Okay. I want to set forth that I have never really understood why it is we should be electing or need to "elect" a County Sheriff. Its a long standing tradition given the fact that we have not always had both a Sheriffs Department and a Police Department sharing the load of Public Safety along with the Fire Department. By the way niether of the latter have "elected" head officials.
I understand of course that this dedicated Sheriff position across the Commonwealth is actually constitutional in nature and are required by the laws of the State, which funds the Sheriffs across the Commonwealth via State funding resources. In a sense, it appears as though they are more State employees than truly County employees, but they are an integral part of our community.
Most of us are probably unaware of that fact. The Sheriff Department in part is not represented in the County budget per say in large part due to the fact it is covered via funding from the Genral Assembly through I believe the State Compensation Board. Counties are permitted to employ and get funded for a number of deputies based on a population formula and much of the tab regarding employment, operations and insurance/liability coverages is covered by the State and not the County. Should a County desire additonal deputies it may petition for more funding from the State, however most likely the County will be forced to pay for any deputies it seeks over the number determined by the formula on its own. The County Police Department is fully funded through resident tax dollars. If you recall, Chesterfiedl went the Police route some years back preceeding our aggressive growth strategy. The Sheriff has been around since 1749. Thats right 1749.
I must admit that right now in the current political climate the issue of illegal imigration is a hot button issue. It is one being bounced around both Congress and the State General Assembly. Chesterfield estimates are that illegals impact the County to the tune of 2.1 million dollars in 2006.
**Reminder: Public Hearing regarding the issue of Illegal Immigration is N0v. 14, 2007 before the current Board of Supervisors. Depending on the result of the election, should there be a shift in leadership no vote on this will be able to be cast in any manner until after the new Board takes office. ****
I only mention this because after speaking with many residents there is a misconception somehow that the Sheriff position will somehow have some real immediate impacts on the realtionship between crime and illegal immigration as an issue. Most of us think of law enforcement when we hear things regarding the issue, however until our laws and ordinances become clearer there will be little for the Sheriff to do outside performing in accordance to the current State mandates. Call Governor Kaine's office if you want to know why it is our State income tax dollars should be going to house, feed , provide health services and rehabilitate illegal aliens in our County jails throughout the Commonwealth. I wonder just how much that is per day per illegal inmate?
Fact is the County Sheriff Department only turns over 6 to 10 illegals in the County system to Federal authorities a month in large part because the political and legal climate precludes them from arresting those they suspect to be illegal in the first place.. In fact, many illegals get arrested on charges other than legal status, are brought to jail, brought before a judge , bonded out etc..and then knowingly released back into the community regardless of status awaiting court or returned to jail awaiting court.. The Sheriff deputies are caught in the middle in the current system and cannot do anthing but follow the system of procedures of the Courts.
This cycle and election for Sheriff should not be about Illegal Immigration. I only say that because the State must get its act together first before this manner will really be able to be addressed by the localities. So, in my opinion it is rather a dead issue as far as this election goes other than to make sure that the Sheriff will do everything within the confines of the current legal system to make sure that the criminal element of the illegal population (other than being here that is) are turned over to ICE and not returned to the community.
What I am finding is just like at the Supervisor level there needs a bit more transparency in the Department. The Sheriffs Department routinely undergoes various audits by the APA and county government as well as standards guidelines via the Career Development Program of the Compensation Board, but many are proposing a need for more internal audits to address fiduiciary concerns.
The things I am considering are these questions below, independent of illegal immigration.
My questions are:
*Whats the status of our training and development of career officers with regard to continuing education credits or levels by our deputies
*What is the expense incurred by which the Deputies are engaged in bilingual education and cultural awareness within the community and at what cost levels
*What is the status of the Departments hiring and promotion standards and level of cohesiveness of current operations (an issue raised by Kendrick Hall)
*Is the level of communication between the Operations Division and the Support Division aligned to promote the alignment of all Deputies and staff (Employee Satisfaction Index)
*Is the new jail meeting the needs and requirements of the community in terms of housing of inmates and release standards met (issue raised by Perry DeMay)
*Are we engaging in a Master Deputy training program to bring staff up through the ranks
* Is the operation a true reflection of the county; men, women and minorities with equal opportunity and merit increases based on performance
* Are we integrating the Sheriffs Department , Police and Fire as first responders in the event of emergency or evacuation plans due to man made or natural disasters
These are just a few of the questions I will be seking answers to in the next few days regarding the Sheriffs Department.
Another blog, http://www.marchtoadifferentdrummer.blogspot.com/ has an interesting post regarding the internal nature and issues under the current leadership and not only does it deserve a focus but also frankly a response.
The candidates for Sheriff are: Anthony "Perry" DeMay
Dennis S. Proffitt
Kendrick A. Hall
Do not ask me what these gentleman's political affliations are becasue I DO NOT CARE!!!
I do not believe that in a position like Sheriff we should consider, or at least I should, whether someone is with one Party or another as a basis of this descision. All to often in positions like this we go to the polls a cast a vote along party lines without really knowing the issues or even knowing anything about the men seeking the position.
My intent is not to insult anyone here. It is completely up to the individual how one determines their candidate of choice, but I wonder when we are talking about law enforcement officers does it really matter which Party they claim or rather is it their ability to lead a group of dedicated faithful civil servants with respect that matter most.
I had an opportunity at the Midolthian High School Forum on Thursday night where the School Board and Supervisor candidates held their last forum to have a brief conversation with candidate Perry DeMay. Mr. Demay was the only candidate for Sheriff at the forum meeting residents from Midlothian and listening to concerns before the forum began. In observing Mr. Demay I cannot help but feel that if he reaches out to the Deputies and staff in the same manner as he did residents last night than they would be greatly served by is level of professionalism.
