Well im off the clock so to speak, and relaxing. I only know what i read in the papers. :)
If you all want to discuss the Emerson thing, you can do so here.
I may not check in again till Monday or so,
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A blog by Managing Editor James Jordan about the newspaper. So far it's mostly about city commission, but I hope to delve into other local issues.
Posts
My Blog List, My blogs are in capital letters
people following this blog
Live Blogs
About Me
- Traveler Editor
- I have been at the Traveler for 4 years. I have been in the newspaper business longer than that. I came here from South Carolina. Apart from that, I am an unapologetic Jesus Freak. I am not, however, Republican.
80 comments:
Let me be the first. During a board meeting of the Udall city council I am 100% sure the words interim chief were spoken, along with officer in charge. Was I hired as the new Chief? No. Did I do the job of the Chief? Yes. You can call it whatever you want. Chief, Interim Chief, Acting Chief, Officer In Charge. I believe they are all the same. I received a pay raise as compensation, I was on call 24 hours, I took the patrol car home, I was in charge of the other officers, by doing scheduling discipline etc. I was also responsible for reviewing their daily logs, and reports. I turned in reports and paperwork to the courts and the state of Kansas. If someone called the Police Department and wanted to talk to the Chief they were refferred to me. All I was doing was saying I have experience in running the daily opperations in 2 different departments. I will stand by what I have claimed and add the only thing I should have done different is always call myself the interim chief instead of the Chief because wheather Udall wants to admit it or not that is what I was. I also feel like I should be allowed to use that statement in a campaign for an election to office.
This does not remove the fact that I have great ideas for cutting the budget at the Sheriff depatrtment. I will provide great leadership to stop the exodus of trained officers to other departments. I am a good man, who has served the county in many different ways. I have received a great deal of support from everyone that has read the Courier article. It was not fairly written and with only 4 days until the election done in poor taste. I promise to be the best Sheriff I can be and make you proud you voted for me to be the 36th Sheriff of Cowley County.
Your right Mr. Emerson you are a good man, but that in no way qualifies you to be Sheriff. Your statements wether they are or not have the perception of misleading. You have very little experience related to law enforcement and I believe that experience matters. I know CPR, that does not make me a heart surgeon! And yes how you conduct your personal matters usually is a good representation of how you will represent your public matters. I was not a huge fan of both candidates but education, integrity, and a truthful perception is important to this voter. After listning to the debate an talking to others you are completly out of touch with todays law enforcement needs.
I was the second in command officer in a three man Plice Dept in a small town in Kansas also. When my boss, The Chief, was out of town, or just didn't want to be bothered, I was the one they turned to. I did all the tasks that the Chief did.
I was seriously considering voting for you in the upcoming election, only because I feel the dept could use some change, but after careful consideration, I don't feel you would be ready "on day one" to handle a crisis if it were to happen.
I have been out of law enfocement for six years myself, less time than you, and I have forgotten a TON of the Kansas Statutes, and many of them have changed since I left. I would not feel comfortable going out on the street without some time to re-learn the laws and procedures. And, like you, I would have to attend KLETC again, which was only 8 weeks when I went through it, but is not something like 14 weeks.
I'm sorry, but as a former Police Officer and Deputy Sheriff, I have to go with the experience this time, even though I wish there were a better choice.
Let this be a lesson to anyone running for office.. any office... in the future. If you have skeletons in your closet, don't even bother signing up if you don't want them to come out.
I am a firm believer that politics and law enforcement should NOT mix, and that any time you have campaign contributors (and Read has a LOT of them), you leave a window open to corruption. Even if that corruption is something as simple as not giving a speeding ticket when one is deserved, or taking someone home when they are caught driving drunk instead of to jail where they belong, or to helping a contributor's kid out of trouble. I have seen it time and again. I believe it will always be that way until our system of selecting a Sheriff changes.
I challege Mr Read to promise that none of that will go on in his department. Then he might get my vote.
he was only the interm chief for 2 months , so what in 2 months you hardly learn any job , throw in the towel , Don Read has been the clear choice for sheriff for as long as i have lived here 18 years , you should have not decided to run against him ,
i have a truck load of emerson campain signs for sale CHEAP
boo hoo the courier said i lied hwen in fact i just streched the truth , have a heart
This is scary. I know that it has been a difficult election year for both of these guys... but seriously. My mom always told me to make sure people like me for who I am, not what they want me to be. Why would you add to your resume when the TRUE one was probably enough. If you started this by saying, "I know that I do not have law enforcement experience, but I can do this job. I have experience in running an operation that include budgeting, scheduling...etc." Anyways... you get it, don't you? Why in the heck would you come out and say that you were chief when people have such easy access to information these days. It does not look good to have been "Chief" for two months. Does anything even happen in Udall in 2 months? Just kidding, but really? How many officers were working under you at that time? Did you seriously have to discipline anyone? Doubt it.
