Mike Chapman

Loudoun County Sheriff Michael Chapman (R) at the new firearms training facility groundbreaking in February 2019.

Loudoun County Sheriff Mike Chapman (R) is pushing back against the Board of Supervisors' efforts to create countywide police department.

The board is expected to take the first formal step toward creating a police department on July 21 by voting to advance the proposal. Voters will have the ultimate say in the matter, as it has to be approved by referendum before being implemented.

A county police department would dramatically reduce the reach and scope of the county sheriff's office.

“Proponents of this change have said they want to take politics out of law enforcement, but in fact, they want to do just the opposite,” Chapman said in a prepared statement Saturday morning. “This is a reckless power grab intended to inject partisan politics into public safety and forever change the direct accountability of the sheriff’s office to the people of Loudoun County.”

Neighboring Fairfax County operates with a police department taking primary law enforcement duties across the county, while the sheriff's office oversees courthouse security and oversight of the jail. It's expected Loudoun would operate similarly, with a county police chief hired by the county administrator.

Chairwoman Phyllis Randall (D-At Large), a supporter of a county police department, has said she's concerned with Loudoun deputies' job security – previous Loudoun deputies have been fired for supporting Chapman's political rivals – and claimed the sheriff’s office lacks transparency. Randall said deputies' jobs shouldn't be at risk depending on their politics and who they support during elections.

“A sheriff of the county is not 'answer loyal' to anyone except every four years to the citizens. But even then, the sheriff can tell the citizens what he wants to tell the citizens—so the citizens only know what the sheriff chooses to tell them. There may be other things that they don’t know,” Randall said after winning re-election in 2019.

Countering, Chapman said the estimated cost of the change would be more than $20 million. He noted Saturday that Loudoun County government expects to experience as much as a $100 million budget shortfall this fiscal year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to a statement from the sheriff's office, the LCSO has a nearly 90 percent public approval rating per a recent Loudoun County government-initiated citizen survey. Loudoun has also experienced a 32 percent drop in serious crime since Chapman began his first term in 2012, according to the Metropolitan Council of Governments Report on Crime and Control.

“The [county police department] proposal ... comes without any evidence to support its merits, nor with any organized public input or a comprehensive study that would necessarily include input from LCSO and other stakeholders,” Chapman said.

________________________

Related coverage:

-"Questions and answers about a potential Loudoun County Police Department"

(208) comments

Master Bedroom

Here's a news flash......There is nothing wrong with Loudoun County law enforcement that was democratically elected.

Keep the Sheriff's Department and boot Randall.

Nothing but a power move on her part at tax payer expense no less.

amerigirl

Except they are elected. They should not have a political bias and to be elected you have to be a resident of Loudoun. Randall is not the only person that can decide who it would be, it would have to be voted on by the BOS. Why not expand the application pool and see what is available? Cities do it all the time getting people from distant areas based on their performance record. Randall was democratically elected.to you know. Do a little research, as counties grow they tend t move from Sheriffs depts to Police depts. Even if they keep the sheriff's dept for certain duties lie the penal system. It isn't a power move but progress.

Mncn121

so what you are saying is... that in spite of the fact LCSO has produced incredible results and that our sheriff was democratically elected and that our sheriffs office is the reason why Loudoun county is one of the safest areas in the DMV, the board of supervisors want to spend $20 million to place a figurehead As the head of law-enforcement. This clearly demonstrates their priorities. They care more about political consolidation and the safety of Loudoun’s neighborhoods. I voted for Mike Chapman and I will vote for him again I want him to continue protecting my family.

Mncn121

so what you are saying is... that in spite of the fact LCSO has produced incredible results and that our sheriff was democratically elected and that our sheriffs office is the reason why Loudoun county is one of the safest areas in the DMV, the board of supervisors want to spend $20 million to place a figurehead As the head of law-enforcement. This clearly demonstrates their priorities. They care more about political consolidation and the safety of Loudoun’s neighborhoods. I voted for Mike Chapman and I will vote for him again I want him to continue protecting my family.

amerigirl

So what your saying is that the police dept should be an elected spot instead of impartial? You think that someone must live in Loudoun to be considered for the job even though there may be superior candidates available to apply for the job? The crime rate is always lower in affluent areas and Loudoun is the richest county in the US,

Comment deleted.
amerigirl

Just one conspiracy theory after another. Please don't expect anyone to take anything you say seriously.

RoundHillGuy

Democratic run localities ordered their police departments across the Country to stand down while Burn Loot Murder destroyed cities because it fit their political agenda. That's what you'll get when Randall controls the Police Chief. Stand down orders while political operatives destroy business' and statues. Chapman upholds his oath to protect and defend the Constitutional rights of his constituents. That's why he opposed the red flag laws and enforcement of the mask executive order. Queue Amerigirl in 3....2....

justacitizen

In response to the document Phyllis Randall's office is disseminating:

1. Why a Police Chief and Not a Sheriff:

BOS says: “To reiterate, Loudoun is an outlier in the delivery of law enforcement services when compared to our neighbors.”

However: The ambition to make Loudoun into Fairfax II exists only in the minds of the BOS. The degree to which Loudoun does or does not copy processes and systems from neighboring counties is meaningless. Things like crime rates and ethical conduct have meaning, yet BOS is silent on those attributes.

2. The cost?

BOS says:” One-time costs for minor changes such as repainting vehicles and buying new uniforms are to be expected.”

However: Exactly. It’s wrong-headed to consider paying for expensive yet minor changes that provide no real value to us during a time when we need to fund critical services and we face a shortfall.

3. Why fix what is not broken?

BOS says: “The most pressing concern I have for the future of our county relating to law enforcement is the risk of having an unqualified Chief Law Enforcement Officer. The only qualifications to be elected Sheriff in the Commonwealth of Virginia and in Loudoun are to:

• be of legal age

• have a high school diploma, and

• live in the County.

That’s it. No law enforcement, investigation, or police experience is required. In addition, no education beyond a high school diploma or experience in financial or personnel management is required.”

However: Candidates for the Board of Supervisors need to meet only two requirements; neither pertains to skills, education, or experience. By their reasoning, BOS represents the greater risk, yet here they are.

BOS says: “Moreover, the elected sheriff, by definition, is a politician first and a law enforcement officer second” and “A Police Chief is hired by the County Administrator after a nationwide search. The Board of Supervisors is NOT part of the interview process and takes NO PART in selecting a Police Chief.”

However: The BOS members are politicians first, second, and last. The BOS appoints the County Administrator and that person answers to the BOS. Claiming that this change would reduce political influence is ridiculous. Claiming that the BOS is apolitical because it has nine members is even more ridiculous (ref: Saines document).

4. Why now?

BOS says: “This discussion has been going on in Loudoun County for over almost fifteen years” (sic) and “Timing is important because the process is fairly lengthy; it must be thorough, complete, and not rushed.”

However: A thorough and complete process can occur at pretty much any time other than during a pandemic that is crippling our education services and economy. We deserve more insight into the results of that 15-year long discussion than the binary decision BOS presents: keep the current system or copy Fairfax and hand over the keys to the BOS. If we honor the intent to be thorough and complete, we will look for and consider all the best options.

BOS’ first duty is to address the critical and immediate issues the county faces now, and their results to date do not indicate they have leftover capacity to take on any more this year. Their timing for pitching this to the public while we are distracted by pandemic fallout and civil unrest is suspect. Law enforcement is important to every one of us, and no one has our permission to tinker with it for partisan gain. First, do no harm.

If the BOS plan is solid, it will hold up to a fair, thorough and complete assessment of alternatives conducted by an entity with no skin in the game. Why isn’t that on the table?

jke

New York City has a police chief and a mayor similar to Randall, make a motion to table the referendum.

Voltaire

Jke--No, the New York Police Department (NYPD) is headed by a Police Commissioner (Dermot Shea) and has a uniformed Chief of Department (Terance Monahan). I also don't think that you can really compare New York City (NYPD) to Loudoun County (Loudoun County Sheriff's Office). BTW, the City of New York does have a Sheriff's Department. The jails for New York City are run by the New York City Department of Corrections. The security for the courts in New York is performed by New York State Court Officers. I don't think that you can compare New York City Mayor De Blasio with Chair Randall either.

Lobophan

This does not make any sense. There are a number of issues where I support support Chairwoman Randall but this is not one. The Democrats on the Board would like to turn over the results of a recent election. Why not simply recruit a good candidate for Sheriff rather than one that lacks any police experience? I have lived in states where they have police agencies and sheriffs with police powers, I could make a case for either. But appointing a Police Chief is ALWAYS political. If the current Board makes this change and appoints one and then three years from now there are more Republicans on the Board, guess what? They fire that Chief and appoint one to their liking. It happens in every municipality that does it that way. I for one like to elect my representatives, we can make our decisions and certainly do not need to spend one dime to re-paint a police vehicle or get new uniforms where they are not needed. And as for that BS about Sheriff deputies and job security. One Deputy was fired because he openly campaigned for someone while at work using work time and materials. Chairwoman Randall, if someone in your office did the same you would fire them as well And that went to federal court and the former deputy's case was dismissed. We have many more important issues then replacing something that works. We have low violent crime, low crime in general. Let's concentrate on programs that will get more diversity in the department than fixing something that isn't broken.

amerigirl

Lobo, it isn’t going to turn over the election results because the BOS already said that it would not go into effect until his term is over. Many places do this same process as they grow and Loudoun has definitely grown. The reason has nothing to do with Chapman directly but the fact that the position is an elected office restricts them to looking for the best person for the job to only Loudoun County. If it isn’t then they are free to take applications from all over without the residency requirement. It isn’t so much an appointment as they are not picking who has their same political interests but a hiring as to who is best for the job. Those applications are not going to ask for political party, they will ask for qualifications and there will be a committee that is set up to receive the applications and vet those applying. Chapman could apply for the job if he is interested. I have yet to see places that fire a police chief for his political party, just for not doing their job, but usually because they have retired or found a better job. There isn’t much a sheriff or a police chief can do politically because they are there to enforce the laws that are made by the BOS to begin with. Yes, deputies were fired for supporting another candidate, that should have never happened. Your job should not be determined by your political views and you are doing a good job. He was doing a great job and had great reviews. This is what Chapman said; “People challenge me. I’m going to crush them. They’ll never work in law enforcement. I’m going to ruin their career.” The case was dismissed only because of traditional protected activity supporting a political candidate. Chapman hiring practices have been brought up long with mismanagement and malfeasance in the LCSO’s operations, ranging from ordering deputies to get rid of tickets of Chapman’s friends to erratic efforts to save money, after mismanaging the LCSO’s budget, that compromised the LCSO’s mission. So, does it really work when you look deeper into it? If there are questions about who he will hire how do you think we will get more diversity?