Mr. DeMay's positions on training and development of staff and recogniton and promotions, internal auditing of current operations and finance demonstrates the manner in which he would lead the Department. At times in order for one to judge a persons ability to lead you have to look at where they have come and where the have been held to task for running operations within very strained budgets. This requires prioritizing. If you have seen the dramatic transforamtion of Pocohontas State Park that began some ten years ago, you will see by far the ability of Mr. DeMay as Chief Park Ranger to lead successfully. There has been some crticizing by the RTD for mone I think, posturing really, regarding fundamentally whats a "park" have to do with running a Department, but what is missed is its about relationships with people in this environment. The way in which our jail is managed and inmates are treated will mirror the way the operational and support staff are treated by the Sheriff.
In all honesty, I think Mr. DeMay demonstrates this largely because of his former roles as a Deputy in both City of Richmond and Chesterfield. He has been in the trenches sorta speak working under the hierarchy of the Department and has seen first hand the areas in terms of realationships to need addressing. As the county continues to grow, so to will the responsibilities and demands on the Sheriffs Department. The Department will require a leader that will balance the needs of its operations with that of the greater community and continue the tradition of some of the highest ratings in the State.
If you think that illegal immigration can be successfully impacted by the Sheriff alone, I think we all would agree that Kendrick Hall has been the most outspoken on the issue and has the most experience in this area and he would benefit the County immensely. At this point though I feel we may be about four or five years away from true comprehensive reform on the issue, which will be impacted by the results of the election for State Senate of the General Assembly. If the Republicans lose control of the State Senate and some are predicting just that you can forget reform on this issue.
Therefore, today I am leaning toward Perry DeMay for Sheriff. I plan to continue the examination, but feel it is more about relationship building with the staff and the community that is missing most today and he might just be the man to effectively bridge that gap.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Met Perry last night as well for the first time. Other than a sign or two was really unaware of his bid.
Visited his website this morning and liked what I read.
Your right about Pocohontas. One of the best run and cleanest we have around here.
DeMay supports the legalization of marijuana.....Is this really what you want in a candidate for Sheriff? See Below:
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DEMOCRATS RUN ADMITTED PRO MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION CANDIDATE FOR SHERIFF
Perry DeMay, Democratic Candidate for the office of Sheriff in Chesterfield County, is on record for supporting the legalization of marijuana. Will this issue cause his campaign to go up in smoke? When it comes to supporting Sheriff's candidates, Republicans back those who support public safety, Democrats back those who support Peter Tosh. Ha.
The story initally ran on a Virginia political blog known as Black Velvet Bruce Li located under the title "NOT ALL THE LOONIES LIVE NORTH OF US" at the following link:
http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/17/not-all-the-loonies-are-north-of-us/
Once the story posted, Democrat Sheriff's Candidate Perry DeMay went to the blog and posted his response on the shocking story. In his response, DeMay clearly relayed that he supports the legalization of marijuana through its decriminalization. DeMay's response can be found under the comments section of the above post. For your convience, I have pasted his response below. Perry DeMay is now on record in support of the legalization of marijuana. Here is the highlight of Democrat Perry DeMay's statement as it appears in full below, "I...advocate legalization of...marijuana. If this view point makes me an irredeemably stupid, so be it!"
This is an outrage that the Chesterfield Democrat Party would let this man continue to run for a public safety office while having pro criminal views. As someone with fourteen years experience in law enforcement, I am outraged. See Perry DeMay's statement below.
Perry DeMay said on 18 Oct 2007 at 3:38 pm:
Greg L.
I am Perry DeMay, Candidate for Sheriff of Chesterfield County. I am happy to address the issue that you raise about my ethics in performing my official duties as a sworn law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
You wrote, “Sheriff’s candidates that publicly state their disagreements with current laws deserve to be disqualified for being irredeemably stupid. It’s like campaigning on a platform that states what laws you’re not going to enforce as a Sheriff, when you’re required to take an oath of office promising that you’re going to uphold all of the laws. How does that work, exactly?”
There are several laws that are on the books in Virginia that I do not agree with and as an American citizen; I have the right to disagree with them. Because I have chosen to run for office does not mean that I must set aside my opinions about the government and the laws that regulate us.
However, I must obey those laws that are placed on the books. There are current aspects of my job that I do not find pleasure in performing, but I always do my job. I have and will continue to enforce the drug laws of this country. I cannot, and will not pick, and chose laws to enforce. I do not have that authority. The previous Sheriff did pick and chose the laws that he wanted to enforce. He chose to violate the laws of our Commonwealth.
The code of Virginia:
§ 53.1-130 Sheriff’s, jail superintendents, etc., not to be interested in property where work performed; penalty.-No sheriff, jail superintendent, deputy or other jail officer shall have any prisoner work on property owned by him or his relative, or on projects in which he is interested, nor shall any such prisoners be used for the personal gain or convenience of any sheriff or of any other individual. Any person found guilty of a violation of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (Code 1950, § 53-166; 1970 c. 648; 1982, c. 636; 1991, c. 383.)
On February 1, 2000, the sheriff’s inmate work force performed work at Sheriff Clarence Guy Williams’ Jr. Cousin’s house.
• A fallen tree was cutup and removed
• Snow was cleared from entrances to the house.
• Salt was applied to walkways.
• Three loads of brush were taken to the county landfill
• Sheriff’s Office trucks transported the brush
This is a clear violation of the laws of our Commonwealth and the trust of the citizens of Chesterfield County. The Sheriff’s Office does not perform these services for all of their county taxpayer’s.
There was an attempted cover-up for the work performed at the sheriff’s cousin’s residence and it has taken seven years to break the veil of silence to expose this corruption. The deputy who supervised the inmates on the job was advised by a member of the sheriff’s administration to keep quite, “He instructed me not to speak to anyone about this matter.”
I believe in what I have written and stand behind my beliefs that the war on drugs that is being fought is a war that we will never win in its current form. I do not advocate legalization of drugs but decriminalization of marijuana. That means that when you are charged for simple possession of marijuana you receive a fine and court ordered drug treatment. This is currently what takes place in our courts today. I do not think that the defendant should have a criminal conviction placed on their criminal record.