Anonymous said...
i have a truck load of emerson campain signs for sale CHEAP
August 2, 2008 11:25 AM
Your probably the a wipe that has been stealing them!
"Does anything even happen in Udall in 2 months"
Yup. The wait to catch the unsuspecting motorist passing thru and write speeding tickets.
Anonymous said...
i have a truck load of emerson campain signs for sale CHEAP
August 2, 2008 11:25 AM
Your probably the a wipe that has been stealing them!
August 2, 2008 1:49 PM
that was sarcastic i thought u were smarter than that .
Why did you suggest that i was a A WIPE u dont know me
no one has been stealing signs from yards people do not want to be the ones pulling against the leading canidate MR DON READ
Yeah, but is Read a very friendly guy like odell? I walked past him one day when he was coming from a house and he didn't say a word or smile. Not that i think somebody should knock themselves out to acknowledge me, but as far as i can see he is not very friendly and needs to get a few friendliness tips from Odell.
OOh... you drove the patrol car home!!
Anonymous said...
Yeah, but is Read a very friendly guy like odell? I walked past him one day when he was coming from a house and he didn't say a word or smile. Not that i think somebody should knock themselves out to acknowledge me, but as far as i can see he is not very friendly and needs to get a few friendliness tips from Odell.
August 2, 2008 4:23 PM
CAN YOU SAY MOODY??????????
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
i have a truck load of emerson campain signs for sale CHEAP
August 2, 2008 11:25 AM
Your probably the a wipe that has been stealing them!
August 2, 2008 1:49 PM
that was sarcastic i thought u were smarter than that .
Why did you suggest that i was a A WIPE u dont know me
August 2, 2008 4:03 PM
Boo hoo that was sarcastic....your initial ocmment was sarcastic, so get over it!
Emerson said: "Thursday night at the fair, I used this analogy with an old oil field friend of mine. On an oil-drilling rig, the man in charge is the driller."
Dude, the guy in charge is the company man and the second in charge is the tool-pusher. It is that way from Kansas to Bahrain. I don't know who the "driller" might be. Sounds like another made up story.
If you got caught inflating your resume, then admit it and go home.
What would you do if you hired someone and found out they lied on "their" resume? Is that OK? Of course not. You would have to fire them. I'm sure it is a written policy. But could you do it with a clear conscience?
Standards and ethics have to start at the top. There is no such thing as a "little white lie" with law enforcement, management, and elected officials.
What is going to happen on arrests? If you have this stigma of mis-representing your experience, will people trust you to arrest them or others? It could create a scrutiny that will follow you through the life of the job.
Pack it in. Go do something else.
It is a good thing this came out sooner rather than later.
Why don't you move over to Sedan and run against Their Sheriff Frank Green if he gets elected again this time. He is the biggest crook to ever put on a uniform.
Have you ever talked to Frank Green?
Do you have anything to support what you said?
If you're going to call someone a name like that, then you'd better have something to back it up.
hmmm... For some reson I thought this was about the Cowley County race. Weird. What was I thinking??
You'd be right, this is about the Cowley County election. But given that I'm a resident of Chautauqua County and someone brought up the election over here, I decided to chip in.
Yes. I have talked to Green. The County Attorney had a package 3 inches thinck of evidence of him lying on the witness stand, missing drugs from the evidence locker, etc, but was too afraid to pull the trigger and report it. I wouldn't be so quick to defend unless you know the facts.
Frank Green is real good at telling people what they want to hear. That much is true.
>>Yes. I have talked to Green. The County Attorney had a package 3 inches thinck of evidence of him lying on the witness stand, missing drugs from the evidence locker, etc, but was too afraid to pull the trigger and report it. I wouldn't be so quick to defend unless you know the facts.
Do you have anything to support any of this or am I simply supposed to go off your word alone? Hearsay won't get you too far on a public forum.
And how did you know about that?
Because I was friends with David Maslem, the Chautauqua County Attorney at the time. He lived here in AC but worked over there.
It is true, I promise you. Please do NOT vote for him in the upcoming election.
