At a recent dinner honoring the outgoing Faulkner County Democratic Office holders Chief Deputy Steve Wallace is quoted as saying Sheriff Montgomery has been a "visionary leader" with "the (philosophy) that said, I'm going to empower you." Empowering others is exactly what Montgomery's leadership has done, the problem is this empowerment has been nondiscriminatory.
Under Montgomery's reign criminals have been "empowered" to continue to commit crimes without fear of jail time or fear of having to pay fines. We personally have seen violent acts involving gunfire go unpunished or under punished with fines and restitution going unpaid even after 1-1/2 years. Over the past few years while running this site we have heard many stories of the same sorts of lackadaisical attitudes towards criminal acts.
Montgomery's leadership has "empowered" members of his own department to treat themselves at the county's expense. But this "help yourself empowerment" at the county's expense did not stop with his employees, family members of Montgomery and others also enjoyed this empowerment. Read more about theses empowerments in the interview with the sheriff here.
Yet still after years of controversy surrounding the sheriff's office Wallace is quoted saying "[Montgomery] had a vision to make Faulkner County the most effective rural law enforcement agency in the state. He's invested in so many areas that have helped us succeed." Montgomery may have had visions of Faulkner County being an effective law enforcement agency but from where we are standing we'd have to say that he failed miserably.
But Montgomery's leadership has also "empowered" the Quorum Court to initiate better regulation on the spending at the sheriff's department and could possible lead to stronger regulatory ordinances that will better protect the taxpayer's money.
And Montgomery's empowering philosophy has reached even us inspiring the creation of this site and the lobbying for change we do. Yes we'd have to agree with Wallace when he says Montgomery's philosophy is to empower others but this philosophy has only produced problems. Problems that will likely carry over into our next sheriff's term.
Hopefully our next sheriff will have a different philosophy, one that will put an end to these unwanted empowerments, one that says, "We are taking care of the business of law enforcement". Empowerment is great but that alone will not get the job done, hard work, dedication, and ethics are also required.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Does this make sense to you?
A few days ago we were emailed a letter, http://www.fcso.info/FCSO_Info.doc, from an anonymous sender named John Travolta, fcso2006@yahoo.com. The writer of this letter sent it to tell us their side of the story. After reading this letter however we think this writer is sadly mistaken.
"John" says that this all started when JP Catherin Blankenship notice questionable spending at the sheriff's office and took it to the press instead of going to Sheriff Montgomery privately. John asks, " Is this fair that the Sheriff does not have a chance to give answers for any questions?" Does that make any sense to you? What could possibly be gained by keeping this out of the public's eye? Does John really think this would be fair to the public?
The sheriff had plenty of opportunities to answer these questions and answer them he did. I recall he told us he authorized his clerk Margie Teal to make his tuition payment for him when he was out of town only to later say he made the payment using the wrong credit card. But once the investigation was underway the story changed once again when, through his attorney Ralph Olm, Montgomery argued that he was entitled to further his personal education at the county's expense. An argument that, in part, led to a finding of insufficient probable cause and no criminal charges of theft but failed to convince Attorney Lane and CPA Little of the sheriff need to repay the county for these expenses.
In retrospect JP Blankenship's questions uncovered thousands of misspent tax dollars and in doing the job that she was elected to do it turned out be the best thing for the taxpayer. It helped put an end to an abuse of power that was costing us thousands of dollars a year. We don't know about you but we think that keeping something like this from the public amounts to the old good-ole-boy I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine cover-up that's been all to prevalent in politics these days.
Speaking of secrets "John's" letter casts more doubt on the circumstances surrounding former jail administrator Kyle Kelley's resignation. In a sudden and unexpected move Kelley quits shortly before he was suppose to talk with investigators. Now at the time we hear from Chief Deputy Wallace that Kelley quit for "personal reasons and was not forced by any means."
Wallace adds, "It was his choice. Who knows why people quit. It's just the best thing for them and their family. We think a lot of him. He's been an integral part of this team ever since '97. We're going to miss him for sure. He's been a big part of what we've done. We support him in whatever he does."
