You are here
Self-Promotion in Maricopa, A Police County
Monday, January 5th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
Self-promotion is the ultimate form of placing one's own interests over
the public interest, but we expect it from politicians. It's an ego
thing. It has no place in an ethics code.
But the four-term-plus sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ (which includes Phoenix and Scottsdale) has turned self-promotion into an extreme sport.
The following is based on an online New York Times editorial, a David Carr column in today's Times, and a recent report from the Goldwater Institute, entitled Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff ’s Office.
Billing himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff" so loudly citizens keep re-electing him, Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio has found a new nadir for his self-promotion: a reality show on which nonviolent offenders are falsely lured into situations where they can be taken into justice. I didn't make this up, but someone actually did.
That isn't actually the sheriff's major misplaced priority. While violent crimes are up, the sheriff focuses on highly-publicized immigrant sweeps. While arrest rates are down and satellite booking stations have been closed, prisoners are dying in custody, so far 117 of them, leading to more federal prison condition lawsuits than New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston combined (and $30 million paid out in damages in just the last five years). Last year, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care revoked its accreditation of the jails Sheriff Arpaio runs on the grounds of failure to provide adequate health care for inmates.
While the sheriff is busy going after a handful of nonviolent offenders with his television show, there are 40,000 unserved felony warrants. And yet the budget is out of control.
If you want to get really angry, watch a video on You Tube of a Maricopa County Supervisors meeting, where people who, for only a few seconds, applauded the supervisor chair after he announced the name of the first citizen speaker, are arrested and taken away, even listed speakers.
This is not the work of just one man or even one department. The county and state are responsible, too. It's clear from that video that the County Supervisors will do nothing. And neither will other politicians. Governor Janet Napolitano, named to be the head of Homeland Security, has backed the sheriff. No one seems willing to oppose a popular sheriff, no matter how much harm he brings to individuals and to the county budget. The sheriff sent a strong message when, in 2007, he had two New Times editors, who had been criticizing the sheriff for years, arrested in the middle of the night. After writing this, I might not be able to attend the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL) conference later this year.
Will national humiliation be enough to change things in Maricopa County? Probably not. An attack by the liberal New York Times is just another feather in the sheriff's cap.
But what about that conservative Goldwater Institute's report? Well, that came out two weeks before the County Supervisors meeting, so it doesn't amount to much either.
What would you suggest?
P.S. It will come as no surprise that in Maricopa County, ethics rules apply only to employees and are handled by the Human Resources department.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
But the four-term-plus sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ (which includes Phoenix and Scottsdale) has turned self-promotion into an extreme sport.
The following is based on an online New York Times editorial, a David Carr column in today's Times, and a recent report from the Goldwater Institute, entitled Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff ’s Office.
Billing himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff" so loudly citizens keep re-electing him, Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio has found a new nadir for his self-promotion: a reality show on which nonviolent offenders are falsely lured into situations where they can be taken into justice. I didn't make this up, but someone actually did.
That isn't actually the sheriff's major misplaced priority. While violent crimes are up, the sheriff focuses on highly-publicized immigrant sweeps. While arrest rates are down and satellite booking stations have been closed, prisoners are dying in custody, so far 117 of them, leading to more federal prison condition lawsuits than New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston combined (and $30 million paid out in damages in just the last five years). Last year, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care revoked its accreditation of the jails Sheriff Arpaio runs on the grounds of failure to provide adequate health care for inmates.
While the sheriff is busy going after a handful of nonviolent offenders with his television show, there are 40,000 unserved felony warrants. And yet the budget is out of control.
If you want to get really angry, watch a video on You Tube of a Maricopa County Supervisors meeting, where people who, for only a few seconds, applauded the supervisor chair after he announced the name of the first citizen speaker, are arrested and taken away, even listed speakers.
This is not the work of just one man or even one department. The county and state are responsible, too. It's clear from that video that the County Supervisors will do nothing. And neither will other politicians. Governor Janet Napolitano, named to be the head of Homeland Security, has backed the sheriff. No one seems willing to oppose a popular sheriff, no matter how much harm he brings to individuals and to the county budget. The sheriff sent a strong message when, in 2007, he had two New Times editors, who had been criticizing the sheriff for years, arrested in the middle of the night. After writing this, I might not be able to attend the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL) conference later this year.
Will national humiliation be enough to change things in Maricopa County? Probably not. An attack by the liberal New York Times is just another feather in the sheriff's cap.
But what about that conservative Goldwater Institute's report? Well, that came out two weeks before the County Supervisors meeting, so it doesn't amount to much either.
What would you suggest?
P.S. It will come as no surprise that in Maricopa County, ethics rules apply only to employees and are handled by the Human Resources department.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
SunCityBob (not verified) says:
Tue, 2009-01-06 20:48
Permalink
It never ceases to amaze me how many people are so quick to jump on the bandwagon when there's criticism involved. Judging by your area code you are far and away removed from "mariposa" county (it's MariCopa), and yet you will take opinions as fact, and decide that you actually know what you are talking about, when in fact, you have been carefully fed just the parts of the story that the news media in Phoenix wants you to have, and you follow their tune like a child mesmerized by the Pied Piper.
Not surprisingly, this tune leads you right off a cliff, too.
I don't want to take the time to address all the points in your post. For the most part, they are tired old insults from a failed campaign, but the You Tube Video, hosted by "newtimesvideo" provides a very good example of the kind of filtering going on in local Phoenix yellow journalism.
The MCSA (the "organization" that puts on these protests against Sheriff Arpaio) has been told repeatedly not to interrupt these public meetings, and the Board has granted them time to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting. All they have to do is maintain some basic decorum, and they will be allowed to say their piece at the podium. But this is not good enough for them. They want to be on the Board Agenda. They want to take valuable time during the meeting so they can needlessly repeat the same drivel that they feed the press about how Joe Arpaio is "racial profiling" and violating people's rights.
