10 Comments

You seem to have a very selective memory Ken. If you recall, the issue that first divided York and Geraghty was the Siemens investigation, where York had been collecting information for years before it came to a head and became apparent that Administrator Dusek had been misleading the Board and the Republican Cabal, led by Geraghty and Conover did their very best to derail the investigation while supporting Dusek to the fullest, including at one point officially apologizing to him in a Resolution. A year later when the truth came out Dusek was gone and the County was on its way to negotiating a $500,000 payment from Siemens, promising never to speak of the deal again. THIS was the low point in local politics and York took on the Republican Cabal while Geraghty moved into Dusek's abandoned slot. While past elected officials like the DA would not touch anything that smacks of politics, it was a bright spot that we used to have a sheriff that was not afraid to buck the Party, and ultimately, County residents collected at least a little of what was lost in some very bad deals. York would clearly raise the bar at the County if he were to replace Geraghty.

Expand full comment
author

The column was not about the two candidates differences, but how York always politicized his office.

Expand full comment

York called them like he saw them. I disagree completely that he politicized the office, to the contrary, anyone that avoids the investigation of a crime because it is politically sensitive is the party that is not doing his or her job. And Geraghty was not political as he stood by Dusek until the end.

Expand full comment
author

Such as charging the publisher with littering for delivering the newspaper?

Expand full comment

I saw these Post Star advertisements being thrown onto the driveways of many of my neighbors. Some of whom were away for long periods which identified them as being away and vulnerable to burglary or mischief. I believe that ANY sheriff should have taken the complaints seriously, and passed the information up the line. That is what the Sheriff does Ken. It is then up to the DA and ultimately the judge to say if this is a problem or not, the mere investigation by the sheriff is merely the first step in a long chain of due process, and if that chain is broken at the start, because someone is offended, then very few complaints would EVER start that process. I feel that the PS littered, the papers were thrown from a car, many ended up rotting in the gutters, which we passed on our walks. Again the first step was perfectly acceptable. The Sheriff "charged" no one, that would be the DA's job, and I would have hoped an ex-editor would be a little more precise in YOUR 'charges'.

Expand full comment
author

It was an abuse of his office. It was clear that this was political payback for the newspaper’s reporting. There were no laws broken.

Expand full comment

Was it clear?? Certainly not to me. Who brought the initial complaint to the sheriff?? I believe it was a perfectly valid complaint. Many papers sat days or weeks later -- in an otherwise well kept neighborhood. How much discretion should a sheriff have in acting on complaints?? Would it not be "political" if the sheriff decided which ones to take to the DA and which to ignore?? You do believe in due process I hope, and that you know that the sheriff is only the investigative arm, not the judge, nor even the prosecutor who DOES have some discretion..... In the end you must believe the process worked, as the charges were dismissed. The judge said legally it's not litter, I accept that legal opinion, yet I still see this actual litter from time to time in the neighborhood and have myself picked up the papers from across the street on many occasions, where no one has lived for over a year.

Expand full comment
Jun 22, 2021Liked by Ken Tingley

I’m glad you reported this again. I had not followed it closely.

Expand full comment