I do not believe that someone who I arrested at 18 for possessing a small amount of marijuana should be prohibited from receiving federal student loans because of that drug conviction. Let us keep in mind that is the only type of criminal conviction that bars you from access to federal student loans. You can rape, murder, steal and not be penalized for those actions but you can’t get a dime to further your education if you smoked marijuana and were caught. If you are going to make it a penalty for drugs, you must include all aspects of criminal behavior.
If this view point makes me an “irredeemably stupid,” so be it!
Sincerely,
Perry DeMay
Candidate for Sheriff
American Citizen
Below is a paper that I wrote about the war on drugs for the University of Phoenix regarding recommendations for a mock scenario for the Chief of Police in my county.
The War on Drugs
Perry DeMay
CJA/313 Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice
University of Phoenix
Chris Cannon
February 17, 2007
The War on Drugs
In order to respond to the direction of drug control enforcement for Chief A. L. Baker of the Chesterfield County Police Department, a brief history of the “War on Drugs” and present circumstances on this issue needs to be communicated for all parties involved in the decision making process. The response is prepared in order to address the history, current issues and recommended actions for future enforcement goals of the Chesterfield County Police as well as the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office.
History
On December 14, 1914 The United States enacted the Harrison Narcotic Act. Representative Francis Burton Harrison of New York proposed the legislation and it was supported by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan. The intended purpose for his support was to comply with a new international treaty. The act focused primarily on the use of opium. “The debate was about international obligations rather than morality.” (Wikpedia, Harrison Act, 2007)
The act appears to be concerned about the marketing of opiates. However a clause applying to doctors allowed distribution “in the course of his professional practice only.” This clause was interpreted after 1917 to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict, since addiction was not considered a disease. A number of doctors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The medical profession quickly learned not to supply opiates to addicts. (Wikpedia, 2007)
The act had an impact on the opium trade by reducing supply by mid 1915. In 1918 tougher laws were proposed and adopted in 1924 prohibiting the import of heroin into the country for any purpose. The Wikpedia cites a court case regarding the use of opium by doctors,
Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1925), is a Supreme Court case involving the applicability of the Harrison Act. The Harrison Act was originally a taxing measure on drugs such as morphine and cocaine, but it later effectively became a prohibition on such drugs. However, the Act had a provision exempting doctors prescribing the drugs. Dr. Charles Linder proscribed the drugs to addicts, which the federal government said was not a legitimate medical practice. He was prosecuted and convicted. Linder appealed, and the Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction, holding that the federal government overstepped its power to regulate medicine. The opinion of the court was written by Justice James Clark McReynolds. (Wikpedia, Linder v. United States, 2007)
Prohibition
Prohibition on alcohol followed a similar path through the American Political system. In 1919 the United States Constitution was amended to prohibit the manufacture, sale, import, export or possession of alcohol. It was never illegal to drink alcohol: however, in order to drink alcohol, you possessed alcohol and could be charged. In 1933 Congress repealed the 18th Amendment against prohibition of alcohol.
Prohibition contributed to a violent period for organized crime and political corruption for our Nation. The prohibition created a lucrative black market for alcohol because the country never addressed the demand for the product. Organized gangs fought over territory and control over the black market sale of alcohol inflicting severe acts of violence in communities, much like the drug trade of today.
Marijuana
1937 marked the year of the Marihuana Tax Act. The tax imposed on individuals who dealt with it commercially. The tax levied was roughly one dollar and required sellers to submit detailed accounts of transactions as well as provide information for parties involved in the transactions. The act also required sellers to submit to inspections and audits. If anyone violated the guidelines set fourth in the act, they could be fined as much as $2000.00 and imprisoned up to five years. The purpose of the act was to make it to difficult for persons to risk selling marijuana in the United States. “This act was passed by congress on the basis of testimony and public perception that marijuana caused insanity, criminality, and death.” (Wikpedia, War on Drugs, 2007)
Boggs Act and Daniel Act
In 1951 the Boggs Act legislation was introduced to increase penalties fourfold for violation of the drug laws. Wikpedia informs readers:
The 1956 Daniel Act increased penalties by a factor of eight over those specified in the Boggs Act. Although by this time there was adequate testimony to refute the idea that marijuana caused insanity and death, the deliberations for these laws shifted in focus to the proposition that marijuana use lead to the use of heroin, creating the gateway theory. (Wikpedia, War on Drugs, 2007)
The next major push for the war on drugs came from President Richard Nixon in 1969. The President claimed that the use of illicit drugs was “America’s public enemy number one.” His administration created and pushed through the Control Substance Act of 1970. This was the birth of the modern day “War on Drugs.” In order to combat drugs in the United States, Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Administration. The agency would become the primary law enforcement agency in the Federal Government to combat drug trafficking. The term, War on Drugs, was coined by President Richard Nixon in 1971 to describe his initiatives to enhance drug prohibition. President Ronald Reagan continued the War on Drugs with the creation of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The organization “was created to centrally coordinate legislative, security, diplomatic, research and health policy throughout the government. In recognition of his central role, the director of ONDCP is commonly known as the Drug Czar. The position was raised to cabinet-level status by Bill Clinton in 1993.” (Wikpedia, War on Drugs, 2007)
Current Issues
The modern War on Drugs has been fought hard for over 36 years with little impact on the demand or eradication of the drug trade in the United States of America. The country observed similar acts of violence along with political corruption during the era of prohibition. Our communities are suffering now with similar acts of violence and political corruption funded by the black market trade of illegal drugs. When the American Government repealed prohibition in 1933, they removed the muscle from organized crime to sustain their strength in the black market of alcohol. The sale of alcohol is regulated by the government with taxes imposed and controls regulating the purchase of alcoholic products. Organized crime moved to the next vice in order to continue their criminal enterprises.
