WARNING to all sheriff’s race posters

The sheriff of this site is warning you to check your personal attacks at the county line.

Political speech has wide latitude, but some of you posters are crossing way beyond the line of taste and fair comment.

Cut the purely personal attacks or get off the site.

Any further rantings about private persons will get you banned.

Cal Beverly
publisher
The Citizen
Fayetteville, Ga.

From Wayne Hannah's website.

1. What is the extent of Fayette County’s “gang problem” currently and how do you specifically plan to address it?

All indications the Sheriff’s Office has indicates that organized gangs do not have a presence of any significance in Fayette County. Gangs are not overrunning Fayette County streets or our schools. The distinction between organized gangs and gang influences is important.We have detected some efforts by gangs from outside of Fayette County to increase their presence here. For example, we have seen drawings on notebooks in schools, tagging or spray painting in some parts of the county and of course the “bathroom fight” at one of the high schools. This is what is meant by gang influences and I am committed to stopping them dead in their tracks.For a number of years, I have been involved with the Fayette County Law Enforcement/Educator’s Committee. This group consists of members from the Board of Education, the District Attorneys Office, the Sheriff’s Office, and each municipal Police Department in Fayette County. We meet regularly have been monitoring increases in “gang influences” and collectively addressing these incidents as they arise. At this point I believe this level of activity is correct because it keeps our law enforcement efforts at appropriate levels and allows us to respond quickly and effectively to the changing environment.

2. Are the department’s responses to crime in Fayette right now just about right or do they need improvement?

I believe that any crime is too much, but we must face reality and understand that crime is going to occur and no one is going to completely prevent crime. The word “response” could be interpreted two ways. For me, one interpretation is – Is the Sheriff’s Office responding to the changes in our community and the influx of criminals from outside? Yes we are. We are constantly evaluating the types of crimes we are experiencing and focusing on how to better address ways of deterring them. It is important for everyone to understand that the criminals are the only ones who know when and where a crime is going to occur. It is the nature of the unpredictable criminal mind that limits and influences the control any law enforcement agency has over predicting and projecting criminal occurrences. Our best defense, and I would argue our best offensive strategy is, along with aggressive law enforcement, is to educate the citizens and business owners on ways to deter crime and not become victims of crimes. The Sheriff’s Office currently does this through our Neighborhood Watch program. I plan to expand this program into a Community Outreach Program to address drug and gang issues, crime prevention and education programs for citizens and business owners of the county. The second interpretation of “response” could well mean issues related to the Sheriff’s Office’s response time to calls for service. I see this information on a monthly basis from data collected by the Fayette County Communications Center. Our response time has increased over the years and we need to re-assess our patrol zones, call locations and/or deputy assignments in order to reduce our response times. As Sheriff, I would consider this as one of my highest priorities and immediately implement this type of assessment and indicated adjustments. It should have already been done by those on the Sheriff’s Office Command Staff charged with this responsibility currently.

3. What are the department’s biggest weaknesses and how do you specifically plan to address them?

The Sheriff’s Office is an agency with a single mission. That mission is to provide the highest level of safety, service, and security for the people of Fayette County. That mission is accomplished by different sections tasked with different responsibilities. Although ideally structured to accomplish that purpose, our greatest weaknesses are linked in one way or another to one issue. The greatest issue, or weakness if you will, is the lack of a unified effort to accomplish our single purpose. Each of the various divisions of the Sheriff’s Office operate in different manners, often while performing identical tasks, with little regard for consistency in effort. In short, Sheriff Johnson has not always been well served by all those he has entrusted to accomplish our shared mission. As Sheriff, I will have the advantage of having seen this differing approach to accomplishing our mission from that of a Division Director and then Sheriff. It is my nature to become intimately involved in operational and procedural issues. It is second nature to me to be inquisitive about things that I am told. I feel confident that this character trait will serve me well as I assess the information I am provided and make decisions on how to improve, adjust, or realign policies, procedures, and/or personnel to accomplish our goals and mission effectively, efficiently, and cohesively.

4. What are the department’s greatest strengths, and how will you build on them?

I believe the greatest strength of the Sheriff’s Office is its employees. The current structure of the Sheriff’s Office is five divisions with each division employing personnel who are experts in their particular field of work. I plan to build on this by providing employees opportunities to obtain more training in order to become even more proficient in their jobs. Training builds more confidence in their abilities to better perform their duties. It also has the added bonus of keeping us abreast of the most current and effective strategies to accomplish our goals and purpose.

