As the debate rages, many voters feel that opening this position to political appointment is an open invitation to cronyism. With issues such as the Mayor’s not so distant selection of ProLogic as an IT vendor, multiple City Council ethics complaints and the Trail Ridge Landfill debate fresh in their memories, those concerns may be valid.  City Hall has not gained the trust of the people of late and political appointments signal a further loss of control for the constituency.

In some cities political appointments may be a reasonable course of selection for a city police chief, but Jacksonville is different.  The City of Jacksonville, in all reality, is a county; and county sheriffs are elected officials.  Dr. Michael Hallett of UNF has led the debate and pointed to metropolitan areas with similar populations as examples of the appointment process, but Jacksonville does not fit that mold.  The cities he has cited already have some form of layered law enforcement, consisting of both city and county agencies, built into their infrastructure and budgets.

Jacksonville’s constabulary is unique, it does not have the luxury of other jurisdictions to rely upon and is the sole countywide law enforcement agency.  As a result of consolidation there is no Jacksonville Metro Police Department, only the JSO.  The Sheriff’s Office is the lone front on Jacksonville’s crime fighting efforts and this makes the Office of the Sheriff too important of a post to allow politicians to choose its occupant.   To leave the choice for that position up to elected leaders is a dangerous proposition.  By appointing the Sheriff, police unions and citizens are disadvantaged and lose their voice in a lopsided balance of power when contending with an  appointed Sheriff.

Local leadership has not proven that they can always be trusted in making sound political judgments.  Too often, rules have been overlooked to ensure that political supporters and allies are taken care of after an election, while qualification requirements take a back seat to favoritism and political pandering.  This sort of behavior may be easily overlooked when it impacts a back-office support staff, such as an IT department; when those ethical boundaries are blurred by influence, legitimate selection of the chief law enforcement officer is impeded.   That process poses a danger for both the officers in uniform and local residents alike.

Imagine a day in Jacksonville when the Sheriff is in the pocket of the Mayor and City Council.  Crime fighting initiatives and collective bargaining power would become homogenized and too susceptible to political influence.  The citizens of Duval County and the men and women of law enforcement (who are voters too) are essentially stripped of representative democracy and the right to choose who enforces the rule of law.

Historically, when representative democracies have crumbled, it has always begun with dismantling citizen oversight of a legitimate police force.  When the power of local law enforcement is left to appointment and not election, the freedom of choice is eroded.  In order for the citizenry to ensure that doesn’t happen in Duval County, the Office of Sheriff must remain an independently elected office.

I was  disappointed to learn recently that Sheriff John Rutherford was intimately involved in the negotiations of the compromise language of the Bad Cops Bill - the version that was ultimately passed by the Legislature.   When the Sheriffs Association (and the Police Chiefs Association) decided as the bill neared passage in the Senate not to support the compromise language (and having read the bill and the Miami-Dade Police Chief's letter to the editor, I can understand why they might have changed their minds considering the taint that might rub off on them from the bill), Sheriff Rutherford quit the Sheriff's association.  While I don't know the reasoning behind Sheriff Rutherford quitting the association, I do know that I can't possibly agree with or support the bill he apparently played a large part in negotiating.  If these are the kind of bills our Sheriff is going to support, it must be time for Jaxpolitics to kick off the citizen's review panel crusade.

The bill wasn't just an idea someone thought up.  It wasn't even meant to address a situation where a police officer was treated unfairly, but instead arose to address a real situation according to a St. Pete Times editorial that calls for the Governor to veto the legislation.  According to that editorial, the bill was proposed in the wake of four Tampa police officers being fired or forced to resign in December after investigators using GPS technology found they had gone home or to other jobs during the time they were supposed to be on duty.

The bill also makes it easy for bad officers to avoid punishment by tying up the disciplinary process. Officers who feel unfairly treated by investigators could request an internal review. Then the games start. Officers could bounce an investigator off the case, delay the proceedings and effectively shop for lenient colleagues to rule on their case. This would gut the ability of internal affairs investigators to do their jobs and make internal affairs a dead-end career move.

