Camden Commentary: Still think that Sheriff Gregory should summarily fire his indicted but not convicted secretary?

Friday, June 19, 2009

Still think that Sheriff Gregory should summarily fire his indicted but not convicted secretary?

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2009-06-19/story/fired_brantley_sheriffs_assistant_accepts_100_000_settlement

13 comments:

Anonymous said...: Yes he should fire her! CCSO is at will. No reason needed. Why should we have to fund her defense as Gregory says.

I'm not a Steve Berry fan, but he is right about Gregory. He lied and said he could run the dept on 6 million. The voters believed him so they voted him in. He has to at least operate one budget cycle on 6 million to be valid.; June 19, 2009 at 10:42 AM
b clark said...: Actually it is clear that she should be fired. An indictment is cause enough for rightful termination. And it does not matter, we are an at will state. He should let her go now and try and save some face before this escalates into a media free for all and he loses any chance he may have for reelection.; June 19, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Jay Moreno said...: It is? How is an indictment grounds for termination? Is an acquittal grounds for re-instatement with back pay? Is a failure to re-hire after acquittal grounds for a law suit?

Should any employee of a local govermnemnt agency cindicted for anything be immediately fired? If your answer is no, then why not? Why single out the sheriff's admministrative asistant? She is not a sworn officer and has no access to county funds. At the moment, she is presumed innocent.

If you work driving a road grader for the county and your wife, in the course of a bitter custody battle, lies her ass off and has you indicted for supposedly molesting your children ( a not uncommon occurrence in this country), should you be immediatley terminated?

Do you really beleive in "innocnet until proven guilty" or not. Apparently not.

This clearly has little to nothing to do with justice and everything to do with you hating that Tommy whipped your boy Big Thug Willie at the polls.; June 19, 2009 at 12:36 PM
b clark said...: Jay,
I voted for Tommy and supported him for the entire campaign. I have told this to him personally numerous times. Let her go or she will bring you down. This is a matter of political survival not right or wrong. If you are willing to give up on everything Tommy stands to accomplish for a thief then go for it. But do we really want to wait while Steve Berry has a field day with this in "his" newspaper? I say be done with her now. She could be one of the 10.; June 19, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Jay Moreno said...: So you put political expediency over integrity and doing the right thing. I do not and obviously, neither does Tommy. If she is innocent, she stays; if she is convicted, she goes. No harm, no foul.; June 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Jay I have to disagree with you on this. I can normally see your logic in most situations.

Yeah.... Because how else would she pay her defense attorney. Just based of this situation alone, I would'nt vote for Tommy again. He said he would'nt tolerate things such as this. We did'nt wait for BTW to be indicted before we cast him out for wrong doing. Double Standards! I am by far not a thuggie.; June 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Jay Moreno said...: If, as the result of an internal investigation, she had been indicted for embezzeling CCSO funds via unauthorized credit card usage, of course she should be terminated. However, the fact is that she has been indicted - not convicted, hell, not even tried yet - for an alledged crime that ostensibly occurred with another employer, a private sector employer, in another county. There are thousands of people indicted and subsequently acquitted of all charges in this country every year. If this woman turns out ot be one of them and Tommy has already long since fired her, where is the justice in that. Does she get her old job back with back pay? What happens to her repelcement? Does she then get fired? It's not like she is a daycare worker indicted for child ,molestation. There simply is no pressing reason to fire this woman, except for the desire of some to give the sherif a hard time and score political points for the next sheriff election, and every good reason to keep her ont he job.

Whereas Bill Smith would likely have seen her vulnerable position as an opportunity to get into her pants, Tommy is doing the honorable and correct thing.

I have stated previously that his statement about how would she pay her legal fees if he fired her was extremely poorly chosen, he is not, in fact, paying her legal fees, per se. He is simply paying her her regular pay check form which, presumably, SHE is paying her legal fees. This whole affair is not costing the CCSO a red cent "extra."; June 19, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Jay Moreno said...: Oh, and by the way, throwing Smith out before he was indicted is not analogous to this situation. Smith was documented to have been guilty of mis and malfeasance in office and will quite likely be indicted and convicted of criminality in office. This woman, by contrast, has, so far as we know, done absolutley nothing wrong in her capacity as the sheriif's administrative assistant.; June 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Thats your opinion and you're sticking to it. But I still see this as a double standard. I'm sure the employees WITHOUT clouds above their heads that are being fired are asking "How can this be"; June 19, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Jay Moreno said...: This was actually from "Anonymous," not me. I hhad to psot it this way from my e-mail because I accidentally rejected it.

Anonymous wrote:

What a mess. If you fire her there are shouts that she has yet to be proven guilty. If you keep her it is political suicide. The law says you are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty. A Sheriff takes an oath to uphold the law. It is not an easy job and the ones who are throwing the rocks need to come up with a solution. In this day and time you have to walk a tight rope on not violating rights and subjecting the county to some law suit. It has to be the Sheriff's call. I don't like the idea of some one who may be a crook working for law enforcement but unti there is some proof it is a mess.; June 19, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Jay Moreno said...: I would hope that the ones being let go for budgetary reason would realize that he decisions to "fire" them and keep the administrativce assitant are entirely unrelated.; June 19, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Jay although your position in this is just, to compare the CCSO situation to the Brantly Co. one is comparing apples to oranges they are not the same. Law Enforcement agency personnel (whether office staff or road deputies)are held to a higher standard and that is as it should be.; June 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Jay Moreno said...: Well, of course they are not exactly the same, but are most assuredly analagous. Tyhere was no valid reason to fir ethe woman in Brantley and there is no valid reason to fire Gregory's admministrative assistant. To compare apples and apples, all you need is two apples - not one apple and its clone.; June 20, 2009 at 3:05 PM