By New Times
By Connor Radnovich
By Robrt L. Pela and Amy Silverman
By Ray Stern
By Keegan Hamilton
By Matthew Hendley
By Monica Alonzo
By Monica Alonzo
"One third of our detention officers are women. It's their workplace. They shouldn't have to look at naked pictures."
It's not just Janet Napolitano who protects Arpaio. Nor is it her successor as U.S. Attorney, Jose DeJesus Rivera.
It's nearly everyone.
The dysfunctional Arizona media does all it can to put a positive spin on his abuses. In a July 5 story in the Arizona Republic, a reporter criticized the sheriff. But the piece was headlined "Arpaio Rules," and began with the federal government dropping the lawsuit against him. You had to read well into the article before it became clear that all was not rosy with the Sheriff's Office.
Last week, when Arpaio and his 300-pound henchman David Hendershott--Tonto to Arpaio's Lone Ranger--were beaten up by a drunken hairdresser, the Republic reported that "America's Toughest Sheriff went toe-to-toe . . . and came out a winner, although not without help."
And those who don't help him directly will help him indirectly, to benefit themselves.
The Maricopa County Public Health Department is apparently willing to break its own rules to help Arpaio with the $900 million new jail he so desperately wants. Board of Supervisors chairwoman Jan Brewer has announced that "employees on duty, in uniform, or using county resources may not 'campaign' on the jail question. . . . Employees should feel free to express their opinions or preferences on the election after work hours, or on their own time and expense, and while not in uniform. . . . It is suggested that employees give a disclaimer, stating that their views are not made or given using county resources or at public expense, and that they are given on the employee's own time."
That's obviously news to Dr. Jonathan Weisbuch, director of public health. In a department newsletter dated May 22, he demands that employees support the new jail tax. He complains about the lack of office space in his department, then goes on to say that a new building has been chosen for him and his employees to move to. But, he says, "One huge obstacle remains in our path. Voters in Maricopa County must approve the new jail tax for us to have any hope of moving to larger facilities. The county has a court-mandated obligation to improve its jail facilities. The only question is whether the funds to fulfill this obligation will come from special sales tax revenues or from the budgets of the county departments, including public health, that depend on general funds. If the tax fails, we could face a large cut in our budget. Cuts of this magnitude not only would end plans for a move but would seriously strain the resources we currently use to do our jobs.
"The legislature has approved putting the tax on the ballot. Public Health employees and their colleagues around the country must vote for the tax and must encourage friends and family to do the same. Only after the tax is approved can we be assured of our relocation plans."
Ted Jarvi, an attorney who battled Arpaio in court for years, rightly claims that the present system is waging a war against the poor.
Arpaio's system is based on money, or the lack of it, and it's money that will bring him down. He's going to bankrupt the county. The Republic's July 5 piece reported that he has only had to pay out about $100,000 in settlements to people who have sued him, but lawyers who've dealt with him tell a different story.
"That's such bullshit," says Patti Shelton, an attorney who's currently handling three lawsuits against the sheriff. "I know that my firm alone has recovered more than that."
Asked her opinion of Arpaio, Shelton is to the point. "I think he's evil."
According to the county's risk management office, in 1995 alone, liabilities against the Sheriff's Office came to $1.3 million. The following year, the county paid out $968,830 more.
In addition to the lawsuits paid off and pending, there is the $900 million Arpaio wants to build the new jail. Why do we need a new jail? To house another 5,455 people who haven't been convicted of anything? To house more people who will be abused and then sue the county for millions? So we can have a bigger and more efficient criminal-training institute?
So we can spend $900 million of taxpayers' money on a system that will neither rehabilitate nor deter criminals from offending again?
When are we going to stop indulging the fantasies of this little boy whom we pat on the head, call "Sheriff Joe" and give pocket money to? When are we going to ground him and tell him to pick up his room, let him know that in the world of adults you can't just do what you want?
It'll probably happen when his pocket money becomes too much for us grown-ups. It will not be his cruelty and arrogance that bring Arpaio down. It will be his ineptitude. As time goes on, and the money goes out, and the crime rate stays the same, the public will have to look for a sheriff who spends more time fighting crime than playing cop.