Martin has advantage for Sheriff

The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will hold public interviews with the nine finalists to replace Mike Carona as the next sheriff in Orange County.

The voters normally pick the position — it’s a politically-elected position. Sheriff Carona’s resignation has handed the decision to the supervisors.

The one-at-a-time interviews will last all day and into the evening. Think of the sheriff as being the CEO of a company with 3,800 employees, a budget of $700 million and serving 3 million customers who, by the way, has to be elected by the people within two years to hold onto his or her job.

Even if every accusation against Carona is proven to be false, the department has still been through a severe amount of turmoil over the past few years. In the next highest positions the department has, two of his five assistant sheriffs have pleaded guilty to federal charges and are awaiting sentencing. A recent DA investigation shows a complete breakdown in administering the jail system.

Needless to say, the new sheriff will have to do a wholesale shake-up at every level of the department’s leadership.

I do not want to presume that I understand all the issues and concerns that a supervisor has in making this decision. But in my 30 years of running companies and being on boards, I do know a lot about hiring and firing of leadership.

So, without trying to be too presumptive, here are the issues I think should be taken into consideration when choosing our next sheriff.

All nine candidates on paper seem qualified to be considered for the job. My comments here mean no disrespect to any of them. I am sure they are all fine people. The reality is you can pick only one.

The sheriff’s position, while it will be appointed this time, will require the chosen candidate to run for office in 2010. Running for office requires a whole different skill set than running a law enforcement organization.

Therefore, the new sheriff must have ties to Orange County that will ensure he will get elected. This is an absolute must. The department cannot afford to have a leader who has any chance of losing his job in two years.

First off, it makes that person a lame duck as soon as he takes the job, and anyone who disagrees with his decisions will just wait them out.

Secondly, the decisions that must be made will not make everyone happy; if the candidate does not have a lock on the election, he will find himself making decisions based on the politics of special interests that may not be in the best interests of the 3 million Orange County residents he serves.

The department’s various labor unions have spent millions of dollars over the years getting people elected who will get them more pay for less work and more generous retirement packages. The labor union’s job, rightfully so, is to do what is best for its members.

The sheriff needs to do what’s best for the citizens, which will be in conflict with the union’s goals. The unions will spend millions of dollars to get a new sheriff in two years if they think they have a chance of getting someone who will give them what they want.

Of the nine candidates, only six have any connection to Orange County, of which only four have the political skill set and local support to get elected. For example, Beau Babka of Salt Lake City may make a fine sheriff in his hometown, but he would not have enough time to figure out the freeway system let alone understand the political landscape in Orange County. He would not stand a chance against a well-known, well-financed candidate in 2010.

Which leaves us with Orange County Interim Sheriff Jack Anderson, recently retired Orange County Deputy Sheriff Lt. Bill Hunt, who ran previously against Carona, Commander Ralph Martin of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Santa Ana Chief of Police Paul Walters.

This next cut is much tougher. Over the years, I have met all of these men. Each one has the education, experience and credentials to do the job; but again, you can pick only one.

In any company or organization that has similar leadership problems, there needs to be a clean break from the past in order to move forward without any constraints. In a properly functioning organization, it is perfectly reasonable to move someone up though the ranks to the top spot.

In this case, not only is it not functioning properly, but the top leadership has also been tainted with associates that have either pleaded guilty to federal charges or are under indictment for the same.

Any candidate with direct ties to the department will not have the clean slate necessary to make the hard decisions without first having to consider previous relationships.

This choice on a personal level pains me in that I know both Hunt, who was one of the first to bring forward the problems in the department, and Anderson, who has done his best to run the department after the scandals.

The fact remains that it will take an outsider to clean it up. In business, we call them turn-around specialists, and they very rarely come from inside of a broken organization.

This leaves us with Martin and Walters. Both men lead large groups of sworn and non-sworn staff. Both will interview well. The only concern is who is electable in 2010. Once we choose a sheriff, he has to win in 2010.

We cannot go though this again. Martin is a lifelong Republican. Walters was a lifelong Republican and then became a Democrat in 2000 and then became a Decline to State in 2003 and then became a Republican again in 2007, after Carona was indicted.

I cannot assess the motives of someone who changes political parties three times in seven years; that would be for the voters to decide. But I can guarantee you that Walters would draw very strong opposition in 2010 because of his lack of commitment to any one party. This is an elected position, and politics matters.

The supervisors do not want to have a sheriff with political trouble in two years. Therefore, in handicapping this pick, the advantage goes to Ralph Martin.