There's always two sides to a story. I'm not saying that lying on a witness stand is acceptable. But that is a pretty big accusation and without some evidence other than just hearsay, I can't take it with any more of a grain of salt than I could someone who told me Frank Green could walk on water.
There's always a gray area, even in situations where they seem black and white. Do you have any more details on the case?
Let's just clear the air for a second. It is very obvious to me that both Read and Emerson are nice enough guys. I'm sure I could be friends with either of them. But that isn't what we are talking about here. The decision that needs to be made is who is better qualified and who would do a better job. That's it. When I pass Read, he never hesitates to acknowledge me, shake my hand, whatever. I've found Emerson to be just as friendly. If Read wasn't running, there is a decent enough chance I'd consider Emerson depending upon who was running against him. There is nothing wrong with a little friendly opposition. As best as I can tell it has been a fairly amicable race. When someone is opposing you directly there is always a little friction but I would say they've both handled that well. Bottome line is we have a clear and easy choice. I will be eager to see what happens in the other local races.
CQ county voter,
It is true. I know it for a fact. I can't go into specifics, but I assure you that it is the god's truth. I can't say how, but I am in the know.
Please, do not vote Frank Green for Sheriff.
you already blew it. you named the attorney as your source. duh...
Anonymous said:
Because I was friends with David Maslem, the Chautauqua County Attorney at the time.
I say:
And I repeat, you named him, it's a shame you didn't id yourself
>>CQ county voter,
It is true. I know it for a fact. I can't go into specifics, but I assure you that it is the god's truth. I can't say how, but I am in the know.
Please, do not vote Frank Green for Sheriff.
Without any further details other than that you know the county attorney, how am I supposed to know you're not leaving out details?
That's like someone coming up to my street and telling me how to change out the transmission in my car, or reinstall the operating system on my computer?
Without some credentials, or proof, why would I be inclined to believe him or her?
When you're on a public forum, it's expected that you back up what you say with facts, not just hearsay. This is especially true when you're accusing someone of a crime. This rule goes for blogs, internet forums, even the court of law (in theory). You must have proof, or else your argument just boils down to "Well, my friend told me this," which is essentially what you're telling me.
So unless I see some evidence on this man, or at the very least a detailed response on the situation, then I'm not going to be inclined to believe you over any of the other numerous myths that are bound to circulate about someone in the position of power.
amen!!!
"you already blew it. you named the attorney as your source. duh..."
DUH... Who would know better than the COUNTY ATTORNEY who handled every single case that was turned in by the Sheriff's Dept. If he'd had the guts to turn the Sheriff in to the Attorney general, like he threatened to many times, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
And you repeated it even... woooooo Whatever THAT means. dork.
"So unless I see some evidence on this man, or at the very least a detailed response on the situation, then I'm not going to be inclined to believe you over any of the other numerous myths that are bound to circulate about someone in the position of power."
Well then all I can say to you is that I gave you the truth and you chose not to believe it. I was only trying to help you know what goes on behind closed doors because few people really do. It really doesn't matter to me whether you believe me or not, because I don't have to live there, but I was trying to help you know the truth about who is protecting you.
And, I would add, you just better hope you never have to deal with him in his chosen profession. I myself have seen him lie to judges, coach defendants on what to say, lie on the witness stand, and violate more people's rights than I can remember. If you vote him into office, then I guess you deserve him, so who am I to try to help.
>>Well then all I can say to you is that I gave you the truth and you chose not to believe it. I was only trying to help you know what goes on behind closed doors because few people really do. It really doesn't matter to me whether you believe me or not, because I don't have to live there, but I was trying to help you know the truth about who is protecting you.
>>And, I would add, you just better hope you never have to deal with him in his chosen profession. I myself have seen him lie to judges, coach defendants on what to say, lie on the witness stand, and violate more people's rights than I can remember. If you vote him into office, then I guess you deserve him, so who am I to try to help.
Leveling serious accusations against an elected official, claiming to be in the know, and then shrinking away providing any proof is not helping anyone.
Nowhere is anyone going to believe you simply on what you say alone. Especially not on the internet when it is only your screen name.
So again, until you can come on here and give me and every one else reading this something tangible, or at the very least something more detailed, then don't expect insta-credibility. That goes to anywhere where you try to debate and argue a point, it's the basics of discussion and debate on a public forum.
I don't care... vote for the man if you like. But remember this: If you ever do find out the truth.. someone tried to warn you, and you dismissed them.