5. Three of the four candidates work for the sheriff’s department now. After the summer primary, should the unsuccessful deputies start looking for other jobs? What is your philosophy on dealing with in-department opponents after you win?

I am not a person given to making casual statements and promises. I stand behind my statements which I wrote in a letter mailed to all Sheriff’s Office employees in December, 2007. One of my statements was, “I can’t imagine any situation where any employee who follows the department rules and regulations and adequately performs their duties should be concerned about their career at the Sheriff’s Office when I take office.” I further stated, “I certainly hope that you will consider supporting me, but I will understand if you choose to support someone else or no one at all. I will not be offended or hold a grudge. If you never learn anything else about me, please know that I do not hold grudges. I look forward to working with you for years to come!”

6. Describe in detail how you will do things differently than Sheriff Johnson has done them. Or do you intend NOT to do things differently?

In many ways I believe Sheriff Johnson and I share similar goals and objectives and our law enforcement philosophies are very similar. We both want to provide the best law enforcement services we can to the citizens and business owner’s in Fayette County. However, I’m sure our management styles are different in some ways. Since I will be conducting an overall assessment of the Sheriff’s Office’s currently policies, procedures, employee assignments, etc…, I will be working more one-on-one with our employees and I will be more involved in the day-to-day operation of the Sheriff’s Office.

TO WAYNE HANNAH:

1. Will your wife continue to work for the sheriff’s office if you are elected? If so, how do you plan to address the inevitable problem of conflict of interest, whether real or perceived?

Yes, she will. Lieutenant Hannah is a 21 year veteran of the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office who puts her heart in the program she is responsible for. She began the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program at the Sheriff’s Office 15 years ago. This program has been a positive influence on thousands of students and is consistently praised by students, parents, educators and the Superintendent of Schools. I can personally attest to the fact that she is approached on a regular basis in stores and restaurants all around, even out of state while we were on vacation one time, by D.A.R.E. graduates and parents who praise her and the D.A.R.E. program. I definitely plan to not only keep D.A.R.E., but enhance this program and continue to teach our children the harmful effects of drugs, gangs and violence. Lt. Hannah has a very strong work ethic, as I do, and there will be no “conflict of interest”. She will be required to follow departmental rules and procedures like every other employee. I have never intervened in any form with the conduct or treatment of her in the performance of her duties. Her current supervisor is one of the other candidates competing for the Office of Sheriff. He is on record as saying, and confirming I might add, that I have never involved myself into her working environment or conditions. If a disciplinary issue were to ever arise beyond the supervisory, Division Director or Appeal Board levels to the point requiring me to become involved, I would request an outside mediator to intervene on my behalf. I can not imagine it happening, but, if she were to become involved in a disciplinary issue, it would be extremely uncomfortable for me as one can certainly imagine, but her discipline would be no different than anyone else in the same or similar circumstances.

2. Have you — as charged by some — been campaigning in uniform and using your department vehicle for campaign work? If so, how do you justify the use of a taxpayer-funded vehicle? Did you get permission from the sheriff to do so?

No I have not. Sheriff Johnson required all three candidates who are employed with him to take a Leave of Absence when we officially qualified as a candidate for Sheriff. I have not been in Uniform since April 26, 2008. My assigned patrol vehicle, which I take pride in and care for, has been garaged and not moved since that day as well. It is important to note, that in my case, my leave of absence created a temporary surplus of one vehicle within my division. I will require the vehicle again once I return to duty from this leave. As there was no need for anyone in my division to have a vehicle to drive, I elected (with the Sheriff’s consent) to garage my assigned vehicle at home as usual. The vehicles turned in by other candidates of the Sheriff’s Office were placed into service with persons in their respective divisions who needed a vehicle. I believe that as in my case, their decision was appropriate given their circumstances.

3. Please explain your side of the scenario where you went to a man’s house to talk to him about political sign issues; (this issue was detailed in a letter to the editor several weeks ago); the letter
writer accused you of attempting to intimidate him but a blogger said you actually know the letter writer and that he is a neighbor you are acquainted with.