The cost to American tax payers for the war on drugs has been estimated at over 40 billon dollars a year by the Washington Office of Advocacy, an organization created by the Unitarian Universalist Association. The organization also estimates an additional 20 billion dollars a year is funded at the State and Local levels of Government to provide for prosecution and incarceration of offenders. They state that only one third of the money goes to education for anti drug abuse with the rest going for enforcement, court proceedings and confinement of violators. (Washington Office of Advocacy, 2007)
Bureau of Justice Statistics
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the drug budget contains only figures aimed at reducing drug use. The Bureau states:
The FY 2004 National Drug Control Budget reflects a significant restructuring from prior years. The drug budget now contains only those expenditures aimed at reducing drug use, rather than those associated with the consequences of drug use. The requested drug control funding amount for FY 2007 is approximately $12.7 billion. Budget figures presented here reflect this restructuring. (BJS, 2007)
By eliminating the cost of prosecution and incarceration the overall figure is reduced and appears to cost American tax payers less to continue the War on Drugs: however, the tax payers still have to pay the burden for services relating to enforcement of anti drug laws to include prosecution and incarceration. The BJS reported in 2003 that 81 percent of all drug convictions in 2000 were for possession of drugs and not distribution. This should lead law enforcement to refocus their efforts to target the drug suppliers rather than the drug user.
Recommendation
After careful review of data provided on the War on Drugs, it is of my opinion that this is a war that can not be won using the current tactics of law enforcement across the nation. Chief A. L. Baker and the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office does not have the privilege or authority to enacting new laws in order to decriminalize drugs in Chesterfield County. Chief Baker does have the authority to refocus drug enforcement efforts to drug suppliers in his locality with the support of the Commonwealth’s Attorney. The arrest of individuals regarding simple drug possession should be handled through court oversight of mandatory drug treatment programs. The Chief should also look toward the social services organizations within the community to provide support for alternative programs within communities for education, mentoring of the youth and assistance to families.
There is a need to provide increased economic opportunities for families in low income neighborhoods. These opportunities could be in the form of occupational training programs, as well as before and after school day care programs for individuals who need childcare. It is imperative to realize that the War on Drugs can only be won if we remove the demand for the drug and in order to do that, agencies need to work together and focus on the underlying social issues that lead to drug addiction.
They also need to increase the opportunities afforded to individuals to break the cycle of drug use and the dependency on the drug market to provide funding for economic survival.
The Chief of Police will not be able to make an impact in the War on Drugs by attempting to arrest the user. The constant cycle of drug investigations leading to the arrest of low level drug dealers do little to curb the flow of drugs in the communities of Chesterfield County.
The real difference will be made by accepting the responsibility to increase the quality of life of drug users and potential addicts through treatment programs and educational programs that will provide alternative sources of income. Until the government at the Federal, State and Local levels learns the lessons taught by prohibition in the 1920’s and 30’s we will have to face the burden of a government that has failed its people in the War on Drugs.
References
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007. Drug Control Budget. Retrieved on February 17, 2007 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/dcb.htm
Washington Office for Advocacy, 2007. The War on Drugs. Retrieved on February 17, 2007 from http://www.uua.org/uuawo/new/article.php?id=41
Wikpedia, 2007. Harrison Act. Retrieved on February 16, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Act
Wikpedia, 2007. Linder V. United States. Retrieved on February 16, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linder_v._United_States
Wikpedia, 2007. War on Drugs. Retrieved on February 16, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
Your kidding me right. Sheriff do not make the laws, in fcat very rarely I they called upon the the County to enforce them...that is what the Police are for.
DeMay is only advocating what has been a trend across the country with regard to the expenses asscoaited with something as failed and ridiculous as drug possession, not hard line drugs but marijuana. Whats worse those folks that get off on the prescription drug fraud charges who cost tax payers thoudsands in healthcare costs to supply an addiction or those caught with marijuana.
DeMay like many across the country are just willing to look at the alternatives and options of solutions to our overcrowded jails, which of course we pay for in taxes. Whould you rather have your tax dollars going to other areas or house 20% of the criminal population associated with marijuana, something that the medical community prescribes in some areas of the country on a regular basis.
How many people does marijuana kill in a year in Virginia? I bet close to zero. More Virginians die due to accidents associated with alcohol (DUI) and there is a rising number of alcohol poisioning incidents on campus in Virginia colleges for of age drinkers.
Your point shows that DeMay has admitted his view and not tried to hide it at all and emphattically states he will uphold the oath of his offcie and enforce all laws, so whats your beef?
Do we not routinely seek the opinions of law enforcement officers when attemtping to look at current situations, ie Va Tech case and impacts of mental health issues?
If it comes down to a guy who honestly puts forth his opinions versus someone who would use is offcie for personal gain, I think I will take the man who is honest about positions even if I do not endorse them.
The legalization of marijuana is up to the legislature not the Sheriffs Department and if you believe the under currents it may not be far out into the future that the country goes the way of legalization.
By the way, Black Velvet Bruce Li record of accurately depicting facts is skewed to say the least, just look at its coverage of the illegal immigration debate, they insight nationalistic hate politics against immigrants in Manassas.
I addressed the actions of the anonymous blogger on another blog that was posted. Once again the blogger has decided the need to change my viewpoint by removing some crucial wording.
This is to address the concerns of Wayne "Bubba" Ozmore. AKA Kevin, He has been working himself into a frenzy in an attempt to have a negative story published in the Petersburg Progress Index and the Richmond Times Dispatch.
And now, the rest of the story!
Kevin,
You wrote, “Here is the highlight of Perry DeMay's statement as it appears in full below, "I...advocate legalization of...marijuana. If this view point makes me an irredeemably stupid, so be it!" HA.”
I find it interesting that you omitted the words; do not, drugs but decriminalization of.” Let us put them back in as I truly wrote them.
I wrote, “I do not advocate legalization of drugs but decriminalization of marijuana.” This changes the message entirely. I guess you have been busted trying to bend the truth to fit your attempt at smearing my name.
