canyonwalker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
canyonwalker) wrote2022-11-04 12:26 am
canyonwalker) wrote2022-11-04 12:26 am
Entry tags:
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custode?
"Quis custodiet ipsos custode?" wrote ancient Roman satirist Juvenal. Who will guard the guards themselves? Or, as it's often translated more simply in modern times, Who watches the watchers? I thought about that classic phrase when I saw the news Thursday that Santa Clara's highest law enforcement officer, Sheriff Laurie Smith, was found guilty on 6 charges of corruption and official misconduct.
The most widely discussed of the charges was that Smith created a pay-to-play system around issuing permits for carrying concealed weapons (CCW). Donors to her campaign and people with prominent political connections were granted the rare permits while others' applications were ignored seemingly without regard to their merit. In addition to that charge she was convicted of concealing gifts given to her and blocking investigations into deaths of people in custody of law enforcement.
A conviction on any one of the 6 charges would've been enough to remove Smith from office. She was convicted on all 6. In a surprise move earlier this week she retired from office. Her attorneys argued the judge should dismiss the case on that basis. The judge refused. It seems her move was a ploy to avoid public embarrassment after seeing the amount of evidence presented against her— and likely an attempt to protect her extremely lucrative pension. Smith had been a member of the sheriff's department for nearly 50 years and had served as County Sheriff since 1998— 24 years. Update: Smith's retirement is estimated at $250,000 plus benefits per year. Because the conviction is on civil charges, not criminal charges, there's no forfeiture of her pension.
How should people feel about this? On the one hand, these are relatively minor transgressions. On the other hand, as the thought behind the quote Quis custodiet ipsos custode has been used in both ancient and modern times, those in positions of enforcement over the rest of us must be held to strict ethical standards. And while these charges may seem venial, when a leader is convicted on this many charges of self-dealing and coverup it is 100% legitimate to wonder what else she did that hasn't come to light yet.
Undersheriff Ken Binder, acting sheriff now, sought to reassure us with a statement, "The actions of a few people are not a reflection of the great work that our deputies do every day." Here's the problem... it's hard to believe it's just a few people. Smith was in the department for nearly 50 years and the head of it for 24 years. Are we supposed to believe that none of the undersheriffs were aware of what was going on? Are we supposed to believe she didn't spend 24 years guiding the hiring and promotion to all levels of the organization people who agreed with her? The sheriff's department needs a complete house cleaning. Fortunately there's an election next week where we at least have the possibility of electing an outsider (with years of law enforcement experience elsewhere) to the top job here.
The most widely discussed of the charges was that Smith created a pay-to-play system around issuing permits for carrying concealed weapons (CCW). Donors to her campaign and people with prominent political connections were granted the rare permits while others' applications were ignored seemingly without regard to their merit. In addition to that charge she was convicted of concealing gifts given to her and blocking investigations into deaths of people in custody of law enforcement.
A conviction on any one of the 6 charges would've been enough to remove Smith from office. She was convicted on all 6. In a surprise move earlier this week she retired from office. Her attorneys argued the judge should dismiss the case on that basis. The judge refused. It seems her move was a ploy to avoid public embarrassment after seeing the amount of evidence presented against her— and likely an attempt to protect her extremely lucrative pension. Smith had been a member of the sheriff's department for nearly 50 years and had served as County Sheriff since 1998— 24 years. Update: Smith's retirement is estimated at $250,000 plus benefits per year. Because the conviction is on civil charges, not criminal charges, there's no forfeiture of her pension.
How should people feel about this? On the one hand, these are relatively minor transgressions. On the other hand, as the thought behind the quote Quis custodiet ipsos custode has been used in both ancient and modern times, those in positions of enforcement over the rest of us must be held to strict ethical standards. And while these charges may seem venial, when a leader is convicted on this many charges of self-dealing and coverup it is 100% legitimate to wonder what else she did that hasn't come to light yet.
Undersheriff Ken Binder, acting sheriff now, sought to reassure us with a statement, "The actions of a few people are not a reflection of the great work that our deputies do every day." Here's the problem... it's hard to believe it's just a few people. Smith was in the department for nearly 50 years and the head of it for 24 years. Are we supposed to believe that none of the undersheriffs were aware of what was going on? Are we supposed to believe she didn't spend 24 years guiding the hiring and promotion to all levels of the organization people who agreed with her? The sheriff's department needs a complete house cleaning. Fortunately there's an election next week where we at least have the possibility of electing an outsider (with years of law enforcement experience elsewhere) to the top job here.
Kevin Jensen is more qualified
Just because Jensen worked in Laurie Smith's department doesn't mean we should tar him with the same brush. If you compare his campaign statements to those of Robert Jonsen, you will perhaps agree Kevin Jensen is more in touch with the needs of Santa Clara County. Kevin Jensen knows the ins and outs of the department, which will help him decide who should stay and who should go.
Robert Jonsen spent 26 years in law enforcement in the Antelope Valley region of Los Angeles. During this time the U.S. Justice Department Civil Rights Division released findings of stops, searches, and seizures, and excessive force against minorities. To be fair, the Antelope Valley stations agreed to revamp their policies. Eventually their minority outreach efforts won an award. Jonsen got credit for the award, I believe.
Jonsen essentially retired to Palo Alto when he became chief of police there in 2018. Law enforcement in Palo Alto and Menlo Park is a far cry from the challenges facing all of Santa Clara County. If you want to hear what both Jensen and Jonson, as well as all the other initial sheriff's office candidates said early in the race, you can watch SVPAF's May 5, 2022, candidate forum video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu4BBRpoR4I
Re: Kevin Jensen is more qualified