Part of the Bay Area News Group

Deputy Sheriffs Association blasts sheriff for mailer

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Friday, May 30th, 2008 at 2:43 pm in 2008 June primary, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa politics.

The Contra Costa Deputy Sheriffs Association blasted their boss today in a letter calling Sheriff Warren Rupf’s latest campaign mailer part of a “personal vendetta” against incumbent Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho. (Click here for the blog entry and a copy of the mailer.)

The association has endorsed Piepho, while Rupf is campaigning for her challenger, outgoing Assemblyman Guy Houston of San Ramon.

Read on for the text of the letter dated today:

Deputy Sheriffs Association Refutes Rupf’s Mailer Against Piepho

The Contra Costa Deputy Sheriffs Association today expressed concern at the tactics of Sheriff Warren Rupf, who in a recent hit piece questions the effectiveness of deputies as part of his ongoing personal vendetta against Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho.

In the hit piece, Rupf warns voters about the safety of their neighborhoods and children if Piepho is re-elected.

“For Sheriff Rupf to say that ‘our County is not safe’ because of Supervisor Piepho questions the life-risking efforts of hundreds of law enforcement officers throughout the County,” said Jim Bickert, President of the Contra Costa Deputy Sheriff’s Association. “Contra Costa Sheriffs Deputies are second to none. We have done an excellent job of protecting the people of the County, even during these difficult fiscal times. Could we use more deputies? Sure. But that has been the case since 1850.”

According to Bickert, Mary Piepho has been a strong supporter of law enforcement, always voting to protect essential services while working diligently to balance budgets by making difficult choices.

“Sheriff Rupf’s mailer exaggerates reality,” Bickert said. “Mary Piepho is NOT responsible for the OPEB liability. The OPEB liability has been reduced due to the current board’s efforts. Mary Piepho does NOT make your neighborhood unsafe. Mary Piepho’s steadfast support of public safety is the primary reason she won the overwhelming endorsement of the Deputy Sheriff’s Association.” Piepho also earned the endorsement of District Attorney Bob Kochly.

Bickert said that Rupf’s mailer applies faulty logic. The mailer’s statement that the Board members’ long overdue salary increase puts the public’s safety at risk is erroneous.

Under this rationale, one could say that the Sheriff’s salary, which is substantially larger than a Supervisor’s salary, has put the public’s safety at risk. But that, too, would be an untrue statement.

“Sheriff Rupf’s statement that on-the-job deputies were laid off due to the OPEB liability is also not true,” Bickert stated. “There have been no deputies laid off, thanks to the efforts of Supervisor Piepho and the current Board.”

The Deputy Sheriffs Association endorsed Supervisor Federal Glover for re-election. Glover, like Piepho, has been a strong supporter of law enforcement. Glover’s and Piepho’s votes on budgets for law enforcement services have been identical. Yet, Rupf supports Glover while opposing Piepho.

“Sheriff Rupf’s mailer is based more on emotion than reality,” Bickert said. “The safety of our citizens is in good hands and we will everything we can to see that it stays that way.”

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Troublemaker

    I hope the record can somehow be set straight.

    Wording on Sheriff Rupf’s hit piece which reads “Due to the 2.5 billion dollar county deficit, I was forced to lay off deputies…”

    Lisa I ask, is he lying?

    Does the County have a 2.5 billion dollar deficit? Is it a deficit or a liability? Is the amount stated correct?

    Was he forced to lay off deputies? Did he? (If so how many sworn deputies?) Has he ever laid off deputies in the last 4 years?

    The answers may give us insight into the character of Sheriff Rupf and the accuracy of his statements.

    Thanks for any clarity that you may impart.

  • Troublemaker

    I hope the record can somehow be set straight.

    Wording on Sheriff Rupf’s hit piece which reads “Due to the 2.5 billion dollar county deficit, I was forced to lay off deputies…”

    Lisa I ask, is he lying?

    Does the County have a 2.5 billion dollar deficit? Is it a deficit or a liability? Is the amount stated correct?

    Was he forced to lay off deputies? Did he? (If so how many sworn deputies?) Has he ever laid off deputies in the last 4 years?

    The answers may give us insight into the character of Sheriff Rupf and the accuracy of his statements.

    Thanks for any clarity that you may impart.

  • Arne Simonsen

    At last the “truth”.

    Well done to the Contra Costa Deputy Sheriffs Association!!

  • Arne Simonsen

    At last the “truth”.

    Well done to the Contra Costa Deputy Sheriffs Association!!

  • Pingback: Sheriff Rupf explains reasons for anti-Piepho mailer - Inside Politics - with Lisa Vorderbrueggen

  • Pingback: Sheriff Rupf explains reasons for anti-Piepho mailer - Inside Politics - with Lisa Vorderbrueggen

  • working joe

    Guy Houston needs to respect term limits and go get a job like the rest of us schmucks, the sheriff needs to get off his high horse and retire, and Erlene De Marcus should look herself in the mirror and try and reconcile how she could put out such a idiotic last minute hit piece that is so misleading…

  • working joe

    Guy Houston needs to respect term limits and go get a job like the rest of us schmucks, the sheriff needs to get off his high horse and retire, and Erlene De Marcus should look herself in the mirror and try and reconcile how she could put out such a idiotic last minute hit piece that is so misleading…

  • Patriot Johnny

    Working Joe, you at least got the ” Schmuck” part right.

  • Patriot Johnny

    Working Joe, you at least got the ” Schmuck” part right.