Police chiefs and sheriffs understand that their ability to self-police the ranks is the only defense against any public call for citizen review panels. This legislation would move Florida away from the great strides it has taken in professionalizing the police forces. No wonder, then, that the Florida Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Associations object to the bill. "This is a bad law that helps bad cops," Tampa police Chief Stephen Hogue wrote the governor last week.

Not one of Jacksonville's legislative representatives voted against this bill, which should give you a good indication of where their priorities lie - looking for support for reelection in 2010.  If the Governor doesn't veto this bill (as has been requested by numerous parties), look for Jaxpolitics to begin a very public crusade for a citizens review board here in Jacksonville.

Read the entire St. Pete Times editorial here.

Even though I have not supported citizen review boards in the past, if the FOP is successful in their quest to close proceedings, I will be more than happy to join in the chorus to call for a citizens review board.  It is bad enough that the Legislature is currently considering a bill that would allow for police officers to corroborate their stories, i.e., get their stories straight, prior to investigation of incidents where two or more officers are involved.

I found two proposed Jacksonville projects of particular interest. 

Jax Muncipal Stadium HVAC upgrade

$2,500,000.00 - 10 jobs - Energy Program

Sheriffs Office Gun Range Upgrade

$1,000,000.00 - 5 jobs - Public Safety Program

15 jobs at a cost of $3.5 million?  Seems a little pricey even in Jacksonville terms. 

For the rest of the Jacksonville list, click here.

"Some of the points include making it tougher for crooks to get their hands on guns.
He says people should not leave guns in their cars and should properly store them at home. 
He also wants people to report stolen guns right away to cut down on traffickers
He also suggests doing background checks at gun shows and making sure gun buyers have purchasing permits.

Here's a link to the report issued by Rutherford on JSO's response to resistance and the rise in gun violence in Jacksonville.

Harry Shorstein, who also participated on the panel, was busy pointing out that the sheriff often ignored his criticisms and suggestion on handling officers involved in shootings.  And the sheriff responded by telling Harry he didn't know what he was talking about.  Now that's a productive conversation, isn't it?

In the meantime panelist Nelson Cuba was busy winning friends and influencing Jacksonville's citizens by sharply criticizing fellow panelist Isaiah Rumlin, the leader of the local NAACP.  Geez....hadn't Nelson already offended enough of Jacksonville's citizenry yesterday with his threats to sue the City, i.e., us taxpayers,  if we don't fork over early retirement benefits and guaranteed cost of living raises to corrections officers and then calling City Council members dishonest today? 

Before the kettle goes to calling the pot black, Nelson might want to recall the Ethics Office and IG Office investigation  last spring (2008-4) into the Mayor's Hispanic American Advisory Board during his term of leadership which found improper procedures pertaining to purchases (17 of them in total - of which 6 had memos from the Mayor's Office warning them to follow the correct procedures, with an E-mail informing the Board of the correct procedures issued prior to the last 3) and a lack of board meeting minutes - sunshine law/open government violations.

If you missed the debate tonight, the broadcast will re-air 6:30 p.m. Sunday on TV-7. It will also be shown 8 p.m. Feb. 1 and 6:30 p.m. Feb. 4.

Most recently, the City enacted the following measures: 

In 2005, City Council passed a bill (2005-373) to allow retired correctional & police officers to be employed as temporary part time Court Bailiffs or temporary Logistical & Technical Support Officers in JSO to serve as city employees without losing pension benefits.  

In 2006, City Council passed a bill (2006-1391) to allow any time service retiree of the City of Jacksonville General Employee Retiement Plan to return to work on a part-time or temporary basis without losing their retirement benefits.

And just this past year, City Council passed 2008-341 which allows post-retirement re-employment by JSO in positions of Mail Coordinators, Aviation Supervisor, Court Bailiff Supervisor & Corrections Bond Custodian and allows them to retain their pensions.

Although this is not technically double-dipping in that these employees do not participate in the City's pension fund, these employees are being rehired and paid City salaries while still collecting their pension benefits. 

So does the City have its own form of "double dipping"?  In the words of Sarah Palin - you betcha.