You ask if Randall would fire someone for campaigning against her, why would she? People vie for that position all the time.

Fiscalconservative

Does the board know how much it would cost to have a police department? Have they outlined where that money would come form? How can you make a proposal without having all the facts? Regardless of what part you are for or against this shows how ignorant the BOS is. Most people look at all the facts before they make a decision.

amerigirl

Why would there even be a difference in cost? Initially there would be some, but not what Chapman is claiming. They can set the hiring wage, they could hire from within the sheriffs dept. . It is like the set up they have in Fairfax, Arlington, Pr. William, Alexandria, and many other places. It is common to expand this way as a county grows.

masonskeep

Randall and the entire Board of Sillyvisors need to go!

amerigirl

How mature

westernloudounguy

On a somewhat related note, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens next year when the Fire Department employee's unionize and the Sheriff's Office deputies can't because the state law only applies to "County Employee's", not employee's of constitutional offices.

David Dickinson

And this is Randall's motivation. She is goose-stepping to the Democrat fuehrers to give as many handouts to their union backers as possible. A police force can be unionized and union dues can fund the Democrat Party. It is a viscous circle. Note that Democrats don't care what the actual effect is on people, just that their political friends get paid off so they can, in turn, pay them off.

amerigirl

Quite a little conspiracy theory you have going there. Why not just join the Virginia Sheriffs’ Association and do the same thing? They have a a political action committee (PAC) for the purpose of assisting the members of the Virginia Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates seeking re-election.Exactly what is the difference?

Countyrez

A power grab, plain and simple. Randall would like nothing better to hand pick her operative to run her vision of a police department, stealing away the right of the voter under the guise of accountability, now that is rich!

amerigirl

The right of the voter would not matter here because he would finish out his term. It should not be a political position to begin with. The voter don't research the qualifications as well as the people who would hire a chief of police.

Voltaire

AG--I agree with you on that point. Law enforcement should be apolitical. People seem to think that if the County goes toward a police department that somehow the Sheriff disappears. That is totally opposite. There still will be a Sheriff's Office and the Sheriff will still be an elected Constitutional Officer.

Countyrez

The rights of the voting public always matter. You must also believe that the Board of Supervisors should be appointed because the public is too dumb to properly vet them as well? In that specific case, you might be able to convince me.

Do you honestly believe today's Board of Supervisors would not make a Chief of Police political? It is a lie to paint this as anything other than a power grab for control of law enforcement. It has to be maddening for Randall not to be able to force her will on a duly elected Sheriff, unlike many of her fellow Board members.

amerigirl

I think that the position should be one of the best candidates gets the job. Most of the voters don’t even show up to vote. And they definitely don’t do enough research to know if the person that is from Loudoun Co. is the best for the job. With a wider pool to pick from and a committee to do the research they could get someone with higher qualifications.

No, I really don’t think they would make it political. The police only enforce the laws, the BOS already creates them. How does she force her will on them? Like I said the BOS can make the laws that the Police dept or sheriffs dept would then have to enforce. It wouldn’t really be a power grab because they already have the power to change the laws as they see fit.

David Dickinson

Loudoun's newest band is Radical Randall and the Democrats of Destruction. Performing live for 4 excruciating years.

amerigirl

Thought of that all by yourself did ya? Somethings you should keep in your mind because of how it makes you sound when you say them out loud.

David Dickinson

I contributed more to the social good in one sentence than you have all year.

InfoOD

Qualifications? Does Randel has the qualification herself? She wants a police dept jus to get more power for herself because the police chief will report to her. There should be a separation of power. Too many Democrat politician putting the mob's interest ahead of us regular people. The current Sheriff has done a fantastic job at keeping crime down, there is no need to form a separate police dept.

Voltaire

InfoOD--OK, the question concerning the establishment of a two agency law enforcement structure in this county has more to do than just politics. It is a question of whether the population density and growth (commercial/residential) and corresponding levels of criminal activity have grown to the point that it strains the resources of the Sheriff's Office. There is nothing wrong with a two agency law enforcement structure. Many cities and counties use it in order to effective meet the public safety mandate and to ensure efficient use of public resources. Loudoun County, from approximately 1980 to today has grown exponentially and really cannot be considered a rural county that can only be serviced by a County Sheriff.

amerigirl

First, they Police depts work independently. They officers would answer to a chief of police or a commissioner, who in turn would answer to the Board. Not everyone agrees with you on how well he has done his job, some of them are working for him.

springerdad

I grew up in NJ where you had a local police force a county police force and a State police force. You know what happens when you have that many cops? Your taxes increase to pay their salaries and mostly their retirement benefits.

It is a great job if you can get it. Retire in your mid 50's then collect 6 figures for around 20 years while living in another state.

https://nj1015.com/they-get-190000-pensions-nj-retirement-system-costs-hit-11b/

Voltaire

Springerdad--yeah right. I have family in state law enforcement in WI. I know what they deal with only a daily basis. You think it is a great job, do you? How would you like to spend the day dealing with unruly citizens, explaining the law to citizens from other states who think they are above the law and will gladly tell you so, responding to various types of violence and criminal calls. Oh, then watch your governor and the political class mess around with your health insurance and your retirement. That is what Scott Walker did in WI to state law enforcement and other state employees. If you are so enamored with it, as my family tells me, then go get a uniform, pin on a badge, and do a patrol route for a week and see just how much "fun" it really is. Give me a break.

KK153

is this your daily diatribe about how you are an expert on all things law enforcement because you have a few family members that were cops? Were you a cop?

Voltaire

KK153--a few family members? My family has have generations serving in law enforcement, thanks. Having lived with family in law enforcement does give me a right to opine with some credibility. However, did I say I was an expert on law enforcement? No, I didn't but that is your subjective conclusion.

KK153

Voltaire... yes, you have a "few'... and so do lots of other people..

My own father was a cop for 25 years as a state trooper. i have 3 uncles that were also career state toppers. i have another uncle that was a county sheriff for 15 years. I have 6 cousins that are either state or municipal law enforcement. And finally I have an uncle that was career federal law enforcement. I have spent countless hours in conversation with these folks and guess what...I'm no expert either.

Quit riding the coat tails of others and passing it off as some special form of insight.. it's not

Voltaire

KK153--your comment is noted and ignored. I am not passing off my comments as "some form of insight" but I can and will voice my opinion when I want to and don't really give a toss as to your "opinion" of them and there is nothing you can do to stop that. Finally, I did not say that I was the only one with family in law enforcement did I? No, I didn't. That is your conclusion and it is subjective. What I have stated that I did have generations of family in law enforcement which is historical factually correct. How do you know what my family is made of? You don't but don't let that stop you from making blanket assumptions with no facts to back it up. Furthermore, you have no "authority" to tell me what to do so your last "statement" is worthless.

KK153

Voltaire - you're like that old guy that thinks he's an expert on all subject matter because he watches the discovery channel once a week. Your a joke friend..

Voltaire

KK153--Whatever. Your "opinion" is noted and ignored.

springerdad

Volt - Do you actually think you are the only person with family and friends that are police officers? Plenty of them work in the very affluent suburbs of NJ and have had an easier ride then cops that work in the more urban areas.

I would say that Wisconsin is in much better shape then NJ

New Jersey's pension problem is only second-worst in the U.S., but its state Senate President Stephen Sweeney, a Democrat, is pushing legislation he says will save taxpayers billions through meaningful pension reform. ... Sweeney has introduced 27 bills aimed at reforming the state's pension system.

The Wisconsin Retirement System Is Fully Funded and a ...reason.org › commentary › the-wisconsin-retirement-sy...

Jan 14, 2020 - Wisconsin's fully-funded status can be attributed to a combination of plan design and pragmatism. As many state pension plans struggle with severe underfunding, the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) stands out with a funded ratio above 100 percent.

Voltaire

Springerdad—Did I actually say that I was the ONLY one with family in law enforcement? No, that is your subjective conclusion. What I was responding to was the following: “It is a great job if you can get it. Retire in your mid-50’s then collect 6 figures for around 20 years while living in another state.” You cannot make a broad characterization like that as it is not accurate. Law enforcement is a difficult task no matter the environment that one works, be it an affluent suburb or more urban areas. You get the same types of response calls. I do agree with you that the State of Wisconsin is better from a financial perspective. However, they fixed their finances, under Governor Walker’s administration, on the backs of government workers through the 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 (otherwise known as the Budget Repair Bill). The Act did the following activities: (1) raised the contribution amount that state and local (City and County of Milwaukee) for retirement; (2) raised the cost of their health insurance, (3) modified their collective bargaining rights; (4) made modifications to the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) and the health insurance costs; and other costs. The passage of the 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 was the basis for an effort by the citizens of Wisconsin to recall Governor Walker.

springerdad

Volt -

Looking back at it Gov. Walker made the painful but right decisions. I also stand by my statement it is has great job with benefits in the past.

Voltaire

Springerdad--I think the legacy of Governor Walker in WI is mixed and the reaction about him from his fellow citizens is mixed. As to law enforcement, in the past, you are right. Now, the job is changing and there are a lot of people who don't like it anymore and want out. It is sad.

amerigirl

I think that is true in Loudoun's areas that are incorporated, or it seems to be. It would be just like it is here now if you live in Leesburg or another city, you have 3 sets of police, and their jurisdictions overlapped. I think they want to separate the duties so that the sheriffs dept would have certain duties like the jails as they do in Fairfax, Those duties would not overlap. and the police would have the county.

RandomName2019

I don't believe that the distinction of a police chief/Sheriff removes politics from the equation. At all.

What I would prefer to see is a new law that requires that an elected Sheriff have certain qualifications, similar to how the Commonwealth Attorney has to at least hold a law degree and have passed the bar in Virginia. Randall did have a good point about the qualifications of candidates, and unfortunately the Democrats really exposed that through the ineptitude and inexperience of Justin Hannah as a candidate for Sheriff...

LoudounPulse

Lucky the current Sheriff was a former DEA Agent. What type of qualifications should they have to be elected? College Degrees? Law Enforcement Experience? I don't like the idea of prerequisites for elected positions. The People should be able to choose whomever they want to lead them, even if its the village idiot. The problem with prerequisites is that it limits choice and can be used in a discriminatory way. After all, if you mandate college degrees, that limits the choice to only 25% of the population. At the same time you'll also limit the number of minorities in that pool too. Its a slippery slope.

