There Should Be A Law Against It...

Come election time it is often difficult to know which candidate is the right one to pick. Voters are faced with candidates they either know little about or about whom the reliability of what they know, either from word of mouth, the media, or the candidate himself, is questionable. Occasionally, however, a situation arises that speaks for itself. The voters of Dearborn County are experiencing just such a moment in the current election.

There has been much attention focused in the recent past on the likelihood that several individuals seeking public office have violated the Hatch Act, which might be enough in and of itself to inform your decision as a voter. Similarly, one might be swayed by the knowledge that a candidate is spending extraordinarily large sums of their own money to secure positions of power. Of course, those with an interest in these candidates will dispute the issue with discussion of events fortuitous to their circumstances so lets consider another aspect of this election. Sometimes the right decision is clear simply by examining the logic of the situation.

Before I lay out the case, let me first say, that I do not know either of the candidates for Commissioner in District 3 and have no reason for any personal reaction to one or the other. That being said, I have to believe that no right thinking person could possibly vote for Shane McHenry under the current circumstances and expect a happy outcome, and here's why:

It is astonishing to me that the Sheriff's Office would permit one of their officers to be diverted from their official duties by a political campaign and the potential loss of productivity it, and subsequent hours spent actually filling the office should that be the outcome, would mean. It is possible that this is simply evidence of negligence in the Sheriff's duty to the citizens of Dearborn County. If not, I can see only one reason why this would be permitted, namely, as the primary source of income for this individual, the Sheriff becomes the defacto controller of one third of the county executive. For my own part, I wouldn't want Mr. Listerman in control of a commissioner swing vote by having one of his road crew serving in that spot, nor would it be acceptable for any other county agency to have a similarly incestuous relationship to the county executive. How much less acceptable should it be when that agency's employees are armed and have arrest powers? Would it be unfair to question the wisdom of this arrangement, given that millions in bonds are being considered for jail facilities?

Now, I don't know what Mr. Combs' position on this might be but voting for him would not necessarily resolve the conflict. Assuming he does the ethical thing and does not pressure his employee to act on behalf of his organization he is at best handcuffed in personnel matters regarding Shane's service as an officer, and risks a role reversal with his employee, as commissioner, telling HIM what to do. On the other hand, contemplate the consequences if he were to do what any other employer would likely do, make Shane choose between employment as an officer and serving as commissioner. I am guessing, but I think it rather unlikely that Mr. McHenry would impose the financial hardship on his family that abandoning his position as an officer would bring, given the part-time, no benefits conditions under which a commissioner serves. Under this scenario, your vote for Mr. McHenry is not only invalidated, but usurped by the Republican Party apparatus who would be free to appoint a commissioner of their choosing.

Considering all of this, the only vote that represents a vote for the person who will actually, ultimately wield the power of the office of Commissioner, District 3, would be a vote for Mr. Schuler. Anything else is a gamble on an illusion.