This past week saw a posting within the office for the position of Canine Handler for the Canadian County Sheriff’s Office (as shown above, will have better photo later). This opening was necessitated by the handler applying for a Police Officer position with a metro area municipal police department. The situation is the second such incident to occur within the past six months with a canine handler working for the Sheriff’s Office.
Regarding both incidents, the current Sheriff became aware that a canine handler had applied to another law enforcement agency. On both occasions, the Deputy was called into his office and relieved of their canine responsibilities. During the two incidents, each Deputy had only applied and had not been hired by the perspective municipal law enforcement agencies. Both Deputies were immediately removed from the duties, as punishment, for strictly applying with another law enforcement agency which is unacceptable to me.
Reasons cited for the applications have always been better pay as well as a twenty year retirement. Nearly all municipal law enforcement agencies of any significant size offer much better pay especially in terms of long term employment. In regards to retirement, for a county employee (Deputy) to retire their age plus years of service must equal 90. Therefore in general, a person starting employment at age 30 would have to have 30 years of service and be 60 years old to be eligible for retirement. While if the person was employed by municipal or state law enforcement agency, the person could retire at 50 years of age. Not only have we had this incident, but this week the Sheriff’s Office lost a dispatcher with several years of experience due to better working conditions and opportunities for advancement.
I would challenge the current administration to not penalize personnel who are attempting to better themselves or their families. I would however encourage the current administration to look at the reasons for the high level of employee dissatisfaction and resulting resignations. I believe an honest exit interview process could be implemented, but no matter the answer, the continual loss of key personnel is a telling statement. I recommend you look at my platform listed on our www.beaty4sheriff.com website. I believe the employees are one of the key components of the Sheriff’s Office and they are a factor in my seeking election as Sheriff of Canadian County. The current administration has continued to hire personnel but experience with the people of the county and relationships that are forged are not something that is created overnight. I will strive to attract quality personnel and work to retain them based on a positive work environment in which they will have pride in being a part of.
Although we may not be able to match the pay and retirement, personnel that know they have the backing of their administration will be much less inclined to seek employment elsewhere. The continued revolving door of hiring personnel and losing them cost us money, by focused retention of qualified personnel we will be practicing Fiscal Responsibility which is needed with our tax dollars. This issue is another example of the Common Sense Leadership that I would like to implement if given the opportunity to be your Sheriff of Canadian County.
More money, better benefits, 20 yr retirement, job security....why on Earth would someone want that? I love how we're told that by seeking those things we are "disloyal" and "not team players." I believe he also added that it was a bunch of crap that employees had to support Sheiff Hawkins for fear of losing their job. Then says "If any of you are unhappy with the way I ran this office after 4 years then you are free to support whoever you want." He said it...its in the red words....I bet the farm he don't honor his word when election time comes around. I got news for ya, NOBODY wants you there regardless of what they tell you to your face.
ReplyDeleteFor the record and for those who don't know, I was the first deputy sent home because I applied at Yukon PD. After working and doing my job everyday, putting criminals in jail, seizing money and drugs, I got the boot. Stripped of my rank and demoted from Lieutenant to Sergeant, patrol unit repo'd, K9 taken away, and sent home for 2 MONTHS. Countless amount of income lost for my family and struggled to make ends meet bc I couldnt work my extra jobs and overtime DUI shifts. That sets a fine example for your employees and really boosts morale. For a guy that prides himself on being a self-proclaimed business man, that doesn't make much business sense considering the numbers while I was supervising that unit not to mention seizing nearly $100,000 just a couple of weeks before being sent home.
Remeber this from Jan 2, 2009 Randy.."THIS OFFICE WILL NO LONGER BE RUN ON FEAR AND INTIMIDATION."