What does decriminalization and legalization mean according to Webster?
Decriminalization:
: to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of; especially : to repeal a strict ban on while keeping under some form of regulation
— de•crim•i•nal•iza•tion \(ˌ)dē-ˌkri-mə-nə-lə-ˈzā-shən, -ˌkrim-nəl-\ noun
Legalization:
: to make legal; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to
— le•gal•i•za•tion \ˌlē-gə-lə-ˈzā-shən\ noun
Kevin, you are part of the problem with our country. You are willing to lie, cheat, and God knows what else to support a candidate that does not look out for the best interest of the citizens. You are a part of the Good Ole’ Boys, bullies, bigots, back bitters, etc. Why did YOU remove the part of my post that demonstrates the past Sheriff of Chesterfield County violation of the laws of our Commonwealth? Are you ok with corruption in our government?
I am going to post exactly what was posted on the other site for readers to know what I said and to know the truth about the people who chose to violate the law as it is written.
1. Perry DeMay // Oct 18, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Brian,
I am Perry DeMay, Candidate for Sheriff of Chesterfield County. I have copied my remarks for your readers that I posted on another blog.
The blog is located at :
http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/10/17/not-all-the-loonies-are-north-of-us/#comments
Greg L.
I am Perry DeMay, Candidate for Sheriff of Chesterfield County. I am happy to address the issue that you raise about my ethics in performing my official duties as a sworn law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
You wrote, “Sheriff’s candidates that publicly state their disagreements with current laws deserve to be disqualified for being irredeemably stupid. It’s like campaigning on a platform that states what laws you’re not going to enforce as a Sheriff, when you’re required to take an oath of office promising that you’re going to uphold all of the laws. How does that work, exactly?”
There are several laws that are on the books in Virginia that I do not agree with and as an American citizen; I have the right to disagree with them. Because I have chosen to run for office does not mean that I must set aside my opinions about the government and the laws that regulate us.
However, I must obey those laws that are placed on the books. There are current aspects of my job that I do not find pleasure in performing, but I always do my job. I have and will continue to enforce the drug laws of this country. I cannot, and will not pick, and chose laws to enforce. I do not have that authority. The previous Sheriff did pick and chose the laws that he wanted to enforce. He chose to violate the laws of our Commonwealth.
The code of Virginia:
§ 53.1-130 Sheriff’s, jail superintendents, etc., not to be interested in property where work performed; penalty.-No sheriff, jail superintendent, deputy or other jail officer shall have any prisoner work on property owned by him or his relative, or on projects in which he is interested, nor shall any such prisoners be used for the personal gain or convenience of any sheriff or of any other individual. Any person found guilty of a violation of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (Code 1950, § 53-166; 1970 c. 648; 1982, c. 636; 1991, c. 383.)
On February 1, 2000, the sheriff’s inmate work force performed work at Sheriff Clarence Guy Williams’ Jr. Cousin’s house.
• A fallen tree was cutup and removed
• Snow was cleared from entrances to the house.
• Salt was applied to walkways.
• Three loads of brush were taken to the county landfill
• Sheriff’s Office trucks transported the brush
This is a clear violation of the laws of our Commonwealth and the trust of the citizens of Chesterfield County.
The Sheriff’s Office does not perform these services for all of their county taxpayer’s.
There was an attempted cover-up for the work performed at the sheriff’s cousin’s residence and it has taken seven years to break the veil of silence to expose this corruption.
The deputy who supervised the inmates on the job was advised by a member of the sheriff’s administration to keep quite, “He instructed me not to speak to anyone about this matter.”
I believe in what I have written and stand behind my beliefs that the war on drugs that is being fought is a war that we will never win in its current form.
I do not advocate legalization of drugs but decriminalization of marijuana.
That means that when you are charged for simple possession of marijuana you receive a fine and court ordered drug treatment. This is currently what takes place in our courts today. I do not think that the defendant should have a criminal conviction placed on their criminal record.
I do not believe that someone who I arrested at 18 for possessing a small amount of marijuana should be prohibited from receiving federal student loans because of that drug conviction. Let us keep in mind that is the only type of criminal conviction that bars you from access to federal student loans. You can rape, murder, steal and not be penalized for those actions but you can’t get a dime to further your education if you smoked marijuana and were caught. If you are going to make it a penalty for drugs, you must include all aspects of criminal behavior.
If this view point makes me “irredeemably stupid,” so be it!
Sincerely,
Perry DeMay
Candidate for Sheriff
American Citizen
Below is a paper that I wrote about the war on drugs for the University of Phoenix regarding recommendations for a mock scenario for the Chief of Police in my county.
The War on Drugs
Perry DeMay
CJA/313 Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice
University of Phoenix
Chris Cannon
February 17, 2007
The War on Drugs
In order to respond to the direction of drug control enforcement for Chief A. L. Baker of the Chesterfield County Police Department, a brief history of the “War on Drugs” and present circumstances on this issue needs to be communicated for all parties involved in the decision making process. The response is prepared in order to address the history, current issues and recommended actions for future enforcement goals of the Chesterfield County Police as well as the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office.
