Fair Discipline

Let me get this straight, some people just love Mike Scott as their Sheriff, some members feel the same way, "he's the best Sheriff ever". Okay, your view point has been made, based upon what? Because you saw him on TV for so many years? Because of his smile? Or, is it because he seemed to feel for you, understand you, and most importantly, agreed with you? If you like/love Mike Scott because of his TV, smile and/or agreeing with you, then you have fallen in love with a true politician.

I ask you, would you want a corporal to tell Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, Major and Colonels what to do and how to do it, of course not. Would you want this same person dishing out the final word on discipline, of course not. SURPRISE, he does, no training as a supervisor, not even the first line level, no experience supervising certified personnel, no budget development (writing down how many pens and pencils you'll need isn't budget development Mike), no experience in hiring qualified personnel, recommendation of discipline, filing numerous evaluations reports, none of this and this is only a small start on the lack of qualifications Mike brought to the table.

And people wonder about how the LCSO is run.

[Linebackerll]

Let me get this straight, some people just love Mike Scott as their Sheriff, some members feel the same way, "he's the best Sheriff ever". Okay, your view point has been made, based upon what? Because you saw him on TV for so many years? Because of his smile? Or, is it because he seemed to feel for you, understand you, and most importantly, agreed with you? If you like/love Mike Scott because of his TV, smile and/or agreeing with you, then you have fallen in love with a true politician.

I ask you, would you want a corporal to tell Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, Major and Colonels what to do and how to do it, of course not. Would you want this same person dishing out the final word on discipline, of course not. SURPRISE, he does, no training as a supervisor, not even the first line level, no experience supervising certified personnel, no budget development (writing down how many pens and pencils you'll need isn't budget development Mike), no experience in hiring qualified personnel, recommendation of discipline, filing numerous evaluations reports, none of this and this is only a small start on the lack of qualifications Mike brought to the table.

And people wonder about how the LCSO is run.

And your point being...what? Mike Scott sucks? Look, pounding on him because you don't think he is qualified to be Sheriff is silly and small-minded. He is the elected Sheriff. Twice. This is a tough, smart guy who went to the people of this county, not just the people in the LCSO, and convinced them he was the man for the job.

He was only a "traffic cop?" So? How many deputies in the traffic unit or in the rest of LCSO sit in roll calls across this county and spout opinions and criticisms over issues in the agency? Pretty much everybody does it. How many would stand up and say, "I'm not qualified to be Sheriff." Very few. Most daydream about how they would handle the job.

The difference between Scott and his detractors is that he had the guts and the confidence in himself to strive for the job of Sheriff. I saw not one from those legions of internal Scott critics step forward in the last election and engage him in a fight. Nobody gives you power. You have to take

[Linebackerll]

Nobody gives you power, you have to take "it." Left some off...

The above comments are interesting, and just that, "interesting". Apparently, this writer wants a Sheriff who takes what he wants, no matter what he has to do to get the position as Sheriff. They talk about "guts", another interesting comment. No where does this writer talk about experience, ability, honesty, and true proven leadership, just "guts".

Mike did what it took to get the job, he went for years behind the back of his boss gathering support and donations, he associated with a federal felon, he promised the moon to his supporters, he lied to many about what he was going to do, and used people to get what he wanted. You may refer to this as his "guts", I refer to it as lying his way to the top. Given Mike's rise to power and position, then, every Deputy, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain and Major, should be back stabbing their way up through the ranks, and some have, after all they are only following the ways of their boss.

[Linebackerll]

Ahem...I never said anything about what I wanted in a Sheriff. I am commenting on the fact that his internal detractors do not have the courage to take him on straight up when it really counts...in an election. If he is so bad and sneaky, go for it. Run the campaign that shows what a selfless, principled person you are. Contrast your noble virtue against the corruption you despise in the Sheriff. Engage in public debates with him. Believe me, he will show up. Let our real bosses, the public, decide who is the more capable. I just don't think you have it in you to face him.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...p-lee-sheriff/

Remember this; FDLE found no criminal wrong doing in a halfa**ed investigation, however, they did confirm that they found the issues noted to be policy violations. So, it is apparent the sheriff has the attitude "do as I say not as I do." Or, as those who "I like." Has he truly cut ties with this guy or merely found other means to communicate with him?


