Oughta be a short post to address, “What could go wrong with an elected sheriff?” And here’s why I should be able to finish this with just one sentence: do you ever wonder if you stick a sign out in your front yard supporting the opposition (or write a position like I’m throwing down here) if you’ll still be okay if you need help?  Any possible situation in which that answer could be no should not exist. This should be easy to understand in a county where we talk about conflict of interest on a near daily basis.

Screen Shot 2015-09-10 at 2.24.33 PM
The word “sheriff” is a portmanteau of “shire reeve,” which was the tax collector in medieval England. In some states, the sheriff is also the tax collector. (Is this notion maybe a bit antiquated?)

We’ve had some particularly sticky sitchumawaytions in the shire. Makes ya kinda-like wonder if  we are definitely getting the best deal out of choosing the law enforcement the same way you choose a high school cheerleading squad. Not a clue in the world what was learned on the crazy Texas field trip: it sure as shoot could not have been that   pestering every Latina eating lunch is good policy.

Some pros and cons of elected law enforcement are available here. 

Critical points from all that reading material linked in blue include, “Inertia is a powerful inhibitor to reform.” (Indy Star, Dec. 18, 2007). Medieval holdout inertia, no less. Competence counts in law enforcement, and this is not always something best judged at the polls (http://forums.e-democracy.org, Elected vs. Appointed Sheriffs).

For good measure, the police department up in Thurmont received some acknowledgement for thoughtful and proactive efforts. We’d like to pat Chief Greg Eyler on the back, as well. Leaves me dreaming of a cutting edge stance with regard to how we hire law enforcement leadership.