Voltaire

LP--since the County Sheriff is a law enforcement position, one would hope that the individual running for that office would have some experience in law enforcement.

RandomName2019

I think we could probably agree though that a Sheriff, at a minimum, should be someone who has completed a law enforcement education program through a police academy or military training course, right?

It's not taking away people's choice to say "We're going to present you with candidates who are licensed to practice law in Virginia" when we select candidates for Commonwealth Attorney. I think it's fair to apply that to a position that is equally complicated when it comes to the interpretation and enforcement of laws.

Voltaire

RandomName2019--I agree with you.

amerigirl

s he the only one with those qualifications? What about if someone who lives in W VA or Fairfax wants to apply and has an even better record? The sheriff is not a leader, they don't lead the county, those are the supervisors. You can't call the police for action you want taken in your community. You can't vote them in to support legislation that you like. They are not leaders, and should not be elected. The supervisors are leaders and if they ran on the platform of having a police dept instead of a sheriffs dept and you voted them in for that reason then those leaders are the ones that will be held responsible to do that. Trying to say what the minimum standards should be is okay but you may find someone with all those qualifications and even more by widening the field for hiring

RandomName2019

...except none of the elected BOS members ran on a platform of replacing the Sheriff with a police force. They fully supported their own candidates for Sheriff, so this is a bit disingenuous. If that's a position that some, or most, want to take then it should be part of their platform during the next election and not hastily rolled out because they see an opportunity to push their own personal agendas. I voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the last election, including Chapman, because they were the best candidate we were offered. I like having the ability to vote for someone else instead of having to rely on 9 people agreeing that the hired police chief needs to go. Look at the LCPS superintendent for a perfect example of how poorly elected officials handle entrenched bureaucrats....

amerigirl

Random, of curse they had to support their own party because it is an elected position. How is that disingenuous? The move to go forward with a police department would be made by county voters through a referendum. They don’t need to put it on their platform. That referendum was not an option at the time because they were newly elected. The talk of moving to a police dept. has been ongoing for the last 4 years. She is right in saying “deputies' jobs shouldn't be at risk depending on their politics and who they support during elections.” It should be based on their abilities and qualifications. Right now deputies can be fired without warning or recourse at the beginning of each new term. I also, held my nose and voted for Chapman, due to lack of qualifications of his opponent. But this should not be a political position. To be elected they have to live in Loudoun and that limits the pool of applicants drastically. The county is so large it really needs to have a police dept and not just a sheriffs dept. Loudoun is by far the largest county in Virginia without a police department; the next-largest county with a sheriff’s office in charge of law enforcement is Stafford County, with a population of around 150,000 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Loudoun’s rapidly growing population is more than twice that, estimated around 413,000 as of 2019. (Loudoun Now) As it stands right now you only know what the sheriff wants you to know and with a police dept you would have more transparency and accountability.

BobOhneiserEsq

Is the BOS disciplined enough to accept any more responsibilities? Assessments have remained wrong, high density residential development has not been reeled in, VDOT has not been mandated to do their job in Loudoun, Route 15 north of Leesburg (well defined traffic issue) not resolved, 39% higher property tax rate than the rest of Virginia not controlled, Traffic congestion getting worse not better, school system not prudently managed, garbage being buried above plan etc while extreme efforts to remove 100 year old statues seem to take up all the oxygen in the room. Maybe lowering funding for the BOS should be the focus "until they do THEIR job" instead of picking on Mike Chapman who apparently under all data measurement is actually doing his job! :-)

RandomName2019

You're like a broken record with your incorrect claims, and as someone who previously held office and wanted to hold the position of BOS chair, you really sholud be better educated. The BOS can't change assessments unless they move the RE role back into the regular county government, something that the last reform commission specifically changed to make assessments transparent. The school board is limited in how they can can enforce issues. Our local legislators can push on VDOT, but they're limited too. Literally the only thing the BOS could do is address the waste management. The rest is just you bloviating on message boards.

Voltaire

Bob—OK, your statement about the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is wrong. VDOT, as identified on its website, is responsible for building, maintaining and operating the state's roads, bridges and tunnels. To date, they are meeting that mandate. The roads are being maintained and road improvement projects are being designed/executed. According to VDOT, the Route 15 Bypass Interchange at Edwards Ferry Road and Fort Evans Road is in the design phase of the project. The agency is apparently waiting on additional funding in order to acquire the right of way land and begin construction. This is fairly common with civil works projects of this nature. On the Route 15 North of Leesburg question, VDOT, at the request of the County of Loudoun Transportation and Capital Projects Department, did a safety study of that area and provided it to the County for its planning. The County of Loudoun’s Transportation and Capital Projects Department is currently doing the planning work for the Route 15 North of Leesburg expansion. VDOT, along with the Maryland Department of Transportation, Frederick County, MD, Loudoun County Fire/Rescue, Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, Loudoun County Public Schools, Town of Leesburg, are partnering with the County of Loudoun on this project. As to the status, the project is undergoing engineering assessments and other preliminary field work that is required to be done before actual construction takes place. Again, civil works projects such as this one operate in phases and this is very common.

Notalib

This is nothing but a democrat power grab.

LoudounPulse

Exactly.

RandomName2019

...or a Republican power grab if that's who is in control of the board?

CindyLou

Notalib…..Ha! Your name would have been sufficient.

Notalib

Yep and proud of it

amerigirl

That is nothing to be proud of.

Lemmy Motorhead

Phlyss Randall is no different from Angela alsobrooks of pg county and mayor bowser in DC. She's a hardcore leftist ideologue who has run as somewhat of a wolf in sheep's clothing. She hasn't been as openly militant because the demographics of Loudoun aren't the same as DC or PG, but make no mistake, she shares the same views as her counterparts across the Potomac...

Randall is incensed that a traditionalist law and order sheriff is in charge of the "newly enlightened" Loudoun county. Randall wants Loudoun to be a sanctuary county for illegal immigrants just like Fairfax county; she also wants to be able to influence how the department is run. Notice how during all the mass rioting across the nation, a significant number of police chiefs were forced to resign or were outright fired. I didn't see ANY sheriffs resign...

I can picture randall dressing down a beta police chief right now...

amerigirl

There is a reason that they ll won those positions. The people elected the nominees that best represented them.

LoudounPulse

The big hurdle for Democrats will be to convince everybody the current enforcement by LCSO is somehow a problem and needs to be switched to a Police Force with a Chief appointed by the Chair. Considering that crime in Loudoun is low and we don't have deputies mistreating minorities, it will be a hard sell. It looks like the only point the Democrats can make is that somehow having a larger population requires a change. Yet there is no practical justification to that claim, since even larger jurisdictions have Sheriff departments and work just fine. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (California) and Cook County Sheriff’s Office (Illinois).

Wahoowah

The big hurdle for you is that you’re not looking.

LoudounPulse

There is nothing to uncovered. If there is a problem, I'm sure LTM would be more than happy to publish a story to boost its ad click revenue. LCSO is working just fine, unlike Washington DC's Police Dept.

Voltaire

LP—You are not making a fair comparison between the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) of the District of Columbia. First, the LCSO is responsible for policing the community, managing security for the courts, and running the jail. In comparison, the MPD is responsible for policing the city only. The running of the D.C. Jail is the responsibility of the D.C. Department of Corrections, a separate municipal agency. Further, the security for the courts for the District of Columbia is done through U.S. Marshal’s Service. In addition, unlike the LCSO, the MPD also shares its jurisdiction with the Metro Transit Police (responsible for policing the MetroRail system and buses), the United States Park Police (provides law enforcement for the National Mall and all other National Park Service properties) and the U.S. Marshals Service which acts as the city’s sheriff and many other (approximately over 70) Federal agencies. However, the MPD is the primary agency in the city and has the authority to investigate all crimes within the city regardless of location of the offense.

amerigirl

Except many don't think it i working just fine. The problem was that there wasn't a reasonable choice to make on who would be sheriff, the one with experience or no experience. It was a hold your nose and vote.

Voltaire

LP--OK. It isn't a fair comparison to compare Loudoun County to either Cook County or Los Angeles County. For starters, you do understand that the majority of the police work done in Los Angeles County is done within the confines of the City of Los Angeles which is the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Police Department? The City of Los Angeles also has multiple specialized police agencies (such as parks). Further, there are many incorporated municipalities within the County of Los Angeles that have their own police force and do not use the services of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. The California Highway Patrol also has a very large presence in the LA area and does a lot to help enforce the law there. As for Cook County, Illinois, Cook County Sheriff's Office divides its operations by task into several departments, the most recognizable of them are the Cook County Sheriff's Police Department, the Court Services Department, and the Department of Corrections. The Sheriff oversees all three departments. The Cook County Sheriff has limited its police patrol functions to unincorporated areas of the county because unincorporated areas are the primary jurisdiction of a Sheriff's Department in Illinois. The City of Chicago has its own police department, second largest municipal police department after the New York Police Department, and that law enforcement organization is responsible for law enforcement within the city limits. The 500–600 member Sheriff's Police Department would not have the personnel necessary to supply full police services to all incorporated areas in Cook County especially in a municipality such as Chicago. Cook County has additional police departments that are not the responsibility of the sheriff. These include the Cook County Forest Preserve District Police and Cook County Hospital Police. The Illinois State Police also patrols the Expressways in Chicagoland. Now, in comparison, Loudoun County only has one local law enforcement agency, the County Sheriff, who is responsible for the entire county. There is some assistance from the Virginia State Police and several small municipal police departments. Concerning the question of low crime, which part of Loudoun County are you looking at? There is less crime in Western Loudoun than in Eastern Loudoun, probably due to population density. Further, the issue of "deputies mistreating minorities" is not relevant for the question of what configuration of law enforcement is needed for this county. The question centers on effectiveness of law enforcement, quickness in police response times, and is there sufficient infrastructure in place to support a growing Loudoun County. Loudoun County, contrary to what many people want to believe, is no longer a rural county. It is a mixed county similar to other counties such as Chesterfield County who has a police department and a Sheriff's Office.

LoudounPulse

But what is the need for the change? Where is the problem that says we need a police force run by an appointed person vs. the Sheriff who is elected by We The People?

