcement as a means to further our investigation into a house. This is one way we are limited. For example - a car leaves your neighbor's home and turns onto the main street and it has a headlight out...technically it's illegal for me to stop that car, because I was watching the house for other illegal activity - meaning I used the stop to investigate who was leaving the drug/problem house...therefore I am violating civil rights...shocking? YES! I have a valid stop for a valid reason, but because I associate with your problem house? Illegal. This is one of the many gray lines we dance on every day...We hate it - but we didn't make the case law. We just have to follow it.

One thing I will say is that Snohomish County has one of the best pro-active units of any agency around. Many agencies have modeled themselves after the SCSO Directed Patrol Unit. Requests for training have come from other agencies out of state. Idaho State Police has sent Officers to our agency to take notes on how to run the system properly. If you haven't seen the local and national news, the SCSO Directed Patrol has made news several times for Operation Gloves Off, Operation Clean Sweep, and many other smaller operations. They have been featured on Good Morning America as part of Susan York's Lead on America anti meth campaign (Susan York being a Beidler endorser). King 5 news, Channel 13 news, Evening Magazine and other media sources have ridden with DP units to see what we do and report how effective it is. Why do I mention all this? The Directed Patrol (Pro-Act) MIND SET is what I think Beidler believes in. As a matter of fact - I believe the unit ran at it's peak performance when Beidler was in charge of it.

I believe that the entire Sheriff's Office would run at it's peak with Beidler in charge as Sheriff.

Posted by: GVL on August 13, 2007 10:52 PM

66. GVL
Wow. You are right. Everything you say and think and believe is the best. Rob, too.
We will not agree on this, but, I'm just so, incredibly thankful that I have you to explain to me all about how the law works and how "directed patrol," has spent hours and hours on our street. I needed clarification on that, since, when I talked with the person who's in charge of directed patrol-six or seven months after reporting gunfire, etc., he said they'd never heard a thing about the house or my street. He also said "thanks a lot, now I have deputy chiefs and other people on my case." I'm really lucky you're around. I should just shut my mouth and thank my lucky stars. I'd never be bright enough to figure any of this out.
You or Rob will not ever get that I just think that if the procedure for handling domestic incidents (or alleged incidents) is to not question the other party...it's lame and should be looked into. If you'll warn them for other things barking dogs, gunfire...go back and check in and put them on notice that particular night when you have a chance. Aside from all the time you've been tirelessly patrolling my street trying to be proactive. You could be proactive by questioning him when something comes up.

But, again, what would I do without you to keep me informed about how little I know?
I'm done, I'll just go bake something and do my hair since I can't possibly catch on.
Have a really nice day.

Posted by: SK on August 14, 2007 07:08 AM

67. Oh, I meant to ask you, GVL, which law is it that prohibits us from asking people questions? I'm pretty sure I've done that a few times and with you patrolling my street as often as you...I don't want to get in "hot water." Again, thank you as I did not realize you guys weren't allowed to ask questions.
Hope your day is just super.

Posted by: SK on August 14, 2007 07:26 AM

68. Rob, see, you're doing it again: saying a private citizen has some responsibility to answer for one candidate, when you still refuse to answer for yourself.

Do you really think anyone is falling for that?

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2007 07:41 AM

69. GVL: it's not about any higher standard.

Actually, it is. Beidler refuses to answer some of my questions, yet feels indiginant if I don't answer his. But I am not running for office, Beidler is.

You appear to be the know all, be all of Tom Greene - and are definately leading the rally here on this site.

I do favor Tom, and have been his most vocal supporter here. So that means I should answer any questions? On what planet? Especially when Rob, the actual candidate here, won't?

Rob has been completely up front and direct on this site

That's just ignorance or a lie. There are several questions Rob refused to answer.

I want him/her direct - no matter what I think. Honest! If I thought different I would be choosing a different candidate.