The investigators however found a credit card account that was close in March of 2004 issued to Kelley. Charges on this card showed purchases from Lake Liquor and Springhill Wine and Spirits along with numerous other obviously personal expenses. Sheriff Montgomery says he pulled Kelly's card from him in the fall of 2003 because of some problems. Investigators questioned Sheriff Marty Montgomery and Chief Deputy Wallace on May, 19th, 2005 and wrote the following:
"John" on the other hand tells a different story about the Kelley's resignation, he writes,
Does any of that make sense to anyone? On the one hand Wallace gives Kelley a grand send off and on the other hand Kelley portrayed as the biggest offender in this credit card abuse.
We should note that we did a little investigation of our own and found out that Kelley was not reprimanded for any spending problems he had at the sheriff's office. According to Wallace there are no reprimands in Kelley's file for the years of 2003 thru 2005 when he resigned. Even when Montgomery took away his credit card, Kelley did not get wrote up. Why is that we wonder?
His file did contain a reprimand for 2001 when Montgomery told Kelley he was going to demote him for throwing temper tantrums, not working the required hours, and abusing sick leave and vacations policies. But when it came to the problems with his credit card that caused Montgomery to take it from him Kelley wasn't written up. Does that make any sense to you?
Now you maybe wondering about "John's" identity as we were, we were able to find out that "John" works at either the courthouse or at the sheriff's office because in his email header information it shows it was mailed from their IP address. Now "John" made the mistake of sending his letter out to all his buddies at the Sheriff's office and including us in his mailing. As a result we can tell you exactly who this message was written for. Here's the list of email addresses:
From: John Travolta
To: rachel.parker@thecabin.net
Cc: ahendrix@tcworks.net ; ashock@tcworks.net ; bcmccoyjr@tcworks.net ; coollov72@yahoo.com ; dhaleshelton@arkansasonline.com ; fcsobb@tcworks.net ; fcvu@fcso.info ; fnokes@tcworks.net ; jackpikefcso@hotmail.com ; jb_dapitbull@yahoo.com ; jrandall@tcworks.net ; mattr@tcworks.net ; mjmickels@yahoo.com ; mmontgomery@conwaycorp.net ; perrywyse@yahoo.com ; rainwater@duncanrainwater.com ; rodpearson57@yahoo.com ; rweaver@c21dh.com ; scott35ar@yahoo.com ; shuseas@conwaycorp.net ; tammyfcso@yahoo.com
Looks like the whole crew is represented in this list with the curious omission of Chief Deputy Wallace. I wonder what that could mean?
The more we look at this the more we wonder why charges were not brought against these individuals. Are the laws in this state so poor as to allow this blatant abuse of tax dollars and no one is prosecuted? It just doesn't make sense to us, does it make sense to you . . .
"John" says that this all started when JP Catherin Blankenship notice questionable spending at the sheriff's office and took it to the press instead of going to Sheriff Montgomery privately. John asks, " Is this fair that the Sheriff does not have a chance to give answers for any questions?" Does that make any sense to you? What could possibly be gained by keeping this out of the public's eye? Does John really think this would be fair to the public?
The sheriff had plenty of opportunities to answer these questions and answer them he did. I recall he told us he authorized his clerk Margie Teal to make his tuition payment for him when he was out of town only to later say he made the payment using the wrong credit card. But once the investigation was underway the story changed once again when, through his attorney Ralph Olm, Montgomery argued that he was entitled to further his personal education at the county's expense. An argument that, in part, led to a finding of insufficient probable cause and no criminal charges of theft but failed to convince Attorney Lane and CPA Little of the sheriff need to repay the county for these expenses.
In retrospect JP Blankenship's questions uncovered thousands of misspent tax dollars and in doing the job that she was elected to do it turned out be the best thing for the taxpayer. It helped put an end to an abuse of power that was costing us thousands of dollars a year. We don't know about you but we think that keeping something like this from the public amounts to the old good-ole-boy I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine cover-up that's been all to prevalent in politics these days.
Speaking of secrets "John's" letter casts more doubt on the circumstances surrounding former jail administrator Kyle Kelley's resignation. In a sudden and unexpected move Kelley quits shortly before he was suppose to talk with investigators. Now at the time we hear from Chief Deputy Wallace that Kelley quit for "personal reasons and was not forced by any means."