Voltaire

LP--the main argument, from a non-political viewpoint, would be the growth in population in this county, similar to other rural counties, such as Chesterfield County, that, because of increased residential/commercial development. When you allow the type of growth that has occurred in this county from approximately 1980 to today, you have to consider the resources available to provide adequate law enforcement. In a rural county, having a Sheriff's Office only is sufficient because the amount of law enforcement resources can support the county because the population is low enough to allow effective coverage with the available resources. However, as this county has done, development and population skyrocket and becomes more urbanized, then the amount of crime corresponding should increase and therefore tax the resources of the Sheriff who is dual hatted in that he has to police the community, run the jail, and manage courthouse security. By creating a police department, the resources that are available can be better deployed and response times to crime can either remain at current or better levels. You cite Chicago and Los Angeles as examples. Both of those counties have a mixed police approach. It really shouldn't be a political question but a question about effectiveness of police resources.

amerigirl

Because an elected position requires you to live within the jurisdiction. There would be a larger pool of people applying if it weren't elected but an applied for position.

amerigirl

The biggest problem would be that having an elected official would limit the people who want to apply. If you look at examples of hiring a police chief they can look everywhere, not just Loudoun. You can pick from the cream of the crop from anywhere.

Wahoowah

What’s funny is that in the WTOP interview Chapman said he’s not tied to any political thing. Hunty hunty honey. You are elected and you run under a party. Yours is Republican. You weren’t hired for your qualifications- you won an election. My Lord.

KK153

actually the Sheriff does not run under a party.. that's why there is no party affiliation on the ballot next to his name.

Voltaire

KK153--actually, currently, the Sheriff does run for election under a party affiliation. The same holds true for other Constitutional officers such as Commissioner of Revenue, Treasurer, Clerk of the Circuit Court, and Commonwealth's Attorney. Sheriff Chapman, in one of his official press releases, suggested that the Board of Supervisors could seek state legislation to require that Loudoun’s Constitutional Officers be non-partisan, removing political affiliation from the selection process for the Sheriff, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Commissioner of the Revenue, Commonwealth’s Attorney and Treasurer. That's not a bad idea.

amerigirl

That doesn't mean that they were not nominated by a political party as Chapman was by republicans, and have backing from them. He even had his name on political signs in yards with other republican nominees. It may not show but there is no doubt.

Wahoowah

I have no idea what election you voted in but my ballot had (R) next to his name. It’s an election but it must be fake news that Chapman is elected rather than selected based on his credentials.

Lemmy Motorhead

You're statement is incredibly ignorant. Sheriff Chapman was a Howard county MD police officer and DEA agent for years. Those are qualifications. Put your hate for President Trump aside for just a brief moment...

Wahoowah

He wasn’t chosen for qualifications. It was an Election! He was elected and it’s political. Get your head out.

scottva

And the guy he beat, who was black, never had a badge or was in law enforcement. He served in the Army, but not combat. So someone that served as a cop and in the DEA and was the previous Sheriff in Loudoun, has the qualifications, whether or not he had an R in front of his name or not.

Voltaire

Wahoowah--True, it was an election. However, the candidate's qualifications is a major factor when considering whether he/she should be elected for a position such as Sheriff. Same logic should also be applied to the people running for Commonwealth's Attorney, Treasurer, Clerk of Circuit Court, and Commissioner of Revenue.

amerigirl

Scott, you're right, he shouldn't have been elected. But that entire position should not be an elected position. They should be free to hire someone for the position who is best for the job, regardless of where they live just like other places do. Look at major cities, most hire from out of the area if they don't have someone in ranks to promote. Even the in rank personnel have to apply for the job. If party is not listed on the application we have a much better chance of getting a highly qualified person

Wahoowah

First off it’s “Your”. It’s still an election.

Voltaire

InfoOD--Really? There is nothing wrong with the proper application of the Queen's English. BTW, I am not a liberal.

amerigirl

And you believed him? Then ask him who paid for his campaign. What does the trumpster have to do with Chapman? Lame excuse. Still Chapman used the excuse of 'trust' to fire someone in his dept because he was going to run against him. Not that he wasn't good at his job because the way the sheriffs dept is set up that is the only excuse he needs.

InfoOD

Keep going against your bosses will and see if he/she will fire you. Libtards come up with the lamest excuse. Just because this employee got fired he decided not to run against Mike?

InfoOD

And his opponent gets paid by the democratic party for his campaign. What's your point?

amerigirl

InfoOD , did you not read the comment??? Speaking of “tards” !!! ! The point, since you just can’t seem to get it, is that Chapman said that he wasn’t affiliated with any political party which is a lie. He and the person running against him were both supported by political parties. Also speaking of “tards”, what grade are you in, how childish. You made the entire case just by saying “Keep going against your bosses will and see if he/she will fire you”. People should not be fired for their politics just as they should not be fired for their religion. He was already running against Chapman when he was fired. You do too much talking without even knowing what you’re talking about.

doverboy

Ms Randall, I will be most happy to show political expression when I vote for your competition in a few years. That goes for any BOS person who votes for a police department

gtrunner

+1

amerigirl

I seriously doubt you ever voted democratic.

doverboy

See how easy it was for you to assume and make a jump? You have lost all credibility because of your statement. I have.

amerigirl

I could care less if I lose my credibility with you. How long ago was that?

jke

An additional tax of 12 cents per hundred, $1.20 per thousand dollars, $12.00 per $10,000 dollars, $120.00 dollars per 100,000 so if your home value is $500,000 Randall wants another 600 dollars per year for her private army. Plus you loose funding the state kicks in, yikes!

amerigirl

It wouldn't lose 599 funding, though it may be cut back. The sheriffs dept just doesn't want to lose their fat paycheck. Putting them at comparable pay should more than make up for that.

scottva

Fat paycheck? Take a look at the starting salary for a Deputy vs a Leesburg officer. Much lower.

amerigirl

scott yes they start between $41,885 and $56,654.They are way up there, not lower. The salary for first-year State Police troopers is $36,207.

MitchT

Amerigirl, way off on the facts, and not even a relevant comparison as Troopers are paid higher in NoVA than rest of state. Quoting from a 2016 article that happens to be the first result on Google not very helpful or honest. Starting salary for a Trooper in NoVA is $55,340 rising to $60,874 after 12 months. I don't know what Leesburg Police are classified as but the lowest Public Safety classification in Leesburg is $53,233. The lowest Deputy pay is $53,500 according to the new classification system adopted by the BoS. So depending on where Leesburg classifies a starting police officer, LCSO starts at the bottom end (tied with Leesburg) or lower than other police in the county. So your assertion of "fat paycheck" is blatantly false as it appears you had no relevant actual evidence before you made it, and your attempt to show LCSO with much higher pay than troopers also blatantly false.

amerigirl

What are you talking about? Real estate? That did not go close to going up 12 cents per hundred. The 2020 Real Property Tax Rate for Regular District 1: $1.035 per $100 in assessed value.It went down not up. In 2019 the rate was $1.045. It would be outrageous if it went up even close to that amount. Where are you getting those numbers from?

Jeanne T

FTA: "Chairwoman Phyllis Randall (D-At Large).......has said she's concerned with Loudoun deputies' job security – previous Loudoun deputies have been fired for supporting Chapman's political rivals – and claimed the sheriff’s office lacks transparency. Randall said deputies' jobs shouldn't be at risk depending on their politics and who they support during elections."

How many deputies have been fired under Sheriff Chapman? Is he the only Loudoun County Sheriff who has ever fired deputies? What Chairman Randall is describing is very typical of many Sheriff's departments around the country. Sheriffs are elected by the citizens. So, I don't believe her concern is really for the deputies' job security. It sounds more like an issue of her politics, and perhaps her philosophy about law enforcement. A police chief would be answerable to her and the board, not to the citizens. A police chief won't be elected. He/she will be hired, and Randall would have to approve him/her.

amerigirl

Randall would not be the sole person it would be the BOS.

jke

Initial cost 100 million that is the low side which when you figure every penny in the tax rate is 8.4 million dollars a police department at minimum is a 12 cent increase in taxes!

InfoOD

Research shows that any cities or state that are ran by democrats have the highest taxes. This is happening here. Need to find some place cheaper to move to.

amerigirl

Info, your lack of info is outstanding. Research will show that cities in general have higher taxes, regardless of the political party in charge. It depends on what you want in the city. If you look at some of the few republican cities, they do not have al the amenities you would find in Democratic cities. Much of that is in infrastructure and transportation. Have a nice trip.

LoudounPulse

Los Angeles County, California has a Sheriff's Department and they protect 4,000,000 people.

If a Sheriff's Dept works for 4,000,000 people, I don't see why it wouldn't work for 400,000 in Loudoun County.

The argument that Loudoun has grown and needs a Police Force is a flat out lie with no justification.

Voltaire

LP--OK. Does the 4,000,000 people you identify include the the City of Los Angeles? If so, then they can't be covered by the Sheriff's Department as they are under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Police Department and several other city law enforcement agencies specific to items such as parks. In addition, there are also multiple law enforcement agencies for a host of independent cities within Los Angeles County. As to the claim that Loudoun County has grown, yes, that is factual. It doesn't matter where geographically but it has been significantly built up in the Eastern portion of the County. Other counties in Virginia, such as Chesterfield County, had this same problem and ended up with a two tier law enforcement system (County Police and County Sheriff).

Lawman

What’s real funny if you turn this around and make Mike a Democrat and Loudoun BOS Republican control is that most of the comments would be different or the exact opposite.

Virginia SGP

Actually, no.

It is a good thing that law enforcement and prosecutors are separated (Commonwealth's Attorney and Sheriff) as that reduces the level of false prosecutions.

Similarly, it is a good thing that the elected sheriff can call out when they are lacking in funding. (suppose Republican BOS reduced funding for Democrat sheriff, it would be a positive that the sheriff couldn't be fired by BOS for pointing this out to the public)

And it is always a good thing when we are able to separate out management functions. While the BOS is responsible for how much LCPS gets, the actual administration of the schools is up to the SB, 7 of whom were replaced this past fall.

Most resistance would not change.

Jeanne T

So what?

amerigirl

That's just nasty, he is entitled to his opinion on the subject.

Voltaire

AG--apparently we have a lot of that on this site.

Voltaire

AG--BTW, I totally agree with your point here.

Jeanne T

Yes, he is. And I'm not obligated to agree with him. [beam]

amerigirl

Jeanne nobody said you had to agree but that was just a nasty statement not an argument on why you disagree or even the word disagree as an opinion.