Mr. Sims, who lives approximately a mile from me, visited my home on numerous occasions while it was under construction over five years ago. He was always welcomed and I would say we became pretty well acquainted. He was always complimentary on our floor plan and the quality of the construction. He was always a very friendly person. I was shocked to read the letter in the newspapers with his allegation of me personally “stealing” campaign signs. Since I was familiar with the laws regarding the placement of campaign signs and had observed that the majority of Mr. Sims’ candidates’ signs were in violation of those laws, I wanted to assure Mr. Sims personally that I had not been removing any of those signs as he alleged. I knew the Fayette County Marshal’s policy of removing illegally placed signs and that the signs were available at the Fayette County Public Works Department for retrieval. I went to the Public Works Department and counted 17 of Mr. Sims’ candidates’ campaign signs, all of which had been removed from public rights-of ways by the Marshal’s Office. Recounting our previously friendly encounters, and wanting to avoid him thinking incorrectly that I was an unethical person, I then went to visit Mr. Sims at his home. I simply wanted to explain why and by whom those particular signs had been removed. I most assuredly was not on duty, and definitely not in uniform or in a county patrol vehicle. When I arrived, Mr. Sims was working out in his front yard and apparently working on his lawn. It was a casual environment and I approached and greeted him. I told Mr. Sims that I would like to discuss his letter about me in the newspaper. He did not object. Our conversation was fairly in-depth and I might add cordial given the nature of it. I explained the two state laws regulating the placement of political campaign signs as well as the Fayette County Sign Ordinance. We talked about the removal of the sign he had placed inappropriately and how it came to be removed (again, not by me). We talked about campaign sign placement in general. He even questioned me on how to determine the roadway “right of way.” Again, our conversation continued to be cordial. Mr. Sims and I “chatted” about the yard work he was doing and the fact that the wind had damaged a rose bush in front of his house. Mr. Sims saw his neighbor next door and told me he needed to go over and see him concerning a neighborhood meeting later that evening and I left. I want to be clear–At no time during the conversation did it appear that Mr. Sims was uncomfortable with me being there or the topic of our conversation. I can assure you, the intent of my visit was to be friendly and informative and not in any way be intimidating.

4. Please explain your alleged recent “visit” to the sheriff’s department’s roll call in terms of who requested it and what it accomplished? Was the same opportunity extended to all candidates?

Late afternoon on a Friday (I do not recall the exact date) I received a telephone call stating that some of the deputies assigned to Uniform Patrol Division wanted to know if I would make myself available at 5:30 a.m. (shift change) the next morning to answer questions that some of them had for me regarding my plans if I were to be elected Sheriff. I was told that these deputies had heard from Mr. Babb and Mr. Mindar prior to them beginning their Leave of Absence, as they were attending roll call and being around the Sheriff’s Office, about their plans and now they wanted to hear from me. Since I had chosen not to approach anyone while on-duty about campaign issues, I agreed to attend. Upon arriving at the Sheriff’s Office the next morning I observed Mr. Babb standing inside the roll call room. I concluded that he must have been invited as well. After getting his attention, I motioned for him to meet me in the hallway outside roll call. I greeted him and asked something to the effect of what the plan was. My initial impression was that he was there for the same reason as me. Based on this impression, I did not know if he had already discussed the format for this session, so I asked him how he wanted to go about it. I was surprised at his response to my question because my initial impression was wrong. Mr. Babb proceeded to inform me that he did not think I needed to be there and “put these guys in the middle of this”. I was at a loss for a moment until it was obvious, after he made several other statements, that he had not been invited and was only there to protest my presence. I explained that I had been invited and that I had no intention of “cornering” anyone in roll call and making them listen to a campaign speech. I further explained that it was my intention to simply announce to those who had requested me to be there, and who had questions for me, that I would be in the Training Room and anyone could come there to speak with me. It was not my intention, nor did I give a speech or distribute any type printed material. I was simply there by invitation to answer questions from the deputies which I thought they had the right to ask. Mr. Babb stated he was there because he received a telephone call that I was going to be there. I explained to him again that I was there by invitation and I intended to answer any questions that were asked of me. After getting permission from the Lieutenant in charge, I made a brief announcement that based on an invitation I would be available in the Training Room for anyone who had questions for me. A short time later, a group of approximately 8-10 deputies arrived and began asking me questions. It appeared that some questions were being asked to confirm or deny numerous rumors or even some untruths that were being told around the Sheriff’s Office about my plans if elected. This group asked very good and legitimate questions of me. After about an hour or so they thanked me and left. At that point I left as well. I received word late the following week (I’m not sure of the exact day) that the other two Uniform Patrol Division shifts wanted me to return the following Saturday morning at shift change and answer some questions they had. I honored their request and followed the same format as described above. There were approximately the same number in attendance at the second meeting, but the meeting lasted a shorter period of time. I did not make the request nor pick the day or time for the meetings. I am not aware if these groups invited any of the other candidates or not. As I stated above, they made the invitation, not me.