Congresswoman Anna Eshoo Endorses Don Horsley for Supervisor. Why?

By Michael G. Stogner

The Congresswoman has personal knowledge that Sheriff Don Horsley lied under oath August 2, 2004 and Ignored her warning to him on July 12, 2016 to open the appoint process to fill the Sheriff position. Why on earth would she endorse him?

Our Elected Officials should be endorsing Honest people.

In 2004 she was on a Congressional Hearing in San Mateo where I Michael Stogner asked her to ask my Sheriff Don Horsley if all explosives stolen were recovered. The ATF agent on pg. 39-40 had just testified under oath that 30-35lbs of C-4 had been stolen. Sheriff Don Horsley testified under oath that 10lbs of C-4 was recovered pg.76. The Congresswomen looked at me in the audience as I shrugged my shoulders to imply How can he say 10lbs of C-4 when just minutes before the ATF agent said 30-35lbs of C-4. So on pg. 109 she asks my question again, and again.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg98210/pdf/CHRG-108hhrg98210.pdf

July 12, 2016 BOS Meeting Agenda Item 7

Supervisor Don Horsley led the Illegal Violent Coup which appointed Carlos Bolanos to Sheriff when he had not applied to be appointed, as a matter of fact nobody had applied because the Supervisors had not opened the application process. Congresswoman had her letter to the BOS read at the beginning of Item 7 where she warned the Supervisors not to appoint Carlos Bolanos without the appointment process.

Text of the letter by Anna Eshoo, D-Menlo Park, and Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo:

July 12, 2016

The Honorable Warren Slocum, President

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors

County Center

Redwood City, CA 94063

Dear President Slocum and Members of the Board:

We are unaccustomed to weighing in on County matters outside of measures and initiatives or local policy discussions, such as the recent ones about housing or sea level rise, that involve broad federal and local policies. Many of you, from time to time, have asked us to join you in support of these and other public policy efforts.

Some of you, independent of each other, have also recently asked us to comment on the decision before you today—whether to appoint or to call for an election in the matter of a replacement for the Sheriff. For a long period of time, there have been rumors that Sheriff Munks would retire early and pave the way for the Undersheriff to take this position. Whether these rumors are true or not, this has been a perception. We believe that our mutual constituents support a decision making process that is absent a perception of a pre-ordained outcome.

The office of the Sheriff is a critically important job, as we all know. We know that you share our belief that the public has a right to be heard. The question is whether an election within such a short time frame, and with one announced candidate — the Undersheriff who has been working for more than a year to become Sheriff, would allow for an even playing field on which to compete. We are not sure.

We do know that there are members of law enforcement who would be willing to compete for an appointment but who feel severely disadvantaged to compete in an election under the present circumstances. We therefore believe an appointment process should be undertaken which allows for candidates to openly apply and to be reviewed. This seems especially important in light of the recent public concerns about policing practices throughout the country.

We believe that a way to build public confidence would be for the Board to conduct an open and transparent search for a successor. We also realize that the timeframe for appointment is very short and would require you to either extend it (which may not be allowed under the charter) or to add additional board meetings to your schedule in the next month so that the public is able to participate through those meetings and perhaps, if permissible, the selection process itself.

We realize that selection of the Sheriff is customarily made by voters and have for decades always supported this process. In this instance, the voters themselves may best be served by a method that increases competition for the position and that creates a zone of evaluation that is informed by rigorous, public analysis of multiple persons.

As we all seek to increase the confidence of the public in the administration of justice, we also seek ways to demonstrate to the public that its interests are at the heart of our decisions. Inviting applications, establishing a public interview and discussion with applicants, and assuring the public of a transparent selection process will, in our judgment, help to increase confidence in the administration of justice in San Mateo County.

All the best,

Jackie Speier Anna G. Eshoo

Member of Congress Member of Congress

Almanac Article: Eshoo sees swift appointment of new sheriff as an affront.

https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2016/07/18/eshoo-sees-swift-appointment-of-new-sheriff-as-an-affront

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #TimesUp, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Dan Stegnik, Don Horsley, John Beiers, John Maltbie, John Ullom, Mark Church, Mark De Paula, Michael G. Stogner, Please Withdraw Endorsement of Carlos Bolanos for Sheriff 2018, San Mateo County, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Department, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s