Post by Mike Stilley
Dear Mr. Beaty,
ReplyDeleteBefore you start posting your biased, uninformed, one-sided opinion on an administrative decision, you might want to get all the facts involved in the situation. Sheriff Edwards had always supported his deputies and treated them like family. What he does not put up with is laziness in your job or dishonesty. If these deputies can't man up and be honest about the fact that they are looking for another job, which neither one did, and then want to play poor pitiful me when they get caught, then that is on them. And frankly I loose a lot of respect for a person who can't be honest and fortright and accept their role in the sitation in which they find themselves. Sheriff Edwards of course wants the best for his employees, so why didn't either one of these deputies simply go to the sheriff and be open and honest about their intentions? I doubt that anyone would have found fault with them if they had handled themselves with a little more integrity. Are those traits you want in someone working for you......subterfuge and dishonesty?
On the other side of the issue, which you either seem to know little about or are unwilling to provide the full details, when you are not doing your job and are not making proper use of the county's assets, you must expect to be held accountable by your employer as well as the citizens of the county. Would you spend $8,000 on an asset and then leave it on the shelf to gather dust? Would you continue to pay an employee if they are not performing their job?If so, then you need to check out a little thing called fiscal responsibility because I expect better use if the taxes I pay to this county!
I understand you are running for an office and wish to project yourself in he best light possible, but frankly this early start at a mud slinging campaign already tells me the kind of person you are. Please by all means run your campaign the way you see fit, but just based on this post, I know how I will be casting my vote!
An as a side bar, shame on those deputies for airing all if this! If you don't want to accept the consequences of your actions, the make different decisions! But what poor taste to try to air all of this because you can't take responsibility for your own behaviors!
Thanks for your thoughts and opinions “Anonymous”. To provide a simple answer, I disagree with specific behaviors that I have seen and I do not believe this is the best form of leadership. My bias comes from my observations of actions and behaviors particularly decisions being acted upon by emotion rather sound judgment. I do not have anything against Edwards and liked him very well as a Deputy. Since, I do not agree with the management style I intend to exercise my right and offer the citizens and employees an alternative.
ReplyDeleteNeither of the two employees was or is dishonest and are both good hardworking competent men with exceptional abilities. They merely chose to apply to another agency for reasons known only to these men. Historically, we have seen this reason to usually be pay or retirement, which I cited in the article. Whatever their reason(s), considering another job does not make them dishonest and nothing requires them to notify their employer of their thoughts. What I can learn from this situation is, I will need to strive to have an open line of communications with my personnel and encourage them to be open with me about their goals.
As far as your other side of the issue, I am well aware of the details especially with the first incident because I did witness some of the events first hand. I do have additional details that I chose not to share in part, because it would appear to be mudslinging and this is not what I was trying to do. My sincere hope in the entire campaign is to address the issues including the items which we have identified. I do not wish to be negative or disrespectful although I recognize this may be a fine line and in the eye of the beholder.
In regards to laziness, particularly with the first employee, his activity was highest in the Sheriff’s Office and he was responsible for significant money and drug seizures, never did he slow down or stop working. Once it was known he applied elsewhere, we was immediately sent home after being required to turn in his equipment. I personally believe he could and would have contributed knowing his work ethic. The Fiscally Responsible thing to have done would have been to allow him to work while reducing the amount of accumulated leave, he had accrued therefore our $8,000.00 asset would have been being utilized more efficiently rather than sitting in a kennel drawing dust.
My aggravation for this entire situation stemmed from punishing these employees for their decisions. Neither employee had the jobs they had applied for and I believe it is possible that handled differently they could have been retained. I believe we need to stand back sometimes and look at the “why” instead of the immediate situation, an example of not being able to see the forest for the trees analogy.
Under the former administration (Sheriff Hawkins), a number of people applied for other jobs and were never punished. The thought was if a person wanted to better themselves then it should not be held against them. Again, it is the specific behavior and the treatment of personnel that I have a problem with. Once again, thank you for your time and thoughts, although we may disagree, I do appreciate your opinion.