Opinion by Samuel Strait Maybe not all, but most in the County have heard the saga produced by our formerly appointed Sheriff, Randy Waltz. There will be some pronouncements that announce to the heavens that his disposition in the court of law was a "slap on the wrist". There will be those that give him a "pass" and say his difficulties are politically motivated. Some will acknowledge that his problems stem from "poor judgement" and a self inflicted wound. In the same category of dismay there will be calls for the local District Attorney, Katherine Mick's head over perceived "favoritism", or perhaps political motivation regarding Mr. Waltz's disposition. Frankly, it is water under the bridge, and it is what it is. In the United States there is a process where elected officials can be replaced in something called an election. If the local citizenry find the current office holder unsuitable, it is incumbent upon them to encourage another qualified candidate to run for that position. Enough said. Mr. Waltz has been adjudicated and fined $1,000, something he has agreed to pay promptly. Had he exercised that kind of judgement months ago, he would not be in his current situation, which by the way, is far more damaging to him than the simple cost of the fine. Some may question the lack of a jail term, but reality must intrude and make it clear that his crime was of procedural deceit, hardly in the realm of a violent crime or murder. Folks complain of lack of funding to address that kind of crime and the inability of the local DA to be "serious" about such crime. The revolving door syndrome most often referred to. Let common sense prevail if possible and hopefully our judicial process with regards to crime has a strong element of public safety in it. All that being said, the voters in California and their elected representatives in Sacramento have much to shoulder when it comes to how crime is addressed in this State. No excuses are relevant when apprehension and prosecuting crime becomes more arduous than the commission of the crime itself. California is dominated by the Democrat voting block and has been for some time. Much of the current issues to be dealt with by local law enforcement and prosecution can directly be linked to that voting block. No blame intended, but is that voting block happy with the results that have been visited upon us? As has been starkly revealed in nearly every responsible candidate forum the issues of crime and homelessness rise to the top of the list. Blame is then cast on local law enforcement and a perceived "soft on crime" behavior out of the local DA's office. Divisiveness and finger pointing become the party of choice and moral in both organizations deteriorate. Money and size of pay check to "put up" with their perceived abuse become reasons for "high turn over" in both departments, something that money will not fix when the root causes are not addressed. In a perfect world, everyone would be paid what they "thought" they deserve. We do not live in a perfect world and efforts by the County to address "pay issues" through additional taxes hurt any movement forward to address the core issues infecting both operations. If Ms. Micks or incoming Sheriff, Garret Scott are not up to the task of reforming their respective departments, things will not change no matter who is the ultimate winner in the three Supervisor races to be determined in November, nor will the loss or retention of Measure "R" funding be a determining factor as well. What ever happens with former Sheriff Waltz or the decision to be "soft" on his disposition has little to do with the ongoing issue found at both the District Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's Department. Likely local folks would be in less of a position to complain if they took the measure of what it means to operate in either department. I am not saying categorically that there is no malfeasance in either department, it would be naive to suggest such a scenario. Such as it is, department heads, the Sheriff and the DA, need to focus on what is wrong in their respective departments and stop wailing about their inability to retain employees. Rising payrolls in government services is not a successful strategy to correct the problems internally within your departments. Corrective action is imperative, prior to outside forces taking a hand in your decision making and control over your departments. Pay raises are but band aids to more deeply rooted and complex problems in your agencies.