There are some valid points made in the first half of the article, but it sells the candidates short in the end. All four of the top candidates are willing, able and ready to make the "hard decisions" that need to be made. Acting Sheriff Anderson is a perfect example of that. He's removed members of the department who were peers of his, he proposes a dramatic change in who will staff the jails, he's changed the promotion process for deputies, initiated the installation of cameras in the jails, embraced the office of independent review, initiated both internal and external investigations into his own department and continues to work on rehabilitating the department as the deadline for a decision nears.

Paul Walters also made wholesale changes to Santa Ana PD when he took over. His efforts have earned him national recognition and garnered him consideration for the top cop at LAPD.

To suggest that Martin is the only one who can make that change is disingenuous at a minimum and a wholesale propaganda effort at best. Martin is an outsider and his effort to make that his strength is admirable. I'm just not buying that it's enough to make him the right guy.

I did a quick google search on the author because I thought I recognized his name. It seems only a short time ago he attended a $1500 a plate fundraiser for none other than MIKE CARONA. He's also lost an election to Tom Harman, authored a failed proposition for union dues reform and financially supported 2 candidates for president (Romney and Bauer) that went nowhere.

I don't mean to question the man's beliefs, just point out that he isn't the most accurate prognosticator when it comes to politics.

A pretty fair assesment in most respects. However being a CEO of a Corporation does not equate to running a para-military type police agency nor does it provide any special knowledge as to candidate qualifications. Regarding electability, the great unknown is how many of those voters out there who voted for Carona would now vote for any one of the candidates. A public poll was run which found the public didn't want as Sheriff anyone connected to Carona. It's a safe bet that the distain for what happened is universal and "connected" means just that. In 2006 Hunt garnered 100,000 votes with Martin comming in third. It's my thought that if there had been a run-off considerable amounts of money would of flowed into Hunt's and Martin's coffers and we wouldn't be looking in the mirror now. Union management has no say on who gets disciplined and who does not. There will be a battle comming up no matter who is appointed. Hunt became an "Outsider" the minute he questioned Carona's integrity. Yet he is an outsider who knows the people responsible for the culture that is pervasive in the Department and is best suited to eliminate it. Nonetheless, may the best person win.

More last minute propaganda.

I think he missed one real spoiler in this race and that is Craig Hunter from Anaheim. He has all of the characterictics Jim mentioned. Raised in OC, 30 years of OC law enforcement experience, runs daily operations of one of America's most respected police departments. And he has experience running a jail. In voter polls he scored twice as high as Martin.

Jim, arent you a Family PAC guy? Shouldn't your values require full disclosure?

I forgot. Quote from the author:
"A recent DA investigation shows a complete breakdown in administering the jail system".
What experience does Martin have in administering a jail system?

From the media on Righeimer....

"....The victorious Tom Harman sent out a zippy four-page mailer calling Righeimer a deadbeat and outlining (with legal citations) several lawsuits and liens against him. It’s no secret that he declared bankruptcy before the economy magically resuscitated itself." (During Jim's failed campaign to replace Scott Baugh in the Assembly)

Righeimer's decision comes down to partisan politics. I'm shocked, absolutely shocked, coming from him.

The last thing we need with our new sheriff is partisan politics.

The candidate's for sheriff should be judged on their experience, training and vision for restoring the integrity to the department.
Not for what political party they belong to or how long they belonged to it.

BR-

I disagree with your interpretation of Righeimer's decision. The only point in this article in which he even mentioned political affiliation was in order to differentiate between Walters and Martin.

Even though I disagree with his decision, I understand what he means. It's not as much about which party the next Sheriff belongs to, but instead whether or not this Sheriff appointee will be able to win re-election in a few years. It would serve our county badly for the Supervisors' appointee to serve for only 2 years. In that, I understand why Jim used political affiliation (in no particular direction) as an element of his decision. While Martin would likely have the full support of the OCGOP in a few years, Walters would have to build a different kind of coalition to win re-election, and a challenge could come from both sides instead of one.

Again, I disagree with Jim's choice, but I think your criticism is unwarranted.

BR, relax, Jim has his opinions and takes the time to articulate them. Agree or disagree, but he does make some good points.

I too agree that the solution has to come from outside the department. He handicaps it down to Martin, I think it is between Martin and Walters. The reality is that the selection does have some department AND some political ramifications. To ignore those facts is not too bright.

Sorry D'A and Spock, but while its admirable you've got Jim's back I'm not buying the story. Ringheimer and his political soul mate Jim Bieber don't like Walters, primarily because he was a Democrat and had the endorsement of the AOCDS during his run against Corona in 1998. Bieber posted some misleading scuds against Walters over at Blue County. Jubal investigated the allegations and demonstrated they were garbage. These guys have an axe to grind against Walters and no talk about electibility will hide that.

I think the key to re-election is going to be how significant the new sheriff will change the department, especially the jail. There has to be a break from the past. People aren't going to vote based on Ed Royce's endorsement or Loretta Sanchez's endorsement or any of the politicians---they'll vote for the appointed sheriff if he does a good job, builds on the departments strengths and cleans up its messes. If they do that, any of at least the top 3 or 4 should be able to win.