Investigation into Lee sheriff’s relationship with felon finds no wrongdoing
By STEVEN BEARDSLEY
Posted November 23, 2009 at 5:35 p.m., updated November 23, 2009 at 8:48 p.m.

LEE COUNTY — A state inquiry into Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott and his relationship with a convicted felon found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the official or members of his agency.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement released roughly 100 pages concluding its examination of allegations made by former employees of the agency. Among the assertions were that Scott’s relationship with Richard Spence, an Alva shop owner, led to influence-peddling within the agency and claims of corruption and obstruction of justice involving members of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office close to Spence.

An FDLE investigator found that most of the claims reflected on department policy more than criminal wrongdoing.

An inquiry is the first step in a process that can lead to possible criminal charges against sworn officers. Those steps will not be taken in Scott’s case, said FDLE spokeswoman Kristen Chernosky.

“Our investigation is closed,” she said.

Scott lauded the report in a prepared statement.

“I have been confident from the outset there was no substance to the claims and I am glad we can call the case closed,” he said.

News of Scott’s friendship with Spence, a convicted drug trafficker, raised concerns of the man’s influence within the Sheriff’s Office this summer. Deputies were alleged to have frequented Spence’s shop, and one ex-deputy, former captain Kerry Griner, has said it was an open secret among agency employees that they could gain access to Scott via Spence.

Such access would bypass former chief deputy Charles Ferrante, Scott’s former second-in-command, who retired in April under a cloud of allegations leveled by the sheriff.

Ferrante and his brother, former special investigations commander Dominick Ferrante, were the source of the FDLE complaints, according to the report. Investigators traveled to Dominick Ferrante’s home to receive a binder of information from the brothers, the report stated.

The binder presented numerous “information reports” detailing Spence’s alleged growing influence within the agency, the Ferrantes’ attempt to quell it and the eventual fall-out between the brothers and the sheriff.

The reports included the account of a camera that Dominick Ferrante positioned by Spence’s store in an effort to catch deputies frequenting the store. After Spence learned about the camera, Dominick Ferrante claimed someone within the agency had disclosed the secret to the shop owner. Others, including Scott, said the investigation — which the sheriff said was an effort to catch Spence’s fugitive son — was blown when utility workers noticed deputies installing the camera.

Because Dominick Ferrante didn’t document the operation or the follow-up investigation into the blown cover, the investigator couldn’t prove obstruction of justice.

Another complaint alleged that polygraph records from Dominick Ferrante’s test were intentionally destroyed after his test. Scott told local media that Dominick Ferrante had failed the test, yet no documented proof was ever kept, and no audio was recorded due to a malfunction.

Although no evidence of intentional destruction was found, polygraph operator Ben Blalock told an FDLE investigator that the test on Dominick Ferrante presented “a unique situation,” in that he reported his results directly to the sheriff instead of writing a report.

He said “the sheriff told me to call him when the test was over to let him know what the results were,” according to the report.

Likewise, no internal investigations were ever opened into the Ferrante brothers, despite numerous allegations made against them before their departure.

FDLE investigators gathered additional evidence, Chernosky said, including e-mails. They interviewed more than 13 agency employees, including Scott.

The sheriff told them that the Ferrante brothers “hated” Spence, but that he didn’t believe in a “criminal nexus” warranting an FDLE investigation.

Scott says he cut ties with Spence after learning the shop owner was a convicted felon.

Why are we bring this up again?

