Expense of replacing the sheriff's name

[Unregistered]

There ought to be a GO which specifies the sheriff should not be able to advertise himself by placing his name on buildings, doors (except his own office), vehicles, and other places where it is not necessary. When a new sheriff takes over the name of the outgoing sheriff has to be removed from these places, and replaced by the name of the new sheriff. This is a preventable expense avoided by not having the sheriff's name plastered all over the place.

[Unregistered]

There ought to be a GO which specifies the sheriff should not be able to advertise himself by placing his name on buildings, doors (except his own office), vehicles, and other places where it is not necessary. When a new sheriff takes over the name of the outgoing sheriff has to be removed from these places, and replaced by the name of the new sheriff. This is a preventable expense avoided by not having the sheriff's name plastered all over the place.

Shut up stupid

[Unregistered]

Shut up stupid

You must be the Budget Director.

[Unregistered]

If you think Pinellas is bad, try Hillsborough.

If a perfect world, the sheriff should have to pay out-of-pocket to have their name plastered everywhere, not the public.

Then again, I might be biased. I'm not in a position to use taxpayer funds to help my campaign...

[Unregistered]

Good news 4 more years of the same name at pcso

[Unregistered]

Poor little James. 4 more years of cuckolding for you.

[Unregistered]

There ought to be a GO which specifies the sheriff should not be able to advertise himself by placing his name on buildings, doors (except his own office), vehicles, and other places where it is not necessary. When a new sheriff takes over the name of the outgoing sheriff has to be removed from these places, and replaced by the name of the new sheriff. This is a preventable expense avoided by not having the sheriff's name plastered all over the place.

FK off dumb azz. Jealous!!!