Jerry Smith to become Butte County sheriff

Judged:

1

Jim wrote:

The county needs to conduct a search and break up the "good ol" boy system! All that "I know no finer man and no finer gentleman" garbage means absolutely squat to me coming from Ramsey.
SPEND THE MONEY, DO THE SEARCH AND FIND A REPLACEMENT THE PEOPLE SUPPORT!

Jim wrote:

The county needs to conduct a search and break up the "good ol" boy system! All that "I know no finer man and no finer gentleman" garbage means absolutely squat to me coming from Ramsey.
SPEND THE MONEY, DO THE SEARCH AND FIND A REPLACEMENT THE PEOPLE SUPPORT!

Jim wrote:

The county needs to conduct a search and break up the "good ol" boy system! All that "I know no finer man and no finer gentleman" garbage means absolutely squat to me coming from Ramsey.
SPEND THE MONEY, DO THE SEARCH AND FIND A REPLACEMENT THE PEOPLE SUPPORT!

Helen Harberts wrote:

Jerry is a good choice for the appointment. He is a fine man, a very deliberate person who will think things through before he acts, and he has never taken his eye off the ball: protecting the public. We were wise so elect Perry, and we are lucky to have Jerry to step into his position and continue the restoration of the Sheriff's Office.

Hello wrote:

How does someone get "appointed" to an "elected" position?

Public beware wrote:

<quoted text>
It's more like you are lucky to have Jerry to step into his position to keep the good ol' boy system from springing a leak and exposing to the public the cancerous injustice that flourishes there.
Let's see....Leroy Woods (8 years), Mick Grey (8 years), Scott Mackenzie (4 years) and Perry Reniff (7 1/2 years). The good ol' boys have controlled the Sheriff's Department for all but 4 of the last 27 1/2 years. Why would this department need continuing "restoration", especially since, super cop, the saintly Perry has been at the helm for the past 7 1/2 years?
Incidentally, remember Reniff's campaign promise to go after methamphetamine labs and to give marijuana a low priority in his administration? Then when he was elected he promptly dispatched his deputies to Feather Falls where they killed 2 young marijuana growers. This is the type of honesty and integrity (and unjustified cop killings) that his handpicked successor will likely continue in the Sheriff's Department. This is a type of "restoration" that Butte County can do without.
Helen you and Mike are not trained police officers, but your paranoid fear of having an outsider move into the Sheriff's position is blatantly obvious. Why is that?

Helen Harberts wrote:

<quoted text> Actually, you are wrong. Some years ago I supported Jim Callas for Sheriff. He was an outsider, and a bright one. I thought he would be an excellent Sheriff. You are also wrong if you assume that I personally supported Leroy Woods or Scott Mackenzie. I did not, either in public or personally. You are also wrong about the empahsis on methamphetamine. Perry Reniff has dedicated resources and many many hours to addressing methamphetamine problems by hosting the Methamphetamine Task Force,which meets regularly and works on the issue. This group has focused on education, prevention, treatment, and intervention. www.2stopmeth.org So, in sum, many of the assumptions underlying your statements are wrong....and that makes your outcome wrong as well.

Judged:

3

3

1

Buttinsky wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually I did not read in the comment, that you responded to, any mention of who you did or did not support for Sheriff in the past. The writer was commenting on your fear at the PRESENT not the past. Furthermore hosting a task force and setting up a website is no substitute for taking aggressive action to eradicate Butte County's methamphetamine labs. We have read much (almost on a weekly basis) about marijuana prosecutions since Perry took office. Why is it that we have hardly ever read about any prosecutions for manufacturing methamphetamine (Perry's promise) during a time when this insidious drug has become a rampant plague in our community?

Reality Is wrote:

<quoted text>
One of the reasons for not hearing about meth labs too much over the past few years is that the laws controlling the precursors are actually working to minimize the moderate to large scale labs. There is still every bit as much being used, or so it appears, but not as much of it is being produced in California anymore.

Helen Harberts wrote:

<quoted text> The last response is factually correct. Methamphetamine is produced outside the area now. THere are many fewer methamphetamine labs because of the controls on ephedrine. This phenomenon has occurred nation wide. We still get some, but many fewer. We do get methamphetamine traffickers frequently. Sheriff Reniff's folks, whether on the street, in both BINTF Task Forces, and throughout administration have aggressively stepped up their approach to methamphetamine in all contexts. It is just that you get your information mostly from the papers...and most methamphetamine busts are just not noteworthy because they are so common. That doesn't mean it is not happening. If you were to sit in the Superior Court for a few weeks, in both the treatment courts and the main calendars, you would see the results of lots of methamphetamine interventions. Often the arrest is the first thing that forces folks to treatment. Other times, because they are dealers, they are sent to prison, or placed on felony probation where our unfunded probation department tries to monitor them.

Common Sense wrote:

I've known most of the Sherrifs in Northern California the last 20 years. McKenzie and Shadley were the only real decent ones in the lot.
The rest were political media hores.