Several weeks ago fellow columnist Brittany Voie posed some questions about the involvement of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs in the language some chose to use objecting to I-1639. She seemed under the impression that body, also known as WASPC, was influencing some members and the content of their statement objecting to it on grounds it is unconstitutional.
I happen to be one of those who believes it’s an infringement of the Second Amendment, but I also believe it is ineffective in doing anything about gun violence, which is its stated goal.
Prior to my retirement and out of frustration with WASPC, I interviewed a retired sheriff about the origins of the organization and its purpose. To save space, he said in summary it was to give voice to police chiefs who couldn’t speak on law enforcement issues because they were accountable to a mayor or council.
Sheriffs are not under the same restriction, although I know in my case there were times I’m sure the commissioners wished I were.
Sheriffs are accountable to the voters, not any governing body like commissioners.
It may still be the only joint association of chiefs and sheriffs in the country. Over time though, the 400 or so police chiefs’ agenda wasn’t necessarily the same as sheriffs but because they out-numbered sheriffs significantly.
WASPC’s board is made up of its members, with the exception of an executive director and some staff to support it. Sheriffs and chiefs rotate as head of the executive board and within the group as a whole there are subsets of like-minded members.
The reason I was trying to find out why this group formed in the first place was that too often the agenda items sheriffs wanted were overrode by demands of the chiefs, WASPC or in some cases large sheriff’s offices.
There are many, but three specific examples affected me at the time:
In the first, the executive for WASPC testified before a committee of the legislature that making a DUI into a felony would have no impact on its members. Except sheriffs, who would be on the hook to cover the costs of jail, medical, mental and all the rest, because that’s where they’d spend their jail time.
Police chiefs on the other hand would be off the hook financially for the jail costs they pay to use the county jail to house any DUI charged as felons.
This continues to be debated but must be funded too.
The Washington State Patrol, which would also be asked regularly to testify in front of committees on impacts of legislation, would commonly report it would not impact them. But that’s because they don’t pay to use the county jail at all, which should also change, but won’t.
There was a time when larger jails (all ran by sheriffs) wanted to impose jail standards beyond what the law required jails to do. Rural sheriffs opposed this logic, primarily, but not only because of the cost, but because many would have to close if these standards were adopted.
And finally, there was a rash of auto thefts and a movement to increase jail time. Once again WASPC took the position there would be no impacts on members; sheriffs objected because it directly affected them.
Sheriffs repeatedly said if these and other legislative ideas were such good ones, then fund them.
Apparently WASPC offered some suggested language on not enforcing I-1639, but as Voie’s own quotes suggest it was only suggested and only if they chose to make a statement at all. In fact I’d bet WASPC would prefer all its members to remain quiet on this.
WASPC does provide training and resources and can be a valuable source of information at times. But each sheriff and chief is accountable to their respective community either through a “governing body” as a chief, or as sheriff’s are directly by their voters, regardless of any association affiliations.
Any of them who’d choose to toe any association’s position over their community is neither a leader nor long for their job.
•••
John McCroskey was Lewis County sheriff from 1995 to 2005. He lives outside Chehalis, and can be contacted at musingsonthemiddlefork@yahoo.com.
