— from Jenny Fouquette —
I recently read the endorsement from the sheriff’s guild and am trying to determine the importance of the letter on both sides. It’s very clear the letter was specifically written to show the support for Sheriff Krebs and the lack of support for Sheriff’s Deputy Jeff Asher.
What worries me is everything surrounding the letter and what the letter doesn’t say. Deputy Asher was a whistle blower that has reported retaliation within the department (as shown in Asher’s letters to Gaylord). Most of the letters from previous employees in the department are critical of the department under Krebs. There are numerous community concerns – from increased drug issues, improper vetting of employees, improperly investigated domestic violence welfare checks, excessive Facebook usage, and, among other things, overall improper treatment of women, especially victims of sexual assault.
When we review the Guild Endorsement, we are not just looking at employees that support Krebs because they feel he’s the best. We are also looking at:
- Deputies who may have cleared an inferior background check in this county and worry that upon review they will be brought under scrutiny (may not be able to get a job elsewhere)
- Deputies who may have participated in retaliatory behaviors upon Asher’s whistle blowing and are concerned about their jobs if new leadership enters
- Deputies who have witnessed the treatment of Asher and former employees that are scared to put a target on their own back by voting against Krebs.
I am pro law enforcement. I think it’s amazing to have people in the world willing to risk their lives for the people in their community. I understand it is a difficult job and a lot of people don’t really understand the process of law. Furthermore, it is difficult in a small community to not be protective of deputies you know on a personal level, but it shouldn’t make them immune to oversight.
Everyone should be asking questions about Sheriff Krebs lying to the counsel and why the background investigation on Parker wasn’t completed to basic nationwide standards, among other things. Everyone should be interested why Deputy Asher has had to send representatives to different debates/speaking events – is it because he is being refused the time-off requests. If so, why are we allowing the supervisors (department leaders) to manipulate the community’s ability to make an informed decision. That behavior is unethical and, if the command structure allows that type of manipulation when trying to protect the status quo, how will we ever know if they do the same behind closed doors with defendants?
Some of these deputies have a lot to lose if the leadership changes. Let’s face it, changing the Sheriff could mean disciplinary action for deputies, dispatchers, or corrections deputies. Losing a job here isn’t like on the mainland – you can’t just lateral to a neighboring department and keep your family in the same house and kids in the same school district. It means a move off-island, and that is scary. The unknown is scary for these deputies and their families, and they are defending the status quo with full force because it protects them.
Are the members of the Sheriff’s Guild able to separate what’s best for them from what’s best for the community? Can a department where there has been any type of credibility related indiscretions really remain impartial? I don’t believe so.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Very well said. Thank you.
Assuming good faith confusion on the part of the writer, I have one simple suggestion: if you have a question concerning Ron Krebs, ask him. I did. That’s why I am voting for him. Take Alex MacLeod’s Facebook allegations for example. Ron’s answer is simple. Alex, either confused or deliberately (let’s assume the former here) picked the wrong column of numbers to reflect Ron’s activity.
As to those members of the sheriff’s staff who voted, ask them why they voted as they did. Ask them whether they voted for their or their community interests. Why ask the readers of your letter? How could they know?
There are two more forums. Go to one. Get your questions answered. The stuff that’s floating around is certainly confusing and repeating them only increases the local fog level around our islands.
I don’t know what asking Ron Krebs would do for me. I have read all of the documents in regards to the Parker situation and watched the county council video. Ron Krebs blatantly lied. If he can lie about something as huge as that, there’s nothing keeping him from lying to me.
I have seen the documentation in regards to Krebs’ Facebook usage. Alex MacLeod used actual data that was provided from San Juan County in a public records request. The only person who said it’s a misrepresentation is Krebs himself. I will be happy to see if I can get the documentation for you to see if you’d like.
I did go to the forum in Friday Harbor. There were dozens of hands in the air waiting to ask questions, unfortunately it was limited in time and not everyone was called upon.
I am in the process of completing my own inquiries in regards to some of the employees in the sheriff’s department already – much more factual having certified documents than someone’s word. I am slowly uncovering numerous discrepancies and am completely shocked – both with background checks & arrest(s) of employee(s) during their tenure in the department. There are definitely people that have a lot to lose if Asher takes office – because their behaviors will not be allowed to continue.
My initial question was rhetorical – because it’s impossible to navigate a letter when there’s no way of knowing the intentions of these sheriff’s employees or which one of them fall into which category.
“I have here in my hand a list”….
Nice way to throw shade on our deputies. In my experience working with them, they do not deserve this sort of treatment.
(Comment edited) It’s a tough place to be as a community commenter. I can try to persuade people to look deeper into the sheriff’s department and, unfortunately, sometimes it means I refer to paperwork I have. The alternative is to list the name of the employee, case number, county of discrepancy, post the charging documents or the final disposition. These deputies/employees have children and family in the community & I don’t think this is the place to call a specific person out.
I too have worked with many deputies, and feel it’s even more important to question things such as background investigations because it protects the ethically and morally sound deputies more than anyone.
For example: We know the background check in regards to Parker was negligent at best – it took a few years after Parker began his employment for anyone to realize he was dirty (in an office of law enforcement deputies, with Parker sitting next to & working with a seasoned detective on a regular basis). There was no reason during that time for the sheriff’s department to change their background check requirements/standards, because they thought they were being thorough. They weren’t. (Look at the email Krebs sent to Gaylord: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-gbxT4BCSzuOExhLV9ieVViYV9HeFcxTl9iY3ZnUXlHVmFB/view ) This lead was never followed up on in any way after this email. We as a community should be asking why the vetting process wasn’t conducted to even the basic national standard – for our community’s sake and for our deputies’ sake. More importantly, we should be worried if any other “Parkers” slipped through the cracks during that time. It’s not unreasonable to be concerned about that.
I still stand by my initial assessment: There are too many questions, personal reasons, and discrepancies to really give the guild letter any weight.
Is this the new bar for information related to the candidates that we’re going to set as the election nears?
You said,
“What worries me is everything surrounding the letter and what the letter doesn’t say.”
Followed by your disclaimer– “My initial question was rhetorical – because it’s impossible to navigate a letter when there’s no way of knowing the intentions of these sheriff’s employees or which one of them fall into which category.”
I’m concerned when I read,
“Some of these deputies have a lot to lose if the leadership changes. Let’s face it, changing the Sheriff could mean disciplinary action for deputies, dispatchers, or corrections deputies.”
And, “I have here in my hand a list”….
And, “Nice way to throw shade on our deputies. In my experience working with them, they do not deserve this sort of treatment.”
These are serious assertions on your behalf(s). I hope that you’re prepared to publicly back them up. Meanwhile, it would be good to hear from those that voted in the Sheriff’s Guild vote if they are so inclined.