History
On December 14, 1914 The United States enacted the Harrison Narcotic Act. Representative Francis Burton Harrison of New York proposed the legislation and it was supported by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan. The intended purpose for his support was to comply with a new international treaty. The act focused primarily on the use of opium. “The debate was about international obligations rather than morality.” (Wikpedia, Harrison Act, 2007)
The act appears to be concerned about the marketing of opiates. However a clause applying to doctors allowed distribution “in the course of his professional practice only.” This clause was interpreted after 1917 to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict, since addiction was not considered a disease. A number of doctors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The medical profession quickly learned not to supply opiates to addicts. (Wikpedia, 2007)
The act had an impact on the opium trade by reducing supply by mid 1915. In 1918 tougher laws were proposed and adopted in 1924 prohibiting the import of heroin into the country for any purpose. The Wikpedia cites a court case regarding the use of opium by doctors,
Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1925), is a Supreme Court case involving the applicability of the Harrison Act. The Harrison Act was originally a taxing measure on drugs such as morphine and cocaine, but it later effectively became a prohibition on such drugs. However, the Act had a provision exempting doctors prescribing the drugs. Dr. Charles Linder proscribed the drugs to addicts, which the federal government said was not a legitimate medical practice. He was prosecuted and convicted. Linder appealed, and the Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction, holding that the federal government overstepped its power to regulate medicine. The opinion of the court was written by Justice James Clark McReynolds. (Wikpedia, Linder v. United States, 2007)
Prohibition
Prohibition on alcohol followed a similar path through the American Political system. In 1919 the United States Constitution was amended to prohibit the manufacture, sale, import, export or possession of alcohol. It was never illegal to drink alcohol: however, in order to drink alcohol, you possessed alcohol and could be charged. In 1933 Congress repealed the 18th Amendment against prohibition of alcohol.
Prohibition contributed to a violent period for organized crime and political corruption for our Nation. The prohibition created a lucrative black market for alcohol because the country never addressed the demand for the product. Organized gangs fought over territory and control over the black market sale of alcohol inflicting severe acts of violence in communities, much like the drug trade of today.
Marijuana
1937 marked the year of the Marihuana Tax Act. The tax imposed on individuals who dealt with it commercially. The tax levied was roughly one dollar and required sellers to submit detailed accounts of transactions as well as provide information for parties involved in the transactions. The act also required sellers to submit to inspections and audits. If anyone violated the guidelines set fourth in the act, they could be fined as much as $2000.00 and imprisoned up to five years. The purpose of the act was to make it to difficult for persons to risk selling marijuana in the United States. “This act was passed by congress on the basis of testimony and public perception that marijuana caused insanity, criminality, and death.” (Wikpedia, War on Drugs, 2007)
Boggs Act and Daniel Act
In 1951 the Boggs Act legislation was introduced to increase penalties fourfold for violation of the drug laws. Wikpedia informs readers:
The 1956 Daniel Act increased penalties by a factor of eight over those specified in the Boggs Act. Although by this time there was adequate testimony to refute the idea that marijuana caused insanity and death, the deliberations for these laws shifted in focus to the proposition that marijuana use lead to the use of heroin, creating the gateway theory. (Wikpedia, War on Drugs, 2007)
The next major push for the war on drugs came from President Richard Nixon in 1969. The President claimed that the use of illicit drugs was “America’s public enemy number one.” His administration created and pushed through the Control Substance Act of 1970. This was the birth of the modern day “War on Drugs.” In order to combat drugs in the United States, Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Administration. The agency would become the primary law enforcement agency in the Federal Government to combat drug trafficking. The term, War on Drugs, was coined by President Richard Nixon in 1971 to describe his initiatives to enhance drug prohibition. President Ronald Reagan continued the War on Drugs with the creation of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The organization “was created to centrally coordinate legislative, security, diplomatic, research and health policy throughout the government. In recognition of his central role, the director of ONDCP is commonly known as the Drug Czar. The position was raised to cabinet-level status by Bill Clinton in 1993.” (Wikpedia, War on Drugs, 2007)
Current Issues
The modern War on Drugs has been fought hard for over 36 years with little impact on the demand or eradication of the drug trade in the United States of America. The country observed similar acts of violence along with political corruption during the era of prohibition.
Our communities are suffering now with similar acts of violence and political corruption funded by the black market trade of illegal drugs. When the American Government repealed prohibition in 1933, they removed the muscle from organized crime to sustain their strength in the black market of alcohol. The sale of alcohol is regulated by the government with taxes imposed and controls regulating the purchase of alcoholic products. Organized crime moved to the next vice in order to continue their criminal enterprises.
The cost to American tax payers for the war on drugs has been estimated at over 40 billon dollars a year by the Washington Office of Advocacy, an organization created by the Unitarian Universalist Association. The organization also estimates an additional 20 billion dollars a year is funded at the State and Local levels of Government to provide for prosecution and incarceration of offenders. They state that only one third of the money goes to education for anti drug abuse with the rest going for enforcement, court proceedings and confinement of violators. (Washington Office of Advocacy, 2007)
Bureau of Justice Statistics
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the drug budget contains only figures aimed at reducing drug use. The Bureau states:
The FY 2004 National Drug Control Budget reflects a significant restructuring from prior years. The drug budget now contains only those expenditures aimed at reducing drug use, rather than those associated with the consequences of drug use. The requested drug control funding amount for FY 2007 is approximately $12.7 billion. Budget figures presented here reflect this restructuring. (BJS, 2007)
By eliminating the cost of prosecution and incarceration the overall figure is reduced and appears to cost American tax payers less to continue the War on Drugs: however, the tax payers still have to pay the burden for services relating to enforcement of anti drug laws to include prosecution and incarceration.
The BJS reported in 2003 that 81 percent of all drug convictions in 2000 were for possession of drugs and not distribution. This should lead law enforcement to refocus their efforts to target the drug suppliers rather than the drug user.
Recommendation
After careful review of data provided on the War on Drugs, it is of my opinion that this is a war that can not be won using the current tactics of law enforcement across the nation. Chief A. L. Baker and the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office does not have the privilege or authority to enacting new laws in order to decriminalize drugs in Chesterfield County. Chief Baker does have the authority to refocus drug enforcement efforts to drug suppliers in his locality with the support of the Commonwealth’s Attorney. The arrest of individuals regarding simple drug possession should be handled through court oversight of mandatory drug treatment programs. The Chief should also look toward the social services organizations within the community to provide support for alternative programs within communities for education, mentoring of the youth and assistance to families.