LoudounPulse

A Police force puts law enforcement into the hands of the Board of Supervisors and takes to "AWAY" from the Voters. First off, LCSO has done a great job of keeping crime under control I do not see any abuse of power or lack of enforcement by LCSO to warrant the need for a Police Force. Second, this is simply a power grab by the Board (Specifically the Chairwoman) so they can appoint their favorite person vs. whom the Voters/Citizens have chosen to be their Top Cop.

I strongly believe the Top Cop should be an elected position, in which the Sheriff has to answer to the Voters. Whereas a Police Force is run by a Chief who is appointed by a politician. The voters have NO SAY over whom is the Top Cop. I hope this effort to undo LCSO fails.

Voltaire

LP--The job of law enforcement is supposed to be apolitical. I think that the County Sheriff has done a good job keeping crime down. I do agree with the Board of Supervisors on the idea of removing partisan labels for Constitutional Officers. Those positions should be based on technical competency of the individual not whether the Clerk of the Circuit Court, for example, is a Democrat or a Republican. It is possible that this County has grown to the point that the law enforcement resources need to be better utilized. Not an impossibility. As to the claim that "the Top Cop" should be an elected position. I don't necessarily agree. For example, the Superintendent of the Virginia State Police is an appointed position and voters get no say in who gets that job. That individual is responsible for law enforcement throughout the ENTIRE Commonwealth and nobody voted him in or really has a say in the process.

marv

Loudoun County has the best Sheriffs Department in the State and one of the best in the Nation. "if it Aint Broke Don't Fix It".

Voltaire

Marv--First, since the Sheriff is a Constitutional Officer, you cannot call it a "Department" it is called a "Office". Next, do you have any proof to support the broad claim that the LCSO is the Best "Sheriff's Office" in the Commonwealth and the Nation?

marv

Volt - I used "Department" because that's what most people call it. "Best in state" - check the records. I NEVER said "best in nation" - I wrote "ONE" of the best.. (Don't be so facetious)

Voltaire

Marv--well, what most people call it is technically wrong. It is just as offensive as calling a Deputy Sheriff "Officer". What records did you use to determine that the LCSO is "best in state" and "one of the best in the nation"? As to your "claim" that I am being facetious, no I am not.

Virginia SGP

Voltaire, you may be unfamiliar with the internal workings of the county. When I sued both Plowman (Commonwealth's Attorney) and Randall (BOS Chair) and looked at the internal records, it became clear that they were considered "department heads". They each receive significant funding from the county. They each control their own PR although the CA's office delegated much of that to the county administration after Plowman got caught violating First Amendment protections. For budgetary purposes, they are treated equivalently to departments.

Voltaire

Virginia SGP--I appreciate your comment and the additional information. I agree with you that, from a budgetary perspective, the Commonwealth Attorney and the Sheriff are considered Department heads and receive funding from the County. The Code of Virginia under Title 15.2, Chapter 16, (§15.2-1613) spells out that the local government (city or county as applicable) is responsible for providing funding for the Commonwealth Attorney and the Sheriff. The issue that I am taking with Marv's comment is that within the Commonwealth of Virginia there is no such thing as a "Sheriff's Department." Since the Sheriff is a Constitutional Officer, as identified in the Code of Virginia (Section 15.2, Chapter 16, Article 3) and Constitution of Virginia (Article VII, Section 4), the Office of the Sheriff is called a Sheriff's Office.

Comment deleted.
Voltaire

Sunday Sinner--do you exist to throw barbs that provide relatively meaningless value? BTW, your guess is wrong. As I have said to another poster on this site, I don't give a flying toss of what your "opinion" of me is? Get over it.

Lawman

Best in the State at doing what? Wealthiest county in America so you are not going to have a lot of crime. You know nothing about his inside deal on the jail. Mike’s transparency is minimal. So get off that best in the state nonsense. It’s Loudoun County.

Lawman

Although I disagree with Mike Chapman’s politics and his political grandstanding at political functions, like wearing the uniform at Jeff Sessions confirmation hearing, those of us who have had to work with him find his is a fair dude. Many of the minority officers also say he has done right by them for the most part. But, Mike and the Department are horrible from a transparency standpoint. But the minority officers like numerous white officers point out that Mike makes political decisions against officers and they say the next sheriff could be even worse as were even worse. I think it deserves a vote and I think Mike politics and politicizing the office will impact that decision.

Virginia SGP

And I think it is beyond naive to believe Chapman can trust an officer who is actively campaigning to unseat his boss. Would never happen in the private sector. It leads a reasonable observer to believe that officer may actually seek to undermine the effeiciency of the department. In what way could a company have a cohesive team if a VP were openly criticizng the CEO and moving for his/her ouster? One may even consider the CEO a failure for not putting an end to that nonsense so the team is all pulling in the same direction.

Jeanne T

Bingo!

amerigirl

In other words, they should only hire republicans, and never a democrat that might want his position? That should not have even been taken into consideration. It should only if he trusts him to perform his job.

Jeanne T

"But, Mike and the Department are horrible from a transparency standpoint."

In what respect? Please be specific.

Jaws

Was just reading on how VA In Richmond legislation is making it available for illegal immigrants to receive drivers licenses in the state of Virginia. I assume as Chapman does support law enforcement of state and Federal agencies that becomes a problem for Loudoun BOS. If the board takes control of law enforcement they could direct police not to work with ICE or any other agency they have problems with at the time.

Not sure that is going to be a good long term strategy having that most Federal agencies have residents in this county. I really don’t see how that works if I am here illegally and I get certified to drive and kill somebody in a car accident like manslaughter. Do they get prosecuted like a US citizen or do they get deported? Also I could see it now no birth certificate, no valid proof of who you are. Sure you can apply for a drivers license we can use all the votes we can get in the next election.

Voltaire

Jaws--Once an illegal immigrant is arrested, the jail that booked him or the law enforcement agency that affected the arrest will notify the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE may put a hold on that individual. After the criminal trial, the local jail will notify ICE to take the illegal immigrant into Federal custody. If ICE does not want to deport the individual they will not send officers to get him/her. If they do want to deport him/her, then they will send officers and move him/her to a Federal detention center. Even if ICE does not want to take the individual into federal custody it still does not resolve the immigration matter. After that, the illegal immigrant will appear in immigration court. If the individual is deported, then there are consequences such as barred re-entry into the USA for a certain period of time. Depending on the nature of the crime committed, the individual could also be prosecuted in the individual’s home country for the same crime committed in the USA as the Double Jeopardy protections don’t apply to the individual since he/she is not in the USA. Also noteworthy, immigration law is a subset of Federal civil law and the individual gets less protections than he/she does in criminal law. According to the U.S. Constitution, the individual does not have the right to an attorney.

Peterrabbit

Virginia Police Officers are protected by the Virginia Police Officer's Bill of Rights which is law in this Commonwealth. Police Officer's can not be simply dismissed for they have a property interest in their job. However, Virginia deputies have no such protection. Deputies are appointed by the Sheriff and only the Sheriff. Deputies are "at will" employees and may be fired at any time, and for any reason except for reasons protected by Federal law. Appointments of deputies are for 4 years. After an election, a Sheriff reappoints whoever he or she wants too. Chapman has failed to reappoint many deputies since he was elected and he will continue to do that as long as he is Sheriff.

The best form of law enforcement, despite the crazy ideas of Chapman is a County Police Department! It's long overdue. Former Democratic Sheriff nominee Brian Allman ran on the idea of forming the Loudoun County Police Department and lost. Randall, Saines, Roeder, Flannery were all against it!, despite the lies of Randall!

It's a long road going from Sheriff's office to police department requiring a change in Loudoun's government structure. It will be years before it happens, if it happens. Randall wants black chief Brown of the Leesburg Police Department to be the Chief of Police of the Loudoun County Police Department. Considering Brown only Rose to the rank of Captain in the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office and only held that position for a few months, the citizens of Loudoun would be better staying with Chapman, an experienced law enforcement officer with over 44 years of police experience than inexperienced Brown. Just because you can run a 711 doesn't mean you can run a Walmart!

Lawman

I was wondering who would be the first pure racist comment and Peter Rabbit you win. Your pasting gift a Klan rob.

Jeanne T

There is nothing "racist" about his comments, Lawman.

chrisnich

Huh, Lawman? I read Peterrabbit's comment carefully and saw no mention of race. In fact, the only comment I saw bringing race into the equation was yours.

EdMyers

Those who know each of the people mentioned by Peter Rabbit and the phrasing regarding competence can hear the dog whistle. Granted it is at a high pitch so it escapes those not in tune with racial politics and allows plausible deniability by others who hear it and approve but want to be able to stamp their feet and proclaim loudly that racism was unjustifiably called out. That's how racial politics is played.

RoundHillGuy

You know you won the argument when the other side calls you racist.

amerigirl

or you are just a racist and it's evident.

Lawman

He says Chair Randall a black lady wants Chief Brown, a black man to become the head of the police force. If you don’t think that’s racist then you are either naive or ignorant. Chief Brown has nearly 30 years of experience and certifications and training Mike a former federal law enforcement official who never ran a Department. Some of you people in Loudoun are so dense you have to be watered twice a day.

InfoOD

The difference is, one is appointed which means that he only answers to one person, that's Randall. Mike is elected and he answers to the people of Loudoun. Why should all the power rest in the hands of a single person? She can easily ask the police to stand down while the city burns like the rest of the democrat ran cities. No thanks. I prefer the separation of power. She can stick to writing the rules. The sheriff can decide if her rules and law are constitutional.

Voltaire

InfoOD--actually, no, if there is a question concerning whether any administrative rules are legal, then the County Attorney would have to be consulted for a legal determination. The Sheriff, by his own biography, does not have a legal background and can't be expected to make legal determinations. He would refer it to the County Attorney for a legal determination.

amerigirl

Randall is not a mayor. They would be run independently and over seen by the Board of supervisors. They can hire and fire but the rules they write would be laws and legislation written and voted on by the board. No single supervisor can make the dept do anything unless they have changed to laws in Loudoun.

drttp24

The LoCo BOS are trying for a liberal power play. They have no argument. As an elected

official, the Sheriff is already responsible to the Citizens. This is a power grab pure and simple.

Virginia SGP

So let's say I am a voter in 2023 considering my BOS options. I have several issus to consider:

1. Zoning and overall population expansion

2. Spending especially how much to spend on schools

3. Safety and the administration/effectiveness/fairness of law enforcement

4.

I know some candidates (say Randall or Saines) want to spend more $$ on schools but reign in law enforcment possibly leading to more crime. I know other candidates want to restrain spending, keep law enforcement as is, and encourage economic development by approving more zoning applications.

I may want to keep a safe community but spend more on the schools. Who do I vote for in the BOS race? I may have to bite my tongue and pick an issue to base my vote on if none of the BOS candidates support my preferences across all the issues with a county police department in place.

Or say I may want to stop law enforcement cooperation with ICE but allow for more development. I must pick 1-2 issues and base my vote on that because no candidate supports all my issues with a police department in place.

But currently, folks are free to make separate decisions for safety/law enforcement in the sheriff's vote and for county economic issues in the BOS vote. Clearly, they support the current law enforcement policies or Chapman would not have won. What possible reason could there be for subverting the community's preference on law enforcement below other legitimate issues in the BOS race? Well, I think we all know what that reason is - power by the BOS. A police department hurts choice. It hurts everyone.

EdMyers

I vote for two people on the BOS. I only vote for one person in the Sheriff's office. Two votes is better than one when looking out for my individual rights.

Chris McHale

It sounds like you have 3 votes but willing to give up one.

EdMyers

I don't think you are counting correctly. For an issue of public safety, one is limited to appeal to the Sheriff as the ultimate authority in the current configuration. If there was a police department, appeals are available to the BOS which has multiple members of which 2 are directly elected by a particular citizen. That's why I suggested earlier that a Citizens Review Board would be better as it gives citizens 3 votes -- one for the Sheriff, and two for the BOS who would appoint the CRB.

Chris McHale

I would agree with your earlier suggestion .

LetFreedomRing

EdMyers - That makes zero sense. You now get three votes. You’re willing to have only two instead of three? It’s terrifying to know that people like you vote.

MitchT

Virginia SGP, That is an extremely good point. It is always in the interests of big-government types (from all political parties) to decrease transparency and ability to vote on specific things. Uneducated, ill-informed voters are their best supporters.

Loudoun Observer

We've seen this play before. Create a police dept then transfer daily law and order duties to them. Then tie their hands and/or move to defund them. We are run by democrats. No one is surprised.

MitchT

Can someone point to actual proof that someone was fired from Sheriffs' office strictly due to supporting the Sheriff's opponent? That is a serious question, I'd like to know. Not opinions, not rumor, actual proof.

But even if someone was, here is a question. How can the Sheriff be accountable to the people if he has to have people working against his leadership on his team? This is the problem we now have at all levels of government--we elect the "responsible party" but there are a bunch of bureaucrats that he can't fire. So his hands are tied behind his back and then people complain about what his agency is doing. Rule by an entrenched bureaucracy is neither freedom nor democracy.

An elected Sheriff is a good thing for free people. If he was leading a force that polices according to political views (i.e., arresting only people of one party) by al means throw him out. But building a team that will work with him to do what the voters elected him to do should not be cause to change the system. This is another example of liberals trying to do an end run around constitutional limits on their power.

Chris McHale

Mitch - there were several articles about an officer who filed a lawsuit alleging that to be the case. I recall the lawsuit was dismissed as the Judge ruled the Sherriff had the ability th y to make personnel decisions accordingly. With at said, I don't see how this will change with a police department when SoB members start asking for officers to be terminated. The true question is whether we want to hold the head of law enforcement accountable to the people of Loudoun or to the SoB. The next question being do we want to foot the bill for that change. .As a voter and a tax payer I say we do not change the system.

MitchT

Thanks, Chris. So we have an allegation. Which isn't proof. And the allegation is of a non-offense. It never ceases to amaze me how people are afraid or intolerant of freedom--until it's their freedom that is limited.

Chris, I'm wondering if your label of the Supervisors (twice) in your comment was a typo, autocorrect, or a Freudian slip? :-) I'm sure you meant BoS. :-)

Chris McHale

Freudian slip.

Voltaire

MitchT--OK. The Sheriff is the head of a Government Department and he is accountable for the results of that department and managing the resources. As to bureaucracy, okay, whether you like it or not, the bureaucracy is necessary for the organization to operate efficiently? You seriously don't think that the Sheriff personally procures patrol cars, firearms, facilities, uniforms, etc.? No, that is done through the procurement division of the County Government or within his office. They are BUREAUCRATS. How do you think Deputies get paid? Through Bureaucrats processing paperwork. Those bureaucrats are protected by Civil Service laws for a reason. Before civil service protections, the political class like to mess with civil service jobs and make unlawful personnel actions because they could. The Civil Service laws are there to ensure those people have protections under the law. Maybe the rapid changes in both geography and population of this County warrant a reexamination into the role of the County Sheriff and the need for County Police Force? It is not an unreasonable assumption if one looks at how the Eastern portion of this County has grown from 1983 to today. Maybe, the Board of Supervisors might be right in their idea to ask the Commonwealth of Virginia to change how Constitutional Officers are identified to make them non-partisan, no more associated with either Democratic or Republican Parties. Maybe, this County can focus on one's technical qualifications for those Constitutional Offices instead of whether the individual is either a Democrat or a Republican. Technical competency, what a revolutionary concept!

MitchT

Voltaire, you start with the assumption that the political class making personnel decisions is wrong. The Civil Service laws are horrible. They guarantee mediocrity, and they thwart government by the people. As someone noted, they give people a "property right" to their job. How is that right? Again, a recipe for zero accountability. When a politician can choose who works for him, then you can hold him accountable for what his agency does. If he has to depend on people who are not accountable to him, how can you hold him accountable for anything? You seem to be a very smart person that pays attention. Surely you get this basic principle. Have you ever tried to deal with a Federal civil service person who is not doing their job? It is near impossible (speaking from experience) especially if the only solution is them needing to be gone.

Voltaire

MitchT—OK, you are wrong. The assumption that the political class making personnel decisions is correct. In the early 19th century, positions in the Federal Government were held at the pleasure of the President—a person could be fired at any time. The spoils system meant that jobs were used to support the American political parties. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 and subsequent laws changed that. I get your basic principle and it sounds good in theory. However, as your premise implies, when you are employed for a politician, you are working for that politician, not the interests of the taxpayer. Why, because you can be dismissed at a moment’s notice if you do something that the politician doesn’t like but it is in the best interest of the public. That is why the civil service laws are implemented to allow the bureaucracy to do its work for the public without fear of losing their jobs because the political class doesn’t like what they are doing. There are accountability procedures in the system. Now, the implementation of disciplinary/accountability of the civil service system probably need some strengthening as I have seen firsthand how certain Federal civil servants should have been disciplined/terminated but they got away with it due to certain considerations.

MitchT

Voltaire, I guess the thing I was wrong about appears to be that you are smart and pay attention. You may have an opinion that it’s better for bureaucrats to be unaccountable to the people but it’s an opinion proven to have bad results by facts and reality. Having govt workers “work for a politician” means they are working for the people. Who is the politician working for? If they are not working for the people they can be replaced. We can’t replace bureaucrats. They “own” their jobs.

You also assert the bureaucrats are working for the people. Clearly, you haven’t been to the DMV, IRS, TSA, passport agencies, etc.You assume the bureaucrats act in “the best interests of the public.” Is it in the best interest of the public if they elect someone and the bureaucrats act to enact the policies of their opponent? The whole Ukraine hoax was ginned up by State Dept bureaucrats who were essentially doing a mini-coup. They believed their ideas on foreign policy were right, the President’s wrong. That is all the evidence they had against the President—they didn’t like his policy.

If you knew anything about the “accountability” procedures for bureaucrats you’d know they are designed to protect the bureaucrats. THere are none to ensure they accomplish the policies set by elected officials. Your support of this system makes you look like someone who supports government by unlocked bureaucrats over government of, by, and for the people. It is a logical unassailable principle that if the elected official has no authority over the employment of his team, the voters have no assurance he can do what they elected him to do.

Voltaire

MitchT—OK, I have an understanding that, for the effective public administration of this country, you need to have a civil service system whose employees are working for the U.S. citizen. As I have stated, before the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883, it was common practice for Government employees to be selected on who they knew, what favors they were owed or could supply, or which political party they aligned themselves with. Now, how can you come to the conclusion that that approach is good for the U.S. Taxpayer? The answer is that it is not. Under that scenario, the bureaucrats in the civil service aren’t looking out for the U.S. citizen but rather their own self interest and would do what was required in order for them to keep their jobs. The bureaucracy does work for the people. Who is the politician working for? The answer theoretically is the people, but in reality it is for himself/herself. I am not going to entertain the “Ukraine conspiracy theory”. I have family members who work for the Government, Federal, state, and local and I do know how the accountability system works. No, the accountability system and its procedures are designed for the fair adjudication and administration of discipline should the matter warrant that. However, thanks to efforts from the politicians, they have added additional requirements that create challenges in the implementation of the process. You cannot use a blanket characterization to assert that ALL bureaucrats are rogue and are actively subjugating the authority of the political class. That is false. As to this concept of an elected official picking his team, okay, that individual does pick his/her “team” through nomination of political appointees and/or cabinet-level officials. They run their responsible agencies and departments and focus on policy development and let the career civil service do their work. That is how the system is designed to work. Your “logical unassailable principle” about the elected official having no authority over the employment of his team is false. This country has used a merit-based civil service system since the implementation of the Pendleton Act in 1883 and the Government has worked reasonably well. You don’t like the civil service then I wouldn’t recommend living in the UK as the Civil Service RUNS the Government.

MitchT

Voltaire, you just keep saying it as if your opinion is absolute truth, with nothing to back it up. You can even respond to the arguments, just keep repeating the same opinion. Bureaucrats depending on the politician for their jobs is a GOOD thing. That way, if the agency doesn’t do its job, the policitican can be held accountable. You talk about blanket assertions … you just keep asserting that unaccountable bureaucrats serve the interests of the taxpayers ahead of their own. The growth of government and regulations beyond measure are proof that is not the case. They serve their own power, and the good ones are overwhelmed by the system.

Of course you dismiss the Ukraine thing… because all those bureaucrats are on record in public testimony as jhaving no evidence against the President and clearly showing they opposed him because they disagreed with his policy, even though he was the one elected to run it. I’ve seen your post and thought you were trying to be a thoughtful contributor towards rational discussion based on facts and logic. It looks like I was mistaken, and those are not as important as your agenda and biases.