I bid you good day.
no no one has to prove anything to you . you are just trying to get the story so you can gossip
>>no no one has to prove anything to you . you are just trying to get the story so you can gossip
Oh, it's not just proving something to me, it's to anyone from CQ who is reading this. I'm failing to see what is complicated about the concept that when you level accusations against someone, especially in public, you have to back yourself up by giving evidence. It's expected from candidates, it's expected in college research papers, why would it be expected from someone off the street making claims like this person did?
And you expect me to make a decision purely based on another person's gossip? With nothing to back up their claims?
Haha, okay.
why would it not be expected* is what I meant to say in that first paragraph.
Dont you guys have your own newspaper???
I didn't know you people could read.
"Oh, it's not just proving something to me, it's to anyone from CQ who is reading this. I'm failing to see what is complicated about the concept that when you level accusations against someone, especially in public, you have to back yourself up by giving evidence. It's expected from candidates, it's expected in college research papers, why would it be expected from someone off the street making claims like this person did?"
Have you ever considered the fact that if they are telling the truth, the sheriff they are talking about doesn't sound like the type you want after you. Crooked cops have a lot of power. Maybe if he or she gave enough details to pinpoint themselves, they might become a target.
>> Have you ever considered the fact that if they are telling the truth, the sheriff they are talking about doesn't sound like the type you want after you. Crooked cops have a lot of power. Maybe if he or she gave enough details to pinpoint themselves, they might become a target.
Understandable, but they could certainly give more detail than what this person has. If they want people to know the truth, then they can find a way to give out something more tangible than "Well, my friend told me..."
"I myself have seen him lie to judges, coach defendants on what to say, lie on the witness stand, and violate more people's rights than I can remember."
Maybe you missed that part.
Wow! You can tell JJ is out of town. This is getting wicked!
>>"I myself have seen him lie to judges, coach defendants on what to say, lie on the witness stand, and violate more people's rights than I can remember."
>>Maybe you missed that part.
My point still stands. Without even so much as a detail on said cases to give credibility to what he said, then he is no more believable than any other person on the street. I've seen tons of accusations like that thrown in races, all from people who claimed to have been right there when it all went down. Yet few, if any of them can actually provide any backing for it.
No one is required to tell the truth on the internet, and many neglect to. I'm not saying this poster is lying, but I am saying that without anything to back up what he has said, he does not get any more credibility than the next person.
But what if they aren't lying, and you vote for that?
>> But what if they aren't lying, and you vote for that?
The point is that no one on here (aside from himself and someone who may know who he is) knows whether he or she is being honest or not. So why would I make a decision based purely on the claims of an anonymous person on the internet? That makes absolutely no sense.
we are entitled to our opinion , we dont have to prove anything to you , we dont have to tell you the details so you can decide , your thoughts never even play into it , its a personal thought that was shared , THANK YOU for sharing it
Well, it sounds like they are more in the know than you are. Maybe you should try to find out for yourself.
>>we are entitled to our opinion , we dont have to prove anything to you , we dont have to tell you the details so you can decide , your thoughts never even play into it , its a personal thought that was shared , THANK YOU for sharing it
Wrong again. If you make accusations, be prepared to back them up. If it's a personal opinion, then call it that. They, however, labeled it a fact. There's a difference, look it up.
>>Well, it sounds like they are more in the know than you are. Maybe you should try to find out for yourself.
While one can always been more knowledgeable on subject, I did not accuse a public official of lying on a witness stand, among other things. The burden of proof is not on me.
Just got back.
Maybe we should start a paper over in CQ.
I thought the accusations were pretty strong, but ... an anonymous person making accusations without any tangible evidence, doesnt carry much weight.
Ill write more later.
The trip home is always long.
Remember to vote.
"an anonymous person making accusations without any tangible evidence, doesn't carry much weight."
True.
In contrast, Emerson admitted inflating his qualifications.
Ethics is a lost among many of our elected officials. Ethics is not open to their own slant. You have them or you don't. Misleading or misdirection is an example of poor ethics and will leave a black cloud of suspect in your office. Sorry Mr. Emerson, but you would bring too much suspicion of your actions to the office.
Anonymous said...
>>we are entitled to our opinion , we dont have to prove anything to you , we dont have to tell you the details so you can decide , your thoughts never even play into it , its a personal thought that was shared , THANK YOU for sharing it
Wrong again. If you make accusations, be prepared to back them up. If it's a personal opinion, then call it that. They, however, labeled it a fact. There's a difference, look it up.
