« Back
	RESPONSE TO AJC EDITORIAL ABOUT GEORGIA SHERIFFS

Dear Editor: In a May 11, 2006, editorial, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, yet again, attacks Georgia Sheriff’s Offices (“Disassembly required – Many sheriff’s departments* have outlived usefulness as anything other than avenue to wield political power”). Mr. Jim Wooten, the editorial writer, makes some rather ridiculous assertions that are less than factual. In response to Mr. Wooten’s ideas, I say what a shame that he -- would lead readers to believe another elected official must either comply/not challenge a sheriff or find himself under the hand of the renegade who has “the keys to the jail.” -- failed to point out that it was the Clayton County commissioners who overstepped their bounds by interfering with the affairs of the sheriff, an elected official’s office. (He should know that a county commission cannot direct employees of a constitutional officer to any meeting for the purpose of giving an ultimatum on the condition of their employment.) -- failed to note that the solicitor-general of Clayton County, operating under the same constitutional authority as the Clayton County sheriff, took the same position as the sheriff with regard to her employee running for county commission. (Wooten chose to address the sheriff’s position on the matter, but not that of the solicitor.) -- suggests that the board of commissioners has the authority to fire an employee of the sheriff (or any other elected official – i.e., the district attorney, the tax commissioner or the clerk of superior court---all of whose positions, like the sheriff, are created by the constitution of the state of Georgia and do not fall under the purview of the board of commissioners. ) -- failed to acknowledge that every single court in the state of Georgia, including federal court, has supported the autonomy of the Sheriffs’ Office time after time. Mr. Wooten says the county commission should control federal drug forfeiture money awarded to law enforcement agencies. As legislated by Congress, it is the chief law enforcement officer who determines how to appropriately use these monies. Federal rules dictate to law enforcement officers that the confiscated drug monies be used for the enhancement of law enforcement, education and treatment of the general public impacted by the dangers of drugs. Does Mr. Wooten want to lobby Congress? Mr. Wooten also says, “The public’s had enough.” As the duly elected Sheriff of DeKalb County, I move throughout the county from north to south to east to west, and my feedback indicates the people who have elected me, and some who may not have, are pleased with the services performed by the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office. Where are the letters of substance from readers on this subject, or has the editorial board decreed itself the spokesperson of the public? I have been asked several times by the AJC to write an equal-time response to this newspaper’s articles proposing the abolishment of the sheriff’s offices. Three times I said no because my previously submitted letters on the subject were never printed. And I suspect that if you choose to print this one, it will be drastically edited. If Mr. Wooten insists on writing pieces with inaccuracies like this one, the AJC should include a disclaimer that it is in part fictional. Thomas E. Brown, Sheriff DeKalb County * Please note that sheriffs as elected officials are heads of offices (Sheriff’s Office) as opposed to departments (not Sheriff Department). Departments fall under the purview/government of the county.

« Back