WHY NOT? It does seem many people forget the past too quickly and often need reminding that no one is perfect people make mistakes. What needs to be reminded is that he violated policy, other members of staff violated policy associating with this guy and nothing happened. FDLE did their investigation why was an IA not done on those who associated with this guy for the policy violations? He dishes out punishment to others for lesser offenses; nothing to other people for certain violations or even holds himself accountable for his own actions, it proves everyones point on here that there is no fair discipline.

Ahem...I never said anything about what I wanted in a Sheriff. I am commenting on the fact that his internal detractors do not have the courage to take him on straight up when it really counts...in an election. If he is so bad and sneaky, go for it. Run the campaign that shows what a selfless, principled person you are. Contrast your noble virtue against the corruption you despise in the Sheriff. Engage in public debates with him. Believe me, he will show up. Let our real bosses, the public, decide who is the more capable. I just don't think you have it in you to face him.

Glad to see that the above writer states or admits "corruption you despise in the Sheriff". I don't believe the previous writer should or wants to run for Sheriff, it was the Sheriff they were referring to in their comments. The writer which you commented on is stating facts and the truth, if you have a problem with it, then you need to read one of many leadership books, which have one MAJOR common statement, "a leader/supervisor/CEO needs to be honest, forth right and fair when dealing with their subordinates and the general public".

[Linebackerll]

Ahem...I never said anything about what I wanted in a Sheriff. I am commenting on the fact that his internal detractors do not have the courage to take him on straight up when it really counts...in an election. If he is so bad and sneaky, go for it. Run the campaign that shows what a selfless, principled person you are. Contrast your noble virtue against the corruption you despise in the Sheriff. Engage in public debates with him. Believe me, he will show up. Let our real bosses, the public, decide who is the more capable. I just don't think you have it in you to face him.

Glad to see that the above writer states or admits "corruption you despise in the Sheriff". I don't believe the previous writer should or wants to run for Sheriff, it was the Sheriff they were referring to in their comments. The writer which you commented on is stating facts and the truth, if you have a problem with it, then you need to read one of many leadership books, which have one MAJOR common statement, "a leader/supervisor/CEO needs to be honest, forth right and fair when dealing with their subordinates and the general public".

I suppose I should be more perfectly accurate and say something along the lines of "The 'alleged' corruption of the Sheriff." There are many here signing on as "Guest" who are trying to pick fights with other posters trying to cleverly put words and meanings into other's mouths...for what purpose I cannot fathom.

Ahem...I never said anything about what I wanted in a Sheriff. I am commenting on the fact that his internal detractors do not have the courage to take him on straight up when it really counts...in an election. If he is so bad and sneaky, go for it. Run the campaign that shows what a selfless, principled person you are. Contrast your noble virtue against the corruption you despise in the Sheriff. Engage in public debates with him. Believe me, he will show up. Let our real bosses, the public, decide who is the more capable. I just don't think you have it in you to face him.

Glad to see that the above writer states or admits "corruption you despise in the Sheriff". I don't believe the previous writer should or wants to run for Sheriff, it was the Sheriff they were referring to in their comments. The writer which you commented on is stating facts and the truth, if you have a problem with it, then you need to read one of many leadership books, which have one MAJOR common statement, "a leader/supervisor/CEO needs to be honest, forth right and fair when dealing with their subordinates and the general public".

I suppose I should be more perfectly accurate and say something along the lines of "The 'alleged' corruption of the Sheriff." There are many here signing on as "Guest" who are trying to pick fights with other posters trying to cleverly put words and meanings into other's mouths...for what purpose I cannot fathom.

CLEVER IS THE SHERIFF, YOU MUST BE ONE OF HIS CHOSEN FEW WHO RECEIVED A RAISE OR AN UN-BUDGETED PROMOTION.

[Linebackerll]

So predictable...when it is difficult to address arguments on this board or someone appears not to be slashing at the Sheriff, the "Guests" usually resort to name-calling and speculating a writer must be one of "the chosen few" or one who received an undeserved raise. Wrong on both counts. And I won't declare where I work. That would be against the policies of every police agency I know of.