NO I DONT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING TO YOU , I DONT HAVE TO BACK IT UP TO YOU AND I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK
Well, if they were there, and saw it for themselves, then I guess they would know better than you, huh.
Well, if they were there, and saw it for themselves, then I guess they would know better than you, huh.
"Well im off the clock so to speak, and relaxing. I only know what i read in the papers. :)
If you all want to discuss the Emerson thing, you can do so here.
I may not check in again till Monday or so,"
Posted by Traveler Editor at 8/01/2008
And you sure do not report alot in the "paper". Do you not have some responsibility to your readership to keep them informed.
The City Commission had on it's agenda for tonight, discussion of raises for most city utilities. Did that agenda get a mention in the paper? No it did not. Why?
And you sure do not report alot in the "paper". Do you not have some responsibility to your readership to keep them informed.
The City Commission had on it's agenda for tonight, discussion of raises for most city utilities. Did that agenda get a mention in the paper? No it did not. Why?
>>>>>>>>>
Your attitude makes me really want to help you.
Ive been on vacation ok, so sue me.
the rate increases were written about when it was first discussed in budget hearings last month, and then again after a regular meeting last month,
and mentioned in passing at least once.
Maybe you could actually read the paper before being so negative:)
Gosh, shame on me. But the actual consideration wasn't placed on the "agenda" until this meeting.
I repeat publishing the agenda is what's important. If it was a paid add, would that help?
>>NO I DONT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING TO YOU , I DONT HAVE TO BACK IT UP TO YOU AND I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK
Haha, alright bud. Typing in caps is quite the mature way to get your point across. I'm impressed.
If you don't have to "prove" anything to me about your accusations, then don't whine to me when I don't take what you say hook, line and sinker.
>>Well, if they were there, and saw it for themselves, then I guess they would know better than you, huh.
If they're telling the truth, sure. But again, do you know the person in question? Can you provide tangible evidence to back up what they say? Or are you gullible to believe anything a 100 percent anonymous person says on the internet?
Answer me this. Speaking hypothetically, if any of the candidates in any of the recent debates had called the their opposition crooks and when asked why, or asked what made them crooks, simply said "Do your own research." Or "I don't have to prove anything to you." Would you believe them?
If so, then I have some competitively priced beach front property in Kansas for you.
The point behind that question was that this is exactly whats going on here, only this is not a candidate, it's an anonymous person on a blog that we know absolutely nothing about. No name, no credentials, no details on the cases in question, no documents, nothing. As James Jordan said, it doesn't hold much weight, if any.
I have mentioned this blog to several people in an effort to get them to read it and share in the opinions of the local literati. I am sorry that I did that. Hopefully, the quality and meaningfulness of the blogs will increase now that the dreaded editor has returned. What saddens me is that the recent postings probably reflect those that were weeded out when we had a moderator and aren't some new aberration.
Also, I am probably going to have to generate a new blog name becaue I cam't seem to get rid of the Rick&Amp;Kathy. I'm still at a loss as to the source of the "Amp".
>>NO I DONT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING TO YOU , I DONT HAVE TO BACK IT UP TO YOU AND I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK
"Haha, alright bud. Typing in caps is quite the mature way to get your point across. I'm impressed."
Just to be clear, the person who started the discussion did not write that. They quit posting after they bid you good day. Yes, I know who it is, and they are reputable.
As for evidence.. he said he was there and saw it, which means he was either an LEO, an Attorney, or someone inside the proceedings. And if eye witness evidence isn't good enough for you? I hope you're not on any juries in the near future.
I should say I'm "pretty sure" I know who it is, and if it is who I think it is, they are reputable. Wouldn't want to have to eat crow later if it turns out I was wrong.
>>As for evidence.. he said he was there and saw it, which means he was either an LEO, an Attorney, or someone inside the proceedings. And if eye witness evidence isn't good enough for you? I hope you're not on any juries in the near future.
Right, but you're assuming that it is this person. If it is, then what they say should definitely be taken into account.
Eye witness evidence is enough, given I know who its coming form. When its from a 100 percent anonymous source on the internet... well, it'd be pretty foolish to take it into account without considering the possibility that the other party may be lying.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? And why I'm asking for some proof to back up those accusations?
GO AWAY AND TALK ABOUT THE UNETHICAL PEOPLE IN YOUR COUNTY SOMEWHERE ELSE. WE HAVE ENOUGH OF OUR OWN TO DISCUSS!!!