The Board of Supervisors needs to select the best qualified candidate for sheriff, not the best-connected candidate. We're the laughingstock of the country for what happened with Carona. let's not magnify the problem by basing the replacement decision on politics rather than who can do the best job for the people of Orange County..

D'Anconia is spot on about the risk of lack of continuity. That would be a bad thing. Along those lines, someone shows up at the Department as the new boss(at least for the next few years). That person says to the nearest unknown bystander: "Who is that guy?" The answer is: "That's Captain so-and-so". "What does he do?" etc. Break that down to dozens of high ranking supervisors. You get the picture. Another ramification is the average John Q. Citizen who is aware that the former Sheriff has some legal issues and has split town. Does anybody really believe that a few hundred thousand Republican voters follow the blogs and listen to us posters? This is what they see. The Register and LA Times saying some Guy or Gal from Los Angeles or Podunk, North Dakota just got the new job to take care of all us misdirected Orange County people. First thought is: There must be some Son or Daughter of Orange County to fit the bill. Who the heck are these presumptious Supervisors? All of a sudden the Supervisors are in the limelight. And they should be.

Anonymous,
For the record I never filed bankruptcy. Unlike many homebuilders in the late 80's I paid all of my debts. It took 9 years.
Second, Tom Harman did not send out any mail. He did not have a campaign. All his mail was an IE paid for by all the state public employee unions who were not happy with me authoring Prop 226 (Paycheck Protection). Harman just went along for the ride.

Lastly, You mentioned a poll. Who would do a poll? Maybe the union you belong to? Which public employee union do you belong to? AOCDS?

Interesting Jim, you find that someone has made some false allegations against you and you respond by making wild allegations of your own. Don't waste your time, it does little to lend credence to your opinion.

Tell me, you say you've met Jack Anderson and Paul Walters, what's wrong with them? Anderson is a solid republican and his efforts to repair OCSD are spot on. Paul Walters may be schizophrenic as far as party affiliation but he has support from all sides based solely on his law enforcement expertise. Isn't the office of Sheriff non partisan? Clearly both of these candidates can be re-elected and don't you think the Republican party can also line up behind them if they are doing the job?

BR, while I certainly appreciate the sentimnent, the practical fact is that the Sheriff is a political office and neither the union or the the Lincoln Club will keep their mitts off the process.

That said, I disagree with Rig and Rocket, et al., about the need for "continuity." You're right BR - if the appointee does a good job he'll get re-elected. Appointing someone on their (perceived) ability to be re-elected is ludicrous and would immediately doom the process to politicization. Hire on ability and let the chips fall where they may. That's the only way to de-politicize the office. It's up to the goodwill and responsibility of the Supervisors - and we'll know by Tuesday night about that.

As to breaking with the past, I think that's absolutely essential. Anderson and Hunt are part of the previous culture - regardless of their adherent's encomia. The page needs to be turned.

I was smiling when I wrote that.

Greeny, What false allegations? Everything I said was a fact. In the land of the blog if you do not correct statements made about yourself which are not true, no one else will and over time people will take them as fact. Let me know what facts are wrong and I will be glad to correct the record.

My reputation is what gives credence to my opinions. I just would appreciate before someone tries to tarnish my reputation, they get their facts correct.

Lastly- I have stated in the column that both Walters and Martin are qualified. All things being equal, why would we want a Sheriff that has any chance of not getting reelected. We have already been though enough. In a perfect world it might not be political. In this case it is.

Jim, you have every right to straighten out the record. I was referring to your last sentence, it was rather presumptive.

As for your last sentence on your most recent post, I tend to agree with RedPeregrine, If they do a good job then it doesn't matter what their affiliation is. I don't know what LAPD's chief of police is and he's well liked. I don't know the party affiliation of Anaheim PD's Chief but I can tell you that he's one hell of a cop! The bottom line is if the person selected by the board is a top notch cop/organizational leader who makes all the right changes then we will all be behind him/her in 2 years. For once, leave the party affiliation where it belongs. This is about picking the best leader for an organization that is in a state of unparalleled change.

Jim here is your answer on the poll~

I think it shows good numbers for Hunter particularly since it was way back when he was really not known. But the more important numbers are Martins. And the numbers on an OC Law Enforcement connction seem crucial.
http://oemp.level2hosting.com/system/data/user_uploads/4/image/OrangeCountywide_1_08.pdf

Hey Red. Don't get me wrong. I don't think continuity is a predominant factor as far as the Department and the public is concerned. But it sure would be helpful in getting things on track quickly. I just want this Carona stuff to go away as soon as possible so I can forget about it. In this regard I don't think any polls need be taken. (place smiley here)

In honor of Memorial Day, I'm curious how many candidates served in our armed forces. The only two I know of are Jack Anderson and Bill Hunt. I say they and anyone else who served deserve bonus points for that.