There is a need to provide increased economic opportunities for families in low income neighborhoods. These opportunities could be in the form of occupational training programs, as well as before and after school day care programs for individuals who need childcare. It is imperative to realize that the War on Drugs can only be won if we remove the demand for the drug and in order to do that, agencies need to work together and focus on the underlying social issues that lead to drug addiction.
They also need to increase the opportunities afforded to individuals to break the cycle of drug use and the dependency on the drug market to provide funding for economic survival.
The Chief of Police will not be able to make an impact in the War on Drugs by attempting to arrest the user. The constant cycle of drug investigations leading to the arrest of low level drug dealers do little to curb the flow of drugs in the communities of Chesterfield County.
The real difference will be made by accepting the responsibility to increase the quality of life of drug users and potential addicts through treatment programs and educational programs that will provide alternative sources of income. Until the government at the Federal, State and Local levels learns the lessons taught by prohibition in the 1920’s and 30’s we will have to face the burden of a government that has failed its people in the War on Drugs.
References
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007. Drug Control Budget. Retrieved on February 17, 2007 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/dcb.htm
Washington Office for Advocacy, 2007. The War on Drugs. Retrieved on February 17, 2007 from http://www.uua.org/uuawo/new/article.php?id=41
Wikpedia, 2007. Harrison Act. Retrieved on February 16, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Act
Wikpedia, 2007. Linder V. United States. Retrieved on February 16, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linder_v._United_States
Wikpedia, 2007. War on Drugs. Retrieved on February 16, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
No shame with these guys trying to desperately hang on to the past and the fact that the good old boy network is about to be torn apart.
I would like to take time and answer your questions, as I believe they are currently handled.
Your questions are:
*What is the status of our training and development of career officers with regard to continuing education credits or levels by our deputies?
Currently, there is a career development program for officers. I do not know if they give credit for education. But they do have the master deputy program. The problem here is deputies are awarded master deputy within some set standards but they do not apply to everyone. I am aware of an issue arising from the program. This of course is an unsupported allegation and should be viewed as such by readers.
My understanding is that the master deputy program was held to a formal selection process. Deputies submitted an application and they were rated on performance and uninterrupted service in the Sheriff’s Office. They rejected several employees for the position on the first phase but came back and awarded the status to individuals previously removed from a list that happen to ride motorcycles with the sheriff. As I stated before this is just hearsay and I have not been able to confirm this allegation.
My response to the master deputy program would follow a strict procedure to recognize employees. The qualifications should be spelled out in complete detail. I recommend testing skill levels with a written exam. Time in service would also be considered as well as performance issues. I want to also limit the amount of time that a disciplinary action would remain in play for limiting promotions.
People make mistakes and we should not hold them back their entire careers for mistakes made in the past. If the behavior that they received the disciplinary action for was so bad, they should not retain their employment with the department. I would not allow deviations from the established process. This is how you get rid of that good ole boy mentality and ensure fairness in the process.
*What is the expense incurred by which the Deputies are engaged in bilingual education and cultural awareness within the community and at what cost levels?
Every thing cost money and the budget must be able to support the education programs for deputies. I do not know the related cost to hold a class at the department for Spanish.
I will say this, it is an officer safety issue. In the police academy we show a video of a Texas Constable searching a car for drugs. Three Hispanic males exited the car and walked to the rear. They can be heard on the officers video telling each other in Spanish, “Get his legs, I will get his chest.” They took the constable down and murdered him with his own gun. He did not speak Spanish and could not understand them when they were talking about attacking him.
I am aware of the cost for a class at John Tyler Community College. It cost approximately $77.00 per credit hour. Your typical Spanish course takes four credit hours per class. I took one semester of Spanish and it lowered my GPA for my degree. I received a C in the class and it really did not address the Spanish that one needs in criminal justice. I have learned more from various self study programs directed to Spanish for police patrol. The college does offer a Spanish course for patrol officers but it never seems to get enough enrollments and the course is cancelled prior to the start dates.
We need to offer incentives to deputies in order for them to obtain additional training.
I will mirror the Commonwealth of Virginia’s career development program. When I obtained my first degree, I received a pay increase for additional skills gained during the performance cycle. I became more valuable to my employer. When employees take the time to enhance their skills through advanced education programs, we should reward them for their efforts. The best possible way to do that is with pay raises for new skills acquired during a performance cycle.
All officers are required by the Department of Criminal Justice Service (DCJS) to attend cultural awareness and diversity training during academies and biannual in-service training. I believe the department is already meeting this requirement.
*What is the status of the Departments hiring and promotion standards and level of cohesiveness of current operations (an issue raised by Kendrick Hall)?
The official line is that resumes are submitted, a board is assembled and individuals are placed on a list in order of ranking by the board. We have no way of knowing if this process is adhered to by the current administration. There are allegations that this is not the case. This also affects the retention of qualified staff. People who feel like they are not appreciated will not stay. They will also affect the moral of other staff members in your department.
I would hold true to the same route that I explained in the above question in response to training and the master deputy program.
*Is the level of communication between the Operations Division and the Support Division aligned to promote the alignment of all Deputies and staff (Employee Satisfaction Index)
I believe the Index spoke for itself. Numbers are down across the chart in every area with some areas the lowest ever on the results that have been provided in the years. My question is do they really report the actual numbers of dissatisfied employees. I will say this is true in any organization and does not exist in the Sheriff’s Office alone. Employees are paranoid and not always forthcoming even in anonymous surveys conducted by employers. They fear that the higher ups have ways of knowing who said what. This is a shame because these surveys are an important way to correct areas of concerns by the employer. I recalled taking a survey when I worked at Central Fidelity Bank and my manager came back to me and told me to change my response and the response of another employee. I refused and was made to feel some pressure for a short period before I moved on to the Department of Corrections.
*Is the new jail meeting the needs and requirements of the community in terms of housing of inmates and release standards met (issue raised by Perry DeMay)
I have to be fair here. Inmates are released from other jails and prisons by mistake and inmates do commit suicide while incarcerated. My issues is that this happened a week apart and I believe it was caused by the lack of staff in the jail at the time. I have been made aware of different duty post not being manned by a deputy because the position was reassigned to other areas in the department.
