By PETE SHEEHEYMy friend George Chandler and I have respectfully disagreed about the Sheriff’s role in Los Alamos for a long time. However, his recent letter (link) misstates what my Resolution (link) proposes. First of all, I do not propose to “expand” the duties of the Sheriff, but simply to restore a limited set of traditional duties to the Sheriff’s Office, and insure that those duties are done by properly trained and certified persons.
I consulted the County Attorney about how to phrase the Resolution in a way that maintains the law enforcement mandate of the Police Department. The Sheriff is not authorized by the Resolution to “arbitrarily” take over any investigation, only if there is reasonable belief that an investigation would be compromised if carried out by the Police Department. I never proposed “handing over the jail, and buying a pickup to pull the sheriff’s horse trailer” or “dismantling the police department”.
Restoring the duties I have proposed to the Sheriff’s Office is fiscally responsible, because a full-time deputy can perform these duties more efficiently than contract personnel or police officers on overtime.
The citizens who voted to retain an elected Sheriff clearly wanted a functional if limited Sheriff’s Office, not simply to have a Sheriff “for parades”.
I hope our citizens and Council will debate my proposal on its merits, and not continue the ongoing distortions of the last several years.