I’ve worked for the Feds, and personally had to deal with trying to resolve situations where people were not competent to do their job, and it still took years to deal with and only the most determined leader could even make it happen. And your attempt to claim the President gets to pick his team because he picks those filling nominated positions is pathetic. There are millions of government employees, very few appointees. And those appointees, such as Cabinet officials, have no power to hold their agencies accountable to follow their policies. Liberals like the bureaucracy because as sure as night follows day it always acts in the interests of government and control of the people. Your position lines right up with those who hate the Constitution and the limits it is supposed to place on government to guarantee freedom.

Voltaire

MitchT—No, I keep saying my opinion because that is what the historical records show that it is a fact. Before 1883, the year that the Pendleton Act was passed into law, you had a Government that was working on political patronage, no different than that what occurs under serving the Crown. You had people being appointed based on nepotism and favoritism (through the providing of political/financial support to political campaigns). For example, at Andrew Jackson's first inauguration, March 4, 1829, a group of office seekers attended the event, explaining it as democratic enthusiasm. Jackson supporters had been lavished with promises of positions in return for political support. These promises were honored by a large number of removals after Jackson assumed power. At the beginning of Jackson's administration, fully 919 officials were removed from government positions, amounting to nearly 10 percent of all government postings at the time. The political appointment of bureaucrats, the historical record shows, leads to the risk of tolerating inefficiency and corruption with officials feeling secure in the protection of their political masters and possibly immune from prosecution for bribe taking. In addition, throughout the history of public administration, there are multiple instances, both in Europe via monarchies and here in the United States that show that people were appointed to jobs that they were NOT qualified for but got because they were friends either with the Crown or with politicians in the case of the United States. Furthermore, under the patronage system, politicians will throw out qualified people, without any political orientation, because they want to install their “friends” or donors. For example, under the Jackson Administration, in one year 423 postmasters were deprived of their positions, most with extensive records of good service. How is that an “efficient” way to operate Government? The answer is that it is not. On the point of working for the public, yes, the civil service does do that. That is why it is called “Public Service”. Public service is a service intended to serve all members of a community. It is usually provided by Government to people living within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing provision of services. As to Government regulations, there is a place for Government regulations. Have you read Upton Sinclair’s book “The Jungle”? That book documented the ACTUAL conditions in meatpacking facilities in the Midwest. How was that problem solved? The problem was solved through GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. There are many Government regulations that are needed and are beneficial to society at large. It is a blanket characterization to say that all regulations are bad when history shows that that is NOT the case. I am trying to have a rational discussion and providing facts/logic/rationale. But it is kind of hard to have that conversation when we have a “Deep State” conspiracy argument being presented and does not want to hear anything but that. Your statement about the “Ukraine conspiracy theory” provides evidence that you think that the “Deep State” was out to get President Trump. Please. You may have a few rogue people, but you cannot say with CERTAINTY that the entire civil service was out to get President Trump? That too is a blanket characterization and is not supported by the evidence. As I have previously stated, my family has worked in Federal, State, and local level governments and I am aware of what the civil service processes are. However, civil servants, even bad ones, have due process rights and that means that they have a right to go through the administrative adjudication process in accordance with the law. Also, you may dispute it, however, it is FACT, that the President appoints people to be cabinet-level department heads and the civil servants in those departments/agencies do report to them. That is how the system works, believe it or not. Here’s a real shocker, the policies that the cabinet heads want to do ACTUALLY are accomplished. BTW, I do NOT hate the Constitution and am NOT a liberal.

MitchT

Voltaire, you seem to like jumping on people for “subjective conclusions” while filling your posts with made-up conclusions (MUC) and subjective conclusions (SC). I never said all regulations are bad (MUC) or that the entire civil service is out to get Trump (MUC). You say political patronage is worse than bureaucracy over which elected officials have no real accountability (SC). You say civil service works for the public (SC). It is NOT a FACT that civl servants in departments report to Presidential appointees. As already noted, there are millions of govt employees and most report to other permanent government employees. It is also a fact that by their own testimony in a Democratic-run hearing that State Dept bureaucrats showed they were not only working against the President they were part of the effort to impeach him, which cost taxpayers money and deprived us of attention on important issues like the pandemic. You have a made-up conclusion that that is a conspiracy theory when it’s a matter of record.

You’re pulling that same stunt about family members in govt so you are somehow more aware of how things work than I am after 16 years working for the Fed, and after my having had to go through the process of trying to hold people accountable. This is just like your expertise in law enforcement because your family in in LE. You tout government regulations—like Constitution-hating liberals do—when almost all of them are de-facto laws and unconstitutional, as the very first policy line of the Constitution says only Congress can make laws. The hypocrisy you demonstrate (calling out people for subjective conclusions as you spew them left and right), points you make, the way you argue against facts and logic, your dismissal of known public record facts to suit your agenda all point to one conclusion. If it walks like a liberal, quacks like a liberal, and loves big government like a liberal, it’s probably a liberal.

LetFreedomRing

This is a blatant, shameless power grab by the dishonest and slimy Phyllis Randall and corrupt BOS. There is nothing wrong with the LCSO and her proposed change will solve absolutely nothing. Phyllis Randall is disgusting.

jke

Our sheriff gets considerable money from the state are you willing to pay more in taxes for less service that is beholden to the BoS and not the voter, I ain't?

Lots of discussion seems to focus on dislike of Phyllis Randall. I'm on board with that but I do find it interesting that no one is disputing her allegations that Chapman fires people who support opponents. He's no Walt Longmire. We need a police force and let the sheriff go back to doing what sheriffs typically do--court support.

LIfetimeLoudouner

So you would rather let Randall fire a police chief because he/she did not do exactly what a politician wanted. Just look at Purcellville to see all the political shenanigans between the police and mayor. The same thing will happen with a loudoun police department and the board. Keep them separate to protect from politicians deciding what laws to enforce and what not to

westernloudounguy

The BOS Chair can't really do anything like that on their own, they would need at least 4 other votes. However, unless they changed something, a County police chief wouldn't report directly to the BOS, they would report to the County Administrator. If I recall correctly, there are only two employees that report directly to the BOS and therefore, only two employee's that the BOS can legally fire. The County Administrator and the County Attorney. All other employee's are hired and fired by one of those two or work for a constitutional officer and aren't exactly "real" County employee's (they are thought of as County employee's and generally have the same benefits, but they ultimately work for elected politicians that have wide latitude to do what they want. For example, employee's of the Sheriff's Office don't receive any number of protections of their political speech that all other County employee's receive.)

Voltaire

Westernloudounguy--thank you for the information. I think that this is a great point and needed to be expressed.

InfoOD

Anything that democrats touches turns to manure. I'm glad we have a sheriffs office and not some police dept that obey every nonsensical command given by democrat politician. I don't want to see my city burn like every other dem controlled cities.

Voltaire

InfoOD--what city? There are no independent cities in Loudoun County. There are incorporated towns but that is an entirely different type of municipality and has different rules.

amerigirl

You don't seem to understand the chain of command. City burn? There are no large cities in Loudoun. Your exaggeration is warranted.

Jeanne T

Lots of sheriffs fire people who support their opponents. They are elected officials, after all, and have no obligation to retain officers who work against them.

amerigirl

Which is exactly what is wrong with having that be an elected position. You should not have to be fired because of your political position if you are doing your job. That makes the sheriff in control of who can get enough experience to run against him creating his own little autocracy

Jaws

Loudoun should look at other counties and follow. Each county has its unique issues and by saying well everyone else is doing it is not good leadership. (Sorry BOS) Loudoun has a sense population on Route 28 and as you move out to the Western parts of the county much more rural areas. Fairfax and Loudoun have different needs.

Does the BOS have anything better to bring to this conversation or is this just a power shifting. Not worth our time and effort unless there is some data convincing us to change what I consider a good service. Why National politics is involved in this discussion board is beyond me.

chrisnich

This is payback for Sheriff Chapman not endorsing Phylass in the last election, plain and simple. Even with the blue wave, she wasn't able to come close to defeating the sheriff, so now she's trying an end run. I'm hoping that voters are paying close attention, but not optimistic, as their collective memories are historically short-term.

LetSanityPrevail

Creating a police department under the control of the BoS is still political and even worse doesn't give the voters any opportunity for a check and balance. I have no complain about the quality of the law enforcement in the county so why is the BOS so intent to fix something that isn't broken.

gtrunner

Amen. I don’t remember the last time there was a Loudoun County Sheriffs office issue in the press regarding abuse of force. They are usually polite and work to diffuse situations, however trivial or dangerous they are at the time.

EdMyers

Things aren't broken now but we see at the federal level how much damage can be done when we elect an incompetent and corrupt executive officer and have to wait 4 years to correct our mistake. It is almost impossible in Virginia to recall a Sheriff. An incompetent or corrupt police chief can be fired and replaced in short order.

Voltaire

EdMyers--If things are broken now, as you claim, then why add an additional layer of administrative costs with the establishment of a redundant police department who would overlap the responsibilities of the County Sheriff? That is not logical at all. Concerning your point about incompetent or corrupt police chief being fired in short order, that depends. If he/she is found, by the appropriate authorities to be "corrupt", then that individual will, provided the evidence is sufficient to hold the charge, be arrested/prosecuted. From an administrative perspective, that individual will be terminated in short order. On the other hand, the charge of "incompetence" would require the issue to go through the administrative adjudication process and that is anything but short order. Also, finding a qualified replacement isn't as quick as you think either.

LetSanityPrevail

EdMyers your argument holds if we elect a corrupt BoS Chair and members. I prefer the checks and balances, not having all power in the BoS.

EdMyers

In a multi-member BOS, both parties are represented and they provide a check on each other. In the Sheriff's office, only one party is represented and no partisan balance is possible. Fortunately the county prosecutor is not the same party as the Sheriff providing a bit of counterweight.

Voltaire

EdMyers--really? As defined in the Code of Virginia, the role of the Sheriff is to enforce the law. It doesn't matter what his "partisan affiliation" is. The role of the Commonwealth Attorney is also defined in the Code of Virginia and it too doesn't matter what his her "partisan affiliation" is. The criminal justice system does NOT give a toss about political affiliation. It is based on rules of law, procedure, evidence. There is no thing such as "checks and balances" between the Commonwealth's Attorney and the Sheriff as (1) they are both Constitutional Officers and (2) operate in different parts of the criminal justice system and have different responsibilities that often compliment one another. Wow doesn't do it justice....

LoudounClear

You see our current sheriff at GOP rallies. Then he says he doesn't want politics in policing? Give me a break. Give him a smaller job.

gtrunner

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to be able to keep politics out of their job and still have personal political beliefs and expression thereof.

bpschoch

The Sheriff's department is already directly accountable to the people and because it such a big deal for the people to relinquish their control and give it up to the BOS it requires a referendum. The BOS is making all sorts of none arguments by stating that the sheriff's department is accountable to them, yes of course that is how it works because it's accountable to the people, or we are too big so we need a police department (since when is size a determining factor of who policies you) and they want to take politics out of our policing (yes they report to the people and not the BOS). If you look at most of how our government is formed it is intentionally divided so that one branch doesn't have too much power. In Loudoun County the BOS makes the laws, but now being power hunger they also want to be the same branch that enforces the laws. No thank you. And in the end, what problem is it that they are trying to fix? The answer is that there is no real problem.

Voltaire

Bpschoch---From a population and geographical perspective, this County has significantly grown up, particularly in Eastern Loudoun. That does become a factor because now emergency services (County Sheriff, Fire/EMS) have to make determinations as to how to resource their assets to respond to emergency calls. If the County grows up too fast, there will be resource challenges that the County emergency services agencies will have to deal with. If you remove law enforcement duties from the Sheriff, for example, and gave them to a Police Department, then, conceptually, the Sheriff should be able to effectively manage the jail and perform support functions for the courts. Overall emergency response/call times may improve. Law enforcement and other emergency services are apolitical. Politics don't belong in the world of law enforcement and first responders.

EdMyers

A citizen review board appointed by the BOS would provide a check on an otherwise unaccountable (except for the all-or-nothing election every 4 years) Sheriff. Sheriff Chapman would be wise to accept an advisory CRB to prevent being reduced to Loudoun County’s process server and guardian of the jail while crime prevention funding is switched over to organizations accountable to citizens via the BOS. A CRB would be cheaper than maintaining both the Sheriff Office and a Police Chief.

The Sheriff is in this power struggle because he didn’t avoid the bad optics of appearing in photo ops with the President apparently in support of Trump's racially divisive language and attacks on peaceful demonstrators. If Trump somehow steals the next election, I fear the Sheriff will round up the local opposition and put them in jail as Trump will undoubtedly demand. We all say we want rule of law but we see how twisted that notion is for Trump and his supporters who put forth the theory of an imperial president’s immunity to legal restraint. Fortunately, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the imperial president notion, but I fear Trump will ignore the legal authority of courts and do as he pleases.

Our community needs safety from the Trump-aligned Boogaloo movement who have engaged in violence and rioting in an attempt to discredit the BLM protests and refight the Civil War. A Sheriff with right-wing partisan obligations is not able to protect the left-leaning resistance when Trump supporters use violence to cancel culture.

MitchT

EdMyers, those are some sad delusions you got going there. It's the fascist Antifa and BLM crews that are getting people canceled. Easy to give dozens of public examples... who has been cancelled because they expressed the media-favored, anti-Trump, liberal views? Name one person.

EdMyers

"Name one person": Michael Cohen who was taken back into prison to prevent him from telling his story of Trump corruption.

Voltaire

EdMyers--Michael Cohen was taken back to prison by the U.S. Marshal's Service for failing to comply with his conditions for home detention. Apparently, he would rather spend time in Federal custody at Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) then stop trying to keep the spotlight on himself and marketing his future book.

MitchT

HaHaHaHaHa! Ed, Michael Cohen could whisper in solitary confinement a bad word about Trump and every left-leaning news outlet would have it up in minutes! He had months, if not years, to spill his guts to the Special Counsel, and plenty of time before he went to prison to make public statements. The media tried to use his accusations to attack Trump. But they are useless, because Cohen's been caught lying so many times. If Trump committed a crime with Cohen, they could have filed charges. But Cohen pleaded guilty to something that wasn't even a crime--helping Trump use his personal money to influence an election. Something politicians do every day and is called freedom of speech. Sorry, Ed, that comment indicates you are just making stuff up, or really don't have any knowledge of what you are talking about.

t8erman

You think he can't talk from prison?

Voltaire

t8erman--I believe that Michael Cohen, whether he is in home detention or in the confines of the Bureau of Prisons' Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), will continue to voice his opinion either directly (although limited within the confines of the MCC) or through his legal counsel. The issue that Ed Myers raised was that Michael Cohen was taken back to prison to prevent him from telling his story and that wasn't legally correct and needed clarification.

EdMyers

Promoting a book is "talking". Cohen being put in prison to prevent that activity appears intended to restrict his freedom.

Voltaire

EdMyers—no, it isn’t. Promoting one’s book is a commercial enterprise. As to Cohen, the New York Post photographed him and his wife dining out with another couple at a French restaurant around the corner from his Park Avenue apartment. He was, as stated by the Bureau of Prisons, in violation of his home detention rules and that landed him back ultimately to Otisville.

LIfetimeLoudouner

So it is not ok for our elected sheriff to be with the president but it is ok for our election chairman break the law and go to large rallies while we have a pandemic going on. Give me a break. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Consolidating all power under one political is a recipe for disaster.

Voltaire

EdMyers—So you think that a Civilian Review Board (CRB) is the ultimate answer for police accountability? Think again. There have been studies done on CRBs and they have found that the CRB concept is appealing as it is associated with democratic governance. However, the studies have also found that when one looks how CRBs actually work they are ineffective as far as serious accountability for law enforcement agencies. A study was done looking at CRBs across the United States and the results showed that CRBs were vulnerable to political manipulations, inadequate funding and staffing, slow-moving investigations, and a lack of authority or jurisdiction to meaningfully investigate complaints. Want an example? Look at the CRB in Los Angeles (L.A.). Official city documentation showed that civilians on L.A.’s CRB were “….consistently more lenient to officers than the high ranking police personnel.” The reason is that all the civilians on the board, in accordance with the establishing law/guidance, were required to have extensive experience either as mediators or lawyers. The CRB in L.A. did not reflect huge portions of the City’s population. CRBs lack the resources, power, or jurisdiction to oversee cases. As happens in L.A., they carry out reviews or investigations only with the information provided to them by Internal Affairs. That concept is problematic if IA chooses not to take on a large number of cases. Further, even when the CRB does have jurisdiction to dig into cases themselves, the CRB doesn’t have the money to do much and can’t impose discipline on their own. Similar situation in San Francisco, its citizen-led Department of Accountability had a lack of funding that created unsustainable caseloads for investigators at the office which led to delayed investigations into citizen complaints that it risked cases being prosecuted since cases only had 12 months to press charges after receipt of a complaint. Also, it should be noted that in cities such as Seattle, who has a civilian led investigation unit, it didn’t stop police abuses so bad that a Federal inquiry was conducted a few years later.

As to funding both a Police Department and a Sheriff’s Office. According to Article VII entitled “Local Government” Section 4 “County and City Officers”—the position of Sheriff is required for each county within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Further, § 15.2-1613 of the Code of Virginia entitled “Operation of Sheriff's Office” states that it is the responsibility of each county in the Commonwealth of Virginia to fund the operations of the County Sheriff. So, no matter, if Loudoun does implement a police department, the Sheriff’s function is not going to be eradicated and therefore those costs would still be present. As to the “cost savings’ of a CRB, that is extremely doubtful as you would have to build an entirely new administrative infrastructure and those costs would be large.

Your premise that the County Sheriff will “round up the local opposition and put them in jail” is baseless. The law doesn’t work that way. The specific duties of the County Sheriff are outlined in the Code of Virginia under § 15.2-1609 entitled “Sheriff”. Those are his duties, plain and simple. To make him sound like some type of secret police function, such as the KGB, is utterly absurd. Who appointed you the spokesperson of Loudoun County? Please. The County of Loudoun needs effective law enforcement. Whether Loudoun County needs to have a police department and a Sheriff’s Office to meet that mandate is debatable, at present. But the abilty to provide effective law enforcement applies for every resident in this county. Effective law enforcement does NOT equate to the notion about protection from Far-Right extremists.

EdMyers

Over 10,000 people have been arrested around the US, as police regularly use pepper spray, rubber bullets, teargas and batons to stop BLM protests. Sure people won't be jailed for being the "opposition" but police are creative enough to arrest people for disturbing the peace or blocking a sidewalk or a process crime like failing to follow police orders. Once in detention additional punishment is possible even if it is clear charges will not be sustained. Police can't be neutral when a conflict is partisan and the head of the police has already pledged to support one side in order to get elected.

Voltaire

EdMyers--do you know the basis for the arrest of those 10,000 people? There are a multitude of reasons why those people were arrested. I would wager that the majority were due to rioting and associated violence and property related offenses. Do you really think that law enforcement sit around precinct and "cook up" innovative ways to arrest people? Really? Grow up. My family has been in law enforcement for GENERATIONS and I can tell you that is total bunk. You get arrested for non-compliance with the law. As my family member told who worked a riot in WI, if people would act accordingly, then police wouldn't have to use riot control techniques such as pepper spray, rubber bullets, teargas, and police batons. Those are PROPER instruments to use in instances of civil unrest. I hate to break it to you Ed, but disturbing the peace, blocking a sidewalk, or failing to follow a lawful command are all ILLEGAL activities and will result you being taken into custody. How do you know that "additional punishment" occurs when a person is in police custody? You don't but don't let that stop you from spinning conspiracy theories. There are Standard Operating Procedures that Police Officers/Sheriff Deputies use when processing suspects. Yes, Police can be neutral when the conflict is partisan. You see, Ed, when that happens, the Police don't view you, the offender, as either as a Democrat or a Republican, but as a Defendant. You can't also blanket characterize all law enforcement members based upon the statement of the "head of the police" as every single member of law enforcement can and do think for themselves and don't march lock stop in party line.

ace10

The crazy is ultra-strong with you.

Voltaire

The value add of this comment is immeasurable.

ace10

Case in point.

Voltaire

As is this one. Top shelf.

Voltaire

AG--agreed. There are several posters who want to play that game. Simply wrong.

KK153

liberals have to be truly the dumbest humans on the planet. Get a county wide police dept, not accountable to voters, who then in turn will become heavy handed, particularly in the poorest parts of the county. then they will cry "defund the police"...

special kind of stupid.

applicant45554

If policing is political now, putting it under the BOS isn’t going to change that. It’s another public employee union to bankroll BOS campaigns and more political cover for corrupt land use decisions. Seems better to leave the sherrifs dept as is so the public can maintain more accountability for both entities

ace10

Create an unnecessary law enforcement organization, complete with redundant administrative costs, and then reduce funding to actually protect Loudouners and enforce the laws?

Yup.

Sounds EXACTLY what the (D)s on the BoS would think is a good idea.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.