It is like a football team. When you put one player in you have to pull another player out. I believe they pull positions out of the jail and award positions for things such as polygraph examiner in the office of professional standards. When you remove the positions from the jail you create an environment that increases the workload on the deputies in the jail. They do not have enough people to do the job, so they cut corners when it is time to review paperwork to insure the proper release of prisoners and then the forget about inmate movement that occurred during other times in the shift. Mistakes are made.
I will say here, if the Interim Sheriff is going to take the credit for various programs developed by his staff such as the seniors in touch programs, child support enforcement programs, inmate workforces, rehabilitation programs, then he also needs to accept the responsibility for the failures of the department in regards to safety and security.
*Are we engaging in a Master Deputy training program to bring staff up through the ranks?
I addressed this in a question posted above.
* Is the operation a true reflection of the county; men, women and minorities with equal opportunity and merit increases based on performance?
There is not an African American above the rank of sergeant in the Sheriff’s office. I believe there are two women that hold the rank of Lieutenant.
* Are we integrating the Sheriffs Department , Police and Fire as first responders in the event of emergency or evacuation plans due to man made or natural disasters?
I believe this has already happened in the Sheriff’s Office and it was not started by Dennis Proffitt. When I worked for the Department 11 years ago, I responded with other deputies to Colonial Heights when the tornado struck the Wal Mart at South Park Mall. All public safety agencies have started working together to respond to incidents of significance according to the Department of Homeland Security Guidelines.
If you review my training record at my website you will see several courses that I was required to take in order to maintain my employment with DCR. Our agency has responded to several incidents in the U.S. with professionally trained staff to handle incidents in this category.
I also must address your remarks about the changes that have taking place at Pocahontas State Park. I have to be honest with your readers; there are several different people who have contributed to the current condition of your park. I am part of a team that has affected our community in a positive manner. I believe this is what sets me apart from the current interim sheriff. I realize I cannot do the job alone. I believe in order to be a good leader; you first must be a good servant. That means you must serve the employees that work for you as well as the citizens that depend on you.
The reason that I mentioned Wayne “Bubba” Osmore’s attempt to have a negative story printed about me in regards to my position on the war on drugs is the fact that I was contacted by Julian Walker of the Richmond Times Dispatch and Patrick Kane from the Petersburg Progress Index.
The both told me the same story that they received an email from Wayne Ozmore. He told them that it was an outrage the CCDC supported a candidate that is pro crime. The quote given to me by the reporters was the same language used in a post that was on Not Larry Sabato.
When I googled Wayne’s name it gave me a listing on this site. Not Larry Sabato: Projected Winner ,Sincerely, Wayne Ozmore, Chairman 4th Congresional District Republican Committee. The funny thing is that I worked with Bubba at the Sheriff’s Office and always found him to be a decent person that I did not have any problems with.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at my website. www.perrydemay.com
Sincerely,
Perry DeMay
Candidate for Sheriff
J. Scott,
I want to compliment you for your thorough and thoughtful piece on the position of Sheriff in Chesterfield County. It was very informative.
One aspect of having an elected Sheriff that bothers me and which you didn’t address is that apparently the Sheriff’s Department becomes ingrained with political connections. I noticed the large contingency from the Sheriff’s office that just happened to turn out at the Sheriff’s debate at the Central Library. I have heard that members of the Sheriff’s Department routinely work the polls to advocate their current Sheriff. And by insinuation, much of the hiring and promotions end up tilted to those who are politically supportive of the Sheriff. Certainly another argument to remove this office from the election cycle and make it solely a professional qualification based position.
J. Scott,
I would have to say that many of the supporters that where present are there because of fear. This is what I call a captive audience. You are correct about politics playing a significant role in the way people progress in the department. That is what I have addressed as my main platform. The Good Ole Boy mentality is not regulated to just one party. If I am elected, I must set the standard to remove the politics in the way that I conduct business.
I anticipate that I will have individuals support me only because they are trying to get ahead in their careers. I must continually guard myself in order to keep from abusing the power that comes with the position. I think that there are a lot better men than me that have fallen victim to the big head and quest for power. I truly believe it is about the service to others and not myself.
That is why I speak about setting specific standards that need to be met in order to receive promotions. When you set those standards and hold everyone to the same requirements, without exceptions you can see that people are promoted according to merit and experience.
I have publicly spoken about individuals who support other candidates not being punished because of their support. That means if they vote or support Dennis Proffitt, they will not be discriminated against. I want everyone in the department to succeed, I don’t care if you’re my friend are not. When you succeed we all benefit.
It does no one any good to change the person running things if the new guy does not change things for the good. I believe everyone has a right to support who ever they choose and for whatever reason that they want. I will not hold that against them. I hope that this helps you understand my mindset and outlook on life in general.
Sincerely,
Perry DeMay
Candidate for Sheriff
Taking into consideration your points on illegal immigration it makes a whole lot of sense to look at other issues given the simple fact that it IS a federal issue and most likely will end up in the courts before States or towns can impact it the right way; get rid of the illegals that is, so other than that it comes down to management and it appears the current system is broken. It has been broken from within in terms of the administration not those that are wearing the uniform and serving the public.
For this reason alone it gives me great pause before making this vote this time around for the status quo.
I think Hall should win, but he will not. It is an uphill battle to fight the establishment here in terms of the Republican stanglehold on the Sheriff position. Profitt will win this one but it may be closer than previously thought. I think he will lose a portion of the vote in the rural areas but win it in areas where the population has exploded, places like Midlothian and western Matoaca which lean republican in nature. DeMay has a beter shot at the Dale and Bermuda areas I think.
If Demay could edit his emails for brevity I would give consideration to his candidacy.
Maybe when your up against so much and have to wander through so many countless misabuses of power in the system it takes alot of words?????????
Post a Comment