Sheriff Corpus must go

Good afternoon, Nancy

I do not see a rebuttal to Jim’s letter in your 10:54 am post, but there is another false and misleading claim of “election invalidation” in your words. There is nothing illegal about voters supporting Measure A three weeks from now. Suggesting there is some sort of political sleight of hand pushing removal of the sheriff through a temporary charter amendment is a false narrative. To be sure, you unquestionably prefer a ballot recall, but the people will decide if Measure A is an appropriate way to remove the sheriff.

Question… Exactly who or what is the “special-interest” backing the charter amendment?

Next question… You claim, “Measure A is election denialism in its rankest form.” Why would you deny the people an opportunity to democratically make a choice about whether the sheriff should remain in office?

You believe there has not been time for a “full ad [sic] fair debate of the issues.” Are you suggesting the sheriff has not had an opportunity to address the claims by Sheriff’s Office deputies and commanders about the sheriff’s misconduct and (in the words of the LTE’s author, the “… absolute disregard for the proper administration of the office and public safety”? The sheriff has spent plenty of time disputing what she claims are lies and efforts to target her due to her gender and race. However, we really haven’t heard from her a persuasive and fact-based refutation of Judge Cordell’s substantiated findings.

Final question… one that I have asked you twice before… Do you have any comments concerning the reasons why the sheriff should be removed from office? Those reasons, documented in Judge Cordell’s 408-page report, include the sheriff's use of racial and homophobic slurs, retaliation against deputies and intimidation of other employees as well as the conflict of interest created by the sheriff’s personal relationship with a former reserve deputy that she hired to join the Sheriff’s Office command staff. Do you have any comments on those issues?