Published: October 22, 2009 10:09 pm      

Issues involving road patrol should be addressed

In a recent commentary (“They’ve eliminated the checks and balances,” Oct. 16 Times-News), Thomas Mogle complained that the Allegany County Commissioners violated fundamental American principles when they transferred the county road patrol from the jurisdiction of the Sheriff’s Department to the recently formed Department of Public Safety.

He expressed the desire to see the commissioners in the slammer, as he alleged that they “have effectively obstructed the sheriff’s ability to execute the duties that he was duly elected to uphold; they have stripped the office of responsibilities, deputies, automobiles, and other essential equipment.”

Moving the road patrol did radically alter the responsibilities of the sheriff, and yes, the automobiles and essential equipment went with the deputies to the Department of Public Safety, as was agreed upon in Circuit Court.

But keep in mind that while Sheriff Goad was elected to uphold the duties of his department, the only duties constitutionally mandated are running the detention center and serving court papers. The road patrol is not necessarily a Sheriff’s Department function, for in some counties in Maryland the road patrol is handled by a separate entity with separate management.

Knowing this makes it obvious that the commissioners have not taken any constitutional powers from Sheriff Goad. Under county home-rule law, the commissioners acted within their legal authority when they set up a Department of Public Safety and subsequently moved the road patrol.

The majority of Allegany County residents feel this transfer was handled in a sneaky, back-door manner, and one can understand the anger emanating from those who feel they were hoodwinked.

By not announcing their intentions ahead of time, the commissioners effectively eliminated the opportunity for citizens to petition for a referendum.

On the other hand, I believe the public has been sorely remiss in not adequately addressing other issues that created stress between the commissioners and sheriff; issues that were equally significant in the decision to transfer the road patrol.

As the officer previously responsible for the overall functioning of the road patrol, Sheriff Goad should fully explain to the public a pattern of management that cropped up again and again as being problematic. There were repeated instances of off-duty overtime not being declared for tax purposes, in spite of the Sheriff having signed a letter acknowledging that this illegal practice would not recur.

There was reported to be a bank account in the Sheriff’s name, and he allegedly refused to divulge its contents to investigators. It is highly suspicious that records needed for outside audits were shredded.His lieutenant resigned under threat of prosecution for taking grant money for duties that were never performed, and testimony available in the public record indicated that this may have been a typical pattern with grant money.

The commissioners have been called to task for their decision, and I think they created a predicament of their own making in how they went about it. But in all fairness, it seems appropriate that Sheriff Goad explain the pattern of possible malfeasance that had been a long-standing problem when the road patrol was under his command.

It will be interesting to see if any of these concerns are addressed next month at the public legislative meeting. Are local delegates, especially Mr. Kelly, aware of these issues, and do they wish to fully discuss them in a public forum, or are they to be swept under the rug?

An objective observer might say fundamental American principles of honesty and open government were violated repeatedly in the previous road patrol, and that Sheriff Goad, county legislators and the community have been willing to turn a blind eye.

Jeffrey Davis

Cumberland