Then why don't YOU demand that Rob explain his statements attacking Greene? He has been anything BUT direct when he vaguely attacked Greene's leadership, character, drive, and skills, and mentioned "concerns" he had. He instead blamed others for asking him to explain his vague attacks.

And for those following along, yes, I did say I would let that go, because I realized it was an impossible spot Beidler put himself in. But that was before Beidler began demanding that I, who am not running for office, answer HIS questions. I was shocked that any candidate for public office would be so bold as to be so blatantly and glaringly hypocritical, to go after me for asking questions he won't answer, and then to turn around to and go after me for not answering his own questions.

Come on, look at his post #51. He says that I "explain away" things he says; which, of course, is what HE did to things I said. Then he attacks me for not "admitting" I am "wrong." Which of course, HE has never done, either. He can explain things away, and he doesn't have to admit he is wrong, because the High And Mighty Lieutenant Rob Beidler is ALWAYS right. I, a poor, lowly, voter MUST be wrong, because I disagree with THE BEIDLER, and therefore I must be held to a higher standard than someone who is running for public office.

It's just incredible how completely unfit for any public office Beidler is; and, quite frankly, I don't think I could trust him if I ever needed to explain myself to the cops, because of his demeanor here. Don't keep giving me this "straight talk" nonsense, because my problem is that he isn't giving it, and that he turns around and attacks anyone who expects it of him.

One thing I will say is that Snohomish County has one of the best pro-active units of any agency around.

I agree, which is why I want Greene, who has helped make it that way, to be Sheriff, rather than put an immature and inexperienced challenger in charge.

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2007 08:01 AM

70. Attack, attack, attack- You go pudge. I have let you bait me into attacking Tom too much as it is. No thanks. I'll pass. I will stand by for the next non answer and assault.

Posted by: Rob on August 14, 2007 09:59 AM

71. Rob:

You attacked me, but for some reason it is wrong for me to attack you.

You don't answer me, but for some reason I have to answer you.

You attack Tom in the original post, before I even posted one comment, but you blame me for that, too.

You will not get any vote from me, and, hopefully, anyone else who has seen how immature and irresponsible you are in this discussion.

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2007 10:04 AM

72. Thanks for the enlightenment pudge. I am greatful that you have blessed us all with your wisdom and insight.

Posted by: Rob on August 14, 2007 02:49 PM

73. Rob: yes, because you didn't pretend that YOU were right about everything, that YOU were the one with wisdom and insight.

More hypocrisy and double standards.

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2007 03:06 PM

74. Mr. Beidler, I don't know you, b ut I know pudge. He's an asshole. As the Sheriff, you're going to deal with a lot of assholes. Since it's a political office, dealing with assholes effectively is part of the job. From just this thread, it doesn't seem like you've developed the skill to smile and talk nicely, suppressing the immediate urge to be mean and sarcastic, even when you're confronted with assholes who deserve it. It doesn't matter what the other side does, but you can't let that get to you or let it influence how you treat people or make your decisions. How can we know that you have the tact and diplomacy necessary to handle the political responsibilities as Sheriff?

Posted by: Just another voter on August 14, 2007 03:27 PM

75. I have read with interest what all of you have said about an old College friend of mine. I would consider Rob a true leader and a person with high integrity. I don't live in Snohomsih county but I do work there and it will be a better place if he is elected. All one needs to know is that we don't need another smooth talking politician who tells us what we want to hear but someone who tells it like it is. The best part about Rob is you will always know where you stand. Best of Luck Rob!!!

Posted by: Lance D. on August 15, 2007 01:37 AM

76. Lance D: Greene is not a "smooth-talking politician." He's a veteran law enforcement officer. And maybe Beidler is a "true leader" to the deputies, but it takes a lot more than that to be sheriff: you have to be a leader to the whole county. You have to be able to talk to citizens and other elected officials, not get angry and take everything personally and throw insults at people who criticize you or your decisions.

He clearly does not have the maturity to be that kind of a leader. Maybe someday he will, but he sure doesn't now.

Posted by: pudge on August 15, 2007 07:29 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?