Worser and Worser for SLO County Sheriff's Department
TO: SLO County Supervisors, Jim Patterson, and, Bruce Gibson
DATE: 9/22/10
Dear Supervisors Patterson and Gibson,
I'm researching a story, and I just have one quick question:
At yesterday's meeting, both of you voted to put the design of the women's jail expansion on hold until February 2011.
However, at an October 14, 2008 budget hearing, where the exact item was before your board -- an update on the women's jail expansion -- both of you voted to proceed with the design.
At the October 14, 2008 meeting, Chief Deputy, Rob Reid, gave a presentation on that item, however, at that meeting, Chief Deputy Reid failed to mention alternatives to incarceration, like 2007's SB 959, and, as you'll see if you review the video of that hearing, the only two choices that were presented to your Board by Reid were to either move forward with the expansion, or put the county at risk for litigation due to the overcrowded women's jail.
However, at yesterday's meeting, county staff gave a similar presentation to your board, as they did in 2008, involving the women's jail project, but this time, Chief Deputy Reid included a discussion on "alternatives to incarceration."
So, look what happened here:
At the October 2008 meeting, when you were presented with only two alternatives -- expand the jail or face potential litigation -- both of you voted to proceed with design (at a cost of over $1 million), however, when you were presented with a third alternative -- the "alternatives to incarceration" discussion (including SB 959) -- by Chief Deputy Reid, then both of you voted to put the project on hold.
Here's my one question:
Considering that the only major difference in the two presentations of 2008 and 2010 was that Chief Deputy Reid included the "alternatives to incarceration" in his second presentation to your board involving the funding of the women's jail expansion, is it fair to say that had Chief Deputy Reid included the "alternatives to incarceration" in his FIRST, 2008 presentation to your board on funding the expansion, that you two would have voted to put the project on hold back then?
Is it fair to assume that? Because, I have to admit, it sure looks that way, and I'm going to report all of this, so, I wanted to give you a chance to comment.
As always, much thanks,
Ron
P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog:
sewerwatch.blogspot.com
###
[38 weeks down... 14 to go.]
DATE: 9/22/10
Dear Supervisors Patterson and Gibson,
I'm researching a story, and I just have one quick question:
At yesterday's meeting, both of you voted to put the design of the women's jail expansion on hold until February 2011.
However, at an October 14, 2008 budget hearing, where the exact item was before your board -- an update on the women's jail expansion -- both of you voted to proceed with the design.
At the October 14, 2008 meeting, Chief Deputy, Rob Reid, gave a presentation on that item, however, at that meeting, Chief Deputy Reid failed to mention alternatives to incarceration, like 2007's SB 959, and, as you'll see if you review the video of that hearing, the only two choices that were presented to your Board by Reid were to either move forward with the expansion, or put the county at risk for litigation due to the overcrowded women's jail.
However, at yesterday's meeting, county staff gave a similar presentation to your board, as they did in 2008, involving the women's jail project, but this time, Chief Deputy Reid included a discussion on "alternatives to incarceration."
So, look what happened here:
At the October 2008 meeting, when you were presented with only two alternatives -- expand the jail or face potential litigation -- both of you voted to proceed with design (at a cost of over $1 million), however, when you were presented with a third alternative -- the "alternatives to incarceration" discussion (including SB 959) -- by Chief Deputy Reid, then both of you voted to put the project on hold.
Here's my one question:
Considering that the only major difference in the two presentations of 2008 and 2010 was that Chief Deputy Reid included the "alternatives to incarceration" in his second presentation to your board involving the funding of the women's jail expansion, is it fair to say that had Chief Deputy Reid included the "alternatives to incarceration" in his FIRST, 2008 presentation to your board on funding the expansion, that you two would have voted to put the project on hold back then?
Is it fair to assume that? Because, I have to admit, it sure looks that way, and I'm going to report all of this, so, I wanted to give you a chance to comment.
As always, much thanks,
Ron
P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog:
sewerwatch.blogspot.com
###
[38 weeks down... 14 to go.]
posted by Ron at
11:15 AM
2 Comments:
This is clearly a case of dishonesty, willful and deliberate deceit in broad daylight, on the part of our Sheriff Department, as you have reported and documented so well.
They intentionally, willfully and deliberately concealed the SB959 information from our County board-members to procure a $35 million dollar project.
Shouldn't our Sheriffs officials be held to a higher standard?
For members of the State Bar willful and deceitful actions are grounds for disbarment, suspension or reprimand.
By
FOGSWAMP, at 8:54 AM, September 28, 2010
Fog writes:
"This is clearly a case of dishonesty, willful and deliberate deceit in broad daylight, on the part of our Sheriff Department"
Yep, it sure is. Cantcha tell by the amount of media coverage it's garnering... NOT!
(That's right... I broke out the "NOT" joke.)
and;
"Shouldn't our Sheriffs officials be held to a higher standard?"
I emailed Patterson and Gibson saying that the evidence is mounting that Chief Deputy Reid should now be fired for what he did back in October 2008 -- when he, and I'm going to call it what it is -- lied to the BOS by NOT informing them of SB 959 then. A lie by omission, if you will.
That lie wasted over $1 million of SLO County citizens' money.
Of course, Patterson and Gibson never replied.
By
Ron, at 9:16 AM, September 28, 2010
Post a Comment
<< Home