>>GO AWAY AND TALK ABOUT THE UNETHICAL PEOPLE IN YOUR COUNTY SOMEWHERE ELSE. WE HAVE ENOUGH OF OUR OWN TO DISCUSS!!!
I think the discussion has pretty well turned from Emerson for the moment. Shouting in caps probably won't turn it back.
This is so sad. I guess I was wrong. JJ please come back and moderate this.
I've enjoyed the blog, but this is rediculous. Accusations, no name, possibly someone in the courtroom.
Whatever your position, it is sad that you chose to come at it through this blog. I don't care how many times you repeat what you said, it does not, and I repeat, DOES NOT make it something that we should all take to heart. I'm sorry, but anybody can say anything about anyone and say, 'it's a fact'. Without your name or id to back it up, it becomes a 'he said - she said' deal and they don't generally work for most people.
"he was either an LEO, an Attorney, or someone inside the proceedings"
SG is that you?
I always thought LEO was a Kosher breakfast.
Lox (smoked salmon) Eggs and Onions.
Generally scrambled. Just like this blog.
;)
Everybody already knew what lox was before you took the time to explain it Lagonda. One thing you have appropriately pointed out is the very close comparison of the words above to a stinky unenjoyable fish.
now that the dreaded editor has returned.
>>>>>>>>
gonna have to tighten up looks like.
some people just have an axe to grind.
probably got a speeding ticket or something.
Or maybe they just don't ike corruption. But nothing like that ever happens around here, right?! He must be a crazy person with an axe to grind. Wake up people.
Or maybe they just don't ike corruption. But nothing like that ever happens around here, right?! He must be a crazy person with an axe to grind. Wake up people.
>>>>
again, making accusation anonymously, doesnt carry much weight.
bring us some evidence and put your name on it.
Well, it doesn't matter, because Frank Green got voted out last night. Yippppeeeeeeeee! FINALLY those people woke up! It's a glorious day!
Now the new Sheriff just has to watch his back until he make it to his first day.
I agree with the anon poster, the one that has been out of law enforcement for a few years, that the Sheriff's race only sets the candidate up to then 'owe' favors (just like our corrupt presidential and other politcal positions). The person with the most friends and/or family WITH MONEY usually wins, then they owe all those people favors (like Mr. Bush and all his OIL FRIENDS who now are benifiting from the 'war' which has made them all so rich) The sheriff race should be done in a different way, not through contributions, how can you take someone's money and then look them in the eye while you arrest or ticket them- I feel they would get a 'favor' instead also. As far as the corruption with law enforcement around here, just ask a few lawyers you know how much lying goes on in court, I have had several lawyers here in town tell me the local police lie all the time in court. I myself had a minor infraction which I signed, only to go to court sure it would be dismissed, then having a complete lie costing me that-i had no idea that they had written that in the paperwork when i signed it, so it was a complete suprise to me that it was in there, and i honestly feel it was written into the paperwork to make sure it wouldn't be dropped. I thought you could trust the cops, that is why i signed it without reading it (i knew what i did so wasn't worried about what was written down), but there it was, a very big lie written into it. So, ALWAYS read the paperwork BEFORE you sign anything for the cops here, very big lesson learned on my end, don't trust anybody when it comes to signing paperwork, cause anybody can and will lie, no matter what their job is, to cover their own behind.
"One thing you have appropriately pointed out is the very close comparison of the words above to a stinky unenjoyable fish."
You're not supposed to eat fish if it stinks. No wonder you didn't like it. Maybe time to find a new grocer.
There is an old saying that the fish stinks from the head first. ie.: that the whole organization will be corrupted if the leader lacks integrity. Maybe a lesson here.
that the whole organization will be corrupted if the leader lacks integrity. Maybe a lesson here.
>>
not sure i agree with that.
people still have to decide who they are and choose to have integrity or not. its not up to the leader really.
Doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. It is an old saying that has been around for at least a hundred years.
A fish stinks from the head first.
There is another:
One bad apple spoils the whole barrel.
Agree or not, it is an old saying. I was just saying what it means.
In reality, if you have a leader with poor integrity, the good people will leave anyway and only the losers remain.
"In reality, if you have a leader with poor integrity, the good people will leave anyway and only the losers remain."
That is exactly what happend with Frank Green. When he took over the Sheriff's office, he had two good deputies that had been hired by the previous Sheriff. It didn't take them long to leave after Green took over. If I remember correctly, one was gone within a year and the other by the next year. Ever since then, it has been a revolving door of deputies. Hopefully Mr Russell will do a better job of keeping qualified deputies.
Post a Comment