Wallace adds, "It was his choice. Who knows why people quit. It's just the best thing for them and their family. We think a lot of him. He's been an integral part of this team ever since '97. We're going to miss him for sure. He's been a big part of what we've done. We support him in whatever he does."
The investigators however found a credit card account that was close in March of 2004 issued to Kelley. Charges on this card showed purchases from Lake Liquor and Springhill Wine and Spirits along with numerous other obviously personal expenses. Sheriff Montgomery says he pulled Kelly's card from him in the fall of 2003 because of some problems. Investigators questioned Sheriff Marty Montgomery and Chief Deputy Wallace on May, 19th, 2005 and wrote the following:
Marty was then advised that we had located an old account closed 3-04 for Kyle Kelly. Marty stated that he had pulled Kyle's card from him in the fall of 2003 because of some problems. We then went over Kyle's charges item by item with Marty from the period of Jan 03 to Mar 04. Marty became visibly angry when charges to Lake Liquor and Springhill Wine and spirits and numerous other obviously personal expenditures were related.
Marty stated that he was unaware of any of this and suggested that this be turned over to HG Foster for criminal consideration. Marty was advised that the Legislative Audit had apparently not seen this information. Marty repeatedly questioned Steve on how this could have gotten by them in the review procedures. Steve stated that there are probably PO's with their initials approving payment.
"John" on the other hand tells a different story about the Kelley's resignation, he writes,
"I agree that in the past there was spending at the Sheriff's office that needed looked into and the Sheriff was doing so about the time all this started. The Sheriff disciplined the offender as he should have and things were back to normal. A short time later the offender, what the hell, Kyle Kelley, started spending money from the county jail budget on things questionable. Kyle was disciplined a second time and admonished for his actions. Well this did not last long and the Sheriff made the decision to terminate. Before the Sheriff could make contact with Kyle he turned in his letter of resignation."
Does any of that make sense to anyone? On the one hand Wallace gives Kelley a grand send off and on the other hand Kelley portrayed as the biggest offender in this credit card abuse.
We should note that we did a little investigation of our own and found out that Kelley was not reprimanded for any spending problems he had at the sheriff's office. According to Wallace there are no reprimands in Kelley's file for the years of 2003 thru 2005 when he resigned. Even when Montgomery took away his credit card, Kelley did not get wrote up. Why is that we wonder?
His file did contain a reprimand for 2001 when Montgomery told Kelley he was going to demote him for throwing temper tantrums, not working the required hours, and abusing sick leave and vacations policies. But when it came to the problems with his credit card that caused Montgomery to take it from him Kelley wasn't written up. Does that make any sense to you?
Now you maybe wondering about "John's" identity as we were, we were able to find out that "John" works at either the courthouse or at the sheriff's office because in his email header information it shows it was mailed from their IP address. Now "John" made the mistake of sending his letter out to all his buddies at the Sheriff's office and including us in his mailing. As a result we can tell you exactly who this message was written for. Here's the list of email addresses:
From: John Travolta
To: rachel.parker@thecabin.net
Cc: ahendrix@tcworks.net ; ashock@tcworks.net ; bcmccoyjr@tcworks.net ; coollov72@yahoo.com ; dhaleshelton@arkansasonline.com ; fcsobb@tcworks.net ; fcvu@fcso.info ; fnokes@tcworks.net ; jackpikefcso@hotmail.com ; jb_dapitbull@yahoo.com ; jrandall@tcworks.net ; mattr@tcworks.net ; mjmickels@yahoo.com ; mmontgomery@conwaycorp.net ; perrywyse@yahoo.com ; rainwater@duncanrainwater.com ; rodpearson57@yahoo.com ; rweaver@c21dh.com ; scott35ar@yahoo.com ; shuseas@conwaycorp.net ; tammyfcso@yahoo.com
Looks like the whole crew is represented in this list with the curious omission of Chief Deputy Wallace. I wonder what that could mean?