The problem is that they have no evidence of their accusations, and it has been obvious from the start that these people want to use the media attention directed at Arpaio for immigration enforcement and turn it towards themselves. The way they have chosen to do this is to attend every Board of Supervisors meeting and disrupt it as much as they can without getting arrested. They push the limits at every meeting, and the County Police (NOT sheriff's deputies) told them to leave because they were disturbing the peace.
Whatever great social injustice you might want to get on a soapbox and shout about, you are not allowed to disrupt the normal operation of any business, including the government.
Every protester knows, or soon learns, that public protests are fine, but they must be conducted in a decent, civil manner. You can't block the street, or interrupt traffic...you can't block a business...you can't make so much noise that it interferes with everyone else's right to a peaceful day.
Protesters know this, and MCSA especially. They have been given hundreds of warnings, and plenty of leeway. And they were all told, at the beginning of the meeting, that interruptions would not be tolerated, and they could be arrested for disturbing the peace.
They decided, with full knowledge of the consequences to stand and applaud each person they agreed with, and boo the people they don't agree with. They had been told not to do either twice, and the third times a charm...how many times does a person have to be told not to be disruptive?
Back in my day, those kids would've been spanked so much in school that they would never dream of being that disrespectful to an authority figure. But such is the youth of today...no respect. They want everything and will give nothing for it.
The funniest (dumbest?) part of this is that the Board of Supervisors does not have authority over elected officials. They do manage the money, but by law, they MUST adequately fund the Sheriff, and if they don't, He will sue them like he did back in 95. They tried to cut his funding, Arpaio sued and won. The Board is legally powerless, and protesting there serves no purpose whatsoever but to get arrested and get on TV so they can paint a picture like they got arrested only for clapping their hands.
I sure don't mind a lawful protest, and Lord knows, I've spent a few days at sit ins, but there needs to be a valid purpose, and some hope of getting something accomplished.
Now here's the dumb part...Arpaio is enforcing the law...He's a police officer. They are asking a cop to stop enforcing the law. Actually they are asking the Board of Supervisors to stop giving the cops money so they'll HAVE to stop enforcing the law. That's more than stupid, it's not even logical, especially considering that an American Citizen has an elected official they can appeal to who actually has the power to change or make laws. He's called a legislator and serves in either the Senate or the House of Representatives at the State Capital.
Guess how many protests there have been at the State Capital?
Absolutely ZERO. Not one single person has submitted a request for a referendum to repeal the law Arpaio is enforcing. Not one single person has made a point to address the Legislature. No one in MCSA is actually trying to DO something...they just want to whine and get attention because nobody else agrees with them, and they are more than willing to lie about it to try and change your mind.
I'd guess you are a relatively intelligent person (although I can't imagine why you would stay in the snow when it's in the 70's here!), so how about forming your opinions based on an intelligent analysis of factual information, rather than politically motivated opinions?
You wouldn't base your world view on the Fox News Channel, would you?
So look a little deeper, blogger...there's way too much bile on the internet already...no sense making it even deeper!
Robert Wechsler says:
Wed, 2009-01-07 07:36
Permalink
So I googled immigration protests in Arizona, and of course found that there been protests (for example, click here), However, many of the issues are being dealt with not by the state legislature, but by citizen referendums and by enforcement of the laws, neither of which can be protested before the legislature. Here's a summary of what happened in 2006, the big year for referendums:
"Arizona had an active legislative session during which Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed bills relating to police enforcement of federal immigration law, border security measures, requirements that employers use the Basic Pilot employment eligibility verification system, and denial of in-state tuition or financial aid to certain noncitizen students. However, she also declared a state of emergency, freeing up $1.5 million in state disaster funds to help border counties cope with increasing border crimes and incarceration costs related to illegal immigration. The Nov. 7 elections were preceded by divisive campaigns for four different ballot proposals aimed at immigrants and individuals with limited English proficiency.
"In 2004, Arizona voters had passed Proposition 200, which (1) requires that in order to vote residents must present proof of U.S. citizenship, (2) mandates that applicants for certain public benefits be verified as being lawfully present in the U.S., (3) requires state and local agencies to report to U.S. immigration authorities benefits applicants who fail to prove that they are lawfully present in the U.S., and (4) imposes criminal penalties on individuals who fail to comply with the mandate described in item 3, above. The Arizona attorney general determined that the proposition applied only to five benefit programs for which undocumented immigrants already were ineligible.
"Arizona voters passed three additional anti-immigrant propositions and one “English only” proposition on Nov. 7, 2006. The measures passed by a 3 to 1 margin despite an organized campaign of rallies, news conferences, door-to-door flyer drops, and voter registration drives by immigrant rights advocates.
"Proposition 100 denies bail for any person charged with a serious felony offense if the person charged entered or remained in the U.S. illegally. Proposition 102 prohibits a person who wins a civil lawsuit from receiving punitive damages if the person is present in the state in violation of federal immigration law. Proposition 103 requires that, “to the greatest extent possible,” official actions, services, programs, publications, documents, and materials be provided in English. Proposition 300 makes anyone without lawful immigration status ineligible to be classified as an in-state student for purposes of tuition, grants, scholarship assistance, and financial aid. The initiative restricts access to family literacy programs, adult education courses, and child care subsidies for undocumented immigrants. It also requires administrators of these programs to report the numbers of applicants denied assistance due to citizenship or immigration status." (from the National Immigration Law Center)
There is clearly a serious battle going on in Arizona at every level of government regarding how to deal with immigration. And so far SunCityBob has won. I can see why he focused more on one typo I made than he did on the Goldwater Institute report, which he could not portray as "bile on the internet."
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics