With just a few exceptions, sheriff's, unlike
municipal police chiefs, are elected rather than
appointed. The Charter Commission in Ramsey County is
now considering whether to put on the ballot a
proposal to amend the county charter to provide for
the appointment of the sheriff.
So what are the pros and cons? After a quick perusal
of a few items this is what I find.
In favor of electing the sheriff:
1. Electing the sheriff provides a check against undue
influence over law enforcement of county boards,
2. Election is consistent with national tradition and
practice,
3. Election makes the sheriff more responsive to the
public,
4. Elected sheriffs are more likely to be innovative
than appointed officials.
5. The office of sheriff is a policymaking one and
election is more appropriate for such offices.
In favor of apointment:
1. Appointment insulates the sheriff from the
political process and helps to ensure that law
enforcement decisions are not politically motivated,
2. Elected sheriffs must reside in the county whereas
appointed sheriffs would not. Thus, appointment would
allow drawing from a wider pool of talent.
3. Election is simply the result of ancient tradition.
It doesn't mean that appointment wouldn't be better.
4. Appointment would permit the county board to
establish minimum qualifications.
5. It's competence that counts, and when it comes to
the ranks of trained professionals, that's not always
best judged at the polls.
6. Having the chief law enforcement officer in any
jurisdiction accountable to somebody in particular,
instead of the "people" in general, is a good thing.
7. Appointment might bring some diversity to the
position that would be hard to attain via an election.
Ok, those are the arguments I've found in a quick
Googling of the issue. Anyone else have anything to
add?
The Minnesota Statutes specifically provide an option
for counties to appoint rather than elect the sheriff.
None have done so. Is that based on sound judgment or
is that just an indication that the counties are
slaves to tradition?
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?type=s&;year=current&;num=375A.10
The above is based upon the following:
http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/CB5D3FCB-8AE3-4FDA-AF90-E4149900B03A/1821/Minutes080105.pdf
http://www.sheriffs.org/userfiles/file/The_Elected_Office_of_Sheriff_-_An_Executive_Summary.pdf
http://www.miamitodaynews.com/news/070301/story7.shtml
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007712180321
municipal police chiefs, are elected rather than
appointed. The Charter Commission in Ramsey County is
now considering whether to put on the ballot a
proposal to amend the county charter to provide for
the appointment of the sheriff.
So what are the pros and cons? After a quick perusal
of a few items this is what I find.
In favor of electing the sheriff:
1. Electing the sheriff provides a check against undue
influence over law enforcement of county boards,
2. Election is consistent with national tradition and
practice,
3. Election makes the sheriff more responsive to the
public,
4. Elected sheriffs are more likely to be innovative
than appointed officials.
5. The office of sheriff is a policymaking one and
election is more appropriate for such offices.
In favor of apointment:
1. Appointment insulates the sheriff from the
political process and helps to ensure that law
enforcement decisions are not politically motivated,
2. Elected sheriffs must reside in the county whereas
appointed sheriffs would not. Thus, appointment would
allow drawing from a wider pool of talent.
3. Election is simply the result of ancient tradition.
It doesn't mean that appointment wouldn't be better.
4. Appointment would permit the county board to
establish minimum qualifications.
5. It's competence that counts, and when it comes to
the ranks of trained professionals, that's not always
best judged at the polls.
6. Having the chief law enforcement officer in any
jurisdiction accountable to somebody in particular,
instead of the "people" in general, is a good thing.
7. Appointment might bring some diversity to the
position that would be hard to attain via an election.
Ok, those are the arguments I've found in a quick
Googling of the issue. Anyone else have anything to
add?
The Minnesota Statutes specifically provide an option
for counties to appoint rather than elect the sheriff.
None have done so. Is that based on sound judgment or
is that just an indication that the counties are
slaves to tradition?
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?type=s&;year=current&;num=375A.10
The above is based upon the following:
http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/CB5D3FCB-8AE3-4FDA-AF90-E4149900B03A/1821/Minutes080105.pdf
http://www.sheriffs.org/userfiles/file/The_Elected_Office_of_Sheriff_-_An_Executive_Summary.pdf
http://www.miamitodaynews.com/news/070301/story7.shtml
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007712180321