The more we look at this the more we wonder why charges were not brought against these individuals. Are the laws in this state so poor as to allow this blatant abuse of tax dollars and no one is prosecuted? It just doesn't make sense to us, does it make sense to you . . .
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
2 years after
It's been two full years since my neighbor decided he'd take a few shots at our co-plaintiff's property. April 1, 2004 was the day the sheriff's office got a call saying "my neighbor is shooting in my direction and shot out another security camera" but did nothing about it. Nothing that is except for taking a few pictures and making a report. The shooter was not arrested and the sheriff's office wasn't doing anything about it, at least from what we could tell.
Months later after talking with victim's services and the prosecutor's office we were directed back to the sheriff and a meeting was arranged. This was the first time I met Sheriff Marty Montgomery and I'd have to say he sure is a politician. Boy he really laid it on thick, telling us everything we wanted to hear. Then he called in Bobby Brown, who was an investigator at the time and instructed him to take the file to Chief Deputy Prosecutor Marcus Vaden. Now we expected to hear something in a day or so seeing how it was already in the afternoon but little did we know Brown had a different plan, to dispose of this case as quickly as possible. In a matter of hours he took a case of what should have been Aggravated Assault and down played it to a simple case of criminal mischief. That's right a man took a gun, pointed it in the direction of his neighbor and pulled the trigger three times while his victim ducked and ran away and all they were going to charge him with was a misdemeanor.
The prosecutor's office seen it differently but failed to raise this to the level of a felony. Although they did charge the shooter with the crime of Assault in the First Degree, the outcome was essentially the same, a Class A misdemeanor. In November of 2004 the shooter pled guilty and he was fined, ordered to pay restitution, and was sentenced to probation.
Now 2 years after the shooting and nearly 1 1/2 years from the sentence the fines and the restitution still remain unpaid. This has been another one of the big problems that has plagued the Faulkner County Sheriff's Office. Victims of crime have had to endure lack of action in some cases, inadequate action in other cases, and to top it all off if their case does get prosecuted the offenders are allowed to not pay their fines. Again what kind of message is this sending to the criminals?
In the upcoming election we the people of this county have a chance to set things right and get rid of the woefully inadequate and seemingly corrupt system of law enforcement, a changing of the guard so to speak. Let us put in power those people that are dedicated to change and not keep those in power that believe things are going just fine. The choice is ours to make, lets make it a good one.
Months later after talking with victim's services and the prosecutor's office we were directed back to the sheriff and a meeting was arranged. This was the first time I met Sheriff Marty Montgomery and I'd have to say he sure is a politician. Boy he really laid it on thick, telling us everything we wanted to hear. Then he called in Bobby Brown, who was an investigator at the time and instructed him to take the file to Chief Deputy Prosecutor Marcus Vaden. Now we expected to hear something in a day or so seeing how it was already in the afternoon but little did we know Brown had a different plan, to dispose of this case as quickly as possible. In a matter of hours he took a case of what should have been Aggravated Assault and down played it to a simple case of criminal mischief. That's right a man took a gun, pointed it in the direction of his neighbor and pulled the trigger three times while his victim ducked and ran away and all they were going to charge him with was a misdemeanor.
The prosecutor's office seen it differently but failed to raise this to the level of a felony. Although they did charge the shooter with the crime of Assault in the First Degree, the outcome was essentially the same, a Class A misdemeanor. In November of 2004 the shooter pled guilty and he was fined, ordered to pay restitution, and was sentenced to probation.
Now 2 years after the shooting and nearly 1 1/2 years from the sentence the fines and the restitution still remain unpaid. This has been another one of the big problems that has plagued the Faulkner County Sheriff's Office. Victims of crime have had to endure lack of action in some cases, inadequate action in other cases, and to top it all off if their case does get prosecuted the offenders are allowed to not pay their fines. Again what kind of message is this sending to the criminals?
In the upcoming election we the people of this county have a chance to set things right and get rid of the woefully inadequate and seemingly corrupt system of law enforcement, a changing of the guard so to speak. Let us put in power those people that are dedicated to change and not keep those in power that believe things are going just fine. The choice is ours to make, lets make it a good one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)