Post in Sheriff Bob Fletcher must go

Sep 09 06:00 UTC

I'd like to correct a few misrepresentations here.

Charlie asks Question 1: What is the mechanism for getting rid of Fletcher?
Mike incorrectly answered that Sheriff Fletcher was last elected in 2007, but
the election was in 2006 and the term expired in 2011. In the 2006 election,
about 180,000 votes were cast in the nonpartisan ballot for the office of
Sheriff. Fletcher defeated former St. Paul Police Chief, Bill Finney by about
1,130 votes.

Are there legal mechanisms for recall?
Minnesota's Recall process is specified in the Constitution
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/Article8.htm and states that a
recall petition must be based on "serious malfeasance or nonfeasance"
(certified by the Supreme Court) and be signed by "not less than 25 percent of
the number of votes cast for the office at the most recent general election"--
that would be about 65,000 signatures from eligible Ramsey County voters. No
officer in Minnesota has ever been recalled. However, the Ramsey County Home
Rule Charter
http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/D75BABDF-F80D-4336-B0B5-499B250C7BD6/385/CharterChapters.pdf
states that the petition needs signatures equal to the number of, "Ten per cent
of those who voted in the county for the office of President of the United
States in the last general election," which would be a little over 27,000
signatures.

Question #4:  Who could replace him?
Candidates running for County Sheriff must be "licensed peace officers in
Minnesota" and residents of Ramsey County.

Many posts on e-democracy seem to indicate that the Sheriff oversaw the mobile
police force (riot police) that arrested protesters and others during the RNC.
The mobile force was apparently organized through the St. Paul Police
Department, but each jurisdiction had command of the force that was acting in
their jurisdiction.

As far as I know, the Sheriff Fletcher was only involved in (was the muscle
for) the Friday and Saturday house raids, which appear to have be based on
intelligence gathered by national services. The raids appear to have netted
evidence sufficient to charge about 30 people with felonies, and some of the
actions of some protesters on Monday would seem to confirm that a group was
conspiring to do damage to the city, its citizens, and to those involved with
the convention. If law enforcement officers have reason to believe they are in
danger while performing their duty, they have every right to move in with a
show of force. Those charged will need to show that the Sheriff made
unreasonable judgments based on the intelligence or acted unlawfully. This will
be very difficult. Moreover, associating the Sheriff with the mobile police
force only gives the impression that the Sheriff was responsible for protecting
the city/county/metro. The Sheriff's office appears to be a much smaller piece
of the puzzle that is getting too much of the credit for limiting what could
have been a very bad situation for downtown St. Paul.