Rocket, I don't want the Carona "stuff" to go away. I want it to linger long enough to remind everybody (especially those who promoted him and those who respect or fear those who promoted him) what happens when a corrupt and utterly venal man gets into office.

Jims R. you asked: "All things being equal, why would we want a Sheriff that has any chance of not getting reelected. We have already been though enough. In a perfect world it might not be political. In this case it is."

Jim, how do you know who has or has not got a chance of being elected? All things aren't equal and never will be. Even if they were, once you slip the idea of electibility (not relectibility) into the end of equation it wouldn't be an equation anymore. Then it would be a political question as to whose friends can wield enough political muscle to get their boy in. And that's how we got stuck with Carona in the first place. As to whether or not "we have already been through enough," please see the first observation above.

Red. I'm not of the opinion that the County is awash in corruption or that we need someone from a different County to save us from ourselves. That sends a bad message. Keeping the issue alive solely for the purposes you mention does not make me any less tired of it. Think of the bright side. Some more heads will probably roll the further the Feds get into it. Think plea bargain.

Green Machine:
Anderson and Hunt are not the only two who served in the military. Walters was in the Air Force and programmed guidance systems in missiles.

..on another topic, Martin and one of his Lieutenants toured the jails in OC. He told some of the deputies that he was promised the sheriff job and detailed some of the changes he is going to make. He wants to get rid of the 3/12 shifts and make them 5/8 among other things. Needless to say, should the supes lose their collective minds and appoint him, there will be a massive exodus of qualified personnel, a new sheriff that is very politically motivated and a new Carona in town.

Re: Paul M. Walters

The powers that be should discuss this man's so-called leadership ability with present and past SAPD management. Corruption, favoritism, lack of discipline, special detail's at the expense of front-line police work, low morale.

Here is the latest poll (just out today) by the AOCDS, which shows Martin at the bottom and some fairly negative LA issues.

http://aocds.org/orange-countywide-analysis-5-24.htm

Although this campaign is to "win" an appointment, Martin seems to be doing the political job to get it. The bigger question will OC vote for him? I don't think so, Hunt while not getting much supervisor support is the only one known as the anti-Carona.

If I was advising a campaign I'd center on defeating the "inside" candidate whoever is annointed by the BOS. Unfortunatly the BOS must share so much of the blame for Carona and the Departments problems. A white knight campaign could be a real winner in 2010.

An on the matter of Anderson, does anybody realy believe he didn't know what was going on in the administration that he was part of? If not do we want a Sheriff who can't see or ignores crime(s) being committed right in front of him?

Well, so much for my thinking how the public would vote being the "great unknown". It would seem the distain for Carona or those "connected" to him has increased significantly since the origional poll. Martin picked up a whopping 1-2% of those polled. I'm not sure I like the shot Martin took at Walters in the LA Times either.

Memorial Day Observer,

Okay, so Walters also served in the military too, kudos to him as well. I doubt it plays a part in the overall assessment of the candidates, but if you listened to those who served in combat, as I did today, I think the board would have a greater appreciation for the candidates who did serve.

Unfortunately guys like Jim Righeimer who wrote the original posting are more worried about electability than getting the right person for the job. I'm of the belief that if the right candidate is selected then the job will get done. And if that happens then electability will surely follow and we won't have to worry about it.

Green Machine. I know you favor Anderson to some extent by reading your posts. Something that caused me concern were allegations in the media of his apparent repeated failure to follow Departmental protocal. Most recently on May 21, 2008, he provided a "Confidential" memorandum to the Board of Supervisors about "Discovery of Video Recordings". Therein he says: "I have done a 'preliminary reveiw of the computer files' in one of the computer towers (there were two hard drives), some access is password protected and I have been able to veiw some video recordings of the Sheriff's office which appear to have been accomplished with concealed cameras along the ceiling". AKA "Pinholes in the ceiling". As a lay person I'm thinking, isn't tampering with potential Federal evidence a bad thing? I would think a high ranking official's first thought would be not to take a look-see but to immediately call the Feds. Just a thought.

Agreed Green Machine when you said, "Unfortunately guys like Jim Righeimer who wrote the original posting are more worried about electability than getting the right person for the job."

Jim, "Arrested one holiday for booze on the beach" Righeimer and then denied it ever happened is not someone to listen to here.

Rocket,

I do think Anderson has done an admirable job, and I also think it is unfair to anchor him down because his boss was Mike Carona. I also happen to think highly of Paul Walters and the job he's done in Santa Ana. As for the preliminary review of the computer, I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to determine what if anything was on it. If anything had been tampered with or opened a forensic computer expert would easily be able to detect it. Anderson isn't stupid, I'm sure he knows that. A brief review to determine if it's worthy of reporting isn't necessarily something that's out of protocol.

Anonymous at 10:54pm,

I'm glad you agree with me, but I think it's unfair to attack Righeimer with a personal attack like that. IF it did happen like you said then that is unfortunate, but an anonymous rip without supporting information is below the belt...just my opinion.