At this point (and my mind could change), I would think that appointing the Sheriff position would not be good.
When a new police chief is appointed a search is conducted for a person with philosophies that match the current political climate and current board/commissioners. If that board/commissioners are not doing what the public wants then the public would have no recourse with the new appointee. In other words, if the current mayor appointed people who would have tenures extending beyond the term of the current mayor the political ideology of the mayor could continue in that department. Police departments are very political beasts. The new chief then negotiates salary, benefits and perks and gets a contract for a specified period of time, with a great bail out package. No new chief would take a job, or leave an existing job without these safety net type provisions. So suddenly we have someone who is not as accountable as you would think. The person can be "fired" but it usually costs more to fire them than to let them serve out the contract. The public doesn't really have direct say on who the new chief is. In a round about sense they do, by electing the people who do the appointing, but as far as the appointment goes the new chief is not voted on by the tax paying public. The new chiefs salary and benefit package is not set by the board, but rather negotiated and re-negotiated as necessary. Good thing if you have a really good person in the position, bad thing if you want to get rid of someone in that position. Remember that the police chief is responsible for enforcing laws and running a department in a smaller geographic area, where he answers to one board/mayor. The sheriff works a larger geographic area and has to deal with many boards/mayors and many different political environments and municipalities throughout the whole county, as well as the county board. By being able to vote directly for who is the Sheriff it gives the people the right/ability to decide who the Sheriff is going to be. It makes the Sheriff directly responsible to the people who vote rather than responsible to a board/commission. When a bad sheriff is in office, like any other office where you disagree, it seems forever until the next election, and the power of incumbency is there, however, you can work to remove that person through an election. Not having people using pressure on some board/commission to take action against someone doing something they disagree with. I just think it would be a mistake to take the peoples right to vote for their sheriff away. Good sheriff's are elected and bad sheriff's are elected. But, the people vote and can put the person out of office every 4 years. If a bad sheriff were appointed and the board wasn't going to do anything to remove them, it could be a lot longer than 4 years before the appointment was removed. A bad or good sheriff is in the eyes of the beholder, as with all political offices. So a bad sheriff to you may be a good sheriff to someone else. By allowing a board to decide who the sheriff is you are saying that the board is smarter/better equipped to make the decision who the sheriff should be, more so than the voters. I sometimes think that about the way elections turn out, but know that the next time I can work to change the results. Whether Judges should be elected or appointed is another can of worms. Very few people who vote know anything about the judges on the ballot. However, appointing judges runs into many of the same problems as appointing the sheriff. I would just like to see the judicial candidates more visible and their records made more public. Tom Thompson Como Park _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
